Talk:Cold fusion

Pcarbonn is banned from editing the Cold fusion article, for a period ending One year.
	The above mentioned editor has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the Cold fusion article. The user is additionally prohibited from discussing or proposing changes to the article, on this talk page. Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details.
This notice was posted by Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

Reliable sources?

If we narrow down the complete biography to only the top APS journals, then here is the breakdown:

Journal	res+	res0	res-
Physical Review Letters	0	0	4
Physical Review A	0	6	0
Physical Review B	0	10	18
Physical Review C	1	1	11

I believe "res0" indicates neutral results, while "res-" is certainly negative. Some of these are strictly theoretical, but a few are experimental upper bounds contradicting the claims of cold fusion proponents. So how does the article currently cover this distribution of positive versus negative results?

Proponents estimate that 3,000 cold fusion papers have been published, including over 1,000 journal papers and books, where the latter number includes both pro and con articles.

Right, still some way to go before this article is NPOV wrt reliable sources, but at least the lead seems decently accurate now. Good work! Vesal (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked for the "res+" article in Phys. Rev. C and I believe it is the one by Southon et al. It is obvious that it should be labeled as a "res0" or "res-" article, which should raise doubts about all of the labels on that page. Olorinish (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you assume that Phys. Rev. is the only reliable source of information? What about J. Electroanal. Chem. or Jap. J. Appl. Physics? In the past there have been many scientific controversies in which some journal editors turned out to be wrong, and others right. There is no reason to think that the editors of Phys. Rev. are better able to judge this issue than the editors of these other journals.

In any case, "reliability" is not a function of the publication, but rather the instruments, techniques and signal to noise ratio, and by the number of independent replications. Cold fusion results are highly reliable by these standards. No other standards apply in science. Even if the results were not published at all, they would still be highly reliable.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.88.243 (talk • contribs)

As far as WP:RS goes, reliability is a function of the standards of the publication. Hut 8.5 16:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeat the question then: Why is Phys. Rev. more reliable than Jap. J. Appl. Physics? The latter is the most prestigious journal in Japan. It is the journal of the Japanese Physical Society, just as Phys. Rev. is the journal of the APS. Is there a suggestion here that Japan is a second-rate nation, and that only American journals and scientific societies are reliable? Or that electrochemistry is not as scientific as physics? Cold fusion results have been published in the leading journals of plasma physics. Are these less reliable than Phys. Rev.?

The APS has a long history of outrageous prejudice against fusion. Schwinger resigned to protest their attitude. Their journal reflects this attitude. They are not a reliable source of information about this topic.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.88.243 (talk • contribs)

Nobody here is saying that Phys. Rev. is the only source of reliable information, and you know that. What is important is that the Physical Review journals are the most important mainstream journals for physics results, at least in the US and arguably in the world. Journals like theirs which routinely report on physics topics and are widely read by physicists are definitely more likely to correctly evaluate physics articles. I find it very significant that Mosier-Boss et al. chose to publish four of their articles in Naturwissenschaften, which is essentially a biology journal, rather that in physics journals. That doesn't mean they should be ignored completely, and in fact two are listed in the current version of this article. But it does suggest that the reports were not quite solid enough to pass the review process for Physical Review.

Regarding the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, my recollection is that none of those articles show any direct nuclear reaction detection data, but I could be wrong.

Regarding the publication of articles in plasma physics journals, what articles are you talking about?

Regarding your statement that "Even if the results were not published at all, they would still be highly reliable," it is important to remember that publication is extremely important to the modern scientific process.

Regarding your claim that Physical Review is "not reliable on this topic," what evidence supports this, beyond the Schwinger episode?

On another topic, I notice that you still haven't listed your choice of the three most persuasive reports of nuclear reactions related to cold fusion, as I requested. Olorinish (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Olorinish wrote:

Nobody here is saying that Phys. Rev. is the only source of reliable information, and you know that.

If that is not what they are saying, then why do they list only Phys. Rev. and not the other journals I mentioned? It seems to me that is exactly what they are saying.

Journals like theirs which routinely report on physics topics and are widely read by physicists are definitely more likely to correctly evaluate physics articles.

The editors at Phys. Rev. have told me and many others that they have not read any papers on cold fusion, and they will not read or review any in the future. All papers are returned to the authors unread. So they know nothing about this subject.

I find it very significant that Mosier-Boss et al. chose to publish four of their articles in Naturwissenschaften, which is essentially a biology journal, rather that in physics journals.

This is because Phys. Rev., Nature and some other well-known journals summarily reject all submissions about cold fusion, without review, as I said. They have told Mosier-Boss and many others that is their policy.

Regarding the publication of articles in plasma physics journals, what articles are you talking about?

Fusion Technology, Nucl. Fusion Plasma Phys., J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., J. Fusion Energy. (this is a kind of a trade magazine of the plasma fusion researchers, published by their lobby organization in Maryland, so perhaps it is not peer-reviewed . . . Not sure.)

Regarding your statement that "Even if the results were not published at all, they would still be highly reliable," it is important to remember that publication is extremely important to the modern scientific process.

I was kidding. Unlike you, I really do believe in the peer-review process and the importance of publications. That is why I am convinced that cold fusion is real: because of all those hundreds of peer-reviewed papers I have read. I believe in peer-review, but the Phys. Rev. editors do not, as I said, since they do send out cold fusion papers for review.

Regarding your claim that Physical Review is "not reliable on this topic," what evidence supports this, beyond the Schwinger episode?

The letters sent by their editors to me and to researchers.

On another topic, I notice that you still haven't listed your choice of the three most persuasive reports of nuclear reactions related to cold fusion, as I requested.

I did respond, but someone deleted my messages. Sorry about that. There is no point to responding again because I will only be censored again. In general let me suggest you start with the review articles by Storms at LENR-CANR.org because they are well organized and conveniently hyperlinked to the papers they refer to. The book by Storms has much more detail, with hundreds of footnotes.

The principal nuclear reaction, obviously, is deuterium to helium plus heat energy in the same ratio as plasma fusion. Why this occurs without neutrons I have no idea, but the fact that it does occur is clearly shown by the instruments, in both real time (on-line mass spec.) and off line mass spectroscopy.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.88.243 (talk • contribs)

• interjecting* A hypothesis has recently been published that could explain the lack of neutrons, in Issue 81 (Sept/Oct 2008) of "Infinite Energy". It has been posted at WikiSource ("Cold Fusion Hypothesis") and a .PDF of the "Infinite Energy" article can be accessed through a link at the top of that page (the body of the article at WikiSource is currently being complained about as a "possible copyright violation" --which it isn't! Are detractors trying to suppress it?). A condensed/modified version of the hypothesis was posted as a Comment to a Google Knol on Cold Fusion (Knol written By Jed Rothwell, Pierre Carbonnelle and Edmund Storms); since the hypothesis is condensed there, it might be less onerous to read. Anyway, the point of this post is that most physicists who denounce Cold Fusion do so because they know of no reasonable mechanism that would allow it. The published hypothesis is basically an attempt to describe a reasonable mechanism. Will any detractors read it? Are they so convinced that there can never be a reasonable mechanism, that they automatically assume any proposed mechanism MUST be flawed? But unlike mathematicians who need not examine a proposal for trisecting an angle with compass and straightedge alone, the Cold Fusion detractors do not have a proof that an explanatory mechanism cannot exist. What sensible excuse can they offer, to avoid possibly learning something?

I see a later comment in this page regarding a request for a hypothesis. The author of that post may be forgetting that often enough in Science, the first thing that happens is an unexpected result to an experiment. ALSO, it is often required that other experiments be done to gather more complete information about that result; it is silly to expect a decent hypothesis to be forged from one data point. Why, therefore, should there be any insistence that experiments be stopped, if a hypothesis has not yet been devised? V (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a line in the "References" section of the article, holding links to the article and its publisher. One thing about a HYPOTHESIS, different from the content of an ordinary journal article, is that it is SUPPOSED to be a Guess. That means the place where it gets published is not so important. In some ways guesses are related to opinions, and since all publishers have opinions, none is automatically superior to any other. (Later on, certain things in the published hypothesis can be incorporated into main cold fusion article, where appropriate.) V (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed, your description of Vesal's comments is deceptive. You misrepresented him by stating that he viewed Physical Review as being the only reliable source on these topics, while he are clearly stating that it is a top source. That is a big difference because your version implies that he is being unreasonable.

Your comment that "Unlike you, I really do believe in the peer-review process and the importance of publications," is also deceptive. I am a strong believer in the peer review process and everything I have posted on wikipedia backs that up.

Regarding your comment that Physical Review and other journals refuse to review papers on cold fusion, is there a way I could see documentation of this?

Your response to my request about articles was not deleted. It can be viewed by clicking "show" in the relevant section. So I ask again, please list the three reports (preferably not review articles) that you believe are most persuasive of cold fusion nuclear reactions. I also ask again for persuasive articles from significant fusion journals. Please give the title and authors, since it is not easy to find things at LENR-CANR.org. Olorinish (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Olorinish wrote:

Jed, your description of Vesal's comments is deceptive. You misrepresented him by stating that he viewed Physical Review as being the only reliable source on these topics . . .

This list shows only paper from Phys. Rev. Anyone familiar with cold fusion will know that the editors at Phys. Rev. have it in for cold fusion. Listing this journal only, and leaving out the others, is biased. It is preposterous. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

Your comment that "Unlike you, I really do believe in the peer-review process and the importance of publications," is also deceptive.

You and the other so-called skeptics have repeatedly erased peer-reviewed information about cold fusion and substituted your own unfounded opinions. You pay lip service to peer-review, but you have no respect for the system or its results. If you did, you would believe cold fusion is real, because the overwhelming number of actual published scientific results prove that to be the case, and not one credible peer-reviewed paper has ever been published showing an error in a major cold fusion result. The score is roughly 1000 to 0 in favor of cold fusion. Read the skeptical papers at LENR-CANR.org and see for yourself!

I am a strong believer in the peer review process and everything I have posted on wikipedia backs that up.

Perhaps you believe this but you do not know yourself. And you certainly do not know the literature on cold fusion!

Regarding your comment that Physical Review and other journals refuse to review papers on cold fusion, is there a way I could see documentation of this?

Sure! Ask the editors or anyone else at the APS. They are not shy about expressing their opinions on this subject. Ask Robert Park, who sets the policy on cold fusion at the APS. Read his columns.

Your response to my request about articles was not deleted. It can be viewed by clicking "show" in the relevant section. So I ask again, please list the three reports (preferably not review articles) . . .

I'll be darned! That works. Click on "show" and look for the author "Gozzi" and you will see what I recommended.

I also ask again for persuasive articles from significant fusion journals. Please give the title and authors, since it is not easy to find things at LENR-CANR.org.

Start with the papers I listed and then do your own homework, please. You may not agree with me about what is "persuasive." For example, I find it very persuasive when a cell with ~20 ml of water and a few grams of palladium produces megajoules of energy with no input power and no chemical changes, and it produces helium. I think that is proof that a nuclear reaction is occurring. However, you may not find that persuasive, so perhaps you should look at some other aspect of cold fusion, such as tritium production or host-metal transmutations.

It is easy to find things at LENR-CANR.org. Use the Google search box on the front page, which limits searches to LENR-CANR.org. Or use our extensive indexing system. Or, if you write a lot of papers about cold fusion, e-mail me and I will send you the EndNote files.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.88.243 (talk • contribs)

I wrote: "Use the Google search box on the front page . . ." What I mean is: you stuff the author and keyword text from the "Gozzi" message into the Google search box and presto, the papers pop up.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.88.243 (talk • contribs)

All the articles you cite in the table above are from 1989 or 1990. Since then, other papers have been published in reputable sources, or by the 2004 DOE. NPOV requires us to present significant views that have been published in reputable sources. The balance of views should be based on published secondary sources, such as the 2004 DOE or review books published in academic press, not on our original research among a limited set of journals. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Olorinish asked again for convincing articles about nuclear reactions. I thought I gave him references to such articles on his talk page, but here they are, just to be sure (and I add one from EPJ-AP):

• Iwamura, Yasuhiro; Sakano, Mitsuru; Itoh, Takehiko (2002), "Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D₂ Gas Permeation", Japanese Journal of Applied Physics '41' (7A): 4642–4650
• ''Mosier-Boss, Pamela A.; Szpak, Stanislaw; Gordon, Frank E.; Forsley, L. P. G. (2008), "Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons", Naturwissenschaften, doi:10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x
• Mosier-Boss, Pamela A.; Szpak, Stanislaw; Gordon, Frank E.; Forsley, L. P. G. (2007), "Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments", European Physical Journal Applied Physics 40: 293–303, doi:10.1051/epjap:2007152

Pcarbonn (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn is correct that he provided me with some links before, visible in the archive of his talk page, and it is useful that he also provided these. I asked Jed Rothwell for his list to see what he thought about the field. Olorinish (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Those links did not work, but I found the first article. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYelementalaa.pdfPaul V. Keller (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have now fixed the other 2 links. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I looked briefly at the paper by Mosier-Boss, but I'm not an expert in this field. I would have to agree that it is "somewhat convincing", although they provide no explanation at all why this all might happen. Theories are under development... Still, I do not mean to say that these papers are insignificant, but when assessing due weight you also have to take into account the fact that the APS journals have only published negative results. That they now dismiss positive experimental results without review is actually sad, but I read somewhere that they are softening their stance... Vesal (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the paper by Iwamura et al. I found it well written, but it stretches credulity even further than the original cold fusion work. In each case, four seperate deuterium nuclei are brought to combine with single Cs or Sr nuclei. Even without energy barriers that would be a tall order. Nuclei are very small compared to the space around them. There would have to be intermediates. Even molecular reactions with more than two reactants necessarily proceed through intermediates. And the intermediates must be stable enough to survive until the following steps have time to occur. As a follow up, locating the intermediate species would make sense, but there are other things to do as well. Repetition by independent groups. Study of the way conversion rate varies with parameters such as D2 flux. If a new phenomena has been identified, it should be easy to engage in a process of developing a more detailed picture. This paper was published in 2002. What advances has Iwamura's group made in the last seven years?

Iwamura et al. did reference a EINR model that might partially explain his results, but I could not find a report of that mode (that I did not have to pay for). It would be good to know not only what the model is, but what is being done to test it. What I am looking for is a scientific process.Paul V. Keller (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Mosier-Boss work shows cold fusion research reversing its claim there are no gamma rays. Previous efforts to detect gamma rays failed. One direction taken was to come up with a spectacular theory, the lattice theory, to account for their absence (See 2004 DOE report). Mosier-Boss go in another direction, they get rid of the old detector and start using one operating on a different principle, with a scanty track record for detecting gamma rays and differentiating them from other emissions. The pits Mosier-Boss observed had many causes: the difference with the deuterium-free control was a matter of degree and not kind. If this field were advancing as science, I am sure gamma rays would be demonstrated in more ways than one and that there would be some reconciliation with earlier work failing to show gamma rays. We would be learning more about the types of gamma rays and their density. As it is, going to a new detector when the old one did not show the predicted result is more evidence of pathological science. If we were to amend the article in view of these papers, we could as easily use them to illustrate the pathological science aspect as to show an apparant confirmation of the original theory.Paul V. Keller (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul V. Keller wrote:

. . . we could as easily use them to illustrate the pathological science aspect as to show an apparant confirmation of the original theory.

Cold fusion is purely experimental. It is not based on theory, or guided by theory, and at present no theory can explain it. The notion that there is an "original theory" to "go back to" is nonsense. Szpak and others are trying to determine the nature of the reaction using different techniques. They are not trying to prove or disprove any particular theory, but rather to find out what nature has to teach us.

Keller is incorrect about gamma rays. They have been detected with other instruments, by Iwamura and others. He wrote: "We would be learning more about the types of gamma rays and their density." We would be indeed, if the field were properly funded. Most cold fusion researchers pay for experiments themselves, and they cannot afford more elaborate or expensive equipment, so they use things like CR39, which is cheap. The field is not funded because there is enormous academic opposition to it, which comes mainly from people like Keller who do not read the literature and thus know nothing about the research, and yet who feel free to fabricate claims about it such as the notion that gamma rays have not been detected by other means! And also to free associate and invent new definitions for "pathological science" such as: "returning to the original theory."

Despite the opposition, a great deal of progress has been made, and the effect is now produced at SRI nearly every time at power levels and input to output ratios 10 to 40 times larger than they were a few years ago. If this field were not "advancing as science" that would not be the case.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.88.243 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia's reliability standards require a survey of the peer-reviewed literature, not some subset thereof (e.g. "top APS journals") selected to show a particular result. That the skeptics are reduced to such attempts to cherry pick shows exactly how far the peer-reviewed literature is from the imaginary "mainstream" which only exists as part of the prejudices of people who have invested their emotions in taking the side opposed to the experimental results. A neutral presentation requires summarization in accordance with the totality of peer-reviewed publications on the matter; any attempt to pick a subset which skews the result will be seen as such. I recommend going through the Britz bibliography of peer-reviewed papers and counting only the res+ and res- publications which are not based in theory, but rather in actual empirical experiments. 69.228.231.250 (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not the place of Wikipedia to do such research. Wikipedia doesn't do literature surveys except to establish notability. When providing a position on a field of study, we're limited to summarizing information about the topic from the most reliable second hand sources, such as meta reviews published in leading journals, the positions of authoritative bodies, the results of investigations by reliable NPOV parties, and newspaper articles from good sources. All of these, with no exceptions that I know of, consider cold fusion to be fringe science and largely unworthy of serious investigation or funding. See, for example, the DOE report, this article in the Washington post, which quotes prominent members of the physics community, and so on. See also: Wikipedia:Fringe#Notability_versus_acceptance Phil153 (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You say : "All of these, with no exceptions that I know of, consider cold fusion to be fringe science and largely unworthy of serious investigation or funding." You must be mistaken. The 2004 DOE, Hubler 2007, Biberian 2007, Storms 2007, Marwan 2008, are respected meta-reviews that say the contrary and are superior to news articles such as NYT for scientific topics. You'll see their full reference in our article. Again, Wikipedia is a NPOV encyclopedia, not a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You're claiming 2004 DOE contradicts my statement? The majority of reviewers said that even excess heat had not been established, let alone "fusion" being the most likley explanation. They clearly did not think it worthy of serious investigation or serious funding.

The 2004 DOE says : "The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers in the 2004 review was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few electron volts (eV).". So, yes, the 2004 DOE contradicts your statement. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of what 2004 DOE says. But they don't recommend budgeting money for research, as they regularly do in other areas; they don't recommend putting together a task force or partnership with universities to do serious research into cold fusion. Their recommendation is that well designed proposals to investigate the remaining unknowns should be entertained. This is neither serious investigation nor funding, merely an acknowledgement that the area still has enough unknowns that solid proposals for research should be entertained. Contrast this with the Japanese government's direct funding and promotion of cold fusion research in the 90s (which they later abandoned after some years), or the ongoing, active DOE promotion of research into various aspects of fission and waste products. Phil153 (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Biberian 2007 offers nothing new. Read his list of references, the large majority come from The Xth International Conference on Cold Fusion. He is presenting a non critical summary of claims published in completely unreliable sources. This is not a meta review of reliable primary sources, but an opinion piece published in a very questionable journal. The Int. J. Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, first published in 2004, could not even charitably be called a reliable source, especially for claims rejected by the mainstream scientific establishment.

I haven't read Hubbler or Storms yet but I think it's clear that DOE 2004 supports my statement above, while Biberian 2007 fails completely as a reliable source.Phil153 (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, DOE won't recommend a cold fusion research program until the scientific controversy is favorably resolved. This is an economic decision. If they thought that the controversy was already negatively resolved, they would not have written what they have. So, the scientific controversy is still unresolved, and we should present both sides of it. And please, read Hubler 2007, Storms2007, and Marwan 2008 (ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8) to have a full view of the reputable sources. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the DOE review says that there is a scientific case to justify funding some research, and gives advice on resolving "some of the controversies in the field". It doesn't say that the field itself has an unresolved controversy. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the replication of iwamura's work, here is what an older version of our article said : "The experiment was replicated by researchers from Osaka University using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry to analyze the nature of the surface (the Pd complex samples were provided by Iwamura). " The source is : Higashiyama, Taichi; Sakano, Mitsuru; Miyamaru, Hiroyuki; Takahashi, Akito (2003), "Replication of MHI Transmutation Experiment by D2 Gas Permeation Through Pd Complex", Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org

The replication was not by an independent group. One of the author's is the same. On the bright side, there is part of a theoretical discussion, and some proposals cosnsitent with what would be science as I asserted below (drafted earlier). On the downside, it looks like pure BS. Touching on one of the more tractable points, they said they needed a vacuum to get deuterium into the reaction zone. The vacuum only takes deuterium away from the reaction zone. Frankly, I am now doubting not just their accuracy, but their honesty.Paul V. Keller (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Science without theory is not science. Experiments without hypothesis are not following the scientific method. All experimentalists rely heavily on theory, including the ones whose findings you credit. You need theory to interpret XPS and mass spectronomy data. You need theory to understand your calorimetry data. In fact, the closer you look at any of the experiments described in your literature, the more you will see reliance on hundreds of assumptions about the way things work. Theories get replaced and new hypothesis put forward, but if you throw away everything that's ever been known or thought to be understood, you will have nothing left to interpret your results. Experimentalists could not hypothesize fusion without drawing on theoretical understanding that such phenomena exist and release energy. Come up with a hypothesis to explain Iwamara and you will know what experiment to do next: if you agree it is a multistep process, figure out what intermediates to look for and in what concentration ranges to look for them. If you think the process starts with four deuterium chemically bonded to a Cs atom, predict what happens to the rate if you mix in 50% hydrogen and try to confirm that experimentally. Without that kind of process, it is not science.Paul V. Keller (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Iwamura's paper is scientific enough to be published in Japanese Journal of Applied Physics. We are not evaluating content here, only the reliability of sources. Also, you may want to read Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn or Paul_Feyerabend about what Science is and is not. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the steps you suggest would be beneficial. However, you are assuming that such experiments could produce reliable results. And that requires the phenomena to be highly reproducable. That's why scientists have been so focused on improving reproducibility and control, instead of doing experiments like you suggest. Without these two things, the results of experiments like you suggest would be so swamped by noise (statistical uncertainty) that they would be effectively meaningless. You see, good science requires a high degree of control, and these people, like good scientists, are working towards that goal.

I don't know why you went on that spiel about theory, because obviously - as you, yourself point out - they would not be making any progress without it. But I hope you are not putting the cart before the horse here. Theory comes after experiment. After many, many experiments, actually. It models the results of empirical evidence, not the other way around. And it is far from a perfect model, as models inevitably are. But that's why we have science. Kevin Baas^talk 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics or the European Physical Journal are less reliable. The problem is that almost every positive paper is cited, but not a single one of the negative papers from the above APS journals. Every lab that has succeeded in reproducing the results is mentioned, but not those that failed or came up with experimental counter-claims. Why? Vesal (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Because editors are engaging in cherry-picking of favorable primary sources, instead of relying on reliable secondary sources that make the analysis for them --Enric Naval (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Vasal asks:

The problem is that almost every positive paper is cited, but not a single one of the negative papers from the above APS journals.

There are no negative papers in APS journals, or anywhere else. Only about a dozen negative papers have been published in history of cold fusion. You will find most of them at LENR-CANR.org.

There were several early papers describing experiments that did not work. That's a null, not a negative. The authors did not discover any fault in the positive experiments, or any other reason to doubt them. The reasons these early experiments failed is new well understood and has been described in detail.

Actually, the three most famous negative papers, at Cal Tech, Harwell and MIT were false negatives. (Actually positive.) They all got excess heat at the same rate as others did in 1989, but they did not realize it, or they erased it and published fake results.

As it happens, we just today uploaded a review paper discussing some of early failures, and the reasons for them:

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

The authors examined 174 papers, in detail. They did a lot of analysis not shown in the paper. (I assisted so I know about it.)

Every lab that has succeeded in reproducing the results is mentioned, but not those that failed or came up with experimental counter-claims. Why?

There are no experimental counter-claims. No one has ever done an experiment that calls into question cold fusion, or an experiment with a prosaic explanation that exhibits the same behavior (i.e., one that produces tritium or megajoules of heat per mole of reactant.)

The failures were all for obvious reasons not worth discussing in detail unless you are an expert. Of course you can read about them at LENR-CANR.org to your heart's delight. I have compiled a list of null and false negative experiments; contact me via the front page.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

Ugh, So much OR. Experiments with no results (failed replications) don't count as negative, and negative papers were actually positive because either the authors didn't notice they were positive or they lied about the results. Peer-reviewed papers published on top journals on the field are countered with proof from a cold fusion conference paper. My eyes, they hurt. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Enric Naval wrote:

Experiments with no results (failed replications) don't count as negative . . .

Obviously not, since the reasons they failed are well understood. When U.S. Vanguard missiles exploded in 1957 and 1958, that did not call into doubt the existence of the Russian Sputnik satellite. Negative experiments from labs that never succeeded failed for the same reasons some experiments failed at SRI and other successful labs: critical levels of loading, current density, flux or some other control parameter were not achieved.

. . . and negative papers were actually positive because either the authors didn't notice they were positive or they lied about the results.

Would you count them as negative? If you have any doubt that the data is fake, I suggest you review this paper, pages 21 - 24:

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

Or this one:

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

Peer-reviewed papers published on top journals on the field are countered with proof from a cold fusion conference paper.

There are no peer-reviewed papers from top journals that call cold fusion into question. Not one study and not one paper has ever demonstrated an error in a positive cold fusion paper. If anyone ever did find an error, it would not only disprove cold fusion, it would overthrow the laws of thermodynamics and a large part of chemistry and physics going back to 1860. That isn't going to happen.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

Ummm...yes, there are two, mine and Brian Clarke's. I demonstrated that the interpretation of an apparent excess heat signal by Storms as due to 'cold fusion' was premature because he didn't consider calibration constant shifts. Jumping to an extreme, radical conclusion when a more conventional and understandable conclusion is available is an error. Brian showed that 4 'Case-type' cells submitted to him by McKubre et al for confirming analysis of anomalous He were in fact poorly sealed and had leaked to air, which is where the He came from. That's a big error on Mckubre's part. it makes one wonder how many more of his (and other's) experiments had the same flaw. Fortunately, both of these are in the article as it stands today. I'm glad you agree that they 'disprove' cold fusion (which of course can not ever be done in fact, only probabalistically).Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's you personally and unreliable sources who are saying that reliable sources should not be taken into account or had fake data. It's not a reliable asource saying that. Wikipedia uses only reliable sources. Do you understand now what the problem is? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Enric Naval wrote:

It's you personally . . .

It is NEVER me personally. Every assertion I make is backed by gold-plated, peer-reviewed data, which you can find at a university library.

. . .and unreliable sources who are saying that reliable sources should not be taken into account or had fake data.

You can see at a glance that the data is fake! Part of the graph is replaced with crudely fabricated, hand-drawn data. The rest is regularly-spaced computer generated data. See D. Albagli et al., J. Fusion Energy, 1990, 9, pp. 133-148. That's peer-reviewed and often cited by skeptics, and obviously fake.

You can tell even more clearly because one of the researchers accidentally leaked the original data, which shows excess heat in the part that was replaced with hand-drawn dots. You can also read the official MIT hearing in which the researchers claimed they had no idea how the data was changed and they think it means nothing. It is all on the record in official sources.

All of this is described in the two papers I referenced above. I suggest you read something about this before commenting on it.

As for the "reliable sources" on null experiments, of course they should be "taken into account"! Everyone takes them into account. We know why the null experiments produced no heat; we can see that the false negatives are actually positive (just do the arithmetic right and you will see this); and anyone who looks at the fake data in the peer-reviewed paper will see that it is fake. You do not need to take my word for any of this -- the data speaks for itself.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.98.26 (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed, please start signing your talk page entries properly with four tildes (~). You've been nicely asked a few times on your talk page, but because you don't maintain a stable IP address it is unclear that you've seen the messages. By registering a user name you can avoid this IP hopping problem and have rational discussions with other editors.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

LeadSongDog wrote:

Jed, please start signing your talk page entries properly with four tildes (~).

That doesn't work. It comes out the same as when I don't sign it, with the IP Address, like this:

68.19.98.26 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You've been nicely asked a few times on your talk page

Not me. I don't have a talk page. Anyway, you can reach me anytime at LENR-CANR.org. Phone number, address and everything is there.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

If you click on the (talk) above, you'll see that the signature does work and that you in fact do have a talk page.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried the tilde signature above and all it does is generate the IP Address, the same as the robot does. I just clicked on the Talk link it does not have any info other than IP Address. So what's the point?

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.98.26 (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Formal warning

Then again, Jed, after my my comment about how you were trying to falsify reliable sources throught unreliable sources you are still insisting that editors should study primary sources and raw data and engage into original research in order to reach the WP:TRUTH [1][2], as opposed to following WP:RS guideline by using reliable secondary sources (and that's just the first two comments you made after my post).

Jed, either you stop filling the page with WP:OR or I'll start asking admins to bring the arbitration stick of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE down on you. (I'm giving you this formal warning here instead of your talk page because you use a dynamic IP). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Enric Naval wrote:

you [Jed] are still insisting that editors should study primary sources . . .

Well, you could study the books published about cold fusion, I suppose. Or review papers. But what have you got against peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals? That is normally considered the gold standard of information.

Anyway this article already has dozens of links to LENR-CANR.org, only for some reason they point to an archived version of the site instead of the present one. I suppose this is some crazy scheme by the skeptics to stop people from reading LENR-CANR, but it will not work for anyone who has half a brain.

Also the "information" you skeptics add to the article is not reliable, or secondary, or primary. It is imaginary. You make things up and stuff them into the article. At least I have sources other than my own imagination!

Jed, either you stop filling the page with WP:OR or I'll start asking admins to bring the arbitration stick of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE down on you.

Go ahead! Do your worst. You skeptics have done that to me before. I couldn't care less. I am not planning to edit this or any other article. I wouldn't touch a Wikipedia article with the fag end of a barge poll, nor would any scientist I know.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.43 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 6 December 2008

Putting Wiki policy to one side, it is not so much citing sources of dubious probity that seems a problem to me. It is more a combination of tactics:

1) Insisting that anyone who has not read all your source must accept that your sources demonstrate whatever you say they do;

2) Claiming your sources say or prove more than they do. On several occassion I have spent hours investigating your citations only to find they proved far less than you claimed;

3) Dismissing all sources that do not support your POV, and attacking those who cite those sources;

4) Arguing that every instance of treating your sources seriously is an avowal of those source or an agreement with their conclusions, even if the instance does not result in publication or funding; and

5) Arguing that every instance of not treating your sources seriously is a display of unfair bias.

I would like to see you try harder to be pursuasive without browbeating.Paul V. Keller (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul V. Keller wrote:

1) Insisting that anyone who has not read all your source must accept that your sources demonstrate whatever you say they do;

No one has read all of my sources except for Edmund Storms. I have 3,500 papers. I have never insisted that people read all of them, but only some of them -- say 10 or 20 papers. I recommended a few papers, but I never insisted that you (or anyone else) read these particular ones. What I object to is people who have obviously read nothing, and who make statements that are odds with the facts.

In any case, there are no other sources of information on cold fusion. These papers and books constitute 99% of everything published on the subject, in English. They include both positive and negative materials. Probably every negative book and paper published is in the bibliography.

