Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Al Gore praises "very intriguing explorations" in cold fusion

"Google+ Conversation with Al Gore about Combating Climate Change" (Published 11 Jun 2013): [1] Silent Key (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevant question is at 18 mins 53 sec. Silent Key (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The production isn't about low energy nuclear reactions in specfic. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

is this original research?

This text was added to the article:

Cold fusion in analogy to the recombination control of the positronium would be possible if the Palladium lattice in fluctuations together with the Deuterium diffusion

provided the conditions to generate binary star Trojan wave packets from its nuclei. This however to achieve the confinement and the fusion rate equivalent to that of muonic catalysis would require that they would move on circles in binary star configuration with cyclotron frequency and the speed of light in magnetic field of the order od 10⁶ Tesla. Since the cyclotron orbit must be so tight and the mass ratio between the electron and the muon is slightly above the half of the fine structure constant this cyclotron frequency corresponds to the frequency of the gamma radiation slightly below the necessary to cause the electron-positron pair production. This is 0.1% of that what is inside the neutron stars magnetars and 10 000 times more then those in Tokamak which does not seem to be possible. The current experiments with exploding electromagnets can barely provide 1000 T for milliseconds. Pairing of this kind would require also highly improbable counter-channeling with simultaneous turn-on of the magnetic field during the close approach event since the generation of such probability focused states is a non-trivial problem of quantum control itself. The channeling nuclei would also have to have subluminal speeds and therefore relativistic energies and the fusion would have to occur inside the unit cell of Palladium. Even if the need of magnetic field could be weaken to the laboratory values or even removed and the compression and fusion occurred in Langmuir configurations consisting of one negative ion from the Palladium cell and two nuclei of Deuterium the rotation frequency of the pair to provide sufficient compression should be of the order of gamma radiation and the velocity also near the speed of light i.e. with the kinetic energy sufficient to cause the fusion on the direct scattering. The rate enhancement would be only due to prolong exposure to each other. No energy pumping during the electrolysis appears to provide such activation energy except the accelerator beam injection of at least 4 keV ions readily achievable in TV-like Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor. Since the negative ion so point-like is not really possible if the nuclei were squeezed by the circularly polarized electromagnetic field this field strength should be as giant as on the muonic hydrogen Bohr orbit which is about 2x10¹⁶ V/m but this is so strong that can accelerate the ion to 4 keV at the same Bohr radius distance. The three-body mechanism mentioned here assuming that first someone would somehow overcome the problem of no-go values of the parameters implied by the fusion conditions would however explain very low reproducibility of the experiment without the prior knowledge of the theory since the fussing three body configurations in magnetic and electric fields consisting of two ions of Deuterium and one crystal lattice ion of Palladium exist always within very complicates stability (and therefore fusion) diagrams that depend on the frequencies and strengths of the fields that could be generated by the build-up charges and currents inside the solid lattice and by the applied voltage potential. Those could also depend on the level of Palladium doping and the electrode geometry.

This looks like a unpublished synthesis or sources that are not related to each other, and I see a lot unsourced conclusions and connexions. Can someone confirm if this is original research? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could confirm it's "original research", as that would involve scanning all the reliable sources. I can confirm it doesn't make sense, at least in "conventional" physics. And a patent is not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Mattedita has reverted the text back [2] According to him, the first two refs are "directly implying that". But the first reference is a patent, and the second one doesn't mention cold fusion? And why is this theory more important than the dozens of contradicting theories put forward by other people? This still looks like unpublised original research, and current sources don't support its inclusion in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of cold fusion in the provided sources, including the patent. Removing the text again. --Amble (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I checked and skimmed through the second reference. The content has no obvious connection to cold fusion. The sentence it appears to be being used to verify uses unfamiliar terminology (binary star Trojan wave packets? I think someone is taking an analogy made on the other wikipedia page too far), IRWolfie- (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Now he had removed the first two sources, and inserted a new text, but it still looks sounds like original research, and most of it is unsourced. And the third reference was published in 1978, years before Fleischmann & Pons, and the full name is Hydrogen in metals: Basic properties, and it doesn't seem to discuss nuclear fusion or any other kind of fusion. It sounds like Mattedita is making his own research from basic principles. -Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The article needs a Theory section, but this isn't it. I can't find a clear review of the predominant theories -- eg Krivit & Marwen is behind a paywall (REF) "A New Look at Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research," Journal of Environmental Monitoring, published on Sept. 3, 2010 (DOI:10.1039/B915458M). (ENDREF) and Storms Naturwissenschaften 2010 review only touches on a few elements. There's a 2002 paper by Kirkinskii, summarized in this slide http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/DolanSummaryofKirkinskiiSummary.jpg -- but I can't find the original. Alanf777 (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed mechanisms

The section Proposed mechanisms should contain proposed mechanisms, foremost a few fusion theories, and the Widom-Larsen transmutation theory favoured by NASA. Then some of the most common objections. The article topic requires it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Attributing the opinions of a single individual to those of NASA is incorrect, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, there's a theory named "Widom-Larsen theory". I don't see how 'individual' is applicable to "proposed mechanisms". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a theory, calling it a theory does not make it one. You mentioned NASA in your initial post, I am clarifying that you are incorrect. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange. In Zawodny's patent application http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110255645%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110255645&RS=DN/20110255645 [0006] Heavy electrons exhibit properties such as unconventional superconductivity, weak antiferromagnetism, and pseudo metamagnetism. More recently, the energy associated with "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR) has been linked to the production of heavy electrons. Briefly, this theory put forth by Widom and Larsen states that the initiation of LENR activity is due to the coupling of "surface plasmon polaritons" (SPPs) to a proton or deuteron resonance in the lattice of a metal hydride. The theory goes on to describe the production of heavy electron that undergo electron capture by a proton. Saying it's not a theory doesn't make it an un-theory. The patent reads Assignee: USA as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration -- so yes, NASA is involved. Alanf777 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

NASA pays the bills for Zawodny, and patents are primary sources and not peer reviewed, but his opinions aren't theirs (and his opinion is one of skepticism still). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this article is a model for an extension of "Proposed mechanisms" ... which, for Cold Fusion, seems to be frozen at about 2004 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_temperature_superconductivity#Possible_mechanism -- giving a fairly clear review of another case where the effect is established, but there is no single agreed theory: There have been two representative theories for HTS ... (And I won't even suggest looking at theories of big-bang inflation, where there's been a paper a day for 20 years and still no agreement.) Alanf777 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no accepted effect, so the comparison is invalid, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would stop these nonsensical remarks until you have a source for everything you say. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

unlock the article

Any reason why I should not be allowed to edit the article? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that nearly every contribution you have ever made to any article has been problematic and been reverted as such by a wide diversity of different editors? No one is stopping you making an account, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is another aspect which shouldn't be ignored, that is not protecting the page to create unfair advantage to registered users towards unregistered users.--5.15.205.101 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If this topic did not have such a strong attraction for vandalism, that might be a viable choice, but we are stuck with the world in which we live. Meanwhile, you are encouraged to register an account. It costs nothing, improves your privacy, and helps facilitate your communications with other editors (in contrast to IP-hopping). LeadSongDog come howl! 20:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it really about vandalism here? Or is about something else that someone wants to consider as vandalism?--5.15.178.52 (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheles I'm considering registering with a username like User5.15... to eliminate IP-hopping.--5.15.178.52 (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be helpful, both for you and for fellow editors. Page semi-protection is not solely to counter vandalism, the article has many times been the focus of edit warring and disruptive socking. WP:ASSUME only goes so far. At some point admins act to protect the encyclopedia. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Qualitative reproducibility

The article should include aspects concerning qualitative reproducibility as is the case for nuclear phenomena like the distribution of atomic numbers of nuclear fission which is qualitative and not insist that the quantitative is the only acceptable reproducibility.

It seems that people who post here keep insisting tacitly that reproducibility is only quantitative ignoring known facts and by this deviating from the scientific method which they claim to apply especially to this article.--5.15.205.173 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'qualitative reproducibility' in this context, or exactly how it would apply to changes to this Wikipedia article. What do you mean by "the distribution of atomic numbers of nuclear fission"? And could you offer a specific example of the type of information that you would like to add to this article (along with the relevant sources)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that I've forgotten a word after distribution of ...nuclear fission namely products to make full sense. It is known that nuclear fission products have random atomic numbers but their sum gives the atomic number Z of the fissing nuclide (uranium for instance). This is an example of qualitative reproducibility which applies also to the case of this type of (controversial) fusion. A source which contains this remarks is Cold Fusion Phenomena by Hideo Kozima, Elsevier 2006. In the case of this phenomen a normalizing condition like that of the mentioned sum has not been discovered yet.--5.15.177.251 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've found the bits in Kozima's book about "qualitative reproducibility". (Note that I am only working from the searchable free text available through Google Books.) It appears that this is a somewhat special definition of "qualitative reproducibility" created by Kozima, that is somewhat at odds with the usual definitions of those words (and also add odds with the occasional previous usages of the term in the literature). If you search for qualitative reproducibility in Google Scholar or on PubMed, you will find a number of examples where it is used as one would expect from a naive understanding of the two words. In such cases, the results of the test or experiment were generally highly reproducible – the outcome, effect, or product reported did occur in most or all experiments – but the agreement was qualitative only—either the measurement was inherently non-quantitative (as with a positive or negative outcome of a binary test, or where looking at a pattern or arrangement in an image), or the measurement gave a wide range of numerical results (but where most or all of which were appreciably different from the control condition).

To take a couple of recent examples, Sudo et al. (2012) compare qualitative and quantitative reproducibility of different assays to detect RNA. Their quantitative assessment looked at the amount of RNA of each type detected by each assay, whereas the qualitative assessment just looked at which types of RNA (regardless of amount) were detected by each assay. Nakada et al. (2013) offer what I would say is the most succinct definition, when they write "Thus, we have validated qualitative reproducibility (ie, patterns and tendencies of physical properties)...".

In contrast, Kozima proposes a definition wherein "qualitative reproducibility" means something rather different. From page 58, introducing the section "The qualitative reproducibility" [3]:

We have noticed already several times in this book that events in [cold fusion phenomena] do not repeat, or are irreproducible, even when experiments are performed with the same macroscopic initial condition. The results of the observation of an observable x distribute widely from null to a maximum value of x_max, which is undetermined by any known conditions at present. Furthermore, we cannot determine when an event occurs, i.e., occurrence of an events is sporadic. ...

It is advisable to use appropriate terminology to express a situation correctly. We propose to use a concept "qualitative reproducibility" to express such events in the [phenomena] described above that have disperse results for the same macroscopic condition.

In other words, Kozima would like us to describe a result as qualitatively reproducible even when it cannot be reproduced most of the time. He attempts to justify this reasoning by allusion to various sporadic (eg. wind, in the output of wind turbines) and stochastic (eg. the distribution of nuclear fission products) processes. It is not a persuasive argument, which is probably why his unusual terminology does not appear to have been adopted by the scientific community—which in turn is why it would be inappropriate for us to add this definition to this article or to Wikipedia as a whole. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say that is not a persuasive argument? Comparing the analysis of RNA with nuclear phenomena which exhibit random/chaotic behaviour does not hold as an appropriate comparison.

If you dislike the term qualitative attached to reproducibility, then other term(s) could be used like semi-reproducibility or no explicit mentioning of reproducibility. But the mentioned features, sporadicity and stochasticity should be included in article as intrinsic features of the phenomena of this type (nuclear), including nuclear fision which is known to be semi-reproducible, namely the fission is reproducible (the spliting of uranium nucleus) but the composition of fission products is not reproducible beeing stochastic due to the degrees of freedom involved. --5.15.212.132 (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Kozima's definition is not shared by the scientific community at large, and sounds like special pleading to me. Doesn't carry enough WP:WEIGHT to even be mentioned in this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to repeat that this isn't about the supposed point of Kozima which apparently would not have much acceptance in the scientific community, it is about pointing out (whether by Kozima or not is not very significant) obvious known facts (that would not normally require a source) about the reproducibility of similar phenomena which have been ignored in the analysis by the skeptics of the phenomena. It would useful also to specify about about what scientific community are we talking and whom it includes? Just the skeptics who seem deviate from the rigour of scientific method ignoring known applicable facts to this phenomena and having unreasonable expectations about the reproducibility?--5.15.210.25 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That's original research, and it's forbidden by our core policies, specifically WP:NOR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you consider that would be OR? Obvious statement (like the sky is blue, 1+1 = 2, etc) are not OR and need not any sources.--5.15.210.25 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Read our guidelines WP:OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There's an article on reproducibility that seems relevant in the cold fusion context. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Collaps(ed)able comment box

What about the quote (which seems that someone rather impolitely considered to be off-topic) from Brian Josephson explaining the situation of the reproducibility expectations, could it cited? Or is it also repugnant to some posting comments on ground of apparent lack of acceptance? I will restore the visibility of Brian Josephson's comment because there are no good reasons to be included in a collapsable box.--5.15.210.25 (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It was collapsed because Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of general topics. Editor 5.15.x.x proposed an edit to the article, accompanied by a source. Source is not found to be adequate. End of story. We don't need to rehash in every thread a variation of "wikipedia is being unfair / the scientific community is being unfair / the real world uses unfair definitions / the possible benefits are so big that it has to be researched".

Also, for the variations of "this is not the correct interpretation of policy X", Brian can use the policies village pump, and each policy and guideline has its own talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a more likely explanation of the collapsing is that someone hasn't liked Brian's reply and has used Wikipedia is not a forum as pretext to express his dislike or hostility.--5.15.179.181 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Josephson's comments are about "a more general one than w'pedia editors". A talk page is never the place to have that sort of discussion. The act of replying to him would drag things even further off topic. Josephson appears to think this is an appropriate venue for debating the topic, but it is not. Wikipedia is not a place for debate. If he wants to discuss policy (he has already stated he doesn't want to read any policy) he can do that at a policy page, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the assertion about the source not being adequate, it is more likely that it is an impression of someone who considered the facts pointed by the source inconvenient to his convictions/POV.--5.15.179.181 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear! How true! More justification is needed to reject that source. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian Josephson, you have been asked several times to read our policies. Considering you refuse, would you please drop the matter or else read them. You can't argue the interpretation is wrong when you haven't looked at it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the connection between Brian's comment and wikipolicies? I consider myself rather well informed on Wikipolicies and don't see a breach of them in Brian's last comment. Even a well informed wikipedian should not apply blindly a wikipolicy. An example of wikipedian who regards wikipolicies non-blindly is User:Count Iblis.--5.15.178.52 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather poor obvious canvassing technique you've got going. Anyway, Brian has reacted to the rejection of a source, yet he has not read the policy about why we have rejected it. It's really simple, the sources are utterly unsuitable, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Poor obvious canvassing technique? Really? It is your opinion like that about sources being utterly unsuitable. To evaluate the suitability of specialized/technical content sources a certain technical competence is required to be shown, or by your comments you don't display the minimal understanding of technical aspects required to make assertion regarding the suitability of some sources. The suitability of some sources cannot be simply evaluated by applying a wikipolicy without the minimal understanding.--5.15.178.52 (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are not make general complaints or WP:RGW.

