Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion

Looking at past discussions, and considering the fact that things have cooled down, I'm wondering if we could restart normal editing of the cold fusion article. Does anybody have an issue with the current version of the article that would bring him to edit war if challenged ? Which hot issue do we need to resolve ?

For my side, I would say that my hot issues are:

• we need to put the conclusion of the charge elements in the lead sections
• we need to put the experimental results first, and history last.

Pcarbonn (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to proceed with mediation. It still seems like there is a vast chasm between those who think CF is a joke on par with ESP and those who want the article to reflect the scientific literature. I may feel differently if it turns out that the former group is tempered, but I am not comfortable abandoning mediation because I think that would just encourage people to revert back to the 2004 FA version again and again without consensus. And more immediately, I want to work out what we say about theory. MigFP (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be safe to say that we can move onto post-analysis, and actually begin incorporating sections of text and improving upon those in collaboration here rather than in a potential edit war at Cold Fusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The mediation seems to be progressing, but I fear it may be primarily because one side seems to have stopped participating. I'd like to see some buy-in from all parties before resuming editing again but that is the prerogative of the mediator. Ronnotel (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That is true, and Guy is probably on a hiatus for the moment. I don't see much harm in snipping out say, the lead, for starters, and working towards a revised portion that would satisfy both parties and per discussions above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Looking at Guy's recent contrib, he does not seem to be on a hiatus though. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have not been doing much on this or a couple of other fringe POV-pushing issues due to lack of time - it takes hours to read and think through the stuff. I ran the article past my friend who knew Pons and Fleischmann back in the day; he said the first para of the lead was an excellent statement of the subject. I have more of a problem with the "more than 490" para, it should start with the total number of papers on the subject (which is significant for a fringe subject), and only then state that 490 of them are supportive - otherwise it leads the reader to think it's supported and only later gives the data which shows that a majority of the published peer-reviewed material is actually not supportive of cold fusion. I've asked my friend to review this debate, whether he'll have time or not I don't know. I am very short of time right now for several reasons and am due at a conference in France the week after next so probably won't have much time until after that. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• It would be great to have such a distinguished professor contribute to the article, so thanks for your efforts. Please remind him that wikipedia is based on reliable sources of the written kind, so that he has correct expectations. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remember that we had some distinguished editors here at one point... but left due to the heated disputes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Pcarbonn, I am sure you did not mean to be condescending and rude, but that's how it comes across. Having been an admin hear for a while now, I do routinely appraise people of policy before I set them on the project, but in this case it's completely unnecessary as my friend is considerably smarter than either of us. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry if I appeared rude: I did not mean it. One can be very smart and still don't know how Wikipedia works, hence my suggestion. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I will be attempting to mediate the case regarding Cold fusion to the best of my abilities. If anyone would wish to voice their opinion in opposition to this, please indicate it below; otherwise, I will proceed to review the materials accordingly beginning on 14 January 2008, although you should expect to see something pop up earlier than that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To begin, can everyone involved please present a summary of the primary issue that is being disputed? I would like to hear a brief explanation from your point of view regarding the issue, which will be taken into consideration. Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Baas's view

Given more time I might comment more thoroughly, but to give a rough viewpoint, I would say that my view is well summarized by paraphrasing something Itsmejudith said: there is some "POV pushing" on both sides. Both sides should acknowledge this and try to work together to present NPOV content that is informative and verifiable. It seems to me that some people are pushing the "sociological" aspect, as reason to include or omit content, while others are pushing the "scientific" aspect for the same, and people have somewhat different definitions of "science", and what Wikipedia should present, in regards the gray area between science (which is defined differently) and society (which is given varying weight with respect to science). There is also (recently, at least) the "policy" aspect in regards the DOE report, and aspects of interpretation and balance with regard to it. Though this seems to me to be a proxy for more philosophical arguments.

I have been away from this article for a long time. I have learned a lot, from when I had studied it before, and found it interesting. It seems to me that some editors don't want people to be "misled" by reports of observations of changes in quantities of different atomic nuclei in certain solid-state metals, at low energies. My own opinion is that nothing so far is conclusive. I don't know of anyone with a different opinion. The question -- to me -- seems to be whether these phenomena -- or reports of observations -- which are related to what has become popularly known as "cold fusion", and so far lack any conclusive explanation, can and/or should be presented in an online encyclopedia in a neutral, verifiable way. I'm not sure that everyone else in the mediation would say that that is "the" question, but I would venture to say they'd agree that it is a question that has bearing.

There is an appreciable amount of scientific research that has been done regarding -- what appears on the surface to be nuclear phenomenon, at energies much lower than expected -- that most people don't know about. (As an aside, I'm doubtful whether these phenomena can be harnessed for energy.)

It's questionable whether or not these phenomena can be explained by plugging in the relevant values to current scientific theories (such as "an important starting point for much analysis" in solid-state physics: Bloch's theorem, applied to nuclei instead of electrons), or require new theories to explain. It is quite possible that surprising -- even counter-intuitive -- results can be discovered simply by plugging in values that haven't been plugged in before. Applying Bloch's theorem to nuclei seems the most reasonable approach to me find out what is predicted to happen by current theory. But all this says nothing about empirical observations in a controlled environment, which goes back to the "what is science?" debate.

Certainly anyone looking at the article would be interested in such things, and would benefit most from content that presents interesting and informative information in a neutral manner. In sum, I believe that there is a lot of verifiable information that can be presented in a neutral, informative way. The goal then, it seems to me, is to do so. Kevin Baas^talk 03:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JzG's view

Overview: Cold fusion is a topic which came to prominence in 1989 following a highly publicised paper in Nature from two well-known chemists, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. A friend of mine was working in one of Fleishmann's labs and took part in that experiment, he is now a full professor at an English university specialising in electrochemistry and surface effects and my POV was shaped before I ever saw the Wikipedia article by what he has told me about the history and current status of this field. The fundamental problems are:

• No generally accepted mechanism has been advanced to explain the supposed cold fusion effect.
• Cold fusion research is, as a result of the opprobrium heaped on Pons and Fleischmann, a pariah field.
• Multiple reports have tried and either failed or succeeded in duplicating the excess energy affect noted by Pons and Fleischmann, but this is unpersuasive due to the lack of an accepted underlying mechanism.

In 2004, the cold fusion article was an FA, and the POV it reflected matched both my pre-existing understanding of the topic, and the views published in Physics Today, journal of the American Institute of Physics. A 2004 review by the Department of Energy concluded that there was basic science lacking in the proponents' position; the proponents' natrually interpreted this review as being supportive of further research, while simultaneously attacking the review as not following the scientific method; one of the participants in the dispute, user:Pcarbonn, has stated that his view is that the review failed to follow the scientific method^{[citation needed]}. It is clear that most of the active editors on the article vary between positive and uncritical towards cold fusion. To add further confusion, the subject lies at the fringes of the free energy suppression conspiracy theory.

During 2005 the article was badly skewed towards the tenaciously held minority view that cold fusion is an emergent field demanding of more study - proto-science rather than fringe science. This resulted in the article being first demoted from FA and then reverted to the FA version twice, most recently by me. It was this revert which triggered the current dispute.

There have been a number of fringe proponents active on the page, notably Jed Rothewell, "librarian" of lenr-canr.org, a website devoted to promoting the pro cold fusion POV. At one point we were citing the US Department of energy review from lenr-canr, where the report was prefaced by a critique written by Rothwell.

Problems for me include:

• Editors advocating removal or de-emphasising of mainstream coverage such as that in Physics Today.
• Editors advocating the use of cherry-picked supportive passages from the report rather than the conclusion, which adds perspective.
• Laundry-lists of papers supporting cold fusion, which fail to address the fact that however high the pile of papers gets, the dominant view of the scientific community is that this is a fringe subject lacking important basic elements.
• Recentism, emphasising new papers published by CF advocates over and above the historical context; public perception of cold fusion stems from and is dominated by the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, due to its high profile as a scientific controversy.
• Creation of POV-forks to get round protection.

The issues to be settled relate to WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.

Pcarbonn portrays this as footnote versus continuing field; that's a false dilemma. It's a fringe field which is controversial due to the spectacular way it blew up in the faces of two respected scientists and Nature - it's a cautionary tale for scientists about going too early to press, and a cautionary tale for journals about peer review. Sure. there is a small amount of ongoing research. Very little, and not published in major journals. A sideline. And presenting the ongoing research as anything other than that is a gross falure of WP:NPOV. To quote Physics Today:

The cold fusion claims made in 1989 by B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann didn't hold up. But they did spawn a small and devoted coterie of researchers who continue to investigate the alleged effect. Cold fusion die-hards say their data from the intervening 15 years merit a reevaluation-- and a place at the table with mainstream science. Now they have the ear of the US Department of Energy.
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-4/p27.html

This article has been and is being abused to rehash the debate, rather than accurately reflect the status of it. The status of cold fusion research is, as the thoroughly mainstream Physics Today amply demonstrates, a sideline dominated by the fallout from the Pons-Fleischmann debacle. Yes, we know that adovcates of cold fusion think there is a vast conspiracy to do them down, just as we know that creationists view the entire scientific community as a vast conspiracy to deny the obvious truth of the existence of a divine creator. We should document the existence of these views by reference to coverage of the debate in secondary sources. We absolutely must not (as the article currently does) go out and write our own synthesis of the status of this sideshow tremendously exciting emergent field by counting papers in the journals, trawling the polemics of the CF advocates and in sundry other ways soapboxing on their behalf.

