Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Disambiguation hatnote

Hi, folks. A little disambiguation question: there's a Doctor Who novel called Cold Fusion (page at Cold Fusion (Doctor Who)). It's pretty insignificant, but there should be some pointer here towards it, for general disambiguation purposes. Do you think it's better to add it to the existing hatnote, like this:

This page is about the nuclear reaction. For the computer programming language, see ColdFusion. For the Doctor Who novel, see Cold Fusion (Doctor Who).

Or should we create a disambiguation page and just have a standard {{otheruses}} or {{otheruses1}} hatnote? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone here have a preference about this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to add it to the "Cold fusion in fiction" section of the article. My second choice would be to use the "two other uses" tag. I would certainly not go for a disambiguation page.Pcarbonn 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I put the "two other uses" tag on, since the novel isn't really about the scientific concept of cold fusion: although there are "fusion bombs" in the story, the title is really more of a play on words with the story's themes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

DOE Panel conclusions

Note: this discussion is summarized at the top of the talk:Cold fusion page.

ScienceApologist, after your edits, the summary of the DOE Panel's conclusions does not correlate with the description at 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion. Only the negative aspects are reported. For instance, there is no mention of positive evidence of excess heat, production of ⁴He, transmutation and other unexplained effects. I'm going to reword to bring this in line with the detailed article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronnotel (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

The so-called "positive evidence" spin on the DOE report is not well-considered and definitely does not belong in the WP:LEAD. If you read the DOE's own summary of the report they are highly negative. Revising the sense of this negative report into a positive spin is definitely a violation of WP:NPOV as well as WP:OR. --15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just bringing it into line with 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion. If you disagree with that page, then you should correct it first. Ronnotel 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And I question the need to 'caution' me. Is that a threat? Ronnotel 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The page itself describes the summary of the report well. It's highly negative of the prospsects for Cold Fusion. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The report concluded that cold fusion is as it was when the original report came out. While sympathetic to continuing efforts to figure out what's being measured, it's by no means an endorsement. Hasn't changed in over 10 years is the key finding. –M^T 07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please choose your words more carefully. You have been reminded more than once about WP:CIV. I have done nothing that requires being 'caution'ed. I believe the first paragraph of the 'Main conclusions' section is not addressed in your summary of the DOE Panel and is highly relevant to the debate. Is there some compromise that can be found? Ronnotel 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist says "the positive evidence spin on the DOE report is not well-considered". I'm not sure where the spin is. The DOE report contains both positive and negative comments. Why would it be NPOV or OR to report them both ? The conclusion recommends further careful scientific study : why would it recommend that if it was negative on CF? In any case, trying to decide if the report is "negative" or not is too vague to help us write the lead section correctly.

We had a long discussion on how best to report on the DOE panel with user "M": see here. For example, we agreed that the evidences of excess heat was a key question to address in the Lead and that the position of the DOE needed to be reported on this question. ScienceApologist, please let us know if you disagree on that.

We decided with M that the DOE report was fairly represented by saying "The sophistication of calorimeters had made significant progress, a DOE panel observed in 2004, and evidence of power that cannot be attributed to ordinary sources was more compelling than in 1989. " Do you consider this presentation OK ? Please read paragraph 3 on page 3 of the report before replying. Pcarbonn 16:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the review of the report provided by the DOE is negative. Choosing to summarize it differently from the way the DOE summarized it is an example of original research. You may not like how negative the DOE's own review of its report was, but that's not a reason to change the description. The "evidence of excessive heat" is really a question of energy generation. A neutral summary of the review of the DOE report is that they did not see evidence for energy generation from nuclear processes. The fairness of the presentation is not the issue. It is the fact that the lead is supposed to summarize the ideas quickly and with general strokes. Including the gloss related to the few panel members who were more accomodating is really a violation of undue weight. The lead summarizes rather than promotes. --ScienceApologist 16:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As half the panel was in favor of excess heat, I believe a fairer description is that the panel "was split on the issue of excess heat" or "did not reject evidence of excess heat". Ronnotel 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Excess heat has nothing to do with "cold fusion" itself. That's not a good summary for the lead. --ScienceApologist 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it mentioned as the panel's first conclusion? Ronnotel 16:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it's relevant to the panel (not to this article, per se). --ScienceApologist 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I find your logic argumentative. The panel's sole purpose was to investigate Cold fusion, the exact topic of this article. Please see WP:AN/I, you may wish to respond to my complaint. Ronnotel 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that while it is important to report on the existence of the DOE report, the summary of the report clearly is negative towards prospects of cold fusion. The "excess energy" points are iteratively argumentative and are only included to further the POV of cold fusion supporters rather than give a balanced summary of what the report was about. Such a summary can be taken directly from the DOE's own summary of the report. Since they themselves describe the report as being negative toward cold fusion, describing it otherwise is misleading. --ScienceApologist 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My only interest is in aligning this page with 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion. You state that the DoE Panel's report was 'negative'. However, I can't find the word 'negative' on that page. Quite the opposite, not having read the original report, 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion seems neutral at worst and slightly positive. You are now claiming that descriptions of 'excess energy' in 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion is due to POV. Yet just a couple of hours ago you seemed satisified with that page's content. Which is it? I think you should be a little more careful throwing around claims of WP:OR. Ronnotel 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the conclusion of the report:

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.

The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

As such, it is fairly clear that the conclusion is negative towards cold fusion (which was the finding of the 1989 report). To try to spin it any other way is original research. --ScienceApologist 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That very well may be, however this material must integrated into 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion first. It's unhelpful and unencyclopedic to reinterpret orginal documents in summary form in a way that is different from that document's main WP article. Ronnotel 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is not requirement to edit the daughter article before the parent. We can fix problems wherever we find them (this being a wiki and all). --ScienceApologist 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, among the many reasons to avoid what you propose is your apparent assumption of bad faith on the part of the authors of what you term the 'daughter' article. I think it distinctly non-WP to unilaterally assume that your interpretation of a document supercedes the collective contribution that resulted in the detail page. Ronnotel 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Ron on this one SA. After reading the article here on the wiki, I agree with Ron's statement that the article is "neutral at worst and slightly positive". The quote you posted above doesn't seem to change that conclusion, and appears to be a call for further research. That doesn't strike me as very "negative".

Now it's entirely possible that the article about the 2004 review here on the wiki is misleading, and that the report in question really is much more "negative" that the article suggests. But if that is the case, Ron is absolutely right in suggesting that THAT article needs to be edited first, not this one. Maury 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what you miss is the major conclusion that the 1989 report was correct. That's the report which made the negative assessment of cold fusion a reality. --ScienceApologist 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist says "they themselves describe the report as being negative toward cold fusion". I could not find this in the summary of the 2004 report. Using "negative" is inappropriate unless we can find it quoted in the report. Saying that the 1989 report was negative is also inappropriate, as this is not sourced.

Furthermore, let's not be manichean nor see the story as black or white. Both DOE reports were not "black or white". Here are 2 sources to back this statement.

• The 1989 report says: "The panel is sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system". The 2004 report reaches the same conclusion, as you quote, and takes great pain to suggest some areas of research. If they were "negative", I would expect them to say: no funding for further research.
• The 2004 report suggests, as you correctly quote above, "basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field". Their use of "resolving some controversies" clearly implies that the panel accepts the existence of controversies, something that they would not do if they were "black or white".

If the DOE reports were not "black or white", why should we be ? Or did I miss something ?

So, SA, please rephrase your argument without using the word "negative": what exactly in the previous version of the lead section do you want to change, and why? Please provide appropriate sources for your argument, so that we can move forward. Pcarbonn 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's silly, "negative" is a summary point I am using to point out that the panel did not find evidence for cold fusion. To avoid this point is to unduly push the POV of yourself and other cold fusion sympathizers that the DOE report somehow mitigated the criticism of cold fusion. --ScienceApologist 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You say: "the panel did not find evidence for cold fusion". Please quote your source for saying that. As said earlier, the summary report actually says the contrary (see page 3 of the report): you cannot say the contrary is POV or OR. So, until you source your statement, we have to consider that your statement is wrong, POV and OR. This applies also to your "that's silly" statement. Pcarbonn 07:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ScienceApologist, but you are mistaken. The report summary clearly states in the final, concluding paragraph of the summary of "Charge Element 2: Determine whether the evidence is sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that such nuclear reactions occur." that: "The preponderance of the reviewers’ evaluations indicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented. One reviewer believed that the occurrence was demonstrated, and several reviewers did not address the question." The statement "the panel did not find evidence for cold fusion" is an honest, NPoV summary of that part of the report. --Noren 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Noren. Now we can make progress: your arguments are well sourced, and we have a basis for discussion. However, I still disagree with what you said, so let's try to resolve it.

Here is the problem we face: the last paragraphs of Charge 1 and of Charge 2 seem to say different things. The concluding remark of "Charge Element 1" says: "2/3 of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was convincing for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced." Clearly, this is not the same as "the panel did not find evidence for cold fusion", and so is a direct challenge to your argument. So, either the 2 concluding paragraphs are contradicting each other, or there is subtle difference between the 2. We need to resolve this to be able to agree on the lead section.

I'm open to your suggestion to resolve this contradiction. Here is my proposal. When I read the description of the charges again, I see the following difference: the first charge asks "are the evidences convincing ?", the second one asks "are the evidences convincing beyond doubt". Please tell me if you agree, or if you see another difference between the two that can resolve the apparent contradiction.

If we agree that this is the difference, then we would conclude that this is what the panel said about the evidences: 12 reviewers did not feel the evidence was convincing, 5 reviewers found the evidences somewhat convincing, and one reviewer found them convincing beyond doubt. The preponderence was not convinced beyond doubt; several reviewers did not say whether they were convinced beyond doubt. The 2 concluding paragraphs would then make sense again, without contradiction.

Can we agree that this is what the report says about the evidences ? Or do you have an other proposal to make ? Thanks in advance for your reply. Pcarbonn 21:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, believe this is good path for progress. I'd like to request that we defer efforts to summarize the panel conclusions until there is a consensus on what they actually are. Otherwise we are putting the cart before the horse. Ronnotel 22:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the two statements as being in conflict- and the 'beyond doubt' phrase seems an unnecessary editorial addition. A two-thirds majority finding in part 1 that the evidence of low-energy nuclear reactions was not convincing is consistent with the statement in part 2 that a preponderance of the panel found the the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions not to have been demonstrated. Both parts mention that one of the 18 panelists did find the evidence full convincing. Where is the contradiction? "Beyond doubt" and "fully convincing" seem to allude to the same thing... and only one panelist was convinced to that level of confidence. The statement did not and should not claim the panel made a unanimous finding, but with 2/3 not at all convinced (a preponderance of the panel) and all but one of the rest only somewhat convinced it is fair to summarize this as a negative result. Going into detailed voting counts might be apropos for the body of the article but is excessive detail for the lead. In fact, I'm unconvinced that this review belongs in the lead at all. --Noren 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'm glad that the tone of the conversation has changed. I'm also glad that you say that the 2 statements do not conflict: both are thus true. As a consequence, it is neutral POV to say that a not-insignificant number of reputable scientists (6 out of 18 find) find the evidence of cold fusion somewhat convincing, although not beyond doubt. So, there is still a scientific controversy (otherwise only 1, maximum 2, would be somewhat convinced): hence the recommendation of the DOE panel to continue scientific research under strict scientific methodology, including peer-reviewed journals, to resolve the matter. Hence the prominent place given to this point in the final conclusion of the report. The DOE panel does not support the view that such research is misguided, or that there is no controversy. It actually says the contrary. At the same time, the evidences are not beyond doubt: hence, the DOE recommendation to not fund a major federally-funding program.

The purpose of the 2004 DOE panel was to review the state of the LENR field in order to decide funding level. In 1989, the recommendations were to not set-up a major program, but to tolerate further scientific studies. If you look carefully at them, the 2 charges of the 2004 panel are defined precisely to assess those 2 previous funding decisions. As the 2004 concludes, the panel reached similar conclusions to those of 1989 (but not identical). This seems to me the most logical and neutral way to read the 2004 report. Pcarbonn 12:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Did we reach a consensus ? Here is the summary of the discussion. Feel free to adapt to reflect what was said. We'll adapt the lead section afterwards. Pcarbonn 09:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary now moved to the top of this page. Pcarbonn 12:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary was wrong. I changed it to reflect reality. --ScienceApologist 20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that there was enough time to react to the summary I posted. I updated your update to bring the facts without POV (eg. no "but", which would imply a judgement). Pcarbonn 20:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New Energy Times

Scienceapologist wrote: "New Energy times is not a reliable source for who is and isn't working on Cold Fusion. Sorry.)"

That's an unsubstantiated, libelous and POV statement. You should be informed of a few facts.

It's editor, Steven Krivit, has attended and reported from the last three international conferences in Cambridge, Marseilles and Yokohama, respectively. From what I read in the New Energy Times magazine, Krivit and the other reporters who have written for New Energy Times, Lietz and Daviss, seem to know just about everybody involved in the field. Krivit's book explains, on page 162, how he collected the data for that chart. His book also provides additional evidence that he knows who's who in cold fusion, through the many personal communications he has had with these researchers.

In addition, New Energy Times has copies of the most recent abstracts from most of the major conferences. If you look through them, you will see the names and affiliations of the researchers who are contributing papers. So you really needn't even rely on New Energy Times if you would care to take the time and the diligence to go through the abstracts yourself.

Krivit has participated in the scientific process - he has presented in multiple science conferences and will be speaking at the APS conference in March. So go ahead and demonstrate the foundation for your assertion that New Energy Times is not a reliable source.

STemplar 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Who the editor is of the magazine is irrelevant. What abstracts the magazine contains is irrelevant. New Energy Times is not a reliable source for reporting how many cold fusion researchers there are. Read the linked policy to see why. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For the clarity of the argument, please state which section of the WP:RS policy you believe is not satisfied by New Energy Times. Another good way to count how many researchers are working in a field is to look at the associations representing them. This is the rule that would be applied in any other field than CF, I believe. If you think otherwise, let me know what is a reliable source for counting researchers, whatever the field. The International Society of Low Energy cold fusion has 175 members. You can see the list here. Yet another alternative would be to say "Many researchers are contributing..."; however, this is not very informative to the reader, so I would recommend to be more precise. Pcarbonn 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Enumerating researchers is highly problematic and has been discussed in other articles on controversial subjects. In particular, it is impossible to determine the status of the researchers and most lists/membership roles are self-reporting. This is not reliable. --ScienceApologist 18:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To wit I cannot think of any reliable source for this kind of information. It would be ridiculous to estimate the number of biologists, for example. Jefffire 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. --ScienceApologist 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept the arguments. After all, it is not the number of researchers that matters. It is the fact that replications have been reported in peer-reviewed journals, in accordance with the scientific method recommended by the 2004 DOE panel. I'll be happy when the lead section presents that point. Pcarbonn 09:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Distinction between 1989 and current research

I think this article should be either split up or reordered. Every paragraph seems to contain a mix of "FP 89 experiment" "Whats wrong with FP 89" "New navy research" "Whats wrong with the critics of 89". There seems that in every paragraph, both critisism of the FP 89 experiment and the new Navy experiment seem to "slip" in. This whole article need a new structure:

• Original FP89 experiment
• Critisism of FP89
• Critisism of the FP89 cirtisism
• New research by the navy

The current state of this article leaves me in a state of cold confusion. 213.39.136.91 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. It's not clear to me whether your "cold confusion" comes from the article itself, or from the scientific controversy. If you hope to want a definite Yes or No answer on the Cold Fusion subject, I would suggest you come back in a few years when the controversy is settled. Pcarbonn 11:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC) As for the Navy research, I do not think it deserves a full section until it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. See also the related discussion at Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_12#Promote_CR-39_image.3F Pcarbonn 11:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is the wikipedia article that I find confusing.

I came to this article to find out what the current state of the controversy is, but the article makes it hard to find this out, as points by both sides are dispensed across the article. (It seems that the article resembles the battle between those two fractions :-) I don't expect a simple Yes/No answer, but a clear presentation of

• The original FP experiment
• The point of the critics (The "No" fraction)
• The point of those who think it has scientific merit / Possible Explanations (The "Yes" fraction)
• Current research
• And of course: Other kinds of cold fusion, Cold fusion in fiction, References, See also, Further information, etc.

Maybe there should even be a section about the cold fusion controversy. It is highly interesting (at least for me) how such a controversial scientific topic is handled by both sides. It tells a lot about scientific progress, whether cold fusion is real or not.

The main problem of the current article for me is, that it is too "mashed" for my taste.84.144.24.183 12:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. This is valuable feedback (and a lot of work...). Pcarbonn 18:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I searched for examples in other contentious articles. I found that some other contentious articles follow a similar approach to ours, ie. one section covers both pro and con arguments:

• European constitution
• UFO

Some others do have a criticism section:

• IraqWar
• Global warming controversy

The last one has the arguments as bullet points: this makes for easy reading. Maybe that's the way to go. Pcarbonn 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed structured is very much based on FP89, and I'm not sure how to incorporate the larger body of experimental evidences in it.

Here is the structure I propose, taking the Global warming controversy article as a model. It would only add 2 new sections (in bold), so that it would be fairly easy to do:

• Overview
• Arguments in the controversy
  • Assertions by opponents
  • Assertions by proponents
  • Measurement of excess heat
  • Measurement of nuclear products
  • Reproducibility and repeatability
  • Theory
• Possible commercial development
• History

Would that help you find the information you are looking for ? Pcarbonn 11:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

An issue I have, though, is that this would increase the repetition of the same arguments. A secondary article on "cold fusion controversy" may be best, as you suggested. We used to have one, but it was deleted some time ago. It is probably possible to get it back. You can find a copy of it here. Pcarbonn 13:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

I dispute the following lines: "A 1989 panel organized by the U.S. Department of Energy concluded there was no convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion, but was sympathetic to careful funding of additional research to resolve the controversy. A second DOE panel, convened in 2004, reached similar conclusions to the prior panel."

Because the 2004 DOE panel is cited quasi-verbatim in a different context, these sentences imply that the 2004 DOE panel concluded that there was no convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion. This cannot be true, because the question was not asked to the panelists, and that the summary report does not mention this issue anywhere. In my view, the "reached similar conclusions to the prior panel" sentence in the 2004 report must be understood as refering to the 3 questions asked only. Pcarbonn 11:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't look at me. I prefer: In 2004, a specially convened DOE panel reported that "the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review." When asked about low energy nuclear reactions, only one member of the panel felt that the evidence was conclusive. --ScienceApologist 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this would solve the problem I raised: please explain. The problem is that we say "similar conclusions to those found in the 1989 review" right after saying "no useful sources of energy from CF". One option I see would be to remove that last phrase from 1989. Another option would be to not say "similar conclusions to those found in the 1989 review", but to clearly state what those conclusions are. Pcarbonn 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I find that reasoning way too nitpicky to be able to evaluate it. --ScienceApologist 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This statement in Overview seems to clarify (correct) what the initial statement implies. "Some researchers believe that the experimental evidences are sufficient to establish the scientific validity of the effect, but others reject those evidences, and the 2004 DOE review left the panel evenly split on the issue (a significant change compared to the 1989 panel which rejected all evidences)." -- Guest, 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.175.145.66 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Disputed

I dispute the following lines, used in the overview to describe Mosier-Boss and Szpak's results: "In 2006, these experiments have produced evidence of high-energy nuclear reactions concentrated near the probe surface.[2] Based on this work, two other teams have reported similar findings at the American Physical Society meeting of March 2007 (sessions A31 and B31) although interpretations vary.[3]"

The definite phrasing of the first sentence, combined with the offhand phrasing of "although interpretations vary" at the end of the second, suggests that high energy nuclear reactions are a generally accepted fact. However, if you go read the four references (WP's [2], APS A31, APS B31, and WP's [3]) you get a very different picture.

If I may summarize the four references a little glibly, they say:

1. We see charged particle tracks.

2. So do we.

3. Us too.

4. Hey wait a minute. Those don't look like charged particle tracks. They look like chemical etching.

If Mosier-Boss and Szpak have eliminated the possibility of chemical etching, then those results should be referenced. If not, then the issue is much more in dispute than the article's phrasing would suggest. JohnAspinall 16:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)JohnAspinall

Removed debatable text

'By 1991, 92 groups of researchers from 10 different countries had reported excess heat, tritium, neutrons or other nuclear effects. Over 3,000 cold fusion papers have been published including about 1,000 in peer-reviewed journals. (ref) LENR-CANR.org In March 1995, Dr. Edmund Storms compiled a list of 21 published papers reporting excess heat. Articles have been published in peer reviewed journals such as Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of Fusion Energy.

Now, I find this text not adequately verified by independent sources. Simply enumerating "92 research groups" is meaningless. If I set up a cold fusion lab in my basement, I could make that number higher. Likewise the 3000/1000 papers reference doesn't evaluate the type and style of cold fusion papers. A great many of them may be reporting negative results, so the snowjob implications are not very well-handled by simply stating a raw number. Why should a compilation of 21 published papers be notable for inclusion in this article? Does Storms hold some sort of weight above the normal evaluative scientist? Likewise, why likst the names of the journals that have published articles on cold fusion (positive or negative). This paragraph serves no purpose other than to pull the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting readers. It is not illustrative of the field or the science or even the papers/research it claims to be discussing. --ScienceApologist 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To ScienceApologist:

WRT to your sentence #1 and #2: The enumeration of 92 groups is not a simple, baseless enumeration. If you follow the reference, you will see that it is the sum of groups reporting cold fusion evidence. This data is from a table published by Fritz Will, of the National Cold Fusion Institute in 1990. It was re-published by Eugene F. Mallove in the book Fire From Ice (1991, NY: John Wiley, pp. 246-248). The laboratories reporting this evidence include approximately 35 universities, approximately 23 government laboratories and corporate laboratories. No basement laboratories appear to be included in the list.

WRT to your sentence #3 and #4: Rather than obliterate an important fact that pertains to the subject, your concerns can be addressed by the inclusion of the following, "Many of the earlier papers reported negative results." It is my opinion that this would be useful and objective information for the reader.

WRT to your sentence #5: This question can be addressed by the inclusion of the following text. "When Fleischmann and Pons made their claim of excess heat in 1989, their claim stood alone, without any independent replications to back them up. It took several years for other researchers to develop the required skills and understanding to properly replicate the excess heat effect. When Edmund Storms performed this survey, it marked a turning point in cold fusion's history; a strong collection of excess heat replications had now been recognized."

WRT to your sentence #6: Yes, I would say so. Edmund Storms worked for several decades at Los Alamos NL, one of the world's most advanced laboratories for tritium research. Storms is a radiochemist, and this background makes him an excellent person to study this field. Storms has been the most prolific writer of survey papers of this field, his personal library of cold fusion papers numbers over 3,000. There may be very few other people in the world who know more depth and breadth of the subject than Storms. Storms was invited to talk at the August 23, 2004 Department of Energy cold fusion review in Rockville, Maryland, though he declined the invitation. He was invited, and he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives in a hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy, of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology on May 5, 1993. He is the author of a forthcoming book on cold fusion to be published by a prominent scientific publisher. He is the Chair of one of the APS cold fusion sessions to take place on March 5, 2007 in Denver, CO.