The problem 5.15 ... cites is a more general one than w'pedia editors of course, it and other problems afflict the scientific community in general, for historical reasons, as I explained in a letter published in Nature. For example: "The situation at the time of the announcement of cold fusion was confused ... because of the difficulty researchers had with replication. Such problems are not unusual in materials science. ... none of this [scepticism] would have mattered had journal editors not responded to this scepticism, or to emotive condemnation of the experimenters, by setting an unusually high bar for publication of papers on cold fusion. This meant that most scientists were denied a view of the accumulating positive evidence" The way rules are quoted here is little short of fetishistic: is it really worth arguing over how notable the Defkalion demo is, and insisting editors have to leave their minds behind and not take into account cogent arguments in favour of notability? In 2007 I corrected a misconception in the Mössbauer effect article, with a whole new paragraph of explanation, with no sources cited at all. No fussy editors cited w'pedia rules insisting that I provide a reference to prove I was correct, they just assumed I knew what I was talking about. A victory for commonsense!--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Indeed, someone doing a thesis on w'pedia practices might very well come to the conclusion that what is going on here are cases of special pleading. I quote: "Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption." The generally accepted rule here might be that encyclopedias should be as informative as reasonably possible, a principle that seems not to get much of a look in in these parts. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC) And, again, we have this from One-sided argument: "With rational messages, you need to decide if you want to use a one-sided argument or a two-sided argument. A one-sided argument only presents the pro side of the argument, while a two-sided argument presents both sides. Which one you use will depend on which one meets your needs and the type of audience. Generally, one-sided arguments are better with audiences already favorable to your message. Two-sided arguments are best with audiences who are opposed to your argument, are better educated or have already been exposed to counter arguments." --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC) visibility of Brian's reply restored.--5.15.210.25 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian Josephson's quote in Nature - usability

I consider that the quote mentioned above is reliable and must included in the article. Any one wishing to disagree?--5.15.205.101 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not reliable in terms of the factual content. It is only reliable as an opinion, but nothing about that means we must include primary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference between factual content and opinion could be very difficult to distinguish. Brian's analysis in Nature points out some aspects about hazardous conclusions about these phenomena reached on emotional grounds. The deficiencies in conclusions are elementary to seen if there is a real interest for a rigorous application of the scientific method and the emotional aspects/overskepticism don't take over rationality. So pretending that Brian's comment is not factual but opinion is just an unfound pretext in order not to include it in the article by those who find it unconvenient to their preferred POV, namely to include in the article only what is found against the positive evidence about the phenomena, positive evidence reports being considered ab initio either unreliable, fringe, .. primary souce and the like.--5.15.46.94 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is opinion and is not peer reviewed, and it clearly is a primary source. Have you read WP:FRINGE? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a statement of obvious facts which must be stated in order not to be said by some that there is no source stating obvious facts. Statements from known experts do not require to be peer reviewed and are acceptable generally and especially in this case where there is no scientific consensus regarding the status of the topic. The distinction in this case of mainstream and non-mainstream aka fringe is arbitrary, meaningless especially where there is no scientific consensus regarding mechanism of the phenomenona. Yes, I've read WP:FRINGE. It seems that some wikipedians conveniently and hazardously use WP:FRINGE and other wikielements as reasons to not allow inclusion in article of sources that don't like. 5.15.46.94 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

His opinion may consist of "obvious facts" to you, but that doesn't not mean it is true. There is no acceptance that there is a phenomenon to have a mechanism, and his opinion, is just that, his opinion. "there is no scientific consensus regarding mechanism of the phenomenona", there is a consensus that there is no phenomenon, so of course there would be no consensus about a mechanism. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a consensus that there is no phenomenon. Really? Among whom is there this claimed/so-called consensus? Who says that? It seems to be your opinion. About obvious facts the mathematical style asserts one can easily see that .... You/One should easy recognize obvious facts when they are encountered, unless some daltonism/cognitive bias gets in the way.

Opinion or not, Brian's quote is worthy of inclusion in the article.--5.15.200.65 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the use of primary sources somehow forbidden?--5.15.46.94 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought you said you read WP:FRINGE, tell me about using independent sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Independent sources ideally would be fine to use if they exist. In some situation it becomes more manifest than in others that truly independent sources do not really exist, they are just a theorethical ideal. In this case there are only two kind of not (quite) independent sorces: by deniers of the phenomenon and by proponents, the third option is excluded.--5.15.200.65 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Related discussion

Just to make editors aware that there is a discussion on the same topic at Talk:Reproducibility. This one is linked from there, but not vice versa (thus why I'm leaving this comment). Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Misconceived reversion by DV

DV has reverted an improvement I made to the sentence Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in peer reviewed scientific journals, the results do not receive as much scrutiny as more mainstream topics. It seems I now have to waste my valuable time explaining to even those of the most limited intellectual ability the reasoning behind this change.

It may be that CF articles are rarely published in peer reviewed journals (though not as rarely as one might think, as perusal of the LENR library will show). The fact that quite a number of papers on the subject do receive, and pass, scrutiny shows that some such research at least does stand up. It is therefore clearer to use the 'most' rather than the rather woolly original wording. The point basically is that a large amount of mediocre research can't cancel out the conclusions of high quality research -- in science one does not decide truth by putting good and poor quality research in one pot and doing some kind of averaging process. Lay readers can't be expected to figure this out and the wording should be designed not to mislead them. [subversive thought: do some people revert purely for the sake of reverting, rather than on the basis of careful thought? I'd love to know the motives.]--Brian Josephson (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about this revision:[4]

I believe that bit is primarily there to mention Journals refused to publish papers. Further refutation or confirmation was made impossible. Julian Schwinger resigned from the American Physical Society over it.

The sources used are:

• Goodstein, David (1994), "Whatever happened to cold fusion?"
• Labinger, JA; Weininger, SJ (2005), "Controversy in chemistry: how do you prove a negative?—the cases of phlogiston and cold fusion".

These wont allow you to say much about the current state of publication. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence that is being paraphrased here is, "Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires."[5] The original wording is a better paraphrase than the proposed version. --Noren (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Usually one first writes something in a context then puts the source behind it.(2 in this case) The purpose of the sentence was to describe that publications had been refused preventing any sort of conclusion. All of the proposed sentences leave the reader guessing out of 3 possible scenarios:

• "authors chose not to publish"
• "journals rejected their papers after careful review"
• "The journals systematically refused papers about the topic"

But refusing to review something is not a review in it self. It doesn't say anything bad in the scientific sense either. How many people didn't read something doesn't change the text.

I think:

• "Several journals refused to consider papers about Cold fusion, with the result that those works didn't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires."

Would be more effective. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the Labinger source. You can search "Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a Negative?" in google and find the New Energy Times copy. The sources don't say why the papers are not being published. It could be rejection, it could be that the papers are not of enough quality to pass peer-review, we don't know and the sources don't tell.

In the article we have this sentence "researchers have had difficulty publishing in mainstream journals", but I don't have the sources here to check the original context, and I don't have the time. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

some unnecessary things

I understand sources need to be about the topic in specific. I wonder where in the text do we need: Phillip Ball "Life's matrix: a biography of water"? The book[6] doesn't appear to be about cold fusion:

"One of the four elements of classical antiquity, water is central to the environment of our planet. In Life's Matrix, Philip Ball writes of water's origins, history, and unique physical character. As a geological agent, water shapes mountains, canyons, and coastlines, and when unleashed in hurricanes and floods its destructive power is awesome. Ball's provocative exploration of water on other planets highlights the possibilities of life beyond Earth. Life's Matrix also examines the grim realities of depletion of natural resources and its effects on the availability of water in the twenty-first century."

The book is from 2001 and has a few pages with an interesting rundown of the cold fusion things happening at the time. It is not a book about the article topic. It shouldn't be here.

The American Scientist "Case Studies in Pathological Science: How the Loss of Objectivity Led to False Conclusions in Studies of Polywater, Infinite Dilution and Cold Fusion" from 1992, is not about cold fusion either.

I note: The association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.

(part of the comment moved to a separate section Enric Naval (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC))

84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be 100% about the topic. They can cover a more general topic, and then deal with each specific sub-topic in a chapter, a few pages, or even a few paragraphs. Scholar books can have a general overall theme and topic-specific chapters, each written by different authors. I don't recall any requirement that sources have to be about the specific topic, and only about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, the rationale for removing it doesn't make much sense, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont see what it is doing here.

Why is this old book advertised on this page?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule against "old books". And I don't think it's being advertised, since it's used to source stuff in the article. Philip Ball is a science writer who has written several divulgative science books and seems to have good reputation. By the way, he has a degree in chemistry and a doctorate in physics, this means he has a very good scientific background for understanding this topic? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Defkalion demo

I've added a section on last week's live webcast of Defkalion's Hyperion. I'm not sure the precise details of power, temperature, duration etc. so if anyone would like to plough through the hours of webcast to add the details to the page please feel free to do so! --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The vandals or whatever you'd prefer to call them have been very busy and removed it I see -- I'm not surprised given the history. The objection that there are no reliable sources is incorrect, since in the past it has been agreed that Forbes is a RS -- sorry about that! Unless a better reason is found soon I shall revert. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And, furthermore, another source in the disputed session is a video of the event being described. It requires only minimal intelligence to recognise that a video of an event is more reliable as a source than any article about the event can ever be. My recommendation is therefore that the item concerned be restored, with the possible exception of the final sentence. ---Brian Josephson (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)-[

Including a webcast of a "demonstration" is completely undue for this article. Let's wait until some real independent scientific evaluation about a "LENR" device happens (or maybe when they are distributing), and then consider the issue at that stage. This article has a long history, and plenty of secondary sources, trying to include the latest videos you find on the internet with extraordinary claims is undue, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In regard to IRW's Including a webcast of a "demonstration" is completely undue for this article., this is a typical case of 'proof by diktat'. These people who say, "a video of the event is not good enough, it has to be confirmed by a RS", remind me of Michael Frayn's "I do not know there is fog on the road unless it is accompanied by an illuminated sign saying 'fog'" --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Due and undue weight are standard parts of WP:NPOV, one of the core content policies. The concept of undue weight is not my invention. Material being undue and being reliably sourced are not the same thing. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Could be this needs fleshing out. I agree that there have been very many claims for cold fusion (quite a number in refereed journals, I might add). Almost all of those have involved small amounts of energy, however (at most tens of watts), of little practical value. But recently there have been claims (by Rossi and Defkalion) of much larger quantities, kW from small devices. If the claims are correct, they would have revolutionary significance in the context of energy generation, unlike the low energy claims which would be of interest to physics only and of no more importance than many other discoveries. In view of this, I reject the assertion that this event is being given undue prominence.

Some of course have suggested that this is faked, that it is easy to fake such demonstrations. I disagree. Presumably to fake this demo you would have to program a computer to generate the displayed numbers, which would have to agree with what was happening in real time. It would still have to fit despite unexpected eventualities such as Mats Lewan blowing the fuses when he connected a meter to the power supply. Equally difficult would be getting the water flow displayed to match that measured by collecting the output water in a bucket over a prescribed period of time and weighing the increase. "Before beginning to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed, one armchair" (Dan Drasin). --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You think its significant because of your interpretation. That is not how wikipedia works. We defer to reliable sources and weigh up due weight from them. We don't pick thinks because we think they are significant. I could address your opinion that a demonstration fully in the control of the people making the claims means something because you don't know how it could be done, but this is not a forum. This is like the magic show where the audience are invited up to have a look and make sure there are no tricks. Stick to showing sources, and asking for changes based on sources rather than engaging in speculation. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that the sources that have commented on the demo (which are the only ones that come into consideration here) consider it important, e.g. this article in Wired. The evidence seems to speak against your PoV.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This section of video shows how anyone following the link can very easily verify the details to be described in the article, unless in a complete state of fog. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What you are proposing is to take the numbers and then form them into a claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by 'forming them into a claim' please? I don't have anything particularly in mind other than saying what the numbers were. (In the interests of clarity I've moved your Q to a place where it seems more appropriate, i.e. below the screengrab). --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the video is authentic, Unless you plan to use something purely descriptive along the lines of "In a display in the video there is a box which has the figure 1906,5 within 'total' under 'input electric power (W)' and the figure 4484.5 under 'Output Power'." Going beyond this is original research. If they explicitly make a claim, you can say they made a claim, etc but you can not say the claim is true or go beyond what was explicitly said or done. See WP:PRIMARY. This would not deal with the stated issue of WP:UNDUE weight which, for me, is the main issue with your proposed text. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Even the source that you're citing – the overly-credulous tech journalist/blogger Mats Lewan – is hedging. The blog post you footnoted your edit with ([7]) says explicitly "I believe we will get some reliable answers on the validity of Defkalion’s and/or Rossi’s technology during this year."—in other words, this stunt isn't good enough. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lewan was just exercising the caution of the scientist there. By any criterion this was a notable event, and I note that no-one has contradicted Forbes being an RS. Since the Forbes article actually gives a link to the video there is no problem omitting that link. It would also be well in accord with w'pedia conventions to include a summary of what happened in the demo, and for the sake of peace I will agree to leave out the reference to Lewan's blog. I would be happy with such a compromise, or do the others here prefer to engage in accord what a colleague with no previous involvement with LENR but has been made aware of the deletion has referred to as 'people who want to censor evidence counter to their beliefs'?--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Demonstrations" like this are dime a dozen and mean jack shit. They provide exactly zero evidence. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My friend over here says what you are doing is trying to insert a publicity stunt into an encyclopedic article. A publicity stunt which as you know is essentially meaningless since its not in the hands of independent scientists, nor has it been recreated by independent scientists. Why we should give weight to it in this article, with its long prestigious history of grand claims, I don't know. (I'm curious, have you ever tested the positions you defend? Did you ever work on bubble fusion etc? Do you have a cold fusion machine?) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My position is that I think it is an important development, important enough to be worth including in the article. The question is, if you are trying to deceive people, would you give this kind of demonstration, where there would be every risk you'd be found out (there was an observer whom I know personally -- in fact they invited a number of people but most were too 'frit' to come -- and the process was in effect continuously monitored and transmitted)? There's also the question of the integrity of the people involved, and here it is important actually to watch the demonstration. I think it most unlikely it is a fraud, and they way it was done, including the control expt., seems to me to make it unlikely there are serious errors. Publicity stunt? Does it matter? Why? Is that a valid reason for not including it in the article? I suggest you look at the video yourself before passing on such comments.

Let me address your query as to my involvement in this area, which I think is worth stating so you know where I am coming from. I initially uncritically accepted the general conclusion that P and F made an error and there was no heat effect. Many years afterwards someone in the field approached me, knowing I am an open-minded (though critical) person and handed me a DVD with the video 'Fire from Water' on it. That radically changed my view, but I wanted clearer evidence. I was going to a conference in Boston, and asked Gene Mallove if there was any lab in the area that I could visit. He fixed up a visit. The method appeared to me to be sound (and my Ph.D. is in experimental physics, I might add) and I concluded CF was a real phenomenon. I have visited a number of CF labs since and in those where I was given a full account of what the experiment was I concluded they had observed a genuine effect. I admit to being an advocate for CF on account of the fact that the true facts are very largely suppressed, and I regret to see unqualified people contributing to this suppression in w'pedia. Does being an advocate matter? Can the people advocating deletion of reference to the D. demo put their hands on their hearts and say they are not an advocate of a particuar PoV?

Re Taleyarkhan and bubble fusion, my belief is that he did get fusion but was nobbled by enemies of various kinds, for reasons including competition and racial prejudice. Nature published some extremely hostile analysis based on a false analysis of funding issues, and refused to acknowledge that this was the case (my guess is that the details of the analysis were such as to be way out of the depth of Nature's staff). Then someone managed to get his funding stopped or something on the basis of a technicality -- it is easy to get rid of someone who have friends and know the tricks.

What is often overlooked in the context of bubble fusion is that we are dealing with an enormous range of compression and any asymmetry will stop the bubble compressing to almost a point, and so reduce the temperature increase. I can well imagine that it would be very difficult to replicate the claims, and failure to replicate proves little. But that's how things go in this competitive world. But I've written enough and must get on with other things.--Brian Josephson (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"The question is, if you are trying to deceive people, would you give this kind of demonstration"

Yes. It's a very common ploy among con artists.

"where there would be every risk you'd be found out"

Yes, as the risks were minimalized because the promters remained in full control of the demonstration.

"There's also the question of the integrity of the people involved"

Matters little if anything as long as the promoters do not allow them to examine the whole system on their own terms with their own equipment. Even the most reputable scientists sometimes get suckered by flim-flam artists.

Again, the "demonstration" is nothing but a publicity stunt, the likes of which are legion in the realm of fringe science and pseudoscience. Nothing particularly noteworthy about this one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The observers were given very wide licence to look at everything except inside the reaction chamber. That was irrelevant to the question of whether the device generated useful amounts of power or not. There are plenty of cases where you cannot look inside something to see how it works, for example a computer chip. What matters is whether it behaves in accord with the spec. or not.--Brian Josephson (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if they truly did not wish to deceive, they would give the device to independent scientists to verify it. That doesn't mean letting scientists watch from the sidelines, that means giving it to them to study over (take for example D-Wave Systems, they allowed scientists to look at there devices independently of the manufacturer, with full control). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"The question is, if you are trying to deceive people, would you give this kind of demonstration"

By the same token, we should trust that David Copperfield actually made the Statue of Liberty disappear, given that it was a televised event, performed before a live audience. If you are trying to persuade scientists, you provide tangible physical evidence—especially in a field (and dealing with particular individuals) with a documented history of over-promising and under-delivering.