MigFP does not like the revert. He's ignoring three important facts here. First, the version form three years ago is a featured article. Second, this is the second time it's been reverted (and both times for the same reason). Third, the reason for the revert is the vast number of "incremental changes" made by CF advocates such as Jed Rothwell, serving first to get the article demoted from FA status due to excessive advocacy of fringe science and then to get it reverted. Twice. Let's not pretend that the version before reversion was anything like good, eh? Another point you may have noticed: while the community of editors pushing CF has remained pretty stable, there have been several others who've come by and noted the problems of POV-pushing. I had no history on that article before this current dispute started, and I have no vested interest in either promoting or downplaying CF. My only contact with it outside of Wikipedia has been with a scientist who knows about it and holds what appears to be the mainstream view. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have questions:

1. Why is a "lack of an accepted underlying mechanism" any reason to dismiss the large and, according to the Naval Research Laboratory review (as quoted in my view below), strengthening body of replications? Is there any case in the history of science that theoretical objections have trumped empirical evidence? Isn't the whole point of the scientific method to find theory that conforms to observation, and not the other way around?
2. Is there any support for your view that, "however high the pile of papers gets, the dominant view of the scientific community is that this is a fringe subject"? You have an un-reviewed op-ed which suggests that it is a fringe subject, but there really isn't anything at all stating that further peer-reviewed papers on the "pile" will never change scientist's views on the subject, is there?
3. Are there really any cold fusion researchers who publish in the peer-reviewed literature, who "think there is a vast conspiracy to do them down"? Isn't that just what cook onlookers say? Is there any legitimate cold fusion scientist in the field who does not think that the root of the problem is the inability of others attempting to replicate the result to obtain high loadings, as the NRL review states?

These accusations in Guy's view are not just unsourced, they are demonstrably false. MigFP (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

MigFP, with remarks like the above you are really helping people to view you as an irredeemable POV-pusher.

We don't care how many people can reproduce the experiment, because without an underlying mechanism it is not usable and will not be accepted - and in terms of the global population of researchers on electrochemistry the number currently reproducing the experiment is tiny anyway.

Have you learned nothing at all from the history of this subject? Scientists are not going to accept something called cold fusion based on the fact that not everybody who reproduces the experiment fails. There is less research now than there was fifteen years ago, and describing the number of reproductions of the experiment as "growing" is self-fulfilling, as everybody who does not fail in running the experiment will be another data point. It's irrelevant. Without the basic science, the scientific community is not going to accept it. I have cited below a publication form the major funding body for science in the UK which lumps cold fusion with antigravity in the realms of impossible things. Without a credible underlying mechanism, that's where it's staying in the scientific consciousness. And Wikipedia is not the place to fix that.

Bottom line: Wikipedia is not the place to blaze the trail for the resurgence of low temperature fusion research. That's precisely what advocates have been using Wikipedia for, and it's unacceptable. They need to get in the major journals, and then when the scientific establishment might change its view. In matters of science, the POV of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council essentially is the neutral point of view. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy, as you are apparently unable to cite any example in the history of science where empirical data was disregarded for lack of theory, you resort to what some might see as personal attacks such as "irredeemable POV-pusher." I have indeed learned from the history of this subject, which is chronicled in the peer-reviewed literature review that I have excerpted below. It presents clear evidence that the reason so many of the early rush of attempted replications failed is because they did not understand how to achieve a high loading. There is plenty of reason to accept this peer-reviewed explanation, and no reason to doubt it.

As for counting the number of labs, that is preposterous. There are only seventeen labs investigating tokamak fusion. So why is tokamak research not fringe science by your standard -- because it has seven more labs working on it?

The only support you have for your position that cold fusion is pseudoscience is a couple of op-eds, and the public relations collateral of a government agency. None of your sources have been peer-reviewed, and all are contradicted by the peer-reviewed literature[12][13][14] WP:V is clear: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals.... peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." You are helping people to see that you have as much respect for the reliable source criteria as you do for civility. MigFP (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pcarbon's view

The central issue in this dispute is whether cold fusion should be portrayed as a footnote of the history of science, like N-ray, or as a still-open scientific question, like the pioneer anomaly. I favor the latter because that is what the 2004 DOE says. Cold fusion can not be presented as a proven phenomena, nor as a falsified phenomena that would have been explained by an experimental artifact like N-ray. It lies in the uncomfortable middle of the 2. Rejecting cold fusion because it contradicts current theories is unscientific, and that argument has not been used for rejection by reliable sources such as the DOE.

As an open scientific issue, all its side should be presented in proportion to what reliable sources said, to respect due weight. DOE is the most reliable second source for this topic. I would not base due weight on the opinion of "most scientists" as these are not reliable sources according to wikipedia policies, even if that opinion is reported by reliable sources. The article should be based on the published opinions of people knowledgeable in the relevant field : this is not the same as the unpublished opinion of "most scientists". We should distinguish scientific consensus from consensus of scientists.

Cold fusion is different from the paranormal and other fringe science in that a neutral review was conducted in 2004: the article should reflect what it said, so that the reader can make his own opinion.

The current version of the article is basically OK, except that I would change the order of the sections: 1. experimental reports, 2. arguments in the controversy, 3. history to reflect the fact that it is still an open issue, not a footnote of history. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Pcarbonn's comments (except that I have not read the version he refers to in the last para and have no opinion on that). ObsidianOrder (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 209.253.120.205's View

-Like Pcarbonn, I think the present version is basically OK, but a few small changes would improve it. However, I don't see any value in changing the order of the sections.

-We should add a link to the January 2005 Physics Today article, since that represents the view of mainstream scientists. This is an encyclopedia article, so the mainstream view should be given very large weight. For those who want balance, that is provided by the pro-cold-fusion articles and books cited elsewhere in the article.

-Perhaps we should replace the phrase "pathological science" with "bad science or voodoo science."

-The word "Early" should be removed from the sentence in the introduction starting with "Early attempts to replicate the effect were unsuccessful..." While there are ongoing experiments in the field, none have succeeding in reproducing the Pons-Fleishmann apparatus and data, as described in their original paper. This point seems to have been forgotten, so I will say it again: The pro-cold-fusion results of the original Pons-Fleishmann announcement and paper have not been reproduced reliably. The work of McKubre et al. (1994) is suggestive, but since it has apparently not been developed further in the last 14 years, it is also definitely suspect.

However, the introduction should still emphasize there is significant recent activity related to cold fusion. I suggest that that sentence and the following sentence be replaced with:

   "Attempts by others to replicate the effect were unsuccessful, after which cold fusion
   gained a reputation as an example of "bad science" or "voodoo science." [links to 
   January 2005 Physics Today article, Park book, Taubes book]

   [new paragraph]

   However, many researchers have reported evidence of cold fusion in similar
   experiments and have published more than 490 reports in peer reviewed journals. 
   These reports include nearly 200 reports of anomalous heat and over 60 reports 
   of anomalous tritium production."

-As a general comment, I think it would be helpful to keep the size of article small. I am concerned that the size of a wikipedia article alone can imply that cold fusion is respected by mainstream scientists, which is not the case.

-The paragraph in the introduction discussing the 2004 DOE report should be made tolerable to as many editors as possible. That may be hard, but it is probably the best task to focus on at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.253.120.205 (talk • contribs)

But the issue is, that Physics Today is not the only source of the mainstream view. In fact, the Physics Today article was authored by an individual that is nothing more than an op-ed piece, beginning with a rather harsh and POV-push. I doubt that you'll find sources in opposite rendering of that, and at any rate, an op-ed piece, even if it is used as a source, can be a deal-breaker for someone who is reading the article. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

-I am confused. Why was my edit reverted without an explanation? 209.253.120.205 (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You removed a large selection of my comments as a Mediator. Your comments are always there in the edit history for reinsertion if you wish to re-add. An explanation was given in the edit summary. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

-I am extremely sorry. That removal was completely accidental. Also, since I didn't realize that I had done it, the explanation in the edit summary didn't make any sense, so sorry again for not understanding that. Here is what I wanted to add:

-"Physics Today is not the only source of the mainstream view": What other sources do you have in mind? Also, the January 2005 Physics Today article was not an op-ed, it was a news item, at least judging by the other articles in the same section of the magazine. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries :O) I figured it was an accidental deletion. The other sources that I am requesting include peer-reviewed reviews in highly-regarded journals. This isn't something that was envisioned by some teenager in his backyard, so there should be something with a little more teeth. What I meant by op-ed, was that it was authored by one individual with a clear strong bias (re: title), and that it was in a magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor's view

I think Wikipedia should remain completely neutral on the crucial questions of the cold fusion debate. That is, the article should not endorse the findings of the pro-CF side that cold fusion has actually been produced or that any cold fusion experiments have generated more electricity than was pumped into them. Nor should the article endorse the view that cold fusion is a farce or a fake or wishful thinking.

