Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Peer review request

This seems a pretty decent and complete article; good work! I guess the only thing I think that it needs is a diagram for the "Experimental set-up and observations" section, showing the experimental setup. Also, in the lead section,, maybe there could be a little more expansion on why Cold Fusion would be such a good thing (tm) if it worked; I know it's mentioned, but perhaps it could be played up more? And for fun, Cold Fusion in the movies (I'm thinking of The Saint here...) — Matt 02:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree only about expanding the "would be a good thing if works" part. I think there's enough already, and putting too much in carries the taint of the pseudo-scientist who goes on and on about how wonderful the world will be once his anti-gravity/turn-tires-into-food/learn-calculus-while-you-sleep idea works out its last kinks. This balanced piece doesn't need that. - DavidWBrooks 15:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think the lead was very clear about why it would be a good thing if it worked. But it still needs some help in making it clear that currently it doesn't work. I think I made a couple edits that moved more towards that, but let me know what you think. - Taxman 23:11, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
Although I would hardly pretend to be a peer, I would not be able to recommend this article for serious recognition. As a physics major, any lecturer I have had as looked down on cold fusion. It certainly isn't consensus opinion, as acknowledged in the article. As such I would like to see a lot more objectifity. Unfortuanetly the article seems to be fighting a battle for cold fusion, which of course an encyclopedia article shouldn't --Fermion 05:12, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC).

Net release of energy?

Pcarbonn, I removed consistently, because I wasn't aware of any experiments that were even an attempt at a verifiable setup that had claimed a large net release of energy. What reputed scientist have claimed a large net release of energy for even a few of their tries? I do like the addition of convincingly because clearly none of them have been able to convince many people that the results were real. - Taxman 12:19, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)


Taxman writes:
I wasn't aware of any experiments that were even an attempt at a verifiable setup that had claimed a large net release of energy.
Several hundred reputable scientists have claimed a large net excess energy release, ranging from ~500 kJ to 600 MJ. I am not sure what a "verifiable setup" means, but in any case the instruments used to measure heat are called calorimeters. Many different types have been used, including some of the most sensitive large-scale macroscopic calorimeters ever devised (with 20 mW precision) and microcalorimeters. Calorimeters are mature and well-understood instruments. Most of the calorimeters used in cold fusion studies are static (or isoperibolic) designs devised by J. P. Joule in the 1840s. Electronic thermocouples or thermistors replace mercury thermometers, but in other respects the instrument is the same. Some are mass-flow calorimeters circa 1900, and others are of the Seebeck design, circa 1940. (Bomb calorimeters and other types have also been used.)
Excess power as a percent of input ranges from 5% to 300%, except in cases where there is no input power (gas loading or heat after death), in which case all detectable heat must be caused by the cold fusion effect, because there is only a negligible amount of chemical fuel in a cell (enough to produce ~500 joules in a typical cell).
Excess heat is not the only evidence that a reaction takes place. Cells also produce helium, tritium, charged particles, transmutations, and in some instances gamma rays. These can only be produced by a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction. The preponderance of evidence points to a nuclear fusion reaction.
For a short review and a summary of this evidence see: lenr-canr.org/StudentsGuide.htm
- Jed Rothwell