Demonstrating a non-natural isotopic distribution in analysis of 'spent' fuel, for instance, should be a slam-bang, no-brainer, low-cost, absolute game-changer, and it could be done in an independent lab tied up in as much non-disclosure red tape as necessary. But of course the only time such an analysis was carried out, it found nothing of interest—just normal, natural abundances of nickel isotopes: [8]. Since then, of course, the principals in the field have avoided any sort of independent attempts at analysis or confirmation of their purported results. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I should imagine the time they wanted to spend on this demo was limited. As I understand it, they used a regular industrial device to produce the readings. It would have involved much effort to produce a fake instrument to simulate what was observed. But equally the time I want to spend debating with (what from my perspective) are unreasonable people who have not place themselves in the real world by looking at the recording of the demo on line and prefer to indulge in armchair speculation. Of course your proposal might have helped gain acceptance but it can be guaranteed that if this had been done you people would have found some other reason for not including the information here.--Brian Josephson (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to that last point, it should not be too difficult to do a swap and present a suitably doctored sample with different isotopic distribution pretending it was one produced in the reactor.--Brian Josephson (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

None of this is helpful. The video is usable for anything only if it is authenticated and from a reputable source, and, even then, it can only be used for what it actually shows. Any conclusions would require a separate reliable source. And the number of "demonstrations" of overunity devices is legion. This is the first one in recent times which also is claimed (by some) to be cold fusion, but that doesn't make it notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. Are you suggesting that the events transmitted by livestream didn't actually happen? How are you suggesting the movie was generated then, from a recording? If you think that, then how do you account for the fact that Mats Lewan, an accredited technology writer, said he was there and that he saw the demo portrayed in the video? Was he making that up?

If you aren't suggesting that (and that would be an extraordinary hypothesis indeed), and agree that the transmission (now archived and available on the same web page) shows an actual demonstration, then I agree that 'it can only be used for what it showed'. Yes indeed! And what it showed was, prima facie, a proof that the device was generating excess heat as claimed. Livestream is a reliable source because it transmits in real time, with no opportunity for fakery by editing. That is exactly why I consider the link should be given. I have no objection to people adding provisos, but the factual account of what happened, verifiable by viewing the video, which could not have been subject to editing as livestream transmit it and archive it as it happened live, should be restored. Saying livestream is not a reliable source (they would not be pleased at the suggestion that have doctored the video) is plain twaddle.

And as regards conclusions, the figures I quoted can be checked by viewing the video (which I bet none of the critics have done). I agree that conclusions need a reliable source, but the description I gave is precisely what you see in the video, with no interpretation added (but you can add a few 'apparently's if you wish, I have no objection to that).

Let me add one final point. A video on youtube would, I agree, prove little, as it can be doctored. Livestream offers no such opportunities to change content.--Brian Josephson (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Are you suggesting that the events transmitted by livestream didn't actually happen?"

Whether they "happened" or not, they are of zero significance.

"If you think that, then how do you account for the fact that Mats Lewan, an accredited technology writer, said he was there and that he saw the demo portrayed in the video? Was he making that up?"

Mats Lewan clearly said that the test was fully under the control of the promoters, so the "demonstration" was meaningless.

"And as regards conclusions, the figures I quoted can be checked by viewing the video (which I bet none of the critics have done)."

We can't do that. It's expressedly forbidden by WP:NOR.

"I agree that conclusions need a reliable source"

Great. Produce one. The video doesn't even come close to fulfilling our sourcing policies.

"the figures I quoted can be checked by viewing the video ... but the description I gave is precisely what you see in the video, with no interpretation added (but you can add a few 'apparently's if you wish, I have no objection to that)"

No can do. Again, that would violate WP:NOR.

"A video on youtube would, I agree, prove little, as it can be doctored. Livestream offers no such opportunities to change content"

Means nothing if the demonstration itself was faked, which it almost certainly was. Burden of proof is on YOU to show that it wasn't, using reliable independent secondary sources of extraordinary high quality.

You're barking up the wrong tree. You're not even in the right forest. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong tree?? Are you not aware that it is impossible to prove a negative? The burden of proof is on you to show it was faked, using reliable secondary sources of information. And there are many RS's to prove that CF is not a dead horse. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If it were impossible to prove a negative (that it wasn't faked), it would be impossible to prove that the energy observed wasn't from the grid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem, Brian, is that you're saying that if someone posted a video demonstration of anything, say a video that claims to prove that aliens produce crop circles, that until someone else comes forth and shows that it was faked, we must therefore in the mean time accept it as a reliable demonstration. Do you see a problem with that approach? — Loadmaster (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A problem with the way you are representing it, yes. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

For uncontroversial trivial run-of-the-mill factoids, a youtube video might be enough sourcing. For extraordinary claims (revolutionary new generator type) the sourcing has to be extraordinary. See WP:REDFLAG: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources and its warnings against certain types of claims. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

To have this misconceived, knee-jerk criticism, not based on proper scholarship, in no way surprises me. Unbalanced criticism is far too common with articles such as these. You will see, if you go far enough back in time, that I never proposed a youtube video as a reliable source. The video I had proposed for the article was a live webcast, archived in its original form by a reputable company. Mats Lewan was present during the webcast and I think we can take it that the video showed an event that actually happened or he would have said something about it, and that the meter readings seen in the webcast were the actual meter readings. Various tests were done to check that everything was in order but no doubt you will say that Defkalion found a way to fake everything. They did invite a number of people to be present but unfortunately Lewan was the only person who accepted which I suppose would have made faking easier -- if you subscribe to that hypothesis.

Perhaps you've been confused by the fact that I have provided a youtube video link on this talk page to assist in making a point. The video concerned is a clip from the original source, and I used a link to the that clip here because youtube provide a straightforward way to link to a specific point in a video, which as far as I am aware cannot be done with the original source. Ideally I would have inserted a still from the original video but I am told that this cannot be done in a talk page, which seems illogical as I would have been allowed to use it in the article itself. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What is OR?

Let's see now. Suppose there's a football team X, which has a w'pedia article that among other things lists their successes in the World Cup, including the scores. A supporter watches the latest final on TV, which they win again. Is it in order for the supporter to add the success and final score to the list in the w'pedia article, based on what he has seen on the TV? Or is that OR?

Let me quote here "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". In what way is Livestream not a reliable transmitter of live events? And if the defence of your position is that the events described (the Defkalion damo) never happened, where is your proof of that a priori implausible proposition? --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

you are using two sources, 1. a live broadcast which is a primary source. and 2. a blog by someone involved, again a primary source. You are reporting in the article as though these primary sources are inerrant truth. Firstly 1. We don't include material sourced only to primary sources as that would be undue, 2. you are stating things which no source (even the primary sources) appears to state. That is original research. 3. The score of a football game would not be included in wikipedia unless reliable secondary sources drew attention and gave some significance to the score. Finding out the score yourself and adding it would be undue, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you would be so careless as to choose such a poor analogy; it could only serve to obfuscate rather than to clarify, and it doesn't speak well to the level of consideration or respect that you offer your fellow editors on this talk page.

• A football match operates on well-understood principles, obeying rules and laws set out in advance, readily understood and agreed-upon by everyone involved in or observing the process: players, officials, and spectators (both those present and elsewhere), experts and laypeople alike. The same cannot be said for cold fusion or over-unity 'demonstrations'.
• The methods by which a football match are 'scored', and the standards by which 'success' or 'failure' attained are clear and unambiguous. Generally speaking, there is no question about which information is important or irrelevant, or which data are trustworthy.
• The core factual information that should be reported – in the press, and in Wikipedia – regarding a football match is well-established.
• The hypothetical situation is unrealistic, in that for any important football match, multiple corroborating sources (from sports experts, publishing in reliable sources) will appear online within minutes of the final whistle—probably before our ambitious television-watching editor even finishes writing the score into the article. Moreover, given past experience with thousands of past matches, an editor will have a reasonable expectation that such sources should become immediately available; such expectations are not reasonable for cold fusion 'demonstrations'. (In truth, I would expect and hope that a score supported only by a video would get flagged, and that someone would quickly replace the video with a more appropriate source.)

All that said, IRWolfie gets to the nub of the matter. Doing a live webcast is never sufficient to bootstrap a bit of content into Wikipedia. If a point in a webcast is sufficiently significant that it should be covered in Wikipedia, it will be covered by independent, reliable sources. It should not be we who decide that a particular element of a video (or the entire video) is important and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, absent independent, reliable, secondary coverage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In many w'pedia pages one sees 'citation needed'. People very often use their common sense, and don't demand such an entry be removed because it isn't properly sourced -- and the pages concerned are better for this. Would that the same sensible approach is not applied everywhere, as very often what happens, as with this page, gives a remarkably strong impression (rightly or wrongly I have to add) that the rules are being strictly applied in this way purely for the purpose of bolstering up a PoV.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a general idea that we don't remove long standing content if its otherwise correct but lacks a citation, but use citation needed tags to give other editors a little bit of time to gather the citations. Specifically the policy is WP:PRESERVE. Of course if no one does get a citation in a reasonable amount of time we remove it if someone thinks its wrong. Now in the current case, we have the addition of content not covered by adequate sources, i.e it is not long standing content. In this current case we can ask that the material be reasonably cited (as already noted its undue, synth etc). The material has been challenged and removed, the onus is on the restorer to adequately cite things. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Aha! So you have to back up and resort to 'general ideas' when inconvenient facts are pointed out. I see! In the real world there are also 'general ideas', such as the fact that w'pedia is effectively useless in areas where people with strong PoV's take over pages and block any content they don't like. Some quotes I've found in this context (I trust you can find them with Google so I won't go to the trouble of providing links):

• As Hannun puts it, “history is written by the victorious Wikipedia editors”.
• With any of these [particular pages are quoted, but it applies just as well here], if you attempt to enter anything at all, editors will strike back and remove or revise your additions.

--Brian Josephson (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have missed what I said. I suggest looking at it again. Particularly the part about long standing content. This clearly does not apply here. Let's not jump the gun to make assumptions about the motives of others. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've now looked at your reference. It seems to me that there is much flexibility in how the guidelines are to be interpreted. You may think you are interpreting them correctly, but others will judge things differently. This offers much scope for the kinds of activity that I have criticised.--Brian Josephson (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

make sure you read WP:CANTFIX as well. Then I'd suggest reading WP:BURDEN, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE.IRWolfie- (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You think I have time for that? Unlike some, I live in the real world, not the world where 'rules are the most important thing in life' (thanks to a Russian student victimised by our university admin for the phrase).--Brian Josephson (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to verify that your interpretation about policy and guidelines is correct, that requires familiarity with them. WP:FRINGE is a good brief for fringe science, since it covers other relevant areas of policy. At most a 20 minute read. True familiarity with policy and guidelines comes from months of reading and re-reading, and continual discussions about policy and guidelines, but 20 minutes is a good start. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice.--Brian Josephson (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You have time to pursue a fruitless WP:DEADHORSE argument that amounts to inept schoolboy special pleading. And you don't have time to read the policies and guidelines?

You're wasting your time and ours. Article talk pages are not the place for spouting bullshit about WP and your ideas about the real world. And yes, we have a policy about that, too: WP:TPG. If your proposals are not backed up by reliable sources, and are not consistent with are policies and guidelines, no one here is interested in them.

If you disagree with pur policies and guidelines, and wish to make changes to them, the place to discuss that is on the talk pages of the policies in question. Or start your own online encyclopedia if you want. Right now, you comments amount to garden variety trolling. And it's pretty sad when a Nobel prize winner stoops so low as to troll on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I restored this comment which 84.* surreptitiously deleted, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I just want to pass on a view from an expert that some of the above discussion constitutes trolling. For example he states of one of the items (by DV):

"This was trolling. [The comment concerned] is off-the-wall, based on nothing other than prejudice and his own opinion, even worse than original research, it's a POV."

--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OR stands for Wikipedia:No original research, talk:cold fusion is not the place to talk about policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.26.81 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 2 August 2013‎

Unnecessary duplication in Scientific American ref

(moved from section "some unnecessary things" Enric Naval (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC))

Then:

* {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=,
  | editor-last=Saeta  | editor-first=Peter N.
  | title=What is the current scientific thinking on cold fusion? Is there any possible validity to this phenomenon?
  | periodical=Scientific American
  | pages=1–6
  | date=October 21, 1999
  | series=Ask the Experts
  | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien
  | accessdate = 2008-12-17
  | postscript = – introduction to contributions from:
}} 
** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=,
  | last=Schaffer  | first=Michael J.
  | title=Historical overview, assessment
  | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}}
  | pages=1–3
  | date=October 21, 1999
  | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien
}}
** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=,
  | last=Morrison  | first=Douglas R.O.
  | title=Assessment
  | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}}
  | pages=3–5
  | date=October 21, 1999
  | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien&page=3
}}
** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=,
  | last=Heeter  | first=Robert F.
  | title=Response
  | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}}
  | pages=5–6
  | date=October 21, 1999
  | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien&page=5
}}

The output of this stuff here looks very pretty. It is just that this article doesn't have the space for it and that it doesn't do anything useful. It is hard enough for the reader to navigate the wall of links without the duplicates.

A single link to the article would be a better approach. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

About duplication. That source has different authors for each section. The way the {{harvnb}} template works, it forces us to use one separate ref for each section. There are ways to solve this duplication, but they are ugly..... For example, we can remove all those sources except the first one, and in the ref tags:

:* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 }}
:* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 1-3; "Historical overview, assessment"; Schaffer, Michael J.}}
:* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 3-5; "Assessment"; Morrison, Douglas R.O. }}
:* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 5-6; "Response"; Heeter, Robert F.}}

--Enric Naval (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I implemented this solution for Morrison and Heeter, because they are cited only once. But Schaffer is cited several times, and it is cited in the middle of lists of references. The citations would become more difficult to read if I made this change for Schaffer. Actually, I am not sure that this is a good solution to this problem... --Enric Naval (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Patent

no edit proposed WP:NOTFORUM. The patent office do not verify whether something works or not (they have allowed perpetual motion machine patents in the past until quite recently).

On April 16 of 2013 the U.S. Navy was granted a patent on a process very similar to the 1989 work by P&F. The granted patent is on the US govt patent website. The Navy SPAWAR presentation at U of Missouri is easily available on YouTube, it's over an hour long. They document tritium, transmutation of one metal to several others, gamma rays, etc. They are using Palladium and Deuterium, NASA is also on YouTube, using Nickel and regular Hydrogen, claiming excess heat, and have are working on a spaceplane that would be so powered. Their slide shows, given at various NASA facilities, mention aircraft with "unlimited hover", and space planes that need only 20,000 pounds of fuel to attain low earth orbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.106.183 (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting the law

WP:NOTFORUM. Talk pages are for proposing specific changes, not for soapboxing.

I want to comment further on what I said above, that articles can become biased through bias in how the rules are interpreted. This is a problem of law generally: Parliament or the equivalent makes the law, and it is then for judges to put law into action. They have to try and determine the intent of those who made the law, and sometimes there is a general view that a judge's interpretation is erroneous. Over time the question of what the law should mean gets determined. This is not a mindless process, and intelligence is required. Sometimes judges have an agenda or point of view; this is sometimes apparent in rape cases, where on occasion judges interpret the law according their own PoV that certain forms of behaviour generally considered inappropriate are perfectly reasonable. I mention this only to make the point that in w'pedia similarly PoVs lead to editors applying the rules in ways that more detached people would consider perverse. End of story. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of archives′ content

From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?--5.15.178.192 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Only when it's relevant for making specific changes to the article (when a specific source was discussed in the past, when the merits of including a specific fact were discussed, etc).

Sometimes it's used for discussing the behaviour of a specific editor. But a talk page is not the place for this type of discussion. If there is some merit to the discussion, it gets bumped to a specialized noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Collapsable text box - abusive use

It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.--5.15.179.182 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's appropriate to use when it's completely off topic and disrupting the page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.192.114 (talk)

Of course it would be justified in cases that are really as you say but here it is not the case, your labeling as off-topic and disrupting the page has little base and is just the opinion of some editor lacking convincing other reply to the pointed facts/deficiencies.--5.15.213.209 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. This sure looks like censorship to me, and I think it would be wise for editors not to act in ways that may give rise to a suspicion that censorship in some form is involved in their actions. The problem is augmented by the fact that a certain degree of expertise is sometimes needed to judge whether something is irrelevant in the context or not, and editors do not always have the expertise that is required. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the expertise of some editors who complain of supposedly irrelevant archives search and attack when it comes to their shown (lack of) expertise pointed out by previous comments, there is some wikirule which underlies the necessity of some expertise in fields where is needed and the lack of it would a problem. This wikirule is WP:Competence#Lack of technical expertise.--5.15.193.118 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.--5.15.177.58 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that rather sounds like it would end up as a POV fork. I think the real issue is that you and Brian don't like what the secondary sources say. It is also unnecessary, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think some of us are capable of being sufficiently objective. But you and others would find reasons to dispute an objective article, and on account of that alone I'm rather inclined to consider user@5.15.177.58's suggestion not that useful. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources, those like Huizenga and Taubes are clearly given undue weight. Also finding unreasonable reasons to dispute an objective article is tendentious editing. Perhaps there are lesser to no objections to a user space rewrite/draft.--5.15.200.250 (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reported helium generation - competing hypothesized mechanisms

How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?--5.15.206.234 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Err ... do bear in mind that 'This is not a forum for general discussion about cold fusion'. There's a time and a place for everything! But if you have a specific proposal for this article, do go ahead and make it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I consider that the statement about not forum can be tacitly assumed. The answer to the asked question about competing reactions, assuming its existence, should be specified in the article.--5.15.212.24 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of archives′ content

From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?--5.15.178.192 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Only when it's relevant for making specific changes to the article (when a specific source was discussed in the past, when the merits of including a specific fact were discussed, etc).

