Talk:Cold fusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Cold fusion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Cold fusion has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2004.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

The Cold fusion article was the subject of formal mediation from the Mediation Committee in 2008. Please visit its talk page before making significant changes.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cold fusion article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
To-do list for Cold fusion: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. describe the typical and best research results reported in the literature reviews as total input-to-output power ratios.
  2. update the history section with content from Lewenstein's "Cornell cold fusion archive" (listed in bibliography)
  3. add a summary from the "philosophy of science" perspective, e.g based on Lewenstein (p. 12-18)


Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15


Contents


[edit] Post-2004 literature reviews

There were some recent peer-reviewed literature reviews mentioned during mediation which were published after 2004 (which is where the "History" section currently ends.) They are here and here. I think a summary of their abstracts and conclusions should be included in the article. What do other people think? Wide and Slow (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I fully support it (but don't have the time to do it). Pcarbonn (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You may also want to add this 2002 report: Szpak, Stanislaw & Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., eds. (2002a), Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system - Volume 1:A decade of research at Navy laboratories, Technical report 1862, San Diego: Office of Naval Research/Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.Pcarbonn (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Updating the article with current reviews is far more important than arguing about whether to link to potential copyright violators; is it not? NMD prime (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Current Science published a comprehensive review of highlights of the research last month. Is this a good reference to include? [1] Krivit, S.B. "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Research – Global Scenario," Current Science, (Indian Academy of Sciences,) Vol. 94, No. 7, p. 854-857 (April 10, 2008)

I did the ones that I'm absolutely certain are peer-reviewed, and I will update the {{todo}} list. 76.246.148.242 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

[edit] Plan of attack for Good Article nomination

Hello, I will be your reviewer for this Good Article nomination. This is a highly contentious subject with a long history, and anyone and everyone is welcome to weigh in; I don't have any opinions on what kind of discussion is or isn't allowed, but the first step in any WP:GAN is the quick-fail criteria decision. I will only pay attention to the quick-fail criteria until it's clear the article should not be quick-failed; this is the description from the WP:GAN page:

Before conducting an extensive review, determine whether the article should be "quick failed". Issues that may warrant a "quick fail" of the nomination include:

  1. A complete lack of reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. An obvious non-neutral treatment of a topic - see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Articles on controversial topics can still be NPOV and stable, but scrupulous efforts must be made to keep the article well referenced to ensure neutrality. Remember that neutrality does not mean that all points of view are equally covered, merely that no point of view is given undue weight in the article.
  3. Presence of any correctly applied cleanup banners, including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}} or similar tags.
  4. The article has been the subject of recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint. Articles about participants in or other articles related to the unfolding event, but not about the events themselves, should undergo a more thorough review.
  1. is not a problem. The fact that someone doesn't believe a source, or that they feel that there are better sources, isn't relevant to whether Wikipedia considers a source reliable or not. The folks at the Reliable sources noticeboard are very good at what they do, and questions about reliability of sources should be directed to them. Clearly, this article doesn't have a "complete lack of reliable sources".
  2. is a problem. As a rule of thumb, people will often say that the difference between "guidelines" and "policy" on Wikipedia is the difference between statements that ultimately wind up being followed 90% versus 98% of the time when there's a dispute. However, in particularly contentious issues, Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are often the only way to keep everyone sane and productive. I am quite willing to put in much more than the usual time reviewing this article, and to help both sides prepare the very best case you can for any future WP:GAR or WP:FAC, but my assistance to one side ends at the point where that side pleads that they have a special case in which the usual rules don't apply. See the one-paragraph essay No common sense. There are many potential problems with WP:NPOV here, and I'll let both sides make their own case, and we'll see what we've got. I strongly encourage reading the relevant Guidelines; apply the same reasoning that has been applied in other contentious science articles.
  3. is an obvious problem; there are a large number of unresolved {{fact}} "citation needed" templates.
  4. is, hopefully, not a problem, because of the recent mediation; that is, we can hopefully get a sense of resolution by the time we're ready to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the quick-fail.
  5. might a problem; I'm not up to speed on the current DARPA program. What are the chances that this program going to issue something definitive some time in the near future?

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts:
Firstly, by "problem" i assume you mean "issue"; as in "area that may have some focused attention paid to it". With that semantic grievance noted, i'll give my thoughts regarding the article in relation to the enumerated criteria:
  1. simple.
  2. well we seem to all be satisfied with the neutrality of the presentation; even though we have different pov's, we've arrived at a presentation that we all can agree on. certainly there's nothing "striking", and we seem to have weeded out even the more subtle controversies. but it's always good to have a new pair of eyes take a look at it.
  3. i was not aware of this. i'm aware of 1 page number request. i certainly wouldn't say "large number" - if that were the case i would have at least noticed one. in any case, i'm sure whatever oversights exist can be fixed on-the-fly.
  4. sense of resolution was achieved before this article was nominated.
  5. cold fusion is definitely not a current event. there's no definite "endpoint" in sight. and even if there were - the article isn't about an event, it's about a phenomena. If the proposed explanations for it that are controversial were disproved, cold fusion would still have an article, just like polywater does. And that's the form the article attempts to take on, a description of a phenomena, and the context surrounding it, not an event with a definite duration. And the chances that this program going to issue something definitive some time in the near future? Slim to none.
Anyways, those are my thoughts. Glad to have you aboard. Kevin Baastalk 20:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I fixed point 3, by removing the unsourced statements. They are not very important anyway. Please clarify point 2: where do you see "an obvious non-neutral treatment of a topic" ?? Which "both sides" are you willing to help ?? The mediation addressed all these points already, and we came to a conclusion accepted by all. We agreed to represent the views of both DOE panels, which are both notable and reliable, and we quoted them fully in order to avoid introducing bias. If you see any issue, please raise them more precisely. I agree with Kevin that CF is not a current event. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dan, I would like to hear more about your point #2. My view is that the introduction accurately describes the doubts about this field held by many scientists, but the lengthy descriptions of the recent work may mislead the reader about the still low reputation of the field among scientists. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I applaud the recent mediation and the attempts to reach accommodation, but I'm not yet convinced that the article should not be quick-failed; I need to hear the arguments. (And of course, even if you didn't run through the arguments here, you'd have to make the case if this gets to WP:GAR or WP:FAC.) NPOV is sometimes misunderstood to mean that contentious issues should be handled the same way the 24-hour news channels handle them: interview people from both sides, express a position approximately halfway between those two positions that avoids saying anything concrete, and represent this position as the "unbiased" position. Instead, the way we do it here is to try to identify all possible areas of agreement, or at least of lack of disagreement, and then see what's left. If the two sides are still not really close...and that's my sense here...and especially if there is a certain unwillingness for the two sides to swap and compare methodologies and results, then NPOV requires that we let each side tell their story, without overly intrusive "editorializing" by the other side. WP:UNDUE further requires that the amount of space devoted to either side should not be way out of line with the level of acceptance of their position in the larger scientific community.
I've read the Dec 2004 DOE report, and I was a little disheartened. The sense I got was that the clear signals of excess heat were still never being observed outside the labs of the supporters, and no nuclear byproducts had been measured outside the labs of the supporters, either; is this true? I'm not trying to "play scientist" here, I'm trying to establish whether the criteria are present that make this the kind of article where you simply have to allow each side to tell their story. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the DOE says anything like "the clear signals of excess heat were still never being observed outside the labs of the supporters", and I'm not sure it would be relevant anyway. Anybody who would find clear signals would become a supporter, wouldn't he ? Those who did not find clear signals were just unable to reproduce the experiment, for unknown reasons: this does not invalidate the other experiments, as the DOE said (see our "reproducibility" section).
What the DOE said is this:
  • Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic.
  • When asked about evidence of low energy nuclear reactions, twelve of the eighteen members of the 2004 DoE panel did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing" and one was entirely convinced.
These are the key issues about the cold fusion phenomena, and the DOE clearly said that they have not been resolved yet. Hence the need to present both sides in our article. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "present both sides"...absolutely, both sides need to be presented no matter what, that's not what I'm getting at. In less contentious science articles, the bulk of the article should find and focus on areas of agreement, and then let each side describe how they differ. In articles about more contentious subjects, especially subjects where the two sides tend to talk past each other and not share results, it's important not to let the normal Wikipedian process of article-building, which includes and ought to include lots of assumption of good faith, obscure the fact that the two sides really are still far apart. When that's the case, the article should give both sides all the space they need to explain and justify their positions, unless we're talking about truly fringe science, like Polywater or N rays. The DOE wouldn't fund a "review" of Polywater experiments, even if a hundred scientists started publishing papers on Polywater again.

But we're talking past each other a bit; that's okay, I'll keep reading and find out the answer for myself. My question is, did the DOE panel consider experimental results that were presented to them on paper, or were they able to get these experiments running in their own labs? From "unreproduceable", I'm guessing the former, but I'll find out. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful to consider at this point whether the recent Storms book, by consensus RS, is used to good effect in the article. There may also be scholarly reviews of the book that we should be citing. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you are interested, here is the reference of a review of Storms' book: D. Britz, J. Sci. Exploration. Vol. 21, #4 page 801 (2007). Winter issue Pcarbonn (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dank55, I'm not sure how your question relate to the quick-fail process, but here is the answer: the DOE did not conduct any experiment in their own lab during their review, nor did they visit other labs. They reviewed the documents presented to them, and met the researchers in a one-day session. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Pcarbonn. Food for thought while I'm reading up: the 1994 DOE panel report ends: "Conclusion. While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review. The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful...." Here's a koan for meditation: when the answer is the same 15 years later, is it the same answer? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure where you are getting at. Are you saying that the article fails NPOV ? The 1989 report said that "it was not possible to state categorically that cold fusion has been convincingly either proved or disproved", and "it was sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system", among others. That seems very similar to the 2004 conclusions, as presented in the article. So, yes, when the answer is similar 15 years later, it is a similar answer. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
In case you are interested in whether cold fusion should be presented as pathological science or as an ongoing scientific controversy, please have a look at the discussion at the top of this talk page. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, I'm reading up; you don't need to worry that I'm going to jump in and declare Cold Fusion a hoax. Yes, there is a chance that the article "fails" NPOV unless changes are made; I could make that decision myself as the GA reviewer, but it will be much more helpful to the GAR or FAR process if we all decide it together. These really tough issues are a great way to really nail down what NPOV is all about, what is unique about how Wikipedia handles these things. My reaction so far is that the article needs to do a better job of not taking a position, and this is no surprise at all; this what usually happens to articles like this over time. There have been long discussions at WP:Words to avoid and other NPOV-related guidelines pages on how to discuss controversial subjects...how to divide up the narrative, what words to use and avoid, how to make Wikipedia's position crystal-clear. By the time we're finished with the quick-fail (which might not be so quick in this case, out of respect for the complexity of the issue), speaking for myself, the goal is to get the article into 100% compliance with Wikipedia NPOV-related guidelines, and for everyone to understand exactly what those guidelines are. The key is that WP:AGF stops at the border of Wikipedia; out there in the world, people are willing to say all sorts of things, and mostly, they're willing not to say what they know, and it's our job to sort the mess and make sure that each side is presenting a clear and powerful case. Anyone who knows nothing about "Cold fusion/Low energy nuclear reactions" should not, when they are finished with this article, think that they have the answer, but everyone should know where they could go and who they could talk with if they want to pursue finding the answer, without having to waste time sifting through the third-best answers and sources and second-best answers and sources; this article should present the very best, on both sides. This is what Wikipedia offers the world on difficult, unresolved issues: we don't answer the question, but we save people a lot of time if they want to look for answers. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Let's wait for your review and proposed actions. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've read most of the 30-page submission by the proponents to the 1994 DOE review, and I think this article largely complies with NPOV-related guidelines from the point of view of the proponents. If I were writing for the proponents, my preference would be to move some of the material to Wikibooks and link it there, so that you can have the best of both worlds: detailed science information for the scientists, without confusing the people you're trying to reach through the encyclopedia with experiments that they don't understand and can't evaluate. (And I'm not talking about that vague "more information at Wikibooks" graphic, I'm talking about specific in-line links in both directions.) But not everyone takes the Wikibooks approach, and I'm only evaluating quick-fail NPOV concerns at the moment. The bottom line is that I'm happy with what the proponents have done.
Not so much with the opponents. Let's start with the very first sentence, in the hatnote: "This article is about the controversial nuclear reaction". Are the opponents willing to concede that there is in fact a controversial nuclear reaction going on? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your question is. FWIW, IMO, the phrase "controversial nuclear reaction" does make it sound kind of like there's this nuclear reaction going on and it should be scolded for doing so because of all the controversy it's created -- like some a-bomb going off has sparked off contentious political debates. But what's really meant -- and i think readers will understand this -- is that it hasn't been conclusively determined whether whatever's going on does in fact produce a change in the composition of atomic nuclei. And I don't see either "proponents" or "opponents" would dispute that. until some mechanism for the process has been convincingly demonstrated, by definition, we don't know exactly's what's going on, and it remains an open question. But there's more to it than that. For instance, some people would insist on classifying it w/polywater, even though polywater is clearly a closed question. So i'd say there's controversy. And I don't really think anyone here, or in the field for that matter, is presumptuous enough to assert that there is, beyond any doubt, a nuclear reaction taking place. I hope that helps to answer the question. (And I'm fine with the sentence in question. ) Kevin Baastalk 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously for such a controversial issue, you'll find people on both sides to say that there is no controversy: some proponents will say it has been demonstrated without doubt, some critics will say there is not even a remote possibility that it exists. So, it's more a question of reliability and notability of the sources. As far as I know, there isn't any notable, reliable and reasonably recent source which would say that there is no controversy. Even Bob Park, author of "voodoo science" and a long-time notable critics of CF was quoted as follows in March 2007: "Bob Park, at the University of Maryland, US, [...] concedes that 'there are some curious reports - not cold fusion, but people may be seeing some unexpected low-energy nuclear reactions'." (source).
I agree with you that opponents have not done a good job at criticizing cold fusion: it is hard to find a serious critique of the subject. Skeptics explain this by saying that serious scientists don't spend time criticizing the work of others, while proponents say that they don't critique it because the strong evidence makes the critique too difficult. This is particularly true for the transmutation observations. Therefore, it is hard to find reliable and notable sources of skeptics for this wikipedia article. So your critique on the opponent side describes the field itself, I would say. The article only reflects that. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have read more about the definition of a "good article," I feel very strongly that this article does not fit the definition. Labeling it a "good article" would imply that it is one of the top 10 or so articles in entire group of physics articles. It has had relatively recent edit wars, for one thing. For another thing, its structure is disjointed and complicated. For example, the "excess heat" section and the "excess heat by electrolysis experiments" section should be merged and shortened. Simlarly, the "ongoing controversy" and "moving beyond the original controversy" sections should be merged and shortened. There are many ways to accomplish this, but a good outline might look like this: (1)Experimental reports (1a)Excess heat (1b)Fusion products (1c)Transmutations (2)Proposed mechanisms (3)History (3a)Early work (3b)Pre-announcement (3c)Post-announcement (3d)Recent work (4)Other types of fusion. This would produce a more readable and useful article. One a side note, perhaps we should use the word "proposed" instead of "controversial" in the introduction. On another side note, I am puzzled by Dan's reluctance to "play scientist." As wikipedia editors, we should all strive to act like scientists: asking questions, seeking good quantitative data, stating opinions clearly and politely, trying to understand opposing viewpoints, etc. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the structure of the article. I'm in favor of merging and shortening the excess heat sections as you propose, and of placing the experimental reports first (although that has been disputed in the past). I'm not sure what you would put in the "proposed mechanism" section : I suppose it would be based on material in the current "ongoing controversy" section. However, I'm concerned that the section title you propose could be seen as an implicit acceptance that the effect is real, and rejected by skeptical editors.
On your other comments: the definition of good article does not say that it should be in the top 10 or so articles. Also, we should "play editors", not "play scientists". That is, we should based our discussion on sources, not on our opinions as scientists. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
When I say I'm not going to "play scientist", what I mean is that I'm not going to pretend to be something I'm not; in the history of the cold fusion debate, there's been some of that on both sides. I should finish my background reading today. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also favorable to the idea of removing the detailed description of experiments from the article, as Dank55 suggested earlier, and possibly moving them to a wikibook. I'm not familiar with the idea of writing wikibooks linked to wikipedia articles: is there a good example that we could draw from ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This "WhatLinksHere" page shows there are between 1000 and 1500 WP articles that use a graphic that links to a page on Wikibooks, usually a specifically relevant page. Links can point to specific sections. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edit adding "claimed"

See WT:Words to avoid for a discussion of why we don't use the word "claimed" in contentious articles. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits attempting to reflect NPOV and accuracy concerns

Feel free to revert or modify any of my edits. I changed the first sentence from: "Cold fusion is a controversial effect reported by some researchers to have been produced from nuclear reaction at conditions near room temperature and atmospheric pressure" to "Cold fusion is a controversial heat effect which some researchers believe is caused by nuclear reactions in desktop electrochemical devices, at temperatures and pressures far below those generally believed to be required for nuclear fusion." My target reader is reasonably interested in science but doesn't know anything about "Cold fusion/Low energy nuclear reactions". I think "heat effect" gets people up to speed faster than "effect". Researchers don't so much report nuclear fusion as make a reasonable hypothesis about fusion, based on failure to find any other sufficient source of heat, and some also find "nuclear ash", but I'll get to that later. Temperatures over 100 C are not considered by most people to be "room temperature", they are only room temperature by comparison with the temperatures generally considered to be necessary for deuterium fusion. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another checkmark; I've reviewed all the edits since the beginning of May 8, and they have only improved the article, except for the one I reverted concerning "claimed", a word to avoid. There's nothing I would describe as "instability" here. At least, not until my edits :) I'm doing some copy-editing now; feel free to revert or ask questions. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshiaki Arata public experiment

i found news only on this Italian newspaper: http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/SoleOnLine4/Tecnologia%20e%20Business/2008/05/nucleare-fusione-fredda.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.208.231.53 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