2) Claiming your sources say or prove more than they do. On several occassion I have spent hours investigating your citations only to find they proved far less than you claimed;

Please be more specific. Which authors did you read? I suggest you write a critique and e-mail it to me directly to JedRothwell@gmail.com. There are lots of papers in the library that I think have no merit, so I may well agree with you. Or perhaps misinterpreted the papers, or I disagree with your interpretation.

3) Dismissing all sources that do not support your POV, and attacking those who cite those sources;

"POV" means point of view, or opinion. Science is based on facts and laws, not points of view. People who claim that calorimetry does not work are mistaken. They do not understand the laws of thermodynamics. Their "point of view" is nonsense.

4) Arguing that every instance of treating your sources seriously is an avowal of those source or an agreement with their conclusions . . .

There are no other sources.

5) Arguing that every instance of not treating your sources seriously is a display of unfair bias.

It is mainly a display of ignorance, not bias.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.43 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Article on Reproducibility

Reproducibility contains some comments on cold fusion. Here is the relevant section (added by our neighborhood editor PCarbonn :))

At the end of May the US Energy Research Advisory Board found the evidence to be unconvincing, and cold fusion was dismissed as pseudoscience. Later on, successful replications by independent teams were reported in peer reviewed scientific journals, and, although the effect is not considered fully repeatable, the field eventually gained some scientific recognition.

My concerns are:

• Was it initially dismissed as pseudoscience?
• Has it "eventually gained some scientific recognition"?

(The 2004 DOE report, which did not differ substantially from 1989 report, is used as evidence of scientific recognition).

I'm concerned that perhaps this doesn't leave a balanced impression of cold fusion for the casual reader. Phil153 (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The 2004 DOE report does not constitute scientific recognition. The DOE simply agreed to be open minded and here a renewed application for funding. The state of acceptance, or lack thereof, has remained unchanged for at least ten years. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien. A little research will show that these claims of breakthroughs and improved reproducibility are perennial.Paul V. Keller (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil asked if CF was initially dismissed as pseudoscience. Initially, the scientific community went to great lengths to reproduce the effect, and most could not, while a few did. The attitudes of F and P (driven most likely by intellectual property concerns) alienated a lot of scientists. Subsequently there was the 1989 DOE review, and the later book by its chairman, Huizenga, calling CF a 'fiasco'. At that point most scientists believed the issue to be settled and went on their way. A die-hard band of people however continued on. You can tell this by comparing lists of authors from the various ICCFs, they tend to be all the same people, with no significant influx of new blood. The field has not gained any scientific recognition to speak of. The large majority of cscientists think it is dead, and are shocked to find out it isn't. There was the 2004 DOE review, but that occurred due to political pressure from CF supporters, not because DOE thought there was any merit to the claims. Paul Keller correctly notes that the CFers contiunously claim breakthroughs. The recent claims of heavy metal trransmutations and radiation detection by CR-39 plates are just the most recent mutations of these claims. Note that this demostrates Langmuir's pseudoscience characteristic of always coming up with more ad hoc explanations when faced with solid criticisms. I should note however, that my own work assumes there is a real effect at work in the production of apparent excess heat signals, and the CFers ARE observing unexpected elements on their cathodes, but the point is one does NOT need nuclear reactions to explain these observations.Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Shanahan, do your concerns about calorometry apply to reports of experiments which do not involve electrolosys? 69.228.195.158 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Potentially. The Calibration Constant Shift (as I call it) is a universal problem. It is nothing but a very simple concept that says if you need to convert a measurement via a calibration equation, you get the wrong answer if you use the wrong equation or constants. This applies to any and all calibrated measurements, in any and all scientific experiments. All I did was reverse engineer the constants required to force Storms' data to produce 0 excess power. That's called 'sensitivity analysis'. Then I noted that the spread in the computed calibration constants was trivial (1-3%), entirely consistent with 'good' analytical chemistry techniques. In other words, the 'noise' of the experiment can explain the apparent excess heat. Any other technique, such as a non-F&P type experiment, should be similarly analyzed to see if the normal variation in the technique can explain the results. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that "reverse engineer the constants required to force Storms' data to produce 0 excess power" means starting with the assumption that there is no excess power, and designing a general theoretical argument in support of that assumption? 69.228.195.158 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it also includes evaluating that argument and reanalysis for credibility. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you select among a set of arguments in support of a selected hypothesis for credibility? What measure of credibility do you use? 69.228.201.246 (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't heard any claims of "breakthroughs" but I've read a number of articles about improved reproducability. Didn't a famous scientist recently reproduce the phenomena in front of a live audience? [3] It seems, as Paul suggests above, that reproducability has been slowly improving over time, as new methods are tried. Though I dispute the notion that "The state of acceptance, or lack thereof, has remained unchanged for at least ten years." I would say, rather, that it hasn't changed a lot. It's still not mainstream and many universities in the U.S. will refuse to publish research quite irrespective of its relative scientific merit. However, as the field has matured, recognition has increased over the years, the recently reinvigorated interest in India [4] being a prime example. Kevin Baas^talk 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr Shanahan's work validates an edit to the definition of cold fusion that I recently made in the main article. Cold fusion is a phenomena hypothesized to explain a group of experimental results, it is not the results themselves.Paul V. Keller (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent progress has been made in reproducibility, control and the power of the reaction. See:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cold_Fusion

(Scroll down to "Some examples of progress made since 1989.")

I attended the demonstration by Arata, and I was not impressed. See:

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

Shanahan's hypotheses, if true, would disprove most electrochemistry and calorimetry going back to Lavoisier's 1781 ice calorimeter (which is used in some cold fusion experiments), and J. P. Joules's calorimeter circa 1845 (which is used in many others). There is no chance Shanahan is correct. The fact that skeptics such Paul V. Keller are so quick to believe him, and add his theories to this article, shows that they are grasping at straws, and they will believe anything that comes along without a critical examination, even if it means they must throw away the whole basis of chemistry and physics. It is often said that cold fusion appears to violate some laws of plasma physics. Many experts disagree, but in any case, the arguments made against cold fusion violate far more textbook laws than this.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.98.26 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 December 2008

Jed, there's a possibility someone vandalized your citizendium page. It says you graduated from Cornell University in 1976 with a BA majoring in Japanese. Phil153 (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem! I wrote that myself. There is practically no vandalism at citizendium because all authors have to register their real names.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.98.26 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 December 2008

Wow. I did not express any opinion about Dr. Shanahan's work except that he appears to be studying anomalous heating in electrochemical systems without at the same time pursuing a cold fusion theory.Paul V. Keller (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For those who are unaware who Jed Rothwell is, beware. He has been a flaming cold fusion advocate since the beginning. I have had years worth of 'debates' with him on spf. You can't win with him as he never admits he's wrong to himself. Sometimes you can get him to say it, but the next week or day he's back saying the thing you just got him to say was wrong. As an example, I have explained to him many times what I explain above in answer to "69.228.195.158", but he still insists on spouting the 'Shanahan"s thesis will kill calorimetry' mantra. All my work does is show that baseline noise isn't the only noise in these exeperiments. The CFers know this, that's why they moved from isoperibolic calorimetry to integrating types like mass flow or Seebeck. All I did was put algebraic teeth into the problem, instead of just gut feel. Yet you see what Jed writes. My advice - ignore him. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For those who are unaware of who Kirk shanahan is, I advise you to read his papers, carefully. Then read Storms' rebuttal. Then think for yourself.

Excellent advice. Just make sure you read the response to the rebuttal too, the one that Storms didn't bother to mention in his 2007 book. It rebuts every point made by Storms, in a point-by-point fashion. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the difference between me and anti-cold fusion people. I want people to read original sources from both sides. Do you own homework. Take no one's word for anything. I have put years of effort into making both pro- and anti-cold papers available to the public at LENR-CANR.org. My opponents, on the other hand, want you to ignore me -- just as they want you to ignore the scientific literature, and the laws of physics and chemistry.

The difference if telling. I want everyone to know as much as possible. I have made hundreds of papers available, and people have downloaded 1.1 million copies of them. They want to squelch the debate and keep everyone ignorant, and Beware! Beware! of actual data and peer-reviewed papers! Oh my, better not to look -- which is why Robert Park brags that he has never read a single paper, even though he wrote a book attacking cold fusion. (It is obvious from his book that he knows nothing about the subject.)

And by the way, if you want to know who I am, I suggest you read some of my papers at LENR-CANR.org.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.98.26 (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro edit

I am not sure why there is a disagreement. Cold fusion is nuclear fusion occurring at near-ordinary temperatures and pressures. What is there to argue? Whether cold fusion is hypothetical, experimentally demonstrable, or apocryphal, it is still "nuclear fusion occurring at near-ordinary temperatures and pressures." I thought we should all restrain ourselves from trying to put our POV into the first sentence. I don't think there needs to be a word about what the experimental results are, not any weasels like "postulated" or "hypothetical". There is no reason to tip toe around what the subject is.

Although I want to change some things in the next paragraph, the discussion of Fleischmann and Pons is a great place to introduce the controvery. Both sides of the controversy see those events as seminal. From the main stream side, it flows into the explanation of why cold fusion is thought to be highly improbable. From the LENR side, it flow into the explanation of how their amazing work is being ignored. We can get well into this article, without saying anything prejudicial to either side.Paul V. Keller (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Something that has not been proven is by definition hypothetical or a postulate. There is nothing weasel about calling a spade a spade. If it is conclusively demonstrated to be real fusion then we can eliminate the qualifiers. But there is some way to go before we can do that. Until then a qualifier is an absolute necessity IMO. I don't think even the CF proponents would disagree with that. Dr.K. (logos) 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tasoskessaris wrote:

If it is conclusively demonstrated to be real fusion then we can eliminate the qualifiers. But there is some way to go before we can do that. Until then a qualifier is an absolute necessity IMO. I don't think even the CF proponents would disagree with that.

We agree that this article needs qualifiers, but all of the cold fusion researchers I know (roughly 1000 professional scientists) feel they have conclusively demonstrated the effect. Read their papers and you will see they express no doubts. This is because they have observed dramatic and incontrovertible proof such as tritium at 60 times background, or a million times background, or 20 W of excess heat continuing thousands of time longer than any chemical source of heat from the same mass of reactants could. Their assertions are unequivocal. For example, H. Gerischer was the leading physical electrochemist in Europe and the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin. He wrote:

"In spite of my earlier conclusion, - and that of the majority of scientists, - that the phenomena reported by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 depended either on measurement errors or were of chemical origin, there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys."

I can give you 50 other quotes as unequivocal as that from the creme de la creme of U.S. and European electrochemistry and nuclear physics. You may think there are doubts and open questions, but the researchers will tell you that all of the questions, doubts and criticisms raised here were rebutted in detail in the peer-reviewed literature by 1992.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.89.136 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions are always a problem. It may take time for CF research to be adopted by the wider scientific community. But science should not and cannot hold grudges or frozen ideas for long. If the reproducibility, yield and sustainability of the reactions improves there is no reason why CF research will not be officially adopted and funded in universities, especially in the presence of such sustained effort by the current CF researchers. The jump to the mainstream will not be a long one after that. Dr.K. (logos) 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. K. wrote: "But science should not and cannot hold grudges or frozen ideas for long."

Perhaps it should not, but as Max Planck said progress in science occurs "funeral by funeral." He explained: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Unfortunately, most cold fusion researchers are elderly scientists and they are dying off faster than the opposition. It is a generational role reversal: Most cold fusion researchers were people like Schwinger, from the WWII Los Alamos era. One of them was the guy who pushed the button to trigger the first atomic bomb. They saw scientific revolutions. They were open minded. Above all they believed in the absolute primacy of replicated experimental evidence over theory. Cold fusion opponents are young people who 'shall never see so much, nor live so long,' as Albany put it -- with the sort of "end of history" conservative conceit that only unimaginative young people might feel. They actually believe that you must have a theory before you can believe the data! By that standard no one would have believed in radium when Curie discovered it. No one would have believed there is helium and a nuclear reaction in the sun -- not before 1939! Actually, by today's rules Bethe would not have even bothered to try to explain the anomaly. They would dismiss it as experimental error. Frankly, I have little hope the field will survive.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.89.136 (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the elegant historical background but I don't think you should be pessimistic. I just saw a posting about new research interest in India, tabletop demonstrations in Japan. If the experimental evidence is strong enough and the scalability of the process is demonstrated, research interest will increase further and it will eventually reach critical mass. I don't think that lack of interest will be one of the factors that will influence the evolution of this process. Dr.K. (logos) 14:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to say that I agree completely with Paul V. Keller on this: Whether cold fusion is hypothetical, experimentally demonstrable, or apocryphal, it is still "nuclear fusion occurring at near-ordinary temperatures and pressures." Exactly right.

I disagree mildly on this:

From the LENR side, it flow into the explanation of how their amazing work is being ignored.

From the LENR side I say why bother bringing that up? It is obvious from other sources and this is an article on the science, not the politics. You could mention that in another article about academic politics and the disputes over cold fusion, such as this one:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

Of course the article must make it clear that many people do not believe cold fusion is real and some consider it pathological science. This is important and it should be close to the beginning. I inserted it in the Citizendium article:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cold_Fusion

But having said that, you should move on to the scientific claims. Including positive and negative claims. Whether you believe them or not, you should simply enumerate them, and give the reader lots of original source material so that he can decide for himself. That is how I write science articles, including ones about subjects that I think are mistaken, or bunk. I never express my own opinions, but only documented opinions given by experts. I have translated, edited and critiqued hundreds of cold fusion papers (and dozens of technical articles and product reviews before that) including many that I think have no merit. I have disagreed with papers by cold fusion researchers and by by skeptics. Those authors never heard a single personal opinion from me. An editor, translator or librarian must be impartial. The skeptics know that I would not think of refusing a paper from them for LENR-CANR.org, or changing one word of it without their permission.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

Jed, I think we basically agree, although we will have to work through further changes one by one. There is not so much two sets of facts, as two sets of interpretations.

Dr. K, ESP is "extra sensory perception", not "hypothetical extra sensory perception". "Time travel" need not be defined as "hypothetical travel in time". "Hypothetical" and "postulated" are unnecessary words that introduce a view.

We do not give credence to cold fusion theory by talking about it without using words like "hypothetical" or "postulated". To the contrary, I think the careful use of those words says more to the reader about us than about the subject. Our care will just give credence to Jed's claims that everyone who does not believe in cold fusion has prejudged the subject. An expression of prevailing views can wait until we have presented a few facts to explain them.

I do not disagree that cold fusion is a "hypothetical" or "postulated" phenomena, but those are facts about cold fusion rather than a definition of it. The reader will be aware of those facts quickly enough.

And apologies to LENR people for "amazing work". I did not intend to be sarcastic.Paul V. Keller (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Keller, in your example of ESP it is clear that no one calls it a "hypothetical extra sensory perception" but one can define it as the "hypothetical perception which takes place outside the normal sensory avenues etc." Similarly "Time travel" is instantly recognisable, through experience, that it is the "hypothetical travel which occurs through time". But cold fusion does not carry such cognitive value, for most people, which automatically assigns a true or false perception to the idea, as in the case of ESP or time travel. So if we don't use qualifiers the statement will be taken as an endorsement of cold fusion, which IMO is not helpful, especially to the uninitiated. I can see your point, but that is the point of an expert. The average reader does not have your defences. That's why I think we need the qualifiers. Dr.K. (logos) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tasoskessaris wrote:

But cold fusion does not carry such cognitive value, for most people, which automatically assigns a true or false perception to the idea, as in the case of ESP or time travel. So if we don't use qualifiers the statement will be taken as an endorsement of cold fusion, which IMO is not helpful, especially to the uninitiated.

I think you underestimate "most people." I agree that an article about cold fusion must clearly state that many scientists think the effect is not real. But you need only say this once, at the beginning of the article. You need not clutter up the rest of it with qualifiers. That is distracting, and confusing. This goes for purely hypothetical and imaginary subjects as well, such as Flatland.

(By the way, the article should not say that "the vast majority of scientists" disagree because that is not in evidence. There have been only a few opinion surveys of scientists and engineers, but based on this fragmentary evidence it appears that roughly 40% believe cold fusion is real in some ways, and 60% reject it.)

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.89.136 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Jed, it was about time. I guess there is no way one can avoid meeting you if one stays on this page long enough. How are you? I'm glad to finally talk to you. I may not agree with all yout points but I respect your tenacity and the strength of your convictions. Surprisingly I agree with you on most of your current points, minus the point that I underestimate most people. Even on that point I would concede that I don't know the absolute numbers. Anyway you are right that it is an overkill to put qualifiers and disclaimers on every single occurence of the term "Cold fusion". I never advocated that. In fact it was only on the first two introductory sentences that I suggested any type of qualification. I am not a fan of making the article a semantic goolag, where every word carries its own semantic guard. That would make the article more rigid than a frozen Siberian steppe. So I do agree with you on this point. And of course I don't like weasel terms like majority or even vast majority either. I prefer numerical values such as 2/3 or 1/3 etc and I made similar comments on the Cold fusion Arbcom workshop. So here we are agreeing on virtually everything. A final point. I saw you asked about the reason of signing manually rather than through a robot. I think it is considered simply good etiquette to do so and in any case we wouldn't like to overwork our hardworking robot friends. Anyway thanks for your points; it's been nice meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. (logos) 02:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the subject of the lead paragraphs, we can take lessons in phrasing from other articles on controversial topics in science. See for instance Psychokinesis or Big Bang, both of which are FA status.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Following those models, I came up with:

The term cold fusion has come to describe widely publicized claims that nuclear fusion can be achieved at temperatures far too low to be consistent with commonly accepted theories of nuclear physics. The reality of cold fusion is not accepted by the scientific community at large.

If we leave it at that and save the definition of LENR and condensed matter nuclear science until the end of the intro, I think we have both sides covered. On the LENR side, there are hints that data exists and that everyone does not accept the mainstream view. The mainstream view is plainly stated. That one more assertion I would expect LENR side to want should be satisfied by concluding the intro with the LENR and condensed matter nuclear science definitions and a clear statement of their perspective.

I like putting the definition in terms of current theory. Strictly speaking theory allow some infinitesimal amount of fusion at low temperatures, and by bombardment too if I am not mistaken. That would literally be "cold fusion" under the temperature definition, but that has nothing to do with "cold fusion" as meant on this page. As the term began to be used, there was definitely a connotation of "too cold". "Near room temperatures and pressures" is pretty meaningless without the theoretical context.Paul V. Keller (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that the definition I am proposing also makes a need distinction with Muon-catalyzed fusion, which is a low temperature fusion that is not inconsistent with commonly accepted theories of nuclear physics.Paul V. Keller (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Suppose it's a start, but really, are you serious about "' the reality of cold fusion'"? Wouldn't theory be exponentially less POV than reality? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no accepted theory behind cold fusion as of yet. It is mostly experimental. Dr.K. (logos) 06:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitar. Would you prefer "reality" to "theory"? Or reality to hypothesis, premise, suppostion or something similar etc etc etc? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "cold fusion hypothesis" would be a more appropriate phrase than "cold fusion theory". Is this dispute because of the difference between the scientific definition of theory versus the layman's definition?--Noren (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. The word reality would always be extreme POV.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reply to Noren: Postulate has also been used. The Cold fusion experiments cannot be fully explained using any of the available nuclear reaction theories. Dr.K. (logos) 08:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest this phrasing: "In Science, the phrase "Cold Fusion" is typically used to describe the idea that nuclear fusion can occur at ordinary temperatures and pressures." The "In Science" part may be relevant if [Cold Fusion] links to the disambiguation page. The title of this article could be "Cold Nuclear Fusion", and the disambiguation page would also mention the computer software by that name and any other relevant things --for example, just for the craziness of it, there is the fact that the phrase "heat of fusion" is a term in Science that is associated with the melting point of a substance, and of course "to fuse" generically relates to combining things... so "cold fusion" could technically refer to an alloy-formation such as dental mercury-silver amalgam at room temperature. Anyway, joking aside, that first sentence in quotes above assumes the word "idea" is more NPOV than "reality" or "hypothesis". Not to mention that with respect to muon-catalyzed fusion, Cold Fusion is an actual fact, even in liquid hydrogen, far far colder than merely room-temperature! V (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Arata and Zhang's demonstration in Bangalore

Based on Kevin's comment above, I propose that Arata and Zhang's demonstration in Bangalore, India is the most notable recent event and should therefore be the last part (e.g., the subject of the last sentence) of the introduction. 69.228.201.246 (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I support that. Please note that the demonstration took place in Osaka, Japan, not Bangalore, India. Here are some more sources : PhysicsWorld.com (+ follow-up), slashdot.com, New Energy Times (+ list of more links). Pcarbonn (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's "Japanese Scientists Demonstrate Cold Nuclear Fusion" by a materials science news site. 69.228.201.246 (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see any reliable sources in that list from PCarbonn. BTW, I'd encourage anyone with doubts about cold fusion to should read the physicsworld follow-up PCarbonn posted above. Note the differential involved relative to the heat produced by chemical reaction, and the fact that fusion is postulated to explain this. Kind of says all that needs to be said about the field. Phil153 (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil153 wrote:

Note the differential involved relative to the heat produced by chemical reaction, and the fact that fusion is postulated to explain this. Kind of says all that needs to be said about the field.

Note that in other cold fusion experiments this same differential technique has demonstrated ~10,000 times more output from cells than any possible chemical reaction, without producing so much as a milligram of chemical ash. That does indeed say all that needs to be said about the field. It is first principal proof that this is a nuclear reaction. What do you say in response? Do you think that could be a chemical reaction? Which one? Or are you one of these people who imagines that hundreds of scientists are incapable of measuring levels of heat that any competent scientist could have measured in 1850?

If you don't believe that heat alone, without chemical change, is proof of a nuclear reaction than I presume you do not believe Madam Curie's observations of radium are of any importance, or that they prove there is an anomaly worth investigating.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.43 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 8 December 2008

I attended the demonstration in Osaka. I did not think much of it. See:

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

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.43 (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The links are not even to science publications, just news reports. As far as excess heat, I am going to take a wild guess, and assume the reporters did not calculate these sources of energy and compare the time-integrated input to the time-integrated output. Also, the reporters would be in no position to determine that the internal state of the system was unchanged between the begininning of the experiment and the end. Nor would they be in a position to determine whether helium production was being accurately measured and unaccountable by contamination.

As Jed noted, these experiments were not notable in terms of either reliablity or documentation. These are very similar to the old reports that are not commonly credited. It would be new if they showed quantitative control over the amount of excess heat or helium production. It would be new if they showed a particular functional relationship between rates and different hydrogen isotopes mixtures. A theory of the process that is not demonstrably flawed would also be new. Stagnation at the stage of just trying to show heat or helium without much in the way of a theory to build on is part of the picture of cold fusion research.Paul V. Keller (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul V. Keller wrote:

The links are not even to science publications, just news reports.

The science publications for this experiment are in Japanese. They are listed in my paper.

As far as excess heat, I am going to take a wild guess, and assume the reporters did not calculate these sources of energy and compare the time-integrated input to the time-integrated output.

The reporters did not calculate anything. Arata and Zhang and their Chinese co-workers calculated the sources of energy and so on, and they certainly know how to integrate energy, although I take issue with their estimates of inputs, as noted. Anyway they have now gotten so much out the issue is becoming moot. Even lousy calorimetry works at this stage.

These are very similar to the old reports that are not commonly credited.

No, they are quite different. If they were the same, no one would question them because Arata has been replicated and carefully, independently checked at SRI and elsewhere, with better equipment than he himself used. There is no question that his basic technique works, but whether the new zirconium material works as well as he claims is an open question.

The old reports may not be "commonly credited" but neither Keller nor anyone else has ever pointed to an experimental error in them, so either the the results are right or calorimetry does not work. Whether people credit them or not is irrelevant.

It would be new if they showed quantitative control over the amount of excess heat or helium production.

They do! Plus it turns on right away. A big improvement. But you have read the Japanese to understand that. My paper probably does not cover it in enough detail. You can learn more from Talbot Chubb's review:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAinhonorofy.pdf

I more or less lambasted this latest work in my report, which upset Arata a great deal. However, in his defense, he is battling terrific political opposition, he has virtually no funding. and he never has been a hands-on experimentalist. On the other hand he has dozens of patents and he is one of the most important living Japanese technologists, with an International Medal named after him at the High Temperature Soc., and a building at the National University, and medals from dozens of societies, universities, and the Emperor of Japan. As he says, the Shinkansen wouldn't run if it were not for him. So he is a big gun. He built the first plasma fusion reactor in Japan. If it were not for the political opposition to this field I am sure he would be funded and making a lot more progress than he is. His lab is now staffed by people from Chinese national universities (with whom I can speak in Japanese) so I expect they will make progress on this, although probably not in Japan.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.43 (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How has he determined the enthalpy of the incoming H2 or D2? Why isn't there a thermocouple on the feed? If the D2 has to be filtered for helium, how has he determined the filter does not become saturated? How do you credit helium data that is not even shown?

I see nothing about quantitative control in your report. What would you do to increase the % excess heat by a factor of ten?Paul V. Keller (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul V. Keller wrote:

How has he determined the enthalpy of the incoming H2 or D2?

That would be negligible. The gas is stored at room temperature, at high pressure. The temperature will drop slightly as the gas decompresses coming into the cell, but there is only a tiny flow of gas for 15 minutes in an experiment lasts for 50 to 100 hours. Blank runs with no materials in the cell show no measurable temperature changes.

Actually, hydrogen has a negative Joule-Thompson coefficient, so it will actually heat up as it is released. See Joule-Thompson effect Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirk shanahan wrote:

Actually, hydrogen has a negative Joule-Thompson coefficient, so it will actually heat up as it is released.

If you are talking about when the gas is released from the high pressure tank, then yes. That's what I meant when I said "the temperature will drop slightly as the gas decompresses coming into the cell."

If you mean the temperature will fall during the formation of Pd-H or Pd-D, then no. The formation of a hydride is exothermic. During electrolysis the overall process is endothermic because it takes more energy to decompose the water than you get from Pd-H formation. With gas loading you get heat. Hydrogen release from Pd-H is endothermic; it takes energy to drive the hydrogen out. It only heats up when this is done in the presence of oxygen and it recombines. Otherwise it is endothermic. See Sakamoto et al., ICCF6 and the Storms book, pp. 203, 204 for details.

This is confusing, so I asked Storms to comment. He explained: "Hydrogen does have a negative Joule-Thompson coefficient. This means that when hydrogen gas expands, it cools. However, hydrogen is not present in PdH as a gas. Consequently, when it leaves, it does not obey the J-T rules. It leaves by forming the gas H2 from H+ on the surface which is desorbed at ambient pressure." - Jed Rothwell

You (and Ed) are still confused. See the Wiki page Joule–Thomson effect, 3rd line: "At room temperature, all gases except hydrogen, helium and neon cool upon expansion". That means hydrogen HEATS UP when undergoing free expansion. But if Arata was actually running the D2 through a diffuser to purify it, then you shouldn't see the effect. So was he doing that, or did he pre-purify, or what? (This illustrates the problem with demos, they typically are presented with insufficient info to know what is really going on. That's what the literature is for.)

Furthermore, I note that the vessel pressure was continually rising after the intial loading, up to about 500 psi or so. That will produce some compressive heating, which could explain the observed temp difference. Or a thermocouple failure of some sort might do it too. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirk shanahan wrote:

Furthermore, I note that the vessel pressure was continually rising after the intial loading, up to about 500 psi or so. That will produce some compressive heating, which could explain the observed temp difference.

No, it could not. As I noted that would have showed up in the blank runs with nothing in the cell but gas. The thermocouples are not sensitive enough to measure it.

Or a thermocouple failure of some sort might do it too.

As I noted already, that is ruled out because the energy also drove a thermoelectric chip, which drove a small motor. This is proof that real energy is produced in the cell. A thermocouple error will not cause a motor to turn.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.69 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the report, there is a measurable temperature rise from the heat of formation of the hydride or deuteride. The hydride quickly cools to ambient temperature but the deuteride remains warmer than the surroundings indefinitely. Thus, it has to be producing heat.

Or else an error has been induced during the hydriding process. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What "error" can cause a thermocouple to register a temperature and also drive a thermoelectric chip? If this is not heat, what is it? - Jed Rothwell

See here for a nonexclusive list of some candidates: http://www.omega.com/temperature/Z/pdf/z021-032.pdf As to the chip's behavior, I might be able to comment if I had more than your assertion that something happened. I learned long ago not to trust that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that something other than energy can make a motor turn. Or perhaps that something other than heat can make a thermoelectric chip produce electricity. Or perhaps that a thermoelectric chip can produce electricity from an error. It is unclear to me what you mean, but please don't try to explain.

I might be able to comment if I had more than your assertion that something happened. I learned long ago not to trust that.

Well, there is the journal paper in Japanese and a video of the motor turning from Osaka U., but given your vigorous imagination I am sure you could find a reason to discount them. Let us agree to disagree on this. I will stick with the laws of thermodynamics, and you stay there in cloud cuckoo land. - Jed Rothwell

As I said in my analysis, I think his calculation of the heat of formation is way off. But it hardly matters, since no heat of chemical formation that normally stops in 20 minutes could persist measurably for 4 days!

Why isn't there a thermocouple on the feed?

Not needed, as I said. That part I do not quibble with.

If the D2 has to be filtered for helium, how has he determined the filter does not become saturated?

The only way to 'filter He from hydrogen is by using a Pd alloy membrane or the equivalent, or presabsorbing the hyrogen on a hydride bed and pumping out the remaining He. One can get hydrogen absorption blocking by accumulating He at the membrane or bed if that is not taken into account in the design.Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea. As I said in my critique, the description of the mass spectroscopy is unsatisfactory.

How do you credit helium data that is not even shown?

What do you mean? See Fig. 8 my report (which is from Arata's report).

I see nothing about quantitative control in your report.

Bear in mind that my report is not Arata's report. I did not report everything he said. He did do blank runs, as I just noted.

What would you do to increase the % excess heat by a factor of ten?

Let it run 10 times longer. Or 100 times longer. There is no evidence that the cell is cooling down. Similar experiments have released 10,000 times more energy than any conceivable chemical reaction, with no sign of petering out. The only reason they stop this one is because they want to analyze the products or use equipment for another test.

There is also no possibility that the measurements are completely wrong because the temperature difference is roughly 1°C which is dead simple to detect with confidence using these instruments. There is no input power. Plus he sometimes uses the heat to power a thermoelectric chip connected to a small electric motor. (Very small, for something like a camera lens actuator, I think.)

I have little doubt that these results are real and that this heat is from cold fusion. It far exceeds the limits of chemistry. But I think the experiment could have been done in a more convincing fashion. I expect it is being done better back in China. (Note that Arata's co-author and collaborator Yuechang Zhang is Chinese, and a number of researchers from her university were working in the Osaka lab during the demonstration. I spoke and e-mailed them and Zhang in Japanese. They speak it quite fluently.)

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.69 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that Arata has "dozens of patents." 63 to be exact, with 22 others filed for and now in progress. The first one was granted in 1947.

I also wrote in response to this question: "What would you do to increase the % excess heat by a factor of ten?" "Let it run 10 times longer." Actually, the percent of excess heat in this experiment is infinite. There is no input after the first half-hour; it is all output. That simplifies the calorimetry! There are many other cold fusion experiments without input, in what Fleischmann calls "fully ignited reactions" (borrowing the term from the plasma fusion people, who have been trying to achieve this condition for 60 years without success).