Sometimes it's used for discussing the behaviour of a specific editor. But a talk page is not the place for this type of discussion. If there is some merit to the discussion, it gets bumped to a specialized noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Collapsable text box - abusive use

It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.--5.15.179.182 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's appropriate to use when it's completely off topic and disrupting the page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.192.114 (talk)

Of course it would be justified in cases that are really as you say but here it is not the case, your labeling as off-topic and disrupting the page has little base and is just the opinion of some editor lacking convincing other reply to the pointed facts/deficiencies.--5.15.213.209 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. This sure looks like censorship to me, and I think it would be wise for editors not to act in ways that may give rise to a suspicion that censorship in some form is involved in their actions. The problem is augmented by the fact that a certain degree of expertise is sometimes needed to judge whether something is irrelevant in the context or not, and editors do not always have the expertise that is required. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the expertise of some editors who complain of supposedly irrelevant archives search and attack when it comes to their shown (lack of) expertise pointed out by previous comments, there is some wikirule which underlies the necessity of some expertise in fields where is needed and the lack of it would a problem. This wikirule is WP:Competence#Lack of technical expertise.--5.15.193.118 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.--5.15.177.58 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that rather sounds like it would end up as a POV fork. I think the real issue is that you and Brian don't like what the secondary sources say. It is also unnecessary, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think some of us are capable of being sufficiently objective. But you and others would find reasons to dispute an objective article, and on account of that alone I'm rather inclined to consider user@5.15.177.58's suggestion not that useful. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources, those like Huizenga and Taubes are clearly given undue weight. Also finding unreasonable reasons to dispute an objective article is tendentious editing. Perhaps there are lesser to no objections to a user space rewrite/draft.--5.15.200.250 (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Huizenga's reasoning to Nernst equation missinterpretation

One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.--5.15.200.238 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That's from Huizenga 1993, pp. 33, 47. From page 33. "Based on his interpretation of the Nernst equation (taught in college freshman chemistry courses), Pons concluded that the deuterium pressure in the palladium cathode was equivalent to a hydrostatic pressure of approximately 10²⁷ atmospheres! It seems that it was this incorrect conclusion which led Fleischmann and Pons to believe that, in a palladium cathode, the deuterium nuclei would be forced together close enough to fuse. The Nernst equation, applicable under equilibrium conditions, was used to relate the overpotential in an electrochemical cell to deuterium fugacity. If this simple, but erroneous procedure is followed, a large overpotential does give a high deuterium fugacity. The use of the Nernst equation, however, for the overall deuterium evaporation reaction under conditions of large values of the overpotential for estimation of the pressure of deuterium in the palladium is inappropriate [J. Y. Huot, J. Electroche. Soc 136 631 (1989)] The actual hydrostatic pressure of deuterium in the palladium is many orders of magnitude less than estimated by this faulty procedure."

Another book cites this paragraph from Huizenga, and adds: "'The general message is clear: in using our pre-equilibrium arguments to establish Eq. (2.43), we must ensure that the pre-equilibrium is actually operative if the equation is to be meaningful. If large currents are being drawn, this may not be the case. Accordingly, the reader might note the need for caution in applying the analysis derived in Section 2.8. He/she might also wish to review he discussion of the Nernst equation in Chapter 1 of this book."

There was a comentary in a German journal[9] (search "Nernst")

Ebert K; Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 470 (in German).

"Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium" (Electrochemically induced

fusion of deuterium).

** Early comment, reporting on the initial F&P press conference and the paper

in JEC. The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to

the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV).

I don't know how to summarize this in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now looked up the paper by Huot that Huizenga cites, and there seems to be a big gap between what he says and any assertion in the paper itself. If Huizenga thought there was some implication from the paper such as he asserts, he didn't go to any trouble to spell out his reasoning.

The conclusion from all this would appear to be that Huizenga's assertion is overblown, and I suggest that instead of trying to summarise what people think about it as EN suggests that assertion simply be deleted from the article as having insufficient support.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It could be deleted or at least rephrased with according to Huizenga, a critic of cold fusion. I have added the sentence (The equation has been involved in the scientific controversy of denying the reality of cold fusion phenomena) to the article of the equation.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real that addressing a single issue (viz. whether Huizenga's criticism would in fact stand up if one looked properly into the details) seems hardly worth the trouble. This article should really be re-written from the start, with a view to including the totality of the evidence on both sides. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real" because the reliable sources overwhelmingly say it is not real. As has been mentioned, we summarise what the reliable sources say. We are not aiming to balance minority views with the mainstream. Fringe theories are put into perspective with the mainstream. I won't link the policies and guidelines as you have already admitted you have no intention of familiarising yourself with them, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is an unsettled issue from the hastily archived sections about who asseses the reliability of the sources. Which are those reliable and those unreliable and who decides that and the related issue of mainstream vs fringe. In this case it is extremely important who makes this assertions.5.15.195.190 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

text from user talk Brian Josephson about the mainstream vs fringe

Perhaps the situation could be summarised by saying it is pretty well mainstream by now but most scientists go round wearing blinkers and haven't noticed. Of course the fact that people still go on referring to it as if it is all an error has something to do with it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.195.190 (talk)

It would be interesting to know just what article of the Wikicreed legitimises the extent of bias that is apparent in this article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant section on minority views is at Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Due_and_undue_weight. - MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Yes indeed; it is very easy of course to interpret wikicreed in a biased way (metabias one might call this). This is an important point and I will start a separate section for it.--Brian Josephson (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For fringe views specifically: WP:FRINGE, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of the equation to deny the hypothesized fusion of the deuterons

Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.--5.15.178.93 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Excess heat as due to difference in conductivity of heavy water/water with lithium salts

There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.--5.15.62.129 (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutron involvement in triggering cold fusion

Another aspect which should be presented in article is the role of neutrons, as there are some claims that lacking background neutron cold fusion does not occur (experiments done with Kamiokande machine in an isolated cave at high depth).--5.15.206.146 (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what and who these claims are? Then they can be evaluated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Claims for instance, by T. Ishida 1992 Study of the anomalous nuclear effects in solid-deuterium systems, Thesis, Tokio University in coperation with S.E.Jones.--5.15.21.236 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

TNCF model

It would be useful to mention the Trapped neutron catalyzed fusion (by Kozima) in the subsection Proposed mechanisms.--5.15.205.255 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This model assumes the existence of stable trapped neutrons in some solids connected to triggering of cold fusion.--5.15.37.249 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of journals articles

What journals that publish articles in the field are reliable and what are not?--5.15.176.81 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reliability of sources depends on context. You can't affirm that a given source will always be reliable in all contexts for all purposes.

We have a noticeboard for discussing the reliability of sources. The usual reply to this type of question is: "This is too general. Propose a specific source to support a specific content in a specific article, and then we can discuss it." --Enric Naval (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be echoes of Humpty Dumpty here: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. And again, The question is, which is to be master—that's all. Perhaps I'm being naive, but that's how it looks to me at least since some of the RS judgements deviate from what I'd consider to be reasonable. But then I'm only a scientist and I gather that doesn't count.--Brian Josephson (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For instance some articles from the journals mentioned in the section Publications like International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal, etc. Some of this journals articles should be analyzed and cited in text.--5.15.192.70 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Favorable

I found the following articles that gave a favorable opinion of cold fusion:

• [10] “What If Cold Fusion Is Real?” Wired magazine.

• [11] “Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: Maybe The World Will Change After All”.

• [12] “Cornell University Library: Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device”. 7 Jun 2013.

• [13] “Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas”

• [14] “Falls Church News-Press: The Peak Oil Crisis: Update on ‘Cold Fusion’”

What makes these articles somewhat credible is that they are from sources not specializing in unorthodox ideas like CF, so a major source of bias is removed. (It is not clear if any of these sources openly say that CF has been “proven” to work; I would have to check.) Should these sources be cited? If so, how would they be integrated into the article? The Wired article is a little questionable because the name Wired sounds cheesy; also, it is a hippie magazine, so it may have the bias of being oriented toward unorthodox ideas. The other sources seem more serious.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Wired article is the best of the bunch, and it's speculative. We cannot use arXiv as a source, even if the article were good. There seems little evidence that ExtremeTech is intended to be credible. Forbes would be the best if we could verify that it was subject to editorial review, even though the scientists clearly are not independent of Rossi; columnists are generally permitted to write whatever they want if not libelous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of archives′ content

From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?--5.15.178.192 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Only when it's relevant for making specific changes to the article (when a specific source was discussed in the past, when the merits of including a specific fact were discussed, etc).

Sometimes it's used for discussing the behaviour of a specific editor. But a talk page is not the place for this type of discussion. If there is some merit to the discussion, it gets bumped to a specialized noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Collapsable text box - abusive use

It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.--5.15.179.182 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's appropriate to use when it's completely off topic and disrupting the page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.192.114 (talk)

Of course it would be justified in cases that are really as you say but here it is not the case, your labeling as off-topic and disrupting the page has little base and is just the opinion of some editor lacking convincing other reply to the pointed facts/deficiencies.--5.15.213.209 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. This sure looks like censorship to me, and I think it would be wise for editors not to act in ways that may give rise to a suspicion that censorship in some form is involved in their actions. The problem is augmented by the fact that a certain degree of expertise is sometimes needed to judge whether something is irrelevant in the context or not, and editors do not always have the expertise that is required. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the expertise of some editors who complain of supposedly irrelevant archives search and attack when it comes to their shown (lack of) expertise pointed out by previous comments, there is some wikirule which underlies the necessity of some expertise in fields where is needed and the lack of it would a problem. This wikirule is WP:Competence#Lack of technical expertise.--5.15.193.118 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.--5.15.177.58 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that rather sounds like it would end up as a POV fork. I think the real issue is that you and Brian don't like what the secondary sources say. It is also unnecessary, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think some of us are capable of being sufficiently objective. But you and others would find reasons to dispute an objective article, and on account of that alone I'm rather inclined to consider user@5.15.177.58's suggestion not that useful. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources, those like Huizenga and Taubes are clearly given undue weight. Also finding unreasonable reasons to dispute an objective article is tendentious editing. Perhaps there are lesser to no objections to a user space rewrite/draft.--5.15.200.250 (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Huizenga's reasoning to Nernst equation missinterpretation

One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.--5.15.200.238 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That's from Huizenga 1993, pp. 33, 47. From page 33. "Based on his interpretation of the Nernst equation (taught in college freshman chemistry courses), Pons concluded that the deuterium pressure in the palladium cathode was equivalent to a hydrostatic pressure of approximately 10²⁷ atmospheres! It seems that it was this incorrect conclusion which led Fleischmann and Pons to believe that, in a palladium cathode, the deuterium nuclei would be forced together close enough to fuse. The Nernst equation, applicable under equilibrium conditions, was used to relate the overpotential in an electrochemical cell to deuterium fugacity. If this simple, but erroneous procedure is followed, a large overpotential does give a high deuterium fugacity. The use of the Nernst equation, however, for the overall deuterium evaporation reaction under conditions of large values of the overpotential for estimation of the pressure of deuterium in the palladium is inappropriate [J. Y. Huot, J. Electroche. Soc 136 631 (1989)] The actual hydrostatic pressure of deuterium in the palladium is many orders of magnitude less than estimated by this faulty procedure."

Another book cites this paragraph from Huizenga, and adds: "'The general message is clear: in using our pre-equilibrium arguments to establish Eq. (2.43), we must ensure that the pre-equilibrium is actually operative if the equation is to be meaningful. If large currents are being drawn, this may not be the case. Accordingly, the reader might note the need for caution in applying the analysis derived in Section 2.8. He/she might also wish to review he discussion of the Nernst equation in Chapter 1 of this book."

There was a comentary in a German journal[15] (search "Nernst")

Ebert K; Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 470 (in German).

"Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium" (Electrochemically induced

fusion of deuterium).

** Early comment, reporting on the initial F&P press conference and the paper

in JEC. The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to

the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV).

I don't know how to summarize this in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now looked up the paper by Huot that Huizenga cites, and there seems to be a big gap between what he says and any assertion in the paper itself. If Huizenga thought there was some implication from the paper such as he asserts, he didn't go to any trouble to spell out his reasoning.

The conclusion from all this would appear to be that Huizenga's assertion is overblown, and I suggest that instead of trying to summarise what people think about it as EN suggests that assertion simply be deleted from the article as having insufficient support.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It could be deleted or at least rephrased with according to Huizenga, a critic of cold fusion. I have added the sentence (The equation has been involved in the scientific controversy of denying the reality of cold fusion phenomena) to the article of the equation.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real that addressing a single issue (viz. whether Huizenga's criticism would in fact stand up if one looked properly into the details) seems hardly worth the trouble. This article should really be re-written from the start, with a view to including the totality of the evidence on both sides. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real" because the reliable sources overwhelmingly say it is not real. As has been mentioned, we summarise what the reliable sources say. We are not aiming to balance minority views with the mainstream. Fringe theories are put into perspective with the mainstream. I won't link the policies and guidelines as you have already admitted you have no intention of familiarising yourself with them, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is an unsettled issue from the hastily archived sections about who asseses the reliability of the sources. Which are those reliable and those unreliable and who decides that and the related issue of mainstream vs fringe. In this case it is extremely important who makes this assertions.5.15.195.190 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

text from user talk Brian Josephson about the mainstream vs fringe

Perhaps the situation could be summarised by saying it is pretty well mainstream by now but most scientists go round wearing blinkers and haven't noticed. Of course the fact that people still go on referring to it as if it is all an error has something to do with it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.195.190 (talk)

It would be interesting to know just what article of the Wikicreed legitimises the extent of bias that is apparent in this article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant section on minority views is at Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Due_and_undue_weight. - MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Yes indeed; it is very easy of course to interpret wikicreed in a biased way (metabias one might call this). This is an important point and I will start a separate section for it.--Brian Josephson (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For fringe views specifically: WP:FRINGE, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of the equation to deny the hypothesized fusion of the deuterons

Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.--5.15.178.93 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Excess heat as due to difference in conductivity of heavy water/water with lithium salts

There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.--5.15.62.129 (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutron involvement in triggering cold fusion

Another aspect which should be presented in article is the role of neutrons, as there are some claims that lacking background neutron cold fusion does not occur (experiments done with Kamiokande machine in an isolated cave at high depth).--5.15.206.146 (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what and who these claims are? Then they can be evaluated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Claims for instance, by T. Ishida 1992 Study of the anomalous nuclear effects in solid-deuterium systems, Thesis, Tokio University in coperation with S.E.Jones.--5.15.21.236 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

TNCF model

It would be useful to mention the Trapped neutron catalyzed fusion (by Kozima) in the subsection Proposed mechanisms.--5.15.205.255 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This model assumes the existence of stable trapped neutrons in some solids connected to triggering of cold fusion.--5.15.37.249 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of journals articles

What journals that publish articles in the field are reliable and what are not?--5.15.176.81 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reliability of sources depends on context. You can't affirm that a given source will always be reliable in all contexts for all purposes.

We have a noticeboard for discussing the reliability of sources. The usual reply to this type of question is: "This is too general. Propose a specific source to support a specific content in a specific article, and then we can discuss it." --Enric Naval (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be echoes of Humpty Dumpty here: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. And again, The question is, which is to be master—that's all. Perhaps I'm being naive, but that's how it looks to me at least since some of the RS judgements deviate from what I'd consider to be reasonable. But then I'm only a scientist and I gather that doesn't count.--Brian Josephson (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For instance some articles from the journals mentioned in the section Publications like International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal, etc. Some of this journals articles should be analyzed and cited in text.--5.15.192.70 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Favorable

I found the following articles that gave a favorable opinion of cold fusion:

• [16] “What If Cold Fusion Is Real?” Wired magazine.

• [17] “Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: Maybe The World Will Change After All”.