New Energy Times has just published news on yesterday's public demonstration of cold fusion from one of the leading CF researchers. See here Pcarbonn (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
We should keep an eye on the scientific reaction to this one, and attempts to replicate. Does anyone know how much 4He he is measuring? He uses a powder of ZrO2 and Pd, so this isn't the experiment that was reviewed by the DOE in 2004. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, only some of the CF evidence was presented to DOE 2004. With my limited knowledge of Italian, the Helium he produced is commensurate with the excess heat: "Quanto all'Elio, la quantità è assolutamente confrontabile e compatibile con l'energia prodotta, ed è la firma inequivocabile dell'avvenuta fusione nucleare." FYI, here is an older paper that he published on Helium production. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That's from 1999; do you happen to have his paper published just this March? Btw, I get no hits on a Google news search, and I don't read Japanese so I can't gauge the reponse in Japan. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't have his 2008 papers (yet). Pcarbonn (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I have created an entry on wikinews. (Title may be changed though) Pcarbonn (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There is now an entry on PhysicsWorld blog. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
To be correct, Arata's work was actually presented to the 2004 DOE: see 4.3 and Appendix C of Hagelstein's paper. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Articles:
http://physicsworld.com/blog/2008/05/coldfusion_demonstration_a_suc_1.html
http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/29img/Arata-Demo.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.19.62 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Slashdot has now picked up the story, and it's starting to get legs; Gizmodo has it too. In true Slashdot fashion, some of the responses are quite funny. Italian for Helium is "Elio", and the first poster remarked that the experiment was obviously a success, since all the H's are gone now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Cold fusion success in Japan gets warm reception in India, India PRwire Pcarbonn (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion on Physorg.com. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In a not-so-unrelated announcement, Blacklight Power said today that it has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand.(News release). In his book, Edmund Storms says that the hydrino theory proposed by Randy Mills could be the basis for explaining cold fusion, even if it is not perfect. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The "underside" of scientific research is that it's a given that other people will attempt to take advantage of any renewed interest in the subject. I'm highly inclined to ignore Blacklight Power and anyone else who attempts to distract from whatever the "main story" is (which seems to be Arata at the moment), unless and until someone else replicates their work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is still POV

The article repeatedly uses the phrase "the field" to mean "the field of cold fusion", though there is no such "field". The article also implies that the US Department of Energy acknowledges the existence of such a "field" in its findings or conclusions, though the Department may also disagree on the level of evidence "the field" has in its favor. This implication is completely false, as there is no such field, and there never was. Cold fusion is still, as it always has been, a completely fringe cult that is based on the god-of-the-gaps notion that any anomaly must be corroborating evidence of the cult's beliefs, until proven otherwise. The methodology is completely ascientific, and to describe people who find anomalous effects as members of some "field" of cold fusion is spurious. --70.131.118.218 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I follow what you're saying. This was my answer to a similar question on WT:Words to avoid, and this argument was widely accepted:

Read Miracle, and see how many times the words incident, event, and occurrence are used. What makes that okay is the statement in the lead section that it's disputed that there's any evidence at all, and what makes "phenomena" okay in Parapsychology, IMO, is the statement right up front that it's fringe science, although the article could be improved by additional examples of debunking. Articles like this wander into NPOV territory, and NPOV says in this case: even when you don't believe it, if there are significant numbers of people on both sides of the issue, you have to let both sides tell their story. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And btw, please don't take that to be my "view" on cold fusion; I don't have one. There are obviously a couple of things that distinguish the cold fusion issue from well-known quackery like "polywater": if these cathodes aren't producing energy in some way, then they may be an interesting storage device; and if there is something to be ashamed of here, then both sides deserve blame. It would have been trivially easy for the 2004 DOE review panel to run the experiments themselves and find the presence or lack of helium, and put the issue to rest one way or another. They chose not to, instead taking the position that science questions never need to be answered, they just need more study. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There are 4 occurences of field in the article. Both occurrences of "field" in the intro come directly from the corresponding quoted sentences in the DOE report. The following occurrence comes directly from David Goodstein. The last occurrence is also well sourced. How can all this fail NPOV ??? On the contrary, 70.131.118.218's statements are not sourced at all, and expresses his personal POV unless proven otherwise. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, some people still believe that the Apollo Moon landing are hoaxes. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Dan, I am baffled by your suggestion that cold fusion skeptics might deserve "blame." Who are you talking about? Also, do you really think that cold fusion experiments that produce negligible excess helium values would put the issue to rest? Some people would say that those experiments were flawed, and that cold fusion has not been disproved at all. On a side note, it certainly sounds to me like you do have a "view" on cold fusion. I would say that most of us here have a view on cold fusion; otherwise we would not be posting and editing. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Did I say that they deserve blame ? I don't think so. As editors, it's OK to have differing views on cold fusion, as long as they do not impact the way we edit the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who assigned the blame. I don't have a view; that is, I have absolutely no idea whether cold fusion is a series of sloppy mistakes and possibly occasional fraud (because I haven't kept up with it since the early 90s, and I'm not familiar with the quality of the work), or whether helium is being produced. The fact that I don't know after 19 years is surprising and disappointing. The blame comes from the fact that with trillions being spent on energy, the DOE panel couldn't be bothered to round up spectroscopy equipment and take a car ride to investigate whether helium was being produced or not; instead, they were content to read papers, find flaws, and declare that more work needed to be done. As to my role here, I'm in the fourth category I mention below: I'm a Wikipedian interested in building and applying policy and guidelines equally across all of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has two spectacular strengths: the output of the wikiprojects, and the quality of the very contentious articles, which we tend to get right in a world where no one else seems to be able to (on a broad range of topics). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I want to point out that the 1989 DOE panel did visit laboratories and examine equipment, and came away unimpressed. I suspect the reason the 2004 DOE panel did not do the same because they were so unimpressed with the data available in the documents that they thought visiting laboratories would be a waste of time. Remember, cold fusion researchers can submit papers to publications whenever they want; the absence of articles with convincing evidence of cold fusion after 19 years of work indicates it probably is not being produced. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I missed that in the 2004 report; can you point out where they said or implied that? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent press report

http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2008/29img/Arata-Demo.htm claims a live demo of cold fusion. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You don't have the scoop though: it was already announced in the "Yoshiaki Arata public experiment" thread above. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes. But I may have been the first to post that particular article ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, but that's not very important anyway.See [2] Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK - I'll try harder next time. It's not an area I've been following for a few years, but with oil at $130/barrel interest will pick up. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The original Fleischmann and Pons experiment

Hello Wikipeople. I wish to bring to your attention an apparent innacuracy in this section.

The text states: This experiment has been critiqued by Wilson,[43] Shkedi[44] and Jones.[45] Cold fusion researchers find these critique unconvincing, and not applicable to other experimental design.[46][47][48]

Wilson et al. performed and published a critique of the original FP experiment. Shkedi and Jones, however, did not. Furthermore, Shkedi and Jones published a critique of potential problems with recombination in these *types* of electrolytic cells.

The Shkedi and Jones critiques do not take into account the fact that FP measured the Faraday efficiency of their cell and that F&P took this problem into account. The Shkedi and Jones critiques suggest that the FP excess heat could be explained by recombination, if FP failed to consider recombination. However FP did take into account recombination effects.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence not needed due to obviousness

Does anyone have an opinion about this sentence in the Nuclear Transformations section?: "At the same time, the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss experimental evidence." I say this is an obvious statement about science in general, does not contribute to the understanding of transmutation or cold fusion, and damages the NPOV of the article, so it should be removed. While Pcarbonn is correct that the statement is important(see recent history of main article), it is not important to state it in this cold fusion article. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see 4 classes of readers who have some kind of stake in this article: supporters, opponents, undecideds, and encyclopedia-builders, that is, people who watchlist the article and try to keep the article quality from degrading. What drives people in the last category nuts with contentious articles is the daily back-and-forth of people trying to subtly shift the argument. The way to keep the guardians of article quality sane is to clearly mark a section where opponents make their strongest arguments, and a section where supporters make their strongest arguments, and to leave these two sections relatively stable. By that I mean, from time to time, invite a lot of people in and have a big discussion on what you can and can't say in these sections, and between the times when you have a lot of participation, revert any statement that shifts the arguments on sight, on the principle that one person's opinion doesn't outweigh the consensus of the masses.
In this case, "the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss experimental evidence" is a key statement by supporters, and needs to be in the article, but IMO, it needs to be in a section that is clearly marked as following the assumptions of the supporters. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not support splitting the article in 2 parts, one for the proponents and one for the skeptics. The reason is that many statements can be read either way. Take for example: "it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process". Skeptics read it as saying: "You see, it's impossible", while proponents say: "we told you it should not be called 'cold fusion', but 'low energy nuclear reaction'". Or this one: "the field would benefit from the peer-review processes". Skeptics say: "we told you, the reports have not been reviewed and are thus unreliable"; proponents say: "DOE finally says that the field should not be suppressed anymore". Splitting the article in 2 would make the article unreadable.
We had the big discussion during the mediation in the last month. We agreed to represent the view of the DOE reports, for good reasons. This view is balanced. Let's keep it that way. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't fail this article at the GA level for the lack of such sections, but I would fail it at the FA level. There is no such thing as a "balanced" view if there are significant numbers of people with radically different viewpoints whose opinions need to be represented per NPOV. The "average" of two opposing viewpoints is not honest; it's dishonest. Honest would be to let both sides forcefully make their case about the fundamental fallacies committed by their opponents. But I'm not a physicist or electrochemist so I wouldn't be able to do a good job of it; and if no one else can do it either, then that's okay, at the GA level. I'm close to passing this article, btw. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you give some examples of GA or FA article with such sections ? Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I found the following articles interesting on this issue : Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode and Wikipedia:Pro and con lists. I don't think the article suffer from thread mode today, as most sections is divided in 2 clear parts: pro and con. If cold fusion was generally accepted, we could start with presenting its case, and follow it with a "criticism" section. Writing the other way around ("cold fusion does not exist", followed by a criticism of this position) would be weird. So, for the moment, it's not clear to me how we could improve the structure of the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I made some edits following this proposal: in "ongoing controversy", each section starts with the skeptic view, and is followed by the pro view. In the "Experimental report", it's the other way around. Is that better ? Pcarbonn (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than technical problems with the references (I'll pass your concerns along to Ealdgyth), I think the article basically satisfies GA requirements, or will when I'm done, but I'm not quite finished. It's not the tone or the order of the arguments that makes me feel that this isn't FA-quality yet, it's the sense that both sides are being silent about things that they should be speaking up about. Clearly, the DOE panel and many other scientists don't think that there is any measurable helium signal, because if there were, that would mean fusion; so why do they discount the helium measurements? Do they think there is helium hiding in the palladium, is it an issue of insufficient helium depletion in the ambient gases, is the equipment outdated, is the technique sloppy, does the measurement need to happen in a different location? They don't say, and they should. Proponents say that there are no other possible energy storage mechanisms that could explain the sudden release of heat; are they sure? Have they looked? What about relaxation of a deformation of the palladium crystal? The bottom line is that, when reading this article, you get more of an impression of things unsaid than of things said, which is of course the problem with the cold fusion controversy as a whole. It would be nice if Wikipedia did a good job of pointing a finger at the biggest missing pieces and the most persuasive observations on both sides. But the world hasn't succeeded in sorting this out, and we haven't either. If you want to move this article on to the WP:FAC level after we're done here, I would want to make a better effort at that level. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the proponents have done their homework, not the skeptics. And I'm not talking on wikipedia, I'm talking in the real world. The issue is pathological disbelief, nothing else. But that's only my opinion. In any case, what you propose to do is borderline with original research. I'm not sure wikipedia policies would allow us to do it. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No original research is needed to make this a better article, IMO, because of the immense volume of written material concerning cold fusion; it's a matter of sorting and sifting, but that's a very tough chore. When this gets around to WP:FAC, I'll spend more time reading the sources, and take another whack at it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. I would propose that what is really lacking in the article is a sociological analysis of the event. What happened in 1989 ? What are the "political" errors that were made, on both side, and why ? What are the evidence of pathological science and pathological disbelief ? The section could be titled "Pathological science and pathological disbelief", and could go in the "Ongoing controversy section". What do you think ? Pcarbonn (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that kind of material would be very helpful, and also very encyclopedic, but in order to reduce misunderstandings...this is just a suggestion...I think that that kind of material should be in a separate article. That is, the clear purpose of this article would remain as it is, to do the best job possible of pointing to the strongest arguments by both sides, to help people understand the science, while the purpose of that article would be to explain how science does (and often, doesn't) get done in the real world...what the social realities of the scientific process are, both in general and for the 19-year history of cold fusion. I believe I remember seeing a red link to Cold fusion controversy, was that in the 2004 FA version of this article? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
In case you are still interested, here is a copy of the old cold fusion controversy page.

[edit] Pre-GA Review

Okay, I'll list any problems here. I asked User:Ealdgyth about some of the references, and she said, "I noticed a format glitch up in the footnotes (current ref 37) and a number of the footnotes are lacking page numbers (current ref 53, 69, 70, 75, 76, etc.)". There's also a problem that some of the web cites in the references don't say "Retrieved on (date)"; if you don't know the date, and if there's a chance the material might have changed since it was last accessed, then please access it again and give the date that you access it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the material in the last section, Other types of fusion, such as muon-catalyzed fusion and sonoluminescence, isn't cold fusion and doesn't shed any light on cold fusion. It seems to me it should either be in a separate article or in Wikibooks. The one-sentence mention of hot fusion could easily move into one of the other sections. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed "There are nearly 200 published reports of excess heat and other reviews by cold fusion researchers reach similar conclusions" to "...of excess heat by cold fusion researchers"; if the number reporting excess heat is smaller, then lower the number, please. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify what you want to see done for GA. I've seen GA articles without pages numbers in the ref (e.g. electricity, Plasma (physics)): is this really part of the GA requirements ? Please note also that some page numbers are listed in our bibliography, instead of in the references: please clarify where do you see them missing. The section of other types of fusion is already in nuclear fusion, so it can be safely removed from here. They is a list of 200 reports in Storms book, so no need to lower the number. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't put the access date for DOI and ISBN numbers. I suppose this is not necessary. Let me know otherwise. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you delete the "other reviews by cold fusion researchers reach similar conclusions" ? Pcarbonn (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of complying with WP:V and WP:OR, which is policy for all articles, is making sure that readers can actually find your references, once they're holding the book or looking at the website you used. I'm not the expert on this, but User:Ealdgyth is, and I don't want to pass references that she's not happy with. We can ask her to hop in here, if you like. Are there at least 200 reports in Storms's book that measure excess heat? Retrieval date is only necessary when your source is a webpage.

Yes, it would be great if she could clarify. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Other reviews by cold fusion researchers reach similar conclusions" is a good example of what not to say in a scientific article. Reviews where? In what Wikipedia considers reliable sources? What's "similar" to excess heat? And 200 reports are quite enough to indicate what's going on, one way or another; if additional reports didn't make Storms's book, is there some other reason they should make the cut into the Wikipedia article?

I edited the article to clarify this point. See article history. Definition: "reviews are a category of scientific paper, which provides a synthesis of research on a topic at a moment in time. " Pcarbonn (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead is fine for GA. At the FA level, the lead would need to be rewritten so that all the references (other than the references to quotations) move out of the lead section. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:V really does require page numbers, and if you're thinking of taking the article to FAC, it would be a requirement there. Note that you don't need page numbers for journal articles, just books. There is an exception, if you're using the fact that the book exists as a fact (i.e. "So and so published a book (ref to the book here)" you don't have to give page numbers of the book. The relevant part of WP:V is "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." which is generally interpreted to mean you need page numbers for books of any size. (A book that's about the size of a pamplet wouldn't be as big a concern) As for access dates, that's not a policy, I just figure that it's a good idea for most weblinks. DOI and ISBN numbers though, they don't need access dates. But if you link a journal article, it's a nice courtesy, but not required. And it doesn't have to be the date you originally accessed it, it can be the date you double checked that it actually still is there. (That's really the point of the last access dates, trying to figure out when web pages were still around so if a link goes dead you can start searching the internet archives for archived versions. Lots easier if there is a date you know the article was existant.) Hope this helps! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read and re-read the 5-page 2004 DOE panel report, and I'm still confused about when the word "reviewer" means "a member of this panel" and when it means "one of the people who reviewed reports and submitted their review to this panel". Can anyone clear this up for me? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan, the "review" occured in two phases. In the first, the documents prepared by McKubre, Hagelstein et al. were sent to nine anonymous reviewers by mail. On Aug 23, another group of nine reviewers gathered for a one-day meeting to for a face-to-face discussion with McKubre, Hagelstein et al. The second group of reviewers were given copies of the first group's reports prior to the Aug. 23 meeting. Hope this helps. I don't watch this page closely so feel free to PM me. We have more relevant information about this at the NET Web site including the reviewers' actual comments and McKubre's oral explanation of the process.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I can't be sure that there is support for the statement that (in my rewording) "The panel was split approximately evenly; about half found that the evidence for excess power is compelling...". They don't use the word "panel", they are referring to "reviewers". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
IMO, 'Reviewers' mean members of the DOE panel, unless stated otherwise. If there is any particular instance where there is a doubt, let us know. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the researchers presenting to the panel were all convinced of the reality of cold fusion. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the third time I read it, I got it. "Reviewers" in that context means the 18 panel reviewers. However, immediately following, it says that most of those reviewers believed that "many of the reported experiments were not well documented", and it's really impossible to parse what this means; to be fair, we should just include the quote, and let the reader figure out what it means. Grrr, I hate the DOE. :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there are only 2 references to books left without page numbers: Miley and Evans. I don't have these books, so I can't help. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be careful with "adsorbed" vs "absorbed"; it was claimed that Paneth and Peters (incorrectly) reported adsorption, but the given reference mentioned only absorption. I've fixed it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The bulleted list of researchers in Cold fusion#Moving beyond the initial controversy would benefit from short descriptions of their reputation, especially Arata.