The article should not say whether cold fusion is real or not. Rather, it should summarize the views of the two main sides of the debate: the supporters and the skeptics. It should supply enough detail so that interested readers, who want to decide for themselves, can make up their own minds. (If the detail gets too long or too confusing, we can refer to outside sources to make it easier.)

In any case, Wikipedia should not take a side on the question. It should just report on what the two sides say. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Ed Poor's comments. ObsidianOrder (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MigFP's view

The primary issue that is being disputed is whether reliable sources have confirmed, repudiated, or are ambivalent on the question as to whether the effect reported informally as "cold fusion" is real or the result of experimental error.

I agree with the most recent literature review on the topic, published last year in a peer-reviewed academic journal by the head of the Materials & Sensors Branch in the Materials Science and Technology Division at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.[15](full text) That review states:

There are more than 10 groups world wide that have reported the measurement of excess heat in 1/3 of their experiments in open and/or closed electrochemical cells with a Pd solid metal cathode and deuterium containing electrolyte, or D₂ gas loading of Pd powders (see Table 1 of the main text). Most of these groups have occasionally experienced significant events lasting for time periods of hours to days with 50–200% excess heat measured as the ratio between electrical input energy and heat output energy. Moreover, these experimenters have improved their methods over time and it is to be noted that the reported excess heat effect has not diminished in frequency or magnitude....

Considerable progress has been made on several fronts that include improved reproducibility of high loading of deuterium in Pd cathodes, improved reproducibility of measured excess heat in highly Deuterium-loaded Pd cathodes, and improved in-situ measurement of the status of the Pd cathodes. The materials science of hydrogen loading is now well enough understood that it may offer a reason why the many groups that tried to reproduce the heat effect in 1989-90 were unsuccessful. Less encouraging are the facts that there is still no viable physical mechanism to explain the heat effect, and triggering the heat effect is still not empirically understood....

One reason that most researchers were unsuccessful in achieving heat production may have been at least in part due to the lack of understanding of how to achieve a H/Pd ratio of > 0.95....

Unable to achieve high loading, and, therefore, excess heat, most researchers declared that heat production in Fleishmann and Pons cells is not a real effect and ceased working on the experiments. [emphasis added]

The article should present those views, and, in accordance with WP:NPOV, a summary of the 2004 DoE review's charge statements, the responses to them, and its conclusions, because the DoE review represents a more skeptical viewpoint of the same reliability, and is currently the second most recent literature review.

There is no doubt that cold fusion became a laughingstock after the initial failures by scientists who were unable to reproduce the effect in their experiments. This stigma affects editors today who have not carefully studied the peer-reviewed scientific literature, instead basing their opinions on un-reviewed op-eds and off-the-cuff comments of those who have no experience in the field.

Having said that, I believe the effect, while real, is of such tiny magnitude that it will never amount to any kind of a viable source of power. I don't think any honest person who has studied the total input/output power ratios of even the most promising published results could say otherwise.

Finally, I think reverting the article to a version more than three years old instead of making incremental changes -- regardless of the merit -- was an affront to established Wikipedia norms and should be un-done. Any changes which achieve consensus can be done one-at-a-time. MigFP (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I emphatically agree with the last statement by MigFP: "reverting the article to a version more than three years old instead of making incremental changes -- regardless of the merit -- was an affront to established Wikipedia norms and should be un-done". Indeed. Thank you for bringing that up. ObsidianOrder (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ObsidianOrder's View

I have been very involved in the Cold Fusion page some time ago. I have taken a break from Wikipedia since but some of you may still remember me. I do not have an axe to grind, one way or the other, nor is my mind completely made up about CF and any CF-related issues. In the spirit of openness, curiosity and open scientific investigation, I would like to know what is going on in this field and in the physical experiments in question. That said, I also do not believe that the case on CF is closed; there are completely inexplicable - according to any established theory - experimental results which must be viewed as being almost beyond reasonable doubt (example, the particle tracks from the Szpak experiments). I would like to see the page accurately reflect the fact that there are big open questions, and fairly present both sides of the issue (namely: CF is classically impossible; there are major experimental problems with many CF experiments, as well as poor statistical reproducibility, and complete failures to reproduce; there are many experiments which have produced completely inexplicable and anomalous results which are suggestive of LENR, and which cannot be explained as experimental errors; and there are a few theories which have limited predictive power and have not gained wide currency; does that sum it up?). To try to fairly present both sides, I had at one time developed a draft version (which I can't find right now, but is probably archived somewhere?) and outline which appeared to incorporate everything that everyone wanted to incorporate, and yet had a logical flow. I also wrote a detailed description of every theoretical reason that explains why CF is conventionally impossible, or at least extremely unlikely. I was essentially trying to act as a mediator, but perhaps the perception that I am pro-CF made that attempt less than successful.

My main concern in this mediation process is the removal of key information. In a subject like this, I would far rather present too much than too little, and let the reader decide as to its credibility or significance. I believe readers are smarter than some editors might credit. Because of that, I am very disturbed by the persistent removal of information that is supportive of CF (example, there is no link to the SPAWAR report in the current version of the page; the revert to a version over a year old removed almost all references, and persistent edit-warring over attempts to add back the removed references ensued; and so on, more examples are trivially easy to come up with from the history of this page). This is an endemic problem that only seems to happen where pro-CF information is concerned; at least I have not seen anti-CF information removed in the same way (I could be wrong; feel free to give counterexamples). I do not care how things are worded, or what light things are presented in in the text, as long as all the important facts are at least mentioned somewhere somehow, and links given. What bothers me is when facts are omitted and links removed. There is no possible excuse for this: the information removed is highly relevant, reputable, and would generally appear to meet all criteria for inclusion.

As a general principle, I adamantly believe that it is not the place of Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) to serve as a defender of scientific orthodoxy. Rather, scientifically (or otherwise) controversial subjects should be accurately described as controversial, and a fair account given of all sides in the controversy, only minimally constrained by considerations of space (wikipedia is not paper), clarity, readability, or quality of sources (since each side in a controversy is automatically an authority on what their own position is, if not on any other facts). An encyclopedia is not the last word, especially so on subjects on which the last word hasn't been spoken yet; the most it can aim for is a good starting point for future research, which quickly familiarizes the reader with all aspects of the issue, and gives pointers for further research. It is also important to remember that science is not a voting contest. The mere fact that 99% of scientists believe something is true does not make it true; history provides plentiful examples of scientific ideas that were almost universally believed to be true and are now known to be false (phlogiston), as well as vice versa (tectonic plates). It would be foolish to suppose that all ideas which are universally believed today won't be overturned. Scientific consensus is not an especially valuable notion either, because in most "interesting" fields there are strong dissenting views by highly reputed scientists with impecable credentials; so much so that true consensus only really exists about the most trivial of subjects. Even if the concept of scientific consensus were useful, it quite clearly does not exist in this field (example, no issue in which Nobel prize winners take positions on opposite sides can be said to have a consensus), and hence it should have no place in the discussion or in guiding this article, at least so far as deciding what to include or exclude is concerned. That said, it is important to accurately indicate the "mainstream-ness" of different pieces of information, but only to indicate, not filter based on that.

There may have been RfAs and/or other rulings as to whether Wikipedia is actually supposed to be a defender of scientific orthodoxy. Not having been very active here recently, I am not familiar with the results of those. If they do indicate Wikipedia is supposed to be that, then I shall withdraw from all further discussion, as I have nothing to contribute to such a forum; all information suitable for inclusion may be found in any decent (or random) selection of textbooks, and CF deserves no mention at all. ObsidianOrder (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back ! I remember you have created an outline of the CF article here, back in January 2006. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DoE report reference

When referencing a US Department of Energy report, should the reference summary quote a paragraph from the body of the report, or the report's conclusions?