• [18] “Cornell University Library: Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device”. 7 Jun 2013.

• [19] “Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas”

• [20] “Falls Church News-Press: The Peak Oil Crisis: Update on ‘Cold Fusion’”

What makes these articles somewhat credible is that they are from sources not specializing in unorthodox ideas like CF, so a major source of bias is removed. (It is not clear if any of these sources openly say that CF has been “proven” to work; I would have to check.) Should these sources be cited? If so, how would they be integrated into the article? The Wired article is a little questionable because the name Wired sounds cheesy; also, it is a hippie magazine, so it may have the bias of being oriented toward unorthodox ideas. The other sources seem more serious.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Wired article is the best of the bunch, and it's speculative. We cannot use arXiv as a source, even if the article were good. There seems little evidence that ExtremeTech is intended to be credible. Forbes would be the best if we could verify that it was subject to editorial review, even though the scientists clearly are not independent of Rossi; columnists are generally permitted to write whatever they want if not libelous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Reproducibility (again)

This edit cites this paper:

• Bodyagin, N.V.; et al. "Structural and Behavioural Irreproducibility of Solid Materals". Russian microelectronics. Springer. Retrieved 2 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)

I can't access the text. But I can see the list of references, and they are all unrelated to cold fusion? Does this paper even mention cold fusion in its text? Can we have a quote of the relevant sentence(s)? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The words and phrases "Cold fusion", "fusion", "nuclear energy", "nuclear reaction", "nuclear", and "energy" do not appear anywhere in the text of the paper. The emphasis is on the manufacturing of microelectronic devices (the stuff often colloquially referred to as 'silicon chips'), not on (putative) macroscopic fusion reactors. Leaving aside potential WP:WEIGHT issues, the way the paper is used in that edit is clearly a bit of WP:SYNTH intended to bolster a somewhat dodgy implied syllogism (which could be paraphrased as "Variations in microscopic processes can cause some electronic devices to fail to perform as expected; cold fusion devices fail to perform as expected, therefore variations in microscopic processes are responsible.") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

ToaT disingenuously avoids quoting actual text from the article, such as this:

"In the context of materials technology, reproducibility is usually defined as the accuracy to which a value that characterizes the material can be repeated in successive runs if all the process variables are kept constant to a maximum possible accuracy."

The fact that no specific reference to CF etc. is made in the article is a red herring, the issue at hand being the fact that irreproducibility is a generic property of materials (which distinguishes claimed cold fusion from thermonuclear fusion, which occurs in a plasma). --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the lack of any reference to cold fusion, processes that resemble nuclear fusion, electrolytic cells, special properties of palladium, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That is true, but irrelevant. Perhaps you cannot see the rather obvious connection between the italicised extract and the CF article, but your own failure to do so in no way proves that this is the case. And connections that are obvious to any reasonably competent person cannot legitimately be characterised as original research, even if people would very much like to do this in order to have an excuse to revert. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some obvious connections that Wikipedia can make without a source, but I can't see this as one of them. If there were a Wikipedia article on microscopic irreproducibility, then the Russian microelectronics article might be a good source for that article. However, that article has been deleted twice as not being notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

An example of microscopic irreproducibility is the previous mention of an individual nuclear fission event. It had to be reminded in case some editors here have forgotten. There is no reason that individual fusion events should not be irreproducibile since this is the case for fission. Failure to see the connection could mean either tendentious/biased attitude or the lack of understanding required to asses the suitability of the quote. (I have to repeat myself concerning the lack of understanding.)--5.15.176.133 (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(re comment by Rubin above) Someone once famously said 'he would say that, wouldn't he?' -- very relevant and how predictable! Sorry to be so cynical about this, but that's about all one can do when people bring up this sort of argument which wouldn't convince any knowledgeable person. By the way, someone has sent me a link to a very interesting analysis of w'pedia editing re this kind of topic, but as this isn't supposed to be a forum I won't go into details here. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To rephrase my comment: It's clear (to any knowledgeable person) that it (anything related to the alleged contents of the Russian article) cannot be added under the current Wikipedia policies. Whether the policies should be changed is another matter, which should not be discussed here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? What policies support the assertion alleged contents of the Russian article) cannot be added under the current Wikipedia policies.?--5.15.176.133 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No Original Research. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? In what way do you think that policy applies here? What are specific aspects that would allow the conclusion that using this source is OR? Whithout the specific aspects your answer is evasive and not convincing.--5.15.207.101 (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:No original research you can find, for example: "(...) and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly". I am sure you can find more sentences that would apply here. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Makes the statement explicitly? What is that supposed to mean? That if a w'pedia article contains a sentence X then some RS must contain the exact same sentence? --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore my b*ll***t detector is flashing, telling me it has picked up a truly shocking case of what they call 'economy with the truth'. The article quoted states in full: Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Omitting mention of the words in boldface above appears to be an attempt to hoodwink readers into thinking that what is merely recommended as 'best practice' is compulsory. Retraction would appear to be in order. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, that approach is not required for all statements. However, if you read on, you will see that the policy says 'Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.' This statement has been challenged - and on an article such as Cold fusion with a contentious history, it is best to assume that every statement you put into the article will be challenged. - MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, every statement will be challenged. Whether such challenges are reasonable or not is another matter, as the above 'economy with the truth' very well demonstrates. You may have noticed that I have not added anything to the article for some time, as I know from experience that would be a waste of my professional skills, which can be better applied elsewhere. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

By and large, the policies make good sense. It is only the way they are applied by some editors that creates the (widely recognised) problem.--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The source just straight up doesn't mention cold fusion. There is absolutely nothing surprising about it being removed. It seems what you don't like is that we are following the no original research policy and you are doing it to try and rebut a source. Clearly using OR to rebut a source is never going to be acceptable, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already pointed out the irrelevance of your first sentence. Please look at what I said! --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In the context of the reproducibility it is interesting to notice another domain with problems in this regard, but not so controversial, the field of bioelectromagnetic studies. This has had many failures to replicate the results as pointed out by the book Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (vol I) edited by David O. C(arpenter?), Academic Press, 1994.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the problem seems to be a very general one -- I've been reading that a sizeable fraction of all published papers are wrong. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the ireproducibility of materials is a feature of complex systems through chaotic behaviour (as stated at least by Kozima).--5.15.53.183 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Impurities favorable and unfavorable to reproducibility

In Pd systems it is claimed by McKubre etal that Al and Si on the surface of Pd enhances reproducibility.--5.15.0.43 (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Content suggestions that don't provide any source

Alternating current electrolytic experiments

I suggest inclusion in the article of the answer to next question (rephrased comment): Are there some experiments performed with alternating current in electrolytic enviroments?--5.15.207.101 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this is an article talk page and not a general page for discussion (see WP:NOTFORUM), IRWolfie- (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This aspect is self-evident. You need not repeat this statement as a buzzword. I brought this up in order for some experiments reports of this type to be included in article , if there are some.--5.15.195.97 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to rephrase your initial comment so as to make its relevance more obvious to people. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed a rephrase is appropriate (to underly that this not forum) to contrast with direct current electrolytic environment experiment (F&P). Perhaps a suggestion of rephrase would be helpful.--5.15.196.40 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you study a source such as the Library at lenr.org and then come up with specific suggestions as to what might be included in the article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent content-based suggestion. I have browsed the mentioned repository an I have noticed some works with content related to some aspects I was considering to raise for discussion of inclusion.--5.15.202.119 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

lenr.org is not a reliable source and the papers it includes are generally fringe views and minority positions (WP:UNDUE), IRWolfie- (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

lenr.org is a repository of articles (many of them) which have been published in reliable journals. As for the fringe labelling, it is just a pure subjective assertion of some wikieditors who insist on their biased POV despite the evidence to contrary.--5.15.208.179 (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No source is inherently reliable (some are fairly close, like Nature and Science). Also bear in mind that WP:DUE weight applies, particularly with regard to WP:FRINGE positions. Minority views, even when published in peer reviewed journals, should not be confused or misrepresented as the mainstream position. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A pretty confused response! You don't ask of a library of physical books whether it is a reliable source or not; it is a collection of sources (books) some of which are reliable and others not. Likewise some of the items in the lenr.org library are published in reputable journals with good refereeing procedures and can thus be considered reliable. It is a nonsense asking how reliable the library as such is. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The topic of this subsection is the inclusion in the article of the answer to the question if there are any reported experiments in which the cold fusion phenomena occurs in systems containing only heavy water subjected to an alternating electric field through electrodes, considering that the Reported results section in the article begins with the enumeration of the constituents and conditions for experiments: metal/electrodes, deuterium/heavy water, type of system (gas contact, electroytic, etc) and excitation (fields, acustic waves etc)--5.15.177.181 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the work of Bockris and Sundaresan reports results of such kind with carbon electrodes in simple water.--5.15.53.183 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Biased views - Gary Taubes

Clearly Taubes book has a biased attitude focused on the emotions of scientists he interviewed rather than on scientific aspects. Thus the reliability of this source should be reassesed.

It seems that Taubes and Huizenga are the pillars of the biased attitude on cold fusion present in the article--5.15.198.54 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Taubes accused Bockris of contaminating electrolysis cells with tritium, allegation disproved.--5.15.0.43 (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Appeal to the scientific method

Robert Duncan

Robert Duncan should be quoted in the article about the need to apply the scientific method to cold fusion. Or perhaps someone from the editors on this page would want to cast doubt on his reliability?--5.15.197.212 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, but I'm sure no bookmaker will give you good odds concerning how the editors on this page will respond. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Browsing the archives of this talk page (for example Archive 41) one can find a sample of totally inappropriate attitude/response of some editors on this page illustrated by a small quote about Robert Duncan by user Greg L : --5.15.202.138 (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You asked me if I know who Robert Duncan©™® is (honestly, a mental image of a dog with its tail wagging came to mind with that). I am exceedingly pleased to respond, “F--k no, and proud of it.” So I just now googled his name and stopped at the first site that wasn’t Wikipedia (*queue “eye rolling” clip from B‑roll*) or (literally) Cold Fusion Now-dot-com, and looked at this blog about the fellow, where there were individuals who seemed to be less-than-impressed with His Highness Of Cold Fusion. As for what “LENR” means, it’s just one of the many—as Sarah Palin might say—*sciency*-sounding pseudonyms to avoid saying “cold fusion”; an effort to put lipstick on a pig and pass it off as a prom date.

Their (expected biased) reaction should not be taken seriously, if it contains fallacies.--5.15.195.97 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And is the kind of language used in the above consistent with WP best practice? If it is, it should not be. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Collapse per WP:NOTFORUM - no edit proposed. This is not the place for a discussion about editors, or a forum for general discussion about cold fusion.

subsection with another quote hastily removed by IRWolfie.--5.15.198.117 (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Not sure where that is from in the archive, but be aware of the fallacy fallacy. If you want to make a suggestion, then make it, but don't use it as an opportunity to attack random editors. I reverted one of your additions which amounted to a pointless personal attack on an individual. Picking quotes and declaring them ignorant without further reasoning is also incredibly authoritarian (I assume Brian will speak out against attacks on scientists based on authority, right?) and also fallacious. Digging up past utterly unrelated comments also adds nothing to the current discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC) The quote has not the intention to attack some individual user but to underline some reasoning unawareness from some editors who make hazardous assertions here concerning the reliability of some sources they do not like, among other aspects.--5.15.198.117 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC) You have shown no such thing. Please focus on making your own arguments for inclusion of specific content rather than creating straw men from the archives, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC) What a hasty reaction from a user! I was about to give details about the relevance of the second quote when a user hastily intervened and caused an edit conflict. So I will restore the second quote with details.--5.15.194.94 (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC) You have provided no relevance at all. We aren't here to discuss your beliefs or anyone beliefs about the scientific method. They are irrelevant to this article. We do not base our articles on original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Really? No relevance at all? You have not pointed out any argument supporting this assertion. It is not about belief in the collapsed content, it is about noticing a modus operandi of some editors who, by lacking deep understanding of the scientific method pointed out by their edits, have a pattern of editing in this talk page of disregarding anything that opposes their views about the topic of cold fusion and the sources which support it by misconceived appeal to wikipolicies of NOR and UNDUE using them as buzzwords ad nauseam. Such editors are not able to asses the reliability of sources and to appreciate what is OR and what is not OR. Using the collapsable box is also a sign of disrespect to counterarguments which they do not like.--5.15.206.0 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The subtleties of the scientific method

I have found quotes in the archive of this page which indicate that some wikieditors are not very aware of the subtleties of the scientific method. The entire subsection has been hastily removed by another user who has interpreted the use of that quotes as a personal attack.

The removed quote contains assertions about the correctness of theories and the acceptance by scientists. These aspects are contrary to the scientific method because their insist to much on present models and assumptions on (thermo)nuclear fusion and the so-called scientific consensus and thus denying the validity of the cold fusion experiments due to contradiction to current models. Current models and assumptions have not an absolute status which would allow the categorical conclusion that cold fusion results are necessarily an error. The current models and assumptions are perfectible. Using them as premises to categorically deny the reality of cold fusion is a great reasoning error and thus a serious deviation from the scientific method.

I^ll restore the quotes later when I^ll find time.--5.15.195.89 (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Quote by Brian Josephson

The lecture Pathological Disbelief could be cited regarding the deviation from the scientific method in the case of cold fusion in comparison to other cases.--5.15.196.180 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

For instance, in the case of the origin of meteorites there has been little scientific base to object to the non-terrestrial origin of meteorites as pointed out by Max von Laue in his History of Physics (Geschichte der Physik, 1958). Some newtonian disciples considered that meteorites could not have come from outer space because this was seen a disturbance of cosmic harmony.--5.15.198.26 (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've read somewhere of a different objection to non-terrestrial origin. As all planetary orbits are elliptical, it was thought meteorite orbits must also be elliptical, but an elliptical orbit would have hit the earth some time in the past. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Although Max von Laue does not specify explicitly what kind of disturbance to cosmic order was involved, it seems this must be it, the cosmic order consisted in the assumption of the same type of orbits for both planets and meteorites (whether or not with the same eccentricities).--5.15.210.172 (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be continued elsewhere or the cabal will become restless ;-) I just wanted to make the point though that surely Newton at least was aware that hyperbolic orbits were equally in conformance with his laws? --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course the discussion could be continued elsewhere to prevent allegations of irrelevance. I was trying last night to post something similar on your talk page, but the content has at some moment suddenly disappeared. I′ve posted a rephrased version of the lost content here this morning.--5.15.197.78 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The concept of cosmic harmony is an influence from Plato, as pointed out by John Desmond Bernal in his Science in History.--5.15.7.76 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Incompatibilities with conventional fusion

What is the scientific base of the reasoning that cold fusion must have the exact mechanism as conventional fusion in free space, otherwise its existence is denied? (the answer should be specified in the article)--86.125.163.60 (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with this subject, but I see the article on the subject has a section Limitations, and it looks from this that it may not be correct to apply the Nernst equation. The article states specifically:

In dilute solutions, the Nernst equation can be expressed directly in terms of concentrations (since activity coefficients are close to unity). But at higher concentrations, the true activities of the ions must be used. This complicates the use of the Nernst equation, since estimation of non-ideal activities of ions generally requires experimental measurements. The Nernst equation also only applies when there is no net current flow through the electrode. The activity of ions at the electrode surface changes when there is current flow, and there are additional overpotential and resistive loss terms which contribute to the measured potential.

The situation I believe is that Fleischmann was aware that the naive application of the Nernst equation indicated that fusion should not occur at an appreciable rate, but in view of the uncertainties he thought it worth trying the experiment just to see if anything happened -- and the meltdown showed that it certainly did and he hastily checked for radioactivity and used smaller amounts of Pd in future experiments. The latter part is in Beaudette's book and there are no doubt lectures by Fleischmann somewhere that would confirm the rest of what I have said.

In any event, the article would be improved by including the fact that the Nernst equation becomes more complicated at high concentrations and if there is an electric current, as that will indicate that Huizenga might not have been right in his criticism. Ideally someone would look at his book and see what exactly he said. If I have time I'll ask the experts to check on this rather important point. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed this page and the controversial aspects (especially those concerning Nernst equation) presented here. It seems there have been many omissions of important aspects in the history of this topic. Nernst equation is one of them. It has stated by its author originally appealing only to concentrations (thus considering tacitly ideal solutions) and at zero net current (thermodynamic equilibrium of electric and osmotic force).