[edit] Issues resolved for now

Whoa, hold on. Some of the reversions to my edits, I can't live with. I'm making a list now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, problems to clear up:
I just noticed that the quote in the lead was repeated 3 times, once without quotation marks; I've removed it except in the lead, and wrote something short in the other two places; hopefully that's enough.
I'm not happy with the wording you propose. You say somewhere else that "small, arguable edits designed to subtly shift the tone make drives articles watchers crazy". Your edit are aguable because they introduce new words not appearing in the sources. In particular "deeply skeptical" and "more unlikely" are not used at all in the DOE report, as far as I can see. Please refrain from WP:OR. I made this advise several times already. How can I convey the message better ? Pcarbonn (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is getting a bit long, and there are several important points here, so see the new section below. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we'll probably have more than enough evidence of the notability of the recent Arata talk soon; there's a very vigorous discussion on Slashdot, for instance. But I don't see that news of it has shown up in a reliable source yet; correct me if I'm wrong, but we can't count web sites except in exceptional cases (Slashdot, Gizmodo, New Energy Times), or the Italian story that has a strong connection to a company that works with Arata. I'll keep an eye on news.google.com, but for now, we don't have a way to get this talk into this article.
Isn't the PhysicsWorld.com source, referenced in the article, enough of a reliable source ? Please provide a reliable source for "the Italian story that has a strong connection to a company that works with Arata". Are you arguing that there is no reliable source saying that the presentation took place ? (I could see the issue if we were to describe their claims in details). Pcarbonn (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The short answer is that this is a non-issue, because I'm relatively sure that the event did take place and that Japanese newspaper and TV reporters were there. Print journalism (especially when it also appears online) is almost always a preferable source a Wikipedia article than a blog (even physicsworld.com), and we know the press was there, so let's keep our eyes open for translation of the news stories. We shouldn't have long to wait. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think that you'll get a translation of the news stories, for many reasons. I would propose the following rewording: "On May 22, 2008, Arata and Zhang publicly demonstrated what they say was a cold fusion reactor, at Osaka University." I think that they are enough reliable sources to say this. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been very surprised to hear on my talk page that Japanese reporters that showed up at the event might not write it up; in the US, that wouldn't happen. I'll continue to keep my eyes open. I don't know anyone who thinks that the event didn't happen, and it's not particularly controversial to say that it did happen, for now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why it is that cold fusion proponents keep saying "room temperature and atmospheric pressure". I don't fault Pierre for re-inserting this after I took it out, because that's what the proponents say, but it's flatly not true, except by comparison with the temperatures and pressures inside stars and high-temperature fusion chambers. Arata in particular uses high pressure to force deuterium into "palladium black", and "boiling" is not "room temperature". I can accept "ordinary temperatures and pressures", and I would also be happy with something more specific, but it has to be accurate.
The reason of the revert was that the sentence was too long and complex, nothing else. The wording you propose is not very different, and fine with me.Pcarbonn (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The extra sentence I added to the paragraph that starts "The 2004 DOE panel noted that significant progress..." was reverted by Pierre; we need to talk about that, because the paragraph he's citing from the 2004 DOE report seems to at least undercut itself if not contradict itself, and we need to make sure the same ambivalence is clear in our paragraph.
The lack of documentation is already presented in the following paragraph in our article. You can have many poorly documented articles and still find the evidence provided by the few well documented article compelling. I don't see the contradiction that you see. I reverted your edit, saying that your new synthesis of information which advances a position is original research, as explained in my edit comment. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Following our discussion here, I have changed the WP:SYN policy on original research so that it assumes good faith, and it seems to hold. See diff. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Here for comparison is the version of the lead section agreed to in the mediation. I worked with the lead section as I found it, assuming that that was the current state of consensus, but it was a little different, and there were some things I couldn't approve in a GA article, such as "room temperature and atmospheric pressure", and quoting the 1989 DOE panel without quotation marks, but I'm listening if anyone would like for the lead section to change to reflect earlier consensus before the GA sticker goes on:

Cold fusion is a name given to a controversial field of research which investigates the possibility of nuclear reactions at conditions near room temperature and atmospheric pressure. [Note: there was a discussion to add a sentence about most scientists being skeptical.]
The first report of such an experiment was published by M. Fleischmann and S. Pons from the University of Utah in 1989. In their publication, Fleischmann and Pons reported the observation of anomalous heating ("excess heat") of an electrolytic cell during electrolysis of heavy water (D2O). Lacking a simple explanation for the source of such anomalous heat, they proposed the hypothesis, without supporting evidence, that the source of the heat is nuclear fusion of deuterium.
Cold fusion gained a reputation as a pathological science after other scientists failed to replicate the results. A review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1989 did not find the evidence persuasive, and said that such nuclear fusion at room temperature would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.
Since then, other reports of anomalous heat and tritium production [1] have been published in peer-reviewed journals,[2] and discussed at scientific conferences. [3][4] The scientific community, however, has met these reports with skepticism. [5] In 2004 the US DOE organized another review panel.[6] This panel, like the one in 1989, did not recommended a focused federally-funded program. The 2004 panel identified basic research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field. They stated that the field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

There might or might not have been an extra sentence about "anomalous heat and tritium production". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)

I'm out of ideas to improve the article. Is there still something to do to get to WP:GA ? Pcarbonn (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] nuclear transmutation

Dan, you act in good faith, but IMO, you take too much risk of injecting original research. I encourage you to stick to sources. I have the following comments on your recent edits:

  • "Proponents of cold fusion research have charged that opponents have been willing to dismiss these observations without examining the evidence. " Not sourced. I would think that some opponents did look at the evidence.
  • "Opponents have charged that their attempts to replicate these experiments have been unsuccessful" Unsourced. I don't believe that any opponent has ever attempted to replicate transmutation experiments.
  • "that it is extremely unlikely that such results could be the result of anything but experimental error". Unsourced. Opponents have found many other "explanations": contamination, incompetence, fraud, delusion, ...

Pcarbonn (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me more than two seconds before you revert please; I've read these and similar statements many times, and I'm looking them up. We don't have to express it this way, but I wasn't happy with the paragraph the way it was. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Sorry. I have not found any skeptical sources on transmutation yet, so I'd be interested. The current paragraph is already a stretch: 1989 DOE could not talk about transmutations because they had not been observed yet. The "additional Coulomb barrier" argument has been added by editors after consensus in mediation. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
On the first and third points, this explanation is repeated many places, it's just a matter of figuring out where we want to point people to an easily readable treatment of these points. I like http://www.newenergytimes.com/Library/2003StormsEStudentsGuide.pdf, page 36, which starts off with "Skeptics suggest that all cold fusion results are experimental error and instrument artifacts." Is this an acceptable reference, Pierre? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a fine reference, but it does not particularly apply to transmutations: it is for all CF results. Hence, I don't see why it would be placed in the transmutation section. Also, the paragraph that you quote discusses the method of argumentations rather than the arguments itself. I suggested before to have a section explaining the pathological science and disbelief. I would propose that we add this material there, and find a better section title if needed: it would cover the method of scientific (and not so scientific) argumentations related to cold fusion. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see where you're going. Yes, I can easily live with that; after we're done here, let's think about a separate article on the nature of the argumentation. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Btw, I thought "additional Coulomb barrier" was a very nice way to put it...it's not like there isn't a big problem with the Coulomb barrier for D+D, nor is it true that the additional transmutations are "impossible"...it's simply more of a stretch to get to the additional transmutations, under current theory, and it was quite appropriate to add that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I have not suggested to remove this part of the paragraph. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the anonymous deletion of a subsection heading

The subsection heading "Moving beyond the initial controversy" (and only the heading, no text) was deleted anonymously; I restored it. I'm going to revert anything on sight that smacks of the kind of thing that drives article watchlisters in controversial articles crazy: small, arguable edits designed to subtly shift the tone. My second-favorite thing about Wikipedia is how good a job we do with controversial topics such as this one, and part of what makes this work is, I usually find that people have a low tolerance for "guerilla warfare". Shifting the tone is fine, as long as we get a lot of people participating in the discussion, we make a decision, and we make the change in tone obvious. Obviously, we can't get everyone looking at this article all the time, and since we're near the end of a GA review, people are probably a bit worn out now. Let's give it some time before we try any big changes, and if people want to make a list in the meantime for consideration of big changes in a few weeks, that's fine, as long as a bunch of people are asking and they're making a good case. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. You do know about the RFM? Might give you some more insight into the article's rather interesting history. seicer | talk | contribs 02:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, folks, please note that anon user 209.253... has been a frequent contributor to the article, and an intelligent one; I'm not biting a newbie and I don't mean to discourage contributions, I mean to encourage honest and effective processes for contributions to very controversial articles. Seicer, yes, I read the mediation discussion before signing on as the GA reviewer. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just got a reply from 209.253 to the message I left on their talk page: "Could you elaborate on your comment please. I have been watching this site for a year and most of what I have seen is 'small, arguable edits designed to subtly shift the tone.' Are you saying that that is going to stop now?" No one can promise anything on Wikipedia, of course, but so far, I've been very happy with the results whenever I, or anyone else, asks people to take a breather after a long discussion, and wait to round up more attention before attempting to change consensus. The principle is easy: if 20 people are actively working on an article, and we make sure that everyone is being listened to and is okay with the finished product, and then someone (especially anonymously) makes a change when things have died down, and no one responds, it's a reasonable assumption that people have wandered off and they're doing other things. One opinion doesn't overrule 20, so it's reasonable to revert, and ask nicely on the contributor's talk page to add to a list on the talk page for the next time we get some kind of "quorum" or general interest. There is no specific policy or guideline that offers "protection" for any article; I'm just asking for people to please follow the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. I could be wrong, but I'm betting people are a bit tired out by the mediation and the GA review and would like a little break, starting sometime soon. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm realizing I'm being a little bit loud on this issue; sorry about that. I'm really mostly trying to see if other people agree with this general principle, and will help me patrol the article in the future, especially in the quieter times in-between the big discussions; 209.253 didn't do anything wrong, in my book. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a page describing the role of a GA reviewer ? I'd be interested to read it. For example, has s/he a special role in patrolling the article ? Pcarbonn (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

<attempted humor> GA reviewers are awarded special paper hats and get to tell everyone what to do. Everyone generally complies, up to the point where the article is actually awarded GA status, and then they immediately revert all the suggested changes when the reviewer moves on to the next article. As soon as someone notices, the article gets sent to Good article review, and the process starts over.</attempted humor>

WP:GA and WP:WGA and their talk pages are good places to learn about what's expected of GA reviewers. Generally, the strength of the GA process is that it's "lightweight"; there's just one reviewer and just one nominator, and therefore articles get certified as GA at three times the rate that articles get certified as FA; see this week's SIGNPOST. GA reviewers are not encouraged to watchlist the articles they review.

All of the "contentious" articles on Wikipedia are special, to me, and to a lot of people. As I said, they are my second favorite thing about Wikipedia (the first being the rate at which the wikiprojects and similar groups crank out high-quality articles). I am not quite sure how to explain it, but Wikipedia often does a very good job with these articles when no one else seems to be able to get it right. By a "good job", I definitely don't mean that we figure out the truth; I mean that we operate well in the environment of not knowing the truth. When we're successful, we give people new to the topic something that is interesting to read and accessible to non-experts, and we point opponents and proponents to the best resources we've found, so that whatever their inclinations are, they can get up to speed much more quickly than if they had to read and sort everything themselves.

As for me, yes, this article is going on my watchlist, permanently. I kept up with some of the early news on cold fusion, and the words and concepts at least are familiar, but I'm not a physicist or chemist, so it's a given that I'm going to make mistakes. I have found that knowing a lot about WP style guidelines and something about WP policy makes me useful both as an article reviewer and as an article patroller, but I make mistakes all the time, so continue to feel free (as you have done) to correct me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. That seems fair. Thanks for your help. I look forward to bringing the article to GA status with your help. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I know that cold fusion skeptics, including the large majority of chemists and physicists, get a bit leery when a proponent such as yourself makes edits to the article, but you clearly add self-restraint and knowledge of what Wikipedia is expecting to the mix, and I very much appreciate your help and contributions.
After Seicer's mention of the mediation process yesterday, I realized that I never made a clear statement about the mediation, other than what I wrote at WP:GAN when I signed on as GA reviewer. I was very happy with the mediation process that ended in mid-April and its results; on the other hand, I noticed that the article (both in the form I found it and in the suggested form from mediation) needed numerous edits to comply with style and, to a lesser extent, policy-related guidelines. I felt and feel that compliance is a very good idea in order to protect the article from possible ravages at WP:GAR and WP:FAC. I am not the expert on Wikipedia policy, but I know something about style guidelines and about common objections at GAR and FAR. What I should have said right at the start is, my goal was to accomplish the minimum changes necessary to show the GAR and FAR people that I was doing an adequate job, while still respecting the mediation process. I also wanted to make it clear that new edits and new discussion are welcome, because this is an expectation both in the WP:GAN process and generally on Wikipedia (as often noted at WP:RFA); even a recent mediation doesn't give anyone the right to say, "Okay, we're done now, go home". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw, this is the diff between the current version of this article and the April 20 version, which was a few noncontroversial edits after the mediation results were copied over to this article. Comments are welcome. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving beyond the initial controversy

The section title "Moving beyond the initial controversy" should be removed or changed, since people have not moved beyond the initial controversy. Any thoughts? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it's a potential concern. I personally didn't read it to mean that people had dropped the controversy about cold fusion, I just understood it to mean that things weren't revolving around what did or didn't happen with Pons and Fleischmann and the 1989 DOE report any more, but if people think the heading conveys some kind of subtle message, I don't have any strong feelings about the proper heading. There should probably be a subheading of some kind there. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
We need a separate section for the period after the 1989 DOE report, IMO (so, it should also be moved up a bit from its current position). This is supported by this source, which even lists 5 periods. I'm open to another proposal for its title. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Pierre, just a small concern: don't use the word "source" on Wikipedia referring to www.newenergytimes.com. It's very important to give that link (and it's on my to-do list today to make sure the end sections properly distinguish between EL's and references), because it's helpful for getting people up to speed if they want to explore the proponents' arguments, but the vast majority of websites are not sources (in the sense of reliable sources) on Wikipedia, and www.newenergytimes.com is not an exception. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ummh. I'm not convinced. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Please check what people are saying about them. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Not every question on Wikipedia has an easy answer, but almost any question about reliable sources does, because the people at the Reliable sources noticeboard are excellent. The quick and easy answer is that websites are almost never a reliable source; that is, unless they're being used to access material that comes from something deemed a reliable source, they shouldn't be called a "source". But we don't need a quick and easy answer; I'll ask at WP:RSN and we'll find out in a hurry. This is a rather important point, and I apologize that I keep putting off carefully going through the sources, but it will get done today for sure. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] They might be weasels

A key issue in this article is how to correctly interpret the 2004 DOE report, and there's even a pending question about how to interpret the 1989 DOE report. Pierre/Pcarbonn says above:

I'm not happy with the wording you propose. You say somewhere else that "small, arguable edits designed to subtly shift the tone make drives articles watchers crazy". Your edit are aguable because they introduce new words not appearing in the sources. In particular "deeply skeptical" and "more unlikely" are not used at all in the DOE report, as far as I can see. Please refrain from WP:OR. I made this advise several times already. How can I convey the message better ? Pcarbonn (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote from the 1989 DOE report is that such "nuclear fusion at room temperature [...] would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process." The agreed-to language from the recent mediation recommended repeating this quote in several different sections, but I expect that was just an oversight, and this wouldn't fly at WP:FAC and shouldn't fly at WP:GAR. Instead, we should leave the quote intact once (I would suggest in the lead), and then try to express in our own words what they're saying in the other two places.

Pierre objected to my words "deeply skeptical", saying that they are original research. I'm not happy inventing words, because I've got my reviewer's hat on, so it's not a "fair fight", so I'd like some help here. When a panel of physicists says those words in quotation marks, what do they mean? Are they deeply skeptical? If not, what are they thinking?

Pierre also objected to my judgment call concerning the words of the 2004 DOE report. It's one of the most important statements in this article: what were the conclusions of the 2004 DOE report? Were they half in favor and half opposed to the position that excess heat was being produced? Why or why not? I have my opinion, but my feeling is that consensus in the mediation was roughly the same as consensus before and after, and that consensus is more important than my opinion. Anyone want to express it in their own words? (For a clue to my opinion, see this section heading.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The 5-page final report of the 2004 DOE panel is at http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Consistency of effect size is a crucial indicator; many reports prior to 2004 did not agree with each other on the size and character of anomalous effects. This is suspicious. On the other hand, the appearance of activated regions of differing size in different experimental runs, as well as reports of hairy nano-structures forming on the surface of the palladium, would account for this. but really, the US Navy report on Pd + D co-deposition sets the bar for research, here. -- 99.231.208.23 (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are taking the route to original research. You don't need to double guess what the DOE means. If you don't like repetition, then do not repeat what the DOE said. Alternatively, find alternative reliable sources to the statement from the DOE, or other statements from the DOE to the same effect. Nothing replaces the search for good sources. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You ask "Were they half in favor and half opposed to the position that excess heat was being produced?" I would think that the quotation make it plain. Why the question ? You then ask "Why or why not [did they reach this conclusion]?" Again, the answers are in the report. No need to invent new reasons, or to use our own words. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Pierre, you've brought up "original research" several times, let's get this straight. It's not okay to invent ideas, or even to pull together pre-existing ideas in a way that our sources don't pull them together; I believe that's what you were getting at when you said "synthesis is OR". It is our job to invent words that do a better job of saying what our sources said poorly. For sources that say things that are apparently contradictory, the best thing to do is not to use them as sources; but when we have to, then we have an obligation to point out that they are contradictory. We're at least agreed on the principle, right? I think intelligent people can disagree on what the 2004 DOE final report meant. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Krivit about finding something we can attribute to DARPA, or McKubre, or anyone else to justify the statement about current DARPA research. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another anonymous edit

This one by 99.231, who comments just above. "It is a simple matter to imagine that the degrees of freedom are constrained in low-energy fusion pathways; but a theory should make quantitative predictions. None has emerged as superior." I'm not an expert, but what's your "simple" explanation for cold fusion? Are you saying that momentum and energy don't need to be conserved, or are you saying that the energy is transferred coherently to the crystal, and if so, what other similar coherent processes involving millions of atoms at room temperature can you point to? The problem with introducing language like "the degrees of freedom are constrained in low-energy fusion pathways" is that it gives the theoretical foundations a "weightiness" that I'm not aware they possess. I think a large majority of people on all sides of the issue think that cold fusion lives or dies on the experimental evidence. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit should be immediately reverted for a lack of sources. Please provide a source if you want to keep it. There is no way we'll get this article to GA, let alone FA, if anybody is allowed to insert his own opinion in the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few problems with sources

Most of the sources for this article check out. Can anyone find a source other than recent conference proceedings for any of the following? In general, it's not appropriate to take a scientist's say-so for when they discovered what; that's what publishing is for. If we can't find a better source, we can of course say that Fleischmann starting thinking of these ideas in the 60s (who's to know?) and started pursuing experiments designed to answer questions (again, who's to know?). We can't credit him with being a theoretical physicist unless he is one, and I don't believe he is. (Removing this material would also solve the problem of the missing page number for Evans.)