I guess it depends on whether you talk of net release over the full duration of the experiment, or during temporary power burst. I have not seen any report of the first type, but many of the second type, using electrolytic cells. Many have seen both "power burst" during which the output heat significantly exceeds the input electricity. This is not explainable with conventional science. Some have also observed nuclear ashes at the same time. However, these experiments are not reproducible in a consistent manner: this is the only reason why there are not convincing. Pcarbonn 13:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Pcarbon writes: "I guess it depends on whether you talk of net release over the full duration of the experiment, or during temporary power burst." All successful cold fusion experiments produce far more heat over the full course of the experiment than the total input energy. Furthermore, there has never been a reported case in which a cell "stored up" energy endothermically, except during the formation of palladium hydride. This absorbs only a tiny amount of energy; thousands of times less than cold fusion routinely produces. Pcarbon continues: "I have not seen any report of the first type, but many of the second type, using electrolytic cells." I have never seen a report of the second type describing a "temporary power burst." Pcabon should please specify what author and title he or she has in mind.
- Jed Rothwell
Over the whole experiment is the only thing that matters for a net release, otherwise it would be useless as an energy production method. From start point to ending if more energy is not released than the total amount input, then there is no net release. A power burst during certain parts of the experiment, but overall no more production than input is just some kind of as-yet-unexplained storage, as mentioned later in the article. - Taxman 14:10, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
Taxman writes: "From start point to ending if more energy is not released than the total amount input, then there is no net release." Correct. And in all cases, there is always a net release. As far as I know, there has never been a single instance of significant energy storage. In any case, no chemical reaction can either store or release hundreds of megajoules per mole of material. If there were energy storage, it would be very easy to detect, just as the energy release is. The calorimeter would show a negative balance (an endothermic reaction). This never happens. During most experiments excess heat generation lasts longer than the initial phase, so the initial phase would have a stronger endothermic reaction than the following exothermic reaction. Furthermore, in some experiments, overall energy output is far greater than all input energy. In some experiments, with gas loading an other techniques, there is no input energy. So I think we can safely conclude that the energy storage hypothesis is ruled out. In fact, we could have safely concluded that any time after September 1989, so it is odd that skeptics still make this claim. I think they should read the literature more carefully, and stop beating dead horses.
- Jed Rothwell

Reproducibility of the result

The last bit of this section seems to be just a commentary, not a statement of fact, and I'm not sure that it's necessary:

Criticism of experimental data should not be based on reproducibility, it should be based on credentials of researchers and, above all, on examination of methodologies they use in particular investigations. An experimental claim, however, can not be taken for granted without one hundred percent reproducibility.

It's the word should that rings alarm bells. Whose point of view is this? Who says that the researcher's credentials are more important than the reproducibility of his results? The second sentence looks as if it was tacked on as an answer to the first, in which case we have a dialogue here, not a statement. -- Heron 13:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Someone here wrote:

Criticism of experimental data should not be based on reproducibility, it should be based on credentials of researchers and, above all, on examination of methodologies they use in particular investigations. An experimental claim, however, can not be taken for granted without one hundred percent reproducibility.

That is incorrect. Many experimental results are taken for granted even though reproducibility is much less than 100%. For example, the success rate for most transistor production lines in the mid-1950s was well below 50%, and for some devices it was below 10% [Riordan & Hoddeson] but no one questioned the existence of the transitor. Reproducibility for cloning mammals today varies from 0.1 to 3%, but no one doubts that cloning works, and the results are real. (See http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/cloningrisks/). A few modern experiments, such as the top quark findings at Fermilab, have not been replicated at all, and no attempt to replicate them is planned, because the experiments cost so much money, and because it would be impossible to duplicate the Fermilab equipment for an independent test. However, the results are accepted by most scientists despite these limitations.

In cold fusion, the transmutation results reported by Iwamura et al. (Mitsubishi) cannot be independently replicated in full because the experimental apparatus costs roughly $20 million and requires a team of experts to operate. However the results have been confirmed by other labs in Japan, Italy and France using their own mass spectrometers. Confirmation is not the same as replication, but it does enhance confidence in the results.

- Jed

Nationalities

We aren't trying to blame this whole thing on Americans, are we? Martin Fleischmann FRS is a Briton (Imperial College, Southampton University) of Czech birth. I couldn't immediately see a non-clumsy way to put in both nationalities, so I just deleted the wrong attribution, pending work by someone who cares. Dandrake 00:00, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Andries was trying to correct a bias in the article. When the research was in America the article says "so and so at such and such university" but if the research is not in the US it says " swedish scientist so and so" or "german scientists" and no university name. This kind of pedantism is occuring because I put the article up as a candidate for featured article theresa knott 04:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for my bad edit. I agree that it is a minor thing but calling it pedantism, ehhhh I have to think about it. Andries 05:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How about "constructive pedantry"? I withdraw the two facetious bits in my comment, but I'm still not sure what the right wording would be. If this be pedantry, make the most of it— an American allusion that ought to be illuminated by the Patrick Henry article, but I see that it isn't. Yet. Dandrake 06:00, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't mean pedantism in a bad way. Pedantism in an encylopedia article is a good thing IMO. theresa knott 16:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The intro

IMHO the intro is too long and not clear enough; but then, I don't like long intro sections, and most people do, it seems.