WRT to your sentence #7: Numerous myths exist regarding the subject of cold fusion. One of these myths is that no papers have published in peer-reviewed journals. Another myth was that no papers have published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. Providing this list of papers, (all positive, by the way) helps to dispel the myth propagated by people who would otherwise pull the wool over the public's eyes to allege that no published papers exists and consequently impinge upon readers' ability to know the facts.

WRT to your sentence #8: I disagree. It is my opinion that published papers are, in fact, illustrative of the field, nothing is more so.

STemplar 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that STemplar has pointed out that the neutrality and the reliability of this paragraph is very much in question. I will remove the paragraph until he can find independent verification (not from New Energy or the Cold Fusion Society) of its claims. --ScienceApologist 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the neutrality is a valid reason to drop this paragraph. If the issue is only one of neutrality, we can fix it by saying "New Energy reports that...". Also, the DOE recognized that cold fusion is a valid area of scientific research: as a consequence, scientists studying the field should be considered a valid source of information unless proven otherwise. If you have a valid source challenging the views stated in the paragraph, we would report it. Pcarbonn 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If we say "New Energy reports that" we need to explain who New Energy is and why their opinion belongs in this article. Otherwise, I'm with you on this one. I think that the problem is that the views in this paragraph are so skewed towards one side that the mainstream will not rise to refute them. The mainstream is closed shop, and that marginalization needs to be accounted for in our articles. Neutrality does not mean bending over backwards to accomdoate the paens of the disenfranchised, and more than that WP:NPO#Undue weight forbids us from pandering. Propose some new text that attributes if you like, but right now I don't see it as likely to rise to the level of encyclopedic. I'm willing to change my mind given the right prose. --ScienceApologist 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you could say that this statement is POV: "Articles have been published in peer reviewed journals such as Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of Fusion Energy". This is a plain fact. Some of these articles were presented to the DOE review. If you don't believe it, just go and have a look at them. Please find a better argument than "the mainstream will not rise to refute (those statements)": the 'silent mainstream' has no right to voice in wikipedia, and never will. (If you prefer, we could give the source for each article)

You seem to accept that "cold fusion is a valid area of scientific research", as you should. Therefore, it is not "bending over backwards to accomdoate the paens of the disenfranchised" (a very POV statement of the field, by the way) to state that Ed. Storms, a scientist in the field as STemplar rightly explained, has compiled a list of 21 articles. Since when does wikipedia prevent to quote a relevant statement from a scientist working on the subject of the article? Or are you arguing that the statement is not relevant to the history section, ie. that the history section should not give information on how many times excess heat has been reported ? While I would agree that it does not belong in the "experimental evidence" section, it seems pretty clear to me that it should be in the history part. Pcarbonn 20:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I qualified who Edmund Storms is. His advocacy is questionable because he tries to get people to give him money to support Energy K systems. Not exactly a reliable source, but anyway. What I find terrible is that a random assortment of journals culled from a citation list in New Energy Times is claimed to be a "plain fact" that cold fusion research was published. However, it isn't qualified as to how positive this research was in these journals and whether cold fusion rallier has been successful in, say, the last 15 years for some of these journals. See why it is misleading? --ScienceApologist 12:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's hilarious. A new low! Just for laughs, tell us:

1. Do you have any evidence for this assertion about Storms? Can you tell us the name of a person or organization which Storms has contacted asking for money? Or did you just make this up and hope that no one would notice?

2. Has it occurred to you that the people in the hot fusion program and elsewhere in the DoE who attack cold fusion might also have a financial incentive? To say that their "advocacy" is "questionable" is a gross understatement. Their assertions -- like yours -- have absolutely no basis in any scientific peer-reviewed papers.

- Jed Rothwell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

ScienceApologist: YOU qualified Storms? You make me laugh. Of course Storms asks for money for science research. What scientist doesn't? Does the $12B for ITER mean that hot fusion researchers are unqualified experts on hot fusion? You use this to attempt to discredit Storms' reliability as a source? Perhaps you are not aware of this, but most scientists are not independently wealthy. I am rolling on the floor laughing at this illogical lunacy and fallacious argument. Is that the best you've got? What in the world are you doing here? Contributing or defacing?

ScienceApologist: "since the content of the article is unevaluated." Excuse me, but these are articles that are published in peer-reviewed journals.

ScienceApologist: "removing the publications bit since they are obviously opinionated lists." No sir. That is not obvious to me. To me they are obviously papers published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

ScienceApologist: "This paragraph only contains information from "one side" -- the minority -- and presents it as fact." Well, the funny thing is, these are facts. Reminds me of the line, "never let the facts stand in the way of a good story." I challenge you to consider: maybe there ARE NO current negative papers? Hmmm... wonder why? Actually it's not true. Shanahan published a recent paper in Thermochemica Acta. So if you want to provide balance, go ahead and list that one.

ScienceApologist: "Random assortment of journals culled from a citation list in New Energy Times." With the exception of the Shanahan TA article, I challenge you to defend this statement or retract it.

ScienceApologist: "However, it isn't qualified as to how positive this research was in these journals" Again your logic here defies, uh, logic. First of all, the text states, "Articles have been published in..." But it doesn't purport that they are positive or negative, it just guides an interested reader where to find current published papers on the subject. Your actions could be perceived as censorship. Second, what does the degree of positivity of "this research" have to do with the price of tea in China? Is that a Wiki parameter? "Degree of positivity?"

ScienceApologist: "the last 15 years for some of these journals. See why it is misleading?" So you propose to weight the Wikipedia page with out-of-date research? I challenge you to defend this logic or retreat.

This issue of published papers is rather entertaining to observe. Once upon a time, this Wiki page stated, in the introductory paragraph, something to the effect that "no papers have been published in respectable peer-reviewed journals such as Sciecne and Nature," which was somewhat of an odd statement, you know. Then some of the recent published papers were added to the list to provide balance. Then, when the paper from Naturwissenschaften published, Germany's equivalent of Nature, the weasel-word "respectable" had to be removed to keep the article honest. Now we have someone who claims that listing papers which are positive are POV.

Who is really doing the misleading here? Science is a cuumulative process, each step builds and learns from the ones before it. To disregard this fact is pathological skepticsm.

No apologies here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.152.143 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2007

New Scientist link

I found this which I thought might be interesting to use: [1], scroll down to no. 13. --Guinnog 17:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

History

A spin-off article Cold fusion history was created back in August but it seems to be less developed than the history section of this article. So it might make sense to merge it back in. The alternative would be to really exploit the spin-off article. (note also that History of cold fusion would be a more appropriate title) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pascal.Tesson (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Is cold fusion a "fringe" theory

ScienceApologist, you say that "According to Wikipedia, however, it is definitely under the purview of WP:FRINGE." as a justification of your deletion of "Articles on cold fusion have been published in peer reviewed journals such as Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of Fusion Energy.". Please provide a clear justification to this. Which criteria for fringe do you think cold fusion meets ? And, assuming that cold fusion meets the criteria, please explain why this sentence would have to be removed according to WP:FRINGE Pcarbonn 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

list of good sources

• http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0303057 ( http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:1koUR-YFdUMJ:arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0303057+%22Mossbauer+effect%22+%22cold+fusion%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us&client=firefox-a) Kevin Baas^talk 20:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/305protoscience.html Kevin Baas^talk 20:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf Kevin Baas^talk 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

why no mention of ion band state theory?

it seems to be a prominent cold fusion theory.: www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAtheionband.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Baas (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

peer review checklist

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cold_fusion

• The whole first paragraph is awkward and leaves out a basic definition of cold fusion.
• Per WP:LEAD, please cut down the introduction a tiny bit (to 3 paragraphs would be nice).
• "The special ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized in the nineteenth century." By who? Maybe a reference or footnote.
• "This was due not only to the competing results and counterclaims, but also to the limited attention span of modern media." Is this sentence necessary? It seems like a cheap shot.
• "and was held out as a prime example of pseudoscience." Really? I'll believe it, but it seems to me like there is a difference between pseudoscience and fraud/error. Is there a cite for this?
• It's nice to see all these details on the topic. I only really had negative impressions of the first sentence. I have the strong impression that it is misleading to a nonscientific reader. It makes the categorical statement that "Cold fusion IS a nuclear fusion reaction that takes place at or near room temperature..." (my emphasis) This give the implicit but strong impression that it is real, confirmed, and uderstood to actually be nuclear fusion. Not just an interesting topic to investigate. It's like writing "Planet X is a planet beyond Pluto", "UFOs are alien spacecraft", "Tachyons are particles that travel faster than light", "Fortune telling is predicting the future", etc. After the first two paragraphs, it becomes clear what the deal is, but first impresions last.... Deuar 21:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The first sentence is really a definition only. Cold fusion has been achieved in muon-catalyzed fusion, so the definition holds. I think the problem comes later when we present condensed matter nuclear science as (real) cold fusion. How to rewrite this is debated on Talk:cold fusion Pcarbonn 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• [I also inserted this in the talk page earlier today, before realizing that peer review comments belong here] I have reviewed this article, and, I agree with Deuar: the introduction to this article fails badly. It does not spell out the reason why the hypothesis that fusion reactions explain the reported measurements of excess heat generations remains unaccepted as an explanation by most physicists. According to our theoretical understanding of fusion, release of excess heat should be accompanied by release of well-determined quantities of energetic particles including fast neutrons and gamma rays. None of the experiments reported to release excess heat have also released energetic particles in the quantities predicted. In the absence of a convincing theoretical argument why the purported fusion reactions should not behave like all others that we have measured, the clear conclusion is that something else, most likely measurement error or poor experimental design, yields the reported results. (These opinions concur with the DOE review panel 2004 that is extensively discussed in the article; as well as the Physics Today article covering that report, both of which represent the mainstream of physics opinion). Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 22:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

link to FA version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=33756791 Kevin Baas^talk 22:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the comments above refer to an old version of the article. More recent comments can be found at: Talk:Cold_fusion/Comments Pcarbonn 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

APS March meetings

The American Physical Society's March 13–17, 2006, Baltimore, MD session on cold fusion had 13 presentations.[2] Does anyone know how many this year? James S. 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I counted 19 of them in 2007. See [3] and [4]. Pcarbonn 10:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All right! I hope we're under the cusp now. Let me know when someone demonstrates something which might be commercially viable. It's good to see some real robust theory and replications being advanced. I hope that helps them tune. James S. 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I also found 6 presentations at the American Chemical Society meeting end of March: [5] Pcarbonn 11:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable statement

"A 1989 panel organized by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) comprised of scientists with no specific expertise in stochastic chemistry and a vested monetary interest in protecting their own billion dollar research budgets allocated to hot fusion experiments, concluded that there was no convincing evidence that a low energy nuclear reaction had occurred. Ground breaking advances in science in one field often grow out of experimental results in another field, and the breakthrough in cold fusion was no different. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann were world class experts in the field of electrochemistry, and their experimental results in 1989 had wide ranging implications, reaching into even the field of Physics. Billions of dollars have been been utilized in hot fusion research deployed in experiments with substances in heated states such as plasma. The direct threat to the Physics community that the Fleishmann Pons experiment posed resulted in the swift and total repudiation of the scientific reputations of Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons."

Seriously, what in the world is this? I'm pretty sure stating the only reason cold fusion doesn't work is because that there is some sort of hot fusion funding cartel is a bit biased. (added 17:40, 7 March 2007 by 198.214.186.128)

I agree this is POV speculation and needs cleanup. --Wfaxon 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I second, will revert to the previous description. Ronnotel 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, my attempt to revert this text was reverted back, possibly by the same anonymous user who wrote the original text. That user then replaced this talk page with the text from the article, but that could have been a mistake. I also note that the talk pages for both anonymous users have warnings for vandalism. Left a message for the user, let's see if they want to talk. Ronnotel 19:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and reverted. However, I must say, after a few years of watching responsible sympathetic editors improve this article only to be shot down by those who are still convinced that it was all a big sham, it is somewhat refreshing to see an actual strident proponent try to scrub the critiques and advance an unlikely persecutory conspiracy theory. James S. 22:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who keeps re-editing the Cold Fusion post but please note this:

~The physics community has more to lose by continually escalating this battle over online posts. If you had simply ignored this post, the post would have remained, and far less people would have heard and learned the truth about the original Fleishmann Pons experiment.

~I'm assuming the opposition here are uninformed scientists(most physicists) because more institutionalized opposition such as major energy and state actors would likely not care too much about Wikipedia.

~The accuracy of this post will become very public very quickly, if Wikipedia does not rule on the side of reality and the thousands of experiments around the world that have verified the existence of low energy nuclear reactions. Wide ranging litigation will be a direct result of this continued dispute.

~An acceptable compromise could be to include a link in the Cold Fusion poste to all the cold fusion bashing by uninformed physicists on an actual physics entry within Wikipedia

~For all who think that the initial tests to verfity the Fleishmann Pons experiment done by Physicists at MIT and CalTech proves the veracity of the non-existence of Cold Fusion should consider, would you ask a world class fisherman to drive in NASCAR? Or would you expect an excellent golfer to win an Olympic butterfly style swim race? Why would you then expect world renowned physicists to know the first thing about extremely complex electrochemistry experiments?

~In the 1600s Galileo advocated the theory of heliocentrism and was placed under house arrest by the Catholic Church. The period from 1989-whenever the scientific community finally accepts cold fusion reactions as reality will be viewed as the same sort of fantasy period as when the majority of people believed the earth was flat and the universe revolved around the earth. Prepare to have your text book enshrined dogma completely shredded to pieces. User:frostrex

Frostfex, thanks for your input and your interest in improving this article. Please be aware that just because not everyone shares your opinion on how the text of the article should read that we are all skeptics on the subject of cold fusion. If you read the complete article, I think you'll find that considerable effort has gone into to describing the research you refer to in a fair way. The text in the header was debated at some length to reach what all parties felt was largely free from WP:POV. I encourage you to become familiar with WP policies such as using reliable sources, maintaining a neutral voice, and seeking consensus on major changes. Also, it's helpful if you sign your comments with four ~'s so we can more easily read and understand your arguments. Thanks! Ronnotel 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronnotel, as scientists, you all may not be reading into to the subtleties that result from even the pure factual content being displayed in the introduction to the Cold Fusion post. In the media not only does the bias on any particular news story gives a slant, but the actual news that is chosen to be reported, or placed on front page news, reveals the true beliefs and agenda of the organization behind the news. In the same manner the content of the summary for the Cold Fusion post reveals the underlying bias and assumptions about the parties involved to reach a so called "consensus."

Just because a greater majority of scientists on Wikipedia support the view that cold fusion is far from proven and is more likely pseudoscience does not mean that majority should dictate what is in the post. The summary is crucial in establishing the existence of cold fusion to the rest of the world. Including only the Department of Energy's panels on cold fusion as the most relevant development in the past 18 years is highly misleading and biased. The thousands of verifying experiments and the dozens of labs that have verfied cold fusion absolutely must be included in the summary.

Ronnotel, I don't know what your personal agenda is in this post, but this dispute will not be dictated by the beliefs of the physics community.User:frostrex

Frostrex: First, I'm not a scientist, just an interested editor with some undergraduate physics as are most of the contributors here. Second, to be an effective contributor, it's important to assume good faith on the part of the other editors. Also, please note that the third paragraph of the lead states

In 2007, Mosier-Boss and Szpak, researchers in the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego, reported unambiguous and repeatable evidence of nuclear reactions

which hardly seems like an attempt to minimize the validity of cold fusion. Ronnotel 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronnotel, if you had read any cold fusion book, specifically Charles Beaudette's Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed you would know that there have been thousands of experiments verifying the initial Fleishmann Pons experiment from 1989-2007. Not only has cold fusion been repeated multiple times, but at laboratories around the world.

"Its important to assume good faith." Right. That's why life in a state of anarchy is comprised of puppies and flowers, not nasty, brutish, and short. Considering that there are billions of dollars of science funding at stake, and the incumbent energy industry is a hundreds of billions of dollar business, this post, about the forefront of alternative energy research is critical to get accurate.User:frostrex

Promote CR-39 image?

A few months back, I suggested that the image of the CR-39 be promoted to the top of the article given it's significance. The consensus was to wait until the research had been formally published in a reviewed source. That has now happened. Any objections? Ronnotel 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Research has indeed been published, and it is good news. I'm not convinced that the image should be promoted though: I'm not sure how the occasional reader will understand it, and the fusion cell picture seems more illustrative to me. Furthermore, I heard that CR-39 detectors have never been used in a liquid before, and some wonders what is the impact of this on the interpretation of the traces.Pcarbonn 08:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See also here for further discussions on CR-39 analysis. Shouldn't the scientific debate fully take place before we promote the image ? Pcarbonn 11:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a huge deal for me either way, I just think the existing picture is rather boring - something you'd see in any chem lab. In my mind, the lead picture should help a reader understand what's unique about the article. I'm not wedded to the CR-39 picture, but surely there's a better way to compel the reader further into the article - perhaps a (not overly complicated) diagram illustrating the effect? Ronnotel 13:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Would the infrared picture be a good choice ? It makes it pretty clear to everyone that heat is generated. Pcarbonn 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. I'll make the change. Ronnotel 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article and the powerpoint file related to this image, and found no assertion by the authors that the image showed cold fusion in action. Therefore, I propose replacing this image with the previous image of a device, or with an image and caption that is more definitively related to cold fusion. Any objections? 209.253.120.205 14:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The caption of this picture in the cold fusion article is "An infrared picture of hot spots on the cathode of a cold fusion cell". Do you have a problem with this caption, or with an image with such a caption in the article ? It should be clear that this picture is in a cold fusion cell, i.e. a cell to study "effects which could be nuclear fusion reactions occurring near room temperature and pressure using relatively simple and low-input energy devices". The very first sentence of the Szpack article talks about excess heat in Pd/D-D20, the central focus of research in "low energy nuclear reactions". Furthermore, Szpak is a cold fusion researcher, and he presented this picture at an international Cold Fusion conference. Pcarbonn 08:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The authors do claim that the picture shows hot spots in a cold fusion cell, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it shows cold fusion. If the authors were confident that nuclear reactions were taking place, they could have easily stated that. The image of the device is more directly linked to cold fusion, and more informative for the casual reader. 209.253.120.205 14:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We agree on many things: indeed, the authors do not say that nuclear reactions are taking place; and the image on top of the article should be linked to cold fusion and should be informative. As explained above, the image is strongly linked to cold fusion. It is also informative : it shows evidence of excess heat, ie. of the effect that started this field of scientific inquiry. On the other hand, an image of an electrolytic cell would be "rather boring - something you'd see in any chem lab", as Ronnotel said above. He also suggested that "the lead picture should help a reader understand what's unique about the article". I agree with him. Excess heat certainly is unique about cold fusion, and the current picture clearly illustrates it. An electrolytic cell could just as well illustrate the article on electrolysis. Pcarbonn 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The infrared image is strongly linked to excess heat, but the authors do not claim that it shows cold fusion. It is also significant that the article does not identify any proposed nuclear reaction and does not include any discussion of detecting either helium or radiation that the cell may be producing. Placing this image so prominently in a "cold fusion" article implies that there is consensus that the image does show cold fusion in action, which is not supported by the present documentation. Therefore, the current article violates wikipedia's NPOV policy and should be changed. The best option would be to replace the image of an experimental cold fusion device. It may be boring, but it would make this a more useful encyclopedia article. 209.253.120.205 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A CR-39 detector showing traces of nuclear activity in cold fusion experiments at SSC San Diego.

OK, now I understand where you see an issue. You say: the referenced article does not talk about nuclear reactions, therefore it is not about cold fusion. So, you take "cold fusion" literally. However, look at the definition of the first sentence of the article: "cold fusion is the name for effects which could be nuclear fusion reactions occuring near room temperature and pressure using relatively simple and low-input energy devices." One major manifestation of this effect is the excess heat, as has been recognized by the 2004 DOE review. Your position would hold if 2004 DOE panel did not review excess heat effects, but they have. With the definition of cold fusion as per the article, there is a consensus that the image does show "cold fusion" in action. However, there is no consensus that it has nuclear origin, as you rightly point out. The caption does not say that either. Pcarbonn 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please explain how the image of a cold fusion device would be better than the current image. As far as I know, the image you propose would not be more illustrative of any nuclear reaction than the current one. Pcarbonn 09:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the way out of this would be to replace the infrared picture by the CR-39 one on the right, as Ronnotel suggested. Pcarbonn 10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After following the suggestion to look at the first sentence of the article, I noticed that it was illogical, so I reverted it to an older definition added 04:58 22 November 2006. Regarding the comment about taking the title "cold fusion" literally, I plead guilty. This is an encyclopedia, so we should be taking the titles of the articles literally unless there is a very good reason not to. Regarding the comment about the 2004 DOE review, this article is not about the 2004 DOE review, it is about cold fusion. What they reviewed is irrelevant to the definition of cold fusion, and how the primary image on this page should be chosen. Regarding the comment that an electrochemical cell image would not illustrate a nuclear reaction, I answer that the purpose of this article, especially the introduction, is to help a wide variety of readers quickly find out about the issue of cold fusion. Regarding the blue&green CR-39 detector image, it is completely inappropriate to use such an image for the primary image unless it has more documentation than the linked New Energy Times article.

The primary image of this page should show something important about the consensus of the field, and one of the most indisputable facts of this field is that electrochemical cells are key to most of the experiments. That is why an electrochemical cell is the best candidate.209.253.120.205 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The image of CR-39 detector has been presented by Mosier-Boss et al. at the APS meeting in March. I have updated the reference accordingly. Let's hear what others think of this issue. Pcarbonn 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see 209.253.120.205's point. However, I agree with Pcarbonn that the CR-39 image is more illustrative and, IMHO, more aesthetic. It literally shows the unique product of a cold fusion reaction - i.e. what makes cold fusion interesting as a topic - while the electrochemical cell could be any experiment in any chem lab. And regarding consensus - I haven't heard much from the skeptical POV lately regarding Mosier-Boss, et. al. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but are things turning a corner since the announcements at the March meeting and the Naturwissenschaften article? Ronnotel 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the skeptical point of view would be that there are reasons to question whether the CR-39 image shows charged particle tracks. http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html JohnAspinall 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)JohnAspinall

As the original suggestor, I would tend to agree that the new evidence tends to cast more doubt than otherwise. Clearly more work remains to be done. Ronnotel 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the electrochemical cell as the primary image to bring the article closer to NPOV. Placing the CR-39 image at the top of the article seriously misrepresents the consensus in the field. To demonstrate that there is consensus that the CR-39 image shows cold fusion, much more documentation is needed than New Energy Times articles and APS March meeting abstracts. 209.253.120.205 18:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Pcarbonn 11:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Page maintainers?

I see that a few people are working hard to improve this page, and noted the following infobox at the top of the page for talk:vitamin C, which is a form you guys might want to emulate:

{{Maintained}}

---Wfaxon 15:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I don't find it useful though: questions should be addressed to everyone, in my view. Pcarbonn 16:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey! That's mine! Lol, could you replace me with someone else? As I care little for fusion unless it's hot — Jack · talk · 03:43, Wednesday, 4 April 2007

Ok - two guys on opposite sides of the issue...:-) --Wfaxon 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Did Carl Sagan consider Cold Fusion as pseudoscience ?

The following line seems dubious: "Sagan sued Apple over the association of his name with what he considered pseudoscience." Could you provide a source ?