I meant you can increase energy just by waiting, instead of deliberately quenching the reaction. To increase power you just increase the amount of zirconium powder. That should work. Arata's previous material scaled up nicely, unlike most other cold fusion reactions. With most cold fusion experiments, if you try to increase power by a factor of 10 you are likely to blow your head off, as you see from the photographs of explosions here:

http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.69 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many, many problems with this demostration and with others like it over the years, and it isn't in the scope of this article to point them out. The inclusion of demostrations in the Wiki article should be prohibited. They are not reliable. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirk Shanahan wrote:

There are many, many problems with this demostration and with others like it over the years

None that you have found.

The inclusion of demostrations in the Wiki article should be prohibited.

"Prohibited" is too strong a word, but I see no point to adding this to the article.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.69 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 December 2008

Are you (Jed) assuming a constant rate of heat loss to the surroundings, is that how you interpret 1°C? Are you unable to think of anything that might cause a sustained 1°C difference in readings? I do not suppose he ran the experiment again with ten times the amount of Pd and got 10°C difference measured and sustained in the same apparatus. The explosion risk is a sorry excuse. People who knew what they were doin made an A-bomb wihtout killing themselves. The D2 can be fed in slowly to reduce the heating rate at the beginning. Better yet, figure out how to increase the ratio between fusion reactions and chemical reactions within a fixed period of time. If running the experiment longer is your only tool for increasing the ratio, you cannot have looked far.

One thing I really do not like about this setup is that it relies on the assumption of a constant heat transfer coefficient between the sample and the environment or simply fails to quantify heat generation throughout the experiment. All you really have is that tiny tail, which must be extrapolated for days or weeks before it looks bigger than the chemical reactions that occur within the first few minutes.

Quantitative does not mean you have one control, yes or no. Quantitative means you show how the heat production varies with parameters. I would like to see a good number of runs, say six or ten, with progressively increasing H2:D2 fraction, showing a smooth variation of all the results with respect to the mole fraction (0.0,0.1, 0.2, ...,0.9,1.0). Another set of runs could show the temperature dependence of the effects. Refrigerate or heat the whole room if you have to. Those results would be a lot more informative than the usual: one run with D2 and one with H2. They are obvious steps for anyone seriously trying to figure out what is going on, as opposed to running the same old dog and pony show.Paul V. Keller (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul V. Keller wrote:

Are you (Jed) assuming a constant rate of heat loss to the surroundings, is that how you interpret 1°C?

Yes. The ambient temperature is stable. The cell temperature is persistently elevated for hours, days or in some cases months. With some cells it is palpable.

Are you unable to think of anything that might cause a sustained 1°C difference in readings?

Well, a blatant violation of the second law of thermodynamics would do it, but I don't believe that's possible. I cannot think of anything other than persistent heat that can raise the temperature of lab grade thermocouples and also drive a thermoelectric generator that drives a motor. That has to be an energy source, by first principles.

The explosion risk is a sorry excuse.

A friend of mine nearly got his carotid artery cut by an explosion, and Andrew Riley was killed in a conventional chemical explosion of a cold fusion cell, so I would say the risk is real. If you want to try to scale up one of these experiments just be sure I am not in the room. These experiments are dangerous even when they do not work.

People who knew what they were doing made an A-bomb without killing themselves.

Obviously cold fusion researchers do not know what they are doing. If they knew they would scale up. The research is entirely experimental without a working theory. It is similar to the discovery of radium which killed Mme. Curie. She died because she did not understand the nature of radioactivity.

Also, by the way, people were killed developing atomic bombs and fission reactors. The first victim of an experimental accident was in February 1945, caused by using a screw driver to hold two hemispheres apart.

The D2 can be fed in slowly to reduce the heating rate at the beginning.

That would not work. You would get lots of nothing until it reached critical loading levels, and then way too much of something. But Arata devices have not shown any sign of going out of control as far as I know, so perhaps the problem is fixed.

Quantitative means you show how the heat production varies with parameters. I would like to see a good number of runs, say six or ten . . .

How about several hundred runs, with clear correlations to control factors? See McKubre's data, or the ENEA data.

Actually, I first developed my CCS theorem when I looked over McKubre's data from the 1998 EPRI report. Unfortunately, while he published 200+MB of data on a CD with the report, none of it was calibration data. Then Storms posted his data and calibration data was included, which is just what I needed to put the final touches on the conventional explanation for apparent excess heat. And by the way Paul, Storms work was with Pt, not Pd, which doesn't hydride at all, so the claims of a required loading are bogus in the first approximation. It may impact surface structure through dislocation loop punching, but the idea that the bulk loading gives CF is bogus.Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

with progressively increasing H2:D2 fraction, showing a smooth variation of all the results with respect to the mole fraction

That wouldn't work. Hydrogen occupies the lattice sites preferentially, drives out the deuterium and quashes the reaction.

It is easy for you to say "I would like to see" this or that, but people like Fleischmann and Oriani, who have been working with hydrides for 50 years, will tell you that you can't always get what you want, and you seldom know what you've got. A hydride is an incredibly complex and poorly understood system. And furthermore, you -- Paul V. Keller -- don't know much about it, and you should not be second guessing the likes of Fleischmann and Oriani. You should not assume you know how to do this better than they do, or that they have overlooked something obvious.

You also know way less than Arata, by the way.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.69 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 December 2008

Actually, very few really appear to have been 'hydride' experts. A quick Google Scholar search on "hydride + author:"R Oriani"" for example turned up 9 hits of which 5 could be considered 'hydride' research. For "M Fleischmann" I fot 8 hits, 4 in SERS and 4 in CF, for myself I get 25, with only 1 citation, but with some double-counting, and for a real expert in hydride chemistry, 'T Flanagan', I got 164 hits (counting the citations). The problem with your 'heros' is that they also thought up excuses why the conventional explantions 'just couldn"t' be the explanation for their observations. But they are usually wrong in that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To determine whether Oriani is an expert or not, rather than doing a quick Google search, I suggest you read this paper:

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

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.69 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, so the writing of one paper qualifies one as an expert in the field? Good, I'll tell Pcarbonn so I can count Scott Little as a CF expert. Seriously, expert status is earned by a block of work in a particular field. Oriani is known as a materials science guy, and not a hydride guy. 192.33.240.30 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC) - Note added Wiki logged me off so it didn't sign this properly - Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To determine if he is an expert, I would check the Proceedings of the premier metal hydrides conference, the International Symposium on Metal Hydrogen Systems (usually referred to as MHxxxx where xxxx is the year) which is held biannually, or the attendee list of the Gordon Research Conference on Hydrogen-metal Systems (held in the off years when there isn't an MHxxx conf.). He doesn't show up. (Neitehr do any of the other CFers.) Oriani is a respected corrosion scientist and materials engineer, and while he may have knowledge of the hydride field, he is far from an expert. I have more experience in that than he and I don't claim to be an expert! (And before you jump on that, understand that I AM an expert in what I write.) Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote: "That would not work. You would get lots of nothing until it reached critical loading levels, and then way too much of something." Let me add, Dr. Keller, that if you would read an introductory review article or book about cold fusion you would know this. The data from McKubre, Kunimatsu and others makes this obvious, and this data has been available for 17 years. Arata's data also makes it obvious.

Before you make suggestions or critique this research, I strongly recommend you first acquaint yourself with the ABCs of cold fusion and conventional electrochemistry. Frankly, you make yourself look bad otherwise. No electrochemist or cold fusion researcher is likely to take your suggestions seriously (or even bother to read them) when what you are suggesting is physically impossible, or the questions you ask and concerns you raise were addressed by electrochemists decades ago. Experts in nuclear physics and electrochemistry have worked on these experiments for 20 years. They thought of everything you are now thinking up in the first 5 minutes, because most of them had been working with hydrides for decades.

The Storms book covers all of the topics you have raised so far, and many others, in detail.

Except for the serious objections raised by my work and that of W. Brian clarke. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Your work is described on p. 41 and p. 172, and Clarke appears in several tables and footnotes. - Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.69 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.69 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No Jed, you are incorrect. Storms mentions my 2002 publication where I describe the reanalysis of his data, and then proceeds to give his readers the impression he has refuted my position by discussing his 2006 paper. This is clear misrepresentation as he fails to reference or even mention that I rebutted all his 2006 points in a back-to-back paper in 2006. That is intellectually dishonest and completely misleads thereaders of his book. That is why Pcarbonn tried so hard to not let my edits of the Wiki article stand, since they detailed this for the Wiki reader. With respect to Clarke, yes, Storms has some of his older work referenced, but he fails to mention the one when Brian showed that McKubre couldn't keep air out of his systems. I added that reference to the Wiki article, and fortunately Pcarbonn couldn't find a way to delete it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, Storms also fails to mention the exchange I had with Szpak and Fleischmann (and co-authors) in 2005 as well. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What fun! For a really wild experiment for someone with a bunch of money to risk, go to the "halfbakery" (preceded by "www." and followed by ".com") and search for this: "CF+SC=DC". The notion there is in regard to a possibility to directly generate electricity from Cold Fusion. That would be a LOT easier to detect than excess heat, wouldn't it? V (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

2 new papers on CR-39 in European Physical Journal

EPJ-AP has just published 2 more papers :

• Comment on “The use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments” by P.A. Mosier-Boss, S. Szpak, F.E. Gordon and L.P.G. Forsley Interpreting SPAWAR-type dominant pits
• Reply to comment on “The use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments”: a response to Kowalski

Pcarbonn (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that should be in the introduction, as the most recent publications in the most reliable class of sources. 69.228.201.246 (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the first time I recall that there has been a critical paper published by one of the 'in' crowd. Quite notable from that POV. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that the journal let the original authors reply to the challenge, and that they have the last word. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. That is the common procedure. The original authors have the ability to decline of course. And in some cases a 'reply to reply to comment' cycle may be observed.Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In that same issue, there is a paper proposing a theory for "Solid state modified nuclear processes" Pcarbonn (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where does the EPJ-AP stand among physics journals? I don't have access to Web of Science, but I notice that among in the physics journal category of SCImago[5], EPJ D is 48 of 352 when ranked by SCImago's SJR indicator. II | (t - c) 18:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. The EPJ AP theory paper cites this paper in Phys Rev C. : Solid state internal conversion. I would think that this journal meets the request of reliability of most skeptics, and the paper confirms that the controversy is still open. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh. That's going more than a bit far. None of the two papers above use the word 'cold' or 'low', although one cites a cold fusion paper. So you have to be pretty involved to even know they're related, which brings an original research problem. II | (t - c) 20:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be 'fricking kidding me! SO an article on deoxyribonucleic acid that talks about transcription in cells nuclei published in a prestigious biology journal would be disqualified from any article on genetics as "Original Research" if it didn't have the word "genetics" in it anywhere? Does that not sound a little arbitrary to you? 'Cause it does to me. That's just not something I can take seriously. I'm sorry to say, but it made me laugh. Kevin Baas^talk 19:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The papers (full text links: [6][7]) refer to "nuclear projectiles," "nuclear particles," "nuclear processes," and "fusion," among other similar terms. 69.228.95.71 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of demonstration, while looking over the proposed theory paper, I noted that the authors were considering PdDx (or PdDu as they call it) concentrations where u approaches 2. As far as I know, the best you can do with electrolytic loading is u=1.0-1.1. The Gw curves Kalman, et al show have a breakpoint near that value where the slopes flatten out quite a bit. I am not qualified to judge theory but I can see where that might be a serious problem with their theory, given that there are larger differences at u=1. This is just another example of what happens when you publish in 'obscure' (relative to the paper's topic) journals. A journal with metal hydride scientists on the review staff probably would have caught this problem and had Kalman et al clarify. In any case, since I know this, I would have trouble accepting the results without getting that clarification from a neutral party. There are also many assumptions built into the theory, and all would have to be tested vs. data, but which data? Kalman et al use F&P's 1989 work, and Szpak et al's recent work, but what about the rest? This is the cherry-picking issue I tried to raise in my additions to the Criticisms (theory) Section of the Wiki article, which Pcarbonn block deleted.Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Navy's co-deposition process leads to higher loadings than ordinary electrolysis? 69.228.95.71 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for breaking news

The most recent sections Arata and Zhang's demonstration in Bangalore and 2 new papers on CR-39 in European Physical Journal don't belong on Wikipedia, even a talk page. If has just been published its generally doesn't belong on Wikipedia unless the subject matter is very young as well. Further more this talk page is meant for discussing the article rather then pseudo-peer-reviewing current research in an inappropriate place. Stay on topic.--OMCV (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Arata's work has been published for 18 years in the peer reviewed literature, and the first paper on zirconium material and this experiment, Yamaura et al., came out in 2002. So it isn't exactly breaking news. I doubt anyone in the field is unaware of Arata's work or the fact that he and several others are investigating Zr and other substrate materials to overcome the problem of sintering with gas loaded finely divided materials.

But this is one of hundreds of promising approaches and ongoing experiments. Perhaps it is not important enough to include in the article. On the other hand, the article is full of irrelevant and unimportant stuff, not to mention imaginary nonsense cooked up by "skeptics." Replacing some of that garbage with Arata might not be a bad idea. But anyway, Wikipedia belongs to the "skeptics" and know-nothings. They should do whatever they please with the article. No legitimate scientist will contribute.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.88.212 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed, I admit to chuckling at the word 'promising'. It's been nearly 20 years(!!) since the first "promising" experiments.

As for the article, new research in a field might be mentioned if it broke some new ground. But clearly this stuff doesn't - you've got lists of papers on your site with two decades worth of fantastic and compelling results (if looked at by someone who doesn't realize that novel research (in any field) is little better than alchemy until put through all the filters of science). Anyway, none of these new papers break new ground, they merely rehash old experiments while being considerably less compelling than previous ones. Even you would agree with that. Phil153 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil153 wrote:

I admit to chuckling at the word 'promising'. It's been nearly 20 years(!!) since the first "promising" experiments.

Yes. And as I pointed out previously, the replication rate has increased from a few per hundred to 90%; power has increased from a fraction of a watt to ~20 watts in typical experiments; and the ratio of input to output (where there is input power) has increased from a maximum of 3 to around around 40. I consider that dramatic progress, and I think it is promising. Perhaps you do not. For a summary of these improvements see:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cold_Fusion

As for the article, new research in a field might be mentioned if it broke some new ground. But clearly this stuff doesn't . .

I do not think anyone in the field would agree with you. Arata's Zr material is a major breakthrough. The experiment was poorly done, in my opinion, but the material is extremely promising and has many important advantages over anything previously tested, including the other nano materials. As I mentioned, it produces stable heat with no input power; it scales up; it turns on almost instantly; and it turns off quickly too (something many conventional systems such as burning coal cannot do).

By the way, no one following the field is surprised by this. There has been steady progress in nano materials and Arata has been the acknowledged leader in this technique from the start.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.69 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be a major breakthrough to proponents, but to a disinterested observer, there is little new compared to previous claims. You already claim: 90% reproducibility, 20 watt sustained power output, 40:1 input:ouput ratio, unequivocal detection of nuclear products in a variety of media. I don't see how this advances any of these. Phil153 (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil153 wrote: "You already claim: 90% reproducibility, 20 watt sustained power output . . . I don't see how this advances any of these."

Then you are not looking closely at the data. Look at the 20 W output in the graph I referenced, and compare it Arata's signal. Compare the devices, materials and performance. Arata's Zr material, like other gas loaded nano material has many obvious advantages: it turns on sooner and turns off (as I said), it is controllable, it produces both stable and sustained heat, it scales better, it uses much less Pd, and it requires no input power. These are important improvements toward a practical device. Of course these advantages have been obvious since Arata, Case and others began working with nano materials 17 years ago, so it is not news, but this is the best nano material yet developed. Probably. It was developed at the Institute for Materials Research, Tohoku U., to give credit where it is due.

I would say you are more uninterested than disinterested.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.46.38 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree. People should feel free to bring up potential sources on talk page. I can't understand why "if it has just been published it generally doesn't belong on Wikipedia". Generally we want to put published research on Wikipedia, especially if sourced to a reasonably decent journal. Papers in these journals are peer-reviewed before being published. Anyway, this subject matter is relatively young, according to Jed above it is not exactly breaking news. What are your thoughts then? I gather that the CF phycists are waiting for a critical paper from a mainstream physicist -- and they've been waiting for a while. If it takes another ten years, are we supposed to wait for it before discussing their research, especially when that research is published in mainstream physics journals? And a lackluster blog post is evidence enough that it's still nonsense and needs to be presented as such? Why are more professionally worded editorials such the one from Nature India II | (t - c) 05:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No legitimate science should contribute to Wikipedia in their own field of expertize. As scientists we work on subjects that are in flux involving a lot of original research. We report this work in the proper place, the peer-reviewed journal. Only once assertions are no longer debated are they suitable for Wikipedia in any technical detail. No matter what is argued the field of cold fusion is still in the shadow of P&F as illustrated by the PhysicsWorld.com intro. There isn't consensus that CF is a legitimate line of inquiry. I wish you all the luck in the world bring CF to the mainstream if it has value but it isn't there yet and this is the current context CF should be reported. Again this isn't the place to blog about CF research, especially for individuals with clear conflicts of interest.--OMCV (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No legitimate scientist should contribute to Wikipedia in their own field of expertise? I don't agree with that at all either. I would hope that some of the people editing this article are up on physics and especially on the specialization, cold fusion. Similarly for all other articles. Most of the medicine articles are edited quite a bit by MDs and most of the economics articles have economists on them. People should be editing where they have expertise. In any case, I still disagree with your contention. If recent research (as this is presumably not, per Jed) is presented neutrally, it doesn't stand for anything other than it is. New, uncertain research. That's not a reason to keep it out. Wikipedia's advantage is that it can move fast, and it thus very up-to-date. If it records breaking news which turns out to be wrong, it's not as if it's a major loss. What are you worried about? People aren't going to be depending upon cold fusion as a medicine. II | (t - c) 06:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for demanding that I make my point better. To begin with our standards for science should be no less than our standards for medicine. I'm worried that wikipedia will be filled with poorly substantiated assertions.

When I say "expertize" I mean the research that the given scientist actually conducts. I would hope a physics contributes on physics subjects, and a nuclear physicists contribute on nuclear physics subjects. But if the scientist is researching the use of a radio isotope as a therapeutic that has previously not been used as a radio therapeutic they should not spend their time writing this up on wikipedia even if they just published a paper. They should submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. On this sort of material the scientist has definitive opinions that are not part of the consensus. By the materials very nature the scientist will be pushing POV. This does not belong on wikipedia and this is what worries me about the current set of editors.--OMCV (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If we introduced 'new uncertain research" into the article we might as well introduce a trivia section. It will have the same effect as a trivia section in other articles. Trivia are intrinsically detrimental to any topic, especially science topics. More so if they are controversial topics such as CF. In fact we should be serious and selective and err on the side of caution. This field is littered with many false leads. We shouldn't be falling for every promising new breakthrough otherwise we can convert this article to the miracle of the month club. Dr.K. (logos) 06:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying that recent peer-reviewed research is equivalent to trivia is so absurd that there probably isn't a logical fallacy which covers it besides the general 'dubious equivalency'. It does seem like a lot of work for little benefit, but it's not trivia, and the harms seem exaggerated. Anyway, I'm hardly going to edit this article because I don't know anything about cold fusion. But I doubt many Wikipedians do. One of the letters linked to above, incidentally, is a critical letter. I only got drawn into this discussion because it bothers me when people advocate censoring prima facie reliable sources not only from the article page, but from the talk page as well. Those letters in particular look a bit too complicated and primary-ish to be cited in this article, but I wouldn't really know. II | (t - c) 08:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Imperfectly Informed, my answer covered "new uncertain research". It should not be construed as meaning "peer reviewed research in reputable publications". I understand "uncertain research" to mean the lower grade research published in conference proceedings, obscure journals etc. Incorporating all these highly technical and dubious details and results in the article would clutter it as hopelessly as any trivia section. And in any case, even if any research claims are made in peer reviewed reputable publications, we should wait for the dust to settle as Dr. Shanahan suggests below. Cluttering the article with highly technical information that may or may not survive in the long run, or that may even be refuted by even newer research, does not do any service to the reader. I think we should find a happy medium where we dispense with extreme technicalities and provide the reader with an honest assessment of the state of the art of CF without putting the reader on a roller-coaster ride of high expectations and broken promises on an as-you-go basis, by incorporating the latest and greatest breakthroughs of the day or the week in CF research. Like it or not the CF field has not reached a steady-state yet. We may have to wait out the transients or at least make sure we don't ride every single transient that is offered by the researchers in the field. And this is also for the sake of the average reader. We wouldn't want them to be ejected, during this wild ride, nor should we expect them to be nuclear fusion experts to understand the article. Dr.K. (logos) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get excited about peer review. There's a monstrous leap from peer reviewed published papers to verified phenomenon (or even promising phenomenon). This is especially true when we cite from journals of low repute or lax standards (of which there are many). And even more true when it's contrary to most prestigious journals or the position of the best impartial experts in the field. Phil153 (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OMCV, I agree that the demonstration and recent papers don't need to be in the Wiki article and thus probably should not be on the Talk page either. As i noted above, demonstrations are not reliable sources, as in the field of CF, they never prove much anyway. Typically a demo is set up to show how something works AFTER it has been well researched and published. The CFers use demos to try to drum up support, and they are typically like Arata's, where you're left wondering just what was actually demonstrated. With regards to the papers in the field, since the field has been discredited for some time, readers shouldn't get excited about 'new' claims, since a) they often aren't (as noted above), and b) they often don't hold up (a la the Paterson Power Cell). In a 'normal' field, recent publications may be more trustworthy, but even there they should still be given some time to let the dust settle a bit. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting controversy. However to say that wikipedia is not a place for newly published data is absurd. On any other page or in any other topic newly published data is quickly added. Why should physics be different?Doc James (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think in any field that incorporating newly published info without waiting for some reaction from other scientists in the field would be hazardous to Wiki's reliability. Especially so in pseudoscience fields like cold fusion. As noted elsewhere in these Talk pages by several authors, the CFers routinely put out 'new discoveries', only to have their validity questioned later. If the new data you mention seems consistent with conventional wisdom, then you may be safer, but in a field like CF, where the claim is that they are revolutionizing physics, it's dangerous. Further, the mainstream long ago decided the CF saga was over, so almost no one is watching. That leads to a lot of garbage being published that just shouldn't make it. (And by the way, it's chemistry, not physics  :-) ) Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Doc James, look at it this way. Jed Rothwell claims above that there are over 3000 reputable, peer reviewed papers on cold fusion published since 1989, proving everything from large amounts of excess heat to all kinds of detections of nuclear products. If the intro contained each of these studies (as it is proposed to contain this one), there'd be a new "breaking research" item in the intro 3 times a week for 20 years.

Wikipedia is supposed to take a longer term view, while informing the reader of significant developments in the field. A significant development in a rejected field such as cold fusion would be unequivocal demonstration of fusion by a prestigious laboratory, and reported in high profile journal, or the mainstream media. For example, the breaking research of Fleischmann and Pons would obviously be included when it broke. Phil153 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil153 wrote:

A significant development in a rejected field such as cold fusion would be unequivocal demonstration of fusion by a prestigious laboratory, and reported in high profile journal, or the mainstream media.

Storms lists 200 unequivocal demonstrations of fusion in prestigious laboratories reported in high-profile journals. Here is an example:

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

I have never heard of mainstream media covering any of these events.

NOTES: "Prestigious laboratories" include places such as Los Alamos, BARC, China Lake and Mitsubishi. Perhaps you do not consider them prestigious enough. Perhaps you do not consider J. Electroanal. Chem. a high-profile journal. These are judgment calls. Most of the people who performed these experiments are retired or dead. Finally, most of the journal papers describing these experiments are not available at LENR-CANR.org because of copyright restrictions, but you can find them in our bibliography. All are available at the libraries at Georgia Tech and Los Alamos, which is where we got our copies.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.69 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Los Alamos is prestigious without a doubt, and China Lake and BARC are certainly decent. I don't consider J. Electroanal. Chem. to be high profile when it comes to nuclear physics, which is the proposed mechanism here.

The point I'm making is that the field is already discredited and thought by many to be pathological science, and new research has a large burden of proof to overcome. And there are already hundreds of papers with positive results which the mainstream rejects. New research of this kind doesn't change anything in that regard and doesn't shed new light on the debate or the science. As an example of something that would: if a reputable scientists claims a mechanism to boil water using CF and published it in Nature, or even Physical Review, then it would be worth noting as breaking news. Phil153 (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil153 wrote: "The point I'm making is that the field is already discredited . . ."

That is your opinion. You should realize that researchers include hundreds of very distinguished scientists and they do not consider it discredited at all. They see no reason why it should be discredited because they have followed the rules and published in peer-reviewed journals. Waving your hands and saying something is discredited does not make it discredited: you have to have a technical reason, and you have none. No significant error has been discovered in any major experiment. The researchers think that people like you have no credibility. (I think so too, but this is not about me -- I am reported what they think.)

You do not agree but you should realize that is how they see things.

Also, there have been plenty of papers in nuclear physics journals, including papers by three of the editors of leading plasma physics and physics journals.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.45.202 (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't my opinion; the fact that many leading journals will not even publish CF research, the fact that CF researchers are marginalized for their involvement, the fact that prestigious secondary and tertiary sources name it as an example of pathological science, the fact that reliable news sources report it as a field in disrepute, even the fact that the patent office will not accept CF applications, mark it clearly as a discredited field. That says nothing about its truth or otherwise, but it's clearly discredited. Just read LENR-CANR.org for an endless cataloguing of these things.

I can list scores of technical reasons why CF is discredited, but none would sway you. The lack of a viable theory, the conflict with known and experimentally well proven nuclear theories, the poor level of replication, the contradictions in results (for example, numerous studies use H2O (light water) as a control vs D2O, while others have published results with H2O anomalies (Patterson comes to mind)), the tiny differential between control and anamalous temperatures which is close to the kind of measurement and apparatus errors that can creep undetected into experiments, the constant adhocing of theory, the known frauds and lunatics (whose work is still quoted rather than shunned), the unreasonable claims of conspiracy, the lack of serious pursuit of falisification, etc. All of these paint a picture of pathological research and taken together they give good reason for rejection.

CF evidence, whether it's peer reviewed or not, ultimately comes down to a small group of people (and often the same people over and over again) saying "we did experiment x, saw some anomaly y, and trust us, we reported it faithfully and all the apparatus worked properly and all possible errors and alternative explanations were fully accounted for". That's simply not enough to be taken seriously, especially in a field that strongly flies in the face of 50+ years of observations and the theories that came out of that.

Anyway I really must desist with this since it wastes both our time and isn't the point of the talk page. I admire your tenacity and hope it isn't misplaced. Phil153 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This message has many disturbing factual and logical errors. There may be some number of crazy people associated with cold fusion but there are also ~4500 authors in my database who are sane professional scientists, as far as I know. They cannot be held responsible for the actions or words of the insane people. For that matter, a scientist in one lab cannot be held responsible for mistakes made by a scientist in another lab, even when both are sane. Along similar lines, there are weak results with a low signal-to-noise ratios, as well as null results. But these do not cast doubt upon the high signal-to-noise ratio results. On the contrary, they contribute to our understanding by showing that the reaction does not occur in some conditions, while it occurs strongly in other conditions. - Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.54.221 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is Jed is referring to baseline noise only, and not the noise induced by a CCS. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I really liked the stats. They clearly demonstrate that the "breaking news method" should be better left to CNN and is not recommended for an encyclopedia. It is also clear that we cannot have 3,000 citations in the article. Selectivity with a long term view is the best approach for a field that is still in flux. Dr.K. (logos) 22:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that if this article is to reflect the 'state of the art' in CF, updates should be brought up here to be analyzed. Of course, it would be much better to see another review ... II | (t - c) 18:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The main article should have a section on current thinking in cold fusion research. One thing I noticed from where I participated in this discussion was there seems to be some agreement that even small amounts of H2 dampen the effect. If an agreement is ever reached about which experiments produce gamma rays, that would be deserving of comment too.

I think Jed and other have carried their point that cold fusion cannot be treated as a pseudoscience topic. The reseach may not be quite trustworthy, but it cannot be dismissed like a few backyard wackos with the latest claims to perpertual motion. The theory may be lacking, but it generally does not delve into the incoherent ramblings littered with science words that you see in pseudoscience literature. I think cold fusion is better presented in terms of the pathological science debate, including all the reasons it might be thought of as pathological science and that it does not warrant funding, but also that sliver of possibility that their might be something to cold fusion research; that there are no absolutes in real science.Paul V. Keller (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don’t really follow your logic here. The Wiki page on Pseudoscience (make sure you follow through to the scientific method page and carefully read the third paragraph of the intro) clearly indicates that the prime component is failure to follow the scientific method. It also explains that doing that includes full disclosure and participation in scientific debate. Currently most ‘publications’ are in places like the Proceedings of the xth ICCF (International Conference on Cold Fusion) or Proceeding of the Japan Cold Fusion Society. These papers are not critically reviewed, as has been noted in the Wiki CF article already. As I noted above, the two Eur Phy J publications on CR-39 are unique and astounding, because you are actually getting an ‘insider’ (Kowalski) to critique another ‘insider’ (the Szpak group). Further, the failure of Ed Storms to fairly discuss the outstanding negative issues regarding excess heat and He detection in his 2007 book also indicates an unwillingness to participate in the scientific process. No one else has ever responded to my or Clarke’s publications by modifying their approach either, so the CF researchers in whole don’t participate in the refining process of the scientific method. CF seems to me to meet the Wiki definition of pseudoscience, and they are very good at it, fooling many non-experts into believing they actually do real science. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a link but I'm pretty sure some official sounding Wikipedia review concluded that CF wasn't pseudoscience. I'd tend to agree - it does have some of the traits but isn't nearly as unscientific as other fields classified as pseudoscience like water memory or creationism. At worst it's bad science, or pathological science. Of course, if you want to re-open the debate as to whether CF is pseudoscience I wouldn't stop you. Phil153 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was some such vote. I have to question the qualifications of those who 'voted' to distinguish pseudo from real science in this case. As I noted, the CFers are quite good at fooling us. I started out in this in c.1997 thinking that maybe they had a case, but I found out in the end they didn't, at least not for a nuclear effet. There definitely is some chemistry going on though. And I won't be trying to open the debate again, I don't have time for that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a Request For Comment here --Enric Naval (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was helpful. I agree with the past consensus. Dr.K. (logos) 03:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I asserted cold fusion is not pseudoscience after some thought and research, including reading the article on science and some of its references. The main idea of science is to test ideas with theory, but as a practical matter you always have to decide whether there was a source of error in any given experiment: you do not automatically believe what your instruments say. I am not going to pure relativism where all theories have equal value, but I am recognizing there is an intuitive or experiential element in weighing all the evidence. I can cite a bunch of reasons that cold fusion research is probably a waste of time, but a conclusion that cold fusion is not real would still be based on heuristics.

Criticising particular cold fusion researchers is another matter. You can say this one is not using the scientific method, or that one is so sloppy his results are meaningless, but you cannot dismiss the whole field using examples.