In the 1960s, Fleischmann and his research team began investigating the possibility that chemical means could influence nuclear processes.[7] ... but Fleischmann started to explore whether collective effects, that would require quantum electrodynamics to calculate, might be significant.[8] By 1983, Fleischmann had experimental evidence leading him to believe that condensed phase systems developed coherent structures up to 10-7m in size.[8]

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see that we credit him with being a theoretical physicist ? Pcarbonn (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The changes you made today deal with my concerns, by putting it in his own words. I don't have any desire to deny him the right to a paragraph giving us a glimpse into his mind as he worked many years on this idea; we just can't make it sound like he came up with a "solution" on paper and then put it into practice. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for Bush & Eagleton other than Transactions of Fusion Technology? It would be better in general not to use conference proceedings as sources, particularly when the given experimental result didn't match other experimental results. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that these are conference proceedings ? There is no reference to a conference. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware. I kept up with various listservs at the time, and my understanding at the time was that Transactions of Fusion Technology was used to publish some of the ICCF papers. What I found on a Google search makes it very unlikely that it would pass muster at WP:RSN, but I won't press the point if you'll concede that it would be a bad idea to use material from that journal (I should probably say "journal") for any overly controversial purpose. The Bush-Eagleton results were, and are, at odds with other published results, so if that's the only source we can find, I think we should delete that sentence. If you disagree, our first stop will be WP:RSN. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer at WP:RSN was that Krivit and newenergytimes.com are not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes (few websites are), so the material cited to either of them will either need to meet the requirements of WP:SELFPUB, have other sources, or be removed. This doesn't imply any disrespect for Steven's hard work, and IMO the article should absolutely keep the external link to his site, because it's a useful resource; it just means that Steven is on the same footing as everyone else here; he can point to sources, he can't be a source. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I noticed my name here so I thought I'd take a look. Thanks for your kindness and respect as you wrote above. I'm not sure what or where the question was that you are answering. One time I looked up the Wiki guidlines of reliable sources but I don't recall those details off the top of my head. Sometimes I chime in here on TALK to point things out to folks, but I learned long ago that I'm too much in the category of "OR" to be a direct contributor/editor of this page. I do take partial exception to your blanket statement about my work as SELFPUB. I've had work published in Current Science, the Great Falls Tribune, conference proceedings and in the fall, a book by Oxford University Press and another article in J. Scientific Exploration will pub. I've been quoted briefly in numerous other places. Also, New Energy Times has citations/references in articles from Wired, Current Science, Great Falls Tribune, Nature News, Chemical & Engineering News, so hopefully those other sources will help with confidence in our work so that the Wiki article can benefit from our work and be stronger.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
With almost any web site, WP:RSN issues are difficult, and not for mere mortals like me; you are welcome to add those arguments to the thread I started at WP:RSN#www.newenergytimes.com. Keep up the good work, and best of luck. If you want to pursue this, be up-front about whatever sources of funding you have, and what it is your contributors expect you to do. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I take it from Wikipedia:RSN#www.newenergytimes.com that it's OK to cite Krivit and NET as long as we attribute the statement to them. This could not be said of any of us editors. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually they didn't say that (read it again), but because I'm generally happy with the site, I'm willing to say that it's okay with me and okay at the WP:GAN level, as long as:

  1. It's understood that the WP:FAC people are generally going to want us to go find the sources in the library, rather than relying on an intermediate source that isn't itself a reliable source;
  2. We're using www.newenergytimes.com only when it's important to include something in this article that we can only find an online copy of at that site; and
  3. The original source is a Reliable source.

I wouldn't use WP:ATT to describe what we're doing here, I'd say it's WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Of course, Steven's site could also be used for the purposes of WP:SELFPUB, if we need to say something about the site itself. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether to include the following statement: "New Energy Times said that DARPA sponsored an international research project on cold fusion in 2007." Here is what I read in Wikipedia:RSN#www.newenergytimes.com: "I'm inclined to treat them as only good for sourcing opinions they themselves espouse. [...] If you're just citing their opinions, [...] just be sure to make the reader aware they they are opinions". I would thus think that their opinion on DARPA funding can be included. Maybe we need to find a better word than "said", so that it's clear it is an opinion. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Krivit and I are both happy with leaving DARPA out for the time being; DARPA has not been anxious to share what they've been up to. There's a book coming out in the fall that will probably acknowledge their funding; we can wait til then, or sooner if DARPA makes an announcement. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Whew. It's been a lot of work, but worth it, because I think this article could not only become a featured article again, but more than that, become one of those articles on very contentious subjects that Wikipedia can be quite proud of. I'm passing this article. Here is a summary of the GA criteria:

  • well written:
    • I've done a lot of copyediting on it, and I hope it would be considered well-written now, but I've been working fast and a little sloppy, and further editing would be welcome.
  • lead sections:
    • The lead section is now fine for GA, but references that don't support quotations will need to be moved down below the lead section before this article gets to WP:FAC.
      • Now fixed.
  • jargon:
    • Jargon is always a problem with a very technical article, but many improvements have been made, and IMO this article is a lot easier to read than some others I've seen on the topic.
  • words to avoid:
    • After some work, the article seems to be in compliance with both the spirit and the letter of WP:WORDS.
  • fiction:
    • let's hope not :)
  • list incorporation:
    • I made a suggestion for the one incorporated list: it would be helpful to add short descriptions establishing notability for some of the researchers in the bulleted list.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    • I was familiar with some of the material from the early years myself, and I haven't seem claims that anything in this article is not factually accurate. The references seem to check out. There are an overwhelming number of inline citations; great care has been taken on all sides to avoid WP:OR.
    • I just passed the article (02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)) after reviewing the references. I checked that every short (Harvard) reference matches up with an item in the bibliography. I can't swear that some of the references haven't been "orphaned", that is, in the process of removing the short (Harvard) references, we may have something in the Bibliography section that doesn't match up now; that should be checked before FA. I wanted to go ahead and pass now that all my concerns have been addressed, but to get it to a passing state, I had to delete 3 sentences, the ones about Bush-Eagleton, Mizuno and DARPA, that I haven't gotten answers on yet. I mention the Bush-Eagleton reference below in #A few problems with sources. The Mizuno sentence can be added back in when the references are done correctly, and it can't claim a book from Infinite Energy Press as a reliable source (this is absolutely not an insult to the late Mallove, I'm just aware enough of how they think at WP:RSN that I know it's not going to happen), but we can treat it as Mizuno's WP:SELFPUB without any harm. It's not clear to me exactly what DARPA has owned up to in terms of funding in 2007 or 2008; as soon as we nail that down, we can add it back in. As mentioned below, there are a lot of good things to say about www.newenergytimes.com, but the folks at WP:RSN don't (yet) identify it as a "reliable source", so the main use of those references is complying with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT; some of the original references should be found in a library and cited before WP:FAC. Otherwise, all sources are either books from established publishing houses, or articles in peer-reviewed journals, or established news sources, or appropriately-used government or technical reports; otherwise, the point of the reference is to describe the positions of the skeptics or the supporters in ways that everyone agrees with.
  • breadth:
    • It's pretty broad, yes. We deleted one section (other fusion topics) that didn't seem relevant enough. Additional material might possibly be split off into a separate article on what this controversy reveals about the scientific process in the modern world.
  • neutrality:
    • There are very few people who have done a lot of reading on the subject who are undecided (I'm one of the few, but that's mostly from ignorance and bone-deep skepticism about how science is done), and neither proponents nor supporters will be 100% satisfied with this article, but especially following the mediation, the feeling seems to be that the article is fair. I hope no one believes that bias has been introduced, either by my changes during this review or by any other editor, but my door is always open. Lack of bias is certainly the goal.
    • There are neutrality issues that can't effectively be tackled now, but not anything big enough to fail this article at GA; much work went into the mediation that ended in mid-April and largely dealt with issues of neutrality, and the current state of the article reflects the results from the mediation fairly well. Nevertheless, the skeptics who showed up during the mediation were largely absent or at least muted during this review, and Pierre was very active, so I had to play a much larger role during this review than reviewers generally play, in copyediting, and moving the article in the general direction of WP:FAC, and representing what I know of the concerns of the skeptics. I don't think we've hurt the article, but ultimately, it isn't appropriate for the reviewer to be "representing" any particular side in a contentious article. If no one has sufficient objections to take this article to WP:GAR, and no one has voiced that opinion so far, then I hope this article will make its way back to WP:FAC in the near future, and when or before that happens, it will be necessary to pull in more voices.
    • The goal is that readers unfamiliar with the issue should be able to read something informative, lively and accessible, and both proponents and opponents should find information on the best sources and best arguments that will help them get up to speed much faster than if they had to sort through everything themselves.
    • Finally, to chemists and physicists who might say that it's pointless to represent the points of view of the cold fusion proponents: the Chubb and Van Noorden references show sessions on these topics at recent ACS and APS yearly meetings, the 2004 DOE review was equivocal, the Indian government is currently funding studies, and one of the fathers of hot fusion in Japan (Arata) just gave a live demonstration of his excess heat experiment in the hall named in his honor to the Japanese press. Wikipedia can't take a position that you're not willing to take; as long as chemists and physicists keep the subject alive and unresolved, Wikipedia must do so as well.
  • stability:
    • The article is fairly stable, especially for such a contentious topic. The edits since May 8 have, in general, only improved the article. The article was the subject of formal mediation earlier this year.
  • images:
    • All images are appropriately tagged. They're also attractive and illustrative, and the captions are well-written.

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So now that we're finished with WP:GAN

...you can tell me what you really think :) Feel free to give yourselves a round of applause; I know something about the early years of this controversy, and at that time, it was completely impossible to get supporters and skeptics working together. You guys did a very good job during the mediation, and that carried through into the WP:GAN, although a lot of people didn't speak up, I expect out of exhaustion. Feel free to take a break. After a while, if people seem to be interested in putting more work into the article, we could look at regaining Featured article status. We also might look at separate articles for other takes on the controversy, such as the role of government, or what the 19-year history of this teaches us about science and scientists that we didn't want to know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Dank55. Your feedback on the article was very valuable. I wish we had found a serious critique of cold fusion. Apparently, there isn't. Except for general statement that "it is impossible". Pcarbonn (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, it was a pleasure. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What I really think is that the article should not have the "Good Article" label because that implies it is one of the best 10 or so physics articles. If the label was "Very Important" or "Recently Evaluated" or something like that then I would vote yes. Maybe if the article had 4 months of stability I would be in favor, but PCarbonn wanted that stamp of approval quickly, so here we are.
Sorry, I have never asked for a quick stamp of approval. I still don't know why Dank55 gave the GA while acknowledging that there were still outstanding issues. ~~
I worry that the article has too many partisans and will not remain stable. I just don't trust the people who have been working on this article to be reasonable and civil, and that includes PCarbonn. He does a lot of good for the article, but his frequent POV-pushing more than cancels it out.
Please no personal, unjustified attacks. I'm ready to amend myself if and when I receive positive suggestions. Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the GA status issue, I am glad that Dan has been working on the article because I think it has improved a lot since he started. I, for one, will keep checking on the article; I don't plan to be "moving beyond the controversy" anytime soon. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mizuno

I ask for the reinsertion of the following sentence:

":"Tadahiko Mizuno was among the first to contribute a paper (Mizuno 2000) and a book on the subject (Mizuno 1998). "

There was a confusion on the link to the article: 2 are listed in bibliography, and one of them is in a reputable journal (Jpn. J. Appl. Phys).

Concerning the book, WP policy says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Mizuno meet this requirement: he has published relevant work in the peer-reviewed, as just stated

Furthermore, the Journal of Scientific Exploration had this to say on Mizuno:

"Two books written by adherents of cold fusion stand out in that they were

written by people active in "normal" science, with solid research records, and who have themselves done research on cold fusion. One of them was by T. Mizuno (1997), an electrochemist, and the other by radiochemist Edmund Storms"; Dieter Britz, J. Sci. Exploration. Vol. 21, #4 page 801 (2007). Winter issue

So, I'd say that Mizuno has both the reliability and notability needed for adding the sentence back in the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pierre, that's a nice summary and I agree with it. Normally I don't yank sentences out of any article for sourcing problems...in fact, there's been a lot of discussion on that topic at WT:V over the last few months, and everyone is agreed that when there's a sourcing problem, it's best to give people time to explain or to find new sources, rather than deleting the material. Reviews, especially reviews at WP:FAC and WP:FAR, tend to involve a lot of "yanking" in order to try to get to the end of the process, but the general principle still holds that material shouldn't be removed without giving people time. I'm just underlining here that I agree with what you're saying.
In this case, I was ready to pass the article, and I couldn't pass it with that sentence the way it was, for two reasons. Technically, the referencing was wrong; it needed Harvard referencing. Also, the most contentious issue in the cold fusion controversy (both from memory and from what I read while reviewing this article) is that both sides have often taken the position that everything the other side says goes against standards, and in some cases, both sides have been right about that. I mean, there has been a lot of willingness by the skeptics to offer their opinions about cold fusion researchers without subjecting their opinions to peer review, and there has been a lot of willingness of cold fusion researchers over the years to publish material without the normal peer review (understandably) and to publish books and monographs without going through established publishing houses. Even though I have no personal knowledge of the quality of Mizuno's book, the one that some would regard as self-published, I'd like to suggest that we not use that as a reference unless we really need to. I'm perfectly happy for this article to include Mizuno's assertion, supported by many, that he was first to do several important things, including publishing this book. Is this acceptable? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New intro sentence

I have added "The word is also sometimes used to describe muon-catalyzed fusion or desktop experiments that create local temperature and pressure sufficiently high to produce conventional nuclear fusion." I could document such use if needed. The question is : is the use frequent enough to justify mention ? Any comments welcome. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pierre, I got a complaint today about your insertion of this sentence, on a user's talk page that I was watchlisting. First, do you see how this new sentence in the lead might not be welcome? Second, during the WP:GAN review, it was much faster to make changes directly to the text, and we did a lot of that. It's still okay to make changes directly to the text...there's been a lot of discussion at WT:CONSENSUS about how yelling at people because they don't discuss things first is bad, you really need to allow people to edit the text directly if they want to. But one of the issues that has been brought up a lot on this page, and was just brought up again today on a user's talk page, is that people have felt worn-down in the past by a perception that they needed to "babysit" this Cold fusion article. Going forward, let's aim for whatever stability we can get, whatever stability is appropriate. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to put it diplomatically, but I fail to understand the problem about the stability of the article. If it's easier to discuss it off-line, please send me an e-mail via my talk page. I'm fine with the reversal of my edit. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and I'll take you up on that offer to respond by email. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Btw, regarding your reversion on "They say that numerous studies have reported that 4He was produced at levels above that of the concentration in air"...thanks for the page reference, that's exactly right. I added the page reference. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. Pierre, thanks for your mention that the Arata story made it to http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html. That strikes me as kind of a big deal; I think most physicists would be a lot more comfortable talking about a story they read on physorg.com's news site than any of the other references we've seen so far. I notice that some of the messages in response to that story mention this Wikipedia article...naturally :) When people are looking at us, I'd like for us to be a bit more careful to do fact-checking before we make new insertions. To answer Pierre's question above, no, muon-catalyzed fusion and the recent desktop fusion story are not generally referred to as "cold fusion". I wanted to back away from this article a bit, but now that I know that the news story is heating up and people are reading us, I'm going to go ahead and revert the muon-catalyzed addition. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preparing for WP:FAC

I know everyone is a bit tired out. I'm going to make some minor style fixes today...we forgot to italicize journal names for instance...but I'll leave the fixes that will be needed for WP:FAC until we seem to have renewed interest from a number of editors. I suggest we just add anything that doesn't need to be fixed right away to this list. We can start with this feedback from G-Guy's talk page:

  • As for for the current article, I find the ordering of the sections a bit odd. It seems as if it fails WP:LEAD by starting with ongoing controversy, rather than history, or the original experiment. Geometry guy 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I have supported several times during mediation the idea that the article should start with experiments, then present the controversy, then history. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The former featured version did have history first, as Geometry Guy suggests, and the article stayed that way until mediation. I would certainly support placing history first. That would be more standard and straightforward. I can't imagine the article in this state would be considered featured, but then again I'm surprised it's considered 'good'.--Noren (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow why you didn't say something between May 18 and now, Noren; you spoke up during the mediation, and I have asked for your feedback. I'm hoping the reason wasn't that I came across as unsympathetic. As I said above, I wouldn't take this article to WP:FAC unless it's clear we have representation from a wider range of views, especially skeptical views. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's remember why we decided to put the "ongoing controversy" section first during the mediation. We said that, if we start with history, we give the impression to the reader that cold fusion is known only for the 1989 episode and is now part of history. Also, the history section is so long that many would stop reading before reaching the other sections. Some people were opposed to the idea of starting with experimental data, as we do for example in superconductivity. There is plenty of evidence that cold fusion is an unresolved scientific controversy, and readers can be expected to want to read about the pro and con arguments: hence, we decided to start with the controversy section. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you actually mean FAC? WP:FAR is a strange place to go. Ruslik (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I had seen articles at WP:FAR which had talked about being at FAR before, and I thought that meant all articles that had been at FAR once would be welcome there again...not so, those were articles that never really left FAR. I should be talking about WP:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Note:I just went through substituting "WP:FAC" as appropriate for "WP:FAR" so people will know what I'm talking about. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Dank55, you say "I wouldn't take this article to WP:FAC unless it's clear we have representation from a wider range of views". What evidence do you have that some views are insufficiently represented ? Pcarbonn (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The post-2004 reviews were missing. I added them. 76.246.148.242 (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pierre, I'm not saying that there is some kind of iron rule that we have to wait for X different opinions before we can proceed. I'm saying that the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS is that, when this article has been the subject of a lot of trips to WP:ANI, and when it largely represented the position of the skeptics back when it was a featured article two years ago, we can't rush to WP:FAC. We have to acknowledge that sometimes people who cared in the past might care again in the future, and give them a chance to have their input. I know that you feel that there are serious deficiencies with the input of some of the skeptics, but that doesn't change the fact that we are required to be patient and give everyone lots of time. Besides, if we don't, that will just land us at WP:FAR later on, even if the article does pass WP:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

When I was a featured article reviewer, I would need a really good reason to even consider passing something with an open {{todo}} list. That's the first and best place to start right now.. 76.246.148.242 (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Mr. to do list is old and has lost its relevancy. I say it should be scrapped. Kevin Baastalk 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; done. 76.240.228.188 (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

This is what the contents was when I started:

   * 1 Ongoing controversy
         o 1.1 Lack of reproducibility of the result
         o 1.2 Missing nuclear products
         o 1.3 Lack of theoretical explanations
   * 2 Experimental reports
         o 2.1 Excess heat
         o 2.2 Nuclear products
         o 2.3 Nuclear transmutations
         o 2.4 The original Fleischmann and Pons experiment
   * 3 History
         o 3.1 Early work
         o 3.2 Pre-announcement and announcement
         o 3.3 Post-announcement
         o 3.4 Moving beyond the initial controversy
   * 4 Notes
   * 5 References
   * 6 Bibliography
   * 7 Further reading