This page here reports on what Carl Sagan thought of cold fusion. It does not mention pseudoscience. Pcarbonn 15:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That was Sagan in November 1989. Here is Sagan's view in 1994: "If it were up to me, there’s nothing in the way of compelling evidence for cold fusion, but if there were such a thing as cold fusion—you know, desktop conversion into enormous energy—we need that. So I can understand why there are companies, especially abroad, that are devoting small resources to it. I don’t think that’s cause for apoplexy. It’ll probably come to nothing, but if there are scientists who want to spend their time on that, let them do it. Maybe they’ll find something else that’s interesting."

The original source of the Apple story -- which also took place in 1994 -- is William Poundstone's Carl Sagan: A Life in the Cosmos, which is echoed in a paragraph here in the Wikipedia article on Sagan, and elsewhere on the web. From the above I think it's clear that by 1994, Sagan didn't believe in the possibility of cold fusion. He wasn't upset by scientific research into it so it's reasonable to argue that he didn't consider it "pseudoscience", but he didn't want his name associated with it (and one unquestioned scientific fraud, the "Piltdown Man") in any way, even in some internal corporate project naming scheme. After all, these names aren't so "internal" that they don't get published worldwide. --Wfaxon 23:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

The page has changed substantially over the last few months, but so has the status of cold fusion in the research community. With the APS announcement and the upcoming ACS panel, there is renewed interest in cold fusion. However, skepticism within the commnunity still remains and it needs to be reported. The main goal of cold fusion advocates is to attempt to convince the scientific community that this line of research is still worth studying -- even after the problems that it had in the past. The article as it is writtent right now is a bit bullish and written from the perspective of a cold fusion advocate rather than a dispassionate reporter on the current state of the subject. As such, I have placed the POV tag on the article and encourage editors to go through and try to identify and fix the problems that exist with the text.

In particular, we need to be clear that cold fusion is still very much fringe science, even though there are more signs of acceptance today than there were even six months ago.

--ScienceApologist 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you say "The main goal of cold fusion advocates is to attempt to convince the scientific community that this line of research is still worth studying". They don't have to anymore: the 2004 DOE clearly recommended further research in the field. This point has already been discussed at length: please refer to the "conversation conclusion" box at the top of the page, and to the full discussion at DOE Panel conclusion".

About current skepticism: why don't you propose a sentence to add in the lead section ? Pcarbonn 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading through some sources currently. This one may have an attributable point worth including. I'll also note that the article directly contradicts your statement: "Acceptance by the scientific community is still the main target for cold fusion advocates - hence the importance of replication, appearing at major conferences, and publishing in peer reviewed journals." --ScienceApologist 13:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how this article contradicts my statement. My statement was about the worthiness of the line of research, which is confirmed by the 2004 DOE, not about the acceptance of the cold fusion effect by the community, which I agree is not there yet. The article you mention talks about acceptance, not worthiness. So how could it contradict what I said if it's about something else ?

If you have said in your initial comment: "The main goal of cold fusion advocates is to attempt to convince the scientific community that the effect is real", I would have agreed. Pcarbonn 14:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, it's a distinction without a difference. In any case, it seems to me that this article does not adequately discuss the facts that a) the scientific community has not yet been convinced of their claims and b) the cold fusion advocates are trying to convince them. --ScienceApologist 14:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It may make no difference to you, but it does for those who are seeking funding for cold fusion research. I think that the article makes your 2 last points quite clearly, but if you want to clarify it further, go for it: I don't have any objection. Pcarbonn 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) completed by Pcarbonn 07:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't be one of those seeking funding for cold fusion research, would you? --ScienceApologist 11:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, but this is not relevant. You wouldn't be one blocking funding, would you ? Pcarbonn 12:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really aware of any conspiracy to block funding, so no, I'd have to say that I'm not blocking funding. I'm also not in any position to grant funds for research either, so I'm not even doing it passively. This question is very relevant because there is a conflict of interest guideline at Wikipedia which encourages people to be up-front about their potential self-interest biases. Now that we've cleared the air, we can continue to edit the article. --ScienceApologist 13:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. I was just saying this to show that it's a distinction with a difference. Pcarbonn 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference 33: Multi-body interactions and no gammas?

The following postulated reaction has been posted as fact that it doesn't emit any EM-radiation: d+d+d+d -> 8Be -> 2 4He.[33]

Is there any credible proof that such a reaction could even in theory not emit any Gammas? I find that extremely hard to believe, since all nuclear reactions emit EM-Radiation of one or the other form and energy level. And [33] is no credible source. It's just painting in the sky of what might be happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dio1982 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I second Dio1982's opinion of the unsuitability of [33] as a credible reference. The rhetoric is not that of an objective analysis. I see sarcasm: "Naturally, this work was ignored", pleading: "While the answers given here may not satisfy everyone", and gaps in logic: "if these claims are false ... a large number of highly trained scientists ... can not be trusted to obtain accurate data".

On the other hand, [33] is not a primary source for the postulated four deuteron reaction. That review references its own references 119 and 120. I suspect that should be 120 and 121, which would point at a pair of papers from Takahashi. The Physics Letters A paper is available online, for a fee, and the abstract is free. I'll return to Takahashi's results in a moment.

Even if such a four deuteron reaction existed, it would also be necessary to explain why the gamma-producing two-particle d+d -> p+t , d+d -> n + 3He, and d+d -> 4He were suppressed. Remember, [33] is trying to explain the absence of gamma rays. Any simple statistical model (such as the model underlying Nuclear_cross_section) would indicate that the probability of three deuterons arriving within the required interaction distance at the same time must be less than the probability of two deuterons arriving within the same distance. And similarly, the probability of a four deuteron reaction must be less than the probability of a three deuteron reaction.

Do Takahashi's results support the explanation of a gamma-free, four-deuteron reaction? No. They may even be considered to support the case against it. Takahashi observes a three-deuteron reaction, at a factor of 10^4 less than the expected two-deuteron reactions. So the gamma-producing two-deuteron reactions haven't been suppressed. Now even a factor of 10^4 less is much greater that the simple statistical model would predict, so Takahashi suggests a mechanism (a "channel") whereby the 3 particle reaction could proceed as a pair of 2 particle reactions. That mechanism starts with a plain old two-deuteron reaction. If the excited 4He hangs around for long enough (before giving off its gamma) to meet up with a third deuteron, then the reaction channel proceeds. But you've still got the other 99.99% of excited 4He's that don't meet up with a third deuteron in time, and give off the gamma ray.

The summary is that Takahashi's results do not support the claims that [33] makes of them. [33] is not a credible reference. JohnAspinall 15:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)JohnAspinall

Proof of Helium...

Critics note that great care must be used to prevent contamination by helium naturally present in atmospheric air.[19]

Actually this is blatently false. If heat is generated in measurable quantities (a few kJ), the produced Helium via a mystic D+D->He-4 reaction would be available in quantities which are above air concentration by at least a factor of a hundred. Air has a concentration of only ~2.2*10^-8 mole He/l. This would be like a punch to the face. Dio1982 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Doi1982 wrote: "Actually this is blatently false." If heat is generated in measurable quantities (a few kJ) . . . it would be available in quantities which are above air concentration by at least a factor of a hundred." That depends upon the method used to collect the helium. When the cell is closed during the run and the helium collects inside it, the concentration does indeed rise well above atmospheric concentration. (See McKubre's Case-style experiment.) However, when the cell is open and the helium is collected from the effluent gas, it is below atmospheric concentration. (See Miles.) Both methods have been used successfully, but the latter is more common. Even though the concentration is much lower, this method has other advantages.

Doi1982 should read the literature more carefully before jumping to conclusions and commenting on the results.

- Jed Rothwell

Sorry, but the "great care" part is still wrong. If the proof of Helium-production would be taken seriously, you'd of course design the experiment in such way as to make measuring it easy. This means a closed system. From my own calculations it is imposible to measure helium buildup via an open system. The few watts of postulated fusion energy is too little. It's simply a problem of scales.

The main problem still remains: A few scientists started with the conclusion first, that fusion has to happen here, and now they are grasping every tiny straw trying to prove it as a second. After a decade of experiments people still can't get their facts straight of what experimental results are actually happening here. And that is very worrying for any outside scientist and reduces credibilty close to nill.

Face it. If some kind of fusion reaction were to occur here, MANY, MANY exotic and easy to prove things would occur here. For example the mentioned helium production. This is TRIVIAL to prove, if you set up an experiment correctly.

But instead, people are concentrating on tangentials which all hover around measurement accuracy and have multiple other causes.Dio1982 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dio1982 wrote: "If the proof of Helium-production would be taken seriously, you'd of course design the experiment in such way as to make measuring it easy. This means a closed system." As noted, this has been done, and the helium exceeded the atmospheric background. In a sense, all systems are closed because some helium is trapped in the cathode and can only be driven out after the run.

However, as I mentioned, there are compelling reasons to use other methods as well, including on-line measurements of effluent gas. A variety of different methods and instrument types have been used, which bolsters the results.

Dio1982 wrote: "After a decade of experiments people still can't get their facts straight of what experimental results are actually happening here." That is two decades, and the only people are confused about what is actually happening are those who have not carefully read the literature. Again, I suggest you review the literature more carefully before commenting on this subject. There is no point to making assertions which are not in evidence, or trying to discuss papers you have not read. You cannot do science by ESP; you have to read something before you can tell what it says. You will find over 500 full-text papers on this subject at LENR-CANR.org.

- Jed Rothwell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

It should also be noted that researchers are not sure that it is "traditional fusion" anymore. Instead they are trying to make sense of the hard evidence that is available. Pcarbonn 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are trying to make out that is the opposite of natural decay... like the opposite of a halflife for radioactice elements, in that they have a half life till they likly fuse. Basically the idea they are putting forth is like just how water can evaporite without reaching 100 degrees, its possible for fussion to occur at a low temperature on a very small scale.--Dacium 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reorganisation/split?

Hi. I think the current version of the page is getting very large and difficult to follow. The Mosier-Boss/Spzak experiment is now starting to rack up a significant number of references, and it's (IMO) a significantly different experiment to Pons-Fleischmann, with different experimental specifics and some different "issues", so "Cold fusion" is no longer synonymous with "the Pons-Fleischmann experiment".

In light of this, several sections that are specific to PF now need to be reorganised or subcategorised. We also need a separate section on MB/S. I think that given the size of the article (which will increase with the new MB/S material), it's probably time for [we might want to consider] all the very specific technical stuff about Pons-Fleischmann to be moved back out to a separate article. At some point, when the MB/S material also achieves critical mass (and gets an agreed name), that should probably [might] be exported to a separate page too, with "cold fusion" becoming the generic parent page.

I'll be doing some editing on the page today (05 May 2007). ErkDemon 14:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, finished. In the end I chickened out of reorganising the whole article, I just modified the intro, added the section on the Mosier-Boss/Szpak experiment(s)' (using info from a New Scientist, article, 5-May-2007, pp32-34 "Cold Fusion Rides Again"), created a same-level section for the Pons-Fleishmann experiment, and moved a few things about. I think that it makes sense to have all the specifics of the PF experiment corralled in one place, regardless of whether we later split it off as another page or not. I still think that the rest of the article could do with wrangled into a more disciplined shape, but I'm pooped, so I'm stopping here. ErkDemon 16:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Retitled a few sections, too, with names that seemed to be more descriptive of their contents. Didn't change the contents or order of those sections. Finished now, honest! ErkDemon 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. Here are some more suggestions for further improvements:

• The very first sentence of the article should be the definition of cold fusion. This is the case in most wikipedia articles.
• The introduction should present the conclusions of the 2004 DOE review, so that readers have an immediate sense of the scientific view on the subject. With your intro, he would not immediately know what to think of it. Reviews have more value to readers than primary sources.
• Because the article is very long, it should start with an overview section. The section title should reflect it. In past discussions, it was decided to deemphasize the controversy side of the story, because it is old history by now.
• I would not place the attempted explanations so early in the article, for different reasons. The scientific method starts with the evidence, then search for a theory: the article should reflect that, especially in a subject like cold fusion. The reader will wonder "an explanation for what" when reading it, because he would not have yet read about the evidences. Also, the content of this section is actually very poor, because today there is no satisfactory explanation for cold fusion yet; so this section is not particularly instructive for the reader. If you look at superconductivity, it starts with the experimental evidences, then the theory, then the history: why not follow the same structure ?
• The experimental evidences are so far down in the article: who would read that far ? Yet, this is what is most interesting to present, to understand what we are talking about.
• The positionning of "Measurement of excess heat", "Nuclear products", and "reproducibility" seem to imply that they relate to the F&P setup. This is not correct, as a variety of setups have been used to arrive at these conclusions (as explained in "Moving beyond the initial controversy"). It is wrong to think or imply that the F&P setup has been used for 18 years, then came the MB/S setup in 2006.
• I do favour the creation of a section on the MB/S setup and Galileo Project. It should come in the experimental section.

I won't have the time to discuss or implement these changes, so do as you see best. Pcarbonn 16:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now implemented most of these suggested changes. Pcarbonn 21:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! This isn't my field, so I'll now happily butt out and leave any further changes to people who know rather more about this stuff than I do. It's nice to see the page being updated. ErkDemon 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, first paragraph says that in hot fusion, ascending nucleosynthesis releases energy. That's obviously only true for the lighter target elements. Some rewording required. ErkDemon 02:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. thanks. Now fixed. Pcarbonn 16:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating!

That is all I have to say! Excellent read! Bill Sapperton

Codeposition

Maybe we should have an article on Szpak and Mosier-Boss's codeposition technique, since it was really the turning point for reliability and replicability. They've produced a ton of stuff at SPAWAR/SSC, and it's all on lenr-canr.org. 75.35.79.57 20:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Tone for Wiki

"The 2004 DoE panel identified several areas that could be further studied using appropriate scientific methods."

This sentance in the article suggests that only "inappropriate" methods have been used so far. Is that true? If not it needs to be changed to this -

"The 2004 DoE panel identified several areas that could be further."

Cold fusion in pop culture

I would agree with User:67.188.7.78's removal of the pop culture section. It was becoming undue weight. If someone wants to resurrect, I would suggest breaking it out into a separate article and linking to it. Ronnotel 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Section was recreated, I moved it to a separate list and linked to it from See Also section. Ronnotel 11:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing hoax tag

The hoax tag that just appeared seems somewhat disingenuous. It was added by a new account with only two other edits. The call for reliable sources is at odds with the copious references to reliable sources cited in the article. I'm going to remove this tag. Before re-adding it, please provide more evidence that this page is a hoax, including why you think that the supporting literature is inadequate. Ronnotel 18:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed recent developments

I removed this recently-added paragraph:

However, recently an entity called D2Fusion claims to be ready to turn cold fusion into commercial products soon. Speculations that cold fusion might be true had stired up investment interest in palladium, the metal involved in cold fusion experiments.

The referenced article does not talk about "commercial products soon". If it did, some people knowledgeable in the field would have strong reservation (see New Energy Times' investigation about previous claims of D2Fusion). You may also want to know that D2Fusion is being sold to Enwin Resources Inc. [6]

The second sentence would need a reference, as there are many other possible reasons for the increase of Palladium price. Wikipedia is not a place to distribute speculative rumors. Pcarbonn 09:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Patent number needed for the Little effect

A recent anonymous commentator has added a paragraph in the theory section about "the Little effect", and references a US patent issued on April 25, 2005. Will that commentator please supply the patent number so we can reference this properly? Using the US Patent Office's search engine, I am unable to find any matches on patents issued on 4/25/2005 to inventor "Little". JohnAspinall 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I could not find the patent either. A patent is not a proper way to publish a theory anyway. I removed the whole paragraph until more info is provided (anonymous edit because I was not logged :-( ). Pcarbonn 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Extra shielding from conduction band electrons?

A paragraph in the theory section floats a suggestion whose only reference is an archive of a site called "The HalfBakery". The suggestion, which I'll summarize as "conduction band electrons could shield deuterons more than valence band electrons", should at the very least be presented alongside the mainstream physics which would claim to debunk it. I would prefer to see the paragraph removed completely, but if consensus is to debunk alongside the "half baked" suggestion, I believe all the physics is already well described in WP. Essentially:

• interatomic distances are on the order of 10^-10m (already mentioned in this article)
• nuclear interaction distances are on the order of 10^-15m (already mentioned in this article)
• therefore in order to shield with an electron, you'd have to concentrate the electron probability distribution into a volume that was 15 decimal orders of magnitude smaller than its expected volume (simple math - cube of the ratio of the distances above)
• there is no experimental or theoretical justification for conduction band electrons behaving that way (start with Electronic_band_structure as a reference)

JohnAspinall 16:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have no prblm removing that paragraph. In fact, the whole section on proposed theories should be significantly reworked. A good source is Ed. Storms' 2007 book, listed in bibliography: it has a chapter on proposed theories. Pcarbonn 18:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I finally got Storms' book through inter-library loan. The theory section (it's only one section of one chapter where he actually discusses theories) is only notable for its inadequacy. He considers two possibilities:

• a mish-mosh of transmutation possibilities, with no discussion of the conventional nuclear science; and
• Mills' hydrinos.

It's really pretty sad. JohnAspinall (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "No strawman tactics on Wikipedia please"

To User:Pcarbonn... apart from assuming good faith, you would know that I wasn't using "tactics" if you had read my edit summary.

The original text read "More claims of experimental success were reported, primarily in non-mainstream publications" until User:Donreed changed it to "More claims of experimental success were reported, primarily in non-mainstream publications: that is, not in refereed physics journals" here. That User has now been blocked due to hundreds of unhelpful edits. I was simply returning the text to what it originally said.

You, in fact, have strengthened the cold fusion case by changing it from "some researchers reported successes - mostly in non-mainstream publications" to "some researchers reported successes in peer-reviewed journals."

I have reverted your change. In-line citations should be provided to back up the statement that any of those successes were reported in peer-reviewed journals. In that case, I think that the most informative wording would be "some researchers reported successes - mostly in non-mainstream publications, with a few in peer-reviewed journals." --David Broadfoot (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for wrongly assuming bad faith. References to peer-reviewed journals were already cited elsewhere in the article, but I have now repeated them. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Good to have the references next to the claim. --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I suggest to move the page from "cold fusion" to "low energy nuclear reaction" because it is the proper name as the article intro explains. Also, this is the name used by the 2004 DOE panel. Any comments ? Pcarbonn (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. Most people recognise the term cold fusion but only those with specialised knowledge would know what an LENR is. There's also some suspicion that LENR is a politically-motivated neologism, and as such may have or develop a subtle but deliberately different meaning to cold fusion. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cold Fusion is the term that any non-specialist would be expecting, and of course it is also the term that was historically used by Pons and Fleischman. LeContexte (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Low energy nuclear reaction" is bureaucratic double-speak because D.O.E. didn't like the publicity around cold fusion. --Bejnar (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose There are other types of low energy nuclear reaction, such as nuclear decay, neutron capture, ... 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not clear that cold fusion (if it actually happens) would necessarily occur at "low energies". It may just be a situation where nucleons can get into close proximity in an ambient medium that is at a lower energy than the microscale energies necessary for a true penetration of the electrostatic potential barrier. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME -- Jheald (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose cold fusion is clearly the most recognizable name for the subject.--Nick Y. (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I did not expect a WP:POLL to take place. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Many arguments presented above seem very dubious to me, and I ask that they be supported by WP:Reliable sources. I also ask that they be ignored unless properly sourced. Also, the article would still be available from 'cold fusion' after a rename, thanks to a redirect. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit other users' comments on the tax page - if you believe their claims are unsupported then please say so, rather than inserting 'fact' tags LeContexte (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I did not think it would be an issue. So, I removed the tags, and here are the statements I find dubious:

• There's also some suspicion that LENR is a politically-motivated neologism
• LENR may have or develop a subtle but deliberately different meaning to cold fusion
• "Low energy nuclear reaction" is bureaucratic double-speak
• D.O.E. didn't like the publicity around cold fusion

Pcarbonn (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you know how the various deletion processes AND WP:RM work? It does work something like a poll. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment low energy nuclear reaction/LENR already exists. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  Not no more. I redirected that POV-fork to this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I expect the closing admin will note both my comments and yours, but I doubt they will discount my comments as you request. But we like to work towards consensus here. So here's my suggestion for a way forward: Now that you've seen what others think of the rename proposal, do you think there's any way you can work towards achieving a rough consensus in support of your view? That should be your goal. Personally I doubt it's achievable, but I could be wrong there. However I'm quite sure that trying to unilaterally impose a whole new set of rules to govern these discussions won't do it. That's been tried before. Andrewa (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarity: I'm ready to follow the recommendation to not rename the article. I have already removed the "rename" tag at the top of this page. I could have added a statement with the same effect in this discussion. This issue is not very important any way. However, I'm not ready to accept unsourced arguments. This is not a new set of rules in wikipedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A good call IMO regarding the rename. But again, suggest you follow existing procedures where they exist, rather than inventing your own as you go. Removing the tag from this page is only one of several steps you need to take to close the discussion. Either do it all or none of it, or you'll just confuse people. If you're unsure as to the procedure, let someone else do it this time around, and watch what they do.

Even better, first change your vote here and see whether there is a consensus for an early close, rather than unilaterally closing a discussion in which others are involved.

Disagree that you haven't proposed new rules above. Where does it state that arguments in these discussions need to cite their sources? Andrewa (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have not deleted any comments from editors. Here are the rules that I find relevant to your question: there is a policy allowing one to "Delete material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection)" See here. This directly links to a section that includes this: "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)." As a consequence, I infer that one is allowed to delete material from the talk page when editors spontaneously recognize that this is their own points of view, and do so despite warnings to stop doing it. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the last sentence means, but I plead caution. There are many rules, including of course WP:IAR. Make sure you have studied Wikipedia:consensus before taking too much comfort from IAR. I don't think deleting material as you seem to suggest would help the discussion. IMO there's even a risk that it might eventually result in quite severe action against you.

Agree that it does recommend that we find properly referenced material, and that's good advice, but it does not say that this material must be produced to justify a poll vote. When I act as closing admin on difficult polls, I certainly look to see whether there is material of this nature (it generally belongs in the comments section, not the survey) and take it into account. I also look at the contribution histories of those "voting", and give more weight to the opinions of those who have shown that they understand and respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines and support the ethos that underlies them. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You propose that I change my vote here. With all due respect, I won't change it to follow unsourced opinions from other editors. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your decision of course. IMO it would improve your standing here if you saved us all some time and trouble and showed your understanding of consensus by doing this, but it's just a suggestion. It doesn't look like it will have any other bearing on the eventual outcome (I could of course be wrong here). Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, which I appreciate. Please note that it's not in this poll discussion that I suggested that I would delete unsourced comments, but in the discussion below. In this poll, I first added the Fact tag, then apologized for doing it, and continued the discussion in a way that I believe is appropriate. Everybody makes mistakes, and I apologized for mine. I don't think that I broke any rule, but let me know if I have.

Please have a look at the discussion below where I threatened to delete unsourced comments (which I didn't do), and the context in which I did it (in particular ScienceApologist' comments to whom it was directed) and let me know what you think in view of the rules I quoted above. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO this isn't particularly relevant to the rename proposal, so I'll open a new section Talk page rules below. Andrewa (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confirmation of Fleischmann-Pons excess heat?