The heart of the pseudoscience distinction in my point of view is theory. If you look at zero point energy (power) research, you'll find nothing but fakers using words they do not understand. The same goes for pretty much every perpetual motion machine maker. With cold fusion, it is different. Usually cold fusion workers do not venture to hypothesize a mechanism. I think that is a real weakness, but you do not need to have a theory of everything to be doing science. Cold fusion researchers have a vague, not altogether impossible idea, that there is some sort of particle that lies in the range between a muon and an electron that can form inside a Pd matrix. If such a particle could form, you could have an analogue to muon-catalyzed fusion, which is real "cold" fusion. A little more arm waving might get you past the issue of the nuclear reactions still not being the ones you would predict. Dismiss a few more experiments that fail to detect required byproducts, and maybe except Swinger's theory that the gamma rays do not make it out of the Pd matrix and voila , there it is, cold fusion without having cast away all known science: just added to it. No, I do not buy it, would not pay $10 for rights to the whole thing. But there is a big difference between having the opinion that cold fusion research is misguided or a waste of time, and having the opinion that cold fusion is a false veneer of fake science put up by nut jobs and scammers with no real interest in science.Paul V. Keller (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Keller's analysis. At least some of these researchers cannot be dismissed in a wholesale fashion as pursuing pseudo-science. This process has some degree of residual integrity. The 2004 DOE report, although negative overall, did not indicate that CF research was pseudo-scientific. Dr.K. (logos) 03:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Having said that I also find that Dr. Shanahan's CCS postulate is a very interesting alternative. Dr.K. (logos) 03:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The CCS effect cannot generate palpable heat, or boil water with no input power, or cause a thermoelectric chip to generate enough electricity to turn a small motor. Therefore, it cannot explain cold fusion heat. Perhaps if it were true, it might show that some low level cold fusion heat is an artifact, but I do not know any experts in calorimetry who agree that it is true.

Shanahan's hypothesis resembles the claim by Jones that all cold fusion heat can be explained as recombination. This cannot be true for several reasons, mainly: many cells use gas instead of electrolysis; many cells include recombiners, so recombination always occurs and is accounted for; most open cells without recombiners include gas flow meters and other methods of accounting for the gas; many cells have produced excess heat far above the limits of recombination (hundreds of times above it). Jones, if correct, could explain only a tiny fraction of all cold fusion results and yet he claims that he can explain them all. He has repeated this countless times and never acknowledged that his explanation cannot possibly apply to most experiments. This is intellectual dishonesty. Shanahan is also intellectually dishonest, or confused, when he refuses to describe how his proposed artifact could cause a thermoelectric generator to turn a motor, or a cell to remain so hot a person cannot touch it for days on end, with no input power. He hypothesis is not an "alternative" unless it can explain these events.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.153.139 (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed, are you claiming water has boiled through fusion alone? And that a chemical reaction didn't play a part? (as is the case in the studies noted above for the large majority of the heat, or in the chemical explosion which killed a researcher.). If you are claiming this, I'd be very interested to read the paper if you'd be kind enough to give a source. Phil153 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil153 wrote:

Jed, are you claiming water has boiled through fusion alone?

Yes. In two modes: with electrolysis input, for up to 3 months; and without input, ranging from an hour or so to 3 days. The latter mode greatly simplifies the calorimetry, because there is no input. This was first done by Fleischmann et al., who used to run an array of 64 cells. It was best replicated by the late G. Lonchampt (who was commissioner on the French AEC). Here is the most comprehensive description of the calorimetry:

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

Here is a description of the continuous boiling experiments:

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

As you see, output is 1.5 to 2.5 times input.

And that a chemical reaction didn't play a part?

No chemical reaction has ever been found in a successful cold fusion experiment. (Other than hydride formation, of course!) When there are chemical transformations, or changes such as dissolving cell contents deposited onto the cathode (galvanized garbage), the cell does not produce cold fusion heat. Chemical changes are readily observable. Usually the color changes. Physical changes such as cracks in the cathode also prevent the reaction, and you can see them with the naked eye.

(as is the case in the studies noted above for the large majority of the heat, or in the chemical explosion which killed a researcher.).

In that explosion all of the enthalpy came from chemistry. See: Smedley, S.I., et al. The January 2, 1992, Explosion in a Deuterium/Palladium Electrolytic System at SRI International. in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion". 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan.

In successful electrochemical experiments with low level heat, the majority of heat comes from electrolysis, but in others only a fraction of it does; typically 5% to 30%. In gas loading there is no input power. There is a lot of input power with ion beam loading but the output is measured entirely as nuclear particles, so enthalpy does not enter the equation. Various other techniques have been used successfully, some with very low input. For example, Mizuno, Oriani and a few others have observed heat from proton conductor ceramics. These are a kind of solid-state gas electrolysis: the fluid is D2 gas which goes from a Pt anode into a high temperature superconductor cathode. These devices take only milliwatts or microwatts of input power. On the rare occasions that they work they produce anywhere from a couple of watts to enough heat to melt the ceramic and vaporize the power leads.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.153.139 (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr Keller said above : "Usually cold fusion workers do not venture to hypothesize a mechanism." On the contrary, there are many theories proposed (see Storms 2007), but none has gained acceptance, even among the CF researchers. For an example, see Solid state modified nuclear processes, and Solid state internal conversion. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And all of them are some variant of a nuclear reaction. The only non-nuclear proposal to develop the effect is mine, which is what is soundly ignored by the CFers, demonstrating their pseudoscience characteristics. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(Phil153, please see your user talk page for a comment from me. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

WP:AE's request for a formal warning

Since Jed doesn't have a talk page, I have to notify him here: I have asked here that an uninvolved admin gives him a formal warning about WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE's discretionary sanctions. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the ensuing comments per WP:TALK. If you want to make off topic comments in any language, get an account and use your talk page, email, or a web host. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Refocusing

I believe the majority of the editors of the CF article don’t need to see all the detailed discussions about CF that have been posted here to date. I am guilty of contributing to the morass, and I hereby declare that I am refocusing my comments here directly towards improving the CF article, which I still feel is highly biased in favor of CF, because it does not have the current set of criticisms adequately represented. I am tired of talking at Jed Rothwell because he never learns, and I won’t be doing that anymore. The rest of you can rest assured that anytime Jed promotes CF, I have a counterargument. If you want to know what it is, ask on my talk page.

I have held off editing the article until the ArbCom thing about PCarbonn is decided, because he has opposed nearly everything I have tried to add to the article, either by block deletion or by moving it to a secondary page (a tactic used in the prior generation of this article, can anyone fine the ‘Cold Fusion Controversy’ page?) which I oppose. There are many pages on this in the archives of this page. I stand ready to edit that subsection, once you all decide it is time, and what is the best way to work in the criticisms. Until then I will try to answer article-related questions as best as I can. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirk shanahan wrote:

I am tired of talking at Jed Rothwell because he never learns,

Please do not personalize this. This is not about me or my opinions. The people who "never learn" from Kirk Shanahan are a group of 4,000 professional scientists, including most of the world's top electrochemists (Fleischmann, Bockris, Oriani and Gerisher). They disagree with him. For example, they feel strongly that when a thermoelectric chip drives a motor, this must be caused by energy; it cannot be an instrument artifact. I am reporting their views. Of course I agree with them, but I must emphasize that this is NOT a personal argument between Shanahan and me.

Shanahan also wrote:

I believe the majority of the editors of the CF article don’t need to see all the detailed discussions about CF that have been posted here to date.

These discussions are elementary, not detailed. A person who is not fully aware of everything I have described -- in much more detail than I have provided -- is not qualified to edit this article. One of the worst problems with this article is that such uninformed people do edit it.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.153.139 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 December 2008

Translation: If you aren't an initiate, you couldn't possibly understand the Truth. If that's not a "hallmark of pseudoscience", I don't know what is.LeadSongDog (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, what I mean is that you cannot do science by ESP. If you do not read the literature on a subject, you do not know about it, and you are not qualified to pontificate about it. This is what every elementary textbook says, and in any field other than cold fusion, everyone would agree. But for some reason LeadSongDog and others feel they can understand cold fusion without studying it. If this is not a hallmark of unscientific thinking, I don't know what is.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.47.115 (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course that's the point Jed. We're not doing science here, we're writing an article about the state of affairs in CF today. That means we point out your 4500 scientists is a drop in the bucket of the world's scientists, and that most of the world thinks CF was deemed psuedoscience back in c. 1992. And, it means we point out that there are those 4500 who still claim today CF is real, but that there are real criticisms to their claims. We are not trying to decide what is real and true here, just what the state of the 'field' is today from the mainstream and neutral point of view. Neutraility has been the issue thus far, and you're not helping. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirk shanahan wrote:

Of course that's the point Jed. We're not doing science here, we're writing an article about the state of affairs in CF today.

In that case, I suggest you change the title of the article from "Cold Fusion" to "The public response to cold fusion" or something like that. I was under the impression that articles in Wikipedia about scientific subjects are supposed to be about the technical issues, rather than sociology or popular culture.

That means we point out your 4500 scientists is a drop in the bucket of the world's scientists . . .

I would not point that out. It seems unimportant, and the only source for that information is the endnote database compiled by Britz, Storms and I, which I gather you do not consider reliable or kosher.

. . . and that most of the world thinks CF was deemed psuedoscience back in c. 1992.

That is not in evidence. Public opinion surveys and the like indicate that the "world" -- and specifically professional scientists and engineers -- was divided roughly evenly in 1992, and it remains evenly divided today. in any case, you have no reliable statistical proof of that assertion.

And, it means we point out that there are those 4500 who still claim today CF is real, but that there are real criticisms to their claims.

That is incorrect. There are no "real" criticisms, but only criticism such as yours and Jones' which could only "explain" a tiny fraction of the results. (Actually, you explain nothing, because no other scientist thinks your theory is valid. Supposedly an opinion held only by you alone should not be included in Wikipedia, but apparently that rule does not apply to 'skeptics' who oppose cold fusion.)

We are not trying to decide what is real and true here, just what the state of the 'field' is today from the mainstream and neutral point of view.

Who do you define as mainstream? Some choices:

1. Any person anywhere -- journalist, scientist or cop on the corner.

2. Any scientist in any field.

3. Scientists who have read five or more papers on the subject.

4. Scientists who have professional qualifications in relevant areas and to have performed similar experiments.

5. Scientists who have made actual peer-reviewed contributions to the field.

In most areas of science only the last 2 groups is considered qualified to comment on the subject. In any case, based on the comments submitted by readers LENR-CANR.org, I am sure that groups 3 through 5 overwhelmingly believe that cold fusion is real, and that the criticisms made of it have no merit.

Neutrality has been the issue thus far, and you're not helping.

In my opinion, you are incapable of holding a neutral view on this subject. A neutral view must begin by accepting the reality of massively replicated high signal-to-noise experimental data. Anyone who does not agree to that is not a scientist -- by definition -- and cannot be neutral or even knowledgeable about the subject.

The scientific method has bedrock rules. It begins with the irrefutable authority of instrument readings and replicated experiments. Anyone who does not play by these rules has no business contributing to an article about science. You are engaged in a form of religion. You cannot pick and choose the data, and ignore the fact that most cold fusion data cannot be explained by your theories. You will never reach a firm conclusion, make progress, or settle any dispute because you have no standards or method of confirming or refuting your ideas.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.47.115 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed wrote: "It begins with the irrefutable authority of instrument readings and replicated experiments" - Actualy Jed you have it backwards. You replicate to establish the reliability of the equipment, because of a little thing called 'error'. Once you have assessed your noise (error) level (which may be nonrandom, trivial example: Poisson stats) you make sure the effect you are seeing is out of the noise, and then proceed to establish control over it. Then you tranmit this info to others and they replicate you. At that point you can start getting serious about crafting explanations (theories). (This is for those cases where there is no preexisting theory to confirm.)

So, let me ask, do you think my work and comments need to be excised from the article? Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what he's trying to say is that science starts with empirical observation, and only after numerous observations does it move its way up to theory. And that putting all the weight on empirical evidence instead of theory is a founding principle of science. (In fact, it is arguably the one thing, above all, that distinguishes science from religion.) Kevin Baas^talk 18:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirk shanahan wrote:

You replicate to establish the reliability of the equipment, because of a little thing called 'error'. Once you have assessed your noise (error) level . . .

This has been done in cold fusion. As Hagelstein, McKubre and others have shown, it has been done far more carefully and extensively than in most fields, because the claims are controversial. There is no chance that all of the results are caused by error. (Some of the low s/n results probably are, in my opinion.)

No, it hasn't. No, Hagelstein and McKubre and others have NOT considered the CCS. If they had, they would realize that McK's data (for example) are explainable by a CCS, BUT they never publish the numbers that would allow 'us skeptics' to show that. It's a little problem with something called 'full disclosure'. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At that point you can start getting serious about crafting explanations (theories).

That's a good point. Your theory fails to explain the data. You cannot show, for example, how an instrument error might cause a thermoelectric chip to generate electricity and turn a motor.

Cite the reference(s) please, where the full disclosure on this supposed experiment is published. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Arata, Y. and Y. Zhang, 「固体核融合」実用炉の達成 (The Establishment of Solid Nuclear Fusion Reactor) J. High Temp. Soc., 2008. 34(2): p. 85.

Apparently not out yet. Helpful ref there Jed. At least there is some hope it will come out. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Arata, Y. and Y. Zhang, Establishment of the "Solid Fusion" Reactor. 2008, distributed during lecture May 22, 2008, Arata Hall, Osaka National University.

A demonstration handout. How are we supposed to get that? real useful again Jed. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that this is a rather strange way to prove that the thermocouples are functioning correctly and the heat is not an artifact. The conventional method is to use a joule heater. There are hundreds of examples of this in the literature. I don't recall others using a thermoelectric generator plus motor. Other methods such as confirmation with a mercury thermometer, and boiling water, and of course sense of touch have also been reported. The point is, most researchers take reliable steps to ensure that the heat is not an instrument artifact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.47.115 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.47.115 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't strange at all. Skeptics have been asking for the CFers to 'close the loop' for years, i.e. to take this 'excess energy' and use it to do something. Driving a thermoelectric chip is a first step in that direction, if it holds up to scrutiny. The other methods you cite are certainly susceptible to misinterpretation. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So, let me ask, do you think my work and comments need to be excised from the article?

Well, I believe the rules here say that a theory that only one person believes should not be written into an article by that person himself. So I suppose your work should be excised. But I see no harm in leaving it there. It is fine with me, personally.

It is true that one author has published a potential explantion for the FPH effect (i.e. cold fusion), but that does not imply only one person believes it. To date, everyone (but committed CFers) who takes the time to understand what I am saying understands the potential of the explanation. As such, and since it IS published, it should be mentioned in the article. What goes in the article should not be based on personal opinion, but upon the facts as they exist. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am emphatically -- enthusiastically! -- in favor uploading your work to LENR-CANR.org. I wish you would grant me permission to upload the other two papers. I would love to have anything that you or any other skeptic have published, because:

I answered this on my talk page. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I am FANATICALLY in favor of academic freedom and free speech. That means giving everyone a chance to make his or her case. An article at Wikipedia has be short, and it has to include only the most important points, but there are no size limits to LENR-CANR.org.

2. I want as much detail as I can get. I would gladly upload the books by Huizenga and Park, if they would let me. I am very grateful to Beaudette and Mizuno for allowing me to upload their books, and to the hundreds of scientists who have given me permission to upload their papers, including you. I sincerely thank you. (I say that without a hint of sarcasm.)

3. I favor an open debate. I disagree with the skeptics, and I am confident that a thoughtful person who reads their papers will also disagree with them. So I want to expose skeptical views to as many people as I can. They make our case for us. You lend credence to Storms, because an intelligent reader who compares your paper to his rebuttal will see that he is right.

Sorry, it will be the other way around, because a) Storms' did not critique the CCS, he critiqued the speculative chemical/physical mechanism that I _think_ leads to the CCS, and if I am wrong on that, who cares?, and b) I fully rebutted his comments on even that. The CCS itself is unchallenged in the literature at this time, and anyone who understands algebra can understand the CCS. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.47.115 (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Introduction

Olorinish recently made an edit to the intro. I think it's a step in the right direction - we should be sacrificing exactness in order to make the intro concise and easy to read. Brittanica does it all the time.

I'd propose a few more changes:

1. Since the word "hypothetical" was removed, it needs to be stated early in the intro that most scientists reject cold fusion. The single most noteworthy thing about the field, after defining it, is that mainstream science rejects it and looks down on it. This rejection is mentioned prominently in pretty much every media piece on the topic, and we should do the same.

2. It needs to be mentioned early that research continues with some notable proponents

3. The "in 1989, " bit needs a lead in. For example:

"Cold fusion became prominent in 1989, when..."

"It first recieved public attention in 1989 when"

"The first reports of cold fusion appeared in 1989, when "

4. The media storm that followed the announcement should be mentioned

5. There needs to be a better (brief) mention of what followed and how/why it fell into disrepute. The current version shifts from Pons announcement to the DOE review without good reason or even a link.

I would be bold but it's likely to get reverted given the strong POVs around here, so I wanted to get some comments first. Phil153 (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged the intro to address your comments, and I think it is actually pretty good. What do you think? Olorinish (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good - it flows a lot better than before and you haven't added anything controversial. I think the rearrangement covers 2,3,4 well enough, but maybe not 1 and 5. I might make a new section on the talk page later with clearer proposals. Phil153 (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is an improvement. Two minor issues:

1. Can we cut out "and at scientific conferences.[4]" The ref for this is very week, and I actually suspect this was included to deride CF researchers, considering the in-house conference is cited. In any case, it looks silly, we have a detailed ref for journals and books and then we add "and conferences" with a week footnote. Inconsistent, redundant and ugly.
2. "Most scientists". To please Pcarbonn, we could make this a bit more concrete... Certainly, it is safe to say that the American Physical Society outright rejects cold fusion. Once the article is somewhat balanced, I would actually advocate adding that the European Physical Journal and American Chemical Society have been more open to publishing experimental results of cold fusion researchers.

Finally, the lead should somehow mention that Cold Fusion flies in the face of current physical theory. What is reported is essentially an anomaly, which explains why people are so skeptical, especially when there are problems with reproducibility. Vesal (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The views of American Physical Society are very clear indeed. They have been expressed by Robert Park in the Washington Post and at APS conferences. Park told a large crowd at the APS that he, Zimmerman, and other Federal officials would "hunt down, root out" and "fire" any Federal scientist who tries to do a cold fusion experiment, or even talks about doing one. He (or someone else) followed through on that. The APS policy was also made clear by F. Slakey, the APS Science Policy Administrator in the New Scientist, where he wrote that cold fusion scientists are "a cult of fervent half-wits" "While every result and conclusion they publish meets with overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, they resolutely pursue their illusion of fusing hydrogen in a mason jar. . . . And a few scientists, captivated by [Fleischmann and Pons'] fantasy . . . pursue cold fusion with Branch Davidian intensity."

I can provide dozens of similar intemperate remarks from scientist at MIT, the PPPL and elsewhere. There is no doubt that many scientists fervently oppose cold fusion! However, as I have noted, these scientists have never published technical papers showing an error in a cold fusion experiment (except for Morrison and Shanahan). Their attacks are all either based on theory or ad hominem; that is, assertions that all cold fusion researchers are all frauds, criminals and lunatics (Park, Close, Kevles and other in the WaPost; the head of the DoE, many others). - Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.114 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1. Conferences are the mainstay of CF research publishing. A great many CF papers were published at the Nth International Conference on Cold Fusion.

Re: 2. "Most scientists": Reliable secondary sources (newspapers, physics editorials) say or clearly imply this. There's a list of references in Arbcom here. Also see WP, and NYT

Also from that same paragraph, I think this needs rewriting:

Cold fusion gained a reputation as pathological science after several researchers presented reports of failed replication attempts at conferences and in journals.

Basically, it doesn't present the reason for rejection clearly, and the use of "several" implies 3-4, when it was many more. Phil153 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil153 wrote:

Basically, it doesn't present the reason for rejection clearly, and the use of "several" implies 3-4, when it was many more.

To be exact, during 1989 and 1990 in the U.S. and Canada 20 groups with 135 people reported that they could not replicate. I do not have the numbers for Europe and Japan, but there were fewer attempts there. During this period, Fritz Will tallied 92 groups from 10 countries that reported successful replications.

There may have been failed attempts to replicate that were not reported. On the other hand, I am sure there were successful replications never reported, that Will did not tally, so they probably even out. Overall, successes outnumbered failures 3 or 4 to 1. It is a myth that cold fusion was not replicated. The rejection of cold fusion was purely political. It had nothing do to with the failure rate. We know this for three reasons:

1. Successes outnumbered failures, as noted.

2. Many other experiments have much higher failure rates, but no one rejects them on this basis.

3. The rejection began within hours of the announcement, long before replications were even attempted. As Mallove and other historians have documented, rival academics at MIT and elsewhere attacked Fleischmann and Pons, planted stories in the newspapers, and at MIT they soon published fraudulent data to show that their own successful replication had actually failed.

No doubt your version of the article will present the fantasy, fake version of history, but I thought you might want to know what actually happened.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.114 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed, unfortunately you're contradicting yourself. In this edit you claim that the replication rate has increased from a few per hundred to 90%, and now you're claiming that the replication rate was 75-80% from the time of the first experiments.

As for the other claims, I find them hard to swallow. I have no doubt that there was pressure to conform, but a purely political answer for CF's rejection doesn't make sense. Phil153 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil153 wrote:

the replication rate has increased from a few per hundred to 90%, and now you're claiming that the replication rate was 75-80% from the time of the first experiments.

Sorry, I have confused the issue. There are two separate numbers at issue: the number of groups that succeeded (92), and the number of experiments performed by each group -- or the success rate per run. The latter is sometimes hard to define. For example, at TAMU they ran a 10 x 10 array of cells (100 cells) and in some cases 2 or 3 would turn on, in other cases ~30 would. In nearly every test some cells would work. So do you count that as 3% or close to 100%? At BARC they prepared ~1000 Ti samples and ran them all at one time, in a large cryogenic cell. Two or 3 might turn on. Is that 0.3% or 100%?

As for the other claims, I find them hard to swallow.

Well, you need not take my word for any of this, or Mallove's. There is copious original source material available such as the Boston Globe articles and the fake data from MIT. You need only glance at the graph in the paper to see that someone moved the data points around and added a bunch of new ones. It is a crude fabrication. I counted the extra points here, p. 23:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.114 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil153 wrote: "but a purely political answer for CF's rejection doesn't make sense . . ." Politics alone ensured that the field would be rejected, as Fleischmann himself said a few minutes after the 1989 announcement. (Specifically, he said that he and Pons would soon be fired, which they were.) However, you are right that there were other factors, mainly the fact that it was -- and remains -- difficult to replicate. As Storms said, those 135 people who failed to replicate in 1989 and 1990 "felt they had been had." Vesal (below) cites Cravens and Letts saying it was "the early failed experiments that isolated" the field. I think everyone agrees with that. On the other hand, in electrochem. and other fields the fact that something is difficult to replicate would not be held against it. On the contrary, extremely difficult experiments such the Top Quark or ITER gain prestige precisely because they are so hard to replicate! Most of Fleischmann's previous claims could only be replicated by experts, but that did not stop them from making him president of the Electochem. Soc. or an FRS.

I have never understood why anyone thought that cold fusion is "easy" to replicate, although that notion has been widely circulated by scientists, Time magazine and others. All of the researchers I know say it is extremely difficult. - Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.114 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably because Fleischmann and Pons implied that it was easy. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Art Carlson wrote: "Probably because Fleischmann and Pons implied that it was easy." Ah. This is a misunderstanding. They said it is "relatively easy" compared to a Tokamak. They did not mean the experiment is easy. I have spoken with them many times and read everything they published, and I have never seen any hint that the experiment is easy. On the contrary, they emphasize the difficulty, as does everyone else who has replicated. - Jed Rothwell

I actually think the "and at scientific conferences" section shows something admirable about pro-CF researchers. They have done the work of holding their own conferences, and showing up at professional science conferences, so I thought the introduction should show what they have accomplished. Is there a way that this information could be presented in a less ugly way?

We could definitely have something in the introduction about how electrolysis-driven fusion is incompatible with current understanding of nuclear repulsion forces. How about "Cold fusion gained a reputation as pathological science after several researchers presented reports of failed replication attempts at conferences and in journals, and because of the known difficulty of overcoming nuclear repulsion forces." Olorinish (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The ugly thing is how conferences is added with a separate footnote, I tried to merge them and I did my best to make clear the presence of CF researchers at mainstream venues in the footnote, which is not altogether unimpressive. This was certainly not an ideal solution, but slightly better than before, or?

As to Phil's concern, CF's rejection by "most scientists" is well backed up by sources, but I think it would be better to state who they are and why they reject. I'm more impressed by the "American Physical Society" than "most scientists". As a side note, cold fusion proponents themselves are by the criterion of embarrassment very good sources for the marginalization of the field: "Every failed experiment in 1989 and 1990 was lacking in one or more of the criteria and it was the early failed experiments that isolated Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) from mainstream science." (Cravens and Letts 2008) I can't recall what point I want to make, but maybe I said something useful in between :)

Ah, about nuclear repulsion forces, I like the idea of adding something like that. What do people, who get the real science, think about this? Vesal (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Experts in the field think that both the idea (fusion at cold temperatures) and most of the claimed products (vastly too much heat for the number of neutrons, violating a number of theories including conservation of momentum) are in contradiction with well established theories of nuclear physics. In other words, both the initial act of fusion AND the results claiming to show fusion (even if you accept every CF experiment as true) are contrary to everything observed up until now. This article has a good summary of what nuclear physics experts think, and why. Phil153 (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to that article. (And to clarify, when I said "people, who get the real science", I was only contrasting with myself, not you or Olorinish.) Now, in addition to contradicting established theory, the article refers to the anti-Popperian attitude of CF researchers as part of the reason it is isolated from the mainstream. Also, the article refers to the Mössbauer effect (showing nuclear reactions may be different in crystals) and High-temperature superconductivity (a completely unexpected result just three years before CF) as reasons why physicist initially thought this may be possible. Some of that might be used in the body of the article, but to get back to the issue: how would you formulate a crisp sentence about the reasons for rejection in the lead? Vesal (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Vesal wrote: ". . . CF's rejection by "most scientists" is well backed up by sources, but I think it would be better to state who they are and why they reject."

I made a complete list of who the published skeptics are, and I summarized all of their arguments here:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

Note for the record that this is another place where the CFers 'forget' that I rebutted all of Storms' (2006) points in a back-to-back publication that Storms was certainly aware of. The last sentence in the paragraph discussing my work should end with "but Shanahan (2006) rebutted all points raised by Storms."Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirk shanahan wrote: The last sentence in the paragraph discussing my work should end with "but Shanahan (2006) rebutted all points raised by Storms." Ah. That's the new paper, written after this document. You will grant it is difficult for me to remember papers that are not yet written. What exactly is the reference for that? I do not have a 2006 paper listed. Why don't I change it to "Shanahan (2006) believes he rebutted all points raised by Storms"? Would that be too even-handed for you? - Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.255.197 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

By "published" I mean skeptics who wrote books or peer-reviewed papers (roughly a dozen in all). There are only a handful of these people. The main ones are Huizenga, Close and Park. Hundreds of other scientists (possibly thousands) have expressed skeptical views in newspapers, blogs, and of course here in Wikipedia, but as far as I know all of their arguments are in the list. (If any skeptic here reads this list and wants me to add new arguments, please let me know at JedRothwell@gmail.com.)

Most of the refs Jed cites are old. As noted elsewhere in these Talk pages, that was when the rest of the world quit worrying about CF. After that point the skeptics were mostly silent. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirk shanahan wrote: "Most of the refs Jed cites are old." Yes. That is deliberate. I tried to find the first mention of each argument, to give priority to the author. This is a summary, so there is no need to include more recent papers that present the same arguments. If you know of any new arguments, or arguments I forgot to list, please let me know. - Jed Rothwell

Melich and I also made a 44-page list of the skeptical arguments expressed by the 2004 DoE reviewers who oppose cold fusion (10 out of 18). All of their arguments are variations on the items in the above list.

The fact that all skeptical arguments can be summarized in a short document should not be held against the skeptics. I have summarized the arguments in favor of cold fusion in even shorter documents. However, in my opinion, the arguments themselves have no merit. I encourage everyone to read them and decide for yourself. Note that these arguments are only alluded to here in Wikipedia, and none of the actual arguments are included. For example, nowhere do you say, as Huizenga did, that we know a priori cold fusion must be wrong and therefore "one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat." I assume this is because these arguments make the skeptics look like fools. Whereas, if skeptics give the impression that errors have been found or that reasonable doubts have been expressed, without supplying any specifics, they might fool the readers into thinking they have a valid case. I am sure the skeptics do not want any of their own published arguments in Wikipedia, and will not allow them, because the document above was originally posted in Wikipedia but the skeptics erased it as soon as they found it, as noted.

I have often noted that skeptics suppress academic freedom and deny cold fusion researchers the right to publish. Here in Wikipedia they have replaced documented facts and fundamental principles such as thermodynamics with a preposterous fantasy. It should be noted that skeptics even suppress themselves, since they will not allow the original-source arguments made by their own esteemed leaders such as Huizenga and Park. I am sure that if I added a direct quote from Huizenga, Hoffman or Feshbach, or one of Park's many assertions that cold fusion researchers are criminals and lunatics, a skeptic would quickly remove it!

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.114 (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The current list of criticisms (which I would like to see incorporated into the article somewhere) goes something like this:

1) There is no replication in detail, i.e. the experiments are not controllable.

2) The results we do have are at the error limit, when we have enough of them to evaluate that limit.

3) The largest block of claims, for excess heat, have generically not considered the CCS, meaning critical information needed to evaluate the claims is not published, so the claims are unsubstantiated at this point.

4) The next largest block of claims, for He detection, do not convince readers of good analytical protocol (no descriptions published), so, based on the fact that one of the 'best' labs was recently found to have massive air contamination, those claims are likewise unsubstantiated.

5) Heavy metal transmutation claims are based on poor spectroscopic technique (XPS peak misidentification and SIMS misinterpretation) and thus are unsubstantiated.

6) Theories produced must be based on cherry-picked sets of data, since no conclusive body of evidence for CF exists.

Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that all of these (and more) are listed in the summary I wrote and posted above. Since the skeptics control this article, naturally they should include these 6 points, and whatever else pops into their heads. Perhaps they should add some of others I listed. However, for the record:

Points 1, 2, 4 and 6 are not in evidence, to put it politely. (They are imaginary claims.)

Point 3 is a theory which has no credibility with anyone but the author (Shanahan)

Point 5 is debatable at best.

The more garbage the skeptics add to this article, the less credible it will be to people who have actually read the literature or who know anything about calorimetry or electrochemistry. So I encourage the skeptics to add all this and more. If we cannot have an accurate, fact-based, scientific article then by all means let us have a blatant travesty.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

Hypothetical

I see no consensus regarding the current use of the word "hypothetical" in the intro. Moreover, I do not see how there could possibly be a consensus. The word "hypothetical" does not modify the definition. It is nothing but a weasle word. Its admitted purpose is to express disbelief in cold fusion at an early stage of the article: to express a POV.Paul V. Keller (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with this, we should strengthen the reasons why CF is rejected, and maybe make clear who rejects it. Weaselly rhetoric does not improve quality. Also, we don't say things like Jesus is hypothesized as the central figure in Christianity, some things are understood, and I believe we can trust the reader to at least complete reading the lead. Vesal (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it expresses disbelief - rather it expresses that the phenomenon in question is not decided. However, I agree with Vesal's comments about trusting the reader. I think the disagreement arises because of two distinct uses of the word. Cold Fusion simultaneously refers to:

- The abstract notion of nuclei fusing at room temperature

- A scientific theory to explain experimental results, put forth by a number of proponents.