More to the point, the change by Stevenj went too far in avoiding the implication that cold fusion is an established fact. It is established, in the impractical form of muon-catalyzed fusion, but not in the Fleischmann-Pons version. Dandrake 07:59, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

A little more neutral please

As written the beginning seems reasonably neutral, but deeper into the article it becomes clear it was written by a Cold Fusion supporter.

Some suggestions for improvement:

  • Use the word "reported" rather than "observed", if there's no way for an independant reviewer to know what was really observed.
  • Try not to assume that whatever is being observed is necessarily "fusion". Weird electrochemisty is interesting even if there's no breakthrough in nuclear physics involved. (It's all very well to say that data is more important than theory, but the very name "cold fusion" is making a theoretical assertion.)

-- Doom 20:26, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Doom writes: ". . . deeper into the article it becomes clear it was written by a Cold Fusion supporter." Obviously these statements are written by cold fusion supporters. This is like saying that the Wikipedia article on Japanese grammar is written by someone who speaks Japanese and it enthusiastic about the language. People who do not support cold fusion are not familliar with the experimental evidence, and they cannot write a description of the field. A few skeptics such as Morrison and Taubes have written papers and books about the subject, but these papers are full of incorrect statements, and they include no footnotes referencing published papers or peer-reviewed data.
Doom continues: "Use the word 'reported' rather than 'observed.'" Experimental results are observed and then reported. This is science jargon. Statements about cold fusion should be use the same wording and conventions as statements about any other field of science. We should not make up a new and fuzzy way to write about science to satisfy the demands of skeptics.
"Try not to assume that whatever is being observed is necessarily 'fusion'." Replicated, high-sigma experimental evidence includes excess heat 5 orders of magnitude beyond the limits of chemistry, helium production, tritium production up to a 6 orders of magnitude above background, and transmutations. If that is not evidence of nuclear fusion we will have to completely redefine "nuclear" and "fusion" -- and also throw away the laws of thermodynamics.
"Weird electrochemisty is interesting even if there's no breakthrough in nuclear physics involved." If you define "weird electrochemistry" as something that can violate most major laws of physics and chemistry going back to 1840 of so, then yes, cold fusion might be chemistry. Otherwise it has to be a nuclear effect, since it changes the atomic nucleus. Also, as far as I know, there is not a single case in which chemical changes in a cold fusion cell were reported. Not even one gram of chemical fuel or ash has been detected in cell that would have produce several kilograms of ash to account for the heat. Since these cells only hold ~100 g of material altogether, mainly water, "weird chemistry" is ruled out. Anyone who would suggest this is chemistry knows nothing about the field. I suggest Doom should review the literature before commenting on it.
- Jed Rothwell

Jed, I believe that the term 'ash' refers to fusion products and waste materials. For example, in one paper I've read, spectral analysis of the palladium electrode before and after the experiment found post-experiment isotopes that were not there prior to the experiment, including Ag-110, lead, rhodium, sodium, and a number of other element isotopes that the Russian researchers theorize all fit a theory that CF involves a combination of both fusion and fission between palladium, multiple deuterium atoms, and fusion/fission into every new isotope found, post-experiment.User:Mlorrey

Confusing phrase

In the third paragraph of the introduction, we find the phrase "produces only small but hard to manage amounts of radioactive waste". I'm having trouble discerning the intent here. Did the author mean to say that the waste, though small in quantity, was especially hard to manage? If so, it doesn't clearly belong in a list of advantages. But perhaps the writer meant "small amounts of hard to manage radioactive waste", in which case the "hard to manage" qualification feels unnecessary: it's clear from context that radioactive waste is bad.