Its original formulation appealed to a doubtful concept - the dissolution tension of metals - which had implausibly high values and has been dropped being replaced with the notion of activity due to non-ideal solutions (ionic solutions being non-ideal from start). The nature of ionic solutions has been pointed out firstly by Arhenius and then by Max Born with his simplified version of the heat of solution of solid salts, thus underlying the presence of mobile ions.-

The relevance of the equation to the present topic seems to be in whether or not some factors could trigger the fusion of deuterons in solid lattice of transition metal hydrides, perhaps differently from the mechanisms in conventional fusion.-- 188.27.144.144(talk) 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Shortcomings of the DOE report conclusions

As some editors complained about the lack of a specific edit proposal, I suggest that the shortcomings of the DOE report should specified in the article (of course using sources in order that some editor not say that could be OR).--5.15.209.114 (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, there are 186 footnote references and a lengthy bibliography for this article. If you want to argue for a change, you'll need to provide sources to back up your claims.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the DoE report, its 2004 report included the following text (page 4):

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. Those reviewers who accepted the production of excess power typically suggest that the effect seen often, and under some understood conditions, is compelling.

In conformity with requests by some editors, I should like to ask, before including it in the article, whether there is a legitimate reason why this quote should not be included? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the article already discusses the 2004 DOE review. We should be careful to avoid giving it too much weight. Olorinish (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic, I'm afraid. It would be different if that short quote was similar to something already there, but that isn't the case -- in fact what little reference there is to the 2004 review is a little misleading (see below). And one might characterise my suggestion by saying that the sentences quoted fill a gap in what is there at present.

If you think too much is there re DoE reviews, the answer would seem to be to remove some of the material regarding the 1989 review, which was less searching than the 2004 review and therefore deserving of less weight. And it isn't exactly right to say 'reviewers found that cold fusion evidence was still not convincing 15 years later'; rather it was some reviewers (roughly a half) that was not convinced by the excess heat measurement. Would you like me to try and improve the article in that respect? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is an article about cold fusion, not excess heat. Olorinish (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The subject of cold fusion is intimately bound up with experimental evidence that it is occurring, and heat in excess of what can be explained in conventional terms is one of the main lines of evidence. In addition excess heat is one reason for the subject being of general interest, since if it can be produced on the scale claimed by Rossi and Defkalion it would have important practical implications in regard to energy production. Therefore there is an intimate connection between the two.

However, searching suggests that quite often in WP the means of detection of something such as 'nuclear reactions' do not appear in the main article on the subject, which perhaps suggests a separate article describing the methods of testing the cold fusion claims, including measurement of excess heat. However, if there were such an article people would probably be immediately suggesting its removal, and so I would favour this aspect being included in the main article, perhaps with a more logical organisation than at present. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It is stated in the article that DOE considers the theoretical proposals to be the weakest part of CF reports. What is the scientific base of such assertions about theoretical models? The answer is important to be specified in the article.--5.15.62.129 (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of archives′ content

From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?--5.15.178.192 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Only when it's relevant for making specific changes to the article (when a specific source was discussed in the past, when the merits of including a specific fact were discussed, etc).

Sometimes it's used for discussing the behaviour of a specific editor. But a talk page is not the place for this type of discussion. If there is some merit to the discussion, it gets bumped to a specialized noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Collapsable text box - abusive use

It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.--5.15.179.182 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's appropriate to use when it's completely off topic and disrupting the page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.192.114 (talk)

Of course it would be justified in cases that are really as you say but here it is not the case, your labeling as off-topic and disrupting the page has little base and is just the opinion of some editor lacking convincing other reply to the pointed facts/deficiencies.--5.15.213.209 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. This sure looks like censorship to me, and I think it would be wise for editors not to act in ways that may give rise to a suspicion that censorship in some form is involved in their actions. The problem is augmented by the fact that a certain degree of expertise is sometimes needed to judge whether something is irrelevant in the context or not, and editors do not always have the expertise that is required. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the expertise of some editors who complain of supposedly irrelevant archives search and attack when it comes to their shown (lack of) expertise pointed out by previous comments, there is some wikirule which underlies the necessity of some expertise in fields where is needed and the lack of it would a problem. This wikirule is WP:Competence#Lack of technical expertise.--5.15.193.118 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of journals articles

What journals that publish articles in the field are reliable and what are not?--5.15.176.81 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reliability of sources depends on context. You can't affirm that a given source will always be reliable in all contexts for all purposes.

We have a noticeboard for discussing the reliability of sources. The usual reply to this type of question is: "This is too general. Propose a specific source to support a specific content in a specific article, and then we can discuss it." --Enric Naval (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be echoes of Humpty Dumpty here: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. And again, The question is, which is to be master—that's all. Perhaps I'm being naive, but that's how it looks to me at least since some of the RS judgements deviate from what I'd consider to be reasonable. But then I'm only a scientist and I gather that doesn't count.--Brian Josephson (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For instance some articles from the journals mentioned in the section Publications like International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal, etc. Some of this journals articles should be analyzed and cited in text.--5.15.192.70 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Favorable

I found the following articles that gave a favorable opinion of cold fusion:

• [21] “What If Cold Fusion Is Real?” Wired magazine.

• [22] “Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: Maybe The World Will Change After All”.

• [23] “Cornell University Library: Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device”. 7 Jun 2013.

• [24] “Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas”

• [25] “Falls Church News-Press: The Peak Oil Crisis: Update on ‘Cold Fusion’”

What makes these articles somewhat credible is that they are from sources not specializing in unorthodox ideas like CF, so a major source of bias is removed. (It is not clear if any of these sources openly say that CF has been “proven” to work; I would have to check.) Should these sources be cited? If so, how would they be integrated into the article? The Wired article is a little questionable because the name Wired sounds cheesy; also, it is a hippie magazine, so it may have the bias of being oriented toward unorthodox ideas. The other sources seem more serious.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Wired article is the best of the bunch, and it's speculative. We cannot use arXiv as a source, even if the article were good. There seems little evidence that ExtremeTech is intended to be credible. Forbes would be the best if we could verify that it was subject to editorial review, even though the scientists clearly are not independent of Rossi; columnists are generally permitted to write whatever they want if not libelous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Connection with bubble fusion and sonoluminescense

It should be specified what are the connections between the two types of fusion.--5.15.41.228 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

They have their own articles and are mentioned in the parent article of Nuclear Fusion. They were mentioned in passing in an older version of this article, but as their hypothesized mechanism involves localized pockets of very high energy (temperatures) it was argued that they were not part of this topic and the mention was removed. Personally, I rather liked the old section describing other things that are sometimes incorrectly called cold fusion, but I would have to concede that this article is already quite long. I do see that someone has added an 'in popular culture' section again this time as 'cultural references'- such a section seems to get recreated and then redeleted every few years here.--Noren (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, the "popular culture" section will survive if we only allow mention with high-quality sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Navy SPAWAR researchers are in a 1 hour and 3 minute video on YouTube claiming that the reaction is highly repeatable, makes gamma rays, neutrons, and transmutes metals into other metals, and creates Tritium. The talk was filmed at the U of Missouri. NASA has 2 videos on YouTube, both saying the reaction is a real thing, that it creates heat, that NASA is contracting for a space plane built around the Nickel-Hydrogen LENR reactor ,, that the Windom Larsen theory fits most of the observed phenomena in the reaction. I question the glaring omissions of these items from this Wiki. NASA slideshows on presentations that NASA Langley made at other NASA facilities are also on YouTube, they discuss the space plane, and aircraft with "unlimited hover". Why do we seriously consider that Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems (Pacific), and Langley, don't know a nuclear reaction when they see one? We shouldn't be bitter, but re-consider. 98.30.129.141 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Search for relevant videos on → Youtube.com. — Loadmaster (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As the last three NASA-related papers that I checked stated essentially that "cold fusion would be extremely useful if it worked, so more research is recommended." Although quoted by editors as saying that it worked, they did not. Hence, if you can provide a specific NASA paper which actually said that it works, I might consider it worthy of addition. As it stands, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

There no good reason to archive the talk page with time between archiving of 1 month for unreplied sections. The archiving settings could be changed.--5.15.41.17 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Who has made the setting of archiving this page of 1 month since the last unreplied comment in sections?--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Reported helium generation - competing hypothesized mechanisms

How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?--5.15.206.234 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Err ... do bear in mind that 'This is not a forum for general discussion about cold fusion'. There's a time and a place for everything! But if you have a specific proposal for this article, do go ahead and make it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I consider that the statement about not forum can be tacitly assumed. The answer to the asked question about competing reactions, assuming its existence, should be specified in the article.--5.15.212.24 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.--5.15.41.17 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Types of models

Several types of models, considering or avoiding the potential barrier to fusion of deuterons are reviewed by Chechin&Tsarev Int. J. Theor Phys. (1993)--5.15.41.228 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The models which avoid the barrier resort to hypotheses concerning forces that could facilitate the fusion of deuterons thus making the barrier concept unnecessary.--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of archives′ content

From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?--5.15.178.192 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Only when it's relevant for making specific changes to the article (when a specific source was discussed in the past, when the merits of including a specific fact were discussed, etc).

Sometimes it's used for discussing the behaviour of a specific editor. But a talk page is not the place for this type of discussion. If there is some merit to the discussion, it gets bumped to a specialized noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Collapsable text box - abusive use

It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.--5.15.179.182 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's appropriate to use when it's completely off topic and disrupting the page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.192.114 (talk)

Of course it would be justified in cases that are really as you say but here it is not the case, your labeling as off-topic and disrupting the page has little base and is just the opinion of some editor lacking convincing other reply to the pointed facts/deficiencies.--5.15.213.209 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. This sure looks like censorship to me, and I think it would be wise for editors not to act in ways that may give rise to a suspicion that censorship in some form is involved in their actions. The problem is augmented by the fact that a certain degree of expertise is sometimes needed to judge whether something is irrelevant in the context or not, and editors do not always have the expertise that is required. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the expertise of some editors who complain of supposedly irrelevant archives search and attack when it comes to their shown (lack of) expertise pointed out by previous comments, there is some wikirule which underlies the necessity of some expertise in fields where is needed and the lack of it would a problem. This wikirule is WP:Competence#Lack of technical expertise.--5.15.193.118 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Connection with bubble fusion and sonoluminescense

It should be specified what are the connections between the two types of fusion.--5.15.41.228 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

They have their own articles and are mentioned in the parent article of Nuclear Fusion. They were mentioned in passing in an older version of this article, but as their hypothesized mechanism involves localized pockets of very high energy (temperatures) it was argued that they were not part of this topic and the mention was removed. Personally, I rather liked the old section describing other things that are sometimes incorrectly called cold fusion, but I would have to concede that this article is already quite long. I do see that someone has added an 'in popular culture' section again this time as 'cultural references'- such a section seems to get recreated and then redeleted every few years here.--Noren (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, the "popular culture" section will survive if we only allow mention with high-quality sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Navy SPAWAR researchers are in a 1 hour and 3 minute video on YouTube claiming that the reaction is highly repeatable, makes gamma rays, neutrons, and transmutes metals into other metals, and creates Tritium. The talk was filmed at the U of Missouri. NASA has 2 videos on YouTube, both saying the reaction is a real thing, that it creates heat, that NASA is contracting for a space plane built around the Nickel-Hydrogen LENR reactor ,, that the Windom Larsen theory fits most of the observed phenomena in the reaction. I question the glaring omissions of these items from this Wiki. NASA slideshows on presentations that NASA Langley made at other NASA facilities are also on YouTube, they discuss the space plane, and aircraft with "unlimited hover". Why do we seriously consider that Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems (Pacific), and Langley, don't know a nuclear reaction when they see one? We shouldn't be bitter, but re-consider. 98.30.129.141 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Search for relevant videos on → Youtube.com. — Loadmaster (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As the last three NASA-related papers that I checked stated essentially that "cold fusion would be extremely useful if it worked, so more research is recommended." Although quoted by editors as saying that it worked, they did not. Hence, if you can provide a specific NASA paper which actually said that it works, I might consider it worthy of addition. As it stands, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

There no good reason to archive the talk page with time between archiving of 1 month for unreplied sections. The archiving settings could be changed.--5.15.41.17 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Who has made the setting of archiving this page of 1 month since the last unreplied comment in sections?--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Reported helium generation - competing hypothesized mechanisms

How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?--5.15.206.234 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Err ... do bear in mind that 'This is not a forum for general discussion about cold fusion'. There's a time and a place for everything! But if you have a specific proposal for this article, do go ahead and make it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I consider that the statement about not forum can be tacitly assumed. The answer to the asked question about competing reactions, assuming its existence, should be specified in the article.--5.15.212.24 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.--5.15.41.17 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Collapsable text box - abusive use

It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.--5.15.179.182 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's appropriate to use when it's completely off topic and disrupting the page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.192.114 (talk)

Of course it would be justified in cases that are really as you say but here it is not the case, your labeling as off-topic and disrupting the page has little base and is just the opinion of some editor lacking convincing other reply to the pointed facts/deficiencies.--5.15.213.209 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. This sure looks like censorship to me, and I think it would be wise for editors not to act in ways that may give rise to a suspicion that censorship in some form is involved in their actions. The problem is augmented by the fact that a certain degree of expertise is sometimes needed to judge whether something is irrelevant in the context or not, and editors do not always have the expertise that is required. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the expertise of some editors who complain of supposedly irrelevant archives search and attack when it comes to their shown (lack of) expertise pointed out by previous comments, there is some wikirule which underlies the necessity of some expertise in fields where is needed and the lack of it would a problem. This wikirule is WP:Competence#Lack of technical expertise.--5.15.193.118 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Reported helium generation - competing hypothesized mechanisms

How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?--5.15.206.234 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Err ... do bear in mind that 'This is not a forum for general discussion about cold fusion'. There's a time and a place for everything! But if you have a specific proposal for this article, do go ahead and make it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I consider that the statement about not forum can be tacitly assumed. The answer to the asked question about competing reactions, assuming its existence, should be specified in the article.--5.15.212.24 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.--5.15.41.17 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Excess heat as due to difference in conductivity of heavy water/water with lithium salts

There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.--5.15.62.129 (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Taubes can be cited as according to Taubes....--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Reproducibility (again)

This edit cites this paper:

• Bodyagin, N.V.; et al. "Structural and Behavioural Irreproducibility of Solid Materals". Russian microelectronics. Springer. Retrieved 2 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)

I can't access the text. But I can see the list of references, and they are all unrelated to cold fusion? Does this paper even mention cold fusion in its text? Can we have a quote of the relevant sentence(s)? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The words and phrases "Cold fusion", "fusion", "nuclear energy", "nuclear reaction", "nuclear", and "energy" do not appear anywhere in the text of the paper. The emphasis is on the manufacturing of microelectronic devices (the stuff often colloquially referred to as 'silicon chips'), not on (putative) macroscopic fusion reactors. Leaving aside potential WP:WEIGHT issues, the way the paper is used in that edit is clearly a bit of WP:SYNTH intended to bolster a somewhat dodgy implied syllogism (which could be paraphrased as "Variations in microscopic processes can cause some electronic devices to fail to perform as expected; cold fusion devices fail to perform as expected, therefore variations in microscopic processes are responsible.") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

ToaT disingenuously avoids quoting actual text from the article, such as this:

"In the context of materials technology, reproducibility is usually defined as the accuracy to which a value that characterizes the material can be repeated in successive runs if all the process variables are kept constant to a maximum possible accuracy."