That seemed absurdly anti-chronological to me. This is what the contents is now:

   * 1 Experimental reports
         o 1.1 Excess heat
         o 1.2 Nuclear products
         o 1.3 Nuclear transmutations
   * 2 History
         o 2.1 Early work
         o 2.2 The original Fleischmann and Pons experiment
               + 2.2.1 Pre-announcement and announcement
               + 2.2.2 Post-announcement
         o 2.3 Controversy
               + 2.3.1 Lack of reproducibility of the result
               + 2.3.2 Missing nuclear products
               + 2.3.3 Lack of theoretical explanations
         o 2.4 Beyond the controversy
   * 3 Notes
   * 4 References
   * 5 Bibliography
   * 6 Further reading

That, as I understand it, may be how Pcarbonn wants it. This is, I believe, how Noren wants it:

   * 1 Early work
   * 2 The original Fleischmann and Pons experiment
         o 2.1 Pre-announcement and announcement
         o 2.2 Post-announcement
   * 3 Controversy
         o 3.1 Lack of reproducibility of the result
         o 3.2 Missing nuclear products
         o 3.3 Lack of theoretical explanations
   * 4 Beyond the controversy
   * 5 Experimental reports
         o 5.1 Excess heat
         o 5.2 Nuclear products
         o 5.3 Nuclear transmutations
   * 6 Notes
   * 7 References
   * 8 Bibliography
   * 9 Further reading

I have to go with Noren on this one. What do other people think? 76.246.148.242 (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go with Noren's arrangement, too. Both sides have valid arguments, but when you just cancel them out and just look at it without reasoning -- i.e. what feels "right" -- the most natural -- it's to tell the story first, then give the details. Kevin Baastalk 15:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I really think the article would be easier to read if it were more chronological and less disjointed. I strongly dislike using the phrase "beyond the controversy" because the controversy has not gone away at all. Placing a "Beyond the controversy" section just after a "Controversy" section as in the current article strongly suggests that the controversy in the past, which is simply not true. Here is my proposal which incorporates these ideas:

   * 1 History 
         1.1 Early work 
         1.2 Fleischmann-Pons announcement 
         1.3 Reaction to the announcement
         1.4 Developments after 1989 
         1.5 2004 DOE panel 
         1.6 Recent developments 
   * 2 Evidence for cold fusion
         2.1 Excess heat 
         2.2 Nuclear products 
         2.3 Nuclear transmutations 
   * 3 Incompatibilities with established physics

The basic cell description would be in section 1.2, near the top of the page as it should be. Criticism of experiments (reproducibility, contamination, etc.) would be placed just after the results are presented in sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. The current "lack of theoretical explanations" section would be moved and become section 3. Any thoughts? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would name section 3 as "criticism" and include the 3 subsections (reproducibility, ...). Doing that, I'm not sure what would be left to say for 1.5 2004 DOE panel. If you want to keep it, you would also need a section on the 1989 DOE panel, for good balance. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the Biberian and Hubler reviews

Here is my attempt at paraphrasing the abstracts:

Cold fusion has been controversial, but it has been demonstrated by experiments resulting in excess heat production in electrolytic cells and nuclear ashes such as helium-4. The lack of the usual particle emissions observed in nuclear science and high-energy physics make the phenomenon difficult to accept. Some experiments have shown low-level neutron production, X-ray emission, and transmutation of elements. There is still no satisfactory theory explaining condensed matter nuclear science, but many explanations have been proposed, several with textbook physics.[3]
More than ten groups have reported excess heat in a third of their experiments with a solid palladium cathode and an electrolyte with deuterium or D2 gas loading of palladium powders. Most of those groups have sometimes seen 50-200% excess heat for hours to days. The groups' observed excess heat events have not diminished in frequency or magnitude, and they have improved their methods.[4]

Combined:

Cold fusion has been controversial, but it has been demonstrated by experiments resulting in excess heat production in electrolytic cells and nuclear ashes such as helium-4. More than ten groups have reported excess heat in a third of their experiments with a solid palladium cathode and an electrolyte with deuterium or D2 gas loading of palladium powders.[5] Most of those groups have sometimes seen 50-200% excess heat for hours to days. The groups' observed excess heat events have not diminished in frequency or magnitude, and they have improved their methods.[6]
The lack of the usual particle emissions observed in nuclear science and high-energy physics make the phenomenon difficult to accept. Some experiments have shown low-level neutron production, X-ray emission, and transmutation of elements. There is still no satisfactory theory explaining condensed matter nuclear science, but many explanations have been proposed, several with textbook physics.[7]

Ok? 76.246.148.242 (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I quickly scanned your new article. You are stating things in the intro that I would not have thought possible to put in wikipedia yet: "[cold fusion] has been demonstrated by experiments resulting in excess heat production in electrolytic cells and nuclear ashes such as helium-4". If I have been POV-pushing, what are you doing ? It would be terrific if it would hold. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Why do you think it might not hold? I guess I should have used "reaction products" for "ashes". But isn't my paraphrase of the review's abstracts correct? Bill O.R.G. (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've now read the new version of the article in details, and I like it. A couple of months ago, the sentence I quoted above would have infuriated the skeptical editors, and would have been deleted immediately. We went to the arbitration committee and the mediation process because of disagreement on statements saying that cold fusion is a still ongoing controversy, instead of closed episode of pathological science: I cannot think of what would have happened if a sentence said that it had been demostrated. If I have been uncivil recently (and I apologize if I have), you should have seen what I had to endure (you may want to read my account of the mediation in New Energy Times).
If we can now write that cold fusion has been demonstrated, this would be a major step forward, and I would be delighted by it, because there is plenty of evidence from reliable sources that this is correct, despite the deep skepticism of "most scientists" and of some skeptical editors. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "I've now read the new version of the article in details, and I like it": I will email Pierre privately and try to figure out where things went wrong. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Dank55, I'm not sure why you say that things went wrong. If I have not proposed to state that "cold fusion has been demonstrated", it's because I was afraid of the reaction of skeptical editors: I have already gone through a lot of battle, and I did not feel ready for this one yet. I do believe that it is justified, and I'm happy that Bill is taking the challenge. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Pierre, the world needs people who are advocates for progress in science, and if you feel that the number of chemists and physicists who are paying attention to cold fusion needs to grow, then I'm very happy that you would be willing to fight for what you believe to be true. The world certainly could use some help with energy problems. The world also needs people who fight to maintain the quality of Wikipedia articles, especially on contentious subjects, because Wikipedia is IMO the best source of information on many of these subjects. You can't be both; you'll have to choose which is more important to you. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see the need to choose, because I don't see how they could be incompatible. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding last night's changes

There are many ways to address this problem; I'd like for people to figure out the best way. I'm thinking of making a post on WP:VPP for the purpose of addressing the top-down issue: what is Wikipedia good for? What do we want to be known for? Wikipedia will always be a fantastic place to get high-quality information on military history, roads, national parks, and many other subjects where the wikiprojects have a history of cranking out high-quality information and successfully dealing with vandalism. The question is, will Wikipedia ever be a good place for people to come for information on Cold fusion? Until today, I was hopeful that the answer was "yes", but I don't know the answer now. Pierre/Pcarbonn and I were the only two editors who were looking at this article very carefully, sentence by sentence and ref by ref, during the WP:GAN, and now he's saying that he's fine with shifting the lead from saying that cold fusion is undecided to saying it's been decided.

I haven't been willing to keep up with the cold fusion debate since the early 90s, and I'm still not; it should be obvious to anyone reading this article that scientists appear not to have been in a hurry to decide the issue over the last 19 years, and that almost certainly implies disinformation as well as neglect, and there is not the slightest sign of consensus among scientists as to which information is disinformation and which is real. Wikipedia is not going to magically generate a solution that has escaped chemists and physicists. It's true that there is movement recently; it's not out of the question that at least some questions will be answered to everyone's satisfaction some time this year, but we'll have to wait until that happens before we can write about it in Wikipedia.

In the meantime, what's the goal for this article? Since cold fusion continues to occasionally be a news story (some people were replying to the Arata story at physorg.com this week implying they were getting their information about cold fusion from Wikipedia), how this article reads will affect Wikipedia's reputation in the world. Do we want people reading this article to read whatever the latest anonymous edit says is true about the cold fusion controversy? The most contentious issue in all of Wikipedia is: stability or change? Open or closed? It's possible that the appropriate answer to these questions for Cold fusion is different than for many other articles. I'd like to hear your thoughts. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, you raise good questions, and I'll be listening to what people have to say. Please note however that it's not an anonymous user that says CF has been demonstrated, but many reliable sources (Storms, Hubler, Biberian, Srinivasan, ...). As I have said before, the question is "when will cold fusion skeptics provide reliable sources in support of their views ?" How long will we tolerate them to say things without proper sources ? How long will we accept the argument that "it has not been published in Nature, so it cannot be serious" ? I don't think we need to change the wikipedia policies for cold fusion : we just need to apply them, and we'll be fine. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've also said earlier that we need to distinguish between the "uninformed consensus of scientists" and the true "scientific consensus". The scientific consensus of the experts in the field is certainly that the effect is real. One way to ask your question is : "do we want to mirror the view of the uninformed majority", or the view of the somewhat-informed DOE, or the view of the experts in the field ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is what Edmund Storms said (Storms 2007, p187): "If many trained scientists are deceived by such simple experiments, how can we trust anything claimed by science ? If so many errors are made using conventional methods, how can similar measurements be trusted when applied to other behavior ? [...] These are basic questions that go to the heart of the scientific method and the integrity of the scientific profession." Pcarbonn (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Pierre, let's narrow it down to this: you were part of the mediation that ended in mid-April where all parties agreed that the issue of whether cold fusion exists was not settled, and you just participated, strenously, in the WP:GAN review in which you supported the same conclusion (and thanks for your participation). Now you're saying that we should keep last night's edit: "Cold fusion has been controversial, but it has been demonstrated by experiments in electrolytic cells resulting in excess heat production and nuclear reaction products such as helium-4. Some experiments have shown low-level neutron production, X-ray emission, and transmutation of elements. There is still no satisfactory theory explaining condensed matter nuclear science, but many explanations have been proposed, several with textbook physics." So, it's all settled then? Not only excess heat, but also helium, neutrons, X-rays, and transmutation? And it's supported by textbook physics? So, let me get this straight. You believe that the 9999 out of 10000 chemists and physicists who believe, as represented in the sources for this article, that millions of atoms at room temperature don't exhibit spontaneous, coherent behavior are all wrong. The century-long history of articles in journals supporting this position are all wrong. Furthermore, you believe that NPOV doesn't apply to this article...that is, even though there are significant numbers of proponents of both sides, we should represent the issue as being settled, right up front in the lead...why exactly? Because you're right? And this is an idea that just occurred to you this morning, so you didn't have a chance to bring it up during the mediation or the article review? You can see how I'm straining to AGF here. When you say above that you can't see any conflict between working to support a cause and working to follow Wikipedia guidelines, that tells me that either you don't get it, or else you're saying that you don't get it. It's not for me to say which; I have not had any heavy involvement with issues of disruptive behavior, I try to focus on article-building. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. If you do wind up getting in trouble for this, I'll be happy to testify that this is not at all a matter of a Wikipedian being very difficult; it's a matter of scientists and the governments funding them behaving very badly, and of that conflict getting transferred to Wikipedia. Nevertheless, there are rules to follow, and I'll get in trouble myself if I don't make sure that they are followed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not propose this change. I just said that I support it, once it was proposed. Whether I should regret for not doing it earlier is not important. Thank you for your assistance if I get in trouble somehow.
What is NPOV ? Which consensus do we have to represent ? This is a hard question. I just said what I would answer, i.e. the "scientific consensus of the community of scientists in a particular field of science". I also said that I'm open to other's view. This is for the purpose of writing a good article with the correct information from reliable sources. Please assume good faith.
To defend the view that CF should not be presented as 'demonstrated', according to wikipedia policies, we would need to find a recent reliable source from a peer-reviewed journal that says that cold fusion is not real, to counterbalance the existing recent reliable sources from peer-reviewed journals that say the contrary. Can someone find one ? PhysicsOrg was only able to find an obscure retired physicist to critique Arata's demonstration. Why isn't there any big wig to take a clear position against cold fusion, while some are taking a clear position for it (e.g. srinivasan) ? Why should we give a voice to the silents, against all wikipedia policies ? That is the question that the wikipedia community should answer. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If the recent reported effects are real, they will be confirmed sooner rather than later. Wikipedia is not going away; we can wait a while. Until then, the introduction should not say that cold fusion has been confirmed.
This may be none of my business, I'm not involved in this page but I do watch what you folks are doing here when I have a chance.
Let me butt my head here if I may. I am the author of a 2004 book called "The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy." I've learned a lot since I wrote it five years ago. If you look closely at my more recent writings you will no longer find me saying things like "cold fusion has been confirmed." You will, however find me saying things like excess heat and anomalous nuclear evidence have been confirmed.
It's not a trivial matter of semantics; I'm not avoiding the term "cold fusion" because of the stigma. I have my reasons, and they are expressed in my recent writings. Look them up if you want to know more, or you can shoot an email with your contact information and I'll send you copies of non-selfpub'd articles I've written lately. Best regards,
StevenBKrivit (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, people may have different views on the word "confirmed." As I have stated before, cold fusion is extremely unlikely based on existing physics (coulomb potential, strong force, etc.), so extremely convincing evidence of confirmation should be required. Two good indicators of that evidence would be endorsement by established fusion experts, and publication in the top journals in the field, which are Physical Review Letters, Science, and Nature. These journals have excellent reputations for fairness, so the lack of articles there supporting cold fusion is strong evidence that the data supporting cold fusion is weak. Keep in mind that PRL, at least, can operate very quickly. One shocking, almost revolutionary, paper was accepted within a few days of being submitted (Wu et al., March 2, 1987).209.253.120.198 (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I follow and agree up to the point where you say "...so the lack of articles there supporting cold fusion is strong evidence that the data supporting cold fusion is weak." The conjunction "so" implies a logical relationship, but the conclusion you offered does not logically follow from the premises you offered. The from of your logic looks to me like "if a, then b. not a, so not b.", which is incorrect. Again, everything else I agree with. Kevin Baastalk 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Another thing to recognize is that the threshold for confirmation should be higher for a field like cold fusion which has had confirmation problems in the past. Many groups reported "confirmation" of some type in 1989, but as far as I can tell none of them has stood the test of time. If there are any, I would like to know about them. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the Biberian and Huebler reviews in the previous talk page section? 76.240.228.188 (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to the lead. As noted in my edit summary, I think that changes to the lead on the 29th were not in line with the results of the recent mediation, or the WP:GAN review, or NPOV, or scientific consensus; I'm attempting to fix that. One change that proponents will like comes from WP:LEAD; if alternate names for the subject of the article appear in the lead section, then they're supposed to be in the first sentence in bold, and I don't think we can argue that "low energy nuclear reactions" and "condensed matter nuclear science" are not alternate terms for "cold fusion"; they are. But the main problem that needed fixing was the assertion that there are explanations of "cold fusion" that use "textbook physics"; this completely and thoroughly misrepresented the position of the vast majority of physicists and chemists.

The recent mediation suggested that the issue has not been settled, that is, most scientists believe that cold fusion is a series of experimental errors and/or invalid conclusions (although to be fair, most of them simply haven't paid much attention), but a significant number believe that it's a demonstration of fusion at ordinary temperatures and pressures, and others say they don't know. Given that the current consensus on Wikipedia is that the matter hasn't been settled, NPOV requires that we not "get in the way" of letting both sides tell their story, even though this will annoy the heck out of some proponents and some skeptics. Here's the point that some of the proponents are missing: you don't get to decide which experiments are relevant to cold fusion and which aren't. I know that some of you much prefer to look at recent experiments instead of the whole body of experiments in quantum physics; I know that some of you claim that if someone doesn't succeed in getting 95% loading of deuterium into their cathode, that means that nothing they have to say has any relevance to cold fusion. You make some good points, and we sketch the arguments in this article and point to very good references so that people can follow up these threads. But the fact that you think you know what's relevant and what's not doesn't end the argument. NPOV on Wikipedia requires that, if a significant number of people think that little green men have invaded, we have to let them tell their story; we can rebut, but we can't undercut; so NPOV sure as heck means that if 9999 out of 10000 scientists believe something, we have to let them tell their story, and their story is that millions of atoms don't spontaneously interact coherently at room temperature. They believe this is established by a century of experimentation and theory. They also believe in conservation of energy and momentum, and given those beliefs, they don't see a way to get fusion creating helium without energetic particles...at any temperature, much less ordinary temperatures. I know that some of you believe that none of their experiments and nothing they say is relevant to the current controversy, but NPOV requires us to represent their position, anyway.

As long as we clearly represent the position of both sides, I'm fine with tweaks to the lead; I gave it a shot. I don't expect everyone who wants to contribute to Wikipedia to know all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines; in fact, if you have something to contribute, I'd prefer you not worry too much about it, as long as you are willing to collaborate with experienced and trusted Wikipedians. It basically just comes down to: help Wikipedia, good; hurt Wikipedia, bad. The changes to the lead on the 29th that said that cold fusion was settled and established and followed "textbook physics" hurt Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that we are smarter than the reviewers of the International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology. The widon-larsen theory does not require new physics, according to its authors and some of their reviewers. Pcarbonn (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more; let's not pretend. As I mention below, you have opened the door to a discussion among experts of what is and isn't accepted physics, so let's make sure that a full and representative discussion, respecting UNDUE, gets into this article. I'm encouraging participation by experts. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific community position (was References)

I'm concerned that the last paragraph of the intro seems to imply that proof of cold fusion is widely accepted by experts in the field. However, that would contradict the very first sentence of the reference that seems to be the source for that paragraph:

Seventeen years after the announcement by Professors Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the discovery of cold fusion in March 1989, the scientific community does not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme.

For comparison, here is the current version of that paragraph:

Since then, several reviews of the field published in peer-reviewed journals have concluded that cold fusion has been demonstrated by experiments which result in excess heat production and nuclear reaction products such as helium-4. Some experiments have shown low-level neutron production, X-ray emission, and transmutation of elements. There is still no satisfactory theory explaining condensed matter nuclear science, but many explanations have been proposed, several with textbook physics.

Specifically, my concern is that a reader would interpret "several reviews... published..." to mean that those reviews are representative of the scientific community, in contradiction of the above quote.