I think I favor "produces only small amounts of radioactive waste" here, but without knowing the writer's intent I'm reluctant to edit.

pseudoscience -> pathological science

These aren't quite the same thing.

I agree, whoever you are. A little explication would do some good, though it might require a pointer to a more throrough treatment that probably hasn't been written yet. With or without the "pathological" label, there should be a clearer distinction here between science badly practiced (of which F&P have been accused) and pseudoscience, a charge that can hardly be made against them but is made against the later attempts to salvage something from their experiments. Dandrake 17:33, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, so remove 'pseudoscience' category and change to another? Chris Wood 12:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seemingly good edits by anon, reverted by another anon with no edit summary

The following edit reverted material, but I did not know what of it was valid: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cold_fusion&diff=5426435&oldid=5424946 I may move back in the parts that seem reasonable if I have a chance, but I would like to see what other's think. Clearly a POV was being pushed by this revert. - Taxman 14:38, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Off with its head. Watch for that correct change of a bracket, though. I'd put a ref to the Talk page in the submission note, though of course your standard one-shot anonym would never read that. Dandrake 17:27, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

For clarity, here is the material removed by the anon. It has partially been put back in since, but it seems there is a bit more information here, especially the quote by P&F and the journal citation. I am not familiar enough with the experiments to add it back myself:

Pons and Fleishmann also reported in their 1989 Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry publication that "We have to report here that under the conditions of the last experiment even using D2O alone, a substantial portion of the cathode fused (melting point 1554 °C) part of it vapourised and the cell and contents and a part of the fume cupboard housing the experiment were destroyed."
Michael Salamon, a University of Utah physicist, and his research group were allowed into Pons' lab to observe his electrochemical cells in the months after the initial reports of cold fusion were made. During the five weeks Salomon's group observed the cells, none of the nuclear emissions which Pons had reported to have been emitted in earlier experiments were observed. Salamon et. al. reported this negative result in the journal Nature on the first anniversary of the initial press release

It would seem both of these points would be fairly easy to fact check and to put back in if correct. - Taxman 22:48, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. The report of the exploding cell was circulated widely, and there's no doubt about that—the report, not the explosion. Salomon's visit is described in some detail in Too Hot to Handle, pages 310-311 or so. If anyone has a rebuttal to this, we need to hear it; meanwhile, the text belongs in the article. Dandrake 04:18, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

2.45 MeV neutrons?

What's the source for the statement about 2.45-MeV neutrons from conventional fusion (in Experimental Setup)? F&P didn't have any equipment for a neutron energy spectrum. Their report of neutron production was based on gamma radiation from absorption of neutrons by hydrogen in the water. Their initial report put that peak at 2.5 MeV; physicists pointed out that that's the wrong figure; their published report put the peak at 2.2 MeV, the right value. This is from Close's book, which of course is out of date. But anyone with a Chemical Rubber handbook and a spreadsheet can confirm that gamma energy in a few minutes. Dandrake 18:06, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I put that edit in. F&P did claim that their experiment produced 2.45 MeV neutrons, a claim allegedly based on gamma ray detection (http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/fringe_science/fusion.html the J Electroanalytical Chem article in which they did so). A relevant quote:

"3) Fig. 1A illustrates the gamma-ray spectra which have been recorded in regions above the water bath adjacent to the electrolytic cells and this spectrum confirms that 2.45 MeV neutrons are indeed generated in the electrodes by reaction (vi). These gamma-rays are generated by the reaction (vii). "

I was attempting to describe what they initially claimed to observe. I now realize that the parenthetical statement after that is incorrect- it was foolish of me to expect they'd gotten that right. That was, however, the reason P&F included that bit of experimental 'evidence'.