Pcarbonn, your edits imply that the Fleischmann-Pons excess heat effects have been credibly replicated. I am highly doubtful, since if that were true, where are the patents and followup peer-reviewed papers optimizing the effect? Where are the devices on sale? What is more likely is that researchers perform different calorimeter experiments that, while they might produce transitory excess heat effects, also fail to produce practical devices. Even if recent, higher quality experiments show promising data, my phrasing is still correct: the failure to replicate the results of the 1989 announcement resulted in cold fusion gaining a reputation as flawed science. If there is a credible report that shows that electrochemical activity causes heat that is most likely due to nuclear reactions, please post it. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The pathological science tag was given as early as May 1, 1989. It is thus correct to say that it's the failure of the early attempts that created the reputation. As far as I know, this tag has not been used recently in writing.

I'm not sure what else I can say that is not yet in the article. Replication of excess heat has been reported many times, sometimes in reputable peer reviewed journals. If anything, the field suffers from "pathological disbelief": it would be too good to be true. Replication remains difficult (see the "reproducibility" section), and researchers are working hard to "optimize the effect". So, we are still far from "practical devices" (see "possible commercial developments" section), but that does not imply that the effect is not real, as you suggest. Also, funding is very scarce for many reasons, and few scientists risk their reputation working on it (see History / moving beyond the controversy): this slows down advances in the field .

Here are some credible reports that shows that electrochemical activity causes heat that is most likely due to nuclear reactions:

• Y. Arata and Y-C Zhang, "Anomalous difference between reaction energies generated within D20-cell and H20 Cell", Jpn. J. Appl. Phys 37, L1274 (1998)
• Mizuno, T., et al., "Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis in Liquid," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39 p. 6055, (2000) [2]
• M.H. Miles et al., "Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H20 electrolysis using Palladium cathodes", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99 [3]
• B.F. Bush et al, "Helium production during the electrolysis of D20 in cold fusion", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99

Pcarbonn (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

By May 1 1989 many groups had tried to replicate the experiment and failed. It is fair to say that the significant criticism came after others tried in good faith to reproduce the effect. The absence of both useful excess heat devices and federal funding for excess heat experiments after 18 years of effort is telling. If researchers could produce real evidence of heat generated from nuclear reactions driven by electrolysis, they would almost definitely have both increased wealth and a Nobel prize. That void, combined with the 2004 DoE panel output and the incompatibility of cold fusion with established nuclear physics, is very strong evidence that cold fusion is not taking place in the experiments described above. Some might call that pathological disbelief, but it is more accurate to say that it is a recognition of the huge incentives for scientists to discover and publish positive results, and the implication that those positive results likely do not exist.

So where does that leave us? Let's assume that Pcarbonn and I, and others, are trying to produce the best encyclopedia possible. I, for one, am not comfortable with an introduction section that implies that there is a consensus that excess heat from electrochemical cold fusion has been produced. Does anyone have anything to add?209.253.120.205 (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do want to produce the best encyclopedia possible. To me, this means that cold fusion should be presented as an on-going scientific controversy, not as a topic that has been closed long ago. The 2004 DOE report does recommend further research, after all. The panel was evenly split on the evidence of excess heat: one cannot ignore that. Let's avoid injecting our own personal theory. I'm open to any suggestions to improve the intro in that direction. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me add this. You asked for the references for the peer-reviewed journals, and I provided them. You were right to request that. After all, the purpose of wikipedia is to inform, and to do that, "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (quote from WP:reliable sources). So, if you hear someone say : "cold fusion is bullocks", you should question him: did he read any of the paper reporting excess heat ? Did he check the facts as extensively as the peers reviewing an article before publication ? Did he spend the time that the DOE panelists spent on looking at the evidence ? If he has, please ask him to publish a paper to document his view. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

These are some pretty shitty peer-review journals you're quoting Pcarbonn. Why not an article from Physical Review? Why not provide some cites to more visible and current physics journals? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a quote supporting your view that these are "shitty peer-review journals". Please explain why Wikipedia would consider these journals as unreliable sources. Please provide quotes from journals that you feel are superior and that would say that the replications have failed, for one reason or another. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a quote, it's my opinion as a professional and I'm certainly not going to ask that the article talk about my opinion. In any case, I think that these journals are a bit out-of-the-way considering how monumental the claim that is being made is. What is clear is that this view is being marginalized even as it tries to mitigate its own marginalization. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop polluting this discussion with your own opinion: they are irrelevant. If I find a WP policy that allows editors to remove irrelevant statements from talk pages, I will remove your statements. Wikipedia is based on facts, not opinion. Please provide quote supporting your view that "What is clear is that this view is being marginalized even as it tries to mitigate its own marginalization". This is not a café: we are writing a reliable encyclopedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in fact, there is a policy allowing one to "Delete material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection)" See here. I intend to apply it from now on. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is relevant to the article, you have not been able to find a mainstream source post 2004 that indicates the non-fringe nature of this subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Material on talk pages should be only removed in exceptional circumstances, e.g. spam, vandalism, abuse, clearly irrelevant material (not arguably irrelevant material). If you consider an editor's contribution to be questionable or irrelevant please say so, rather than deleting it. LeContexte (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The core of the issue is this: please provide evidence why Wikipedia should consider these journals and the 2004 DOE panel as unreliable sources. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The DOE panel did not claim that cold fusion was no suddenly "not fringe". All it said was that further investigation was needed and that careful funding of well-posed projects could be done. The journal articles you quote are, frankly, not in the places I would expect for the claims that they are making. Were these people unsuccessful in their attempts to get them published in more accessible journals? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now proposed the following sentence in the intro: "Cold fusion quickly gained a reputation as an example of pathological science after attempts to replicate the effect were unsuccessful." Is the intro OK now ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The following bibliography entry has been removed, on the ground that it is not a reliable source:

• Mizuno, Tadahiko. Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion. Concord, N.H.: Infinite Energy Press, 1998. ISBN 1-892925-00-1.

Presumably, it is on the ground that it is self-publishing. Yet, WP policy says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Mizuno meet this requirement: he has published relevant work in the peer-reviewed Jpn. J. Appl. Phys:

• Mizuno, T., et al., Neutron Evolution from a Palladium Electrode by Alternate Absorption Treatment of Deuterium and Hydrogen. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2001. 40(9A/B): p. L989-L991 [7]

I therefore propose to add it back. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. A self-published book should only be included if it has notability. There is another self-published book which is established as notable since it is (supposedly) a prime example of pro-cold fusion account of the early controversy. This book has no assertion of notability. Let him publish it at a respectable scientific publishing house and we'll include it here. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a number of self-published books from the reference section. In order to include a self-published book we must establish that it has notability outside of the pro-cold fusion community. Even a negative review will suffice. Please see WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The WP:Fringe policy would apply if cold fusion were a fringe theory. Please provide a quote supporting that view. 2004 DOE panel certainly did not consider it as such, as it recommended further research in the field. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the notability that you refer to is about wikipedia article on books, not on books in bibliography. It is thus irrelevant. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in the article that indicate that cold fusion falls under the general umbrella of fringe science. Also, the notability guidelines are a good way to figure out how to evaluate sources in terms of reliability. In particular, self-published sources need to be justified before included so as to avoid soapboxing and original research publications. See also external link guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please find a quote of fringe science that is post-2004. Cold fusion was certainly fringe science in the 90's. The 2004 DOE review clearly changed this. The wikipedia article should represent current view, not the 90's. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So according to you, anything published before 2004 should be treated as representing a fringe view? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, what I meant is that CF was wrongly considered as fringe science in the 1990's. It has now become a valid subject for scientific inquiry, to help resolve the scientific controversy (and is thus similar to many other mainstream scientific controversies). Pcarbonn (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the guideline for the bibliography section: "Put under this header in a bulleted list that should usually be alphabetized, any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers." There is no requirement for notability. I will thus revert your change, as the reason for your change is not valid. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't recommend these books because they are self-published and you have not answered the substance of my complaints. I will now revert your action which I take to be roughly inconsiderate in light of the controversial nature of this subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify the substance of your complaint, in view of the guideline for bibliographies. Please clarify why you add "outside of the pro-cold fusion community" when you talk about notability (even if notability is not a requirement). What is the pro-cold fusion community anyway ? Pcarbonn (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The "pro-cold fusion community" would be the group of enthusiasts including a few scientists who believe that there has been successful reproduction of cold fusion experiments. Most of these people do not publish consistently in peer-review journals (thus the problem with a number of the websites listed) and many of them are rank amateurs in the field. Even the professionals are often marginalized in the sense that they are clamboring for mainstream recognition. We should focus on sources that have seen impact beyond this particular community. This would include mainstream journal articles, publications from respectable scientific publishing companies, and self-published works that have received recognition from people who dispute the grander claims of cold fusion advocates. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Please clarify the substance of your complaint, in view of the guideline for bibliographies. I do accept that some of the websites you deleted are not recommended reading. I question your position that the books you deleted are not "further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers", especially when the author has been published in a neutral, peer-reviewed journal. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just being published in a peer-reviewed journal does not automatically mean that everything else the person does should be included at Wikipedia. We need to take each source individually. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is what WP:verifiability says on self-published sources: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I argue that Mizuno meets the requirements for a source to be quoted on CF, and can thus be recommended as further reading on this subject. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I argue that Mizuno hasn't been established as an expert in the topic because he hasn't been recognized as such by someone who is outside of the pro-cold fusion community. We should have an extremely high standard for including self-published sources, and I don't think having a single peer-review article on a related subject qualifies. Simply having a single article published doesn't do the trick when the person is ostensibly writing a review. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

He has published many papers on cold fusion, some in non-mainstream papers, others in neutral peer-review journal. He has not one but several papers in JJAP, and one in "Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources", titled "Confirmation of the changes of isotopic distribution for the elements on palladium cathode after strong electrolysis in D2O solutions". See bibliography here. Wouldn't these qualify ? Pcarbonn (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem to lend the rhetorical oomph I would like to see for someone self-publishing a book that reviews an entire subject. He seems to be interested in confirmation of cold fusion, but he hasn't, for example, been recognized as a reviewer by anyone outside of the pro-cold fusion community. If he had been asked by a mainstream publishing company, mainstream periodical, or a respected science review journal to write something along those lines, then I could see an argument for including a book he wrote reviewing the status of cold fusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Who said that his book was a review ?? He is an expert in the field, as shown by his numerous publications. Why would a book he writes on his subject not be recommendable ?? Also, let's be careful to avoid Anglo-American focus and systematic bias Pcarbonn (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: Has the book received any notable reviews that would lend support to your desire to include it as a reliable resource for our readers? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot answer that question, but this is putting a very high criteria for a "See also" section. Could you provide notable reviews for the book that are still in the bibliography section ? If so, please do it. I don't see why we would need to apply double standard in a science that is not fringe, but a valid scientific controversy. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why we would apply double standard even if it was fringe. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I have an issue of NPOV in the current bibliography, because of undue weight. The balance of papers in peer-reviewed journals is largely in favor of the existence of an anomalous phenomena; scientific papers that challenge its existence are almost non-existent. The bibliography should reflect that. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is patently not how to apply undue weight. Just looking at papers published about cold fusion shows a deliberate publication bias since negative results rarely get published. Most of the time, the scientific community doesn't take the time to write papers challenging the existence of an idea they find to be dubious, even if they people who support it have managed to publish their "results" in out-of-the-way journals and periodicals. It is plainly fact that cold fusion is not considered viable by the vast majority of physicists, for example. Thus it is a distinct minority opinion in science and emphasizing "positive results" is the actual violation of undue weight. ScienceApologist 16:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually think the references and bibliography look pretty good. They list articles and magazines which report cold fusion-related success, as well as articles and books critical of cold fusion's prospects. I certainly don't see any reason to remove any of the books from the list. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just heard about the discussion happening here. Looking over it reveals to me that ScienceApologist did a good job raising the citation standards on this article, but is now being a tyrant by trying to extend his 'victory' inappropriately. You fought a good fight, stop being belligerent. Shpoffo (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to Ronnotel for reinserting Mizuno's and other books in the bibliography. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal: There are a lot of books out there about a lot of subjects. Let's keep the books that Wikipedia references in controversial articles of the highest quality and published by groups that are univerisally considered respectable. That means avoiding publishing outfits such as Infinite Energy Press, Pacific Oaks Press, and Oak Grove Press as these are simply vanity publishing companies. Such companies have no consistent distribution process, no respect within the reference community, nor is there any real visibility for the books that they publish outside the singular fringe communities that are interested in the subject of cold fusion. ScienceApologist 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a deal: could we add Mizuno, in view of his many publications in scientific journals, and remove the others ? (I don't know who has reverted your edit). Pcarbonn 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't had "many publications in scientific journals". I don't think that this reference is good at all since it is published by a very questionable publishing press. If you can find a publication by him in a more respectable outfit then that would be great to include! If you cannot, then why hasn't he published there? ScienceApologist 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten his bibliography: he has published many papers on cold fusion, some in non-mainstream papers, others in neutral peer-review journal. He has not one but several papers in Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and one in "Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources", titled "Confirmation of the changes of isotopic distribution for the elements on palladium cathode after strong electrolysis in D2O solutions". See bibliography here. This shows that he is seen as an expert "by someone who is outside of the pro-cold fusion community". Pcarbonn 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Publishing papers on a subject does not mean that a book published by Infinite Energy Press is suddenly worthy of inclusion in our reference section. These journals he published in only establish that the reviewers of those journals thought his papers worthy of inclusion: it does not say anything about his status as an expert in cold fusion or that this particular book is a reliable source. Again, you need to come to terms with the fact that this book is not published by a mainstream company. There has to be a damn good reason to include such a text. That the author published some related papers in some obscure journals is not a good enough rationale. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hawkins (the third author)

Although the popular media have referred to it as Pons-Fleischmann for quite some time now, it seems that very few people realize that there was a third author (Hawkins). Perhaps luckily for him, his name was left off the original paper, but this was corrected in the errata. See page 8 of this document. I believe Hawkins should be discussed in this article, alongside Pons and Fleischmann. Thoughts? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have created an article for Marvin Hawkins but have had difficulty finding out much about him. It turns out he was a graduate student at the time the paper came out. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I had noticed his name on the paper, I have no information about him. I don't think that Hawkins should be discussed in this article: it would be giving him a notability that no reliable source has given to him. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, could you look at the Marvin Hawkins article? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I would then suggest you to mention Hawkins in the history section of the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Useful reference, missing information, and wrong electrochemistry

1) [8] Cornell collection on Cold Fusion.

2) Above reference has Steven Jones research on muon-catalyzed fusion which causes the deuterium nuclei to approach the neutron capture radius of deuterium and fuse. "submitted their proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy, which asked nuclear physicist Steven Jones at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, to review it. Jones had been one of the leaders in research on muon-catalyzed fusion (the "well-known" form of room temperature fusion) throughout the 1980s, but he was now working on new ways of creating fusion through electrolysis--what he called "piezonuclear fusion." Though Jones had been working on piezonuclear fusion since 1986, only by the fall of 1988 had his team developed a neutron detector sufficiently sensitive to measure the low levels of neutrons produced by his experiments. Pons and Fleischmann, who said they had begun working on their electrochemical experiments around 1984 and had been funding the research from their own pockets, also reinvigorated their research program in the fall of 1988, hiring one of Pons's graduate students, Marvin Hawkins, to design, build, and run new cells and to begin to study the nuclear aspects of their apparatus."

3) My experience ranges from Contract Testing Lab to Plating Chemist. Occam's Razor. The conditions of reaction contradict intent. Common plating problem is hydrogen injected into metal lattice weakening it. High hydrogen ion concentration, pH=-2 (dilute sulfuric acid), is most favorable for generating hydrogen. Lithium Hydroxide solution, pH=14, has very low hydrogen concentration. Raising cell voltage to create the "required" minimum Deuterium flux at the Palladium surface would actually drive Lithium into the Palladium. Lithium 6 isotope has a neutron absorbtion radius much larger than Deuterium. The reaction product Li 7m (metastable, excess energy) gives alpha plus Tritium (this is DOE breeder reactor formula for tritium production). Li 7 + neutron > Li 8 > (Be 8) > 2 alpha. The Deuterium reaction is reported to work with Lithium Hydroxide but not Sodium Hydroxide, although Borate (Boron 10 has a huge neutron capture radius) improves the reaction?

4) Palladium disks used to purify hi pressure hydrogen for GC-FID analysis. Palladium disk is alloyed with 5% Silver because pure Palladium shatters after reacts with Hydrogen with acompanying phase change.

5) By the way Be 8 decomposition does not generate a gamma because the alpha are emitted in opposite directions therefore all the energy of reaction.

Shjacks45 (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page rules

From the requested move discussion section above:

Please have a look at the discussion below where I threatened to delete unsourced comments (which I didn't do), and the context in which I did it (in particular ScienceApologist' comments to whom it was directed) and let me know what you think in view of the rules I quoted above. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

and above that:

Please note that I have not deleted any comments from editors. Here are the rules that I find relevant to your question: there is a policy allowing one to "Delete material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection)" See here. This directly links to a section that includes this: "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)." As a consequence, I infer that one is allowed to delete material from the talk page when editors spontaneously recognize that this is their own points of view, and do so despite warnings to stop doing it. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This was all as follow-up to Pcarbonn's suggestion that my vote in the rename survey should be ignored unless properly sourced. This most recent request doesn't seem to be about the rename, so let's have a new section.

Please note that I did not say that your vote should be ignored unless properly sourced. I asked that the arguments be ignored unless properly sourced. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The arguments in question appear in the survey section and are part of the vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This does not invalidate what I said: I did not say that your vote should be ignored. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything in these rules that should encourage one party in a heated discussion to unilaterally delete comments made by another. I'd recommend that you look beyond what is allowed. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are designed to work towards consensus, and don't work well at all when winning an argument becomes the objective, however correct the cause may be. You might also look at User:Andrewa/creed for where I'm coming from in all of this. Andrewa (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I'm glad that you recognize that I did not invent any rule, and that deletion of others comments is allowed in some circumstances. I agree that the tone of the discussion with ScienceApologist was more heated than it should have been, but I did not start that (I agree that I was quick to react though, with the purpose of stopping it early). Pcarbonn (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think you are misquoting me here. But what's the point? Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The key question is this: Did I invent new rules ? Is deletion of other comments allowed when a user repeatedly insert his opinion without sources, acknowledge doing it, and ignore requests to stop doing it ? I'd like to know your opinion. It could help make wikipedia a more reliable source, and save a lot of time to a lot of people. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase a bit: Is deletion of other comments allowed when a user repeatedly insert his opinion without sources, acknowledge doing it, refuses to offer sources when requested, and ignore requests to stop doing it ? I'd like to know your opinion. In my view, this is a direct consequence of this: ""Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)." Pcarbonn (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the key question is: Where do we go from here? Did I invent new rules: Let's agree to disagree about your behavior up to this point. Is deletion of other comments...?: I probably don't have enough information there to form an opinion as to whether or not it's allowed. But either way, it's probably not helpful, particularly when you're one of the parties involved in a vigorous discussion. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now started a new thread in the talk page of WP:TALK to help resolve the issue. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrewa is surely understating the case - it is positively unhelpful to everyone trying to follow a discussion in a talk page if one party to the discussion deletes another's comments. LeContexte 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Widom Larsen theory and "heavy" electrons

I dispute the presentation of the Widom Larsen theory as using conventional quantum mechanics. In mainstream physics, so-called heavy electrons appear in the theory of heavy electron superconductors. I believe (but I welcome expert guidance here) that the "heavy" electron is a calculational artifact, designed to express the dynamics of the collective motion of electrons. In some ways it is similar to the reduced_mass of classical dynamics. I do not believe that any mainstream physics publication has ever suggested that a single electron, the particle that would participate in Widom and Larsen's proposed reaction, ever gains mass. JohnAspinall 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream physics says that electrons gain mass when they become relativistic and in no other way ('electrons have no hair'), but that is not what is being proposed. I've removed the section, since it seems overly laudatory to something that is to all appearances just another hodge-podge of algebra and selective use of data. Michaelbusch 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right : the statement that WL theor is compatible with conventional quantum mechanics was not properly sourced. I removed it from the paragraph. Thanks for identifying this issue.Pcarbonn 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire section, for the reasons given. Please don't put it back without a complete re-write for NPOV and acceptance of the scientific consensus - and also please explain why this particular set of ideas is WP:N. Michaelbusch 16:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Please accept my apologies for responding too quickly. We should just mention this theory, with appropriate links. Pcarbonn 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV of article

Information and relevance of nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been suppressed in this article. There are other problems I will address over time. Ron Marshall

Please provide specific examples of suppression and please explain why 'nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios' is relevant to the article. When you have done this, the tag can be convincingly added. Michaelbusch 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In October of 2006 the cold fusion article was trashed by self appointed censors of science in order to suppress information about transmutation and other positive evidence. The only references in the current article are "Although there appears to be evidence of anomalous transmutations and isotope shifts near the cathode surface in some experiments, cold fusion researchers generally consider that these anomalies are not the ash associated with the primary excess heat effect.[21]" and "To address the nuclear products issue, and because transmutations products have been reported, it has been suggested that fusion occurs between one or more deuterium and palladium, and is followed by a fission of the resulting nucleus." The first remark is misleading and the second is inadequate.

Many experimenters have found transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios since 1992. Usually the result produces several elements spread over the atomic weight scale. Some experiments show direct conversion from one element to another. The unnatural isotope ratio proves that the result cannot be caused by contamination. A transmutation is a nuclear reaction. Transmutations prove that nuclear reactions are happening in cold fusion experiments beyond a reasonable doubt. This is true whether or not transmutations are the primary source of heat. Ron Marshall 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Ron Marshall

Provide links to the edits showing suppression and your claimed 'self appointed censors of science', and citations for your statements above - and I'm removing the NPOV tag again because you need evidence. You may find it useful to examine WP:CABAL. Re. 'transmutations' - give cites for that too - although I deem your statements nonsensical at the moment, because the presence of radioactivity in an experiment in no way implies fusion. And sign your posts. Michaelbusch 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I will provide links, however a major part of the evidence is the state of the article at this point. This statement does not look logical to me "although I deem your statements nonsensical at the moment, because the presence of radioactivity in an experiment in no way implies fusion". Radioactivity could imply fusion. Whether or not deuterium fusion is going on is one question. Whether or not any nuclear reaction is going on is another question. When an element is changed to another element protons are added or removed from the nucleus. You change a nucleus and you have a nuclear reaction by definition. Changing an isotope means adding or removing neutrons, also a nuclear reaction. The new element could be radioactive when the old element was not. The new element could be not radioactive when the old element was radioactive. Both these cases have been observed. It has been the claim of skeptics from the beginning that no nuclear reactions are occurring in cold fusion experiments. The skeptics have been proven wrong in this case. No scientific case can be made for suppressing the evidence of nuclear transmutations or the conclusion this evidence points to. Ron Marshall (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The cold fusion article as of 06:09, 29 September 2006 is shown in the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=78453163 before it was trashed by ScienceApologist and others.

The nuclear transmutations section:

Nuclear Transmutations

Nuclear transmutations have been reported in many cold fusion experiments since 1992. These reactions (which may be a nuclear fusion or nuclear fission reaction) result in the transformation of a chemical element into another. If one accepts that nuclear transmutations are in fact observed in these experiments, he would have to accept that nuclear reactions take place in cold fusion experiments. He would also have to accept that an apparently enormous Coulomb barrier can be overcome, and that the released energy can be converted to heat.

Tadahiko Mizuno is a prominent nuclear transmutation experimenter, and was among the first to contribute several papers and a book on the subject.