• I replied at talk:Cold fusion initially, but here is a recap: I agree in the statement that in order to explain and present the Charge Questions fairly, that it would be appropriate to present what the report summarised, given that they are considerably more detailed than the conclusion. But to present only one or two of the Charges would be insufficient to the context of the article, and could pose undue weight one way or another; therefore, all three should be presented and explained in detail as much as possible, without explicitly copying from one document to another. I don't see any major issues to the Charges, in relation that they are irrelevant. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• The 2004 DoE review is important enough that we should include all of the charge questions in full, along with a summary of the responses to them in addition to the report's conclusions. In the lead, the existing summary of the conclusions is the right amount of detail. MigFP (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why include information which is freely available and included in the cited source? That gives undue weight to the review, which after all merely confirmed the previous review and the scientific consensus. What people are expecting to see is the Pons-Fleischmann controversy plus some detail on what has happened since. Without Pons-Fleischmann there would be no article and no field, it is clearly the most important part of the article. The DoE review does nothing to change the field other than identify the fundamental problems in gaining greater acceptance. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• While it could give undue weight because of the review, is there an equal amount of free material in regards to the Pons-Fleischmann controversy to balance it out? I would say that the DoE review does nothign to change the field, but it does offer greater insight into the issue; I would hope that someone could find something regarding the controversy to counteract that, outside of a conclusion summary. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was one of the pOV-forks created during the dispute. It is plain from a review of the article's history that the DoE review is being used for purposes of propaganda, especially by cherry-picking the comments which support further research (and omitting the comment that this needs to be properly conducted and address the fundamental deficiencies in the work to date), while de-emphasising the near-unanimous agreement of the panel that the CF advocates had failed to make their case any better than last time. After fifteen years or persistent effort, this lack of progress is pretty damning, and the minor and off-topic jouirnals in which the CF advocates are publishing also speaks volumes. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• So that article was just nothing more than cherry-picked comments from the Charge Questions specifically, or was this from other references in the report? What I proposed is that all three Charge Questions be brought forth, and that adequate discussion be held on both sides of the argument so that the POV-fork that occurred at DoE panel on cold fusion would not occur again. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with the DoE review is this: it was held because the "devoted coterie of researchers" demanded it. It met them, and they failed to persuade the panel. The panel told them to go away and get the science right, but that Uncle Sam was not about to pay them to do so. That's what was said fifteen years ago. Amazingly little progress, then, for something that would, if proven, be of such immense importance. Numerous programmes have been started, and all but a dozen or so shut down. It's hard to see that in the article as written, which tells of a vibrant field on the cusp of a great discovery. It may be that one day science will tell the story in those terms, but right now science mostly laughs and points, or perhaps quietly ignores, this field. But if a more thorough treatment of that, as a minastream perspective, were to replace most of the current laundry list of cold fusion advocacy papers, it would have some merit. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Guy misrepresents the panel's view with hyperbole and distortion:
  1. the DOE did not say they were approached by a "devoted coterie of researchers" -- the term they used was "a group of scientists"
  2. the panel did not tell them to "go away and get the science right"
  3. the panel did not say "Uncle Sam was not about to pay them to do so" -- in fact, it specifically recommended funding proposal submission to government agencies

Further, I don't see anything in the article that "tells of a vibrant field on the cusp of a great discovery" -- what text is being referred to? MigFP (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• While the CF advocates misrrepresent the DoE report y cherry-picking the bits they like. "Devoted coterie of researchers" is taken from a source. Of course DoE did not call them that, but it is absolutely clear that the group called a "devoted coterie of researchers" and the group asking for the DoE review are one and the same, because there are so few people pursuing this field. The panel did in deed say that questions of basic science needed to eb answered, and that they should investigate this, it also said that the DoE would not be funding cold fusion research. Go away and write a proper proposal to investigate the basic science, in other words, as opposed to spending fifteen years trying to reproduce the original experiment without doing the basic science, which is what they had been doing. So yes, as I read it, the DoE told them to go away and get the basic science right. I am reminded, in reading CF advocates' reaction to the DoE review, of the speedophile advocate Paul Smith's reaction to an email from H. C. Jocksch, which called Smith's use of his research "interesting" and told him that he was misrepresenting it and should remove his (Jocksch's) name from his work. Smith focused on the word "interesting" and said that he had addressed the flaws Jocksch identified, so republished with Jocksch's name still there. No amount of discussion got him to realise that this was "interesting" in the sense of "completely off the wall" and that the fundamental problem of applying a formula outside it's range of applicability was not remedied by acknowledging that fact. The cold fusion advocates have had fifteen years to come up wiht something more persuasive than repeating the experiments that brought ridicule to Pons and Fleischmann. They did not do that. They are True Belivers,. and science has sidelined them. They may be able to change that, if they genuinely are ontop something, but not without getting the basic science right, starting with a publication in a major journal that proves, in a way others can accurately reproduce, the proposed underlying mechanism. They can argue until the sky turns pink about the fact that the scientific establishment is doing them down, and it will not persuade. Scientists are persuaded by science, not by conjuring tricks. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The references to the DOE report are taken completly out of context. Reviewing the entire report, it reads like this, paraphrased - "This is all trash, no real research has been done on this field, most of the publications on it are garbage, and it would be really good if more scientists looked at this as opposed to the refuse that looks at it now." Here's what the above intro quotes "It would be really good if more scientists looked at this." PouponOnToast (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are perfectly untitled to have this interpretation of the report, but please keept it to yourself. Wikipedia is not meant to present the interpretation of editors, but to provide verifiable content in a neutral point of view. For inclusion of your opinion, please provide verifiable evidence of "This is all trash, no real research has been done on this field, most of the publications on it are garbage". Pcarbonn (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That is my illustrative example of the dishonesty present in the current citation of the full scope of the report. Obviously, such language would never be appropriate in main space. PouponOnToast (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I understood that. I did not mean to ask you to find these exact words in a verifiable source, but to find quotes from reliable sources in support of your extreme view. Also, how do you explain that the report says that the panel was evenly split on whether the evidence of excess heat was convincing ? Surely, there must be some scientific evidence in support of that view: there must have been some real research; it cannot all be trash (even if there is garbage). Pcarbonn (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should go to the conclusion, rather than the center of the section. For instance "The preponderance of the revierwers' evaluations indiicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nulear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented." PouponOnToast (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. How about the conclusion of to Charge Element 1, then: "Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced." Pcarbonn (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Very few people doubt muon-catalyzed fusion PouponOnToast (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I fail to see the link with muon-catalyzed fusion. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

muon-catalyzed fusion is a "low energy nuclear reaction." It is conclusively demonstrated by Stephen Jones. PouponOnToast (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean: what's the link with this discussion ? Muon-cat fusion is not the topic reviewed by DOE. See the report submitted by the researchers to the DOE for their review. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

muon-cat fusion is a widely understood phenominon that explains, if it were taking place, some of the "results" purported. Some of the reviewers believed there were results, but those results were m-c. None (but one) believed there was any sort of abnormal result. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a citation for that? If so, it would be a good candidate for inclusion if a reliable source can be found. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the only reasonable inference from the results, but none of the reviewers published their thought processes that I am aware of. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Having muon-cat fusion happen in an electrolytic jar would be a remarkable feat, contrary to known physics. Thus, what you have just done is propose a contending theory. Thank you for your suggestion. I see that you are now convinced of the effect. :-) Pcarbonn (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence submitted includes the Jones experiments, which have been conclusively shown to have emitted particles due to muon-cat fusion. (Czerski, K. and Huke, A. and Biller, A. and Heide, P. and Hoeft, M. and Ruprecht, G. (2001). Enhancement of the electron screening effect for d+ d fusion reactions in metallic environments), see also our good article on Muon-catalyzed fusion. Please don't attempt to be "funny" online - it can come across as being a dick to those less willing to assume good faith. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(restarting indent) I don't see a reason that it cannot be used as a mention or reference, considering that an article for Muon-catalyzed fusion already exists. Why not add it into the lead or wherever you feel it is appropriate and we can work with it from there? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

PouponOnToast, I infer from your comments that you are retracting your statement that there was no real science. Please tell me if I'm wrong, because that is the main issue discussed here.

For the side discussion on muon-cat fusion, it is only one of the possible explanations. Observing it in a jar is contrary to known physics, and it is not mentionned in the panel's reports. So, I don't see why it should go in the lead. It could go in a theory section if a review of possible theories shows that it is a valid contender. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I retract nothing. I do not believe mc fusion is appropriate for the lead either. The vast majority of "science" presented by the group was garbage. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you retract nothing, I fail to understand why you brought the m-c fusion topic. I note anyway that you have not responded to my comment on Charge Element 1, and thus to my challenge to your statement on garbage science. I'll thus continue to consider it as your own opinion, not worthy of representation in the lead. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So we are not complaining about it being in the lead or not. Good. Let's place it where appropriate, or type it out here, and we can come to a consensus on where it is best placed at. I don't see an overbearing need to see it in the lead (I threw it out there as a general suggestion), but it is definitely worth including. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If several views are significant, should the article represents all the significant views of the DoE panel, or just the most important one?

• I believe I covered this topic above. I expressed desire to have all significant views of the DoE panel covered, given that selecting the most "important" views can lead up to controversy. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the current version represent the DoE panel's view(s) appropriately?

• See above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would say that the "experimental report" section of the article fairly represents the DoE view, but that the last paragraph of the lead section of the article needs much improvement. Its second sentence talks of "similar conclusions", but the reader has not clue of what they could be. One way to solve this is to include a summary of the conclusion of each Charge Question in the lead section. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue teaching of controversy?

WP:UNDUE: does (e.g.) counting the number of published papers violate WP:UNDUE in the manner that "teach the controversy" gives undue weight to minor dissent from scientific consensus; one party wishes to emphasise that...