They may well have changed their story in a later publication, but I was intending to describe the original report.- 130.20.71.114 19:00 Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Aha, that explains it. Thanks for the citation. There's a comment in Close's book to the effect that the physicists had to explain to P & F that the energy of the neutrons was not relevant to the reaction that yields gammas or to the gamma energy; this seemed to me quite cryptic. The reference you provided makes it clear where they were assuming that it was related. And that's how they were inferring the 2.45 MeV energy without having any means for direct measurement of neutron energies. It follows that this report of neutrons with the proper energy was simply wrong (apart from their getting the gamma energy wrong), a non-sequitur. The easiest and most informative step from here is to note the error; so I've done it. Dandrake 04:31, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Sparging

Why is the bubbling of gas to stir the solution referred to as sparging? (In the experimental setup section) What's being done there has nothing to do with sparging as described in the Wikipedia entry. Plain "bubbling" would be both clearer and more accurate, if there's not some good reason for the other term. Dandrake 07:28, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "What's being done there has nothing to do with sparging"?

Easy there. No offence meant. My evidence is the Wikipedia article on sparging, which says nothing of using bubbles to achieve mixing. It seems to me that the removal of anything from the system (as implied by the sparging article) was the exact opposite of what they needed to do, given the danger of explosion if the liquid level got too low. Of course if F & P used the term, that settles it; I'm not teaching chemists their subject. But the two articles at the moment are confusingly inconsistent, as a non-chemist will find out if he conscientiously tries to find out what this "sparging" stuff is. As you say, the sparging article needs to be amended. (Unless someone who knows these things says that F & P's usage was non-standard, which would call for different changes.) BTW there surely can't be copyright issues with a link to the article? It would be a fine thing to have. Dandrake 18:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm a chemist but not an experimentalist, so I'm not exactly an expert, but my understanding and interpretation is that sparging in this context refers to the action of bubbling an inert gas through a liquid. I don't think it is specific to doing so for a particular purpose as was implied in the previous edit of the sparging page. In my very brief time doing experimental work we called it sparging when we bubbled nitrogen through refluxing solvents to remove dissolved oxygen gas. (This method isn't perfect, but removes very nearly all the oxygen over the course of a few days.) I do not believe that allowing the bubbles created at the cathode to leave the solution would be classified as sparging, however, and that interpretation doesn't match the context of P&F's claim that gas sparging was used "where necessary".

Except for this, I've never heard of using sparging as a stirring method, but I'm far from an expert so I can't state whether or how often it is used for that purpose. However, lack of adequate stirring was a major criticism leveled at P&F by a number of experimental electrochemists, including Nate Lewis. This was later considered by a majority of chemists to be a non-fusion explanation of the thermochemical data which purported to show excess heat- there was no excess heat, just an inadequately stirred cell which was hotter near the thermometer than elsewhere.

What I meant about copyright is that I'm suspicious that the person hosting the link I referred to above is doing so in violation of copyright, though I have no evidence either way. Perhaps putting the link on the main page is okay anyhow, I'm just not sure what the usual practice here is. Put it in if you like.

I also updated the sparging wiki page, I'm not entirely happy with it but it's what I know on the subject. 130.20.71.114 21:10, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Now I see the point. (I seem to be saying that a lot currently. That's science for you.) And F & P's application of the the term doesn't contradict the one-sentence definition that introduces sparging. I may want to stick a "(bubbling)" into the text, though, as the technical word is so unfamiliar and doesn't seem to convey a lot more. As to copyright, I agree that we con't want links to copyvio pages; it would have to be checked before it'sa allowed into the article. Dandrake 17:40, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
I find that the site has a reasonable copyright policy; good enough, anyway, that linking to them should be acceptable. So I've added one, whcih should be zapped if anyone finds out the policy is misleading. Dandrake 01:01, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

There's an excellent reason to refer to it as sparging: that was the method P&F actually reported that they used to stir the cells. From the J Electroanal Chem article above, here's a quote which I originally put into the page in my 01:36, 25 Aug 2004 edit (but which was subsequently reverted):

"Stirring in these experiments (and in those listed under 1)) was achieved, where necessary, by gas sparging using electrolytically generated D2."

In my second attempt to get this information included on the page I avoided using quotations, as that seems not to be the style used here.