Nuclear transmutation experiments have been reviewed by Dr. Miley., a recognized researcher in "Hot Fusion" for his contributions to Inertial electrostatic confinement. He reports that several dozen laboratories are studying these effects. Some experiments result in the creation of only a few elements, while others result in a wide variety of elements from the periodic table. Calcium, copper, zinc, and iron were the most commonly reported elements. Lanthanides were also found: this is significant since they are unlikely to enter as impurities. In addition, the isotopic ratios of the observed elements differ from their natural isotopic ratio or natural abundance. Many elements have multiple isotopes and the percentages of the different isotopes are constant on earth within one tenth of one percent. In general it requires gaseous diffusion, thermal diffusion, electromagnetic separation or other exotic processes of isotope separation or a nuclear reaction to change an element from its natural isotope ratio. The presence of an unnatural isotope ratio makes contamination an implausible explanation. Some experiments reported both transmutations and excess heat, but the correlation between the two effects has not been established. Radiations have also been reported. Miley also reviews possible theories to explain these observations. Ron Marshall (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So far the clearest evidence for transmutation has come from an experiment made by Iwamura and associates, and published in 2002 in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics (one of the top physics journals in Japan). Instead of using electrolysis, they forced deuterium gas to permeate through a thin layer of caesium (also known as cesium) deposited on calcium oxide and palladium, while periodically analyzing the nature of the surface through X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. As the deuterium gas permeated over a period of a week, the amount of caesium progressively decreased while the amount of praseodymium increased, so that caesium appeared to be transmuted into praseodymium. When caesium was replaced by strontium, it was transmuted into molybdenum with anomalous isotopic composition. In both cases this represents an addition of four deuterium nuclei to the original element. They have produced these results six times, and reproducibility was good. The energy released by these transmutations was too low to be observed as heat. No gamma rays were observed. When the calcium oxide was removed or when the deuterium gas was replaced by hydrogen, no transmutation was observed. The authors analyzed, and then rejected, the possibility to explain these various observations by contaminations or migration of impurities from the palladium interior. The experiment was replicated by researchers from Osaka University using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry to analyze the nature of the surface (the Pd complex samples were provided by Iwamura).

In later similar experiments by Iwamura Barium 138 was transmuted to Samarium 150 and Barium 137 was transmuted into Samarium 149. The Barium 138 experiment used a natural isotope ratio of Barium. The Barium 137 experiment used a Barium 137 enriched isotope ratio. These transmutations represent an addition of six deuterium nuclei.

While recognizing the quality of the experiment, a 2004 DOE panelist said that, from a nuclear physics perspective, such conclusions of transmutations are "not to be believed". Fusing 2 deuterons is difficult enough; merging four deuterons with a heavy nucleus such as Palladium [sic] is not to be believed, especially when no evidence is presented for any nuclear products with intermediate atomic mass such as Yttrium, Zirconium, and Niobium. The panelist suggested that the observation could be explained by the migration of the anomalous elements from the interior of the Palladium.

Cold fusion researchers responded that such migration is not possible:

1. Deuterium atoms, flowing from the surface to the interior, would cause diffusion of the anomalous element away from the surface, not toward the surface.
2. Mass spectroscopy done at various depths shows that the anomalous element was not present in the palladium.
3. The element that was originally on the surface disappears at the same rate as the anomalous element appears.
4. The isotopes of the anomalous element are unnatural, and the isotope shifts are exactly what are expected should the missing element transmute into the new element

They say that, since the initial element disappears, the "migration explanation" would imply that the element applied to the surface migrates toward the interior, while the anomalous element migrates in the opposite direction toward the surface. This would violate as many expected behaviors as does cold fusion but in a different field of science: therefore, the Iwamura results justify additional research to understand what's happening. They also said such explanations are mere hand waving, and that this kind of reasoning is typical of most reviews.

Bush and Eagleton have reported the appearance of radioactive isotopes with an average half-life of 3.8 days in electrolytic cells, an observation that is difficult to explain by contamination or migration.

Attempts to find at least partial theoretical explanations are being made by Takahashi and others. One proposal by Takahashi to explain the wide range of elements generated is that fission of palladium is initiated by high energy photons, and suggests potential applications in the treatment of nuclear wastes by transmutation.

The current article should contain a summary on nuclear transmutations in the introduction and a section on nuclear transmutations. Ron Marshall (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference for the Mitchell Swartz theory

We need a cite-able reference for the Mitchell Swartz theory. The reference given is to a 1955 Phys Rev article. JohnAspinall 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold fusion theorizing

There are a lot of problems with the following text:

Cold fusion theoreticians have thus proposed explanations of the reported observations based on other mechanisms than plain D-D fusion.

To address the Coulomb barrier issue, some researchers propose that nuclei absorb neutrons, not deuterons; because neutrons have no charge, they are not affected by the Coulomb barrier. Widon and Larsen propose that heavy electrons react with protons to create neutrons. John C. Fisher proposes a theory based on hypothetical polyneutrons. Mills proposes a theory based on hydrino, which assumes that the electron in a hydrogen atom can reach an energy level below the ground state permitted by quantum mechanics. These theories are contrary to conventional physics.

These theories are not only "contrary" to conventional physics: there are observations available which show them to be incorrect. In particular, the idea that a neutron with its extremely short lifetime can be involved in low-density fusion at low temperatures is easy to refute with a back of the envelope calculation where you take the fusion cross-section as roughly that of the nucleus, multiplied by the density of the material (assuming it to be all neutrons and nuclei) and multiplying that by the velocity of the particles (assuming roughly that v is on the order of kT/m) doing this yields about one contact per 10⁵ seconds which is much larger than the hundreds of seconds that neutrons can survive. Polyneutrons have zero mainstream support and energy levels below ground is patent pseudoscience. Why are we including such garbage in the article?

To address the nuclear products issue, and because transmutations products have been reported, it has been suggested that fusion occurs between one or more deuterium and palladium, and is followed by a fission of the resulting nucleus. The observed heat is difficult to reconcile with the observed transmuted products though. Others propose multi-body interactions: the following reaction, if proven to exist, would not generate gamma rays: D+D+D+D -> ⁸Be -> 2 ⁴He. However, in order to offer an explanation of the absence of gamma rays, a theory would also have to propose a mechanism that would suppress the more probable 2-deuteron reaction. Mitchell Swartz and others have theorized that the lower angular momentum of less energetic, cooler deuterons might affect the initial conditions required and the branching ratios of fusion reactions.

This paragraph is at least slightly more plausible, but still suffers from presentation of ideas that are really far out there without proper contextualization.

To address the conversion to heat issue, researchers have proposed a Mossbauer-like effect: in the Mossbauer effect, the recoil energy of a nuclear transition is absorbed by the crystal lattice as a whole, rather than by a single atom. However, the energy involved must be less than that of a phonon, on the order of 30 keV (50% chance of phonon excitation), compared with 23 MeV in nuclear fusion.

The only source for this is from Infinte Energy magazine (not a reliable source). I suggest removing the entire speculative paragraph as it represents original research.

In fact, all these paragraphs are very close to original research and I have therefore removed them from the article.

ScienceApologist 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologist, I concur with this removal - it seems we have a problem with some editors blindly accepting marginal data, followed by scrambling to fit that data with one particular interpretation. Michaelbusch 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it looks like some of the good (peer reviewed) suggestions were removed and the pseudo science ones were left in. Look at this list from a month ago. That is more acceptable, minus a few offending bullet points, is it not? MigFP 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) sock

That list is full of nonsense, and you will find my detailed analysis of many individual cases here on this talk page. JohnAspinall (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on a quick reading of the article, I've flagged it as needing further cleanup. I'm afraid cold-fusion enthusiasts have been having far too much fun here, and the scientific and logical accuracy of the article has suffered greatly. As examples, Apologist's large removal, and the paragraph I just removed - which claimed that an electrolysis patent was related to cold fusion. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This site describes a book on heavy electrons http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/EngineeringTechnology/MaterialsScience/?view=usa&ci=019851767X Ron Marshall (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And quoting (with my emphasis) from the very link you provide: "characterized by a large effective mass", which is exactly the point I was making above. JohnAspinall (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

'Cold fusion' patent

The article contained a sentence 'the US Patent Office has approved a patent relating to cold fusion'. The patent cited is about an improved electrolysis device. It is not related to cold fusion, and so I have removed the reference. User:Pcarbonn has disputed this based on his reading of the patent (here). While the patent description references various cold fusion articles, the term 'fusion' occurs nowhere in the patent itself, which refers only to electrolysis. Claiming that this is the Patent Office approving something related to cold fusion is like saying that patenting a better magnetic alloy is related to perpetual motion. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You may think so, but that is not what PhysicsWeb and others are saying, as shown in the quote for this statement. So, please stop removing statements that are properly sourced and notable. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The text of the patent makes several references to cold fusion and if you read the entire patent you see that it is talking about a nickel hydrogen cold fusion device.

Sample text: "2. Description of the Related Art

Since 1989, scientists have demonstrated that liquid and gaseous electrolysis processes, though not yet completely understood, may be able to address future heating and electrical power requirements. For example, it has been readily demonstrated that electrolysis of many fluids results in heat generation that can be employed for other purposes, e.g., heating or generation of electricity.

A growing need has developed for compact, reliable, rugged and self-contained power sources providing heat and/or electricity in applications such as mobile vehicles, trailers, and equipment support units. There is a concurrent need for reliable, rugged and self-contained power sources providing heat and/or electricity for larger stationary power requirements. A sense of urgency for such new power sources has resulted from the realization that fossil fuels are in limited supply. It will be appreciated that nuclear fission power plants are not an acceptable alternative due to the dangers associated with uncontrolled releases of fission products and the enormous environmental and political problems associated with waste disposal.

Early attempts to develop the needed energy production apparatus focused on energy production using nuclear batteries. See, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,290,522; 3,409,820, and 4,835,433, which patents are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. A radiation source was required, and radiation from this source which was absorbed in a potential barrier, e.g., p-n-p junction or metal-semiconductor contact, gave rise to electron-hole pairs that flowed as electricity due to the beta voltaic or Volta effect. Efficiencies on the order of about 25% were demonstrated.

In their now famous (or infamous) paper, Pons and Fleischmann reported excess heat in heavy water, palladium apparatus. See Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium," submitted to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Mar. 11, 1989. Due to the amount of heat produced per unit volume of cathode material, the energy measured in these types of apparatus has generally been considered to be from a nuclear process. Measurements of helium and tritium produced have given credibility to methods where heat is produced.

Recently, engineered devices based upon these results have been built with the objective of investigating the production of heat and by-products over extended periods of time. For example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,273,635 and 5,318,675, which patents are incorporated herein for all purposes, as well as Great Britain Patent No. 2 231 195, EP 0 568 118 and WO95/20816 have been granted for or described such devices, respectively. As a result, problems with the state of the art of methods of liquid and gaseous electrolysis have begun to be addressed by investigators with improved consistency. It will also be appreciated that problems associated with such systems include: hydrogen recombination with oxygen, with the potential for explosion; the relatively slow loading of hydrogen into cathodes; inefficient designs; and, the potential dangers of loaded, pressurized bulk material." Ron Marshall (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of the patent office's granting such a patent, whatever the proper interpretation of the patent itself. All that shows is that a researcher patented his methods, nothing more. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The relevance is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that PhysicsWeb is talking about the cold fusion patents in one of his article[9]: "In contrast to Pons and Fleischmann, who were not able to gain patents in the US, CETI has been granted a number of patents for its devices." The sentence in disupte thus meets the WP:notability requirement. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability does not equate relevance. I still don't see what this has to do with anything. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For information, this discussion is about this diff. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

paragraph on theory vs experiment

There is a disagreement on the relevance of this paragraph:

One reason for many to exclude a nuclear origin for the effect is that current theories in physics cannot explain how fusion could occur under such conditions. However, the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss experimental evidence.

This paragraph is sourced by a reliable, notable source: the 2004 DOE panel. It would not be difficult to show many other sources discussing the lack of a theory as a reason to reject cold fusion. So why do you want it remove ? Pcarbonn (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is sourced, but it has zero meaning and is POV-slanted towards cold fusion. The wording implicitly assumes that the cold fusion experiments are valid, which is most definitely not accepted in the scientific community. Further, it makes an argument that is a logical fallacy, and assumes that fusion is happening and not something else. It doesn't really say anything. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now started a list of deletion of properly sourced statements done by Michaelbusch on his talk page. Feel free to add comment there on his pattern of behavior. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have also raised a wikiquette alert. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of clarity, here is the full source for that statement: "Cold fusion research : A Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy". 1989. Retrieved 2007-11-21. "Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process"" and "the failure of a theory to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided Pcarbonn (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The statment made above directly contradicts the statement that MichaelBusch noted above. The quoted statements are saying that cold fusion can be discounted because no theory accounting for it has been developed. That's the opposite of the statement removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not misquote the 2004 DOE panel. Here is the full quote:

The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. As a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold fusion claims since, for example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons. Likewise the failure of a theory to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided. Consequently, with the many contradictory existing claims it is not possible at this time to state categorically that all the claims for cold fusion have been convincingly either proved or disproved.

I don't see how it could ever support the view that "cold fusion can be discounted because no theory accounting for it has been developed". Please provide adequate quotes in support of your view. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Likewise the failure of a theory to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided. You're selectively quoting. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Here is how the sentence must be understood in its context: 'Likewise the failure of Quantum Mechanics to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided.'. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) This clearly says that "the failure of Quantum Mechanics to account for cold fusion can be discounted".Pcarbonn (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the principle that "the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss experimental evidence" is the basis of the scientific method. Arguing the contrary puts you in the WP:Fringe of science.Pcarbonn (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you are misreading the statement. The statement is saying that the lack of theoretical development is a direct hindrance to accepting the claims of cold fusion advocates. You can try to put as much positive spin on the statement as you like, but I'm not going to let you insert that spin into the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't understand how you could ever come to this conclusion by neutrally reading the quoted statement or the report. I have created a request for comment below. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch, ScienceApologist, could you tell us whether you would accept mediation on this issue ? Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I'll only accept mediation from a mediator who has a degree in physics, chemistry, or a related science field. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Experiment is the reality check of science. If theory cannot explain a valid experiment then the theory has to be described as having limitations or the theory must be revised. This is the scientific method. We do not have to source the scientific method or other basic principles in science. There is no rational other position. Ron Marshall (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No way. Experiment drives theory, but unless you believe that reality is not self-consistent then there have to be occasions when experimenters report results that are erroneous. We don't have to explain N-rays. They simply don't exist and the experimenter who reported their existence was simply wrong. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, some results are erroneous, and should be dismissed : The N-ray experiment was demonstrated to be wrong. Note that it was not the lack of a theory that convinced the scientific community, but a "test" experiment where a prism was removed. This was the turning point in the controversy. Never was the lack of a theory used to dismiss the N-ray experiment.

There are many differences between the N-ray experiment and cold fusion: cold fusion has been reported by many scientists, it has been reported in several peer-reviewed journals, the DOE panel in 2004 was evenly split on whether the evidence of excess heat were convincing. To convincingly dismiss cold fusion results would require explaining the experimental artefacts. Until it is done, one cannot dismiss it, and certainly not based on a lack of theory to explain it. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While you can be rah-rah all you want about cold fusion, the fact of the matter is that it is plainly dismissed by the majority of scientists in the know: rightly or wrongly. Trying to weasel your way out of this fact will lead you nowhere as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which gives the most weight to scientific consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You won't get anywhere with this "cold fusion is plainly dismissed by the majority of scientists in the know" until you provide a source supporting this statement that would be more reliable than the 2004 DOE panel, which clearly says the contrary. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My anecdotal 2 cents: it's been a long time since I took nuclear physics, but my professors at the time accepted that cold fusion might happen through a process involving muon substitutions for electrons (they have a closer "orbit" to the nuclei than electrons, thus requiring less energy to start the fusion process), but that the Pons-Fleischmann-Hawkins experiment was very flawed. I.e., there was no reason to rule out cold fusion as a theoretical process, but there was no experimental evidence (at the time, about 1989, IIRC) to support it, either. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That was 1989, as you said. Since then, dozens of different and improved experiments that addressed the shortcomings of those first ones have been executed and replicated, and the results have been published in peer-reviewed journals (though with considerable difficulty, especially in the US: the Japanese and Europeans have handled the matter in a far more sensible way). This article, at least before this last edit warring sessions, linked to e-prints for many of those papers (I have no time at the moment to check what the usual suspects have done to the references section). I would suggest you to read the works appeared on the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics and INFN's Report 41 if you want to get up to date on this subject. By the way, what your professor was referring to was Muon-catalyzed fusion: known since long, well understood, but unfortunately almost working. A completely different beast. --Holland-it (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been no outside corroboration of cold fusion supporters claims that there has been advances since 1989. This is just posturing and making more excuses for POV-pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In your dreams. Just the two references I have given point to a peer-reviewed paper by Iwamura and a report by the first nuclear physics organization of Italy that present evidence which is qualitatively different from what was available in 1989 (and in the case of the Iwamura paper, not even postulated at the time). You can obviously point to refutations of those papers published in similar venues, if you can find them, but you can't possibly say that no other corroborations ever emerged. I have just cited two of them. --Holland-it (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ben's got it. The fact is that cold fusion in principle may or may not be possible seems like it may fly, but the methodological problems and questionable results arise when it comes to the reports on cold fusion actually happening in the laboratory. The DOE report outlines the skepticism surrounding these claims. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The statements by ScienceApologist and others have been answered before in the article text and that text has been deleted to suppress evidence. It has been pointed out before that there was no theory to explain the anomalous heat from the radioactivity of radium when it was discovered. It was pointed out before that many years passed before there was a theory for low temperature super conductivity. I think we still are looking for a theory for high temperature super conductivity.

As I pointed out in the NPOV article nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios is valid experimental proof that nuclear reactions are occurring cold fusion experiments whether or not deuterium fusion is occurring. All this talk about theoretical barriers is just so much nonsense.

Its really about social conformity and censorship. Ron Marshall (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Ron, you are becoming increasingly shrill and adding nothing to the discussion. According to talk page guidelines, we are here to discuss the article not complain about the cabal censoring your favorite pet ideas. This kind of rhetoric will get us nowhere and your inflammatory edits that try to make a point are also not appreciated. Please cease this behavior at once. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch: Stop deleting important books!

Michaelbusch, or someone, keeps deleting important books about cold fusion. Michaelbusch asks: "please explain why these particular references are required." Reasons:

Experts in cold fusion ranging from Storms & Bockris to Arthur C. Clarke recommended these books, and wrote forwards & introductions to the books.

Mallove was published by Wiley, one of the largest and most respected technical publishers. It was widely reviewed and nominated for a Pulitzer prize. Mallove himself played a key role in the history of cold fusion. Mallove purchased the rights to the book and reprinted it, partly because he needed the income, which was considerable.

Dozens of experts contributed to Beaudette. The University of Utah asked for, and accepted, his papers, interviews and the manuscript of this book.

Mizuno is one of Japan's leading cold fusion scientists and electrochemists. He has published over 50 papers, mainly in Japanese, about several different aspects of electrochemistry, including cold fusion. The Japanese edition of this book has sold tens of thousands of copies and the publisher asked him to write a second book, which he did. (It has not been translated into English.)

Contrary to your assertions above, these are not in any sense "self published" books. They were all professional edited and they have all sold thousands of copies.

The fact that you ask why these books are important tells me that you are unfamiliar with the field. Have you even read these books? There are roughly 2,500 researchers in cold fusion listed in the LENR-CANR database. I have met or worked with hundreds of them. I am sure that most of them are familiar with these books, and consider these books important. If you are not an expert in cold fusion, you have no business second-guessing them. Whether you think cold fusion is real or not has no bearing on this issue. If this article was about the Flat Earth theory it would include books that most Flat Earth believers consider important.

PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THIS PAGE!

- Jed Rothwell Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

Let me add that I have several other books on cold fusion, both pro and con, that do not merit listing in this bibliography for the reasons cited by Michaelbusch; i.e. they are obscure or self-published. Some are pretty good, but obscure. In other words, Michaelbusch's standards for exclusion are reasonable but they do not apply to the books he excluded.

- Jed Rothwell Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

Obviously, this person has a conflict of interest in this case and while their concerns are noted, cold fusion is ultimately subject to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, not the wishes of the LENR-CANR librarian. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

By this standard, all 2,500 of the scientists who have published positive experimental evidence for cold fusion would also be excluded, and any biologist who is convinced that evolution is real would be excluded from contributing to articles about biology or creationism.

Four of the leading cold fusion researchers are (or were) contributing editors to peer-reviewed physics journals, such J. Fusion Energy (which is mainly devoted to plasma fusion). They would also have a conflict of interest by this standard, since they get to pick and choose who publishes papers on both plasma fusion and cold fusion, and obviously they are convinced that both phenomena exist. They have much more editorial control than a librarian does. Are you going to exclude them, as well?

In any case, LENR-CANR.org is the world's leading anti-cold fusion website, as well as the largest pro-cold fusion site. We are strictly even-handed. We include nearly every skeptical, anti-cold fusion paper ever published. Thousands of papers have been written about cold fusion, including at least 1,200 peer-reviewed papers. Out of all these papers, there are only 5 or 10 that deny cold fusion exists, or that list any technical reason to doubt that it exists. We have asked all of the authors of these papers for permission to upload. Some said yes, so we have copies of four of these papers. There are no others.

- Jed Rothwell

Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

Your slippery slope argument holds no water. We evaluate sources, subjects, and articles for inclusion on a case-by-case basis. There are undoubtably sources in your library which can be used here. There are also sources which cannot be used here. Just because a source is in your library does not mean that the source must be worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. You cannot impose the goals of your organization onto Wikipedia. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am imposing nothing. A large majority of people who know something about this field will agree that these books are important. That includes even some of the leading anti-cold fusion skeptics, who have cited these books.

It also includes other librarians, such as the U. Utah librarians and scientists who are collecting papers from Beaudette and others. They know as much about cold fusion as I do, and along with nearly every scientist who has read the literature, they are convinced that cold fusion is real. The only people who remain unconvinced are a handful of flakes who do not believe in the conservation of energy, and people such as the editor of the Scientific American, who has read nothing about cold fusion, and who knows nothing. He told me he has never read a paper on cold fusion because it is "not his job." His editorials and articles bear this out. They are full of ridiculous mistakes.

YOU are the one who is imposing an arbitrary, personal standard. Have you even read these books? Do you know who wrote the forwards? Have you read any reviews, blurbs, or attacks on these books? Do you know what their Amazon.com ranking is? I and others have evaluated all of these factors before selecting these books. We include some obviously rotten-to-the-core nonsense polemics such as Taubes, because they are somewhat important. What are YOUR standards for excluding these books?

- Jed Rothwell

Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

If you can provide us with evidence that the references that have been removed are cited in mainstream publications or have received enough notability to make them important for consideration to our article, then please do so. However, the standard for inclusion of material published by marginal publishing presses must be higher than that published by those that are mainstream. To establish the necessity for the inclusion of these books, please show that these books are prominent enough to, for example, have generated a reviews or have been referenced extensively in books and publications that are not solely the purview of the fringe community. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

"If you can provide us with evidence that the references that have been removed are cited in mainstream publications or have received enough notability to make them important for consideration . . ."

I did that! The first message in this section lists the reasons. U. Utah established a special collection for Beaudette's papers and manuscripts. Mallove was reviewed in the New York Times and elsewhere and nominated for a Pulitzer. The forwards and reviews are written by important people such as Clarke. What more do you want? Do the authors have to win a Nobel Prize in literature?