• This is a tricky subject. Cold fusion is not entirely based upon fringe theories as much as published research that is validated by reputable sources. While focusing solely on published papers that could influence the thought of the reader can pose some issues, so does "teaching" the controversy that could unfairly influence the reader as well. I don't think it is too necessary in this stage of the process to question the number of peer-reviewed articles that support cold fusion versus those that are against it, per se (or those that teach the controversy). Regarding which sections of an individual review to summarize in the article, I would suggest summarizing the Charge Questions (in the above note) or the general body of text rather than the conclusion; readers should be able to draw their own conclusions after reading the article, in that they wouldn't be overly influenced by a summarized conclusion at the end of an article -- that is of course, authored by an individual or group of individuals that could bare influence (e.g. DOE). I also do not believe that it would be appropriate to assume that the article is in error, based solely on the assumed bias of the references and its appropriate weight. See latest comments above for a possible solution. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Controversy may exist about theories, but far less so about facts. If Szpak et al report seeing particle tracks in a plastic detector, they either (a) lied, or (b) made it up, or (c) completely screwed up the experiment somehow (really not easy: accidentally put it a few cm away from an alpha emitter, every time?) or (d) it really happened: a scientific fact (the meaning of which of course is very much open to discussion). While there are some CF experiments that have been subjected to significant critique on "experimental error" grounds (excess heat anyone?), others are far less susceptible to such critique, and/or no such critiques exist. This is quite different from "teach the controversy", where only theories (mostly not capable of experimental refutation, even) are at issue. It would appear that there is no controversy about the Szpak or Iwamura results; if there were, where is it published? ObsidianOrder (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Iwamura, see my latest comments at the end of the isotope-shift section: [16]. Regarding radiation tracks, I am still working on it. So far it appears to me that your category (c) above applies here too. --Rabbiz (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The best explanation I've seen thus far for the CR-39 results was from [Earthtech], itself something of a fringe energy group with projects on vacuum energy etcetera. They found that etching was dependent on the structure of the substance being electroplated - if conditions were such that the metal being electroplated was dendritic then the pits were found, but if it was a soft mass no pits were found. They even found pits when using CuSO₄ under the right conditions rather than palladium, suggesting a mechanical cause of the etching rather than chemical. I'm not aware of these results being published anywhere other than the web, however, possibly because few journals find discrediting a subject as fringe as cold fusion to be notable. Editors pushing for a pro-cold fusion article objected to presenting these results on the basis of the forum in which they were published, see [this discussion].

Another objection that has been made to the Szpak interpretation was that the pits observed were too large to have been made by the small energetic particles that Szpak had claimed to be the cause. Ludwik Kowalski argued this in his presentation at the Spring 2007 APS meeting, which unfortunately I've only seen in its [New Energy Times] version. The title of slide 22 as the document currently reads is: "Large pits we observed cannot be attributed to alpha particles or protons, or neutrons." This reference was originally in the CF page (with the ambiguous title "interpretations vary") but was moved to the footnotes, a response to it was added within that footnote, and ultimately it was removed entirely.--Noren (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Noren, for finding these references. For a better understanding of the logical fallacy in the conclusions from the CR-39 experiments, I suggest reading: Affirming the consequent.

This is how the logical fallacy is produced:

• Nuclear reactions cause radiation.
• Radiation causes pits in CR-39 detectors.
• CR-39 detectors have pits.
• Therefore, low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) have occurred near the detectors.

However, there are also other simpler ways to produce pits in CR-39 detectors.

Noren's explanation above is good. Another possible explanation is the presence of radioactive contamination in the palladium being electroplated out of the electrolyte. All palladium includes some material reclaimed from spent nuclear fuel in nuclear reactors. This nuclear-produced palladium, which includes radioactive contaminants, is mixed into mined palladium to dilute it and reduce radiation concentration to required safety levels. Upon electroplating, all the radioactive material gets concentrated on the cathode and causes pitting of the CR-39 detectors. I am not saying that this is the cause. all I am saying is that the authors have not excluded the possibility of simple causes. --Rabbiz (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect that the entire field of CF is an "Affirming the consequent" type of a logical fallacy.

• Nuclear fusion produces heat.
• Unexplained heat is observed in the cell.
• Therefore, nuclear fusion is occurring in the cell.

--Rabbiz (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would stop presenting original research all the time, because you are misleading editors. It's also taking the time away from improving the article: other editors, like me, need to correct your misleading statements (as I had to do on the Faraday efficiency effect). I wish Seicer would ask you to stop doing that, and request you to provide sources for your statements. "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues." See How to use talk pages.

Clearly, some of the sources mentionned above are not reliable (they are self-published) and have no notability (like the Faraday efficiency idea), and should not be represented in the article, one way or another.

The article should represent the view of the DOE panel, until a better source is found. This view is that some reputable scientists believe that excess heat can be explained by chemistry or other experimental artefacts, as you believe, and that other reputable scientists believe that it comes from a nuclear phenomenom. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

a) My only intention is to demonstrate how "the authors have not excluded the possibility of simple causes." Therefore, until proven otherwise, their findings are still subject to the possibility of the "Affirming the consequent" type of a logical fallacy. (And that's exactly what the DOE reviewer said about the Iwamura paper.) This is simple logic, not original research. b) Publications in conference proceedings or in New Energy Times, or on Internet websites are all "self published" primary sources due to the lack of peer review. It makes no difference where a self-published paper is made available to the public. c) We have no disagreement on your point that "some reputable scientists believe that excess heat can be explained by chemistry or other experimental artefacts ... and that other reputable scientists believe that it comes from a nuclear phenomenom." Since I, and everyone else, agree with you on this point, you don't need to keep pressing it forever. d) I am not as POV'd as you think I am. I am just not willing to close the eyes of the readers to the possibility that some of the basic assumptions in this field might be flawed. As a scientist, I am still waiting to see evidence that the assumptions are true. So should the readers. This is how science works, not the other way around. And, this approach to the philosophy of science is not original research. This is the scientific method. e) Your desire to close your eyes, and the eyes of the readers, to the possibility that some of the basic assumptions in this field might be flawed, is your style of POV pushing, under the guise of following policy which, you think, gives you a license to close eyes. --Rabbiz (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I'm glad that we agree on what the article should say. So, even if we disagree on other things, I don't see the need to continue this discussion, since it won't result in any change to the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Physics Today article

Is it appropriate to rely on Physics Today as an indicator of how the subject is currently viewed by the mainstream

• Not in whole. It is essentially an op-ed piece by Toni Feder (cold fusion receives a 'chilly' review) that if used, should be followed up by other sources that give equal balance and essentially praise cold fusion. It would be unfair to let one article dominate how it is viewed by the mainstream. On the other hand, I am in belief that it may be in the best interests to not use the op-ed piece or any piece that relates cold fusion to the mainstream, given the complexities of the project and its potential POV-fork that could happen regardless of any source that is available. Essentially, every source you find regarding its view in the mainstream will be an op-ed piece -- that's undeniable, given that someone must intercept how it is viewed by other scientists, by the media and by the general public. Anyone have any opinions regarding that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seicer (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• The way to convey how the matter is viewed by other scientists is to report on peer-reviewed literature reviews in academic journals. In the past four years, one such review has been published, by the head of the Materials & Sensors Branch in the Materials Science and Technology Division at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. (full text) Since it reaches substantially different conclusions than those of the DOE reviews which are reported in detail, it seems to me that WP:NPOV demands its inclusion. MigFP (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just one independent review? If it reaches substantially different conclusions (I'll try to read over it later tonight) than that of the DoE conclusion, then it should be added as a counter-weight. But is there anything else that relates solely to how the mainstream views Cold Fusion? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have full text of that paper. That said, the abstract indicates that it is not fundamentally differnet form the DoE review. The DoE review notes that people have been reproducing the experiment with greater or lesser success, but also notes that basic science is missing. I read that abstract as saying: here's one sort of experiment that might help with that. DoE also says that good quality peer-reviewed basic science is the way forward. There is, in the scientific community of today, little if any point repeating an experiment that demonstrates an unknown mechanism; it is time to establish what that the proposed mechanism is and how it works. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• The full text is conveniently provided by the link in my earlier paragraph above, identified with the words "full text". But you can tell that the Naval Research Laboratory review's conclusions are very different from the DoE review's by this sentence in its abstract, "experimenters have improved their methods over time and it is to be noted that the reported excess heat effect has not diminished in frequency or magnitude." MigFP (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• After my experiences with lenr-canr I'd want conrirmation that New Energy Times has not "adjusted" it. Regardless, "surface and coatings technology" is not the proper venue for a review paper on cold fusion; their peer-reviewers are unlikely to have sufficient expertise to spot bias, and the author is clearly an advocate on one side of the dispute. I have plenty of experience with review articles written by advocates; they are just advocacy. Even the Cochrane Collaboration has published abject nonsense written by advocates summarising the work of advocates. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• It seems very unlikely that anyone alter a watermarked document claiming to come from the publishing journal. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I have to assume that readers have access to a library if they want to double-check, and an alteration would not go over well. As for the choice of journal, if you read the article and the journal's description of itself, you will see that the issues the article says are the most important for further research (electrolysis and surface materials science, because of the details of the loading issue) are exactly the same issues on which the journal focuses. If you do not agree, please say why. MigFP (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am confused by the desire for Seicer to include "sources that essentially praise cold fusion" if the January 2005 Physics Today article is referenced. Is he saying that including that reference makes the article not balanced? There are already plenty of pro-cold-fusion references in the article. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The difference is that the Physics Today article is an un-reviewed news item in a non-peer reviewed magazine. If your threshold of inclusion is that low, then it is easy to find positive statements (if not "praise") from similar kinds of publications that are not so skeptical. MigFP (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can you (or someone else) point to a few? I am skeptical that such articles exist in publications similar to Physics Today. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sure; these three articles in New Scientist spring to mind:[17][18][19] MigFP (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• The peer-review status of Physics Today is a red herring. We are talking about two different things: the science itself, which should be published in the best journals (and remember that Pons and Fleischmann published in Nature, which puts the minor coatings technology journal cited above in perspective). And then there's the reception of the research, which will always be gauged by editorials, letters and other discussions. You can't claim that because surface and coatings technology is peer-reviewed, the publication there of a single review should count against the fact that the British research council ranks cold fusion alongside anti-gravity devices and human-powered wing-flapping devices. You can't cite peer-reviewed research saying that science largely ignores this field, because it's proof of a negative. No citations in the major chemical and physical journals means something. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• The reliability of op-eds -- even in reputable publications -- and a peer-reviewed articles, per the WP:V policy, are on opposite sides of the spectrum, and so the issue of reliability is most certainly not a red herring. The choice of Surface and Coatings Technology was clearly deliberate, as explained above in this section. Top-tier journals like Nature and Science confine themselves to publishing new results only, and there is nothing new about cold fusion replications, with its hundreds of peer-reviewed publications. MigFP (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose I should clarify what I meant by "sources that essentially praise Cold Fusion." I was meaning that the Physics Today article cited is an article by one person, and quite opinionated at that -- hence my declaration that it is an op-ed piece. It's not peer-reviewed, and the magazine itself is not either. In regards to MigFP's comment, is the NewScientist a magazine or a peer-reviewed journal? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is not peer-reviewed, like Physics Today which is also not peer-reviewed. 209.253.120.205's request was in response to my comment about statments "from similar kinds of publications that are not so skeptical." MigFP (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Physics Today is fundamentally saying that cold fusion is rejected by most ignorant scientists, ie. most scientist that made their judgment on hearsay or by reading "Issues and events" like the ones published by Physics Today, not by careful studying peer-reviewed journals. As I said before, such ignorant scientists is not a reliable source, and consensus of scientists is not the same as scientific consensus. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Furthermore, "physicists" are not the only scientists that our article should represent. What's the view of the electrochemists ? The DOE was cautious to include electrochemists in his panel. Baudette and other sources said that the controversy has pitted the chemists vs the physicist, as can also be seen at the opposite reception at the American Physical Society and American Chemical Society meetings in March 1989. Let's make sure we do not introduce bias here. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Should a summary of the most recent peer-reviewed review published in a scientific journal be included in the article?