The fact that no specific reference to CF etc. is made in the article is a red herring, the issue at hand being the fact that irreproducibility is a generic property of materials (which distinguishes claimed cold fusion from thermonuclear fusion, which occurs in a plasma). --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the lack of any reference to cold fusion, processes that resemble nuclear fusion, electrolytic cells, special properties of palladium, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That is true, but irrelevant. Perhaps you cannot see the rather obvious connection between the italicised extract and the CF article, but your own failure to do so in no way proves that this is the case. And connections that are obvious to any reasonably competent person cannot legitimately be characterised as original research, even if people would very much like to do this in order to have an excuse to revert. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some obvious connections that Wikipedia can make without a source, but I can't see this as one of them. If there were a Wikipedia article on microscopic irreproducibility, then the Russian microelectronics article might be a good source for that article. However, that article has been deleted twice as not being notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

An example of microscopic irreproducibility is the previous mention of an individual nuclear fission event. It had to be reminded in case some editors here have forgotten. There is no reason that individual fusion events should not be irreproducibile since this is the case for fission. Failure to see the connection could mean either tendentious/biased attitude or the lack of understanding required to asses the suitability of the quote. (I have to repeat myself concerning the lack of understanding.)--5.15.176.133 (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(re comment by Rubin above) Someone once famously said 'he would say that, wouldn't he?' -- very relevant and how predictable! Sorry to be so cynical about this, but that's about all one can do when people bring up this sort of argument which wouldn't convince any knowledgeable person. By the way, someone has sent me a link to a very interesting analysis of w'pedia editing re this kind of topic, but as this isn't supposed to be a forum I won't go into details here. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To rephrase my comment: It's clear (to any knowledgeable person) that it (anything related to the alleged contents of the Russian article) cannot be added under the current Wikipedia policies. Whether the policies should be changed is another matter, which should not be discussed here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? What policies support the assertion alleged contents of the Russian article) cannot be added under the current Wikipedia policies.?--5.15.176.133 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No Original Research. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? In what way do you think that policy applies here? What are specific aspects that would allow the conclusion that using this source is OR? Whithout the specific aspects your answer is evasive and not convincing.--5.15.207.101 (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:No original research you can find, for example: "(...) and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly". I am sure you can find more sentences that would apply here. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Makes the statement explicitly? What is that supposed to mean? That if a w'pedia article contains a sentence X then some RS must contain the exact same sentence? --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore my b*ll***t detector is flashing, telling me it has picked up a truly shocking case of what they call 'economy with the truth'. The article quoted states in full: Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Omitting mention of the words in boldface above appears to be an attempt to hoodwink readers into thinking that what is merely recommended as 'best practice' is compulsory. Retraction would appear to be in order. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, that approach is not required for all statements. However, if you read on, you will see that the policy says 'Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.' This statement has been challenged - and on an article such as Cold fusion with a contentious history, it is best to assume that every statement you put into the article will be challenged. - MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, every statement will be challenged. Whether such challenges are reasonable or not is another matter, as the above 'economy with the truth' very well demonstrates. You may have noticed that I have not added anything to the article for some time, as I know from experience that would be a waste of my professional skills, which can be better applied elsewhere. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

By and large, the policies make good sense. It is only the way they are applied by some editors that creates the (widely recognised) problem.--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The source just straight up doesn't mention cold fusion. There is absolutely nothing surprising about it being removed. It seems what you don't like is that we are following the no original research policy and you are doing it to try and rebut a source. Clearly using OR to rebut a source is never going to be acceptable, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already pointed out the irrelevance of your first sentence. Please look at what I said! --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In the context of the reproducibility it is interesting to notice another domain with problems in this regard, but not so controversial, the field of bioelectromagnetic studies. This has had many failures to replicate the results as pointed out by the book Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (vol I) edited by David O. C(arpenter?), Academic Press, 1994.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the problem seems to be a very general one -- I've been reading that a sizeable fraction of all published papers are wrong. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the ireproducibility of materials is a feature of complex systems through chaotic behaviour (as stated at least by Kozima).--5.15.53.183 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Impurities favorable and unfavorable to reproducibility

In Pd systems it is claimed by McKubre etal that Al and Si on the surface of Pd enhances reproducibility.--5.15.0.43 (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Some metals can lower the reproducibility, like Zn or Cu.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Huizenga's reasoning to Nernst equation missinterpretation

One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.--5.15.200.238 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That's from Huizenga 1993, pp. 33, 47. From page 33. "Based on his interpretation of the Nernst equation (taught in college freshman chemistry courses), Pons concluded that the deuterium pressure in the palladium cathode was equivalent to a hydrostatic pressure of approximately 10²⁷ atmospheres! It seems that it was this incorrect conclusion which led Fleischmann and Pons to believe that, in a palladium cathode, the deuterium nuclei would be forced together close enough to fuse. The Nernst equation, applicable under equilibrium conditions, was used to relate the overpotential in an electrochemical cell to deuterium fugacity. If this simple, but erroneous procedure is followed, a large overpotential does give a high deuterium fugacity. The use of the Nernst equation, however, for the overall deuterium evaporation reaction under conditions of large values of the overpotential for estimation of the pressure of deuterium in the palladium is inappropriate [J. Y. Huot, J. Electroche. Soc 136 631 (1989)] The actual hydrostatic pressure of deuterium in the palladium is many orders of magnitude less than estimated by this faulty procedure."

Another book cites this paragraph from Huizenga, and adds: "'The general message is clear: in using our pre-equilibrium arguments to establish Eq. (2.43), we must ensure that the pre-equilibrium is actually operative if the equation is to be meaningful. If large currents are being drawn, this may not be the case. Accordingly, the reader might note the need for caution in applying the analysis derived in Section 2.8. He/she might also wish to review he discussion of the Nernst equation in Chapter 1 of this book."

There was a comentary in a German journal[26] (search "Nernst")

Ebert K; Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 470 (in German).

"Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium" (Electrochemically induced

fusion of deuterium).

** Early comment, reporting on the initial F&P press conference and the paper

in JEC. The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to

the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV).

I don't know how to summarize this in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now looked up the paper by Huot that Huizenga cites, and there seems to be a big gap between what he says and any assertion in the paper itself. If Huizenga thought there was some implication from the paper such as he asserts, he didn't go to any trouble to spell out his reasoning.

The conclusion from all this would appear to be that Huizenga's assertion is overblown, and I suggest that instead of trying to summarise what people think about it as EN suggests that assertion simply be deleted from the article as having insufficient support.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It could be deleted or at least rephrased with according to Huizenga, a critic of cold fusion. I have added the sentence (The equation has been involved in the scientific controversy of denying the reality of cold fusion phenomena) to the article of the equation.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real that addressing a single issue (viz. whether Huizenga's criticism would in fact stand up if one looked properly into the details) seems hardly worth the trouble. This article should really be re-written from the start, with a view to including the totality of the evidence on both sides. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real" because the reliable sources overwhelmingly say it is not real. As has been mentioned, we summarise what the reliable sources say. We are not aiming to balance minority views with the mainstream. Fringe theories are put into perspective with the mainstream. I won't link the policies and guidelines as you have already admitted you have no intention of familiarising yourself with them, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is an unsettled issue from the hastily archived sections about who asseses the reliability of the sources. Which are those reliable and those unreliable and who decides that and the related issue of mainstream vs fringe. In this case it is extremely important who makes this assertions.5.15.195.190 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

text from user talk Brian Josephson about the mainstream vs fringe

Perhaps the situation could be summarised by saying it is pretty well mainstream by now but most scientists go round wearing blinkers and haven't noticed. Of course the fact that people still go on referring to it as if it is all an error has something to do with it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.195.190 (talk)

It would be interesting to know just what article of the Wikicreed legitimises the extent of bias that is apparent in this article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant section on minority views is at Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Due_and_undue_weight. - MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Yes indeed; it is very easy of course to interpret wikicreed in a biased way (metabias one might call this). This is an important point and I will start a separate section for it.--Brian Josephson (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For fringe views specifically: WP:FRINGE, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of the equation to deny the hypothesized fusion of the deuterons

Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.--5.15.178.93 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The equation cannot be used to deny the fusion of the deuterons.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality of experiments

Something should be inserted in article about the quality of experiments and experimental design in regards to reproducibility, like the following text:

After the announcement of the Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, there has been great debate between the deniers and the believers of the science of cold fusion phenomena. The debate continues to this day after two decades since the announcement. In other sciences, this situation is rare typically due to the fact that experiments are either reproducible or not. In this particular situation, the poor reproducibility of the experiment has been a major issue. As a result, the truth about whether or not cold fusion is even possible has been questioned. The purpose of this paper is to clarify why this unique situation occurred. We divide the process of experiment into four phases to analyze why "poor reproducibility" occurred. (1)Setting up the hypothesis, (2) Planning of experimental design, (3) Implementation of the experiment and (4) Verification of experiment. We would like to discuss what the problems have been in each phase.We interviewed the scholars in the field of Cold Fusion and found that the following problems have occurred in the four phases. (1) Hypotheses: There have been a number of hypotheses. Therefore, it has been difficult to get specific, measurable feed back. What one believes theoretical plays outs quite differently in experimental form (2) Experimental design: Each experiment may appear to have been carried out under the same conditions. However, variations appeared in the experimental results. It is possible that there were unknown conditions in metal, gas, and other components. Such unknown conditions might have not been considered in the experimental design. (3) Implementation of the experiment: Preventing the dispersion of the gas such as nano-structure of the metal as well as the gas such as hydrogen is very difficult. Hence, it has been difficult to control the experiment perfectly. (4) Verification of experiment: There has been some uncertainty about the various hypothesis and experimental conditions. It is difficult to write specifically about all the experimental conditions in the papers. Therefore, reproducing the experiments have been difficult for other researchers. In this study, we focused on the quality of the "implementation of experiment". In particular, we analyzed the prototype of the venture companies outside of Japan. We looked at the photos and the data of the prototype. We also analyzed the structure of the prototype, material, gas, and the method of heat measurement from the photos. We came to the conclusion that the results and outputs that the company claims are quite different from what they appear to be. Moreover, the data and the information which contained a lot of noise were announced without peer-reviews. In conclusion, "the lack of clear hypothesis", "difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions" and "uncertainty of information" led to the current controversy of Cold Fusion. It is important to solve these problems in order for the society of Cold Fusion to be in the main stream of the scientific society.

by E. Igari, T. Mizuno--5.15.41.17 (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current scientific consensus is that many of the experiments, specifically a subset of the negative ones that conclude no cold fusion exists, are quite robustly reproducible under controlled conditions. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is equally the case that many experiments require a lot of expertise to reproduce the effects under investigation, which means it is strikingly easy (though uninformative scientifically) to reproduce a null result! --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You may be right for what little I care; I was speaking merely to what the scientific consensus appears to be. As always, the scientific consensus may be wrong, but it's not Wikipedia's place to attempt to overturn it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The scientific consensus may be wrong or even lacking, especially in the case of CF. From the above probabilistic approach follows necessarily: the probability of reproducing a result and the probability of the complementary event, namely of not reproducing the result(s) must be considered.--5.15.191.89 (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Other aspect concerns the factorial design approach to experiments, considering the rather loose connection between theories of CF and experimental results.--5.15.191.89 (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The influence of alloys electrodes can be tested.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.--5.15.177.58 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that rather sounds like it would end up as a POV fork. I think the real issue is that you and Brian don't like what the secondary sources say. It is also unnecessary, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think some of us are capable of being sufficiently objective. But you and others would find reasons to dispute an objective article, and on account of that alone I'm rather inclined to consider user@5.15.177.58's suggestion not that useful. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources, those like Huizenga and Taubes are clearly given undue weight. Also finding unreasonable reasons to dispute an objective article is tendentious editing. Perhaps there are lesser to no objections to a user space rewrite/draft.--5.15.200.250 (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Current Status Section

Short of a complete rewrite, a lot of information is buried in the "history" section. Following the structure of Fusion power I think that a "Current Status" section is appropriate (of course, "current" will migrate to "history" on a timescale of maybe 5 years). A subsection of "current financing" could include the Kimmel/SKINR grant and the recent DOE funding proposal. Similarly, "current research/progress" could contain recent reports. Alanf777 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A five-year window 2009-2014 would bring in a good selection Alanf777 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wired

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup - how about adding informations from this site? --22merlin (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There's little there which isn't quoting New Energy Times or Infinite Energy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

DOE ARPA-E Funding

Added an initial entry based on Forbes and DOE. Alanf777 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this merits a sentence at the end of the lead. Alanf777 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -- skinr and doe Alanf777 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll change those to named-refs if the para stands. I'm not sure if the first named ref can be empty. Alanf777 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also see my proposal to carve out a "Current Status" section covering 2009-2014 Alanf777 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not relevant to this article. As the Forbes piece says: "LENR technology has suffered from confusion with Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann‘s “cold fusion” experiment, which has largely been dismissed by the scientific community." Wikipedia should not be similarly confused. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

At present Cold Fusion and LENR (and various other acronyms such as LENT) are synonyms. Only Widom-Larson (and their main supporter Krivitt) claim that LENR is entirely different from Cold Fusion. "R" stands for "Reaction" -- which includes Fusion. A split of the article into "Cold Fusion" and "LENR" is not appropriate at this time, if ever. If this is your only objection then the "LENR" information should be restored. Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Alanf777 here: LENR and cold fusion are the same thing. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll undo the last two changes Alanf777 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone remember CMNS (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science)? The organizer of the international cold fusion conference still bears this name[27]. And right there I can see the "Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball-Lightning" and the "International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

David Nagel lists 25 names on the last page of http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NagelICCF18.pdf (he regards the entire field as CMNS) -- I'm sure we don't need an article for each !! Alanf777 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the existing section, but it should read Forbes reports that New Energy Times (or Larsen) reports that the DOE ARPA-E study supports "cold fusion" research. The Forbes article does not actually report that the DOE ARPA-E may support "cold fusion" research. NET is not reliable; is Larsen considered a reliable "expert"? I don't know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Larsen? It would be OK to quote/paraphrase Forbes on "Lewis Larsen, the Chicago physicist who co-authored the Widom-Larsen theory of low-energy nuclear reactions, called the mention “a stunning reversal of a longstanding policy.”" He's too close to quote him on theory, but OK for policy. Adding that would indicate why the FOA is significant. Alanf777 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not uncommon. Something happens (DOE FOA). Somebody notices it and tips off a wiki-unreliable source, and then a wiki-reliable source picks up on that. Since there's no dispute that DOE did it, I don't think we need to document the entire chain. As a co-author of the "Widom-Larsen" effect (vigorously touted by NET, supported by NASA) Larsen is too close to be an unbiased expert. As Nagel pointed out in the above review paper, there are "approximately three dozen" groups of theories, and no consensus. Hmmm ... shouldn't the long-standing "Infinite Energy" magazine (still mainly print) be regarded as a reliable source? Alanf777 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm - problems?

I have to say this addition still strikes me as problematic. It has an entire standalone subsection written in rather a newsy "announcement" fashion to itself, and a meaty paragraph in the lede - which all seems rather undue. More particularly though, the secondary source we use explicitly says its subject is not to be confused with "cold fusion" such as Pons-Fleischmann's efforts. Yet here we are adding it to an article on Wikipedia entitled "Cold fusion" the opening words of which are "This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature". So something's wrong somewhere isn't it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The "about" section you quote is just to distinguish F&P metal-hydrogen CF from muon-catalyzed CF. It could be extended to add "and subsequent research" .. but that's covered in the lead. Since this is the first time the DOE has opened the door even a tiny crack to CF/LENR funding it is significant, and merits a mention in the lead (and I don't consider a 20-word sentence, where the long names make up 10 of those words, particularly meaty). I proposed a new "current status" section which would give it lower prominence in the article as a whole. Alanf777 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Collapsable text box - abusive use

It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.--5.15.179.182 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's appropriate to use when it's completely off topic and disrupting the page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.192.114 (talk)

Of course it would be justified in cases that are really as you say but here it is not the case, your labeling as off-topic and disrupting the page has little base and is just the opinion of some editor lacking convincing other reply to the pointed facts/deficiencies.--5.15.213.209 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. This sure looks like censorship to me, and I think it would be wise for editors not to act in ways that may give rise to a suspicion that censorship in some form is involved in their actions. The problem is augmented by the fact that a certain degree of expertise is sometimes needed to judge whether something is irrelevant in the context or not, and editors do not always have the expertise that is required. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the expertise of some editors who complain of supposedly irrelevant archives search and attack when it comes to their shown (lack of) expertise pointed out by previous comments, there is some wikirule which underlies the necessity of some expertise in fields where is needed and the lack of it would a problem. This wikirule is WP:Competence#Lack of technical expertise.--5.15.193.118 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Reported helium generation - competing hypothesized mechanisms

How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?--5.15.206.234 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Err ... do bear in mind that 'This is not a forum for general discussion about cold fusion'. There's a time and a place for everything! But if you have a specific proposal for this article, do go ahead and make it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I consider that the statement about not forum can be tacitly assumed. The answer to the asked question about competing reactions, assuming its existence, should be specified in the article.--5.15.212.24 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.--5.15.41.17 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Excess heat as due to difference in conductivity of heavy water/water with lithium salts

There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.--5.15.62.129 (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Taubes can be cited as according to Taubes....--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Reproducibility (again)

This edit cites this paper:

• Bodyagin, N.V.; et al. "Structural and Behavioural Irreproducibility of Solid Materals". Russian microelectronics. Springer. Retrieved 2 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)

I can't access the text. But I can see the list of references, and they are all unrelated to cold fusion? Does this paper even mention cold fusion in its text? Can we have a quote of the relevant sentence(s)? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The words and phrases "Cold fusion", "fusion", "nuclear energy", "nuclear reaction", "nuclear", and "energy" do not appear anywhere in the text of the paper. The emphasis is on the manufacturing of microelectronic devices (the stuff often colloquially referred to as 'silicon chips'), not on (putative) macroscopic fusion reactors. Leaving aside potential WP:WEIGHT issues, the way the paper is used in that edit is clearly a bit of WP:SYNTH intended to bolster a somewhat dodgy implied syllogism (which could be paraphrased as "Variations in microscopic processes can cause some electronic devices to fail to perform as expected; cold fusion devices fail to perform as expected, therefore variations in microscopic processes are responsible.") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

ToaT disingenuously avoids quoting actual text from the article, such as this:

"In the context of materials technology, reproducibility is usually defined as the accuracy to which a value that characterizes the material can be repeated in successive runs if all the process variables are kept constant to a maximum possible accuracy."