Speaking of which, three of the cold fusion authors do have Nobel laureates, albeit in physics not literature. You call this a "fringe community" but you have no objective basis for saying that. That designation is absurd. There are, as I said, 2,500 authors, and they probably include a large fraction of the world's electrochemists. Authors in our library include Heinz Gerischer, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin; Dr. P. K. Iyengar, director of BARC and later chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission; Prof. Melvin Miles, Fellow of China Lake; a retired member of the French Atomic Energy Commission; three of the editors of major plasma fusion journals that I mentioned previously, and many top researchers from U.S. national laboratories. Who the hell are you to claim this is a "fringe community"?!? YOU are the fringe element here! Cold fusion is mainstream. It was replicated in hundreds of labs such as Los Alamos and BARC, and these replications were published in some of the world's top peer-reviewed journals.

Peer-reviewed replications are the only standard of importance in science. Not your opinion or your arbitrary exclusion. You are not a journal editor. The Jap. J. of Applied Physics is Japan's number one journal of physics. It published several of Mizuno's papers (as author and co-author). It published a special issue devoted to cold fusion. His two books were published by one of Japan's largest academic publishers. Therefore, Mizuno is important. What standard do you apply that makes him unimportant? An ouija board?

- Jed Rothwell Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the concerns about the particular sources that were removed. You are just commenting on the authors rather than the books. So, for example, you need to address the fact that the books themselves have not received recognition. Just because the author is of some renown does not mean every book he's ever written is worthy of inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "you need to address the fact that the books themselves have not received recognition." Look, for crying out loud, do you speak language? The books HAVE -- I repeat HAVE -- received recognition. They have been nominated for major prizes, reviewed in major newspapers, and sold in much higher numbers than most academic books. They have been praised by some of the most prestigious scientists in the world, and attacked by some of the leading opponents of cold fusion. The original manuscript of one has been acquired by U. Utah, which is one of the largest university libraries in the world, and the place where cold fusion was discovered. What more can you ask for?!? What standards do you have in mind? Are you expecting an endorsement from the Scientific American? No doubt you have dreamed up some new, arbitrary standard of "recognition." You should at least tell us how far you have moved the goalposts, and in which direction. No one else uses your imaginary standards of excellence, so please tell us what they are.

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this objection based in policy? WP:UNDUE doesn't seem to say anything about whether sources have gained recognition in mainstream media. If they are not self-published and not the opinions of a single person, I don't see what policy can exclude them. 89.12.160.59 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This objection is based on my interpretation of WP:N, WP:RS, WP:EL, WP:FRINGE, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SOAP. I get the impression from all these policies and guidelines that my request for books published by what may be termed "vanity presses" to be referenced by outside sources is totally legitimate. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I get it. You have declared John Wiley & Sons and Kougakusha to be "vanity presses." They are among the biggest publishers in the world, but not big enough for you. That's hilarious. Why don't you dream up some more outrageous and arbitrary reasons to censor information you don't like?

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Where have I asked for a book published by Wiley or Kougakusha to be excised from the article? I have no problem offering people a book available by these presses. However, it looks to me like these books are no longer published by those presses for reasons we can only surmise. As such, we are definitely under no obligation to advertise books that have been reprinted by vanity presses because the original publishers now feel that the books should no longer be printed. Complain to Wiley and Kougakusha, not to editors trying to keep Wikipedia free from cruft. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, Mallove was published by Wiley, and then reprinted by Infinite Energy Press. (That was actually a gift from the Wiley editor to Mallove, because it was a major source of income for him.) Mizuno was published by Kougakusha, and then translated by me, and reprinted by Infinite Energy Press with permission from Kougakusha. Kougakasha does not publish in English. A translation is a reprint. That is to say, publishers and authors usually get royalties from English to Japanese translations, and Infinite Energy pays royalties to Mizuno, not to the translator. I don't know if they pay Kougakusha or not.

In any case, whether these books are published by obscure publishers or major ones, the consensus of opinion by people on both sides of the debate is that these books are important. Supporters recommend these books; skeptics attack them by name; and skeptics like you frantically try to erase them. That proves they are important.

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. I have included the ISBN for the Wiley book as we should not be in the business of getting Mallove income (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). Since the Kougakasha book was translated and not published by a legitimate English publishing press, it will not appear in our references. If you want to include the Japanese version, that's fine with me. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"I have included the ISBN for the Wiley book as we should not be in the business of getting Mallove income . . ."

Mallove is dead. I do not think his estate gets any income because Infinite Energy is tax exempt. The Wiley ISBN version is no longer sold.

"Since the Kougakasha book was translated and not published by a legitimate English publishing press, it will not appear in our references. If you want to include the Japanese version, that's fine with me."

We are not supposed to include foreign language sources here. YOU have no business declaring that Infinite Energy is not a legitimate press. Thousands of cold fusion researchers consider it legitimate, and that makes it legitimate for this purpose, in this context. Your opinion of cold fusion has nothing to do with this. A major publisher of creationist literature is still a major publisher, even if creationism itself is bogus science.

Please stop vandalizing this article and stop inserting your own opinions. The only opinions that count here are those expressed by experts in cold fusion, such as Mallove and Beaudette. Not yours, and not mine.

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the creation science Wikipedia article includes 17 books by creationists. They come from publishers such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, and from several obscure publishers I have never heard of. I think that creationism is bogus science, and I expect ScienceApologist agrees. But neither of us has any right to barge into that article, declare that "Answers in Genesis" is not a legitimate publisher, and start erasing titles. We do not get to decide who is important or legitimate in creationism. Only the creationists do. Obviously they are a "fringe science" but again, that does not give us the right to disrupt their presentation or insert our opinions. That article is about creationism, not what Jed and Mr. Apologist think of creationism.

Note that the creationist bibliography is split between creationist and anti-creationist books. Perhaps we should split the cold fusion bibliography, for clarity.

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have been heavily involved in the creation science page and can say that there are plenty of sources which give AiG notability through, for example, critical review. Note that we have an article on the subject. That's the kind of notability I'm asking for from the three printing presses I am questioning here. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You did not read what I wrote. Yes, even I have have heard of AiG, but, I repeat, there are also "several obscure publishers I have never heard of." I doubt you have heard of them either. Probably, no one outside the creationist community has heard of them. But I do not see you barging in there and erasing them. The people in that community know which authors are prominent, and you do not. I know which authors are widely read in the cold fusion community, and which books have been reviewed and praised by leading experts, and attacked by leading skeptics. You do not. You have not even read these books. So you should stop imposing your unfounded, ignorant opinions on this article. It is bad enough that you stuff unscientific foolishness into the article, but when you censor out legitimate sources of real information, you go too far.

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This argument is fallacious. We aren't dealing with the creation science article, we're dealing with the cold fusion article. If you want to delete problematic references at creation science, be my guest. However, there is no requirement that an editor run around keeping every article to the same standard. I'll worry about creation science at a later date. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

"This argument is fallacious."

Well, if so, at least I make an argument, whereas you bully and censor and impose your own opinions with no regard for the scientific consensus.

"We aren't dealing with the creation science article, we're dealing with the cold fusion article. If you want to delete problematic references . . ."

Ah, so there are different standards for different Wikipedia articles? You get to make up the rules as you go along. I see.

Anyway, you are wrong. These references are not problematic. You say they are, but you know nothing about the subject, nothing about these books, and you have no logical reason to say they are problematic. You are trying to censor information you don't like, and you do not even bother to invent an excuse to do it. You are violating Wikipedia rules.

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to read the Wikipedia policies on civility and no personal attacks. Currently you are not engaging in proper talk page etiquette and will quickly find yourself losing editing privileges if you keep up this kind of advocacy. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Rothwell, Apologist's above statement seems to be correct. Now, please be aware that there is no cabal and that the Apologist, Someguy1221, myself, and various other editors of this page have considerable knowledge of physics. Your rationale for including the references seems to be 'these are good books'. Unfortunately, that is not the same as Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Relevance. If these references are to be included here, you must provide concise, neutral, reasons for them to be included. This is not 'these are good books' or even 'these are important books' but something like 'this is a standard reference work' - but then you need to justify that statement. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made it abundantly clear that these are standard reference books, and they are considered important by experts in this field.

Your knowledge of physics has no bearing on this discussion unless you have read these books and you can list reasons why they are NOT important, and NOT standard references. Even then, you are outvoted by the experts in the field who wrote the forwards and positive reviews of these books.

I have not said these are good books. As a matter of fact, the ones by Taubes and Huizenga are dreadful. See my mini-review of Taubes here, on p. 4 and 5:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf

Taubes is out of print, so it is obscure, and I am probably one of the few people who has actually read it, yet I agree it should remain on this list.

Regarding civility, you are bullying; imposing your point of view without justification; overruling expert opinion; and inventing arbitrary rules that are not applied in other Wikipedia articles such as the creation science article. You people are much ruder than I am.

- Jed Rothwell

You will need to calm down or you will find yourself subject to blocking and perhaps even banning. I suggest that you take a Wikibreak as you are obviously too heated to engage in rational discussion right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop reverting. You have reverted one more time that I have, because I started this round; i.e., if I reverted 3 times, you must have done 4.

I doubt you would recognize a rational discussion if it bit you on the butt. Anyway, I will not let you gag my friends and censor out the truth as long as I am allowed in here. You can fill the article with your unscientific, unsourced "skeptical" nonsense all you like, but I will not let you hide the truth completely. People deserve a chance to see these books, so they can learn the facts.

Also, by the way, I don't respond well to threats. If you can block me and censor me as one of your bullying tactics, go ahead and do it. Don't waste your time threatening to do it.

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this conversation is over. Unless someone has some new information as to the relevance of these few books, I think we should stop with this back-and-forth. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to decide who is censoring whom. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Is the lack of theory a reason to dismiss cold fusion, according to the 2004 DOE panel ?

Editors have conflicting view on it. Please help resolve the dispute. This RFC continues a discussion started here.Pcarbonn (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of a theory is a peferctly good reason to dismiss something that's never been observed. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The problem here is that the 2004 DOE panel was evenly split on the observation of excess heat, so that a neutral point of view cannot assume that "it has never been observed". None of those who rejected the evidence in 2004 said that they did it because of a lack of theory. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The title of this section makes no sense, for two reasons:

1. Lack of theory is never a valid reason to reject replicated experimental results. That violates the scientific method at the most fundamental level. When theory conflicts with experiment, theory always yields.

2. The 2004 DoE panel never asserted anything like this. Very few scientists are so ignorant of the scientific method that they would claim this. The only opponent of cold fusion who says this is John Huizenga. The others all claim, falsely, that the effect was never replicated. They pretend that hundreds of peer-reviewed papers do not exist. This is what a few members of the DoE review panel did.

Someguy wrote: "Lack of a theory is a perfectly good reason to dismiss something that's never been observed." That is true, but it has no bearing on this discussion, because cold fusion has been observed thousands of times in hundreds of laboratories, often at very high signal to noise ratios.

I see the level of confusion and scientific illiteracy here remains as high as ever. People who have read nothing and who know nothing feel they have a solemn obligation to trash research and erase the titles of books written by actual scientists about the actual subject. I should stop wasting my time here. I have to hand it to the supporters of cold fusion, who have done a remarkable job holding off the forces of ignorance and censorship, but I still feel it is a futile task. If you want to learn about cold fusion, or any other science, you need to go to legitimate sources of information such as peer-reviewed journals and the books by Storms, Beaudette and the others that the fanatics here are so anxious to erase.

- Jed Rothwell

When theory conflicts with experiment, theory always yields. This is not true. When a student measures the acceleration due to gravity in the lab to be 8 +/- 0.5 m/s^2, that does not mean we throw out Newton's Theory of Gravity. Sometimes experiments give erroneous results due to systematics, human error, etc. When there is no consistent theory that can be offered which explains an experimental result: one sometimes looks with suspicion on the experimental result. This is basic experimental methodology: skepticism about misleading measurements is important and can only be provided by theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "This is not true. When a student measures the acceleration due to gravity in the lab . . ." I meant replicated, peer-reviewed experiments that have been repeated thousands of times in hundreds of labs. Not undergraduate mistakes. I expect you understood that is what I meant, and your counter-example is a red herring. Please be serious.

- Jed Rothwell

Excess heat has been observed, neutron emission has been observed, but no results have been observed that are consistent with known processes of nuclear fusion as accepted by the quantum physics. There's a reason mainstream physics doesn't believe in cold fusion, and it's not because it doesn't fit nicely into their longstanding theories. The DoE's report shows they were very unconvinced that the heat observed resulted from nuclear fusion, even if the actual source remained unknown. Thus, they are not dismissing the evidence of nuclear fusion, merely doubting the interpretations. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Someguy wrote:

"Excess heat has been observed, neutron emission has been observed, but no results have been observed that are consistent with known processes of nuclear fusion as accepted by the quantum physics. . . ."

Neutrons are seldom observed, and only at rates ~11 million times too small to explain the reaction. Helium is always present in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion. Some theorists disagree with your statement. They feel that quantum physics can explain the reaction. In any case, you cannot reject or ignore replicated experiments just because they appear to violate theory. That turns the scientific method upside down.

"There's a reason mainstream physics doesn't believe in cold fusion . . ."

That's why SOME mainstream physicists don't believe the results. That is also why many chemists do believe the results. Chemists are more used to dealing with the real world, and not idealized theories. See the comments by Gerisher, for example: "there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys." You "skeptics" sometimes imagine that you speak for everyone, but thousands of distinguished scientists such as Gerisher disagree with you, and they find the evidence "overwhelming."

"The DoE's report shows they were very unconvinced that the heat observed resulted from nuclear fusion . . ."

The DoE report was a fiasco, in my opinion. I have a low opinion most of the panelist's comments. Most of them got a smattering of information, they glanced at a few papers, and then they jumped to conclusions. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm

You need to read peer-reviewed papers instead of the half-baked opinions of DoE panelists. People spend years writing these papers. The panelists spent a few hours.

- Jed Rothwell

This is fast descending into speculative original research that cannot possibly lead to improving the article. The opinions of Jed Rothwell are not verifiable nor are they going to dictate the form of the article since consensus, neutrality, and reliable sourcing are what governs how articles get written. I suggest tabling this discussion as it has degenerated into a debate over the merits of cold fusion rather than an honest attempt to improve this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is attempt by self appointed scientific censors to delete or block positive evidence and but a skeptic spin what is left in. Improving an article means giving the relevant facts to the reader and let the reader decide. Ron Marshall (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Another red herring! The opinions of Jed Rothwell have nothing remotely to do with the issues under discussion. Jed Rothwell did not invent the scientific method, and he is not the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin, and he has not performed or published any research -- original or unoriginal. He did not write any of the books listed here, and he is not mentioned in any of these books. He is completely, utterly, absolutely irrelevant and you are trying to personalize the discussion, and use ad hominem arguments.

Are you suggesting that the opinions and information published by the Director of the Max Planck Institute and researchers at BARC or Los Alamos are "not reliable" or "not important"? What would be important? Who are we supposed to quote?

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What quote are you wanting to include in the article and where? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to insert any quote into the article. I referred to the quote from Gerisher in this discussion, above. When you wrote: "This is fast descending into speculative original research . . ." I assumed you meant this discussion right here, in this box. I have not made any speculative comments here.

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The accusation of scientific illiteracy can also be leveled against those who write about sketchy fringe theories and attempt to pass them off as consistent with the best scientific understanding. (Example: Widom Larsen heavy electrons passed off as "mainstream". Example: the four deuteron reaction sourced to an article that said the two-deuteron reaction was 10⁴ times more likely. Example: Swartz' theory sourced to a 1955 article.) Experiments test theory, but theory guides the experimentalists on what to test. Without theory, experimentalists have an infinite set of possibilities to search. It is a notable part of the evaluation of cold fusion science as a whole that the expected back and forth between theory and experiment is so impoverished. JohnAspinall (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Outside comments. First, it is very hard to understand what the issue being disucssed is, since it is not clear in what context the controversial paragraph was used in (and the RfC thread is already filled with what I assume are comments from the involved parties). In other words, a diff or some other help is needed for outsiders to understand how the paragraph fits into the article. Second, it seems as you are making this debate and the controversial paragraph much more compliacted than it needs to be, since the DOE report [10] is both clear and easy to read (I assume conclusions 4 and 5 are relevant to this discussion). In conclusion, I did not understand neither the removed paragraph nor this discussion, but I did understand the report. Therefore, I believe it should be possible to present the information in the report in a way such that everybody can agree on what its conclusions are. Labongo (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Here is a diff higlighting the change. While conclusion 5 of the 1989 report is still relevant, its conclusion 4 has been significantly change by the second DOE panel, in 2004: the panel was evenly split on the evidence of excess heat, i.e. heat that cannot be explained by current theories or experimental artifacts. That's why it becomes important to explain that theory cannot be used to exclude experimental results, as quoted above. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Absence of a theory is a reason to be skepticall, but it's not a reason to outright reject a result. In this case "being skeptical" would mean taking a hard look at any proposed experimental evidence. But "taking a hard look" isn't the same as rejecting it out of hand, so I'll agree with the opinions that it's should not be listed in and of itself as a reason to reject cold fusion. The question of whether the 2004 DOE report said it was a reason to reject it is a different question-- that should be a simple problem of finding a citation; did they say that, or not? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The DOE certainly did not say that lack of theory can be a reason to dismiss cold fusion. I presented evidence that it actually said that the lack of theory cannot be a reason to dismiss cold fusion. See discussion here.Pcarbonn (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved cold fusion to cold fusion research

My quick glance at the article failed to find much significant information about what cold fusion is, which is not surprising since the DOE said:

Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not,

stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.

I hesitate to call this a "controversy", although there is a certainly a scientific dispute. Perhaps this is merely protoscience; I hope so, because cheap energy would benefit the third world tremendously.

The possibility that it's protoscience does not necessarily lead to cheap energy. It is possible that the eventual benefit of the unknown effect or effects called "cold fusion" will be slightly better battery technology, or an alternative method of hydrogen storage. Or an interesting laboratory demonstration with no practical application. The personality clashes we see here, and the larger "controversy" are evidence that many egos, and much money, are being bet on the possibility that it has to turn out big, important and earth-shattering. But it doesn't have to turn out that way. JohnAspinall (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But I think what our readers are looking for is research about the "cold fusion" elusive effect. We should be fair to the possibility that it can be / has been produced, while not exaggerating anything. If the mainstream of physics is saying things like, "Sorry, gentlemen, we simply cannot reproduce your results", then the burden is on the proponents. Anyway, we can be neutral here in the contributor club, can't we? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

article names should cause the least surprise. I think Cold fusion is a better term and there should be a consensus before a new name is adopted. Ronnotel (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that tacking the word "research" onto the title of this article achieves anything valuable. I oppose this move. The rationale offered makes no more sense to me than would moving Dog to Dog information on the grounds that most people who try to go to Dog are looking for information. Cardamon (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Being bold

I know it's extreme, but I have reverted this to the 2004 Featured Article version. The amount of edit warring and POV-pushing that has cgone on here is breathtaking, the hundreds of to-and-fro edits have fragmented the article while obscuring the clarity that was in the original. It would be good, I think, to work back up from this adding new published research available since 2004, measuring every source and sentence against WP:NPOV and WP:RS. What we don't need is conflicted editors promoting thier own commercial interests, so I'm going to ask that Jed Rothwell restrict himself to short, factual statements on this discussion page and resist the temptation to indulge in lengthy segues. Just the facts, please, and only those facts available in rock-solid sources. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "I'm going to ask that Jed Rothwell restrict himself to short, factual statements on this discussion page . . . Just the facts, please, and only those facts available in rock-solid sources." All of my sources are rock solid, from peer-reviewed mainstream journals. Every statement I make can be checked on line at LENR-CANR.org against journal papers (or proceedings papers similar to the journal papers). The statements made by skeptics have never passed peer-review -- apart from Morrison's paper. Their assertions are all unfounded nonsense or lies. Despite the best efforts of honest supporters, Wikipedia is still a disgrace where censorship, mob rule, and unsourced opinions steamroll over objective science. Now YOU have arbitrarily erased months of work, and you have the chutzpah to call ME disruptive?

No self-respecting researcher will contribute to this article as long as you carry on this way. You make a mockery of science, fairness, objectivity, and academia. You "skeptics" should be ashamed of yourselves, and you should take a moment -- just one moment -- to consider the possibility that you are wrong and the 2,500 researchers who have observed the cold fusion effect are right. Think carefully: the laws of thermodynamics still work, x-ray film and mass spectrometers still work. Thousands of positive experiments are meaningful. Think about what you have done, and the harm it has caused. Why are you so angry? Why do you trash researchers, censor their references, and attack them so harshly? You know nothing about this research, and nothing about the books you erase, and yet you are certain you are right! This is hubris. I have been angry too long, and have exhausted the well of acrimony, but I shall never cease pitying you people, or mourning the damage you have done.

- Jed Rothwell

Your arguments have been spectacularly unpersuasive in the past and continue to be so now. So instead of long rambling discourse about how you are right and everybody else is wrong, please stick to short factual statements supported from credible peer-reviewed sources. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not like he didn't try. I would ask you to review the discussion about the books by Mallove et al., and see for yourself if mr.Rothwell was given a fair opportunity to defend his reasons. Personally I think that the comments about removing the ISBN for the second publishing of the Mallove book "because we are not supposed to help Mallove get income" speak for themselves. Like every other ISBN link for every other still-available book didn't contribute to the author's income.... (And leaving aside the sad part about Mallove being, you know... dead). The bad faith in the insinuation about Wiley not publishing the book anymore meaning that it has been "found unfit for publishing by Wiley" is also hilarious, knowing that even classics of literature and university textbooks still used in classes routinely go out of print without anybody calling them "disqualified" by that. --81.208.60.199 (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll forgive a little scepticism here, I hope. A new anonymous user appearing to back up another anonymous user just when we've asked him to desist form promoting his own interests? Looks a bit fishy. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I do forgive, actually, I know sockpuppets abound around here. Anyway, I'm not Rothwell, and I admit that he did himself a great disservice by bursting in the way he did. But I think that it's quite clear how most of his opposers didn't ever bother with listening to what he actually had to say. One of then flatly stated that NO SENSIBLE CORROBORATIONS of any kind emerged after 1989 about this topic, and that claiming otherwise is "POV-pushing". How are you supposed to present a person with "factual statements supported form credible sources" if they deny their existence?.

Rothwell gave some reasons for his conduct. They could have been questioned in a civil manner, editors could have asked him to present more proofs: but the most vocal ones just decided to brand him as a crank from the start and be done with it. Concerning the books the links could have been simply put as "Originally published by XXXX (ISBN), then reprinted/translated by YYYYY", saving all the drama. Nobody cared. So much for wikilove, assuming good faith and all those other empty words. --81.208.60.199 (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly new to this subject either, a friend of mine did his PhD in one of Fleischmann's labs and did some work on the original experiments. He is now a full professor at a British university and author of a standard undergraduate text. His view, if I recall our last conversation about it, is that science has rejected the argument that is it cold fusion, but that the amount of energy liberated in the reaction is still something of a mystery, just not one that anybody cares enough to work on. Regardless, where are the recent stories in mainstream scientific journals? The original paper was in Nature, wasn't it? So it should be in the chemistry journals at least. That does not appear to be the case. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Again.... there were lots of references to journal articles before the last revolution in this article. I don't remember them by heart obviously, but maybe I'll dig them out the old version when I find time. Many of those probably linked to lenr-canr, but in no way the site was the only possible source for articles. Concerning recent stories in reputable jounals... the papers by Iwamura and others in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics. Italian ENEA's so-called "Report 41", by De Ninno and Frattolillo (I would link to an Italian state TV report about those articles and the involvement of Carlo Rubbia with them, but I can't find an english-subtitled version). The US Navy research works. Yeah, it's a controversial topic if there ever was one, but the controversy is NOT OVER. And there is people working to clear the matter once and for all. Your friend's opinion is a common one, and in the nineties it would have been pretty much correct, but he simply wasn't really up to date with recent activities inside and especially outside the USA.