You are correct that the wiki definition of sparging doesn't match the pre-edit description of (lack of) stirring, but the edit to describe the process used as sparging was a correction rather than a clarification. The production of bubbles on the cathode is not sparging- the original version of the page was in error. Not even P&F made the incredible claim the older version of this page did, that "the bubbling action of the gas kept the electrolyte well mixed and of a uniform temperature". It may well be that P&F never actually sparged there cells at all ("where necessary" is quite ambiguous) but they did include that sentence, presumably to anticipate objections concerning inadequate stirring. The "where necessary" part of the article revision was taken explicitly from the P&F quote above. It would be nice to link the P&F article in the article rather than here in the discussion, but I'm concerned about copyright issues.

The wiki definition of sparging should probably be updated as well. 130.20.71.114 16:45, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Reproducibility and all

The article has a presentation of reproducibility and other issues that's disjointed and confused; in effect, the article argues with itself, which is a too-common parody of NPOV. I'd have voted negative on WP:FAC if I hadn't been occupied elsewhere; but it has benefitted from all the attention, so who can figure?

I'm trying to work out a treatment of what reproducibility is about, briefer than the main article (or than it ought to be) and in context, for the reader who doesn't have much background. I find it easy to give examples of work that had no good theory behind it, was easily reproduced, and was accepted by the community; radioactivity will do, with its apparent violation of conservation of energy. From the same period there's a classic of work that had no theory, was not widely reproducible, was not generally accepted, and turned out to be spurious: N-rays. To show how the scientific process works, I'm looking for a good example of a contrasting situation: no theory, initially poor reproducibility, general non-acceptance, and eventual vindication and acceptance. Continental drift has some of that quality, but the problem wasn't reproducibility, really. Does anyone have a good example? I presume that the cold-fusion literature would provide something, but I haven't run into it. Dandrake 01:18, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

That's a tough one, which fact also speaks volumes about science and recognizing pseudoscience. I think some of Galileo's observations were difficult to reproduce with the technology of the time, and they were unexpected (no theory). A special case is the rings of Saturn, which he observed, but they were gone when he looked again several months later (because they happened to be edge on then). Superconductivity might also qualify. There was certainly no theory, and few labs could produce the temperatures required. Meterorites might meet your criteria, or ball lightning, but hard-to-observe-because-rare-and-transient is not the same as poorly reproducible. Art Carlson 14:52, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
Thanks, an interesting set of examples. There's a certain appeal in the Galileo observations, because there was an initial skepticism that could be justified by the difficulty of the obervations; then, within a year, the instruments got better, and acceptance was general even in those unenlightened old days before there was Philosophy of Science; and there was an ongoing, fairly small, number of holdouts on less than rational grounds. Maybe this can be worked up. Dandrake 20:31, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
I would recommend a read of Jed Rothwells comments on Cold Fusion and the Wright Brothers in sci.physics.fusion, about mid-1990's. click here for a usenet search for that on Google. He brought up the subject of the Wright brothers many times, and it must be said that it is remarkable how they were ignored, even three years after the fact in Scientific American. see for example this post by Jed Rothwell. Ah, and here's a published article by Jed Rothwell on this very subject in Infinite Energy Magazine: The Wright Brothers and Cold Fusion --L 2004-10-06

Observed excess heat

Removing the following paragraph:

A team at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command has succeeded in taking infra-red video of cells generating heat, and reported that this heat was in excess of the input energy. They found that the heat was generated in localized and short-lived hot spots on the surface of the electrode, rather than evenly throughout the electrode.

This has no visible relevance to the section. If anyone finds a better place, in the context of some dispute to which it's material, please fix. Dandrake 22:54, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)


See:

Szpak, S., et al. Polarized D+/Pd-D2O System: Hot Spots and “Mini-Explosions”. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org. lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSpolarizedd.pdf

See also PowerPoint slides for same, and movie clip from IR camera, here: lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm

weak argument

to summarize the pro fusion argument: some experements show excess heat, but this has not been proven. However, current physics knowlege is that huge initialization energy is required (its also suspicious that the counterargument to this is that current understanding of fusion physics is wrong). Also, electrolysis of heavy water is just oxidation and reduction, a chemical reaction involving valance electrons, which has nothing to do with nuclear reaction and nuclear forces. Also, "generaly cold, localy hot", is misleading because its hot fussion on a microscopic scale, and the only example of generaly cold fussion has nothing to do with electrolytic fussion (so there is really only one established prcess by which this can occur). Has a person with a physics or chemistry degree looked at this and found the pro argument convincing? 209.197.155.118