• If it is a peer-reviewed review in a scientific journal, not with one sole editor in a magazine. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• That sounds a bit too restrictive when considering a source like Physics Today since it is the official voice of the main association of American physicists. It's role in physics is similar to the Wall Street Journal's role in covering business. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• We allow news items from the WSJ as reliable sources, but not op-eds, which is what we are dealing with from Physics Today. MigFP (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The January 2005 Physics Today article on cold fusion IS NOT AN OP-ED. It is in the section titled "Issues and Events" rather than the sections titled "From the Editor" or "Opinion." Also, the other articles in that section appear to be news items rather than editorials ("Barring ITER Site Consensus, Europe Will Forge Ahead" and "Oddone Named to Head Fermilab"). [20] Just because it has a "strong POV" doesn't mean that it doesn't represent the views of mainstream scientists. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The mediator has characterized the Physics Today articles as essentially op-eds. They are certainly not peer-reviewed, and both are attributed to a single author who has no published experience in the field. They include perjorative descriptions and phrases such as, "put a rosier spin on the report," which seems, per WP:EVAL and WP:DUCK, to leave little question about its reliability. MigFP (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• That was what I meant when I referred to it as an op-ed piece. It may not state "Opinion" anywhere in the article, but it has a clear, strong bias, and it is not peer-reviewed. While we have a need for mainstream news regarding Cold Fusion, there has to be better (and more exhaustive) examples of it outside of this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your first comment summed it up, Seicer, "not in whole". My suggestion is that we include a short section on the reception of the DoE report and of the Storms book: "An article in Physics Review of (month & year) stated that..., while articles in New Scientist said that ...". So long as it is made clear that these are news reports (not really op-ed but not peer-reviewed research papers either) then I don't see any problem including them. It is like reporting the balance of news coverage of any potentially controversial current event. It is more important to summarise the independent scientific reviews correctly. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pathological disbelief

Does the section quoting cold fusion advocates as accusing others of pathological disbelief violate WP:UNDUE; is it special pleading?

• I would say that based upon the quotation alone, that it would be wholly in vio as it asserts undue influence upon the reader, in that it states that there is almost "no communication" between Cold Fusion and respectable science. To me, that brief snip right there is an indication that Goodstein is making the claim that Cold Fusion research is rather unverifiable or possibly to difficult to define or possibly explain in a way that would not appear to be material of reputable scientific material. I would go as far as to say that Special pleading would fit the bill here, given that the rest of the quotation is filled with discussions in relation to dialogue that would be all but incomprehensible by those not involved with Cold Fusion's point-of-view. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Would inclusion of this statement 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" (as WP:V puts it) be supported by WP:NPOV if the "pathological science" slur from the un-reviewed op-ed were to be included? I ask because I think it's important to include the fact that it has been called pathological science, even if not by a peer-reviewed source. I don't think there would be any harm quoting Physics Today saying pathological science alongside the researcher saying the critics have a pathological disbelief. MigFP (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• To accuse other scientists of pathological disbelief is a form of special pleading. The way scientists persuade other scientists is through pee-reviewed science. The audience for the CF papers appears to be other true believers; they are not going to persuade people without getting more and better basic science in top tier journals, and accusing others of being to blame for this, which is what they appear to be doing, is not, I think, likely ot be terribly productive. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with Guy here; the article simply needs more credible publications in favor of Cold Fusion, and playing the blame game by citing articles that throws it around isn't all that conductive to a balanced article. It merely casts more doubts on Cold Fusion as a whole. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, the Naval Research Laboratory review and Biberian's 2007 review that Pcarbonn mentioned, are the kind of credible publications in favor of cold fusion that the article does lack. I have no problem with excluding the "pathological disbelief" statment if we are also excluding the Physics Today op-eds. MigFP (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I see no problem in that. Does anyone else agree? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that, if it is coupled with arguments of cold fusion critics, "patholgical disbelief" argument could make for a section that provides a balanced summary of opposing POV's, with those POV's attributed, per WP:NPOV policy. Though I myself am partial to presenting sides by matching arguments with rebuttals, so that logical fallacies, misinformation, etc. is made plain, and the summary "pathological disbelief", would logically come after a list of rebuttals; all the arguments leveled against the phenomena would have to be shown to be specious before one would have sufficient grounds to make that assertion; A (valid) pathological disbelief argument would look something like this: "all the arguments are specious, therefore they are not products of rational scepticism. furthermore, vocal critics seem to be unable to synthesize evidence and/or logic that supports the hypothesis. These two factors combined indicate a pathological - as opposed to rational - cause for their disbelief." such an argument requires a lot of evidence to support it, such as the arguments and rebuttals. I think the arguments and rebuttals are more interesting and informative, and would enable the reader to make their own - educated - decision. Regardless, in a balanced and attributed section on the different viewpoints on C.F., the pathological disbelief argument would be appropriate (assuming the other pov's are presented, as well), as it is indeed what some researchers in the field say. Kevin Baas^talk 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just dropping by because I have a peripheral interest, but I noticed that a highly notable source for this topic, Nobel laureate Brian D. Josephson (of josephson junction fame) is mostly missing from (a) the article, (b) the CF talk page and from (c) this discussion here. Specifically, the table of results provided by Josephson looks like a good addition. FYI, the missing piece is here; see "Case 3:Cold Fusion" - slide 13. Hope this helps. WNDL42 (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe "pathological disbelief" deserves a very brief mention. It is relevant, in that CF seems to be perhaps the most cited example of it today, and in that it goes straight to the issue of why CF is viewed with contempt or derision by so many (and it is). ObsidianOrder (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy of overall tone

Does the overall tone of the article accurately reflect the present state of the art, as reflected by independent sources, and does it accurately reflect the prominence and reputation of this field among mainstream scientists. | Is there a better way to accurately reflect the present state of the art, as reflected by independent sources, than to count the number of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles which contain different kinds of positive, neutral, and negative effects?