I took the time to read the papers I am mentioning before intervening here. I lent the book by Mallove at the physics library of my university and read it. Rothwell obviously has read many more, while one of the users who ganged up against him insisted that the "only recent development in cold fusion" was the sonofusion affair at Purdue, something that has NOTHING to do with Fleischmann-Pons type experiments or anything that evolved from them.... i.e. he doesn't even know what he's writing about. And some people wonder why Rothwell loses it.... --81.208.60.199 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert sock sleuth, but IMHO 81.208.60.199 (talk · contribs) is not a new anon nor does it seem very likely to be a sock for Jed 66.32.161.85 (talk · contribs). Ronnotel (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As you say, this is indeed extreme, but it seems like a good place to start - especially since the only recent cold-fusion related item I recall is the research misconduct case at Purdue. However, please do keep the protection on the page for the moment. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. What I would like to see is a succinct summary of the DOE report and perhaps the ACS conference but not much more as not much else has happened. The article that was restored is, in my opinion, fairly good. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the SPAWAR work with CR-39 radiation detectors from 2006 is probably an exception. I believe the findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal and there was some independent (not-entirely-conclusive) verification. Ronnotel (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest to start from the last stable version, ie. something like this one of end september. It is much expanded compared to the FA, and provides a lot of sources. It was the result of intense discussions, and has been pretty stable for a long time: presumably, it is not so controversial.

If this is not agreable, could we at least use some sections from it, such as the history ? Thanks in advance. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind looking at sections on a case-by-case basis, but I would not like to start from that version which reads much more horribly than this one. The history section I'm not too fond of, either. I think a lot of the wording is questionable. We can workshop it if you like. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting to the 2004 article is totally unacceptable behavior. I reverted to the September 2006 version so skeptics can see what it feels like. These revisions need to stop until there is full discussion on them. Otherwise non-skeptic revisions will be made without discussion.Ron Marshall (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's disruption to prove a point, something you have been warned against doing in the past. Keep it up and you will be subject to sanction. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I do not think you wood come off all them well in a comparison of ethics. Ron Marshall (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with ScienceApologist. Just because that version stood for a relatively long time does not mean it was valuable. In particular, (and you will recall our discussions on the Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Science page) that was about the time I was beginning to question all the cold fusion theories on their connection to any basis in conventional science. Now that I've spent effort looking into every one of them, I would not like to see that shopping list of nonsense reappear. At the risk of making an assumption of bad faith, I think that certain entries there came close to deliberate intellectual dishonesty. (I'm thinking in particular of the cite for the 4-deuteron theory, which actually pointed at a paper offering evidence against the theory.)

I have two recommendations for vetting future edits:

• Follow the citations. Just because someone cites the Respectable Peer Reviewed Journal of Whatever, it doesn't mean that the cited article actually verifies the claim.
• Watch for cut'n'paste jobs from New Energy Times. The history in the September version bears a strong resemblance to http://newenergytimes.com/PR/TheSeminalPapers.htm ; not just in general content which you would expect, but also in specific choices of phrase.

JohnAspinall (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am having a hard time understanding how a behavior by a censor is okay and the same behavior by someone else is not. JohnAspinall, I was there when the text was created and you are totally and completely wrong about the source. Ron Marshall (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a correlation between

• "On April 10, 1989, Fleischmann and Pons published their 8-page "preliminary note" in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. The paper was rushed, very incomplete and contained a clear error with regard to the gamma spectra." from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=158754774, and
• " On April 10, Fleischmann and Pons published their 8-page "preliminary note" in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. The paper was rushed, very incomplete and contained a clear error with regard to the gamma spectra." from http://newenergytimes.com/PR/TheSeminalPapers.htm .

Of the three possible explanations:

1. Wikipedia author plagiarizes from New Energy Times,
2. New Energy Times author plagiarizes from Wikipedia,
3. It was pure chance that the two texts came out the same way,

which would you propose? JohnAspinall (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The quotation was exactly identical, lacking the newer addition of "1989", when Pcarbonn added it. --Noren (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Would you accept a mediation on the following point of dispute: "Which version should we continue editing from: the Featured Article of 2004, or a more recent one, eg. this one" ? Pcarbonn (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• It seems pretty straightforward to me: either we can start form a version that made featured article, or we can start from a version that was bed enoug to get FA status withdrawn. Not a very difficult call. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So, do you accept mediation ? I would hope that the committee will reestablish the principle that wikipedia is based on facts, not opinions, that it will request you to provide sources for your opinions, and that it will be sensitive to the fact that the work of dozens of editors doing two thousands edits over the last 3 years to reflect the latest developments in the field and to provide nearly 100 reliable sources on the subject, after considerable debates on how best to present the subject (see archives), cannot be deleted by the whims of a couple of users unable to provide sources for their views. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

While not perfect, the recent version is a perfectly good basis to continue editing the cold fusion article towards feature article status. It is well supported by the most reliable sources available, in particular regarding the recent events in the field such as the 2004 DOE panel, the SPAWAR experiment, and presentations at the annual meetings of the American Physical society and the American Chemical Society.

I'll defend the position that the reversion to the 2004 FA version is requested in violation of the "neutral point of view" and "no original research" policies of wikipedia. It is an attempt to eliminate well sourced evidence for the purpose of advancing a personal opinion. I'll suggest that the best way for the other party to defend its case is to provide relevant sources in support of their point of view.

A good illustration of this issue can be found in the discussion titled "paragraph on theory vs experiment", where the other party is trying to justify the deletion of a well sourced statement. The other party is seen misquoting sources, arguing against the basic tenet of science since Galileo which says that "the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss experimental evidence", and, when it all failed, used their personal opinion to justify it. They failed to respond to the request to support their point of view that cold fusion is dismissed by mainstream science.

The reversion to the 2004 FA version is the same as the deletion of the sentence on theory vs experiment, only on a grander scale. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

About damn time. I would like you to explain the procedure for a mediation request, to the benefit of any user who would like to intervene but doesn't know the correct protocol that should be followed. --81.208.60.199 (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the procedure for mediation. Both sides need to accept it, hence my question, which I repeat again here, hoping to get an answer. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The reversion to the 2004 FA version is very good idea because it is much closer to NPOV that the recent versions. The sections on the recent activities (SPAWAR, CR-39, mechanism descriptions, etc.) were too long, which presented an erroneous impression that cold fusion is probably taking place in these experiments. It may be, but that is not yet supported by the documentation or the scientific consensus. The total amount of space devoted to the pro-cold-fusion reports should be kept short. Short discussions combined with links to key New Energy Times articles, JJAP articles, and related sources is the proper way to inform readers of the recent work. If cold fusion researchers produce articles in Physical Review Letters, Science, or Nature describing how to produce cold fusion devices (or start selling them), then those sections should be lengthened. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese Journal of Applied Physics is just as good a journal as PRL. I could agree with you about New Energy Times, but the JJAP is absolutely kosher. About the "erroneous impression that cold fusion is probably taking place in these experiments", I think that YOUR impression is the erroneous one. Since those are both IMPRESSIONS, shouldn't we just present all the purported evidence and let the reader make up his own mind? (That is NPOV, ain't it?) And by the way, the reality of nuclear fission was accepted well before that anybody had any plan for constructing a reactor, let alone a bomb, so the "when they start selling them" bit is unrealistic....

Anyway, I just got a reference for a paper that offers possible corroboration for cold fusion in the European Physical Journal A. ("Evidence for a host-material dependence of the n/p branching ratio of low-energy d+d reactions within metallic environments", Eur. Phys. J. A 27, s01, 187{192 (2006)) Is that good enough for you? --81.208.60.199 (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think most scientists, even Japanese scientists, would agree that PRL is a much more prestigious journal than JJAP. If a submitted paper showed clear evidence of cold fusion, they would publish it. Until that (or something similarly convincing) happens we should make sure that the wikipedia article stays concise and does not imply that cold fusion has been believed by mainstream scientists.

The article should reflect the weight of each side in the scientific debate (see undue weight). It so happens that much more articles in peer-reviewed journals are favorable than unfavorable. I would invite the skeptics to write more articles in peer-reviewed journals, so that we can present their views in wikipedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also invite you to look at parity of source : the skeptics view should be presented based on sources at least as reliable as the sources presented by the pro-side. I don't see any support in wikipedia policies for the idea that cold fusion statements need to be sourced by Nature or PRL. Please explain otherwise. I believe that Nature and PRL does not publish article yet because cold fusion is still a protoscience, as the article describes. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to add a sentence describing cold fusion as protoscience in the article, but, unfortunately, I have not found a reliable source saying that. It should be clear from the many sourced statements though, eg. from the DOE panel. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

By my count, the present version of the article is about 11 screens long, while the last version before the "bold move" was about 28 screens long. I will defend the proposition that, with proper links and modest updating, 11 or so screens is plenty of space to describe cold fusion, and would actually be more useful to users of wikipedia. Perhaps a split off article titled "Proposed Cold Fusion Mechansims" would help? 209.253.120.205 (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The section on proposed mechanism was fairly short. If the goal is to reduce the size of the article by splitting it, create an article on the history of cold fusion would be more effective. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

One last time: do you accept mediation on this issue, or do we go to the arbitration committee ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with mediation, as long as the mediator has a degree in physics, chemistry, or a related field. I will not participate in a mediation with a mediator who has no familiarity with scientific subjects. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now created a request for mediation here. I'm not sure whether it is possible to add participants, but feel free to do it if you want/can. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Current to-do list

Okay, so we're looking at:

1. Adding in-line references
2. Adding commentary on 2004 DOE report
3. Adding some findings on SPAWAR work
4. Discussing the LENR sessions at ACS
5. Reinclude the Taubes book (Bad Science)

Anything else?

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would add the research misconduct case at Purdue ([11]), where Rusi Taleyarkhan has been charged with obstructing tests of his work. Technically, this is bubble fusion and not cold fusion, but the distinction between the two is not clear to me. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of bubble fusion is that it is 'hot' - i.e. purportedly relies on conventional physics. I don't really see that as belonging on a page about low-energy phenomena. Ronnotel (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bubble-fusion is contentious at best: Taleyarkhan claims to be able to force deuterium to fuse by forming bubbles in deuterated acetone under room conditions, but no one has validated this. It seems like a cold fusion claim to me - fusion in the absence of high-energy radiation. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion about Taleyarkhan or the validity of bubble-powered nuclear reactions. However I disagree with your statement about absence of high energy. Bubble fusion is not theorized as fusion in the absence of high-energy radiation. It's theorized as fusion in the extremely hot interior of collapsing bubbles. Bubble fusion has never been on this page - I think we should avoid putting in new material that doesn't have consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I will point out that since no-one really knows what cold fusion is, it is hard to make this distinction. If, for instance, cold fusion were to turn out to be "crack generated" ([12]) then it would be "just as hot" as bubble fusion. JohnAspinall (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been making edits for a while now, but this version is a huge improvement. I would freeze it for a year if that were possible. When it is reopened for editing, the discussion of SPAWAR results and "alternative" mechanisms should be kept short, and the Taubes book (Bad Science) should be put back in. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

With a bit of luck, the to-do list above and a bit of polishing here and there will restore it to FA status. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting to the 2004 article is totally unacceptable behavior. I reverted to the September 2006 version so skeptics can see what it feels like. These revisions need to stop until there is full discussion on them. Otherwise non-skeptic revisions will be made without discussion.Ron Marshall (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Marshall (talk • contribs)

[ I have removed an attack from here, if the originator wants to re-state his request in less polemical terms he will be welcome to do so ]

"Kook"?

JzG, please explain what do you think is "kooky" about a repository of articles previously published in other venues, mostly conference proceedings or peer-reviewed journals, and republished with permission of the authors. (That is, http://www.lenr-canr.org/) If you think that anything outside Nature and Physical Review Letters is "kooky", then we should just delete this page and be done with it. An encyclopedia writer should at least read things before passing judgement about them, and not follow his "nose" blindly. --81.208.60.199 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are we sure they have copyright permission for every single reprint? Guy (Help!) 15:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt it, but if you have a reliable source saying that they do, let us know. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what they state on the home page, we have no reason to suppose that they lie. Anyway, it would be a problem much more for them than for us... I'm glad to see that you recognize that lenr-canr is an article repository and not a "kooky" blog --Holland-it (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Basis of evaluation

Clearly there have been dozens or hundreds of reports of anamalous temperature increases or neutron emissions occurring while researchers study the electrolysis of D₂O. Everyone agrees it would be good if we could get cheap energy this way.

What we do not agree on is the basis for evaluating these experiments. "Your" inability to reproduce "my" experiments is not a disproof of anything, of course. Perhaps the question is more an economic one.

How much money should private investors or foundations allot to this promising new line of research? Should the government subsidize it? Good gosh, man, we are already spending over one billion dollars a year to prove that human-caused global warming threatens the future of the planet! Low-temp nuclear fusion could replace coal power for electricity generation, so why don't we fund cold fusion research?

Anyway, what we as writers here need to do is to describe both sides of the issue fairly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've come here from the Fringe theories noticeboard. I'm not sure that cold fusion is a fringe theory, but I have no strong POV on the question and will edit for a bit in what seems to me to be an NPOV direction. Please revert me if I get the science wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are we sure lenr-canr.org is a reliable source? Guy (Help!) 15:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt it, but if you have a reliable source saying that they are not, let us know. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lenr-canr is mostly a repository for sources that have been published elsewhere. We need to look at each on a case-by-case basis. Anything that has no attribution or reference at LENR-CANR does not belong being referenced at Wikipedia, in my humble opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

LENR-CANR is not "mostly" a repository. It is entirely a repository, as stated on the top page. Every paper at LENR-CANR.org has an attribution or reference. You can always view the original versions at a good library, such as the Georgia Tech University library and the Los Alamos library, which is where we got most of the documents in the first place. There are a few "housekeeping" documents that have not been published elsewhere, but they are not scientific papers. There is no original research.

Many papers are from conference proceedings. These proceedings were published by the American Nuclear Society, the Societa Italiana di Fisica, Tsinghua U. and others, as noted.

Note that ScienceApologist's "humble opinion" indicates that he has not read the documents at LENR-CANR. He has not even glanced at them, or he would know they are all attributed. I am sure that he has read no papers or books about cold fusion whatever, because all of his assertions about the subject are mistaken. He has no business contributing to or editing this article.

- Jed Rothwell

Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Conference proceedings are usually quite poor resources as they are rarely (if ever) peer-reviewed and not subject to the usual editorial control of most journal publications. I suggest avoiding LENR-CANR entirely and referring to papers and publications directly. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist wrote:

"Conference proceedings are usually quite poor resources as they are rarely (if ever) peer-reviewed . . ."

That is true, but I can sometimes get carte blanche permission to reprint the papers from proceedings, whereas it is often difficult (or impossible) to get permission to reprint journal papers.

"I suggest avoiding LENR-CANR entirely and referring to papers and publications directly."

Well of course you refer to papers and publications directly. What else would you do?!? You can't "refer" to papers on LENR-CANR because we have not published any, as I just said. Every paper comes from somewhere else, so obviously you list the original location. You can copy it right out of our HTML, for example:

McKubre, M.C.H., et al., Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd Systems. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1994. 368: p. 55.

You might as well include our URL while you at it, since you want people to actually read the paper and think for themselves:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf

By "you" I don't mean you, ScienceApologist. Of course YOU don't want anyone reading anything, and you yourself wouldn't dream of reading a paper. You want to censor out all genuine scientific information, erase book titles, censor out and stomp the opposition, and replace facts with your own opinions. That's why you erased the old version of this article. That's what you mean when you talk about "avoiding LENR-CANR entirely."

- Jed Rothwell

Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop personally attacking me, Jed. You've already been blocked once. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Full protection

I've temporarily increased the protection level to this page to full protect in the face of continuing instability. Let's please resolve the outstanding issues on the talk page before undertaking massive edits. Ronnotel (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For the general interest of the discussion, here are some past decisions of the arbitration commitee regarding POV:

• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
• Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources.
• Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject.

I wish supporters of the view that cold fusion is still pseudoscience provides source for their personal views, that are at least as reliable as the 2004 DOE panel which says the contrary. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, the editors and peer-reviewers at the J. Electroanal. Chem., Fusion Sci. & Technol., Naturwissenschaften. and hundreds of distinguished scientists such as the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, government of India say that cold fusion is not pseudoscience. In a sane web site, their views would override the personal views of a handful of fanatics such as ScienceApologist -- fanatics who have never read a paper or book on cold fusion and who clearly know nothing about the subject. As long as these people are allowed to run roughshod over the carefully expressed, peer-reviewed views of world-class experts in electrochemistry and nuclear science, this article will be worthless. What we have here is mob rule by a clique of ignorant people who trample on academic traditions, and censor out anyone who disagrees with them. This is a distillation of the worst attributes of Wikipedia. The problem is that ignorant fanatics have no self-awareness, and even though they mouth platitudes about science and objectivity, it never occurs to them to read papers, learn something, or look at experimental evidence.

- Jed Rothwell

LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to butt out. Advocating links to your own website is considered a form of spamming. You don't seem to do much other than that at present. Incidentally, my friend who worked with Fleischmann is a world class expert on electrochemistry with a publicaiton list as long as your arm, an endowed chair at a British university, a worldwide lecture schedule and a standard undergraduate text to his name. And he thinks it's not fusion. And he wrote one of the control systems for one of Fleischmann's original experiments. Beware the appeal to authority. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, LENR-CANR is edited by Storms, not me. Second, I have not added any links to my own website. I have not touched the Wikipedia article in years, and neither has any cold fusion researcher as far as I know, because it is dominated by skeptics. Other people have added links to LENR-CANR.org. Most of these have been erased.

"Incidentally, my friend who worked with Fleischmann is a world class expert on electrochemistry with a publicaiton list as long as your arm, an endowed chair at a British university, a worldwide lecture schedule and a standard undergraduate text to his name. And he thinks it's not fusion."

What is the basis for his opinion? Has he published a paper describing why he thinks it is not fusion? If so, I would be happy to reprint this paper at LENR-CANR.org, if he would like.

Anyway, I know several hundred world-class electrochemists such as Bockris, Miles, Mizuno and Oriani who disagree with him. They too have published dozens of papers, including many papers about cold fusion. I invite you and your friend to read these papers, at LENR-CANR.org. I also invite you to read the anti-cold fusion papers that try to disprove the findings. Only 5 or 10 have ever been published, as far as I know, mainly by Jones and Morrison. We have nearly all of them.

I invite you to read original sources. The skeptics here, on the other hand, are trying very hard to prevent you and everyone else from reading papers.

- Jed Rothwell

LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, by the way, sorry to nitpick but what I wrote is not an appeal to authority. Quoting the definition:

"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious."

". . . Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

All of the people I quote, such as Bockris and Oriani, are widely recognized genuine authorities. Also, they published their experiments in detail, and other experts replicated them. That is the gold standard of proof that they are right. There are some people working in cold fusion who, in my opinion, are not experts, but I do not quote from them.

- Jed Rothwell

Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.176.42 (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish supporters of the view that cold fusion is still pseudoscience provides source for their personal views, that are at least as reliable as the 2004 DOE panel which says the contrary. -- I don't think that the DOE panel ruled on whether much of what is going on under the umbrella of "cold fusion research" is pseudoscience or not. Certainly there are people promoting pseudoscience as cold fusion and as such there are parts of this subject which are definitely pseudoscience. Nevertheless, there may be isolated researchers doing good work as well. That's what I get from the 2004 report. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist wrote: "Nevertheless, there may be isolated researchers doing good work as well." How would you know? You have not read any books or papers. For all you can say, all 2,500 researchers are doing good work. Or they may all be lunatics and frauds, just as Time magazine and the Washington Post say they are.

You can't begin to judge, and you have no basis to make this statement. It is pure speculation. Speculation and opinion are not allowed in Wikipedia, but you have nothing else to offer.

Or HAVE you actually read anything? Would you care to list one or two authors you have read? McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann? Did you find any mistakes?

- Jed Rothwell

Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop referring to the contributor and instead focus on the content, Jed. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I shall refrain from referring to you personally, and I shall make a general statement. The "skeptical" anti-cold fusion assertions in this discussion page, and in the article, are counter-factual. They are mistaken. I don't mean that one or two of them are slightly inaccurate, I mean that if you compare them to actual, bona fide, peer-reviewed scientific information, you will see that they are utterly wrong. For example, take this statement by some unnamed person that there "may be isolated researchers doing good work" People have different ways of defining good work, but let's take a conventional one. Let's say that "good work" is "work accepted by top-notch peer-reviewed journals, and performed at major universities and corporations by prestigious scientists, and which is replicated by hundreds of other scientists." If that's what you have in mind then there are HUNDREDS of such researchers, not a handful of isolated ones. (Most are dead or retired, so it would be more accurate to say there were hundreds.)

It seems likely to me that whoever wrote these things could not have read the literature.

- Jed Rothwell

Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

I no longer think the word skeptic is appropriate. A skeptic might allow an opposing opinion to be expressed. We have seen rampant deletion of positive evidence. Perhaps we should coin a new phrase to express it, pathological censorship.Ron Marshall (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics by definition, at least the dictionary definition, allow every opinion to be heard and simply refrain from making positive conclusions on the subjects they believe insufficiently proved. Everyone should be a skeptic in this sense, when talking about science: blame the rabid "debunkers" of CSICOP and such for giving "skeptics" a bad name.... --81.208.60.199 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Scepticism is in fact a core principle in the scientific method. {{proveit}}, as they say. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned that the "skeptical" anti-cold fusion assertions on this page are mistaken. Only a handful of anti-cold fusion papers have been published. They are equally mistaken. The Morrison paper is a good example. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

Much of the Morrison paper is devoted to the argument that ". . . a complicated non-linear regression analysis is employed to allow a claim of excess enthalpy to be made."

As Fleischmann pointed out in his rebuttal, Morrison "failed to observe that we manifestly have not used this technique in this paper."

Morrison demanded that Fleischmann et al. use another method. Again, he failed to note that Fleischmann did, in fact, use this method. Fleischmann asked: ". . . given that Douglas Morrison accepts the methods advocated by the group at General Electric and, given that we have used the same methods in the recent publication should he not have accepted the validity of the derived values?"

Another example is the Hoffman book, "A Dialog on Chemically Induced Nuclear Fusion." Most of this book is devoted to the hypothesis that cold fusion experiments were conducted with used, recycled heavy water from CANDU fission reactors. This, too, is manifestly incorrect. I contacted Ontario Hydro (now Atomic Energy of Canada), which produces all of the CANDU heavy water, as well as heavy water for laboratory use. They responded immediately with a 2-page fax pointing out that used moderator water exceeds radiation safety standards by a factor of 100,000,000, and that it is strictly against the law to sell it. They concluded: "Used moderator water can often be re-sold, but only to other reactor operators. . . . Ontario Hydro dominates the world's nuclear market for heavy water and the world's non-nuclear wholesale market, and we have never attempted to use diluted, cleaned-up old moderator water for our non-nuclear markets."