The seconds needs "hypothesized" to separate it from actual observed or accepted phenomenon. The first doesn't require it. Phil153 (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A word previously used was "postulated". Verbal chat 10:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You could say:

"Nuclear fusion at room temperature has been postulated to explain experimental certain experimental results", but not

"Hypothetical nuclear fusion at room temperature has been postulated to explain . . .".

I favor a brief, clear definition of cold fusion that makes no mention of experiental results.

Mentioning "experimental results" would required a debate over qualifiers, which unlike this one would have little hope of consensus resolution. There is a need to distinguish between experimental results that appear consistently whenever a particular experiment is run, and cold fusion-type results, where the results are sporadic and "results" refers to a large number of experiements of debatable meaning. (http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=05-P13-00039&segmentID=2#links - an interview with some cold fusion researchers). Hagelstein is a professor at MIT who does cold fusion research, apparantly to the dismay of his colleagues, although his work looks legitimate to me. (http://www.rle.mit.edu/rleonline/ProgressReports/2123_36.pdf)Paul V. Keller (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

How about:
Cold fusion refers to nuclear fusion reactions occurring at temperatures close to room temperature, in contrast to the very high temperatures involved with typical fusion reactions, such as those inside stars. Most experts consider cold fusion unlikely, due to inconsistent experimental results and conflicts with established theories of nuclear processes. However, low level research continues with some notable proponents.

Feel free to suggest improvements. Phil153 (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I lean against putting "hypothetical" in the first sentence, since that sentence works fine as a definition without it. I think we can trust readers to read the whole introduction, where the disapproval of cold fusion is made clear. In fact, one main reason I prefer a short introduction is that it makes it more likely that a reader will absorb that information easily. Olorinish (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. If we're going to trust the reader to read the whole introduction, then are you happy with the current structure of the intro (Definition -> Early History -> Mainstream rejection and reasons -> notable reviews)? Do you think the second sentence above is jumping the gun or should it be added immediately after the defintion, as proposed? Phil153 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I just edited the intro a bit to reflect recent discussions. Olorinish (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Article needs less and more

The current article content contains far too much detail concerning the experiments and the sequence of events. Attitudes towards cold fusion need to be explained, but the relevant historical event can be stated much more concidely.

Placement of cold fusion theory in a dubious light should be objectively supported with relevant facts and reasoning more than opinionated references. The theoretical difficulties with cold fusion need to be explained better.

There are far too many unhelpful references. We do not need six citation to Fleischman and Pons. We need fewer references to original experimental work and fewer citations to commentators who do not have any special claims to knowledge or reliability. The proliferation of unhelpful citations dilutes the value of our more interesting and useful ones. In the absence peer review publications suited to our purpose, I think our best sources are writings by persons of standing in the scientific community, e.g., http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html. Although not even a published work, the author is a scientist, is associated with a reputable institution, and extensive near-hand acquaintence with the subject matter.Paul V. Keller (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to use those criteria, why not include this from Hagelstein (who arguably outdoes Goodstein on each of those points, except impartiality)?

As much as I'd like to include Goodstein's comments, which sum up the field well in layman language, IMO we need to keep OR out of the article as much as possible. Phil153 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

New Guess

I'm moving this down from where it was buried in a section above so it can get some attention from more active editors. This represents part of the problem Pvkeller brought up in the above section. I'm making a new section because I think Pvkeller comments warrant their own discussion.--OMCV (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• interjecting* A hypothesis has recently been published that could explain the lack of neutrons, in Issue 81 (Sept/Oct 2008) of "Infinite Energy". It has been posted at WikiSource ("Cold Fusion Hypothesis") and a .PDF of the "Infinite Energy" article can be accessed through a link at the top of that page (the body of the article at WikiSource is currently being complained about as a "possible copyright violation" --which it isn't! Are detractors trying to suppress it?). A condensed/modified version of the hypothesis was posted as a Comment to a Google Knol on Cold Fusion (Knol written By Jed Rothwell, Pierre Carbonnelle and Edmund Storms); since the hypothesis is condensed there, it might be less onerous to read. Anyway, the point of this post is that most physicists who denounce Cold Fusion do so because they know of no reasonable mechanism that would allow it. The published hypothesis is basically an attempt to describe a reasonable mechanism. Will any detractors read it? Are they so convinced that there can never be a reasonable mechanism, that they automatically assume any proposed mechanism MUST be flawed? But unlike mathematicians who need not examine a proposal for trisecting an angle with compass and straightedge alone, the Cold Fusion detractors do not have a proof that an explanatory mechanism cannot exist. What sensible excuse can they offer, to avoid possibly learning something?

I see a later comment in this page regarding a request for a hypothesis. The author of that post may be forgetting that often enough in Science, the first thing that happens is an unexpected result to an experiment. ALSO, it is often required that other experiments be done to gather more complete information about that result; it is silly to expect a decent hypothesis to be forged from one data point. Why, therefore, should there be any insistence that experiments be stopped, if a hypothesis has not yet been devised? V (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a line in the "References" section of the article, holding links to the article and its publisher. One thing about a HYPOTHESIS, different from the content of an ordinary journal article, is that it is SUPPOSED to be a Guess. That means the place where it gets published is not so important. In some ways guesses are related to opinions, and since all publishers have opinions, none is automatically superior to any other. (Later on, certain things in the published hypothesis can be incorporated into main cold fusion article, where appropriate.) V (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yikes - should we really be publishing or linking original research (which this is) from anyone who wants to posit a theory? I have a theory for why the twin towers collapsed (alien rays), can I add that as a reference in 911 page if I get it published at 911truth.com? Phil153 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not helpful to accuse another editor of bad faith, much less accuse the majority of editors of bad faith.

The article cited by V is garbage. The author is, I am sorry to say, an idiot, as shown by the following quote alone:

"This means that metallic hydrogen is a place where loose nuclei can exist, "voluntarily" stripped of the electrons that normally prevent nuclei from getting anywhere near each other!"

In what way is that idiocy? A hydrogen atom only has one electron, so if that electron joins the conduction band as part of the hydrogen alloying with a metal (or helping to form pure metallic hydrogen under appropriate pressure), how does the nucleus of that hydrogen not become bare and loosed from its normal confinement inside an electron shell? V (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We do not need to strictly follow the policy against publishing original hypothesis, but if an exception is made there will have to be some measure of editorial consensus. Contrary to the us-against-them theory, I am confident that a majority of editors could be persuaded to cite a novel theory if it is cogent and either comes from an exceptionally credible source or is readily comprehensible. If a theory is cogent, fills a gap, and our most knowledgable contributors can see no obvious flaws, I'll bet we could put put it in the article without even a citation.

There are essentially three theoretical difficulties with cold fusion theory: (a) getting the protons close enough together for quantuum tunneling to take over, (b) explaining the divergence of reative rates of different fusion reaction reactions from expectations, and (c) explaining the apparant lack of expected fusion reaction byproducts (I include here the problem of turning gamma rays into thermal energy, where that is an issue). http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien. The cited reference takes a volley at part (a). In that regard, I would favor somewhere in the artice that explaining cold fusion would probably require postulating the existence of a particle somewhere between an electron and a muon forming within the Pd matrix. While such a particle has never been predicted or detected, and the formation of a new particle at low energies is improbable, I am not sure our physicists would say that theory absolutely excludes such a particle from existing.Paul V. Keller 09:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvkeller (talk • contribs)

It was an argument about the absurdity of linking to unpublished theories, or those published in unreliable places. There was no suggestion of bad faith, just bad policy (although not communicated well).

As for the article, I read it as well. It doesn't just attempt to explain (a), but also has a go at (b) and (c). See section 8. To briefly summarize, the argument goes like this. I am not making this up.

1. If hydrogen forms a metallic lattice in palladium, it might lose electrons and have bunches of free ones floating around.

The one follows logically from the other. Electrons are shared in the conduction band of a metal lattice; they are not specifically orbiting any particular atom.

2. If enough of those bunches of free ones (tens or hundreds or thousands) end up between two particular deuterium atoms at the same time

You are misrepresenting the hypothesis. Quantum Mechanics takes away that "if", because of the statistical/cloudy way it describes electrons. At any moment there is a small chance that a particular electron can be found in a particular place. If that place is near a deuterium nucleus, and if there are many conduction-band electrons within QM cloudiness-range, then all of them are spending part of their time near that nucleus. Period.

3. They might act like muons, shielding the repulsive forces between the protons and bringing them close enough for tunelling

There is no "might"; muons and electrons behave virtually identically with respect to how they interact with other particles (excluding Weak Nuclear Force interactions, which are not a factor in nuclear fusion). Almost all differences in that behavior stem directly from the fact that the muon is a lot more massive than the electron. Also, you have again misrepresented the article, this time in the way you used the phrase "bringing them close enough", because the article makes a very specific distinction between muon catalysis and the proposed "electron catalysis". A muon can indeed directly bring one deuteron (the one it orbits) closer to another deuterium nucleus. Non-orbiting electrons, though, can merely/only shield the charges of two deuterons, such that IF they happen to randomly be on a collision course, then they can continue on that course until close enough to fuse. The article explicitly states that because deuterons are so small and so unlikely to be on random and nearly perfect collision courses, that is the reason why so much deuterium has to be loaded into a metal lattice, before CF can happen to a significant extent. Here I'll point out that if each "unit" of the original metal crystal lattice can be interpreted as a kind of "well", in which a deuteron might be located, then that well isn't deep enough to keep the deuteron there, and so every well in the lattice needs at least two deuterons in it at all times, for collision courses to become likely. The net result is, as loading-measurements seem to indicate, about 80% as many deuterium atoms as metal atoms are needed for excess heat to begin to be observed.

4. Then, during and just after fusion, virtual particles popping out of the vacuum at high speed might transfer some of the fusion energy to the hundreds of electrons that are still very close by, meaning that the new nucleus of helium doesn't break up into neutrons and protons, but instead forms the rare reaction products (helium 4) nearly all the time instead of very rarely. This explains both the heat and reaction products.

You seem to be saying that in a way to cause one to think that the virtual particles are a fantasy. They aren't. Virtual pions are indeed the exchange-particles representing the Strong-Force-in-action when deuterons fuse. Many of those virtual pions will be electrically charged, and it is a fact that virtual particles and real particles can interact in various ways. Also, one thing unfortunately not described in the published hypothesis is a simple fact regarding muon catalysis and the inverse-square law. When a muon orbits a proton 206 times closer than an electron, the force of electrical attraction is 206*206 greater than the attraction between proton and an orbiting electron. Nevertheless, (a thing published in the article) the muon and its mass can shoot away from the site of a catalyzed fusion reaction, and is then free to catalyze another. How (question not published) did the muon acquire the energy to shoot away (from where TWO protons were attracting it, so the attractive force was doubled)? Since we know electrons can interact like muons, it logically follows that almost any process that can give energy to a muon can also give energy to electrons. And there ARE plenty of electrons available in a metal's conduction band. We can even be sure that they will be attracted to in-between the approaching/fusing deuterons, because they are not in orbit, QM statistics will allow it, and that is the place where the positive charge is maximized.

There is not a single quantification of the likelihood of any of these effects or why they should occur, even using elementary QM. The entire article is prose.

True, the better to be understandable.

As for your comment about using unsourced novel theories, I disagree. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia and is contrary to a number of core policies. The only time I can imagine a new theory is if it is published in a high profile journal and/or commented on as worthwhile by high profile scientists or the media. Original research appearing in New Energy Times does not count, and I would argue that even Shanahan's recent ideas don't merit inclusion until it is published in a reliable source and becomes notable in the debate through secondary sources. Phil153 (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You should visit the Dean drive discussion page, for another aspect of the controversy regarding sources. Over there, the focus was on whether some claim had been published at all (most of the work on that device had been done in the early 1960s, long before the Internet). Here, the focus seems to be on which clique did the publishing. Now, what besides opinion makes one clique superior to another? Facts, of course. In this topic, some things that some people claim are facts are disputed by others, partly on the grounds that there is no explanation why those claimed-facts should be believed. Now here a Guess has been published, to do that explaining, and it could be argued that the Guess cannot have any validity because the claimed-facts that it tries to explain aren't actually facts at all.

Do I detect a trace of circular reasoning by CF-detractors in those last few sentences? They can't have their cake and eat it too, but the CF-proponents might be willing to let them try, if the cake was made of crow. V (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

All of _my_ ideas added here are published in a peer-reviewed journal, Thermochimica Acta. Clarke's work was also (pub'd in peer-rev'd J's). The only thing I was trying to get in that is not explicitly published in peer-reviewed journals is the problems with the heavy metal transmutation data. There is one publication describing this (in part) but it is the ICCF14 Proccedings Abstracts (at this point, the actual Proceedings are supposed to be coming). You may be confusing my explaining details for the layman Wiki reader with 'novel theories'. And I would note that it is difficult to get 'notable' when the other half of the debate doesn't respond, but that is a 'notable' point in itself. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? I was referring to the recent proposal that we should include your responses to Storm's criticism of your novel theory of CCS. I didn't realize it had been peer reviewed. Phil153 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I published my reanalysis in 2002 in Thermochimica Acta (TA). The paper was a slightly rewritten version of the one on the LENR-CANR Website. It was rewritten beause it had been in review for 2 years at another journal, but was killed because two CFers voted 'not to publish', even after I had rebutted all comments made against it in the review cycles. Some of those comments were posted to spf for discussion, with permission of Ed Storms. If you read them, you will find they are the exact same comments published by Storms in TA in 2006. When he submitted tha paper, per protocol, TA asked me if I wished to write a rebuttal, which I had _already_ done during the review process, so I said sure, and I repeated all ths comments again, as did Storms. Between that, in 2004 Szpak and Fleischmann published a paper that degraded my proposal, so I responded to them in 2005 (when I saw the paper, it was never sent to me prior to my spotting it in published form). The CCS, the proposed heat trasfer mechanism to allow a CCS, and the proposed physical/chemical mechanism to get a heat shift were all published in 2002. I expanded and explained in 2005, and rebutted comments (with more explanation) in 2006. Everything I have brought up here is either published directly, or is derivable from it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

OK Phil, now that you've had time to read the preceeding, I'm interested in knowing why you thought what I was discussing was unpublished (this is not to criticize you but to see if something I have contended might happen has happened.) Can you tell me why? Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The theory of cold fusion

This article would be more interesting to its readers if it began with an explanation of cold fusion theory. We could even move the article to Cold fusion theory.

Most students of science - and even educated laymen - want to know what a theory says first. Then they want to compare the theory (mentally) with what has been observed. If the two are consistent, then the theory seems plausible; if there are contradictions between theory and observation, the theory would then (in most minds) have been falsified.

The article will be easier to read if it focuses on (1) describing the theory and then (2) recounting the various experiments proposed and/or carried out to test the theory.

If experiments are inconclusive - or if proponents and opponents have not come to an agreement - we can describe the situation. Perhaps we could have one section on "why proponents feel their experiments have validated the theory" and another section on "why opponents feel that experiments have disproven the theory".

But this brings up a question of scientific authority. Are US government agencies players in the game, or are they the referees? That is, can we say that the DOE has made a pronouncement and that settles it? Or do we describe them as offering a viewpoint; i.e., as being merely a proponent or opponent? This is of wide-ranging editorial importance: see talk:scientific dispute for another scientific controversy or two on which authoritative organizations have spoken out. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no theory for cold fusion. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. It has been explored with empirical methods. (Some theorists believe they can explain the phenomenon, but their theories are not broadly accepted.)

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.255.197 (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the point of citing the 1989 DOE report is that it came out of an objective peer review process that weighed everything. There is not much else in that vein to cite to. The 2004 report was similar, but it appears the only new information the 2004 DOE panel considered was that provided by the group seeking cold fusion research funding. If there were better peer-review studies weighing in based on all available evidence, we might not be citing the DOE reports.

At the risk of bucking policy, I would like to go by best sources with a flexible approach to figuring out what the best sources are. I have disagreed with Jed on the theory point before - 'nuf said.Paul V. Keller 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvkeller (talk • contribs)

Pvkeller wrote:

I think the point of citing the 1989 DOE report is that it came out of an objective peer review process that weighed everything. There is not much else in that vein to cite to.. . . If there were better peer-review studies weighing in based on all available evidence, we might not be citing the DOE reports.

This has to be one of the most outrageous skeptical remarks I have ever seen! This deserves the Skeptical Chutzpah Award for 2008. You have it exactly backward. Let me explain the facts for Ed Poor's benefit. Scientific debates are supposed to be settled with reference to replicated, high signal-to-noise, peer-reviewed data. That is the scientific method. Since 1992, the weight of peer-reviewed evidence has proved overwhelmingly that cold fusion is real. Hundreds of papers published by thousands of scientists leave no doubt whatever. A handful of papers have been published that supposedly finds errors in this work, but they have no merit. So ever since the early 1990s, the skeptics have been scrambling to find some other arbitrary standard to replace the scientific method. They tried ad hominem attacks, replacing facts with imaginary assertions, pretending that calorimeters and x-ray film do not work, and so on. Most recently they have decided to sweep away the work of thousands of scientists and replace it with assertions from a preposterous document written by an anonymous Department of Energy bureaucratic hack:

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

The latest version of the Wikipedia article is mainly based on this nonsensical approach.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.255.197 (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This really is breathtaking. You people replace science with DoE politics conducted by anonymous bureaucrats, in a one-day knife in the back "review" of cold fusion conducted by people who obviously know nothing about the subject and did not even bother to read the literature or listen to the presentations. An anonymous review by non-experts -- completely contrary to DoE policies. And you have the gall to call that "an objective peer review process." Good grief! The two DoE reports were as far from that as anything could be. For crying out loud, the top guy in the first review, Happer, is on record saying: "Just by looking at Fleischmann and Pons on television you could tell they were incompetent boobs." That was his criterion to reject their findings. And in the second review you have a "skeptic" pointing to an article in Popular Mechanics to discredit peer-reviewed journal papers! The leading "reviewers" are on record saying they considered it their job to destroy and discredit cold fusion as quickly as possible. If this is your idea of "an objective peer review process" what would it take before you call something an out-of-control, vicious, political travesty? How bad does it have to get? Do you want them to waterboard researchers?

Incredible!

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.255.197 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot construct our own panel of experts to review the original research and reach our own conclusions. I and others reject the alternative of omitting reference to the DOE report and all other sources that have weighed in on cold fusion research. I believe the impact of the reliable sources policy on this issue has been debated elsewhere. The article clearly explains the source of the statement is a DOE review panel and even includes a link to a page on the DOE. The reader is not being led astray as to the presence or absence of reliable support for the conclusions.

I imagine many people will navigate to this page out of an interest in alternate energy sources and asking in particular, why isn't the government funding cold fusion research if it has even a slight chance of working? The DOE reports are information such a person would definitely want to find, even if that person is not satisfied and believes it was all part of the big oil conspiracy. ~Paul V. Keller 17:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I really like the title of this section. :) Here is, basically, a rewritten version of the recently published hypothesis that was mentioned in the "New Guess" section above. Some detractors might claim this version contains Original Research. That's OK; this is not the main CF article, after all, nor is some significant part of this expected to become part of the main article. But it would be nice to see what theoretical objections the detractors can raise to this, which means a fairly complete explanation needs to be presented first. SO:

What is the upper limit of the energy of the muon in muon-catalysis studies? We certainly know the muon can carry away some of the reaction energy; that's why it can escape some pretty extreme attraction by 2 protons and be free to catalyze another fusion. So, can the muon carry off so much energy of the reaction that there is no need for a gamma to be part of the result (the reaction would simply be D+D->He4)???

A positive answer to that question can potentially lead us to a plausible answer to the CF energy problem. We know that electrons interact with other particles very much like muons do (outside of the Weak Force). There are no loose muons under ordinary conditions in a piece of metal, but there are vast numbers of loose electrons, in the "conduction band" of that metal. And any mechanism during fusion that can give energy to a muon is also a mechanism that can give energy to an electron. So, we merely need to show how and why electrons --a lot of them-- might be involved in the middle of a fusion reaction, in a piece of metal. Then He-4 can be the result of the reaction, and there would be no gamma ray, but there would be a whole lot of energized electrons.

Then there are the relatively recent "co-deposition" experiments which indicate ordinary fusions occurring, that generate loose protons and neutrons alongside tritium and He-3. If electrons can be involved as described above, why is that happening?

One thing at a time, though. Under ordinary conditions most atomic nuclei are buried deep inside several electron shells, and it is not reasonable to think of two such nuclei Strongly interacting with each other across the distance from the center of one atom to the center of the other. The electron shells should be removed first. Fortunately, hydrogen has the simplest shell-structure of all, making it fairly easy to expose its nucleus. Two such exposed nuclei would have a much better chance of fusing.

Next, it is claimed that when palladium absorbs hydrogen gas, the process is modestly exothermic, and that energy has to be given back to the hydrogen-soaked palladium to make the gas come out again. But what is the hydrogen DOING in the palladium, that causes energy to be released during absorption? It is not reasonable to claim a chemical reaction is occurring, because the two elements have practically the same electronegativity. One reasonable thing, though, has to do with the kinetic energy of the hydrogen. In the metal the atoms can't be expected to have the same freedom of motion that they have when not inside the metal. Their high-speed kinetic energy as a gas has to go somewhere, if they are to move comparatively slowly inside the metal.

Does that reverse the problem, now? Is there not too much kinetic energy to be dumped, compared to the measured exothermic amount during absorption? Well, we do know of one place some of that energy can go: Hydrogen gas normally exists as a two-atom molecule, and breaking that chemical bond takes a fair amount of energy.

If the preceding is true, then now we have individual hydrogen atoms scattered throughout the metal. Are any interactions between those atoms and the metal to be expected? Well, suppose we replaced one of those hydrogen atoms with, say, a single lithium atom (similar to that hydrogen in that it has a single electron with which to interact with something else), and ask ourselves what IT would do, in the midst of all those other metal atoms? I think nobody would doubt that the lithium would "alloy" itself to the metal, letting its interaction-electron join the overall electrical conduction band. Why couldn't a lone hydrogen atom do the same thing? Why wouldn't all the lone hydrogens in the metal do the same thing?

Obviously if a lone hydrogen atom gives away its sole electron, then the atom has become reduced to a bare nucleus. (And that would sure make it easy for hydrogen to permeate throughout the metal!) Bare nuclei are just what we need to start thinking about the possibilities for fusions of nuclei, especially if all the words "hydrogen" above were replaced with "deuterium". Before we get to that, though, it could be useful to keep in mind that we are at this point because of an interaction between individual deuterium atoms and the conduction band of the metal. What interactions might be expected between loose deuterons and that conduction band?

At any moment loose conduction-band electrons can approach a deuteron. How closely can they approach? They certainly are not required to "keep away" at orbital distance, simply because at that distance the original electron was free to leave. So, the particle-fuzziness described by Quantum Mechanics (and larger at room temperature than in the core of a star) implies that a loose electron could be anywhere near the deuteron, including (momentarily), right in the middle of the triangle of quarks inside the deuteron's proton. Why not?

If so, then now we can compare this situation, of loose conduction-band electrons getting very near loose deuterons, to the situation of a muon closely orbiting a deuteron. We know that the latter situation suffices to allow a second deuteron to get close enough for fusion to happen. Why shouldn't the same be true of the nearby-electrons situation?

If two loose deuterons in palladium metal happen to converge on a collision course, stand back and look at the distribution of positive charge. It will be maximized in-between the deuterons. It will be the place most attractive to conduction-band electrons, too. And since two protons are involved, at least two electrons can be expected to be attracted to that place, even though only one is needed to allow the deuterons to get close enough to fuse. We could possibly imagine a kind of "train" of electrons from the conduction band passing between the converging deuterons. And that train is not going to stop, just because the deuterons happen to get close enough together for the Strong Force to START doing its thing.

Electrons interact like muons. In muon-catalyzed fusion the muon can often shoot away carrying some energy that it can only have acquired from the fusion reaction. Once it leaves the scene, though, the reaction must somehow deal with all the rest of its energy, so typically we observe tritium and protons and neutrons and He-3 as the reaction products. HERE, though, every electron that acquires energy and leaves the scene can be immediately replaced by another; those protons are still attracting electrons from the conduction band. Two at a time, even. That would allow Momentum to be Conserved, as the electrons acquire and carry away the Conserved Energy.

In the end, the He-4 nucleus that results will simply hold on to the last pair of electrons it attracts, and force them into orbit. Nobody talks about "metallic helium".

The results of the co-deposition experiment are easily explained in terms of the quantity of electrons available. Co-deposition creates an extremely thin layer of metal. Enough electrons can be present to allow fusion to start, but not enough are present (compared to bulk metal, where the 3rd dimension is available) to carry away so much energy that He-4 can be the result. V (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Objectivist, do you have a proposed improvement to the article related to the above 15(!) paragraphs? This discussion page should be used to discuss improving the article, not the minute details of the issue. Olorinish (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I suspected an objection of that sort was likely. It would be nice if a condensed form of the above could be included in the article; the hypothesis has been published, after all. But the publication is not mainstream, and so, based on other comments in this page, one could expect the detractors will claim that so much as referencing that published article shouldn't be allowed. I thought "Here is a way to head off that claim". Let them SEE how it all might fit together. Didn't somebody else somewhere on this page post something about obvious logic not being Original Research? Somewhere between that statement, and the dislike of non-mainstream publications, a place might be made in the main article to fit something from the above. But only if no obvious flaws can be pointed out in its data or logic. So here it is, to give them the chance to point out such a flaw. If they can't, then it shouldn't matter where the hypothesis was published. So far the only objection I know about is a private remark made by OMCV regarding hydrogen's ability to alloy itself to a metal. It has occurred to me that if hydrogen acts in accordance with my current understanding of that objection, then hydrogen shouldn't be able to entirely permeate palladium (it would become locked into place near the surface of the metal, and possibly even block the ability of other hydrogens to get past it into the metal). V (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

my try at a definition of "cold fusion"

Since this has been much discussed recently, I'm going to give a rough try at an intro para. I've been mulling it over for a while. This isn't really meant as a candidate, just trying to give a rough definition of "cold fusion", esp. w/respect to the whole "hypothesis" discussion:

"Cold fusion is the name given to the study of a phenomena in which the electrolysis of heavy water creates heat in excess of that predicted by theory. Some have speculated that, due to the laws of thermodynamics, the excess heat must be from a nuclear event, such as fusion. Since the phenomena occurs at temperatures much lower than thought to be necessary for nuclear fusion, the field has become known as "cold fusion". The hypothesis of cold nuclear fusion has been very controversial, however, since there is no known process that could produce fusion events in those conditions."

Feel free to comment. Kevin Baas^talk 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what has been written in these talk pages, the cold fusion hypothesis is not required by the laws of thermodynamics. You are also in trouble because not all cold fusion researchers believe electolysis is necessary. Semantically, I do not think it right to define "cold fusion" as a field of study.Paul V. Keller 17:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvkeller (talk • contribs)

Pvkeller wrote: "You are also in trouble because not all cold fusion researchers believe electolysis is necessary." This is quite right -- and important! (I should have said this before -- sorry.) The first month of the research, people reported that other techniques such as gas loading and ion beam loading also work.

The cold fusion hypothesis is based on the laws of thermodynamics, more specifically on calorimetry. You cannot reject cold fusion without first rejecting calorimetry and thermodynamics. There is no chance that all of the calorimeters used in all studies were operated incorrectly. As McKubre explained (and I quoted above): "Calorimetry, the basis of the thermodynamic laws, the basis of chemical thermodynamics, and everything we know about heats and energies of reactions in chemistry and ultimately electrochemistry, is a well-worked-out technique that is regularly practiced at 0.1 percent accuracy and better. It has been this way for 100 years or more. . ." So, in order to show that cold fusion results are wrong, you have to erase the last 100 years or more of chemistry and physics. If you want to show this is not true, and calorimetry does not work, I suggest you write a paper and get it past peer review. - Jed Rothwell

I should add that I think my first sentence is too long, and the third is technically incorrect: There are forms of nuclear fusion that ARE predicted by theory and occur at temperatures even lower than in C.F. experiments (e.g. Pyroelectric fusion, Muon-catalyzed fusion).

As to "the cold fusion hypothesis is not required by the laws of thermodynamics", if the measurements and calculations of the experiments are correct, in some experiments energy has been "created". This violates the law of conservation of energy (the first law of thermodynamics). The only known way to violate the law of conservation of energy is via the equation e=mc², i.e. by a nuclear process. It is this consideration that have lead some to speculate a nuclear process. Granted, this assumes that the measurements and calculations are correct, and that there are no other sources of energy that we are not aware. But nonetheless, making these assumptions - tentative or not - correct or not - can, and has, led people to that conclusion. Now they could be wrong. But then either their assumptions are wrong or current scientific theory is wrong. In sum, I never said that it was require,d but, if you assume that all the measurements and calculations are correct, and current scientific theory is correct, it necessarily follows that a nuclear process must be occurring. If it's not, then the law of conservation of energy is broken. If the law of cons. of energy is not broken and a nuclear process is not occurring, then a measurement/calculation must be wrong. A and b implies c. etc. It's merely logical. And again, what I wrote only says that this was their thinking, not whether or not it is correct.

While what I wrote does not say that "all cold fusion researchers believe electolysis is necessary" it is ambiguous and could be interpreted that way. I acknowledge that weakness.

I would say that practically, cold fusion is, if not a field of study, an area of experiment. That is, anyone who takes an active interest in it is primarily interested in empirical research. Though there is a hypothesis that the phenomena is caused by fusion events, and that is very much where the name "cold fusion" came from, there is no working theory and most research is still very much focused on gathering empirical data by way of experiment. Kevin Baas^talk 18:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconding Dr. Keller's comments above:

- The pro or con of cold fusion has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Jed Rothwell (editor of a pro cold fusion site) is asserting that the calorimeter data from cold fusion experiments is beyond all possible sources of error, incorrect assumptions, noise, or alternative sources of energy, and therefore it would have to "disobey the laws of thermodynamics" to not be from fusion. That's the only relationship to thermodynamics.

- Cold fusion is not "very controversial". It is soundly rejected by most scientists, especially nuclear physicists. References are higher on this page.

- The theoretical rejection of cold fusion is twofold as well - not only is there no known process that could produce fusion, the products that are claimed to be detected (large amounts of heat relative to neutrons) are at odds with all other kinds of fusion, hot and cold.

Phil153 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil53 wrote:

Jed Rothwell (editor of a pro cold fusion site) is asserting that the calorimeter data from cold fusion experiments is beyond all possible sources of error, incorrect assumptions, noise, or alternative sources of energy,

Two corrections, one important, one not:

1. These assertions are made by the researchers, not by me. (Of course I agree with them.) You can review their papers and data and decide for yourself if they are right or wrong. Plus, you can read the handful of papers by skeptics that attempt to find an error. If you find any errors, let me know. Skeptics have had 20 years to find an error and they have found none, so it is a safe bet they will not find any.

2. I am the Librarian, not the editor. The papers are all published elsewhere and edited by other people. (Except as noted some Proceedings are edited by me.) LENR-CANR is a library, not a journal, so we do not filter, censor, edit or reject papers, or endorse them by uploading them. We have many papers by skeptics that I feel have no merit, but we are neutral.

- Jed Rothwell, LIBRARIAN not editor, LENR-CANR.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.255.197 (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"The pro or con of cold fusion has nothing to do with thermodynamics." - i'm not saying it does. I was talking more about the historical origins. I don't recall jed ever asserting that all the assumptions were correct and all that other jazz, just the other part. The "only" relationship to thermodynamics is essentially everything. Excess heat, calorimetry, chemical processes -- hell, even electrolysis. There's little if anything that's not directly related to thermodynamics. But that's all really a side note. the basic idea was that for thermodynamic reasons p and f thought it was probably not a chemical reaction so it had to be nuclear and thus began c.f.