• I feel that it does not accurately reflect the field regarding Cold Fusion among mainstream scientists, given that the article has just one op-ed source that pretty much criticizes the field in general, and introducing further sources would most likely unjustly influence the reader by introducing what are essentially opinionated reviews. There is little reason to believe that anyone can review or gauge how a certain group is reacting or feeling to a certain subject without introducing some bias into the article, and I feel that it might be in the best interest to completely remove any references to that unless it can be proved in a manner that somehow states that Cold Fusion has been favored/disfavored in mainstream through specific statements by specific notations by mainstream press. In other words, you could have 30 citations for this and it could become quite winded, but if a source states that, "Cold Fusion has been publically received and was honored by Sherman Cahal in a statement [...]," instead of, "Cold Fusion was received and honored by a group of individuals." I had this thought out better in my head, so bear with me if it doesn't sound all that great in text :P Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is a long-standing problem with fringe science. Science in general does not write about how bad the work is in a given field, such as non-standard cosmologies or inherent redshift, it simply ignores it. It only gets covered in opinion pieces. "Clearly a technology designed to do something impossible is not going to succeed. This is why our skies are not full of cities floating with the aid of anti-gravity devices, human-powered wing-flapping aircraft and there are no cold fusion power plants humming on our desktops." Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; this is the only mention of cold fusion or "low energy nuclear research" (the "intelligent design" to cold fusion's creationism) that I could find on EPSRC's website. If EPSRC is not funding it, it essentially is not happening in the UK. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Are we going to rely on an obviously off-the-cuff statements in un-reviewed public relations collateral, or on peer-reviewed research reviews published in academic journals -- which, by the way, are specifically intended to write about how good and bad the work is in a given field? MigFP (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, where they are indicative of the reception of the field by the mainstream. That such remarks are made in documents written by members of learned bodies is indicative of the mainstream perspective. You'll not get a peer-reviewed article "cold fusion still bunk" because there's no motivation to write it, no funding for the research from which it would be written, and no obvious journal in which it would be published. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would remind that wikipedia is based on facts, not opinions. While it is ok to mention the opinion of "most scientists", it should not drive the overall tone of the article. Instead, the article should be based on scientific consensus, ie. "the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. It is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, and peer review. ". So, according to that definition, only scientists in close proximity to the field should drive the tone of this article. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Scientific consensus is definitely built through the publication process and other peer review activities. That is why it is extremely significant that cold fusion advocates have failed for 18 years to publish a pro-cold-fusion paper in a high status journal such as Physical Review. That failure should be a major guide in the editing of this article. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and disagree with Pcarbonn, in the light that the article should not be based solely upon scientific consensus or upon the opinion of "most scientists" (which itself is an objective term). Instead, care must be given to represent the two viewpoints equallly regardless of consensus or opinion. I don't see a lot of reliable publications that are advocates of cold fusion after doing a database/journal query, but I don't think that that should be a high focus either. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The way to find all of them, is to search for the annotations with "res+" in electrochemist Dr. Dieter Britz's bibliography of peer-reviewed articles. There are 479 articles, all from academic journals; not even conference reports or academic press books are included there, so it is the highest standard possible. If you go up in the URL subdirectory tree, you can find the bibliography sorted by years, too. MigFP (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DoE report or other sources?

Should the article reflect what the 2004 DoE report said, or some other sources? Which ones?

• Both, as long as the other sources are not blatant POV-pushes, op-ed pieces or somehow fail reliable sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Another recent peer-reviewed review is J.P Biberian, "Condensed matter nuclear science (cold fusion): an update", Int. J. Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2007.Pcarbonn (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I concur. The Naval Research Laboratory review is between that one and the 2004 DoE review on the skepticism scale. MigFP (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

If the DoE is selected, did the DoE say that there is a controversy?

• Even if it did not specifically state that there was no controversy, it can be inferred by other reliable sources that there is one. That is _if_ the DoE is selected as a primary source, however, my opinion holds that other sources should be considered to give a balanced and neutral standpoint. We should neither encourage nor discourage the opinion regarding Cold Fusion, and should hold a neutral position and present all viewpoints. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is easy to find peer-reviewed sources that support the statement. For example, the Naval Research Laboratory review says, "Unable to achieve high loading, and, therefore, excess heat, most researchers declared that heat production in Fleishmann and Pons cells is not a real effect and ceased working on the experiments."[21] MigFP (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• But that is one source of many, and the usage of the phrase, "...most researchers declared..." is a potential vio of WP:ASF. As that has been said, it could be useful to use that as a source, but it must be countered with other materials to give a balanced viewpoint. No one view should be dominating throughout. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would say it pretty clearly say that there is a controversy. See quotes listed in [22], eg. "The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV." Pcarbonn (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• As far as I know, ScienceApologist was the only one claiming most recently on Talk:Cold fusion#Consensus and the SPAWAR work that there was not a real controversy, and he seems to be refraining from participation in mediation. MigFP (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Gotcha. I am leaning on that there is a controversy, and it's pretty easy to infer from the sources that there is one. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Different sides

If so, what were the different sides of the controversy, and how much weight did they have? * Can the relative weight of the sides of the controversy be approximated by counting the number of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles with positive, negative, and neutral research results?

• I don't know if merely "counting" the number of positive-, neutral- or negative-reviews of Cold Fusion is the right answer. One can find 300 sources that praise Cold Fusion, but those articles may be short, op-ed pieces or wholly unreliable. The quality of the sources, not quantity, should be what matters -- although it should be noted that if there is one source that praises Cold Fusion and 20 that do not, then that might be of another issue. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you can use the vote count of the DOA and give views accordingly? :) Benjaminbruheim (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's appropriate to report the vote distribution as a proportion, e.g., 1/2 and 2/3. MigFP (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• That must be done with care. Saying that basic research is needed is not a support for more CF research, it's more a rejection of the research that has been produced in the last 15 years. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your interpretation could plausibly represent the view of those in the panel that did not find the evidence convincing. For the significant number of panelists who did find the evidence somewhat convincing, or even entirely convincing, it makes sense to me that they would propose further research not as a sign of rejection, but as a way to resolve some of the controversies, as the conclusion of the report actually says. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The articles currently shown totaled in the Cold fusion introduction are all peer-reviewed publications in academic journals. They do not even include academic press books or conference reports, and certainly not op-eds. MigFP (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Many of which are minor, and not in the area of electrochemistry. It's also a laundry list, which serves to obscure the fact that this is a tiny field pursued by fewer than a dozen groups worldwide. The issue is the weight which should be given to this tiny group's view. In the public mind, CF is Pons-Fleischmann and the ensuing fallout. In the scientific mind, too, for the most part. Which major research grant bodies are funding CF research? Think of the potential impact of CF actually turning out to be true, and then consider why none of the bodies charged by Governments with funding energy and nuclear energy research appear to be funding it. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• If that's the case, what would your respective opinion be on the current split in sources, in terms of quality? Do you believe that it is a fairly even split, or are the number of sources favor one side to another? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would say that even a minor peer-reviewed academic journal is more reliable than an unreviewed source. Here are the totals from Britz's biblography, counting only the peer-reviewed sources:

As you can see, some of the papers were theory only, or otherwise did not include any report of actual experimetal research results. It's important to remember that more recently, as in the past decade, there have been proportionally very few negative results:

It is also important to remember that even the most promising research showed very little excess power over the total lifetime of each experiment that had any. Finally, there are complaints that the positive results have never been published in a top-tier journal. I don't see any negative results in Nature or Science either. MigFP (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we should use the best WP writing techniques to avoid coming down on one side or the other. We should say only very briefly that a number of experiments showed that there was an effect and then go on to describe the most notable of these experiments and exactly what they found. Similarly we cite some experiments that failed to find an effect. All the time we should keep a close eye on the need to give informatiion rather than opinion. Many people coming to the article will already have a strong opinion one way or the other and will not be open to influence even were it our job to influence them, which it emphatically is not. Therefore we should concentrate on giving a maximum of information accessibly. I don't believe we should give any weight at all to the "not published in Nature factor. Some of the journals in which CF-like effects have been published are very reputable - at least that was a response I got when I asked on the RS noticeboard, and two of them were founded by luminaries of C20 physics. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that counting positive and negative articles is appropriate. First, it can be attacked based on Original research ground. Then, negatives only show that the effect is difficult to obtain, not that it does not exist (see Reproducibility in the cold fusion article). Finally, one well-done experiment could make or break the field : all articles are not equivalent. For all these reasons, it is better to base the article on published reviews of the field, as wikipedia policy requires. The votes in the DOE panel can also give a good indication for the relative weight of each side. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think that counting articles is appropriate. The findings of research teams as published in articles should be summarised. I also agree that reviews of the field are in principle excellent sources. After consideration, I am in favour of extending that beyond scientific reviews to reports in the mainstream science press, so long as a number of these are mentioned and not just one (e.g. the Physics Today one). Itsmejudith (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that counting articles based on a surmised position, which itself can become the subject of debate, is not the best method forward. I'd like to use more mainstream sources to express different and varied viewpoints, but I'm not totally bought up on pieces that can be opinionated or those authored solely by one individual, as that can lead to undue bias. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Without recommending any specific number, I think it should be obvious that the correct proportion is roughly equal. 50/50 or 60/40 or even 70/30 (tilted either way) is fine, as long as no critical information from either side is excluded; 90/10 would not be ok. In an article about just Nuclear fusion, CF would merit only a very brief mention (as is the case). In an article about CF, all critical pro-CF and anti-CF facts and arguments have to be laid out, however much space that takes, and whatever numerical ratio it comes out to. Compare with UFO. ObsidianOrder (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical explanations

Should proposed theoretical explanations of anomalous results reported in peer-reviewed sources be included following the article's summary of why conventional theories of fusion do not explain the reported anomalies?