All other skeptical assertion are equally unfounded, and never fact-checked. Hoffman spent years and a grant for hundreds of thousands of dollars writing his book, but he never bothered to make a 10-minute phone call to Ontario Hydro to check his hypothesis. These "skeptical" assertions appear to be based solely on the imaginations of skeptics. I do not understand why Wikipedia allows made-up speculation to dominate this article, but it does. I further do not understand why Wikipedia allows these "skeptics" to erase actual, legitimate information from conventional sources such as peer-reviewed, mainstream journals.

- Jed Rothwell

Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From NPOV Tutorial

Information suppression

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

• Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
  • Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
  • Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).
  • Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
• Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
  • Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
  • Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
  • Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.

Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability. Ron Marshall (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• The phrase "information suppression" is a 100% proof positive indicator of a POV being pushed. Try again. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, that is precisely our point: reverting to the 2004 version results in the suppression of many well-sourced statements, and a 100% proof positive indicator of a POV being pushed. Ron and I have never deleted a well sourced statement from the article, be it pro or against cold fusion. We have never refused the deletion of a statement without sources. We would like ScienceApologist and MichaelBusch to do the same. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That reads to me, as a seasoned admin with much exprerience of POV-pushing by fringe science proponens, as follows: blah blah blah SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH™ blah blah. The 2004 version is an FA, a fairly objective measure of merit. The edits since caused demotion from FA due to POV-pushing by cold fusion kooks, whihc indicates a distinct downward trend. Instead of attacking the 2004 version, try suggesting good, well-cited, peer-reviewed content on which to build. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy - use of characterizations such as kooks does not help consensus to form. Ronnotel (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's exactly what the more recent version contains ! well-cited, peer-reviewed content ! Please tell me which sentence is not properly cited, so that we can address it.

Again I must disagree. Every single one of the cold fusion "theories" was inadequately sourced, and/or presented in POV-pushing terms to suggest they were more consistent with mainstream consensus than they are.

In addition, the FA version contained a small sub-section titled "Energy source vs power store". That subsection represented the intermediate opinion that there is a real unexplained phenomenon here, but it may not turn out to be as significant as the true believers believe. That subsection was well-written, brief, and clear. Its subsequent disappearance supports Guy's opinion of article degradation. JohnAspinall (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If true, this can be addressed by correcting the corresponding sections or statements. No need to delete 3 years of work. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that the statements on "energy source vs power store" are not properly sourced in the FA version, though. I believe that this is the reason it has been deleted, so that the article meets high NPOV standard. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot has happened since the FA version, and all editors recognize that it is wanting (see Current to-do list). Entering this information is what dozens of editors have done over the last 3 years, after intense discussion and some POV disputes (see talk archive), and the current version of the article reflects all that. Asking to do it again is disruptive, and will drive valuable editors away. It sounds groundless to me too, as it is based on arguments such as "cold fusion is pseudoscience" which are not supported by the 2004 DOE panel and peer-reviewed journals. Cold fusion is a scientific anomaly that asks for an explanation, not pseudoscience. It looks much more like the pioneer anomaly than the paranormal or N-ray. The article should reflect that, and the new version goes in that direction. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the important difference that nobody denies the existence of the Pioneer anomaly, and it has been independently verified by several separate teams. There is, on the other hand, a considerable body of physicists that does not accept that there are any anomalies associated with cold fusion other than experimental error and, in at least some cases, pathological science. LeContexte (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a difference between people saying that the pioneer anomaly could be caused by observational error, and people saying that cold fusion could be explained by observational error. In that sense, if "nobody denies the existence of the Pioneer anomaly", as you say, then "nobody denies the existence of a cold fusion anomaly". Pcarbonn (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is really comparing apples and oranges. For example, many of the most fringe-y cold fusion claims of people like Jed Rothwell read like free energy suppression. There seems to be a concerted group of pseudoscientists that have more-or-less co-opted the cold fusion idea and are even now making grandiose claims beyond the sources -- including many that have been promulgated on this talkpage and the talkpages of various editors of this article. Now certainly there are also some fringe theory supporters who include the Pioneer Anomaly on their list of things they can explain with their amazing theory of everything, but there really isn't the same concerted cruft problem that has happened with cold fusion. There are some minor developments that have happened since the FA article that need to be covered (witness the to-do list), but the way to cover them was not in the version that got steadily demoted to B-class. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and Guy, how come ScienceApologist insults are okay and Jed's are not. Ron Marshall (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It' always the others who are the conspiracists, right? Or does following the "scientific consensus" get you a free pass for accusing others of conspiracy without proving it? (Or removing their work without proving them wrong beforehand?) --Holland-it (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had no intention of insulting anybody. What I'm trying to say is that the claims made by Jed Rothwell and other supporters of the fringe-theory aspects of cold fusion read differently than those made by the people who include the Pioneer Anomaly in their "theory of everything" productions. So either you think it is an insult to characterize Jed's posts as fringe-y or an insult to state that there are pseudoscientific claims that have been made on this talkpage and on the talkpage of users. I'd like to know which it is so I can amend my statement accordingly. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be curious to see what grade the FA version would get now, and whether it would qualify for FA today. I really doubt it. The level of quality of articles has greatly increased since 2004. For example, the FA version has only 6 sources. Comparing grades of 2004 and of today is really comparing apples and oranges. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that in 2004 Wikipedia was not so strict about WP:CITE. What most of the editors here are saying is that even with the increased attention to references in the 2007 version, the article was still significantly worse. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if some sections are worse, which I doubt, this does not give you the licence to delete properly-sourced statement from the 2007. Finding adequate sources for the 2004 version, and merging the properly-sourced statement from 2007 into the FA 2004 version would be a very difficult work, in my opinion. It's much easier to improve the 2007 version. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree fully. First of all, just because a statement is properly sourced does not mean it is sacrosanct. We remove properly sourced statements from articles all the time for editorial reasons. What I think we should do is start by sourcing the 2004 FA version paragraph-by-paragraph and then sentence-by-sentence if need be. After that is accomplished we can look at including statements regarding the DOE report, SPAWAR, and the ACS conference. I anticipate those statements to be minimal (no more than one paragraph for each). At that point, we'll have an article of which we can all be proud. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the 2004 FA version does not have "sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate)". As a consequence, it would also get a B grade, according to the assessment scale. So, the fact that the 2007 version has a B grade does not mean that it is of a lower quality than the 2004 version, and that "the quality has degraded". Pcarbonn (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to see what the reviewer who gave the B-grade has to say, here: he's only asking for some copy-edit. No major POV issue, no issues with the lenght of the sections, ... and no reason to delete any of the well-sourced statements. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So, should we go to the arbitration committee then ? I'll argue that, by reverting to the 2004 version, you want to delete properly-sourced statement for the purpose of advancing an unsourced POV. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration committee does not handle content-disputes. I say that the 2004 version is better. There seems to be more people who agree with me than agree with you. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

While wikipedia is not a democracy, it would be interesting to know who would like to continue editing from the 2004 version, and who would like to continue editing from the 2007 version. Discussion on the issue should still continue though.

We did this before: Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 11#Survey (request for comment). ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The 2004 revert was done at the end of September 2006 by ScienceApologist and others. Two years of work were negated for the purpose of information suppression. Now ScienceApologist and others want to negate another year of work for information suppression. This behavior is censorship and it is not NPOV as the description of information suppression above states. Ron Marshall (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Once, again, Ron, you are commenting on contributors rather than content. Cut it out. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, in my not inconsiderable experience, pretty much 100% of allegations of "information suppression" are in fact complaints by fringe believers about WP:NPOV being correctly enforced in articles. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit from the 2007 version:

• Pcarbonn Cold fusion is not a fringe or pseudoscience, but a scientific anomaly that begs for an explanation. This is clearly explained in the 2007 version, with sources such as 2007 DOE panel which recommended further scientific research. It is not abandoned and it is developing, as exemplified by the SPAWAR experiment that was discussed at length at the 2007 annual meetings of the American Physical Society, the American Chemical Society and other scientific meetings (see Wired article). The article was demoted to B status for copy-edit reasons, not POV (see here). The reversion to 2004 is supported by unsourced opinions that are contrary to reliable facts. I wish its supporters would provide sources for their statements. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Ron Marshall (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit from the 2004 version:

• ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• User:Michaelbusch - because the version in recent years has been run over by cold fusion enthusiasts, who claim any attempt to restore this article to the scientific consensus represents 'deliberate suppression'. What would make you accept that there is no cabal? Michaelbusch (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Obviously I also support the 2004 version for the reasons stated above; working fomr a FA is always better than working from an article that was demoted from FA due to POV-pushing. In a field which is essentially abandoned and not developing it's a no-brainer. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• JohnAspinall (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can there be a disambiguation page link here?

There needs to be a link to go to Adobe ColdFusion. -- HAYSON¹⁹⁹¹ 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)  Done Guy (Help!) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page semiprotected

With due apologies to the few anonymous editors who have been thoughtfully contributing here, I have semiprotected this talk page to prevent the relentless self-promotion and abuse of Jed Rothwell. I can't rangeblock due to likely collateral damage, and he's IP-hopping. The whole talk page will be better off without him right now, I think. Good faith comments for this page posted ot my talk will be brought here as soon as I have time, no doubt other eidtors will be similarly helpful. Jed Rothwell should consider himself topic-banned for a month to let less conflicted editors settle the matter of what to do next. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Page now semi-protected

I have reduced protection level on the article to semi. Let's all please renew our efforts to assume food faith on the part of our fellow editors. I think a very good place to re-start is discussing the To-Do list that was mentioned above. Ronnotel (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

BRD cycle revert

I reverted the inclusion of an overview section. I shall now enumerate my problems with this section:

There is a basic question as to whether we need an overview at all. I'm of the opinion that the lead right now does a decent enough job explaining what cold fusion is and providing the appropriate background. Perhaps one or two more sentences can be added or rearranged, but adding an additional section seems to me to be overkill. However, I have provided explanations below for why each of the individual wordings were problematic as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Overview

The electrolysis cell

When water is electrolyzed in a closed cell surrounded by a calorimeter, all energy transfer can be accounted for using the theories of electricity, thermodynamics and chemistry: the electrical input energy, the heat accumulated in the cell, the chemical storage of energy and the heat leaving the cell all balance out. When the cathode is made of palladium and heavy water is used instead of light water, the same conservation of energy should be observed.

Comments

This seems to me to be a bit much for the article. Explanations of electrolysis should go on the electrolysis page and not on this page. Mentioning that cold fusion was electrolysis with palladium and heavy water should be sufficient. That would only require one sentence, not a paragraph. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

F&P in overview

What Fleischmann and Pons said was that the heat measured by their calorimeter significantly exceeded their expectations in some cases. They calculated a power density over 1 W/cm³ based on the volume of the cathode, a value too high to be explained by chemical reactions alone. They concluded that the effect must be nuclear, although they lacked evidence for it.

Comments

A couple problems here: This should be in a section devoted to Fleidshmann and Pons, not in the overview. Also, I'm not too happy about lenr-canr and newenergytimes being used as sources as they have obvious reliability concerns. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The overview should present succinctly what F&P have reported. The source is not lenr-canr or newenergytimes, but the original paper in Physics Letter A. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Succinctly is the key. An entire paragraph seems like overkill. Also, I'm not convinced that an overview section is needed. WP:MoS seems to be of two minds on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification here. F&P's original paper is the one in J.Electroanal.Chem., right? The link from the Physics Letters A reference actually points at a reprint labelled as being from The Third International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1991. I am OK assuming that the 3ICCF paper turned into the PhysLettA paper. I am not OK is this one being cited as a fundamental reference for "cold fusion". The word "nuclear" does not appear anywhere in this paper. The word "fusion" does not appear anywhere in this paper (except in the titles of other publications). The whole paper is about the measurement of excess enthalpy, and makes no claims at all about the sources of excess enthalpy. In particular they do not say anything like "a value too high to be explained by chemical reactions alone." What they say is "the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors". That might be considered suggestive, but it is not a clear claim about anything. JohnAspinall (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Physics Letter A paper was provided to support the energy density mentioned in the disputed statement. The rest of the statement should be obvious, but, since you challenged it, it should be better sourced. Sources can be found in the history and the See also sections of the deleted version of the article: the JElectroanal.chem, the press release of F&P, the video of their press conference, and the error they made on the interpretation of gamma spectrum, ...

If you keep putting the NewEnergyTimes POV on this, you are going to see a lot more challenges. P&F did not make an error in the "interpretation" of the gamma spectrum. They published a gamma spectrum which could not have come from a properly calibrated instrument. And if the instrument wasn't properly calibrated, then their claim to have observed the 2.2MeV gamma is invalid. Please understand that there is no "interpretation" involved. The counts come out of the multichannel analyser, and you plot them. All gamma peaks have a nearby Compton_edge. P&F's peak didn't have it. Their spectrum also did not show a separate peak for a nearby gamma that is ubiquitous in the background radiation (it comes from radon decay). While this would normally be way too much detail to include in the article, it is important because this pair of facts was responsible for the balance of judgement shifting to "not real" in the eyes of many. (See e.g. the Ron Parker interview, or Chapter 4 of the Gieryn book.) Now NewEnergyTimes goes beyond POV to falsehood, when they say P&F "corrected" the error in their later paper. Those words were copied into the Wikipedia article at one point. JohnAspinall (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I should have said "the error they made with the gamma spectrum". Sorry for that. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, please understand that the foundation of the field is the observation of unexplained, excess heat. The mechanism that explains it is unknown. A paper that discusses excess heat is in the field of cold fusion, even if it does not talk about fusion. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. No problem with that. I just want the "it must be fusion" statement to be accurately sourced. JohnAspinall (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the video of the press conference not enough ? They clearly propose that nuclear fusion is the origin of the excess heat, if I recall properly. Hence the name of the page. Whether they have put that in a scientific paper, I don't know. In any case, why the question ? Pcarbonn (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the press conference will have to do. What I was looking for was a single citeable reference where P&F say "our reasoning to conclude that it's nuclear fusion, is ...". A press conference doesn't usually permit that degree of technical reasoning. JohnAspinall (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Replication

Others have tried to replicate their observations. Many failed, but some succeeded, using a variety of setups.

Comments

Obvious POV. The idea that "some succeeded" is entirely arguable as seen in the 2004 DOE report, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They did succeed in replicating their observations. Whether this is proof of cold fusion is another story though, as the 2004 DOE report says. So this is not POV. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

According to them. Of course, according to others there were problems. This is POV because it takes a controversial claim at face-value. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we then say "Many said they failed, but some said they succeeded" ? Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We should try to see how many said they failed and how many said they succeeded, then we can apply the appropriate weight and determine whether the people who believe that success happened should be referred to in the same way as the people who believe that there was wholesale failure. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Easy: there are 200 reports of the generation of excess heat, as reported by Ed Storms. How many said they failed ? Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Journals

They reported high power densities in peer reviewed journals such as the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics and the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry.

Comments

Highly contentious. First of all, these peer review journals are, as has been said previously, somewhat out-of-the-way. More than this, we shouldn't be reporting only positive results lest we succumb to publication bias. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia only requires scientific sources, not top-notch sources. Also, 1989 panel said "Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. " So it is perfectly valid to report positive results. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and in the case of contentious claims WP:REDFLAG applies. This is a situation where we need better sourcing to come to the appropriate conclusions. These journals may not be good enough. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We could now cite some more prestigious journals: the European Physical Journal - Applied physics, Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal A and C. Would that be OK ? Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also a problem of us looking for only positive results. Finding more "prestigious journals" does not solve the problem of publication bias. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The 1989 report said : "Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary". So it is perfectly OK to look at positive results only, as long as they are valid. That's what the prestigious journals seem to think. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Review of heat

In the most recent review of the field by the DoE, some researchers believed that the experimental evidence was sufficient to establish the scientific validity of the excess heat effect. Others rejected the evidence, and the panel was evenly split on the issue. This was a significant change compared to the 1989 DoE panel, which rejected it entirely.

Comments

POV-interpretation. The majority of the DOE panel rejected the evidence. To say that "some believed" is to paint a rosier picture than the report gave. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is simply not correct. Please go back to the 2004 DOE report. Here is the full quote: "The excess power observed in some experiments is reported to be beyond that attributable to ordinary chemical or solid state sources; this excess power is attributed by proponents to nuclear fusion reactions. Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic." So you could also say : "the majority of the DOE panel accepted the evidence. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You know very well that I have read the DOE report, Pcarbonn. While the reviewers were split evenly as to whether there was excess power, this is a technical iteration away from cold fusion, of course, and since systematics are not discussed explicitly in the DOE report it is contentious to include such a statement without the accompanying disclaimer that the DOE report rejected cold fusion interpretations. In effect, what this statement does is mislead the reader into thinking that this statement is something more important than a technicality. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, because cold fusion is about the generation of excess heat, this is more important "than a technicality". The systematics are discussed in the DOE report: it explains the reasons for the rejection of the excess heat, as described in later section of the deleted version of the article (which I'm certainly in favor of including). The disclaimer that the DOE report rejected cold fusion comes in the next sentence, so I don't see the issue with this sentence.Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, simply, that it is misleading to readers who are not reading carefully. We don't need a sentence that is that iteratively complicated. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish we could make it simpler, but that would be very difficult to do without introducing bias. What do you mean by "it is misleading to readers" ? Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Review of nuclear reactions

The search for products of nuclear fusion has resulted in conflicting results, leading two thirds of the 2004 DoE reviewers to reject the possibility of nuclear reactions.

Comments

Again, a POV-interpretation. Claiming a controversy of "conflicting results" here is something that isn't sourced. To source this, you will need to find a mainstream, uninvolved scientist who reports that the results are indeed "conflicting".

I agree that the wording of the first part could be improved, and better sourced. The DOE part of the statement is correct though.Pcarbonn (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also the issue of 2/3 rejecting the possibility of nuclear reactions. In fact, this is a very stringent rejection and there were less-stringent rejections made as well. Only one reviewer actually supported cold fusion claims. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you agree with the second part of the statement ?Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the way it is worded as it seems to be misleading. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it seems to be misleading" ? You say : "it is a very stringent rejection". I do not think so: they are many scientific debates that would have the same type of evaluation, e.g. the pioneer anomaly: how many scientists would say that the anomaly is real, i.e. explainable only by new physics ? Is it a reason to reject research in the field ? No.

I would argue that the article should reflect the view of the DOE: this means adequate recognition to those who find the evidence convincing. Presenting the field as fully rejected by mainstream is a gross oversimplification. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Navy

In 2006, Pamela Mosier-Boss and Stanislaw Szpak, researchers in the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego, reported evidence of high-energy nuclear reactions concentrated near the probe surface. Based on this work, two other teams have reported similar findings at the American Physical Society meeting of March 2007 (sessions A31 and B31).

Comments

Problematic. First of all, why is a US Navy scientist reporting in a German journal? Seems supicious. Also, we should not user LENR-CANR: there are other neutral archive servers we can use. Finally, almost anyone can report conference proceedings which are not peer-reviewed and are only subject to minimal oversight. What's important is to document the response at the conference -- but this is almost impossible to do. So we should find a neutral third-party journalist who reported on the session if we want to discuss the APS meeting. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have suspicion in a German journal? Please do not show American bias. Feel free to provide other servers for papers, but that's not a reason to delete the statement. Since when journalists are considered reliable sources on scientific subjects ??? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The US Navy is an American institution. If this was the German Navy then I can see why they would publish in a German journal. Journalists are reliable sources when it comes to reporting on social events which is basically what a conference is. Conference proceedings are the opinions of the attendees and notoriously biased accounts. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The SPAWAR team also reported their results in the European Physical Journal - Applied Physics. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't they get it published in an American journal? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. But this is not important to me. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Theory

One reason for many to exclude a nuclear origin for the effect is that current theories in physics cannot explain how fusion could occur under such conditions. However, the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss the reported evidence. Many theories have thus been proposed, in a continuing effort to explain the reported observations.

Comments

Ridiculously POV. The statement that "the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss the reported evidence." might as well read: "mainstream skepticism against cold fusion is wrong." That is completely unacceptable for inclusion here. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is your interpretation of the sentence. The sentence is well-sourced from the 2004 DOE, and entirely relevant. We discussed this already.[13] I'm about to raise the issue to the arbitration committee if you still delete it. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't sourced: it is cherry-picking an idea and massaging it to fit a pro-cold fusion POV. This statement is entirely unacceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, MichaelBusch did delete this sentence again.[14], and I have raised the issue to the arbitration committee.

Again, the statement is properly sourced. At the same time, please provide a source saying that cold fusion can be rejected based on a lack of theory. None of the 2004 DOE reviewers have used the lack of theory as a reason for rejection: they are scientists after all. If mainstream skepticism is based on the lack of theory, it is wrong. If wikipedia wants to be a reliable source of information, it cannot represent that view. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, making a statement that is supposed to tell the reader what to think about whether to dismiss evidence or not is not acceptable per WP:NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand your reasoning. Please explain. This statement is sourced by a reliable secondary source; as such it is entitled to "draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims". Wikipedia article should use secondary sources for such purpose. Where is the problem ? Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Patents

The US Patent Office accepted a patent in cold fusion in 2001.

Comments

Trivia. The US Patent office accepts a lot of dubious patents. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I find this relevant, but won't make a big fuss about it. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Future studies

Still, current knowledge of the effect, if it exists, is insufficient to expect commercial applications soon. The 2004 DoE panel identified several areas that could be further studied using appropriate scientific methods.

Comments

Again, POV. First of all, this is a POV explaining away one of the major criticisms of this endeavor: why isn't cold fusion making us energy right now if it exists? Secondly, the stock phrase about the DOE panels recommendation is throwaway and misses the point that the majority of the panel members were dubious as to the very existence of the effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The answer to "why isn't cold fusion making us energy right now if it exists" is that it would take $50 to 100 million only to test its viability and commercial applications, and that they did not get this money (yet). (see Wired article) Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are obviously a lot of people who disagree with this. What I'm saying is that this is serving the purpose of pandering to a pro-cold fusion lobby. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are some who will take this as meaning the Government is deliberately suppressing cold fusion research, and others who will apply occam's razor and conclude that nobody thinks this long-shot is worth the price of the research. Given that such a budget would be peanuts to the rewards if it were real, and many companies have incredibly deep pockets, I think the lack of ongoing research is pretty significant, but that's just my supposition. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The DOE statement comes from the conclusion of the report: I find it hard to believe that you argue with its reliability, notability or relevance. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but it is iteratively irrelevant. The DOE panel was charged with answering the question as to what things could be funded. That they answered this question has no relevance to an article on cold fusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You say "the DOE panel was charged with answering the question as to what things could be funded". Therefore, it should make sense to quote their answer to this question. The answer is in the lead section, which says that the panel "did not find the evidence convincing enough to justify a federally-funded program, though they did recommend further research". Which further research ? "they identified several areas that could be further studied using appropriate scientific methods", as the deleted statement says. When you consider the lead section and this overview section, I really don't see where the problem is. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an article on the DOE panel, it's an article on cold fusion. We should say what makes the source relevant to cold fusion. It's not the DOE's recommendations about how to fund specific research projects. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that whether cold fusion should be the subject of further research is not of interest to wikipedia readers ? I would say it is. So, if we find a reliable source answering this question, we should quote it. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)