I don't disagree with you, but that does not mean there is no controversy. And I can name some very highly regarded scientists -- noble prize winners, even -- who are a party to that controversy.

If by "at odds" you mean that the reactions pathways are highly improbably for a natural fusion event, that's pretty much the same as process. A pathway is a process, and it's not surprising that a different process would produce different results. And certainly if you don't know the process it's quite unlikely that you'll be able to predict the products. But perhaps it could be worded more generally. I just wanted a balanced presentation, between the thermodynamic argument for, and the no known process argument against - one argument per side. Kevin Baas^talk 18:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the intro as is contradicts itself: "Cold fusion refers to nuclear fusion reactions that advocates claim ... the field is also known as ..." Is it a reaction or a field? C.F., insofar as it is also known as CMNS or LENR, is a scientific area of research, or "field". Is it fair to say it's a field of empirical research erected around a hypothesis? Or the study of an unusual phenomena about which a startling hypothesis has been proposed? Anycase, i think the contradiction should be resolved somehow. Kevin Baas^talk 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that a term should be defined in the way most people would understand it. That's the standard used for the naming conventions around and it makes sense to apply it to the definitions (as long as they remain factual). In this case, it refers to the idea that nuclear fusion reactions can occur at room temperature in contrast to what mainstream science believes. Phil153 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, mainstream science does believe that fusion can occur (at significant rates) near room temperature (or even lower) (e.g. Pyroelectric fusion, Muon-catalyzed fusion), but I get your point: it's not as important for the definition to be literally self-consistent as it is for it to be intuitively correct. Kevin Baas^talk 19:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A deuterium nucleus in the beam used in pyroelectric fusion has about 100keV of kinetic energy, equivalent to roughly 10⁹ K- not really 'cold'. You're correct about muon-catalyzed fusion though.--Noren (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Arata and Zhang demonstration does not involve electrolysis, just gas loading. 69.228.198.240 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed New Layout

We know this page needs to be reworked to return to its former stature. I am sure everyone dreads the controversy of major changes, but here is what I propose:

Intro

Cold fusion in the 1989 Press

Cold fusion as an Alternative Energy Source

DOE 1989

DOE 2004

Theoretical Issues

Precedents

Nuclear Proximity

The Potential Barrier

Rebuttal of the dense hydrogen theory

Expected Reactions

D+D reactions

Other hydrogen reactions

Reaction Products and Heat

Heat from high energy particles

Experimental Failures

Attempts at reproduction

The Toyota Project

The … Project

The Pathological Science Debate

Isolation of the Cold Fusion Community

Acknowledgements of Potential for Legitimate Research

Ongoing Research

Experimental Findings

Importance of Priming the Pd with D2

Minimum loading with 0.85 D

Helium-4 production correlated with heat

Energy Comes in Bursts

Elemental Transmutations

Theoretical Work

Cross-links with issues sections

Proximity

Quasi-particle hypothesis

Expected Reactions

Pathway dependence

Reaction Products

Momentum and energy coupling

Lattice theory

Detection

~Paul V. Keller 22:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the present arrangement of the page? Also, why do you want to add so much material? The current article isn't so bad. Olorinish (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The article could be a lot better. Take a look at the improvement suggestions put into the main article and those at the top of this page. To my eye, big parts of the article read like an edit war. I do not expect to lengthen the article much if at all. Current material can be paired down considerably to make room for new subject matter.

There is too much disparity between the credulity of physicists and non-physicists. We need to provide more information to allow lay people to appreciate the technical terms used by physicists to explain their thinking about cold fusion. See http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html (slipping immediately into technical jargon, he said "it's bullshit")

Seriously, at the same time I think it is incumbent on us to be respectful of guys like http://www.rle.mit.edu/rleonline/People/PeterL.Hagelstein.html who have risked their careers pursuing what they consider to be an interesting line of research.

I think my layout will reduce future edit conflicts: there is less incentive to fight over a proposed modification to the current research section if the case against believing in cold fusion has been fully made out already. And frankly, there is too strong an anti-cold fusion research bias. The arguments on this page have not been well made, but I think you will by hard pressed to find reliable sources that say cold fusion research is per se junk science. The DOE reports acknowledge the propriety of low level funding of focused cold fusion research projects, and I do not think we can assume ACS is putting on a conference just to make money. ~Paul V. Keller 23:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything about this new structure that is an improvement. In fact, it would probably increase the amount of OR in the article. Advocates will be just as likely to fight as before, since such changes will not change their motivation one bit. What this article needs are incremental improvements (probably more subtractions than additions), which will hopefully keep disagreements at a managable intensity. Following that line of thought, what arguments do you think have not been "well made"? Olorinish (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul V. Keller this is a quote from a one of your previous edits.

We do not need to strictly follow the policy against publishing original hypothesis, but if an exception is made there will have to be some measure of editorial consensus. Contrary to the us-against-them theory, I am confident that a majority of editors could be persuaded to cite a novel theory if it is cogent and either comes from an exceptionally credible source or is readily comprehensible. If a theory is cogent, fills a gap, and our most knowledgable contributors can see no obvious flaws, I'll bet we could put put it in the article without even a citation.

I understand you are new to Wikipedia. Before you do any major editing you need to realize what you said above is not true at all. Original hypothesis (research) can not be entered into Wikipedia especially on controversial pages. There is no room for stipulations since at no point can we all be present to reach an agreement. Every assertion must be based on significant literature citation as described by WP:Verify. I am stating this to protect both sides of the debate. I think you are severely underestimating how polarized the views are on this topic. I won't go into personal views here to avoid controversy on what I just said.--OMCV (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, granted, I went too far. But I still think we are better off citing to physicists posting on the web then to journalist writing in books. ~Paul V. Keller 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The main concerns I have with this layout are reliably sourcing the material, the weight it gives to cold fusion research (the Arbcom decision on this case (closing today) reaffirmed that the article should be written from the mainstream perspective in line with mainstream thought), and the possibility that it will lead to constant warring over what new "research" should be included and how it should be presented. Phil153 (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing is a section-by-section issue. Granted, a section cannot exist if we have no reliable sources and some of the sections I listed probably cannot be reliably sourced. I still want to cover the point that the majority view is extreme doubt, which is not the same as outright rejection. ~Paul V. Keller 02:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the proposed structure. I wondering what CF proponents like Jed and PCarbonne will think of it. Good luck.--OMCV (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OMCV wonders, "what CF proponents like Jed and PCarbonne will think of it." Neither of us are allowed to respond. PCarbonne has been banned for a year, and someone keeps erasing my comments here. - Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.255.197 (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Jed your comment should probably be removed per WP:NOTFORUM. However, if you replace it with some constructive comment aimed at improving the the article then that would be fine. Please get an account so we can hold off topic conversations elsewhere. Verbal chat 15:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

off topic comment redacted

I saw Jed's original response. He was supportive, but in a backhanded way and viewed the whole thing as another attack. I agree that the Experimental Failures section needs to be retitled, include some of the successful reproductions, and also some of the rebuttal work, including the Cal Tech work and Kirk Shanahan's work (brief). Rebuttal to the rebuttal needs to be briefer still.

I agree it is important to treat current researchers respectfully, as we would colleagues. Also, consider the relatively recent success of UCLA in demonstrating a new form of room temperature fusion: piezo-electic crystal fusion (published in nature). http://www.college.ucla.edu/news/05/naranjo.html. This is not exactly cold fusion, but what I find remarkable is that one of the authors, Seth Putterman, professor of physics, was a confidant of Jerry Swinger, the nobel laureate physicist who controversially threw his hat into the cold fusion ring on the experimentalists side. I find it impressive that this early CF research backer (I surmise this point based on the relationship with Swinger who saw a connection with Seth's sonoluminescence work) has managed to find some form of public vindication. ~Paul V. Keller 17:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In principle I support the new approach. This article or subject has seen very little improvement in the last year. It is possible that this is the result of dug-in positions and POV-pushing cliques explored in the this ArbCom: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not paper. I do not think mainstream scientist can set a quota on how many lines of text can be "expended" on cold fusion. If need be, the article can be split up. Anyway, I have restored content on the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in the article on Martin Fleischmann. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Content forking.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I objected to the deleted content not only on its overinclusion of irrelevant detail, but in its omission of more pertinent information at the same level of detail. By going half way with detail, it stuck me as window dressing to give the experiments an aura of scientific precision without addressing details pertinent to interpreting the experimetnal results or the subsequent controversies. For example, the maginitude of the current and the mass of the cathode would be required to give a sense of the significance of the increase from 30 to 50 C. I'll leave it to someone else to explain the details releavant to the temperature measurement and Faraday efficiency issues. ~Paul V. Keller 18:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In any exposition I think it's important to include the co-deposition and gas-loading experiments. Kevin Baas^talk 18:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Pretri Kohn - it's not about mainstream scientists settings a quota, it's how far we should delve into every bit of quasi reliable original research published in poor sources. The field is a scientific outcast among experts (nuclear physicists), not terribly different to how homeopathy or Ch'i would be considered by medical researchers. Proposed sections such as Rebuttal of the dense hydrogen theory and Elemental Transmutations are going to using OR, unreliably published sources, and synthesis. It's not the place of Wikipedia to catalog the entire field and all of its arguments, but to provide an informative summary of information presented in the most reliable sources. Phil153 (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As to "scientific outcast among experts (nuclear physicists)", while I agree that it is generally ignored, some experts - noble prize winners, even, such as Julian Scwhinger, have taken quite an interest in it. And I would consider that "terribly different to how homeopathy or Ch'i would be considered by medical researchers." The transmutation experiments are quite significant and notable. And it is the place of wikipedia to present the significant and notable aspects of a controversy. Nobody is arguing that "the place of Wikipedia to catalog the entire field and all of its arguments", and the current article does nothing of the sort. So that is a straw man, or at best a misrepresentation. And your interpretation of wikipedia's goals and policies is a little too narrow, so much, one might argue, as to potentially be against core policy. Kevin Baas^talk 15:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My statement is accurate. It's more than "generally ignored", it's outcast, considered pathological science by most, and "a pariah field". See Arbcom evidence, WP, NYT, Goodstein, Scaramuzzi (a cf researcher). That much is plain, and nothing can change the fact that reliable secondary sources completely disagree with your analysis of the status of the field. As for (a) Nobel Prize winners and rejected fields, Linus Pauling comes to mind, although I'm sure there are others.

I'm also confused by your comment the current article does nothing of the sort. My comments refer to the proposed article, not the current one. Phil153 (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake then, I did not know your comment referred to the proposed structure. I have no comment on that, then. I am also confused by your comment, in multiple respects: Firstly, I never said it wasn't more than "generally ignored". secondly, your comment "nothing can change the fact that reliable secondary sources completely disagree with your analysis of the status of the field" I don't recall ever doing an analysis of the status of the field, so i don't know to what you are referring. And furthermore i do not know of anything inaccurate in what i said or of any sources that would dispute anything i said, nonetheless reliable sources. And you never claimed that anything i said was inaccurate so I really haven't a clue as to what you claim certain sources to dispute. Kevin Baas^talk 16:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, you sparking my interest w/pauling: a looked through the article, and didn't find any mention of a rejected field -- perhaps you could fill me in? Kevin Baas^talk 16:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we're talking past each other. As for Pauling, he was a strong advocate of various fringe therapies, see Linus_Pauling#Molecular_medicine_and_medical_research. Phil153 (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. I would say that "not generally practiced by conventional [...] professionals and is strongly criticized by some" would accuractely characterize C.F., as well. Though after reading that section I have to say, if the example was intended to be diminutive/dismissive of C.F., it was, at best, poorly chosen. Kevin Baas^talk 17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Silence is generally consent around here so I think you've got the green light. Anything you put together is going to help article anyway.

As one of the two that didn't like it, I want to restate my case a bit more cogently. My main concern is the large number of topic headings and how they're presented; they give the article a weight toward the proponent voice and don't clearly separate claimed research findings from mainstream rejection and criticism (which I think the current structure does). I agree the article reads like an edit war, but I think that's due to hardcore CF advocates changing text constantly and being edit warred back. PCarbonn's recent ban should put that to an end. I've already changed "Summary of assertions of current proponents" to be a bit more objective and a lot more can be done. If you put together a proposed article based on these headings - "findings of fact", so to speak - I think it finally give us a structure we can work with even if it's not the final outline. Phil153 (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it either. Too many sections, for one. And it's hard to tell the balance of it. Kevin Baas^talk 16:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not married to the outline and will try to improve it. Of course, I do not intend for it to be my work alone. In any event, I will try to keep my edits more in the way of evolution than rewrite. Doing a little bit at time will not only allow more review, it fits better with my schedule. I am a slow writer. ~Paul V. Keller 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

State of CF Research

In the previous section Phil153 references a Washington Post article, while talking about the need to reference reliable sources. This comment is somewhat about that, but more appropriate in this section than that one. We perhaps agree that while the WP is not a science journal, it is generally reliable in other ways, and in this case appears to try to present both sides of the CF issue, although most of it is focussed on two CF people who are fairly highly regarded even outside the CF field, Peter Hagelstein and Michael McKubre. I quote from near the end of the article:

" Hagelstein says, he has seen enough cold fusion data to convince him that the science is clearly real. The field's acceptance, he maintains, will be simply a matter of the scientific community's looking at the improved experimental results in the future and coming to understand them. "

" To McKubre, the main reason cold fusion has been belittled all these years is that the mainstream scientists who dug in their heels long ago can't change their minds now: "If it turns out these people are wrong, they're dead. They're scientifically dead. "

OK, in now-nearly-20 years of study, no blatantly indisputable results have come out of the CF field. On the other hand (my opinion, something like Hagelstein's), many points initially raised by detractors regarding the quality of their experiments have been addressed by at least some researchers. Even if 98% of the reported positive results are junk and can be explained by Kirk Shanahan's work, what of the remaining 2%? Does this not sound like the UFO-sightings field, where something like 2% of the reports stubbornly resist an ordinary explanation? Well, if something abnormal is actually happening 2% of the time, then the "something abnormal", of whatever category, deserves study until it is understood, in my opinion. And I'm not the only one with such an opinion; this sort of thinking is ordinary at particle-accelerator laboratories. (Also, let me hasten to add that with respect to CF, the percentage of not-junk experiments appears to actually be more than 2%, but how much more I couldn't say.)

You are on the right track here. Each separate experiment presented for inclusion in the 'body of evidence' must be evaluated independently for accuracy. Those that don't fulfill basic requirements must be dropped. When you examine the current body of evidence, you can eliminate 98% based on this type of thinking, leaving 2% or so (to use your numbers). Two problems arise, first, the CFers don't acknolwledge that 98% can be conventionaly explained. They simply refuse to see that it can be done. (Pseudoscience at its best.) Second, the 2% left are individual experiments or perhaps 2 experiments in some cases, which is an insufficient level of reproduction to be able to 'do science' and come to any conclusion. Yes, they potentially should be studied, but that's not what the CFers are doing. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the mainstreamers who are "not doing", not paying attention to that 2% or more of good data. Worse, appearances are that they are trying to suppress the CF researchers who are "doing", as if they think the 2% doesn't exist. V (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not the 'mainstreamers' job to do CF research. It is the job of the CFers to be self-critical, quit claimimg the 98% actually, truly proves CF is real beyond a shadow of a doubt, and get down to studying the 2%. If they did that they might find a more accepting mainstream. As things are today, they just lose credibility every time they don't perform basic, standard checks, like making sure they correctly use XPS and SIMS, or confirm their results aren't covered by the CCS mechanism. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While it is not the job of all the mainstreamers to do that, it cetainly is the job of some of them. For example, I once read a description of the two-slit experiment by a physicist who decided he needed to do it to see the truth of a particular aspect of it for himself. The claim was that even when just one photon at a time is sent through the slits, an interference pattern still forms (suitable time-exposure required!) He succeeded at replicating the claimed result. I will analogize that physicist as being like the mainstream doubters, with regard to CF. I will admit the CF proponents first need to find a particular experiment setup they can point to and say that THIS ONE can be reliably replicated. I will also admit even if they have such an experiment right now, the "cry wolf" problem still has to be dealt with. Which is not entirely a CF problem; if they actually have something that deserves attention, it also is a mainstream problem.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivist (talk • contribs) 22:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Next, I'd like to pose a problematic Question for those who insist that only "reputable" publications be cited as sources. What McKubre said can be interpreted as meaning that it is in the best interest of publications whose editors denounced CF early on to continue to only publish denunciation papers. Where, then, can a proponent who has good data get published (and please let's assume for the sake of this question that there might someday be such a proponent)? I may be misreading some History here, but it is my uncertain understanding that the publication called "Springerlink" only became reputable after Einstein published some papers in it AND after Einstein himself became famous. That is, neither were so hot at the time of that publication. So, IF there is some valid CF work published outside the mainstream, and if the mainstream is self-serving, then what basis is there for Wikipedia to prevent references to that work from being included in the article? V (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I never had in mind delving into every bit of research. On the contrary, I only want to hit the main points. One main point is the measurement of excess heat. Excluding outliers, there is now a more narrow statement as to when that excess heat occurs and what it looks like. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Scaramuzzitenyearsof.pdf; http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=05-P13-00039&segmentID=2#links These reports say CF research over the last 10 or 20 years collectively shows that excess heat occurs only when the D/Pd loading exceeds 0.85 or so, and you can only get to that loading using very high pressure or electrochemistry. The reports agree that heat and other anomolies when observed appear in coherent but apparently random burst periods.

"Heat after death" experimental data, which is the basis of some of the more outlandish numbers Jed throws around, is another kettle of fish. I am unaware of any claimed patterns for that data. We still might briefly explain what these experiments are and what the data is supposed to look like.

There seems less to say about transmuatations, except that every kind imaginable have been claimed, but here I am not breaking ground: the article already reports that there are claims to transmuations.

By "every kind imaginable", I assume you mean the +4 protons +4 neutrons transmutation of metals kind? Kevin Baas^talk 16:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am asking Jed not to chime in here with a bunch of unsupportable claims to obfuscate the main points. Pinning down the excess heat claims is good for CF research, not a threat. ~Paul V. Keller 09:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul V. Keller wrote: "I am asking Jed not to chime in here with a bunch of unsupportable claims to obfuscate the main points." Everything I say is supported by high quality, peer-reviewed data. Anyway, the information you seek is in Storms' book, especially Table 1. It is all there, well organized, with thousands of footnotes. Rather than wondering about this or guessing about that, you should read the book and save the time and effort it would take to learn these things piecemeal from the literature. - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.255.197 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the things that needs discussing is this >.85 requirement. Please note that this is for Pd and Pd only. The Storms data I analyzed was derived from a Pt system. I also referenced work by John Dash on Pt as well. Pt does not hydride, so its bulk H concentration is <<.01. Including the >.85 number in the article would continue the CFer bias of not admitting that bulk loading is only a secondary parameter. So if you want to put that number in, to represent the true situation you must immediately note that CF has been observed on Pt and Pt does not hydride. This points out that almost all 'sources' about what the CF field has determined are highly biased. One needs to be aware of the whole field to detect these problems.

Also, the 'heat after death' situation represents the biggest example of a CCS one can come up with. You go from a 'calibrated' electrolysis cell with electrolyte present and electrical current flowing to a dry cell with no electrolyte present, but never do a recalibration. That is just grossly inadequate science. One might expect a 'heat after death' phenomenon anyway since in principle the electrode holding the hydrogen will be slowly releasing H2 which would react with the air in the cell (which comes back through the gas vent). The H2 release rate is very slow because to get that magic >.85 loading one needs low surf/vol ratio forms of Pd, with no cracks. That means the rate of H2 release is minimized, and the apparent excess heat signal could potentially exist for a considerable time (many hours or even days) until the Pd is unloaded.

You wrote: "That means the rate of H2 release is minimized, and the apparent excess heat signal could potentially exist for a considerable time (many hours or even days) until the Pd is unloaded." You should at least acknowledge that everyone in the field knows this, and that Fleischmann and many others have shown that it fails to explain the data by a factor of 1700 or more. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.255.197 (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A way to test this hypothesis would be to have a control that uses light water instead of heavy and compare. I know this was done in some cases, but I'm not sure if it was done with this particular experiment or not. Kevin Baas^talk 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that light water is never a good 'control' for heavy water. Isotope effects are based upon mass differences in atoms that have the same number of electrons. At first glance, the number of electrons determine the chemistry, and with most isotope effects, you can barely see them, the effect scaling with the square root of the mass ratio. But with hydrogen, you have 1 vs 2 for H and D, and the effect factor is 1.414, i.e. a 40% effect. Thus the thermoneutral potentials for heavy and light water are different as are the viscosities, and probobaly several other properties as well. This makes it impossible to conduct light and heavy water based experiments under the same conditions, something is always different due to the isotope effect. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that, and your explanation seems plausible. I'd say try it with He3 as well then, but that's actually heavier and you can't really make water out of it. And from the explanation you gave it doesn't seem like the isotope effects would make that much of a difference in this particular case. (in fact, you said "H2", not "D2") And even if it would make a difference, that would only mean that the control having different results wouldn't be particularly informative. But if the H2 did the same thing as the D2, that would still be very informative, perhaps even more so considering their different isotope effects. And the basic point is that a hypothesis like the "heat-after-death" one would be a useful thing to test scientifically. (And if I understand you correctly, normal water would work just fine for that.) Kevin Baas^talk 21:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And with regard to transmutations, I attempted to point out the problems with the claims in my major section rewrite of Sept. 17, but Pcarbonn block deleted them. Subsequently, on the Talk pages were argued for many days about why he could do this legitimately (I never felt he could). The bottom line is (as I noted above in the 'Cleaing up the Introduction' section) that these claims are based in misintrpreted XPS and SIMS data. The problem is that the criticisms are not published, with the exception that the Mizuno group presented evidence at ICCF14 (from the Abstracts book) that the Iwamura group (2002 pub.) misidentified S as Mo in their XPS work (but the ICC14 source would never have been accepted by Pcarbonn). You do have to do some simple calcs to see what that means to the Iwamura SIMS claims, where the mass 96 peak was claimed to be an isotopically shifted Mo distribution, but instead is most likely (+)S3 (s = 100% mass 32) ions (which Iwamura claims his analytical technique would not have allowed to be present in the spectra). Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's not published, it's OR, and Pcarbonn was correct in block deleting them. Alternatively, he could have put a citation needed tag on them and waited for a while. But it appears the result would have been the same. Kevin Baas^talk 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the para "Cold fusion researchers have also reported detection of many kinds of radiation: alpha, beta, gamma, proton, and triton. However, neutrons and other energetic emissions were never found in quantities commensurate with the excess heat, as would be expected by established theories of nuclear physics. This has led some cold fusion proponents to conjecture that new processes may be converting nuclear energy directly to heat.<ref name="DOE_2004_7"/>". It seems in the context to indicate that the heat is being borne by something other than the kinetic energy of particles, which contradicts everything I ever learned in statistical thermodynamics. Am I reading too much into it, or is it just sloppy wording?LeadSongDog (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What that statement is saying is that, based on conventional theory, the amount of putative excess heat detected should have produced enough radiation to kill the researchers. It obviously didn't, and this is why a new theory has to be developed to account for the observations of so much heat and so little light (and particles). Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kirk somewhat, although I think what he wrote could be phrased better. Basically, nuclear physicists have put a lot of effort into finding out how much matter/mass it takes to absorb a given amount of nuclear radiation (such as neutrons and gammas) and yield heat. There is far too little mass involved in CF experiments. You can take a piece of palladium like they use in CF, and put it near a fission reactor and measure the amount of gammas that arrive at it, and how much of those gammas pass through it --and most of them do. There is no reason to think that just because the palladium is packed full of hydrogen, that measurement would be significantly different. Therefore, when CF researchers measure a certain amount of heat, the implication is, that is only the absorbed fraction, and there also should have been present a great deal of unabsorbed radiation, which would have killed the researchers. An alternate mechanism for the release of the energy of fusion is greatly needed, if the fundamental assumption (that fusion explains the heat) is to be believable. V (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but the paragraph refers to the well known reaction products of fusion. When two deuterium fuse, 50% of the time it will split into ³He + neutron, 50% into ³H + proton, and very rarely into ⁴He + gamma ray. The process is very well understood and has never been contradicted in any kind of observed fusion. It seems very far fetched that cold fusion would work differently, as the reaction is well understood (this is unrelated to the problem of bringing the nuclei close enough, or the speed at which you do it). The trouble for cold fusion researchers is that the amount of heat generated is far above the number of neutrons detected, so a theory is required to explain why this would be the case. It's strong evidence against fusion unless a viable theory can be proposed. Phil153 (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into it. Thermonuclear physics talks about single collisions - e.g. one duetrium nucleus "hitting" one trituim nucleus. And the result breaking up into some other combination of the elementary particles (quarks), plus some change in total inertia proportional to the change in total mass. When this change in total inertia is positive that can translate to an increase in heat via statistical thermodynamics. Now the particular products of the reaction - including radiation, and the amount of heat given off, is determined by the "reaction pathway". The reaction pathways and their respective probabilities in a thermonuclear collision are predicted with a good degree of accuracy by current theory. What some people conjecture here is that perhaps there is an entirely different reaction pathway here, since, after, all, the fusion (if there is one) is not in a hot plasma, as thermonuclear theory assumes. An entirely different pathway would, by definition, produce entirely different ratios of radiation and heat. Alternatively, radiation might be absorbed right away (for instance, by the Pd-lattice), and thus converted into heat due to the kinetic energy of the radiationn. Like Phil said, either way they need to be able to figure out what's happening and mathematically justify the results (neutron-to-heat ratios) they're getting in order to have a viable theory. That's why they conjecture that it's a different process - they're essentially recognizing the need to explain this. Kevin Baas^talk 17:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the lack of these products is a big reason the field is dismissed by many. It's as important as not having a known mechanism to bring the nuclei close enough. See, for example, Goodstein 1994.

I don't see how that's contrary to anything that I've said. In fact, I agree with you that that's precisely the reason that many dismiss it. (Even though I disagree with their reasoning on account that it's my understanding that a fundamental difference between science and religion is that science puts more weight on empirical evidence than theory.)

Your point about plasma fusion isn't quite accurate. Muon catalyzed fusion doesn't require high temperatures (kinetic energies), yet its reaction products are as predicted by theory. This contrast with hot fusion is commonly used by cold fusion advocates, but it's a red herring. Phil153 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't pretend to know any better. I didn't know that. (I was actually curious about that.) I'm sure theory predicts well reaction pathways for non-plasmas in most cases. Though that doesn't mean it predicts well for all. That's part of the allure of science. In any case, I'm not smart enough to argue one way or the other. :) Kevin Baas^talk 17:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Muon-catalyzed fusion says:

Each exothermic d-t nuclear fusion releases about 17.6 MeV of energy in the form of a "very fast" neutron having a kinetic energy of about 14.1 MeV and an alpha particle α (a helium-4 nucleus) with a kinetic energy of about 3.5 MeV. An additional 4.8 MeV can be gleaned by having the fast neutrons moderated in a suitable "blanket" surrounding the reaction chamber, with the blanket containing lithium-6, whose nuclei, known by some as "lithions," readily and exothermically absorb thermal neutrons, the lithium-6 being transmuted thereby into an alpha particle and a triton.

Specific particles carry away the KE. We have no equivalent assertion for this article. That's my point. What gets hot?LeadSongDog (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that in the D+D->He4 (alpha particle) + gamma reaction, the released energy is something over 15Mev, most of which is in the gamma ray. Also, this is an appropriate place to point out that the recently published hypothesis (see the New Guess section above) describes, for muon-catalyzed fusion, the possibility that the muon might sometimes carry away enough energy that the D+D->He4 reaction can occur. There would probably be no gamma in that case, because the muon is carrying its energy. That suggestion is also a kind of key to the overall hypothesis, because if it does occasionally happen, then it should be possible for conduction-band electrons to carry away enough fusion energy for the D+D->He4 reaction to happen. Does anyone here know of any research regarding the maximum observed energy of muons that escape the fusions they catalyzed? (I'm well aware that sometimes they don't escape; there is a range of energies they typically end up with. But what is the upper limit?) V (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Leadsong: The references I cite are worried about the problem of getting heat disproportionally to high energy particles. They acknowledge the problem and are trying to figure out how it can be explained. I have the Scaramuzzi report cited above and something by Hagelstein, the MIT guy. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Scaramuzzitenyearsof.pdf; http://www.rle.mit.edu/rleonline/ProgressReports/2123_36.pdf. They talk about energy and momentum transfer between distant particles through an unknown mechanism, a mechanism they claim has precedent in a recognized phenomena.

Re theory: The Scaramuzzi report is honest and identifes the three separate "miracles" that CF would seem to require. I think Scaramuzzi would be a relaible source to cite when talking about the theoretical difficulties of cold fusion. The journal is not mainstream, but the statement has greater credibity because it is an admission against interest. I am alluding to an anology from the legal field that might be familiar to Law and Order enthusiasts. Eveyone knows heresay is generally not admissible in court, but there are a number of exceptions to the heresay rule for statements that are considered more trustworthy than generic heresay. One of the exceptions is for admissions against interest. See Hearsay in United States law::Non-Hearsay under the Federal Rules]]

I would add that piezo-fusion also seems to be giving the expected products. These points are relevant and should make their way into the article. They go a long way towards explaining why people are not persuaded there is fusion going on.

I would think carefully before dismissing anything Scaramuzzi says, because this is the friend Goodstein of Cal Tech spoke of. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html. Goodstein obviously respects Scaramuzzi's integrity and could see nothing wrong with Scaramuzzi experiments, although Goodstein is obviously concerned about the potentially corrupting pressure Scaramuzzi is under to show postive results.

Re transmutations: I do not think we need to go far into them. I am not sure we even need to mention them. They are terribly far fetched. Not only are there the plus 8 transformations, there are also claims of all kinds of smaller nuclei in Pd. More to the point, I am not sure that we have relaible sources reporting the claims, nor sources showing these claims have gained wide acceptance among CF researchers.