The fact that no specific reference to CF etc. is made in the article is a red herring, the issue at hand being the fact that irreproducibility is a generic property of materials (which distinguishes claimed cold fusion from thermonuclear fusion, which occurs in a plasma). --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the lack of any reference to cold fusion, processes that resemble nuclear fusion, electrolytic cells, special properties of palladium, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That is true, but irrelevant. Perhaps you cannot see the rather obvious connection between the italicised extract and the CF article, but your own failure to do so in no way proves that this is the case. And connections that are obvious to any reasonably competent person cannot legitimately be characterised as original research, even if people would very much like to do this in order to have an excuse to revert. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some obvious connections that Wikipedia can make without a source, but I can't see this as one of them. If there were a Wikipedia article on microscopic irreproducibility, then the Russian microelectronics article might be a good source for that article. However, that article has been deleted twice as not being notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

An example of microscopic irreproducibility is the previous mention of an individual nuclear fission event. It had to be reminded in case some editors here have forgotten. There is no reason that individual fusion events should not be irreproducibile since this is the case for fission. Failure to see the connection could mean either tendentious/biased attitude or the lack of understanding required to asses the suitability of the quote. (I have to repeat myself concerning the lack of understanding.)--5.15.176.133 (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(re comment by Rubin above) Someone once famously said 'he would say that, wouldn't he?' -- very relevant and how predictable! Sorry to be so cynical about this, but that's about all one can do when people bring up this sort of argument which wouldn't convince any knowledgeable person. By the way, someone has sent me a link to a very interesting analysis of w'pedia editing re this kind of topic, but as this isn't supposed to be a forum I won't go into details here. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To rephrase my comment: It's clear (to any knowledgeable person) that it (anything related to the alleged contents of the Russian article) cannot be added under the current Wikipedia policies. Whether the policies should be changed is another matter, which should not be discussed here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? What policies support the assertion alleged contents of the Russian article) cannot be added under the current Wikipedia policies.?--5.15.176.133 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No Original Research. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? In what way do you think that policy applies here? What are specific aspects that would allow the conclusion that using this source is OR? Whithout the specific aspects your answer is evasive and not convincing.--5.15.207.101 (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:No original research you can find, for example: "(...) and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly". I am sure you can find more sentences that would apply here. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Makes the statement explicitly? What is that supposed to mean? That if a w'pedia article contains a sentence X then some RS must contain the exact same sentence? --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore my b*ll***t detector is flashing, telling me it has picked up a truly shocking case of what they call 'economy with the truth'. The article quoted states in full: Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Omitting mention of the words in boldface above appears to be an attempt to hoodwink readers into thinking that what is merely recommended as 'best practice' is compulsory. Retraction would appear to be in order. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, that approach is not required for all statements. However, if you read on, you will see that the policy says 'Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.' This statement has been challenged - and on an article such as Cold fusion with a contentious history, it is best to assume that every statement you put into the article will be challenged. - MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, every statement will be challenged. Whether such challenges are reasonable or not is another matter, as the above 'economy with the truth' very well demonstrates. You may have noticed that I have not added anything to the article for some time, as I know from experience that would be a waste of my professional skills, which can be better applied elsewhere. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

By and large, the policies make good sense. It is only the way they are applied by some editors that creates the (widely recognised) problem.--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The source just straight up doesn't mention cold fusion. There is absolutely nothing surprising about it being removed. It seems what you don't like is that we are following the no original research policy and you are doing it to try and rebut a source. Clearly using OR to rebut a source is never going to be acceptable, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already pointed out the irrelevance of your first sentence. Please look at what I said! --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In the context of the reproducibility it is interesting to notice another domain with problems in this regard, but not so controversial, the field of bioelectromagnetic studies. This has had many failures to replicate the results as pointed out by the book Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (vol I) edited by David O. C(arpenter?), Academic Press, 1994.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the problem seems to be a very general one -- I've been reading that a sizeable fraction of all published papers are wrong. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the ireproducibility of materials is a feature of complex systems through chaotic behaviour (as stated at least by Kozima).--5.15.53.183 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Impurities favorable and unfavorable to reproducibility

In Pd systems it is claimed by McKubre etal that Al and Si on the surface of Pd enhances reproducibility.--5.15.0.43 (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Some metals can lower the reproducibility, like Zn or Cu.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Huizenga's reasoning to Nernst equation missinterpretation

One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.--5.15.200.238 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That's from Huizenga 1993, pp. 33, 47. From page 33. "Based on his interpretation of the Nernst equation (taught in college freshman chemistry courses), Pons concluded that the deuterium pressure in the palladium cathode was equivalent to a hydrostatic pressure of approximately 10²⁷ atmospheres! It seems that it was this incorrect conclusion which led Fleischmann and Pons to believe that, in a palladium cathode, the deuterium nuclei would be forced together close enough to fuse. The Nernst equation, applicable under equilibrium conditions, was used to relate the overpotential in an electrochemical cell to deuterium fugacity. If this simple, but erroneous procedure is followed, a large overpotential does give a high deuterium fugacity. The use of the Nernst equation, however, for the overall deuterium evaporation reaction under conditions of large values of the overpotential for estimation of the pressure of deuterium in the palladium is inappropriate [J. Y. Huot, J. Electroche. Soc 136 631 (1989)] The actual hydrostatic pressure of deuterium in the palladium is many orders of magnitude less than estimated by this faulty procedure."

Another book cites this paragraph from Huizenga, and adds: "'The general message is clear: in using our pre-equilibrium arguments to establish Eq. (2.43), we must ensure that the pre-equilibrium is actually operative if the equation is to be meaningful. If large currents are being drawn, this may not be the case. Accordingly, the reader might note the need for caution in applying the analysis derived in Section 2.8. He/she might also wish to review he discussion of the Nernst equation in Chapter 1 of this book."

There was a comentary in a German journal[28] (search "Nernst")

Ebert K; Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 470 (in German).

"Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium" (Electrochemically induced

fusion of deuterium).

** Early comment, reporting on the initial F&P press conference and the paper

in JEC. The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to

the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV).

I don't know how to summarize this in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now looked up the paper by Huot that Huizenga cites, and there seems to be a big gap between what he says and any assertion in the paper itself. If Huizenga thought there was some implication from the paper such as he asserts, he didn't go to any trouble to spell out his reasoning.

The conclusion from all this would appear to be that Huizenga's assertion is overblown, and I suggest that instead of trying to summarise what people think about it as EN suggests that assertion simply be deleted from the article as having insufficient support.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It could be deleted or at least rephrased with according to Huizenga, a critic of cold fusion. I have added the sentence (The equation has been involved in the scientific controversy of denying the reality of cold fusion phenomena) to the article of the equation.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real that addressing a single issue (viz. whether Huizenga's criticism would in fact stand up if one looked properly into the details) seems hardly worth the trouble. This article should really be re-written from the start, with a view to including the totality of the evidence on both sides. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real" because the reliable sources overwhelmingly say it is not real. As has been mentioned, we summarise what the reliable sources say. We are not aiming to balance minority views with the mainstream. Fringe theories are put into perspective with the mainstream. I won't link the policies and guidelines as you have already admitted you have no intention of familiarising yourself with them, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is an unsettled issue from the hastily archived sections about who asseses the reliability of the sources. Which are those reliable and those unreliable and who decides that and the related issue of mainstream vs fringe. In this case it is extremely important who makes this assertions.5.15.195.190 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

text from user talk Brian Josephson about the mainstream vs fringe

Perhaps the situation could be summarised by saying it is pretty well mainstream by now but most scientists go round wearing blinkers and haven't noticed. Of course the fact that people still go on referring to it as if it is all an error has something to do with it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.195.190 (talk)

It would be interesting to know just what article of the Wikicreed legitimises the extent of bias that is apparent in this article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant section on minority views is at Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Due_and_undue_weight. - MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Yes indeed; it is very easy of course to interpret wikicreed in a biased way (metabias one might call this). This is an important point and I will start a separate section for it.--Brian Josephson (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For fringe views specifically: WP:FRINGE, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of the equation to deny the hypothesized fusion of the deuterons

Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.--5.15.178.93 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The equation cannot be used to deny the fusion of the deuterons.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality of experiments

Something should be inserted in article about the quality of experiments and experimental design in regards to reproducibility, like the following text:

After the announcement of the Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, there has been great debate between the deniers and the believers of the science of cold fusion phenomena. The debate continues to this day after two decades since the announcement. In other sciences, this situation is rare typically due to the fact that experiments are either reproducible or not. In this particular situation, the poor reproducibility of the experiment has been a major issue. As a result, the truth about whether or not cold fusion is even possible has been questioned. The purpose of this paper is to clarify why this unique situation occurred. We divide the process of experiment into four phases to analyze why "poor reproducibility" occurred. (1)Setting up the hypothesis, (2) Planning of experimental design, (3) Implementation of the experiment and (4) Verification of experiment. We would like to discuss what the problems have been in each phase.We interviewed the scholars in the field of Cold Fusion and found that the following problems have occurred in the four phases. (1) Hypotheses: There have been a number of hypotheses. Therefore, it has been difficult to get specific, measurable feed back. What one believes theoretical plays outs quite differently in experimental form (2) Experimental design: Each experiment may appear to have been carried out under the same conditions. However, variations appeared in the experimental results. It is possible that there were unknown conditions in metal, gas, and other components. Such unknown conditions might have not been considered in the experimental design. (3) Implementation of the experiment: Preventing the dispersion of the gas such as nano-structure of the metal as well as the gas such as hydrogen is very difficult. Hence, it has been difficult to control the experiment perfectly. (4) Verification of experiment: There has been some uncertainty about the various hypothesis and experimental conditions. It is difficult to write specifically about all the experimental conditions in the papers. Therefore, reproducing the experiments have been difficult for other researchers. In this study, we focused on the quality of the "implementation of experiment". In particular, we analyzed the prototype of the venture companies outside of Japan. We looked at the photos and the data of the prototype. We also analyzed the structure of the prototype, material, gas, and the method of heat measurement from the photos. We came to the conclusion that the results and outputs that the company claims are quite different from what they appear to be. Moreover, the data and the information which contained a lot of noise were announced without peer-reviews. In conclusion, "the lack of clear hypothesis", "difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions" and "uncertainty of information" led to the current controversy of Cold Fusion. It is important to solve these problems in order for the society of Cold Fusion to be in the main stream of the scientific society.

by E. Igari, T. Mizuno--5.15.41.17 (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current scientific consensus is that many of the experiments, specifically a subset of the negative ones that conclude no cold fusion exists, are quite robustly reproducible under controlled conditions. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is equally the case that many experiments require a lot of expertise to reproduce the effects under investigation, which means it is strikingly easy (though uninformative scientifically) to reproduce a null result! --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You may be right for what little I care; I was speaking merely to what the scientific consensus appears to be. As always, the scientific consensus may be wrong, but it's not Wikipedia's place to attempt to overturn it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The scientific consensus may be wrong or even lacking, especially in the case of CF. From the above probabilistic approach follows necessarily: the probability of reproducing a result and the probability of the complementary event, namely of not reproducing the result(s) must be considered.--5.15.191.89 (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Other aspect concerns the factorial design approach to experiments, considering the rather loose connection between theories of CF and experimental results.--5.15.191.89 (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The influence of alloys electrodes can be tested.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.--5.15.177.58 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that rather sounds like it would end up as a POV fork. I think the real issue is that you and Brian don't like what the secondary sources say. It is also unnecessary, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think some of us are capable of being sufficiently objective. But you and others would find reasons to dispute an objective article, and on account of that alone I'm rather inclined to consider user@5.15.177.58's suggestion not that useful. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources, those like Huizenga and Taubes are clearly given undue weight. Also finding unreasonable reasons to dispute an objective article is tendentious editing. Perhaps there are lesser to no objections to a user space rewrite/draft.--5.15.200.250 (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Current Status Section

Short of a complete rewrite, a lot of information is buried in the "history" section. Following the structure of Fusion power I think that a "Current Status" section is appropriate (of course, "current" will migrate to "history" on a timescale of maybe 5 years). A subsection of "current financing" could include the Kimmel/SKINR grant and the recent DOE funding proposal. Similarly, "current research/progress" could contain recent reports. Alanf777 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A five-year window 2009-2014 would bring in a good selection Alanf777 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wired

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup - how about adding informations from this site? --22merlin (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There's little there which isn't quoting New Energy Times or Infinite Energy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

DOE ARPA-E Funding

Added an initial entry based on Forbes and DOE. Alanf777 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this merits a sentence at the end of the lead. Alanf777 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -- skinr and doe Alanf777 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll change those to named-refs if the para stands. I'm not sure if the first named ref can be empty. Alanf777 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also see my proposal to carve out a "Current Status" section covering 2009-2014 Alanf777 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not relevant to this article. As the Forbes piece says: "LENR technology has suffered from confusion with Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann‘s “cold fusion” experiment, which has largely been dismissed by the scientific community." Wikipedia should not be similarly confused. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

At present Cold Fusion and LENR (and various other acronyms such as LENT) are synonyms. Only Widom-Larson (and their main supporter Krivitt) claim that LENR is entirely different from Cold Fusion. "R" stands for "Reaction" -- which includes Fusion. A split of the article into "Cold Fusion" and "LENR" is not appropriate at this time, if ever. If this is your only objection then the "LENR" information should be restored. Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Alanf777 here: LENR and cold fusion are the same thing. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll undo the last two changes Alanf777 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone remember CMNS (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science)? The organizer of the international cold fusion conference still bears this name[29]. And right there I can see the "Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball-Lightning" and the "International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

David Nagel lists 25 names on the last page of http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NagelICCF18.pdf (he regards the entire field as CMNS) -- I'm sure we don't need an article for each !! Alanf777 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the existing section, but it should read Forbes reports that New Energy Times (or Larsen) reports that the DOE ARPA-E study supports "cold fusion" research. The Forbes article does not actually report that the DOE ARPA-E may support "cold fusion" research. NET is not reliable; is Larsen considered a reliable "expert"? I don't know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Larsen? It would be OK to quote/paraphrase Forbes on "Lewis Larsen, the Chicago physicist who co-authored the Widom-Larsen theory of low-energy nuclear reactions, called the mention “a stunning reversal of a longstanding policy.”" He's too close to quote him on theory, but OK for policy. Adding that would indicate why the FOA is significant. Alanf777 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not uncommon. Something happens (DOE FOA). Somebody notices it and tips off a wiki-unreliable source, and then a wiki-reliable source picks up on that. Since there's no dispute that DOE did it, I don't think we need to document the entire chain. As a co-author of the "Widom-Larsen" effect (vigorously touted by NET, supported by NASA) Larsen is too close to be an unbiased expert. As Nagel pointed out in the above review paper, there are "approximately three dozen" groups of theories, and no consensus. Hmmm ... shouldn't the long-standing "Infinite Energy" magazine (still mainly print) be regarded as a reliable source? Alanf777 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm - problems?

I have to say this addition still strikes me as problematic. It has an entire standalone subsection written in rather a newsy "announcement" fashion to itself, and a meaty paragraph in the lede - which all seems rather undue. More particularly though, the secondary source we use explicitly says its subject is not to be confused with "cold fusion" such as Pons-Fleischmann's efforts. Yet here we are adding it to an article on Wikipedia entitled "Cold fusion" the opening words of which are "This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature". So something's wrong somewhere isn't it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The "about" section you quote is just to distinguish F&P metal-hydrogen CF from muon-catalyzed CF. It could be extended to add "and subsequent research" .. but that's covered in the lead. Since this is the first time the DOE has opened the door even a tiny crack to CF/LENR funding it is significant, and merits a mention in the lead (and I don't consider a 20-word sentence, where the long names make up 10 of those words, particularly meaty). I proposed a new "current status" section which would give it lower prominence in the article as a whole. Alanf777 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wired

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup - how about adding informations from this site? --22merlin (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There's little there which isn't quoting New Energy Times or Infinite Energy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)