Can we find a way to rephrase things so we won't risk misleading our readers? Also, I think it's important that we include plenty of citations in this article, including (especially?) in the intro. Finally, I'd recommend that we try to focus these discussions on how best to represent the literature, rather than trying to determine whether cold fusion is true/false, good/bad science, etc. Just my 2 cents, Gnixon (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"The entire scientific comunity does not accept cold fusion as genuine." ? That's no good, because it's ambigious: the entire community says no and the entire community does not say yes are two very diffierent propsitions. 76.240.228.188 (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"As of 2006, some in the scientific community do not accept cold fusion or CMNS as genunie." is what I added to the intro and will to the supporting mention. 76.240.228.188 (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your suggestion contradicts "the scientific community does not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme." It is clear from the DOE report that researchers who are convinced by the cold fusion experiments are in the minority. Gnixon (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point! I will adjust to state that. 76.240.228.188 (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To do list

I have reinserted the to do list. Let's discuss what it should contain. Here is my proposal:

  • Lewenstein, cited in the bibliography, has a full timeline of events. We should look at it and keep what is relevant to the history section. For example, he says that Utah created a cold fusion institute in 1989 : I would think we should add it to our article.
  • He also discusses why things happened the way they did in the early days. For example, he says that the rivalry between F&P and Jones explained a lot of what happens, or that the high uncertainty around the science made a big investment difficult. Our history section would gain from such insights, I would think.

Pcarbonn (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You removed the links. 76.240.228.89 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

First I will admit that I am concerned that the thrust of the article legitimizes pseudoscience. Having described myself as "concerned," I have three areas that might merit revising, editing, or expanding:

  • "Beyond the controversy": This subheading implies that the controversy has been settled in favor of CF being a real effect, whereas the track record (physics depts at top universities dont touch this area).
  • The emphasis on "peer reviewed" when referring to journal articles and reviews. We certainly dont use these descriptors when referring to publications in articles on more settled science. A practiced eye knows that this descriptor is usually reserved for crud science that managed to get accepted into some journal (e.g., the illustrious New Energy Times) as well as some legitimate journals. The use of this terminology is a shadey (IMHO) effort to confer legitimacy where there is little.
  • Although I dont know how to orchestrate this edit, it would be useful to list non-retired famous (NAS, FRS-class) scientists that are active scholars in CF. The article mainly cites on folks in military labs, but these are not the elite. I suspect that the pro-CF people would want to highlight their super-stars so that the article has a timeliness that sizzles, draws readers, and enhances notability.

Otherwise, I am leaving this article alone for a while.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The basis of your comment is totally mistaken: this is not pseudoscience. This was heavily discussed during mediation, and yet again at the top of this page: nobody could find any recent, reliable source to support your view. On the contrary, all recent, reliable sources we found showed it as an ongoing scientific controversy or as an established phenomena. Please check also the quote of Srinivasan in the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the recent mediation didn't identify cold fusion as established. Nor did the WP:GAN review, nor did any previous consensus on Wikipedia, nor has it been so identified at any of the top 100 physics departments, nor by any governmental agency. You know this, Pcarbonn. You also know that we have to present it as a question that hasn't been settled in this article.
Did I say that cold fusion was established ? No, I didn't. We must say that some sources say it is an ongoing controversy, and some others say it is established. We cannot say that some source say it is pseudoscience, because there aren't any recent ones. The article is in line with this, as far as I'm concerned. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not just some quibble. The Arata story is now making the rounds on even popular non-scientific blogs, such as http://smirkingchimp.com. We'd have to check to make sure, but my guess is the monthly hits on Cold fusion are a lot higher than other Wikipedia physics articles. Pcarbonn, you and I both know that there's a lot of interesting stuff going on in this field that bears further investigation, if only to understand what the heck is going on, but most chemists and physicists don't know that. I cringe at what their reaction will be to our unsupported statement that there are textbook-physics explanations of cold fusion. I imagine for some of them, that's the last time they would come to Wikipedia expecting to learn something about physics or chemistry. I don't want to act like I OWN this article, but I at least don't want statements that make me cringe. I also don't want maintenance of this article to be too much of a burden on anyone; I suggest we all continue what we're doing, create the best article we can, then leave it alone, and after we've all got the article we want, we aggressively revert any attempts to shift the tone or revisit the consensus. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You talk about our "unsupported statement that there are textbook-physics explanations of cold fusion". Read again. We say : some reviews say that some explanations are based on textbook physics". This is well supported by sources, and I see no reason to remove it. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this dispute could be solved by more clearly attributing the statement to a specific review, and by more clearly attributing the review to a CF researcher (assuming the latter is correct). Gnixon (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That reviewer is Biberian. The source is cited elsewhere in the article, and his name is given in the footnote (not in the article). As mentionned earlier, the Widon-Larsen theory is an example of a "textbook physics" explanation. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, but not in everyone's textbook. I've struggled with how to deal with this; I don't want to just pull in some expert on quantum physics who will explain to us how we're all idiots. Perhaps Steve can find someone broad-minded who can give an overview of current thinking that leaves the door open to the Widon-Larsen theory and any other current CF theories. I'll ask him. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how or where this article legitimizes pseudoscience. If you can point out any original research, undue weight, unverifiable, or irrelevant material in the article in that regard (or any for that matter), and point out the specific sentence/para/phrase, and bring it up for discussion, I'm sure any offending material can be removed.
As regards your points:
  • "Beyond the controversy": Suggestions for a different title for this section are welcome.
  • The emphasis on "peer reviewed": peer reviewed journals are legitimate sources under verifiability on wikipedia. If you have a problem with using them as source, your problem is with wikipedia policy, not this aricle.
  • Many scientists working in the field are well known and highly regarded scientists, and they are listed in the article. If I'm not mistaken, some of them are even nobel-prize winners. I don't know how you can get much more "elite" than that. The thing is most people probably don't know the difference. Maybe the presentation can make that a little more clear, but I don't want the article to start appearing like it's using appeal-to-authority or rhetorical wording. Kevin Baastalk 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "If you have a problem with using them as source, your problem is with wikipedia policy", Wikipedia policy requires us to exercise judgment and choose the most relevant and most persuasive sources. It's perfectly okay to toss material and the source it rode in on if we come to the decision that there are more useful sources.
Regarding "many scientists": Arata is one of the fathers of hot fusion in Japan and is not just respected, but revered; Srinivasan is the former chairman of India's Atomic Energy Agency and still works there; Julian Schwinger was "jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 for his work on quantum electrodynamics (QED), along with Richard Feynman and Shinichiro Tomonaga", and died in 1994; and Fleischmann was counted in the very top echelon of electrochemists before everything went to hell in 1989. So, it's not like no one important has paid attention to cold fusion; on the other hand, there are no active programs in cold fusion at the moment at any of the top 100 physics schools or institutions in the world, so it's safe to say that it's not front-and-center.
Regarding "If you can point out any ... undue weight", the thing that still troubles me is the absence of anything that represents the other side, which we're required to do, of statements such as "These reviews stated that although many explanations have been proposed, several of which do not use new physics, none is yet satisfactory." I don't think we should take it out, and I don't think the proponents are trying to "get away" with anything; I appreciate the fact that it's been toned down a little. But we can't say that without saying that a large majority of physicists say the opposite, that the problem with cold fusion is that it's incompatable with textbook physics. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I gather, the main arguments of "opponents" (for lack of a better term) of cold fusion are: 1.) current theory predicts that nuclear phenomena cannot occur at such low energies, and 2). it is not highly reproducable, ergo 3.) it must be a measurement error. if there are more sophisticated, notable arguments than that, then by all means. But if this really is all there is, we shouldn't make stuff up to try to hide that fact. That would only serve to mislead the reader. IMO. Kevin Baastalk 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Gnixon has proposed a compromise on my talk page: "Having made clear that most don't think cold fusion is real, maybe it's sufficient to be clear that the statement comes from a cold fusion proponent. I think the reader would understand that the mainstream isn't likely to agree with everything the proponent says." Although I think it would be ideal to add a little theory, I haven't had any response to my requests, so I am okay with this compromise if everyone else is; may I add "by proponents" to the last paragraph in the lead? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My trouble with that is there seems to be a large group of people who simply say "there's something interesting going on here, and we should try to find out what it is.". "proponents" of c.f. makes it sound like they insist that it's a nuclear reaction and they don't need any more science to prove it. but they're not insisting that, so this is a straw-man argument. Kevin Baastalk 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That might be a good point. How about "cold fusion researchers" or something similar? That seems to correctly describe the reviewers, if not all who are interested in the field. I admit "anomalous something-or-other researchers" might be more accurate, but it would seem a little unwieldy for the lead. Gnixon (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. Kevin Baastalk 19:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now we just need someone to do the grunt work of adding citations.... (assuming this version is acceptable) Gnixon (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations don't generally go in the lead section except for quotations, at least not in articles of a high "maturity" level, such as WP:FAs. Material in the lead section is generally repeated below, in one form or another, and that's where the citations go. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure? I clicked on 5 random articles at WP:FA, and 3 of them have citations in the lead. I would think they'd be particularly useful for an article such as this one. Gnixon (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I understand (and that could just be from this talk page), the lead's not supposed to have citations in it. Theoretically, the source for the material in the lead is the body of the article, and if that's not the case, it should be remedied. But I just looked over at Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations and it uses the phrase "cited where appropriate", and says that redundant citations should be avoided, but quotes and controversial items should be cited, and that the latter is largely a matter of editorial consensus. It doesn't say anything about what to expect from different levels of maturity of articles and the like, but that's no surprise - that's more of an empirical/posteri/de-facto thing. In any case, it seems to conform to what Dank55 says, and the existence of some citations in the majority of your random sample doesn't contradict this. Kevin Baastalk 14:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Gnixon is right; I just looked at 5 of recently promoted FA's, and all 5 had citations in the lead section, not on quotations. At the FA level, since you have a lot of people making suggestions, they will try when possible to move the citations below the lead, but apparently they're being pretty relaxed about it now...if it's a little awkward to move it, they don't move it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking at this

I agree pretty much with Smokefoot. The absence of negative criticism is the later sections is a little much--the An effort should be made to find not just "an overview of current thinking that leaves the door open to the Widon-Larsen theory and any other current CF theories." but also an overview of current thinking that explains why almost no active scientist in the field considers the current theories worth the investigating. If there are none, for whatever reason, then it should be said that no current scientific papers in the major journals of the field (listing them) discuss the subject, if that's the case.

There are peer-reviewed journals of every sort, from excellent to disreputable. The standards of some are to take essentially every paper they can get, or at least any that supports the premise of the editor. If the publishers chooses to say that manuscripts are reviewed independently, it's called a peer reviewed journal. Current Science, for example, has a remarkably flexible policy. That said, a few of the journals using the reference section to report the research are fairly reputable. I'm going to look at this factor in some more detail.

I have changed "Beyond the controversy" to "Further controversy" as being more descriptive. The section talks not about how the dispute has been resolved, but about how it has continued. DGG (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm delighted you've taken an interest, DGG, and feel free to weigh in any time. (DGG is one of the most knowledgeable people around Wikipedia on matters of sourcing, and not just IMO.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inccuracies in Researcher's Attributions

17:18 2 June. Smokefoot changed Oriani's descriptor from "physcial chemistry" to "materials science." I have a copy of Oriani's CV. It states that he obtained his Ph.D. in physical chemistry in 1948 from Princeton University.

Also, I knew that Huggins was back at Stanford so I requested a clarification from him today. His reply: "I took early retirement from Stanford in 1991. But after 16 years in Germany, I came back to Stanford in September 2007."

StevenBKrivit (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear StevenBKrivit: Google him. I didnt check in the field in which Oriani fot his PhD (few US programs offer PhDs in p-chem per se, the degree would be in chem most likely) but his dept at Minnesota was MatSE, later to be merged with ChemE. It is curious that the main advocates for CF are dead, in military labs, or retired (sometimes on the Riviera). The Intelligent Design group has had a similarly awful time finding supporters at decent universities. They managed to dredge up one dude (Michael Behe) at Lehigh University, not usually considered a major institution.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This looks like an appeal to authority. They did the same trick to Galileo. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I hate to see the dysfunction among scientists on this issue translating into dysfunction at Wikipedia; none of us are the ones at fault for this mess. Again, unless all the appropriate testing equipment (spectroscopy, etc) in the world has stopped working, it's not difficult to run an experiment and test for energetic particles and the presence of new elements, so the only explanation for why we're not sure after 19 years is some amount of behavior which is "bad" in one or more ways on the part of many people on both sides. If scientists are not willing to come clean, it is definitely not our job to wash them off, only to report what appears in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, to let both sides tell their stories, and to give readers some pointers and some tools that let them proceed on their own paths. Who knows, maybe what we write here will help someone unravel all this mess...but probably not.
Regarding "appeal to authority", Pierre/Pcarbonn, what a lawyer would say in this situation is, "you opened the door". That is, if you had been content to say merely that there are a number of scientists who have published papers and who claimed something, and if Smokefoot had started a campaign of character assassination on them, then he would have been out of line. But you're the one who brought in the issue of how many, how famous, how important, etc, which would make it perfectly reasonable for an American judge to respond "I'll allow it" when the opposition starts introducing evidence that maybe they're not as central and important as you were representing.
On the subject of "opening the door", I was fine with the article at the time of the first edit on the 29th, but since lots of unpleasant things have creeped in since then, including changing section titles as Smokefoot mentions in the section just above, and inserting and reverting to keep "textbook physics" in the lead section, you have opened the door, wide, to a rebuttal of the "textbook physics" concept. I don't think this is a bad thing; discussion of exactly why cold fusion is so unlikely, from the point of view of quantum physics and chemistry, would probably improve this article. I'll keep working on pulling in experts. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the idea that cold fusion is an area of dysfunction among scientists. In fact, the field in general is a admirable success of establishment scientists' behavior. In 1989, many distinguished scientists conducted experiments and reported their findings. Since then, those who consider it promising have pursued it. The lack of judgements in the press from establishment scientists on recent experiments is simply a product of their waiting for convincing evidence that deuterons are likely to be fusing. Cold fusion research doesn't appear to be harming anyone, so why do they have a responsibility to rain on the CF parade? Dan, I am curious if you have ever performed spectroscopy experiments. I have, and I can tell you that they are not as easy as you imply. That means that for an established scientist to visit a cold fusion lab and perform enough experiments to use spectroscopy data as a strong indicator that fusion is not happening would be a major investment of time, something scientists value very highly. If proponents have produced convincing data of this type, my suggestion to them is to get it published a major physics journal so everyone can see. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with scientists performing electrochemistry with their own funds in the hope of finding out something interesting; there's nothing wrong with scientists waiting for published research in major scientific journals before they take an interest. There's something wrong with the taxpayer-funded US Department of Energy deciding that it's not worth investing much time or money to determine whether the reported tritium, helium and other elements are or are not being produced in the experiments they were charged with evaluating. That's like issuing a report that there may be a massive oil field in the US that would solve the world's energy problems, and then after 19 years continuing to issue statements like "we tried to find out, but our drilling bit broke". Speaking as a US taxpayer, it's just not acceptable. The US DOE is full of people who either aren't competent to or don't want to help with the science behind energy problems, and the current administration seems to like it that way.
To answer your other question, the only time I've seen spectroscopy and similar equipment used was when I was taking my semiconductor physics course, and I would have stayed away if it hadn't been a requirement, so I'm not competent to say, but I bet we can get input from people who are competent. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the DOE panels, if they believed that deuteron fusion was extremely unlikely in the experiments presented, as I infer they did, it would have been irresponsible to recommend focused federal funding, considering the finite funds available. They did not claim, as you suggest, that their tools were broken at all. They simply advised that taxpayer money should be spent on more promising areas. Speaking as a US taxpayer, that sounds like the right action to me. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Except, look at the first and last images on the page. The navy's labs in San Diego are providing evidence of energetic particles and transmutations. One way or the other, the US taxpayers are getting a bad deal (but don't we always): either both the Navy and the DOE are taking our money and not doing what they're supposed to be doing (poor experiments in the case of the Navy, lack of appropriate oversight by the DOE), or else the DOE isn't following up on experiments that could provide a new energy source. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
being realistic, the US government often spends a certain amount of money to satisfy public interest as expressed through political processes: consider the much larger amount the NIH devotes to alternative medicine, including some quite unlikely projects. (personal opinion). The result of bartering in Congress does not necessarily reflect the scientific consensus. DGG (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the most relevant thing would be to describe Oriani's position at the time he published the result. How about "The first ... was published by Oriani in XXX, while he was a professor of XXX at XXX"? Smoke, can you provide a source indicating that he would have been a professor of materials science? Gnixon (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully support that. Do we take the argument that Galileo is dead to show that heliocentrism is wrong ? Pcarbonn (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Re our Orliani, he is listed as emeritus at the "Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science"

http://www.cems.umn.edu/about/people/facdetail.php?cemsid=20161 Two papers say from the 1990's have these addresses "Corrosion Research Center, University of Minnesota, 112 Amundson Hall, 221 Church Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, U.S." "112 Amundson Hall, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, U.S.A." Unfortunately most of his work is published in Fusion Technology, which I cannot access on-line. Re the Galileo reference: The fact that proponents are dead or retired is not a slap against CF, but it would be helpful to this article to identify distinguished, non-dead, non-retired pro-CF scientists. Something to work on.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I wish that distinguished scientists would leave their silence and take a position on CF. As Dank55 says, this discussion only reflects the sorry state of the scientific debate on this matter. Pcarbonn (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support what both Smokefoot and Pcarbonn just said. We're not here to slap anyone around; we just want to keep working on identifying the most persuasive proponents of cold fusion, rather than mentioning a long list of names, as if the length of the list proves the point. And I am just as frustrated with lack of action as Pcarbonn is. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the most persuasive proponent at this time is Dr. M. R. Srinivasan, member and former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India: "There is some science here that needs to be understood. We should set some people to investigate these experiments. There is much to be commended for the progress in the work. The neglect should come to an end" Pcarbonn (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In a letter to Science, Oriani's address was given as "Corrosion Research Center, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Sciences, Institute of Technology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455." Assuming "professor" is accurate, can we agree to call him "professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Sciences at the University of Minnesota," as above? Or, given the unwieldy department name, would it be better to simply call him "professor at the University of Minnesota," and give details in the citation? Gnixon (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


I spoke with Richard Oriani today on the phone and discussed the disagreement with him. Initially, he said that neither term was correct; that his extensive training and career in science and technology had enabled him to develop expertise in a multitude of areas. I explained to him that often and unfortunately, in journalism, we are forced to provide some brief, simple term to describe a person's primary attributes or affiliation. His response was, "Well, I did get my degree in physical chemistry."
McKubre's current affiliation is still SRI International. His affiliation there should not be listed in past tense.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Considering all these complications, what about just omitting any in-line description of him? A footnote or the wikilink to his article could suffice. Gnixon (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Steve! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extent of the effect: power ratios