"there are also claims of all kinds of smaller nuclei in Pd": Are you talking about the spectrometry results near crater-like structure in the co-deposition experiment? I remember some mention of something like that, and some weird-sounding guesses as to their origin. It didn't strike me as a big focus point, though. Kevin Baas^talk 21:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re rebuttals: Assuming we can document that there are a bunch of pseudo scientists doing hack work under the CF research mantle, I am not sure how that should fit into the article. I think there is going to be a consensus that we cannot include every different claim along with its own rebuttal. And I think it would be editorial bias to use the straw claims to discredit everything that is being done under the cold fusion research mantle. Some of what you have written falls under the point that peer-to-peer criticism is not functioning properly within the CF community. ~Paul V. Keller 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: "what get's hot?" The Pd, I would suppose. Heat dissipates so it would be difficult to narrow down to exact atoms and particles. The point is that the KE doesn't all escape w/high energy particles and radiation shooting out of the apparatus, a lot of it stays in and gets Maxwellianized. In short, "the cell" gets hot. If you want something more specific you'd probably have to look at the calorimetry setups of individual experiments. I imagine most of them measure the temperature of the solution. Though I remember the co-deposition technique had a 2-dimensional-surface-thingy showing the heat to be concentrated on the cathode. (Though the "cathode" was being co-deposited w/the D2 (the entire point of the experiment), so that could just as well be the D2 -- or both.) Kevin Baas^talk 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This comment applies to remarks both above and below. The purpose of the co-deposition experiment was simply to reduce the "loading" time that it took, to get roughly as many deuterium atoms into the metal lattice, as metal atoms of the lattice. That is, co-deposition both created the lattice and filled it with deuterium at the same time. I think the researchers were surprised to see evidence for fusions of the types that detractors have been referencing/demanding for years (as remarked below), because in a bulk metal lattice, if fusion reactions are happening, the LACK of fusion-product particles like neutrons and gammas has been a major mystery. Per the recently published hypothesis mentioned in the "New Guess" section above, the difference is simply due to the number of nearby electrons available. A thin deposited layer of metal can provide enough electrons to shield deuterons so that they can approach closely enough to fuse, but only in bulk metal are there enough electrons available (thanks to the 3rd dimension) to carry away so much of the energy of the fusion reaction that the reaction can yield He4 and no gammas or other particles. As for the question "what gets hot", just remember that the heating element of an electric stove gets hot due to electrical resistance against the electrons being pushed through it. If electrons in bulk metal get involved in a fusion reaction and are energized thereby, then they will be moving through metal that has significant electrical resistance (most metals are poor conductors compared to pure copper and aluminum). V (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, we have not explained the problem in a way that is easily understood - a situation I would like to see remedied. Briefly, and at the risk of speaking in error, these particles should be escaping the cell with their energy before dissipating much of it within the cell. Julian Schwinger created a novel theory to explain how gamma radiation could be absorbed. I believe these papers are talking about different types of emissions. ~Paul V. Keller 20:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

CF researchers would be livid with you Paul, because you are trying to force conventional fusion theory onto their results. They will clearly and loudly say that CF is not hot fusion. It does not produce particles in the proportions expected from hot fusion theory. They will say that what it does is what it does, and we don't know why today. That's why we need funding to study it more. It's a brand new fusion regime. Most of the theories being advanced today (I think) involve many body interaction esp. with phonons. But the heat observed is massive compared to particles by conventional hot fusion standards. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realize you were being rhetorical. Then by all means, ya, I'd be happy with a better explanation of the whole heat issue in the article. Just as long as it doesn't get too lengthy or esoteric. Kevin Baas^talk 21:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it OR or isn't it?

Kevin Baas wrote above:

“If it's not published, it's OR, and Pcarbonn was correct in block deleting them. Alternatively, he could have put a citation needed tag on them and waited for a while. But it appears the result would have been the same. Kevin Baas talk 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)”

{sigh, here we go again} No Kevin, P wasn’t right because he failed to take into account the ‘out’ offered in WP:OR, as you are also doing.

WP:OR states:

“"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article.[2]“

This is what you are citing. But notice the #2 note, which says:

“The rule against "A and B therefore C" does not, in general, refer to statements A,B and C that are non-controversial and easily reducible to elementary deductive logic." See also, WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence”

WP:OR also says:

“Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing.”

And I would add that explaining technical jargon and criteria for lay readers is acceptable as well, as long as the summaries and explanations are factual and correct, i.e. they express the meaning of the jargon in a nontechnical way.

In the case we are discussing above, the ‘published’ information showing the XPS problem is a) not actually published yet, as the Proceedings of the Conference haven’t come out, and b) is going to be a ‘Proceedings’ which Wiki seems to frown upon, because of tendencies to bias. However, those familiar with XPS know that XPS is a typical spectroscopic technique in that to identify an unknown, a ‘fingerprint’ must be detected. Fingerprint matching is not done based on single point agreement, and likewise in spectroscopy, yet Iwamura does exactly this, citing only one peak used for identification purposes (he is claiming to have identified Mo). The problem is that several elements can produce peaks in that energy region, which coupled with the chemical shift effect requires several peaks to identify an unexpected element. This is a well-known problem to chemists but may be unexpected for a lay reader, and thus would need to be explained in the article. Mizuno, et al replicated the Iwamua results but went one step further and identified the anomalous material as S instead of Mo.

So the article comment would go something like this: “Heavy metal transmutaion evidence to date has been characterized in part by single peak identifications from XPS spectra, which is inadequate identification because of the possibility of several elements producing any given peak, and the concurrent ‘chemical shift’ effect that can cause element peaks to shift somewhat, widening the list of possible source elements. An example of this would be Iwamura, et al’s identification of an XPS peak as being attributable to molybdenum, while a replication performed later by Mizuno, et al identified the peak as being due to sulfur, a common contaminant found in surface studies.” We certainly can source the Iwamura paper, as it already is in the article, but the replication attempt may not be sourceable yet, if at all. And the rest of the facts would be found by boning up on XPS, but most readers aren’t going to do that. Yet everything written above is factual and correct, and I haven’t done anything but explain the results to the lay reader. If this kind of reasoning is not brought up, the reader will only be offered the CFer idea that these ‘transmutation’ products prove CF is real, when the conventional explanation is that they are contaminants whose spectroscopic signatures are being misinterpreted.

Then we move to the SIMS results in the Iwamura article (SIMS being the other primary technique used to support heavy metal transmutation claims). He apparently does have a slight molybdenum contaminant, as he has peaks in the mass spectrum at their masses, but the peak ratios are not normal. The peak is mass 96 is greatly increased over the normal Mo peak structure. Yet, note that S is 100% mass 32 and 3x32=96. Thus the strong suggestion is that the mass 96 excess intensity is due to (+)S3, but Iwamura would not have considered this as he did not recognize he had sulfur present. He also claims he has a filtering tehnique in place eliminating these ‘molecular ions’ as they are known. However, the rest of the Mo mass peaks fit the normal isotopic distribution if the main 96 peak is ignored, which is strong evidence that the filtering wasn’t working as billed. So again, misinterpretation of contaminant signals is key. None of this is sourced, as, as I tried to point out to Pcarbonn, contamination in trace level work (which is always the case in surface science) is always a problem.

To summarize then, to get the balance in the Wiki article, these problems need to be brought up, or else the whole transmutation ‘evidence’ needs to be deleted. Otherwise we give the Wiki reader the idea that this new ‘evidence’ proves CF is real, which is not the correct impression that should be given. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, i probably won't have time to read all this and respond to it for a while. Suffice it to say, I based my 'OR' comment on the information that you had provided me. Kevin Baas^talk 20:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I made the transmutation discussion as objective as I could. It should not be seen as proving anything more than certain researcher report they have seen transmutations. Eliminating the Iwamura report does not seem like an editorial option, since it is published, relevant, and not redundant. It is probably better to deal with these claims than ignore them in any event.

I thought about adding that Iwamura's results have not been confirmed by any independent research group, but I do not think I can say that without a supporting citation. (I know there was another group, but it had one of Iwamura's team members). The claims are probably bullshit and I would love to show that, but we will need to respect the OR rules. Perhaps, Dr. Shanahan could add something to the effect that Iwamura uses only two X-ray peaks and cite a source for the proposition that elemental analysis based on just two peaks is not reliable. Ditto for the mass spec. ~Paul V. Keller 22:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm restoring something that Paul Keller removed due to a misinterpretation:

I'd like to express the opinion that transmutation does not necessarily involve fusion, and therefore any discussion of it in the Cold Fusion article should be kept to a bare minimum. Certain transmutations are widely known and accepted (e.g. carbon-14 becomes nitrogen-14, potassium-40 becomes either argon-40 or calcium-40, uranium-238 spits out an alpha particle and becomes thorium-234). Other transmutations of a huge variety are acceptable but rare (and are caused by interactions with cosmic rays or ray-showers that happen to penetrate to the bottom of the atmosphere, or caused by an occasional naturally occurring loose neutron, or caused by an occasionally absorbed solar neutrino). I've read that today's instruments are so sensitive that in various top-of-the-line laboratories, the researchers have to obtain steel from ships that were sunk before the end of World War2, because all the steel made since is too radioactive and would interfere with the measurements they want to make. So how many of those claims of transmutation-detection are simply the result of modern instruments discovering a cosmic ray or equivalent event has messed with some of the experimental hardware? One final point is that in MOST atoms, the nucleus is buried under layers of electron shells, that keep nuclei from getting anywhere near each other at ordinary temperatures, and makes classical transmutations like turning base metal into gold practically impossible by any ordinary means short of a particle accelerator. The biggest exception is hydrogen, which only has one electron. That's why transmutation of hydrogen to helium (otherwise called "fusion") is a much more likely thing; under any ordinary conditions you might care to specify, it is far more possible for a hydrogen to lose its lone electron, and have its nucleus exposed for interactions, than it is for any other element to lose its multiplicity of electrons, and have its nucleus exposed for interactions. V (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted before, the transmutation claims fall into two categories, those based on analytical techniques that are capable of detecting new elements, without commenting on isotopic distribution, and those that note apparent isotopic distribution shifts. Those in the latter case being exclusively SIMS-based to my knowledge. The former are based on several different types of instruments (not radiation detection instruments, these are NAA or XPS, or SEM/EDX) and in fact are reliable to the extent that, yes, they see anomalous signals. The problem comes in insuring they are not simple contaminants arising from simple chemical effects or in misidentifying anomalous peaks with the wrong element. The Iwamura XPS results fall in this latter category. The 'Pr' could also be identified as Cu, which is much more common, and the Mo (in XPS) was actually S, as per Mizuno's ICCF14 abstract. I don't think your proposal V about cosmic ray induced transmutation is viable, and the simple chemical contamination problem is. I referenced Scott Little's RIFEX report previously as a good example of this. With respect to the apparently shifted isotopic distributions, the biggest problem is the researcher's failure to account for molecular ions in the spectra. There have been some claims that the instruments they used filter these out, but these are nothing but claims at this time, and as noted above, the 'isotopic distribution shift' in Iwamura's results is most likely just a superposition of a real trace of Mo with an S3 ion he didn't know he had. But that does show the supposed filtration isn't working as advertised if true.

So I get back to the main point of this section: Is this type of thinking 'OR' or not? Can we put this into the 'Criticisms' section or not? (And more generically, per the tag in the article, are we going to keep the 'Criticisms' section or merge it in somehow? Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it published in a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine? If so, it is not original research. If not, it is. 69.228.95.71 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirk, please note I did specify "rare" with respect to cosmic rays and other interactions. I don't know how MANY transmuted nuclei those researchers are talking about, but if it is small number, they need not "cry wolf" about it, because there are at least three ordinary/known possible explanations, besides natural radionuclides. V (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Much as I sympathise with your position, Kirk, I'm afraid I'd consider what you outlined to be OR. The reason, of course is in WP's requirement for reliable sourcing. It's there for a reason. Let's say I counter your critique of the Mo identification like this:

"Those familiar with XPS will recognise that the Gar-Bage effect is also significant. That is, the Q-factor (or sharpness) of the peak is a reliable discriminator between atoms (such as Mo-96) and aggregates (such as S₃-96). There is a paper that I am aware of (soon to be published) by Bigal et al that examines the given data and shows it could only be molybdenum."

And then go on to claim I can avoid WP:OR by saying "Yet everything written above is factual and correct, and I haven’t done anything but explain the results to the lay reader." I apologise in advance for parody, because I'm not trying to insult you. What I wrote is, as we know, actually rubbish and yet passes through your proposed loophole - because a layman has no way of discriminating between the reasoned explanation you made and the nonsense I put forward. And that's the problem. Where do we draw the line? Do we take the word of experts, those claiming to be experts, anybody, or nobody? In the end, Wikipedia has chosen to use verifiability over truth and disallows original research (even if it is blindingly obvious to an expert) to prevent this sort of problem. In short, if you can't cite it, it probably shouldn't be there. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

For electrode transmutations, there is the Voss reference:

"Richard Blue, formerly of Michigan State University, believes the processes going on inside the CETI cell are purely chemical, rather than nuclear. 'There are several different elements in the secondary ion mass spectrum, all with the correct natural abundance ratios, ' he says. 'The source is an assorted mess of chemical contaminants deposited on the beads through long hours of electrolysis. This is not evidence for any nuclear reaction process'" ~Paul V. Keller 18:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, RexxS. I've posted some other remarks on this page about how being too strict about "reliable sources" can be inadequate, especially if the mainstream is self-serving. What you wrote opens the door to allow a decent number of references to articles in less-prestigious publications. Perhaps we can invite Jed Rothwell to pick a selection of good ones. V (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

{unindent}Ok, summary, everybody thinks what I wrote is OR. Sorry to disagree, it isn't, but I am not going to fight anymore. You all need to understand that contamination is always an issue, especially at trace levels. That's the chemistry equivalent to 2+2=4. (Try sourcing 2+2=4.) All I've done is explain for the layman how that works for the cases claimed. Where do you stop V? When the explanation can't be understood as real and true by the editors. I guess that's where we are at now. I'll be taking some time off from Wiki now. I have a lot more fun when I don't think about this stuff. Finish your rewrite and I may check back later. Just remember, you aren't going to find any other technical objection to CF claims post-1994 or so, because everybody but myself and Clarke quit worrying about it. I had forgotten about Dick Blue, he got out a long time ago, I guess I will too.Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I actually did think that trace contamination might be a consideration, but as it's not blindingly obvious to me that its relative magnitude would necessarily be significant, I'd like a cite to reassure me. I know that there are techniques such as changing the angle of incidence to isolate the effects of surface contamination, but then again, what do I know about XRS? Only enough to suggest that I could expect any reader to accept 2+2=4 (so I don't need to cite it). However, I would propose I ought not to assert something like "Identification by XRS requires more than one peak" without expecting some reader to ask "Is that true?". In which case I really ought to cite such a claim. Ask yourself "How do I know that?". If the answer is "I just know it", then you are writing for yourself, not the general public. If the answer is "I remember reading it in J App XYZ", then cite it, so that anyone can check. The beauty of that system is that it doesn't require everyone to check; most readers will be happy to accept it as fact, in the knowledge that it has been verified by somebody else checking it. I'm sorry if this looks like having to jump through hoops to put material into Wikipedia, but nobody said writing an encyclopedia was going to be easy. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep the to-do list?

I think the entire to-do list should be deleted because it isn't useful. Item 1 would not be an improvement. Item 2 is redundant since there is already a warning about policies above. Item 3 would likely introduce more detail into the article than is justified, especially since the observed energy ratio is in dispute. Items 4, 5, and 7 would likely introduce irrelevant information into the article. Item 6 is contrary to the goal of evaluating every reference based on its relevance and contribution. The current article has, by my count, only 3 references which are conference proceedings. Based on a quick glance, keeping them does not seem patently unreasonable. In any event, none of these topics has generated edits or discussion for many months, which means nobody is actively advocating for them. Olorinish (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep the list, but edit (strike off) its contents where appropriate (ultimately aiming for an empty list when the article goes to FAR:/) Other additions will no doubt be made over time.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I was bit sudden, LeadSongDog. Sorry about that. Let's move forward; if we are going to have one, let's make it useful. Let's have everyone state what items they think should be on the to-do list. Keep in mind that it is "Not a place for experimental ideas (these should be discussed first to reach a consensus)." [8] Olorinish (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fear not. I'm not attached to any of the items on the list, per se. But delinking it isn't the same as fixing it, and we can all see the article does need work. If you'd like to edit the list to null and start fresh, that's good too, imho.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Links that should be removed?

If people think that certain links should be removed, let's discuss it here. Olorinish (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I pulled the reference to

Leggett, A.J. (1989), "Exact upper bound on barrier penetration probabilities in many-body systems: Application to ‘‘cold fusion’’", Phys. Rev. Lett. 63: 191–194, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.191

It was used in the sentense:

Fleischmann and Pons were invesitgating[sic] a hypothesis that collective effects in chemical processes, which would require quantum electrodynamics to calculate, might influence nuclear processes more than predicted by quantum mechanical calculations.[12]

I could not find the reference for free online, but I gather it provides quantum mechanical calculations considering all possible configuration of deuterium in a Pd lattice in order to determine an upper limit for the fusion rate. The upper limit set by quantum mechanics, the limit they propose might be exceeded due to collective effects and quantum electrodynamics, is pretty far afield from anything we are trying to convey. Nobody needs a paper on quantumm mechanics to know the predicted rate was low. ~Paul V. Keller 01:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Pulled the reference to:

Jayaraman, K. S. (January 17, 2008), "Cold fusion hot again", Nature India, doi:10.1038/nindia.2008.77, http://www.nature.com/nindia/2008/080117/full/nindia.2008.77.html, retrieved on 7 December 2008

This referece was not a review by the Indian government as claimed, but a petition to the Indian government. The other use was to quote one man's opinion. I believe the selection of this quote was a POV push. The objective information, that some feel more research is called for, is amply covered, as is the counterpoint. ~Paul V. Keller 02:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to the article

In order to keep tempers low, and to make the article more stable in the long term, it is a good idea to go slow with major changes to the article. People who want to make such changes can discuss them here. Olorinish (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion section above Talk:Cold fusion#Proposed New Layout. What part of the new content are you resisting? ~Paul V. Keller 20:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I want to emphasize that this article has had a lot of combat in the last 12 months, including an Arbitration Committee case. We should all try to be on our best behavior. Here are some of the changes that I think need to be discussed further:

-breaking the history sections into three illogical sections

-calling the 2004 DOE panel a "theoretical issue"

-labeling the junk science and pathological science issues as not part of the field's history

-calling the pro-CF sections a "field overview" when the whole article is a field overview

-the phrasing of the paragraph starting with "There is, however, group of scientists"

-the substitution of major parts of text with other text

I politely ask Paul to break up the big changes he wants into small changes, and to post brief, clear justifications for each of them on the talk page when making them. Olorinish (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This Schaffer 1999 reference (named Saeta1999) does not work. That needs to be fixed. I like a lot of Paul's changes, as he laid out the theoretical background which was previously neglected. Perhaps the "field overview" section is misnamed, but that's not a big issue -- it should be renamed to something like "Experimental process". Since the junk/pathological science issue continues, it is not technically just a historical issue, and deserves its own section. Note: anytime a reference is removed, or substantive content is removed rather than just changed, that should be highlighted, and probably done in a single edit. II | (t - c) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The history section order is not critical. You can put it back if you like. The main point was to put the fiasco that shaped cold fusion's public profile in one section and put all the work that came after, pro and con, later.

-The 2004 DOE panel is only a "theoretical issue" issue by a self-evident mistake. You could fix that, or ask me to fix it. The order is going to be a mess for a while because: a) it is right now; and b) reshaping the article in stages will involve some temporary disruption to the overall flow and organization.

Ditto next two points.

I did not name the "pro-CF" section "field overview". I would like to see that area fixed too.

As far as "there is, however, group of scientists" and the "junk science and pathological science issues", my plan is to put all these issues in one place and say the minimum necessary to put relevant issues in context. These are mostly matters of opinion and often pertain to workers more than work. There is little room for them in an encyclopedia entry. My goal is to say just enough to explain popular prejudices and the current isolation of the CF community. In this edit, I used these topics to segue into the theoretical issues on the ground that the weight given to theoretical concerns explains a lot about how two groups can look at the same body of informatin and come to diametrically opposed conclusions.

As far as "major substitutions", I hear a loud silence about the most important part of the edit - a triply cited and plain statement of the three miracles cold fusion requires. I removed redundant statements elsewhere. My sources include a prominent cold fusion researcher, another research who is sympathetic to cold fusion research, and a main stream physicist. They all say the same thing, including the point that these issues are core to understanding the cold fusion controversy. Even persons arguing for cold fusion research need to get these points on the table and deal with them.

I also struck a couple of small points that I noticed along the way, like a controversy concerning one scientist's reputation, a resolved controversy, and another concernign the researcher that died. You can put those back for now but you will get an argument later.

Going one section at a time is going to leave temporary imbalances, redundancies, and organizational problems. It will also highlight some that are there already. These are growing pains to making this a better article.

Let's see what a few more people say. Your proposal to make the edit in several stages is reasonable. I would do the theoretical issues section first. It may dangle a little, but I can stick it where it will be least disruptive until complementary changes can be made. And of course I will pay more attention to the other headings. ~Paul V. Keller 21:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Many apologies for the last seeming revert. I would not have done it, except that Olornish's last revert intervened while I was typing, and I had high hopes the version I had in hand would satisfy enough of his concerns to make the whole thing fly. As they say, it is always possible to return to an earlier version. I fully intend to resolve difference on this page, and not by edit war. Anyway, the latest version is better for discussion purposes because it fixes problems Olornish pointed out. ~Paul V. Keller 22:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of being courteous, I want to say something now that there has been a lull in pro-CF activity. Pcarbonn and Jed may be absent for the moment, but they or people like them will be back. I hope we can build an article that incorporates the proper amount of pro-CF material so that when they do, the article can be defended very confidently as NPOV, not mainstream-only POV. Olorinish (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The major and sourceable points from cold fusion research should be included, as I have argued previously Talk:Cold fusion#Proposed New Layout. I have order Storms book to get a better sense for what is considered mainstream within the CF community and to have a ready reference for where various experimental findings and theoretical ideas might be sourced. And of course other editors can jump in with sourceable material that is entered in a manner that does not confuse or obfuscate. My hope is that if we have plainly and unbiasedly conveyed the facts and reasoning that inform statements like "its complete bullshit", there will be less pressure to qualify the experimental results and fledgling theoretical work.

Getting the layout right may be a bit challenging, but I would hope to present the critical analysis of major cold fusion experiments without disrupting the presentation of the experimental results themselves. ~Paul V. Keller 00:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

An open letter to the editor of the European Physical Journal, Applied Physics

Bernard Drévillon
Editor
European Physical Journal, Applied Physics

Dear Dr. Drévillon:

I write in hope that you will join me in this attempt to improve
the English Wikipedia's article about cold fusion[9] because
you have published the most recent pair of peer-reviewed papers on the 
phenomena referred to as cold fusion, both con[10] and pro.[11]

Recently there has been tension between trying to improve the 
article by making it congruent with what a consensus of scientists 
would believe, which is thought skeptical of the reports, versus 
what has been reported in the peer-reviewed literature.

I ask that you follow in the steps of the journal RNA Biology[12]
and require that the Wikipedia article on cold fusion be submitted for
peer review.  Thank you for your consideration of this request.

                             Best regards,

                             Joe Thompson
                             California

                             69.228.213.202 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the RNA Biology article you cite again, as you appear to have the process reversed. They aren't advocating a different method of editing existing Wikipedia articles, but rather they are requiring authors to submit new articles to Wikipedia in conjunction with publication in their journal. They aren't requiring Wikipedia to do anything (and how could they?) This is is an endorsement of the Wikipedia editing system rather than a critique. --Noren (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html anticipates that such articles from RNA Biology may be new, there is no requirement that an existing article not be submitted. This is a neutral method of improving both Wikipedia and traditional scholarship simultaneously, and will be worth following. 69.228.197.209 (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It would actually be quite nice if they published an independient review of the article, so that we can correct the errors on it. I know a good number of articles that would benefit greatly from an expert pointing out all the errors and inaccuracies on them. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

It may seem a little early to undertake another major edit, but I felt the clear presentation of a series of points against cold fusion followed by a disorganized presentation of the remaining material left the page out of balance and with the impression of a POV-driven evolution. In any event, some kind of reorganization was obviously needed. Those who do not much care for my work will be pressed to argue that what I replaced was better than what I created.

If the page is imbalanced because it fails to report sourcable and objectively CF-favorable material, that balance can be restored by placing the missing material in locations suggested by the new organization. ~Paul V. Keller 14:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like your last edit, I think it's worse than the previous version. Wordy and confusing, a bit too involved for the intro and it interrupts the flow. I'd argue that we should sacrifice some minor exactness for readability by a layman. Also, are you sure Fleischmann were not working at Utah at the time? The Martin Fleischmann articles says they were both researchers at Utah and I find it unlikely they'd collaborate on this kind of experimental work a country apart.

Great job on everything else if you don't mind me saying. Phil153 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll try to address the wordiness. I do not want to give up exactness, but I can surrender detail and avoid long sentences.

The work and announcement were definitely in Utah, but the contemporaneous news reports place him at the University of Southampton in England.

I think it is important to mention they reported measuring nuclear byproducts. That was an important confirmation they relied on, and it looked very bad when they had to retract it.

The new distinction is between reports of heat requiring fusion to explain and reports of D+D fusion in particular. The broader claim is more difficult to disprove and may be seen to have a separate life. If a paper comes out saying we were wrong about D+D, but we were right about fusion, I do not want to be forced into a rewrite.

Another part of the edit was citing Voss rather than F&P's paper for the first sentence, because it was the pubic announcement and not the paper that grabbed attention. Pd cathode versus Pd electrodes was admittedly splitting hairs.

Let me know what you think of my attempt to address the issues you raised. ~Paul V. Keller 17:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Electrodynamics

- 'Deleted' material' - Objectivist is commenting below on a fragement (and this heading), which I accidently left. It was something I wrote about the Leggett reference and the sentence in which it was used. As I was writing, I realized I needed to check something for myself and was led to the 2003 Fleischmann reference. After looking at the Fleischmann reference, I went in a different direction. The part of the edit I saved went under deleted references. The whole edit was never saved, so do not bother looking under history. Objectivist comments on a proposed substituton of "electrochemical" for "chemical" in a proposed rewrite. The revision I went with does not use either.

I'd say "electrochemical" is correct; they were originally quite well-regarded in the field of electrochemistry, after all. They may have lost credibility by making their CF claims, but electrochemistry is what they were doing. Quantum Electro-Dynamics is is the name given to a well-verified description of how the ElectroMagnetic Force works. That Force is responsible for two nuclei repelling each other. Also, as I see the text in the article, the phrase "many-body effects" is there, instead of "collective effects". Perhaps their hypothesis involved the idea that if deuteriums became part of a "many body problem" (among the toughest-to-solve problems in Physics), then unexpected aspects of the problem could allow the deuteriums to fusion. That is, the quoted description implies a problem involving many electric charges interacting with each other, and what possibilities can come from THAT? V (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I substituted "many-body effects" for "collective effects" because the former phrase is more descriptive and is the one used by Fleischmann. The Leggett reference says "collective effects". I do not think there is a difference in meaning between these usages.

I think Objectivist has got it fundamentally right. If I am not mistaken, Leggett provides an upper bound on the fusion rate based on quantum mechanical calculations. Fleischmann 2003, which I do not understand well, is definitely saying there is something Leggett's calculation did not take into account, something requiring QED and too complex to be readily calculated. That something appears to have been a dynamic effect involving multiple bodies, and I would think also the effect of an electric field (although perhaps this is subsumed under "many-body".

The question I still have is whether it was accurate to say Fleischmann and Pons were investigating a hypothesis that:

"many-body effects and quantum electrodynamics effects influence nuclear processes"

Should that be more like:

"quantum electrodynamic effects involving many bodies can influence nuclear processes"

Perhaps the article should read:

"Fleischmann and Pons were investigating whether a limit determined by quantum mechanical calculations on the deuterium fusion rate in Pd [Leggett] might be violated. If it were, that would confirm their hypothesis that quantum electrodynamic effects involving many bodies can influence nuclear processes more than previously thought possible.[Fleischmann2003]"

Is anyone in a position to say whether this is accurate? And is it comprehensible? ~Paul V. Keller 12:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

~Paul V. Keller 12:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should state they said in 2003 that they were basing their research in 1989 on such considerations. I personally think the bring up of all these QED claims in '03 instead of '90, especially after all the theories started coming out between then, somewhat suspicious. I advise sticking to the actual chronological facts. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Shanahan is right that Fleischmann and Pons statement as to motivation made in 1989 is more reliable that the one Fleischmann gave 14 years later, particularly as their original hypothesis was proven wrong in the intervening period. I have made changes accordingly and attempted to improve the experimental description while I was at it. ~Paul V. Keller 02:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro edits by ScienceApologist

I agree with a part of these edits.

I have long thought of moving the definition of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) and condensed matter nuclear science further down. Including them so early seemed to me at best pedantic, and at worst a POV push as ScienceApologist sees it. (It foreshadows and dresses up the idea of current research without actually saying anything about current research). In any event, placing them further down in the intro improves the flow and is POV neutral.

The phrase "to avoid the negative connotations associated with the history of the subject" is tougher to defend. It is a statement of motivation which may not be "verifiable". If anyone can cite a different motivation, such as one or the other phrase is more technically accurate, I think we would be force to strike. In any event, I do not see the addition of this phrase as informative - the reader is free to draw the inference without our help (but see below).

I more firmly object to "Current proponents of the existence of cold fusion sometimes prefer." "Sometimes" is a weasel word and I have gone to some effort to remove weasel words from the article. "Current proponents of the existence" is definitely POV. It suggests all proponents of the phrase LENR are believers rather than scientists. We cannot paint the researchers with the believers. One can study cold fusion without advocating for its existence.

Whether to remove the FPE definition is more editorial than POV. It is a useful term to refer without wordiness or ambiguity to that "group of experimental results first reported by electrochemists . . .". Kirk Shanahan refers to FPKE, but it seemed to me FPE is in broader use and I did not want to define both. We do not currently use FPE anywhere else in the article, but the reader may still find the term handy when thinking about that "group of experimental results" without getting hung up on the idea of nuclear reactions.

Finally, I think ScienceApologist is right in the core of the matter, which is that we go soft into the close to avoid controvery. I have drafted a couple of replacements for that third paragraphs myself; the only thing holding me back is that I am having a hard time settling on something that is both informative and strongly defensible as POV neutral. In particular, I want to place less reliance on the words "pathological science" and "skeptical" and say more about the underlying facts. ~Paul V. Keller 16:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I introduced "FPHE" to clearly distinguish my non-nuclear explanation from all the others, whaich are nuclear in nature. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

FPE is a neologism not in use by anybody but people who are deeply involved with cold fusion. Let's avoid jargon please. There are other ways to put it. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There do not appear to be other, better, or even equally good ways to refer to the FPE. In your edit, your replaced FPE with reference to Pons-Fleischmann's results. That is misleading in that some of the experiments are significantly different from the Pons-Fleischmann's setup and produce different types of results, although the results are attributed to the same effect.

The Fleischmann-Pons effect does not fall under neologism beacuase it is not jargon - these are not words of meaning only to insiders, the term is virtually self-explanatory, and we define it. There is no phrase in common usage that is its descriptive equal.

Using the term FPE decreases the complexity of later references and increases clarity: it avoids the complexity of "a group of experimental results . . ." and it avoids the inaccuracy of referring to "Pons-Fleischmann's results". The phenomena is functionally defined as a nuclear effect postulated to explain F&P results. Whether such an effect exists or not is irrelevant to the definition.

Cold fusion gained a reputation as pathological science because inconsistent reports of positive results keep researchers trying over and over so it appears no number of inconsistencies or failed experiments can put the issue to rest. ~Paul V. Keller 06:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are unequivocally wrong on this point. Wikipedia is not the place to invent new terminology no matter how "self-explanatory" it may appear to us. We are simply not allowed to invent new terms. If you wanted to rewrite the intro so that it was clear what we were saying, that'd be fine, but we absolutely cannot use the invented acronym/term for use in this article. To understand why, consider what would happen if someone reading this article were to try to research "FPE" as an acronym. They'd come up short since we invented it. Essentially, our invention is a contravention of the no original research rule. I understand the motivation for wanting to do this, but it is something that we simply do not allow on Wikipedia. Check around, get a third opinion, start a request for comment, ask at the no original research noticeboard. We do not allow new terminology that isn't in general use to feature in our articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, nice job. Your edit makes the FPE issue moot without sacrificing content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvkeller (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a non-quantitative summary of DOE 2004 really better for the last paragraph of the intro than more reliable sources?