DOE report

The DOE report recently added can be used to improve the NPOV and factual correctness of this article. It asked for the best available data and evidence from the specified proponents of cold fusion and then peer reviewed it in a few ways. A 5 page summary pdf is available here. An important excerpt is the following:

"Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented." (Page 3)

I suppose it is interesting to note that at least one of the reviewers was swayed by the evidence and did accept that there was some effect beyond the "ordinary chemical or solid state sources". Overall, two thirds of the reviewers did not find the evidence compelling, one did, and the rest were somewhat convinced.

For the second review question, the standout quote is "The reviewers raised serious concerns regarding the assumptions postulated in the proposed theoretical model for the explanation for 4HE production"

Good stuff. - Taxman 03:23, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

As someone who knows almost nothing about the subject, I'm asking that the article be made more clear with regard to the recent DOE work. It says that DOE decided in March 2004 to conduct a review. I'm not clear about the "unofficial Summary Paper" (and I'm having some problems with .pdf files at the moment): Was this an explanation in March of why the review would go forward? Or is it part of the December 2004 report on the review, mentioned at the end of the section on "Current understanding of physics"? Why was it "unofficial"? Also, there's POV in introducing a quotation favorable to cold fusion by noting what it "clearly states" -- the word "clearly" is emphasizing the part that fits the writer's POV. More important is that the DOE material shouldn't be quoted selectively. The skeptical comments noted by Taxman above should also be included. I suggest that the date of the decision to conduct the review is now unimportant, unless the "unofficial Summary Paper" came well before December. Would it be accurate to say this:
In 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a review of all previous research of cold fusion in order to see whether further research was warranted by any new results. Its unofficial Summary Paper stated: "The experimental evidence for anomalies in metal deuterides, including excess heat and nuclear emissions, suggests the existence of new physical effects". It recognized indirect evidence in support of the D + D --> 4He + 23.8 MeV (heat) reaction, although the measurement of 4He quantity was imprecise.
The same paragraph would also present the skeptical portions noted by Taxman. JamesMLane 00:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Note that the DoE did not publish the actual commments made by the review panel members, but the New Energy Times and LENR-CANR did. They are here:

2004 US Department of Energy Cold fusion Review Reviewer Comments.

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf

130 papers were submitted to the DoE by cold fusion researchers during the review. They are listed here:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf

Full text versions of 41 of these papers are available here:

lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm

external links

I have trimmed several external links to news articles about cold fusion developments. (We could probably trim more!) They were repetitive and superseded by events, and wikipedia isn't a link farm. In general, links should be limited to deep background or source information. - DavidWBrooks 18:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 01:49, 27 Dec 2004 edit removing a section and leaving a link

While it's true that the page is quite long, I must disagree with Susurrus' removal of the "Arguments in the controversy" section for a number of reasons (Indeed, I think such a dramatic change in a feature article probably should have been mentioned here first):
First, if sub-pages are decided to be appropriate, I believe that the section heading should remain and a summary paragraph should remain in the main body- A good example of this might be the United States Constitution page has sub-pages for Preamble to the United States Constitution and United States Bill of Rights but retains a summary giving the gist of the material along with a link.
Secondly, the choice of which material should go onto a sub-page seems inappropriate to me- the arguments in the controversy section is the most important part of the article, and should remain on the main page. I would prefer to see almost any other section be summarized- perhaps the "Experimental Setup and Observations" which is rather technical and the "continuing Efforts" which is mostly a list of people rather than an explanation.
Finally, although I obviously don't know what Susurrus' motivations are, I believe there is an appearance of bias in this action of the removal of most of the skeptical material to a poorly labelled, easy to overlook link while keeping all of the nonskeptical material in the main body of the article. --Noren 17:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reference to original cold fusion paper

Prior reference linked to an incomplete version of the document. See Pg9 (Errata) for explanation of "Hawkins." -sk