I am adding to the to-do list: describe the typical and best research results reported in the literature reviews as total input-to-output power ratios. 76.240.228.89 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. If we made the article 50% longer adding details of cold fusion results, then that would be "unbalanced" even if we made it clear that the information is from proponents, just because of the volume of words; so, there's some kind of limit, but 76.240's suggestion is reasonable. Again: let's get everything we want to get into this article, make sure that everyone is satisfied that we've said enough, and then call a halt to more experimental details, until and unless significant new details emerge. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Also...I reverted your (76.240) edit to the first sentence; please see the edit summary. Could you fix "The modern report"? That doesn't sound right. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

There seems to be some debate over the last paragraph of the lead, which describes recent reviews of cold fusion research. Here I propose a list of tasks that may lead to a resolution, along with some attempts by me to address those tasks (Gnixon (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)):

  • First, identify the recent reviews.
I believe these are the 2007 reviews by Biberian and Hubler. Of these, Biberian seems to be a broader review, so perhaps we could concentrate on it. Gnixon (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would propose that the book by Storms (2007) is another review to consider. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Second, establish whether the authors of these reviews are themselves cold fusion researchers or whether they are outside, more impartial reviewers.
Biberian has done CF research for 13 years; I'm less sure about Hubler, although he seems to be from the US NRL that did CF research. As an aside, I note that both seem to hold prominent positions at their institutions. Gnixon (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hubler is also a CF researcher. Please note that, in any other field of science, reviewers are made by researchers in the field. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Graham K. Hubler had not published anything on cold fusion in his 41 journal articles, 39 proceedings articles, and three technical reports prior to his review of the field. See his NRL bio, do a search, or ask him yourself: hubler at ccs dot nrl dot navy dot mil. Zillionical (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out! A Web of Science search on G.K. Hubler turns up no publications related to cold fusion besides the 2007 review. This complicates things.... Can anyone comment on the significance of the review being published in "Surface and Coatings Technology"? Gnixon (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This might elucidate things. "the increase of the concentration of deuterons and the decrease of their distance cause a higher cold fusion in the surface layer by orders of magnitudes compared with the bulk material." Zillionical (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Gnixon (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been only about a dozen reports suggesting that CF is not a surface effect, and hundreds saying that it is. Someone with Hubler's standing, experience, and publication background would not make such a submission choice if he did not want to introduce a specific set of researchers to his review. Zillionical (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. CF may be somewhat unique in that it's a narrow interdisciplinary field, so it might not fit well within broader reviews, aside from whatever are the effects of the controversy. Gnixon (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
PCarbonn, are you familiar with Hubler's research? You said he's a CF researcher, but I didn't see any CF publications except for the review. Gnixon (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You are right. Hubler did not do any research on CF. I'm sorry for this wrong information. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Third, establish whether the 2004 DOE report can be considered contemporaneous with those reviews, or whether they depend heavily on subsequent research.
As far as I can tell, Biberian refers only to research prior to 2004; Hubley lists one result from 2006, but doesn't seem to place great weight upon it. Thus I think the DOE and the reviews base their conclusions on the same body of research. Gnixon (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The DOE review did not include transmutation reports, as can be seen by the paper submitted to the DOE. Biberian devotes the section 8 of his paper to this topic. Storms also discusses this topic. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems worth mentioning explicitly, e.g., "Two of the three reviews mentioned evidence of transmutation of elements not considered in the 2004 DOE review." Gnixon (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the point of establishing this? I don't think it's anywhere near true. The DOE review didn't consider the Szpak/Boss SPAWAR findings, either. Zillionical (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The point is to know whether the DOE/other reviews are disagreeing with each other or whether the other reviews are leaning on subsequent research. Gnixon (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)\
  • Finally, identify the salient points from the review, and quote them. Attribute the quotes to the reviews and identify their authors. Be clear about whether the reviews are based on the same research as the DOE report.
The important points from Biberian seem to be (a) the conclusion that there are unexplained nuclear reactions, (b) the existence of data "proving" the production of excess heat and nuclear decay products. Gnixon (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Given my tentative answers to the above, here's a quick shot at a paragraph:

In contrast to the 2004 DOE report, a 2007 review by Jean-Paul Biberian, a cold fusion researcher, concluded, "After 15 years of intense work by hundreds of scientists in 15 countries, the proof that nuclear reactions not predicted by current theories occur in solids, during electrolysis, gas loading and gas discharge, has been established. [There is] convincing experimental data proving excess heat and helium production, tritium and neutron detection, X-rays and transmutation."

The long quote might be better in a "blockquote" template, or it might be better to use several shorter quotes. Gnixon (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If we cite the author, we should make clear that it has been published in International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, ie. a journal not devoted to cold fusion. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Trying to remain concise, what if we said "In contrast to the 2004 DOE report, several 2007 reviews by leading cold fusion researchers found conclusive evidence of ...."? I assume "leading" is accurate. We could then give a little more detail on each review in the citation. Gnixon (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"Leading" is very subjective, and not supported by sources. So I would avoid it. Again, we should not present these reviews as being done by isolated researchers: they have been reviewed by the reviewers of the journal. We had "published in peer reviewed journals" before. This is still an option. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What happened to Hubler? His NRL review says much the same thing as Biberian on those points. Zillionical (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted Zillionical's edits in the lead section. Again, let's make these decisions about balance in the article to everyone's satisfaction, and then aggressively revert any changes designed to tip it one way or the other from the consensus. If we need semi-protection to stop a series of tweaks from IP's and self-described "throwaway accounts" such as Zillionical's, we'll do that, but I hope that the article becomes stable enough that occasional reverts will do the job, over the long run. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second, though! Zillionical rightly pointed out that Hubler hasn't published anything else about CF in his long career (>80 journal articles, etc.). I think we need to look more closely at the Hubler review. Gnixon (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Many thanks to Pcarbonn, Gnixon, 209.253 and Krivit for working on this; we're on the right track. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
...and Zillionical, particularly for pointing out my mistaken assumption about Hubler. I agree we're making good progress. Gnixon (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that changing the lead to give the impression that some people used to have a problem with cold fusion, but all the recent reviews now support it, without saying that a large majority of scientists remain skeptical, is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and might be off-putting to the very physicists and chemists we need as content experts. I will continue to revert on sight whenever changes are made to the lead section that might harm Wikipedia. If we want to go into more detail on Hubler's review, then we'll have to have a greater representation of the other side. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I of course agree that we shouldn't imply these recent reviews have convinced everyone (anyone?). However, edit-warring isn't the answer. Wikipedia won't collapse if this article has problems for a few days, and I think we should focus on the big-picture task of resolving this discussion. Gnixon (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This article has a history of new account edits and IP edits designed to change the lead section to push POV. That caused a lot of trouble, and one of the responses was to have a mediation that settled the issue: this article should not push one POV in the lead section, such as the POV that the cold fusion position has been the increasingly dominant position. Unless someone wants to have another mediation, that's the clear consensus, and if someone contradicts that, I will change it. If they change it back, then we'll consider WP:3RR, WP:ANI, or semi-protection, depending on who's doing it and how persistent they are. It might be helpful to have a notice either on the article page or this talk page concerning the bottom-line results of the mediation; that might mean that people would be less tempted to try it, but this page has a long history of people hiding behind IP edits and new accounts and not caring much what the consensus is, so stronger measures might be necessary. Of course, I don't know if Zillionical is a new account here to push a POV; I'm required to assume good faith towards all new users. And that is exactly what previous POV-pushers counted on, so we have to be a little bit careful here not to reward people with changing the POV, even for a few days. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me that I have no right to a throw-away account? In any case, as Gnixon pointed out above, my edits are more accurate than yours, and I will try to make them more accurate still.
Also, I have a question: Why did you call my edits "embarrassing" -- isn't that taking a point of view directly contrary to the two most recent peer-reviewed literature reviews? Are we to take the position of or against our best sources? Zillionical (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that; you have a right to edit with no account at all, if you like. I see you reverted. The reason your edits make this article embarrassing in the eyes of maybe 9999 out of 10000 scientists is that the lead now gives the impression that, although mainstream scientists are "skeptical", they're skeptical and wrong, since all of the recent relevant information is against them. This violates the conclusion of the mediation that ended in April...although of course, we can always do another mediation if we're dealing with a different set of people with different opinions, or if the fact "on the ground" (to use military lingo) change. I was on the fence, but this has convinced me that we can't allow the lead section to have a weak hold on NPOV. That is, if deleting or rewording one sentence can easily change the lead to say the opposite of what it said before, that's no good, because it presents too tempting a target to POV-pushers. I'll work harder to bring in experts to write a paragraph explaining why most scientists are still skeptical.
To be clear: no offense is meant to you, Zillionical, you're welcome to edit here, and I hope you enjoy your stay and continue to work on articles. But if we go to all the trouble of a mediation because anonymous and new accounts were constantly pushing a POV that is not in line with consensus, and then the situation after the mediation is no better than before, then people will lose faith in mediation and in the Wikipedia process as a whole, and walk away, and potential new editors will read something that sounds goofy to them, and walk away, and that hurts the encyclopedia.
Everyone, including Zillionical, please note: Zillionical created this account yesterday, and has only edited this article and talk page, and started off with edits that change the POV of the article. This would sometimes be enough to get his account blocked at WP:SOCK. That is, when someone creates a new account and immediately jumps into a heated discussion and makes a POV edit, that's the kind of thing the people at WP:SOCK are looking for to take action. In this case, there is such a long history of this kind of thing on this article, that I think that trying to fix things by blocking one or two accounts is only likely to waste time and not fix the problem, and besides, I don't have any firm evidence that Zillionical is someone trying to harm Wikipedia; cold fusion is a very, very tough issue, and most people are going to make mistakes of one kind or another. As I say, I think we're going to have to make the article "sturdier". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you have a source or anything more than a vague impression for "9999 out of 10000" and correct me if I am wrong. It sure doesn't seem like you are actually welcoming me to edit and stay when you bring out references to sockpuppetry. Zillionical (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I was just joking with GNixon that this article could be a so-called "Assume Good Faith test" all by itself. Here's the bottom line: I have to find some help to add some things to this article in order to end the constant struggle over POV. Telling the difference between POV and NPOV is very difficult in this article, and no one should assume that Zillionical has done anything wrong, because he or she did add useful information to the article. The problem is that, with the shape the article is in now, it's quite easy to make it say the opposite of what we decided we wanted it to say in the mediation, with small and even factual edits. If this was just an honest mistake, then don't worry about it, no harm done. I will give up on trying to revert POV in the lead section until we can insert an appropriate new paragraph stating the extent of and the reasons for disbelief in cold fusion; that will then allow the proponents to be as detailed as they would like to be in support. And the additions on both sides will probably make the article a better article. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Dank55 said: "I'll work harder to bring in experts to write a paragraph explaining why most scientists are still skeptical." Don't. This will be quickly reverted for WP:Original research. Unless they come up with reliable source, of course. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hubler review

It seems like the Hubler review is confusing the issue (at least it's confusing me). Can we make any progress on understanding it or putting it in context? Gnixon (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read it. One of the points he makes is that most researchers couldn't replicate the initial announcements because they didn't know how to achieve high deuterium loadings, and the researchers that did know how to achieve high loadings were able to replicate the results. I suppose people will want a more direct quote. Zillionical (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't that issue considered by the DOE review? Gnixon (talk)
Might be confusing because it doesn't originate from Hubler, but from McKubre. See Krivit, S.B., Current Science, pg. 855, search on "loading."
StevenBKrivit (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Lead

"Since 2007, literature reviews have concluded that cold fusion has been demonstrated by experiments that result in excess heat production and nuclear reaction products such as helium-4. The reviews state that although many explanations have been proposed, several of which do not use new physics, none is yet satisfactory. There have been two peer-reviewed literature reviews since 2004 in support of cold fusion"

One of these reviews is mine, (CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 94, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2008.) And I do *not* say that "cold fusion" has been demonstrated. Rather, I have written that evidence for anomalous nuclear energy and phenomena have been demonstrated, but not "cold fusion," whatever that is.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if you could summarize the differences between your review and the 2004 DOE report. For example, it seems like your review (a) finds reports of excess heat more compelling than the DOE reviewers, and (b) relies on reports of transmutation published after the DOE report. Since the DOE report seems to be the most recent "negative" review, I'm trying to understand whether subsequent reviews have primarily disagreed with it or have relied on new evidence. Gnixon (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello Gnixon. You ask good questions. I'm happy to point you to data where I am aware it exists, or to published or self-published works of my own. But I'm hesitant to respond directly to your request on the grounds of OR. There are two things, perhaps, that I can point out that may be helpful.
If you look at my citations in Current Science, you'll see that these are from people working in the field, with experience in the subject matter. The DOE reviewers -to my knowledge- had no or little experience in the field.
Generally, the excess heat phenomena (if you accept it) is so profound that early acceptance occurred only by researchers who saw it with their own eyes. Why did they succeed where others failed? Please see pages 61 through 68 in my Princeton University presentation for answers. (http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2006KrivitS-PrincetonTheColdFusionStoryW.pdf)
As far as "reports of transmutation published after the 2004 DOE report," this is not entirely correct. See my references in Current Science as follows: 14(1998), 21(2002) 22(presented 2003, pub 2006), 23(presented 2003, pub 2006),25 22(presented 2003, pub 2006.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think WP:OR prohibits you from answering my questions directly. I realize that the 2004 DOE panel wasn't composed of "cold fusion" researchers. Your slides (where at Princeton were they presented, btw?) don't seem to address the '04 DOE report, so I'm still confused about whether the important point is disagreement with that report or new research. Could you comment on that directly? Gnixon (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I suspect it's mostly "disagreement with the 2004 DOE report". In general, CF researchers disagree with the conclusion of 2004 DOE. See comments here. They continued research, and additional evidence has accumulated, such as those based on CR-39. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Pierre, that was a helpful link, it led me to http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf, which says on page 1, "Evidence for the reality of LENR and Cold fusion has been accumulating for 16 years, but it has had practically no effect on the attitude of conventional science or U.S. government agencies." Can anyone point me to a similar quote in a book published by a large publishing house or any peer-reviewed journal? (Steve sent me some stuff in his book, but I couldn't find a suitable quote.)
Rothwell also points out that it's obvious that the DOE has contradicted the slightly optimist tone of their 2004 conclusion by failing to fund any related requests since then. That's the point I've been trying to make: this article still dances around the point a bit, the point being that while most scientists avoid saying anything at all about cold fusion, and the DOE was equivocal, it's not hard to figure out from their reluctance to get involved in any way what their actual opinion is. When I say this, I am in no way being "hostile" towards cold fusion; I personally wish the supporters all the luck and financial support they can get. But I'm not saying anything different from Jed Rothwell when I say that the support doesn't seem to be materializing yet, and as long as this article makes that clear, that deals with my concern. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is accurate anymore, since DARPA has reportedly funded some projects. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That proves my point rather than undercutting it, Pierre. Steve and I have looked for evidence that either DARPA or the scientists they are funding or have been funding are willing to admit it in a reliable source; we're hopeful that we'll have something later this year, but we can't find anything yet. If DARPA isn't even willing to admit it when they do fund someone, then that supports the idea that this is still a subject most scientists aren't even willing to discuss. It's obvious, and it would help the article to state it, we just need to find the statement in something Wikipedia considers a reliable source. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That would be correct if Darpa was not a defense organisation. It can be secretive for many different reasons, not just because possibly "this is still a subject most scientists aren't even willing to discuss". So, no, it does not support it. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In any case, our article already says: "As of 2007, the scientific community did not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme", and "Most scientists have met these reports with skepticism.". It would be fine with me to add other sources to the same effect. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(There's no need to revert when someone de-indents, Pierre; not everyone likes to indent 9 times.) I support your logic; and I am just as disappointed as you are that various US government departments aren't willing to admit funding. But what might or might not be in their heads isn't relevant to UNDUE; we can only report on what they are or aren't saying in reliable sources, not why. Are there any government agencies, anywhere, that are currently supporting work in cold fusion, on the record? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, strike that; I'm thinking we need to go in a new direction, I'll create a new section. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Would someone change "the modern report" in the lead? It's not good English. I'd rather not risk generating friction at the moment. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"In 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons reported producing cold fusion at the University of Utah."
No they didn't. The press release stated "N-Fusion." Pons' oral statement was "sustained nuclear fusion reaction."
See section 4 http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/Start.htm
StevenBKrivit (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to other cold fusion techniques

I see he's a German user; I'll talk with him about how de.WP handles these issues, perhaps I can learn something. I don't think we can have an extra paragraph in the lead discussing 4 or 5 different ideas about tabletop fusion because: 1. That's more paragraphs than usual in a lead section; see WP:LEAD. 2. Adding new links in the lead is an open invitation to what are called "POV-forks"; that is, it's common in contentious articles for people who don't like the result to add a link in the lead section to a brand-new page where they say the things that people didn't want them to say in the contentious article. That won't necessarily happen, and I don't know Edoe2 and of course I AGF, it's just a very bad strategy in contentious articles to have links to miscellaneous "other topics" in the lead. 3. We got consensus to remove the extra section that used to deal with some of these other topics. This article is just about cold fusion, and we're having a hard enough time with just that, without bringing in other topics that don't really enlighten the discussion (such as muon-catalyzed fusion) or might be contentious in their own right.