It is remarkable that those who wish to report only the majority opinion of the 2004 DOE panel in the introduction are so steadfastly opposed the stating the size of that majority, or the experiments that the 2004 DOE panel proposed to resolve the controversy, some of which were performed and have been reported in the peer-reviewed literature. No matter how you look at it, that is an attack on WP:NPOV, giving WP:UNDUE weight to the deniers in the introduction, and it's opposed to the vast majority of the experimental results published in the past decade. We already explain how Dr. Shanahan's opinion about the recombination volumes he has apparently never observed are contradicted outright by authors who have measured them first-hand. Are we going to do the same for Kowalski's complaints about the CR-39 pits or not? Shouldn't we be doing that instead of "summarizing" in absolute terms the majority-only opinion of the DOE panel which everyone agrees didn't even consider the SPAWAR results, wasn't an anonymous review, and wasn't even intended to produce anything more reliable than a government technical report? Why aren't we using the more reliable peer-reviewed sources instead?

http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/Papers has 313 peer-reviewed papers with "res+" (meaning positive research results, case insensitive) on lines beginning "**" that do not contain "theor", meaning experimental results, and 234 similarly but with "res-" instead. How high does the ratio need to go before it is accurately reflected by the introduction? 69.228.81.16 (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin reverted my attempt to correct these problems as "POV commentary"[13] -- even though I had only removed, not added anything, so I am making the same changes and inviting discussion here. 69.228.81.16 (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit makes a big deal out of a few inconclusive reports, while ignoring the conclusions of a panel of reputable scientists who discount the phenomenon. That is POV commentary. Nevard (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is more biased, acting as if the DOE 2004 panel was unanimous and making no attempt to say that it wasn't in the intro, or meticulously counting the reports in the journals that a professional electrochemist by the name of Dieter Britz considers reputable enough to include in his bibliography? 69.228.81.16 (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't just consider a count, it's about the reliability of sources, and even the most ardent proponent has to admit that most of the res+ were published in joke journals. I'm pretty sure that you could find a majority of res+ for homeopathic case studies, remote viewing, and a number of fringe topics, simply because the cranks are doing all the research and getting it published. It's called publishing bias. Simply reporting numbers is at best misleading, especially for a field the mainstream catagorically rejects. In that sense cold fusion is no different to "scientific" investigation of paranormal phenomenon (such as Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research). Phil153 (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the quality of the journals which Britz considers peer-reviewed, why don't you ask him to weigh in on the subject? 69.228.81.16 (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the DOE, it's the last and most prominent independent review of the field, so it's important. Phil153 (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Independent? The DOE has been heavily invested in hot-fusion and Shanahan's work. The DOE controls Shanahan's copyrights under a "non-standard copyright agreement", and neither of the reviews were ever submitted for peer review. If it's important, why isn't it important enough to say how non-unanimous it is? 69.228.81.16 (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

They've also been heavily invested in coal and nuclear (which hasn't stopped hot fusion or geothermal research). Your suggestion of bias is unfounded. If you can suggest a better or higher profile mainstream review (perhaps Nature's commentary? (lol)), I'm all ears.

I think your 2/3 comment is unecessary since the language of the DOE news report itself says (under conclusions):

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

If the source itself says this without 2/3 qualifiers, then it stays in the article. Phil153 (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who claimed they were independent. I gave you multiple reasons why they don't meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria for science articles, and still you want to obscure the extent to which they were not unanimous. Why? Do you have any evidence that the DOE reviews ever met the reliable source criteria? The recent Biberian literature survey was peer reviewed, why not use it instead? 69.228.81.16 (talk) 11:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about whether it was unanimous. The sentence in question is pulled directly from the conclusion of the report itself and only speaks to the findings being similar to the 1989 review. It does not mislead in any way.

As for the DOE review being reliable, I assume this has been discussed ad naseum in the past. The review itself, as well as the findings were widely reported by reliable news organizations including NYT, WP, Physics Today, etc and considered extremely important by those in the field (see Washington Post article, for example, on the importance that cold fusion researchers place on this review). It's entirely appropriate that it be given such prominence. Phil153 (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's a lot easier to avoid the questions I asked than to address them, for obvious reasons. Do you have any familiarity with Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine? The fact is that the 2004 report was not unanimous, a full third of the panel was somewhat convinced of anomalous effects. To obscure that fact is misleading; why do you say it is not? 69.228.81.16 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Did you? In your comment below, you rubbish my comments about the reliability of Biberian's journal by calling it "quibbling about impact factors", yet the policy you linked talks about reliable journals, and says: The vast majority of well-regarded journals are indexed in the ISI Web of Science, which I pointed out Biberian's journal did not make. But wikilawyer away.

As for the DOE report, there is no obscuring - it is a direct quoting from the conclusion from the very report. I believe I have answered your questions. If you believe there are questions I have not answered, please state them clearly. Phil153 (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do you believe a direct quote which avoids all mention of the panel's minority views is superior to informing the reader about the proportion of dissent on the panel?
2. Why do you believe that a non-peer reviewed source which was never submitted for peer review, was not anonymous, did not attempt to survey the entire field, was not blinded, and was conducted by an agency which was already heavily invested in projects and authors who had taken a stand on the subject matter is superior to the peer reviewed sources reporting on experimental results which run 313-to-234 opposed to your favored source? 69.228.81.16 (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

<unindented> 1. Because it introduces needless complexity. The review conclusion sums it up perfectly well. The DOE's position has not changed substantially since 1989 and anything else merely obscures this fact.

2. a)Re: peer review: 18 reviewers is peer review. Perhaps you think we should review the reviewers of the reviewers?

b)Re: scope: indeed, the reviewers only took submissions from cold fusion advocates.

c)Re: blinding: I don't understand why this is relevant in the context of a meta review.

d)Re: agency bias: I contend that it's obvious that DOE bias is far less than any review by a heavily invested cold fusion advocate, particular people like Biberian and Storms. And as I pointed out above, DOE is incredibly heavily invested in nuclear and coal, yet continues to fund hot fusion, solar and geothermal research, among others. Your claim of bias makes no sense to me.

e)Re: author bias: Mainstream scientists nearly universally reject cold fusion. Any mainstream, independent review will have this problem, just as all the pro cold fusion reviews are done by heavily invested pro cold fusioners. DOE is as good as we get. Do you plan to reject all mainstream reviews on this basis?

f)Re: Comparison with peer reviewed counts...I have already addressed this.

Phil153 (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe that presenting a non-unanimous source with the proportion of dissent involved introduces needless complexity? Do you think that accurately informing the reader is needlessly complex? 69.228.220.30 (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see Phil regarded the Washington Post as reliable. OK, I'm repeating a quote from higher on this page, that was published in the WP:

"To [Michael] McKubre, the main reason cold fusion has been belittled all these years is that the mainstream scientists who dug in their heels long ago can't change their minds now: "If it turns out these people are wrong, they're dead. They're scientifically dead."

So I mentioned that this can explain the majority of "reputable" journals continuing to denounce CF and to only publish anti-CF articles. Which is clearly Opinion, not Science, and equally clearly is not reputable. Which makes them not-much better than the publications of fanatic believers (they ARE publications of believers-of-something-else).

I'd also like to remind you-all that when the Supreme Court renders a Decision, both the majority view and the dissenting view (when said Decision is not unanimous) get described in the Press. In this particular case, Phil and others seem to think that the DOE Decision needs to be reported as if it was the ONLY view. WHY?? V (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Phil.

I will fight tooth and nail against anyone who attempts to once again create spin in this article by inserting POV-pushing tidbits and caveats into the middles of and between sentences other people have written. Such edits destroy clarity and earn the weasel words flag, which I pulled just a few days ago.

The issue you have is with the reliability of the DOE report and the way we use it in the article. Instead of adding words to neutralize and combat what is already written, please suggest an alternate conclusion for the introduction, perhaps one that makes no reference to the DOE report. Accompany your suggestion with a persusive argument that using your version would make the article better.

Please read the content under WP:NPOV and make suggestions consistent with those guidelines. You need to be realistic about the constraints that policy places on this article. It would be disengeneous to pretend that cold fusion does not remain rejected by the mainsteam or that its acceptance is anything more than a minority point of view. ~Paul V. Keller 11:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For what reason do you consider the 2004 non-peer reviewed DOE panel more reliable than the peer-reviewed 2007 Biberian literature survey? As far as I'm concerned, shielding the description of the DOE panels from information about the extent to which they were non-unanimous is an abuse of weasel words and so I am replacing the dispute tag. Please do not remove it until the dispute is resolved. If you think WP:MAINSTREAM has been accepted by the community over WP:UNDUE, then you should read Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. 69.228.81.16 (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Dr. Keller has his own response, but I want to point out that Biberian 2007 was published in the International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology which began publication in 2004. The journal is not listed in lists or reputable journals, such as the Web of Science index. It's not a high quality source, especially when contrasted to the editorials, res- publications and rejections of the highest quality journals such Nature and Physical Review X'. This has been discussed before. Phil153 (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you really trying to promote a non-peer reviewed ad-hoc source which stands in stark opposition to the last ten years of peer-reviewed publications by quibbling about impact factors? Why don't you just critique the credentials of the IJNEST editorial board? 69.228.81.16 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not, I am not trying to do what you suggest. See my comment above. Phil153 (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to 69.228.81.16 asking if the "ad-hoc" 2004 DOE panel should be given more weight than recent pro-CF publications, my response is that it should definitely be given a lot of weight. DOE has a mandate from Congress to advance the field of energy research, and they responded to this very unusual situation with a significant investment of money. The report they produced was intended to synthesize all of the available information in the field, and was the product of many experts. Of course it should be given a lot of weight! Olorinish (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of congressional mandates or how much money was spent in any of the reliable source criteria. How much money do you think the DOE 2004 panel spent, anyway? 69.228.81.16 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to 69.228.81.16 asking "How high does the ratio (of pro and con articles) need to go before it is accurately reflected by the introduction?", the answer is that the introduction should be changed after those articles have produced a change in the views of mainstream physicists, and there are quotable sources which describe that change. Olorinish (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that something that follows from Wikipedia policies or something you just made up? 69.228.81.16 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We report hte mainstream view, per Wikipedia:Verifiability—he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.--Patton123 15:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Biberian qas chairman of the 11th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. It is kind of silly to offer him as an unbiased source to weigh against a committee of 18 reviewers from multiple disciplines.

Biberian states "the scientific community does not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme", which is actually a more negative point than the article or the DOE report makes.

Biberian asserts the evidence for excess heat is compelling, which is not the same as evidence for an unknown nuclear process. And of course, it is a disputed point.

The data concerning helium production in connection with excess heat is far from compelling. From Storms 2007, it looks like there is one report in a reviewed journal and a few more in non-reviewed reports. That data has its place in the article, but does not change everything.

Some of the nuclear ash data belongs in the article too, although it is far from convincing and apparantly unrelated to the production of excess heat except in the sense of a theory that does not exist yet. ~Paul V. Keller 14:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The title of this section is misleading, because the DOE report is from a reliable source. So comparing it to a reliable source is comparing it to itself, which is meaningless. Now the reason it is better than just any reliable source (esp. for an intro) should be obvious: because it is a compendium of multiple sources; a "summary" if you will, which is exactly what the intro is supposed to be. I believe this was made clear in earlier discussion. Kevin Baas^talk 15:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "more reliable sources". 69.228.220.30 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

dead horse is dead

Can you start ignoring this IP? The "is DOE a reliable source?" topic has been beaten to death on this page, and the answer has always been "yes" --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC. Would you please limit your talk page comments to discussion of improvements to the article? 69.228.220.30 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In the last months it has been argued to death here and on the arbitration case, and the last discussion ended like 13 days ago here. Consensus isn't going to change that fast after so much discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you agree with what you see as consensus that summarizing a non-unanimous source without any indication of the proportion of dissent involved is fair, would you please say why that is? I, for one, dissent. You can see from V's comment above that I am not the only one. Further, your hyperlink "here" contains no discussion of proportion of dissent on the 2004 DOE panel. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to a copy of the original 1989 review: http://www.ncas.org/erab/index.html (Considering the place where I found it, I might wonder how accurate the copy is.) I was wondering how many panelists were on it (haven't had time to closely inspect it after finally finding it, but various web pages examined during the hunt indicate 20-22 panel members). I was also wondering how many of the panelists thought CF research was worth pursuing (if any, obviously they were in the minority). It would be nice to compare that data with the numbers from the 2004 review, especially to see if the percentage had gone up any, regarding the number of panelists who thought CF research was worth pursuing. V (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am all for placing less reliance on the DOES report. I previously suggested that we include it under a section about government funding (or not funding) CF research. But if we move the DOE report, it will just be replaced by something else that clearly states the mainstream view. The reality, readily conceded by everyone, including cold fusion researchers, is that cold fusion has been dismissed by the mainstream. They are not interested in seeing the latest CR-39 pits. ~Paul V. Keller 01:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you hit the real problem here: the DOE reviews (1989 and 2004) are the best secondary sources that we have to measure the scientific consensus on cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words tag

In adding and unreverting the weasel words tag, Jed Rothwell claims: trying to play the non-peer reviewed DOE 2008 panel off as if it was unanimous is a biased abuse of weasel words, especially in light of peer-reviewed reliable sources such as Biberian 2007

This is the section which he claims contains weasel words:

The majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1989 found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive. In 2004, the DOE convened a second cold fusion review panel which reached conclusions that were similar to those of the 1989 panel.

The first sentence is completely factual and the second sentence is a quote from the actual report (and also completely factual). I'd appreciate if Jed will clarify which words are weasel words, because his rationale makes no sense (no one is passing anything off as unnanimous). Perhaps he meant to use a different tag? Phil153 (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed is a repeatedly blocked user so his edits should be removed. The weasel tag is not justified for the reasons given above, and this has been discussed at length (by other now banned editors too). I'll revert the IP added tag unless new arguments are added her and the above reasoning rebutted. Verbal chat 15:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I shouldn't have said it was Jed as there isn't proof of that (I assumed it was since the style of writing was so similar). Still, the argument stands. Phil153 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but I think my copyedit was an improvement and has resolved this problem. The first sentence of my post still stands though it may be off topic! Verbal chat 17:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil153 raises a good question. That user 69.228.81.16 is Jed Rothwell is certainly plausible (single issue account, very familiar with cold fusion, started posting soon after Jed stopped making posts with signatures, attempting to reduce the visibility of the DOE reports critical of cold fusion [14] [15]). If it is him, he is probably violating the wikipedia sockpuppet policy [16]. Olorinish (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Far be it from me to support Jed Rothwell, but ironically, his strident defense of cold fusion and his history of disruptive behavior make him easy to deal with. If at any time anybody gets tired of his actions, there are any number of administrators you can appeal to who will likely block him.

However, there is a sort of weird utility we gain from having him around. He reminds us what the opinions are of the LENR-CANR believers. To this end, he can be a pretty good bellwether of what they think is interesting (even if it isn't necessarily what gets into the article). There may be a place for him to input his rambling posts from time to time on the talkpage, but I think having him edit the article directly would be a big mistake. In a weird way, because he's so strident, his activities here are less disruptive than those who are trying to manipulate Wikipedia to circumvent its policies.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the word "majority" is the problem, because no data is provided about the size of the majority. Note that in the US Government, different things require different versions of "majority". Sometimes anything more than 50% is OK, sometimes 3/5 is required, sometimes 2/3 is required, and sometimes 3/4 is required (and there may be other ratios that I don't know about). So, if you have a panel of 18 and 10 of them (just picking a "majority") reach a particular Decision, the other 8 may be required to accept it, in order for the panel to be concluded -- but they are not required to say they agreed with that Decision, and outsiders are not required hear only what the "winners" had to say. An encyclopedia is for the curious, right? How is curiosity to be satisfied by providing incomplete information? So I propose an edit to the effect of "a majority of 10 out of 18 concluded ..." (use correct numbers, of course) V (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that you end up delving into a lot of details if you go that route. I can't find numbers for the 1989 review you linked above, but it's clear that the panel did find it unconvincing. It's also clear that panel in 2004 had a number of similar conclusions: heat, nuclear products still not convincing to most, still theoretical problems, don't recommend targeted funding but would allow funding of well designed experiments. The current version sums up those points perfectly. If you can find a better way of saying all of that in a couple of sentences, then by all means go for it. And I agree that the article should delve a little deeper into the review further down in the text (but not the intro). Phil153 (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would indicating the proportion of dissent on the 2004 DOE panel necessarily require delving into other details? How do you think our readers would like it if Demographics of the United States said in its introduction that White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are in the majority and left ethnicity and religion at that? 69.228.220.30 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the current sentences sum up a range of commentary, not just the question of excess heat or anything else. If you think you can replace them with something better, propose a passage. BTW, do you know the breakdown of the numbers from 89? I couldn't find them in the linked report. Phil153 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the '89 split numbers. In 2004, one member of the panel was convinced, about a third were somewhat convinced of the evidence for anomalous effects, and about two thirds were not convinced. I propose saying that. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this paragraph taken from the article:

The majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1989 found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive. In 2004, the DOE convened a second cold fusion review panel which reached conclusions that were similar to those of the 1989 panel.

It is difficult to incorporate the data I suggested into a reasonably short paragraph without the splits from both panels. As a start, though (using curly braces to indicate items of which I'm unsure):

The US Department of Energy (DOE) organized panels of {22} scientists in 1989 and {18} in 2004, to review the available data, and to recommend whether or not this line of research should receive some DOE funding. Both panels recommended against it; the 1989 panel concluded "the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive". While the 2004 panel reached a similar decision, about one third of its members did not completely agree with the majority view.

Kowalski and Mosier-Boss et al (2008)

Summary of U.S. Navy SPAWAR's CR-39 nuclear track
detector Pd/D co-deposition control experiments:

Experiment	Pits?	Conclusions
PdCl2–LiCl co-deposition in D2O	Yes	Pits are observed where Pd deposit was in contact with CR-39. The Pd deposit is the source of the pits.
Cathodes, plating solution, PdCl2 in contact with CR-39 – No electrolysis	No	Pits are not due to radioactive contamination of the cell components
LiCl electrolysis in D2O	No	D2 gas impinging on the surface is not responsible for the pits
CuCl2–LiCl electroplating in D2O	No	Electrochemically generated D2, O2, and Cl2 gases do not cause pits. Metal dendrites piercing into CR-39 not responsible for the pits.
PdCl2–LiCl co-deposition in H2O	Yes	More than four orders of magnitude fewer pits are observed than for D2O. Observed pits could be due to Pd/D interactions.
Table 1 from Mosier-Boss et al (2008) "Reply to comment on 'The use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments': a response to Kowalski" Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 44: 291–5, p. 292.

The article's photograph of the CR-39 pits gives practically no information, it's poorly cited, and the text next to it doesn't talk about it at all. I recommend that it be replaced or supplemented with this table.

I further recommend that the 2004 DOE Report's conclusion stating that, "reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, [including] the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods,"[17] be summarized along with a description of the CR-39 detector and SPAWAR experiments using it. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I for one appreciate your efforts. However, I don't understand what the case is for including primary, non repeated, challenged research. The image makes sense as a curiosity but that's very different to what you're proposing.

I mean, when Kowalski first debunked the research some months ago, should the article have reported that "Claims of CR-39 pits have been shown to be unconvincing"? Is it really the job of Wikipedia to follow the comments and counter comments in a single journal for an unreplicated experiment? Sounds like a mess to me, and far too much weight on unverified primary research. Phil153 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The chronology and authorship of the many challenges to the nuclear interpretation of the CR-39 pits may be different than what you seem to think it was. All of the challenges to CR-39 pit interpretation including Kowalski's more recent have been addressed by the Navy, and the original challengers have made no attempt to claim that the Navy's response was insufficient (unlike Shanahan, who still relies on his "calibration constant shift" method of designing an argument around the conclusion he wishes to reach, according to his own words in the most recent archive.) In both of the most recent back-to-back academic journal publications, the editors have given the pro side the last word, but only Shanahan claims the response was insufficient. Could it be any more conclusive than that? 69.228.220.30 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That table is very large. Maybe someone could add a sentence summarizing it instead. Combined with the blue-green image, that would probably give the Cr-39 work the proper weight. Olorinish (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What I vaguely understand is that the original paper was presented, there were challenge(s), and the original authors followed up a couple of months ago. I don't work in this particular field but academic journals generally have significant times between comment and reply. The person who has the last word has little bearing on who's right, either, and frankly I'm bemused that you would call something conclusive without replication or sufficient time for reply. In short, the current state of this particular debate has little bearing on most of my objections to the inclusion of this comment, which are: single result (not independently replicated), primary research (which is discouraged, for a host of obvious reasons), and the work has not stood without challenge for long enough (doubly so given the extraordinary burden of proof). Exactly the kind of stuff that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia with such weight as you're giving it. It probably deserves mention, similar to how Shanahan's work is mentioned in passing (note that I argued against the inclusion of Shanahan's work on the same grounds, so it's not a pro or anti cold fusion thing). Phil153 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Journals don't usually publish replies to critiques along with the submitted critiques unless they think they are merited. The various challenges date back as far as April, 2007 as far as CR-39 goes. If you read that, you will see that there is already a series of independent replications since the original publication. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have my own question here; I thought the codeposition/particle-track experiments were done after the 2004 DOE review, so that data was not available to them? On the other hand, I've also heard (yes! hearsay!) that those experiments were highly repeatable. Have any of the doubters (a group that doesn't include rabid detractors) tried it yet? If any of them get positive results, then I have another Question for the detractors: "With evidence of more-ordinary fusions occurring in very thin deuterium-saturated palladium (because of the particle tracks), what could be the CAUSE of those fusions?" Note this is essentially the same question that has to be asked regarding deuterium-saturated bulk palladium; if fusion is the culprit for the claimed/observed heat, then how could have been Caused? We can ignore for the moment the mechanism that carries away the energy in the latter case (no ordinary high-energy fusion-byproduct particles), because the KEY is the first Question. If deuterium is fusing in a thin layer of metal, why couldn't the same mechanism cause it to happen in bulk metal? AFTER the common Cause has been figured out, THEN the differences can be examined, regarding how the fusion energy is released. V (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop saying "high energy fusion byproducts"? It's a red herring and we discussed it above. Both low and high energy fusion byproducts are observed to be the same, which is one thing that make CF so unlikely. And you can see why "high energy" is irrelevant if you look at the energies - between 0.01 and 0.1 MeV are required to overcome repulsive forces (depending on the nuclei), compared to 24 MeV coming out. It's like flying a toy aeroplane into a tornado - it doesn't really matter how fast the plane is going, the tornado takes over and decides how everything turns out. Anyway, sorry for the aside, that bit of nonsense spread by CF advocates (not you) annoys me. Phil153 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that ordinarily the 50/50 split of protons and neutrons released as a result of D+D fusions are indeed "high energy" particles (although nowhere near 24MeV due to the particular reactions involved). I could agree that "byproducts" may be inaccurate word-choice, since that word typically is associated with unwanted stuff like pollutants. Nevertheless, my prior paragraph was more about "If we have repeatable evidence for CF in thin-film metal, then detecting vs not detecting [them, the "semi-products"] in bulk metal is irrelevant, until after we understand how CF can happen at all". Do you have a disagreement with that logic, Phil? V (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think I misread what you were saying. Shouldn't edit from work when distracted. Sorry. As for your logic, it seems premature to me. I think most scientists would like to see something unequivocally demonstrated first before they go chasing theory fairies. Surely that's not too much to ask after monstrosities like polywater and N-rays. And make no mistake, the CR39 stuff is full of holes. Read the critiques or even the attempted replications that IP editor posted above. Phil153 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I used the initial word "if" for a good reason. You do not have to accept-as-fact anything preceded with "if" in order to analyze the logic of a statement. I could write, "If God exists in accordance with certain claims, then it must be possible to build a perpetual-motion machine." The statement is either logical or illogical, and whether or not its premise is factual is irrelevant. Therefore I ask that you not avoid answering the question I asked in my prior paragraph. "IS it logical to ignore where the energy goes in bulk metal, if fusions are happening in thin-film metal, until after the initiation mechanism has been understood?" Thank you! V (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mosier-Boss et al (2009) "Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons" Naturwissenschaften 96: 135–142 is particularly helpful in resolving the question of the particles detected. I would point out that Naturwissenschaften, Thermochimica Acta, and Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., are the highest impact factor journals in which the subject has been covered since the 1989-90 articles in Nature and Science, and they are all recent, since 2002. There is absolutely no reason to ignore the recent publications in Naturwissenschaften, Thermochimica Acta, and Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., because Wikipedia's reliable source criteria requires that they be given a higher priority than work in journals with a lower impact factor. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's still primary research which has to be weighed up against what the more reliable secondary sources say, regardless of where or when it's published. This is something I intend to bring up in the latest arbcom because it's a source of dispute in fringe science - mainstream science ignores something (such as N-Rays or polywater or homeopathy or cold fusion) and (rightly) requires a higher burden of proof to un-ignore it, so the only sources available become advocate material. I think careful editorial judgment in this case requires acknowledging the burden of proof placed on the field, although that's open to opinion of course. Phil153 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please correct me if there are any reasons that I'm wrong, but a primary source which has been peer-reviewed, challenged by critique, and a reply published back-to-back after the critique by editors who have had the opportunity to see the reviewers' comments on both the critique and the reply rises to the level of a secondary, juried source. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Published in a seconday source means published in a secondary source. Additionally, can you confirm that you are not logging out to avoid scrutiny? This page has been the subject of arbitration and one editor was banned from participating here. Jehochman ^Talk 22:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:SECONDARY, what is and what is not a secondary source is currently the subject of discussion. I am not logging out to avoid scrutiny. I saw the arbitration case and I think it is a shame that a respectable editor was banned here for no other reason than that he was resisting the deletion of all non-mainstream points of view, even though those points of view are held by the overwhelming number of experimenters who have published in the academic literature over the past decade. It seems that sort of thing has happened here before. I know that all of the incumbents on the arbitration committee who ran for re-election were soundly defeated, and I hope the banned users appeal to the new committee at their earliest possibility. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

{unindenting} Quoting from earlier in this section, " there is already a series of independent replications since the original publication" --if that is true, then are not those replications secondary sources? (I suppose it depends on whether or not any made it into print yet.) V (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is little better than raw data. No way. ~Paul V. Keller 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How about Mosier-Boss et al (2009)? 69.228.207.247 (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what makes this technique attractive is its rife possibilities for misinterpretation. ~Paul V. Keller 02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific. If someone other than the original experimenters do a codeposition experiment and replicate the apparent particle tracks in the plastic, AND publishes it in a reasonably reputable place (which is the part I "supposed" about above), then why is that "little better than raw data"? Isn't "replication" and "reputable publication" the things the detractors here have been insisting on??? I agree that there might still be an "interpretation" issue, regarding whether or not the particle tracks were caused by fusion products, but I would hope you are not planning on insisting that the replicated tracks don't exist at all, or are not similar enough to tracks that appeared in the original codeposition experiment! V (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What it means is saying you have seen tracks in CR-39 does not confirm that you have seen neutrons, or alpha particles, or energetic ions, or whatever else they are claiming. It is not something that even the most knowledgeable people who make it to this web site can look at and draw a conclusion about. All it shows is a disconnected observation. Saying that the tracks are "not inconsistent with . . ." or "look like tracks from . . ." does not give a conclusion reportable here. ~Paul V. Keller 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it is the job of Wikipedia to say what the researchers said, who got their data peer-reviewed and published. There is also the other published data tabulated at the start of this Section of the Discussion, indicating the tracks appear in a manner that is distinct from background noise and other sources than deuterium-saturated palladium. To the extent this data can-be/has-been replicated, then (A) a description of it belongs in the main article, and (B) the tracks require an explanation. I'd like to know if anyone has put a piece of CR-39 into a Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor (briefly!) to get some data on tracks made by known-fusion events, for comparison with the co-deposition data-pits. I recognize some compensation-analysis may be necessary, since a Fusor operates in a vacuum and electrolysis doesn't. But if CR-39 is such potentially important stuff, then I'm all for including a decent description of it and its usual place in particle-detection physics --and I'm also for including a published picture of CR-39 that has been through a Fusor, just so the readers can see how similar (or different) the pits are, to the other picture, and they could maybe also see why the CF researchers claim their pits are caused by fusions (or why they shouldn't make those claims!). (Yes, I know about the OR rules. But I bet a CR-39 picture could be added to the Farnsworth fusor article, and then this article would only need to mention that the other picture exists... or both pictures could be added to the CR-39 article!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivist (talk • contribs) 06:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the professionals editing the article have decided that skeptical sources need not be peer reviewed or meet any of the other reliable source criteria for physical science articles, but opposing sources from recent high-impact peer reviewed journals must not be included even when they are supported by back-to-back replies to peer reviewed critiques. Because, they are not WP:SECONDARY sources, meaning that even though they include their own background literature surveys approved by the reviewers, they were originally authored by experimenters who have actually made the measurements in question instead of theoreticians who only measure things with their word processor as they contribute to perpetuation of the "mainstream." Welcome to the wonderful world of controversial Wikipedia articles! 69.228.207.247 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Calorimetry arguments against closed cells?

Are there any arguments against the calorimetry of closed cells, in which the evolved gases are expected to recombine? 69.228.220.30 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Shanahan argues that recombination changes the heat profile, which changes the calibration. That argument applies mostly to the isoperibolic case, where they use the flow as nothing but a constant temperature bath. Flow calorimetry makes the calibration error small. I think Dr. Shanahan is wrong, it is not recombination but a simple matter of spurious occurrences of resistence in the cathode and then Joule heating. The nuclear data is all garbage. McKurbe et al. probably did the most careful, well designed, CF experiments of all time (Joule heating should not have bothered them), but it looks to me like they made a math error. ~Paul V. Keller 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, as the SRI work has shown, closed cells can be fatally dangerous if the recombining catalysts get moist. 69.228.207.247 (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop blaming the world for its not believing in cold fusion. ~Paul V. Keller 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The world you describe as preferring to accept the mainstream over the experimental evidence in the highest impact factor journals? What makes you think I'm blaming anyone other than myself for not trying to make it clearer? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New skeptical reference available

One recurring problem with this article has been the lack of good counterbalancing skeptical sources. There's a positive review in the Dec 14 New York Times Book Review of Charles Seife's Sun in a bottle: the strange history of fusion and the science of wishful thinking. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of monographs on the subject which haven't been put through peer review. Please stick to reliable sources of at least government technical report quality or higher; preferably academic journal articles in journals with a high impact factor. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reader review: "If you are interested in cold and bubble fusion, and how the press has dealt with them, this is a good book for you." US$15.57 at Amazon.com. Published by Viking, so it meets the minimum Wikipedia requirements for a reliable source, unlike Jed's site. Whether it's the best source, I don't know, but it's a secondary source. We've had a problem that on some issues, the lack of anything published in top-tier journals meant that we are prohibited by policy from saying that most physicists are skeptical, despite the fact that it's that very absence that makes the point that they're skeptical. In this situation, a secondary source from an established publishing house can sometimes be a useful way of "taking the pulse" of the larger physics community. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We will have to give up Storms' book if we adopt too rigid a standard. But I do think there must other factors that go into the question of whether a source is reliable, and that result depends on the proposition for which the source is cited.

Btw, I have finished Storms' book and marked a lot of material for the article. Just waiting to find time. ~Paul V. Keller 00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed Rothwell

Just a short note, Jed Rothwell is considered banned and any commentary from him should be subject to revert, block, ignore. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)