As always, feel free to revert me if anyone disagrees, but give your reasons here, please. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your point in stressing that postings were done by users from non-native-english authors. Correct the language if you feel necessary but don't mix it with the real arguments.
The articles I linked here about small-scale fusion - Muon-catalyzed fusion, Fusor and Pyroelectric fusion - are neither "brand new pages" nor do they point to "other topics".
The discussion about Fleischmann-Pons might be fascinating to some readers, but neither did F-P define the term "cold fusion" nor does the term imply only their specific approach - nor does it imply "energy production". Rather, the natural meaning of "cold fusion" does include any technique that produces fusion reactions without handling large scale temperatures.
If you want to reduce the "cold fusion" article to the F-P experiment and discussion then you should coin another term for "non-plasma-fusion" - or wait for the scientific community to do so. Until then, I propose to leave the links here, be it in the introduction or, if the "paragraph count" is a real problem, elsewhere in the article. --Edoe2 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I just looked at the first 10 hits for "cold fusion" at scholar.google.com, and 4 of them involved experiments producing heavy elements (atomic numbers 104 and greater)...but all four of these were by researchers at German institutions. So it does appear that "cold fusion" is an English phrase sometimes used by Germans to refer to other experiments. All of the other hits concerned the topic of this article.
However, on the English Wikipedia, when someone says "you don't know what the phrase means", the standard reply (not just for this article) is NOTLEX: that is, there are a lot of people who are paid to put dictionaries and encyclopedias together and they generally do an outstanding job, so we have to take their word for it. Websters and AMHER are the two most frequently cited dictionaries by American journalists, but Websters lets us down on this one; they don't have it. AMHER says: "A hypothetical form of nuclear fusion occurring without the use of extreme temperature or pressure." That doesn't include muon-catalyzed fusion or the recent experiment cited in this article that actually did produce tiny amounts of fusion with a tabletop device by particle acceleration, because no one considers either of these reactions "hypothetical". Also, you can see in the references that Steve Jones (muon-catalyzed fusion) and the guy who created the tabletop acceleration device (Seth Putterman) are not at all interested in using the term "cold fusion" to apply to their experiments.
It's true that F-P did not coin the term "cold fusion", but it was coined to apply to their experiments and the attempts to replicate them, and that's still how it's commonly used among native English speakers. Note that there's a link to nuclear fusion in the first paragraph, and that would probably be the right article to fork to discussions of fusion reactions which are not part of the "cold fusion" controversy. I would be happy to add a more prominent link, and I don't have any preference how we do it; it could be in a See also section at the end, or the hatnote (the note right under the title) could link to a disambiguation page that directs people to nuclear fusion. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal

Krivit and Pcarbonn and many other well-read people say that people who are not cold fusion proponents have been incredibly reluctant to get involved since 2004, to say anything one way or the other. You would think that, with all the supporters and skeptics over the years who have been angry (respectively, happy) that cold fusion has received so little support from government agencies and schools and scientific institutions, that someone would have been willing to say this in a reliable source since 2004, and back it up by showing that they had done a little investigation. To my surprise, I'm finding that Krivit and Pcarbonn are right: I'm finding absolutely nothing.

Here's the problem: UNDUE won't let us make the statement "Most scientists have met these reports with skepticism", which we all know to be true, and then follow that up with a long article that only gives sources that support exactly the opposite conclusion. We can "rebut, but not undercut". That is, we can't give the impression that we think that lots of scientists think X, but we think they're all idiots, because all the sources say Y. That's a real-world problem; that's not Wikipedia's problem. UNDUE gives us permission to split the article into a "pro" and a "con", which I'm thinking is the only thing left, and it wouldn't be much of a split: virtually the entire article is very useful for the "pro" position. I am personally disappointed in all the physicists who are willing to give negative opinions who aren't even willing to enter a lab with a running experiment and use films to measure for themselves whether energetic particles are being produced or not. How tough could it be to get the last image on the article page for themselves? But that's what we're stuck with; no one is willing to say yes or no, except for the supporters.

I propose that we dump this whole sorry problem of coming up with support for the "con" side on the physicists. Let's explain the problem to Wikipedia people who deal with mediation...maybe Seicer will help out again...and say that we are really having a problem with getting sources for one side of the issue, so we'd like to shift that argument over to nuclear physics or a link from that page. Let the physicists who want to support that side of things find their own sources; they'd be better at finding them, and at interpreting them. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By "con" side, I mean the side that believes that all of the scientists who are reporting positive results either are lying or aren't competent in the proper disciplines or are using outdated equipment that can't support their conclusions or are just making honest mistakes. Skeptics have made all of these claims, many times. You can see how this is really a very bad fit with the AGF culture at Wikipedia. Even if we don't say these things explicitly, the implication in this article is clear. Now that I'm realizing just how little support there is in reliable sources since 2004 for any or all of these skeptical attitudes, I'm getting uncomfortable with leaving the implications hanging in the air. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Dan, please explain more about what you are proposing. Are you saying that this article, that you labeled as a "good article" a few weeks ago, needs a major change in its approach? One way to improve the balance of the article would be to include these 2006 Discover articles which provide a clear evidence from a reliable source that the field is still not respected by most scientists. [8] [9] Wouldn't that address your concerns? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The only relevant thing I could find in the first source was "The UCLA team was determined to avoid a repeat of the 1989 'cold fusion' fiasco that promised unlimited energy but delivered little besides unrepeatable results." This is what WP:V refers to as "I heard it somewhere": an author is writing about what he believes was in the minds of UCLA researchers who are frightened about what happened 16 years earlier; it has no reliable information on what's currently happening in the field. I'll repeat the entire second source you're giving, I don't see how it helps, but maybe there's more that I don't know about:

In 1989 Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made front-page news when they announced that they had fused the nuclei of atoms in a jar of water—a process that normally requires the heat of an H-bomb. In theory, room-temperature, or "cold," fusion could provide cheap, nearly limitless energy. No replication of the experiment could pass muster with critics, and most researchers dismissed the work as bogus.

Still, a few physicists keep the field alive and kicking. "There's something in the neighborhood of 20 basic experiments out there these days that are of interest," says MIT physicist Peter Hagelstein. In 2004 he and a group of fellow die-hard researchers tried to persuade the Department of Energy to reevaluate fusion research. A review panel found the evidence thin but saw some justification for further focused investigation.

The scientists who continue to work in the field claim that their experiments show minute, unexplained outputs of energy. Within the year, Hagelstein says, he plans to begin conducting cold fusion research at MIT, an institution that once held a ceremonial wake in cold fusion's honor. He aims to show that novel physical processes can trigger fusion without a significant input of heat. Hagelstein insists that those beyond the inner circle don't know the whole story. "People working in the field believe cold fusion is real and that the issue is settled," he says.

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how verifiability is an issue at all with those articles. They are articles published in a respected, major magazine (circulation>800000 according to Business Week). The only place on the verifiability page the quote "heard it somewhere" is mentioned is in a quote by Jimmy Wales where he is describing unsourced statements in articles. In contrast, these articles serve as verifiable sources which support the statement ("Most scientists have met these results with skepticism.") which is in the "Recent Developments" section. We should simply add them right there as additional evidence. Look at my recent edit of the article and let me know what you think.
I understand that Dan and Pierre are concerned that giving weight to these two articles may be unwise since researchers and journalists may not be aware of developments in the field, especially developments since 2004. However, we should give the benefit of the doubt to established magazines like Discover and assume that their editors are reasonably aware of such things, and not dismiss them because they don't give evidence (quotes) for the reason for the low status of the cold fusion field. In other words, I disagree with the statement "it has no reliable information about what's currently happening in the field." Discover magazine has the reporter labor available to keep up to date; if they didn't comment on post-1989 cold fusion experiments, it seems most likely that they were simply not impressed. If we can include multiple links to New Energy Times, I certainly think including these links is fair. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The article wasn't about cold fusion, and it sounds like the writer isn't saying that the statement is true, but that Putterman believed it to be true, that that was Putterman's motivation, or am I reading it wrong? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question about passing the GA review: that's exactly what I'm saying, and I'm not happy about it either, which is why I've been giving Pierre a hard time. I wish these issues had come up during the weeks that I spent on the review, but they didn't. The lead wasn't changed to take a more pro-CF position until the day after I moved on to the next article to review. I can't just say to the proponents, "You can't say that", since what they're saying is true; the only power I have, any of us have, is to insist on balance, that if more is said on one side, that we make it clear what the other side is saying in response. Only...the other side isn't saying anything (that I can find), which boggles my mind, and gives us an impossible job here. Even Robert Park, one of the most vocal skeptics since the beginning, has been hinting at nuclear processes now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say rather that "cons" have not offered plausible alternative explanations for the observed phenomena, and have certainly failed to demonstrate any of their hypothesis via experiment, or even do any experiments to test them.

For example, contamination has been proposed as an explanation for the transmutation-like phenomena, but since 1) rare earth elements (lanthanides) showed up, and 2) unnatural isotopic ratios showed up, this explanation is not plausible - not to mention the fact that 3) the composition of the material was measured prior to the experiment! So after proposing an explanation that, given the circumstances(1 & 2), is highly improbable, and has already been scientifically ruled-out(3), those who proposed the explanation didn't perform any experiments to discover if contamination really was the source. (An experiment that they could have done: they could have split the source palladium into 5 samples, crushing one and doing a spectral analysis on it to determine it's original composition, then with the remaining 4 samples, doing the experiment with hydrogen-1(p), hydrogen-2(np), helium-3(npp), and helium-4(nnpp).) If contamination really was the source, they'd be able to scientifically prove it - but they haven't even tried to.

The end result is that we don't have any sources to cite to support their position - because they haven't produced any. Now I can understand the "burden of proof" argument -- it lies on the side making the extraordinary claim -- but when your hypothesis has already been scientifically ruled out, that makes your claim extraordinary. And I can understand them not wanting to take the time and effort on something that they didn't think fruitful, but it doesn't make for strong arguments on their part, and consequently leaves us with an unbalanced debate. Which is what brings us to this discussion.

Having said that, a "balanced" presentation, to me, is, to put it in confusing mathematical terms, one that minimizes the Kullback–Leibler divergence ("Q" being the article and "P" being reality). That is, one that "tells it like it is". I think the main area of difficulty for this article re:balance is that the weight of the popular viewpoint and the weight of the available scientific material are sorely out-of-sync with each other, yet we must present both aspects to the reader - who expects them to be strongly correlated - without confusing them. Kevin Baastalk 15:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan says: "Here's the problem: UNDUE won't let us make the statement 'Most scientists have met these reports with skepticism', which we all know to be true, and then follow that up with a long article that only gives sources that support exactly the opposite conclusion."
UNDUE refers to the weight given by reliable sources. DOE is a reliable source, and provided an ambivalent view, as we all know. The article represents that ambivalent view with due weight. "Most scientist" is not a reliable source, because they simply do not publish. Hence, the article does not need to give due weight to their opinion. If we accept that, the riddle is solved. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
With respect to 2004 to the present, I agree with both of you. I like Kevin's last sentence. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
What about creating a sample page in userspace to flesh it out and see how it would stand? And what would the proposed title be? seicer | talk | contribs 02:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The first step is to make a few more posts like the ones I made at WT:Chemistry and WT:PHYSICS. (I'll get to this in a week, but I'm hoping someone else will beat me to it.) If physicists and chemists are interested, then the logical place for the "con" position would be in sections of pre-existing pages, such as Nuclear_fusion#Production_methods, Calorimetry and/or Electrochemistry. (Nuclear fusion is already a long page, so if material is added to the Production methods subsection, it should probably be spun off into a separate page.) These arguments could then have a more positive and educational spin. This is a common technique in science journalism and science education: you bring up recent, or contentious, or even (at first glance) goofy topics as a way of generating and sustaining interest. You could talk about why there was so much confusion over the calorimetry for cold fusion experiments as a lead-in to methods of calorimetry or to energy storage and balance in electrochemical cathodes. You could explain why most physicists lost interest in cold fusion in the early 90s, as a lead-in to a discussion of when the instincts of physicists have tended to be right and wrong. There are plenty of areas where the predictions of physicists have turned out to be spookily accurate, but also many areas where they seem to be really bad at seeing the future. For instance, even with huge amounts of interest and money, they have often stumbled at predicting the behavior of electrons in crystals and macromolecules (hafnium alloys, carbon nanotubes, graphene), and who knows, maybe there are things about the behavior of electrons in paladium crystals they still don't get.
If we don't have and can't recruit content experts for these subjects, then I would still suggest splitting the article, and perhaps the "con" position could be called Critique of cold fusion. Now that there are regular sessions on cold fusion at the APS and ACS meetings, and plastic CR-39 plates showing tracks of energetic particles produced in labs funded by the Navy and DARPA are being passed around, the "con" position necessarily includes a government-funded bad behavior. One point that hasn't been made yet, that I recall, is that you've got major WP:BLP issues when you imply that researchers are charlatans and conspirators. That's another reason I think you want to break this article into two pieces rather than hopping back and forth; the "pro" page should focus on what people have reported and what the evidence is. The "con" page should not trash people; it should focus on what the science says, on the history of similar experiments, and on providing context. The "con" page could, if desired, discuss science policy and process in the Bush administration; this would not be the first time that DOE scientists got something wrong, you know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't understand what the problem is, and where you are trying to get. No amount of wikipedia expert editors will solve the problem of lack of sources for the skeptics camp. To solve this, one would need to encourage skeptics to write articles in peer-reviewed journals, not in wikipedia (as examplified by the next discussion).
You say: "If we don't have and can't recruit content experts for these subjects, then I would still suggest splitting the article". If you don't have content for the skeptical side in the main page, how would you find content for a separate page ? Also, let's avoid a Wikipedia:Fork. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally think the 2004 DOE report is an adequate representation of the (degree of) skepticism of the community. However, I think we need more discussion about how to summarize that report. (For example, focusing on the "research proposals should continue to be evaluated based on their merits" as a positive response to the research is misleading.) Could we agree that the '04 DOE report is a good representation of the "mainstream" response? Gnixon (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Along with the '89 DOE report and a few papers published in '89 and '90, yes. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Gnixon, you say "focusing on the 'research proposals should continue to be evaluated based on their merits' as a positive response to the research is misleading". How could we be misleading, since we are quoting verbatim the conclusion of the 2004 report ? Pcarbonn (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Because it is not a quote from the conclusion of the 2004 report. It's a sentence taken from the body of the report that you have cherry picked, as has been pointed out to you several previous occasions. Was something about these previous discussions unclear? The conclusion section of the 2004 report is clearly labeled, and it is an objective fact that it does not contain that quotation. Why do you persist in mischaracterizing this?--Noren (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Noren. I'm glad you are back. Are you refering to "research proposals should continue to be evaluated based on their merits" ? Indeed, it's not a quote from the 2004 DOE Report. It is nowhere in the article either. The article does quote the 2004 DOE report verbatim. Some sentence come from the DOE conclusion, others from the body of the report, because they convey the same message more clearly. That's not cherry picking. Nothing prevents us from doing it, does it ? Pcarbonn (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I apologize if I confused the issue by making up that quote from memory. I thought it was a good enough paraphrase to get the point across without inaccuracy, but maybe not. Mea culpa. My point was that "no focused program" best represents the attitude of the reviewers, whereas "funding agencies should entertain well-designed proposals" is simply another way of saying that CF research shouldn't get any special attention (because that statement simply restates the SOP for funding). I suppose the latter statement could be interpreted as a caution not to blackball good new research simply because of an association with CF. Anyway, I think the statement is liable to be misinterpreted to imply approval of CF research if it's included here out of context. Gnixon (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific and say where we are including statements out of context. The section on the 2004 DOE report fully includes one of the 2 paragraphs of charge element 3, which is concerned with the question of continued effort. If quoting verbatim one half of DOE's assessment is "cherry picking", I don't have an issue with quoting the other half (it says basically the same thing). The lead section also presents the same balanced view, and is the validated result of many discussion and the mediation. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please hang around and help us develop the "con" position, Noren, and thanks for the links, the first one in particular. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific discussion: energetic particles

The point is, the physical community is giving the cold fusion enthusiasts the benefit of doubt that some unknown physics might be happening, enabling fusion to happen. But why the hell is there no trace of the products of said fusion?

The 23.8MeV net energy potential of a D + D -> He reaction is very real and it needs to be somehow brought out of the nucleus. This is more energy than actually available in binding energy within the entire nucleus of Helium!

These are staggering amounts of energy excess energy within a nucleus that need to be shed off in some way:
The He nucleus instantly pops apart into He3+n or T+p (each 50% of happening) or in extremely rare cases very hard 23.8MeV gamma radiation (chance at 10^-7 to 10^-8) is released, killing everybody in the lab

Neutrons, Tritium as well as gammas can be measured blindingly easy to insane accuracy. Why isn't this being done? This is the reason why the physics community isn't taking the above "cold fusion" experiments serious. Actually, they are more like ROFL. No matter how the issue is turned and looked at, 23.8MeV of excess nuclear energy cannot be shed off in ways that are undetectable.

Edit:
The tracks of energetic particles within plastic CR-39 plates are without doubt due to micro cracks within the palladium electrodes causing localized extreme EM-fields and hence extremely high localized micro currents. These currents are sufficiently high to cause micro areas within the palladium to be turned into plasma. This is also the origin of the fabled "hot spots". --Dio1982 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dio, I don't mean to comment on whether or not your points are valid, but we're trying very hard to keep this discussion restricted to how we should represent the various published responses to cold fusion from the physics community. It's beyond the scope of our task to try and judge the research ourselves. Gnixon (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not some kind of new argument. This is part of the standard "where are the neutrons/tritium?" argument. There is no D + D -> He reaction. My above explanation is why this is so, which is usually lost to the cold fusion enthusiasts.--141.31.183.68 (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Your theory about crack formation in CR-39 is original research. You may want to publish it on wikiversity, which accepts original research. See here. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope it's okay, I relabeled this section "scientific discussion". Some people will object to discussions about the merits, but for me, it's a hard sell to say that you can't talk about the content of the page on the talk page; that's what the talk page is supposed to be for. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:Talk] says that "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Let's focus our discussion on the article, not on cold fusion per se.Pcarbonn (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
We're both right. Discussions should be about the content of the page, about whether the content comes from reliable sources, and about whether content from other reliable sources would be an improvement on what we've got. What I'm saying is that some people's eyes will glaze over as soon as we get technical, and we can't reject a discussion just because it bores some people. We can, however, label the section as a "scientific discussion" so that people who will get bored by it don't have to read it.
So: 141.31.183.68, how about it? I asked on your talk page with no response. Would you like to cite a source? Would you like to help us build a stronger "con" position, either on this page or, as I'm proposing, a different page? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Re: "The tracks of energetic particles within plastic CR-39 plates are without doubt due to micro cracks within the palladium electrodes causing localized extreme EM-fields and hence extremely high localized micro currents. These currents are sufficiently high to cause micro areas within the palladium to be turned into plasma. This is also the origin of the fabled "hot spots"." --Firstly, this isn't "without doubt", this is an untested hypothesis that you proposed. You thought, "hmm... maybe this could happen." and then instantaneously jumped to "that must be what is happening!" To me, that kind of illogical thought process stinks of pathological disbelief. Now if anyone were to actually do an experiment to test that hypothesis, there'd be many things that they'd have to explain. For instance, why doesn't this happen when you use hydrogen instead of deutrium? (or other solutions for that matter) Given that consideration alone, your hypothesis is extremely implausible. Perhaps that's why we haven't seen any citable sources make it (and thus we can't put it in the article.) Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)