• Theoretical explanations != conventional theories. Theoretical explanations are concerned primarily with theories or hypotheses rather than practical or more conventional considerations or theories. Standards would be most likely to difficult to compile, and they would lead to further controversy. They can border alongside original research if not carefully attributed or constructed, and IMO, it would be best to leave it out. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would say that we should rely on reliable secondary sources for this, ie. on reviews of proposed theories, rather than on primary sources. I'm not sure that there is one though. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• In the now-reverted version of the article, the appearance of "theoretical explanations" that were both dubiously sourced, and wildly at odds with the scientific consensus, was one of the most glaring problems. I appreciate Seicer's anticipation of controversy, should the decision be taken to include them. I would, however, also anticipate accusations of censorship should the decision be taken to exclude them. At the risk of bloating the article, one suggestion might be to allow proposed theories under a doubly strict standard:

• Appropriate peer review. That means a theory about nuclear structure physics has been reviewed by nuclear structure physicists; a theory about conduction band electrons has been reviewed by metal chemists, and so forth.
• They are accompanied by comprehensive explanations of how and why they disagree with the scientific consensus.

JohnAspinall (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• In discussing possible explanations for findings in experiments we should respect the degree of caution that the experimenters exercise when reporting those findings. For example, if Pamela Mosier-Boss says that she set up an experiment in such-and-such a way and that the scientific instruments read such-and-such, and that is written up in an ISI-listed journal, then it is verifiable. If in conclusion suggests that the results might indicate cold fusion or tend to confirm it, then ideally we would quote those exact words, attributed to her. If she does not draw even that conclusion then neither should we. We should refrain from leaping in to give our own opinions on what the results confirm or fail to confirm. I would like to see the article explaining in an accessible manner the directions that researchers in the field have taken since the Pons-Fleischman experiment. By accessible, I mean making sense to someone who has some scientific literacy, e.g. a biologist who has not studied physics since high school. We can credit such readers with knowing how to use a WP article, as a starting point and a source of leads for further reading, not as a substitute for a research review. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• How would we decide which peer review was "appropriate" when a disagreement arises? Below I suggest a different standard: theoretical explanations published in two different peer-reviewed journals get a brief sentence, the others get a ref in a string of refs following something like "other people have other ideas." I'm interested in the standard you suggest, I just wonder if it can be objective. Part of the problem is that the nuclear structure physicists aren't seeing eye-to-eye with the metal chemists, so anything involving both nuclear and electron band structure might be excluded by your standard because of the unlikelihood that it would have been reviewed by both groups. MigFP (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree completely with you about experimental results, but I thought that we were discussing theory in this section. Theories would be predictive explanations, not of a single experiment, but of a (hopefully) large set of physical situations. Most mainstream theories of nuclear phenomena are basically solutions to some form of the nuclear Schrödinger_equation, and so a hypothetical theory for cold fusion might make predictions of the form: Deuterons in metal lattices can fuse under the following conditions..., because....

Perhaps this is best illustrated by an example. A previous version of the article contained the following theory: Deuterons in metal lattices can fuse because conduction band electrons shield the positive charge, allowing the deuterons to get close together. (I paraphrase the original wording.) That's a predictive explanation, not of what happened just in Mosier-Boss' lab, or in P&F's lab, but in any situation where you have deuterons in metal lattices. As it happens, that's a bogus theory; it contradicts what we know about conduction band electrons, it contradicts what you can find out about conduction band electrons here on Wikipedia. But let us suppose that such a theory becomes notable for whatever reasons. The following situations are both undesirable:

• Wikipedia excludes mention of such a theory because of local per-page policy.
• Wikipedia includes such a theory without explaining why other pages on Wikipedia say such a theory is bogus.

I strongly agree with your model of a reader who has "some scientific literacy". That is exactly the kind of reader who would go and read more about conduction band electrons in my hypothetical example. That is precisely the kind of reader who would has a notion of the unity of science, and who would be repelled by finding that Wikipedia science article A says "X is true", and Wikipedia science article B says "X is false". What I am suggesting is that the page policy should not exclude theories arbitrarily, but it should insist on their "connection" to the rest of science. JohnAspinall (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this. The trouble is that there is much less written in reliable sources about theory than there is about the experiments. In this circumstance we have to go back to basic WP principles and restrict ourselves to what the sources say. I didn't read the previous version that contained the theoretical explanation you mentioned above, but if it was as you say I would be asking who had made the statement and whether they were qualified to do so, and what would be a good source for accepted knowledge of how conduction band electrons behave. We are working to verifiability, not truth. It may be a limitation of this kind of encyclopedia that we cannot link together a coherent scientific explanation of everything. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Hubler/Naval Research Laboratory review says, "there is still no viable physical mechanism to explain the heat effect, and triggering the heat effect is still not empirically understood," but does not elaborate. The Biberian review says, "there is no satisfactory theory explaining the unique characteristics of condensed matter nuclear science. Many models have been proposed, several of them using textbook physics," and also does not elaborate. Under these conditions, I think we should mention some of the recent proposed theoretical explanations that have appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals. I have placed Britz's abstracts of the papers marked "** ... theory" published 2000 or later at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion/Recent theory -- there are 23 papers listed. What are peoples' thoughts on including a summary of those? MigFP (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would favor representing the view of the 2 reviews that you mention, even if they are not much elaborated. Making our own summary of the 23 papers you mention would be Original Research, and quite difficult (and there are more papers that are missing, such as the Widon-Larsen ones). Pcarbonn (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• We have to say something about the proposed theoretical explanations (I gather from the above that counting them may not go over well.) And I disagree that summarization is OR: everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be an original summarization of a reliable source. If it wasn't, it would either violate copyright or WP:V, there's no two ways about that. I came up with 23 because I only went back to 2000; as you point out, if I had included the 90s, there would be more. A lot more. We could devote a sentence to each theorist who has been published on the subject in at least two different journals. E.g.:

Kozima et al. suggest the effect is due to 'trapped neutron drops.'^{[ref][ref][ref][ref]} Frisone et al. suggest tunneling effects in microcracks.^{[ref][ref][ref]} Li et al. have a 'selective resonant tunneling model' that they believe explains the phenomenon and suggest experiments to test it.^[ref][ref] Widon and Larson think.... There are several other theories proposed by others.^{[ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref]}

Surely ignoring all the theories in what is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia article does a disservice to the reader, because it suggests that theorists haven't come forward with anything. MigFP (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Biberian review is written by someone who is self-described as "working for the past 13 years in the field of cold fusion and biological transmutations" and published in a journal that concentrates on fission reactor safety and control. I may have missed one, but in a casual glance through the tables of contents for all previous issues, I can see no previous papers in this journal related to cold fusion. Please explain why we should give this review any credibility. JohnAspinall (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's not like we're talking about some news outlet that may or may not be slanted: Peer-reviewed academic journal articles are as reliable as it gets per WP:V and WP:RS. As I mentioned above, Biberian's review (confident) is on the other side of Hubler/NRL (medium) from the 2004 DoE review (cautious.) You can tell by counting the number of labs they consider to have reproduced the CF effect. Unless there is some substantive reason that Biberian or the journal has been called into question, we should report it as a useful literature review along with Hubler/NRL and DoE. To omit one of those three would be skewing the article against NPOV. Even if Biberian was a habitual liar, the standard for inclusion is verifiability against reliable sources, not truth. MigFP (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the current version of the theory section, without a listing of theories. I support John Aspinall criteria for theory inclusion above. It severely limits the number of theories that could be presented. Also, I'm afraid that it will be difficult to provide sources for "comprehensive explanations of how and why they disagree with the scientific consensus" as critiques are mostly silent. If we want to include all theories as MigFP proposes, I would suggest to do this in a separate article (but then is there a risk of attack for POV-fork ?). Pcarbonn (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reproducibility of the result

In the "Reproducibility of the result" section, should just the point of view from reviews (such as the DOE reviews) suggesting that the effect is not reproducible be included, or should we also include conclusions from reviews (such as the most recent, from the U.S. Naval Research Lab) that it is reproducible?

• Both, in respect to Different sides. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • W.r.t. to reproducibility, I think one important aspect to note is that the study in European Physical Journal (Dec 07) includes results that are only obtainable from a repeatable process. For instance, it includes a comparative analysis under a variety of configurations. To me, that feels like a qualitative difference between this and previous studies and suggests a level of control that hasn't been available to date. Ronnotel (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you have a link or a title, please? There are five "European Physical Journal"s, and I can't find the article in question. In any case, I agree with "both" above and hope that we also include a summary of the Biberian review that Pcarbon suggested. MigFP (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The reference is given in the "nuclear products" section of the cold fusion article: Mosier-Boss et al, "Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments", Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 40, 293-303 (2007) Pcarbonn (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Pcarbonn. As the user box on my user page says, I often post from my iPhone. It's great to post from the train home, but it makes it hard to add references and the like. Sorry. Ronnotel (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • As I understand it, that one is an answer to critics who thought the pits in SPAWAR's CR-39 film were induced chemically instead of by radiation. I wouldn't really call it a reproduction, since SPAWAR originated the co-deposition technique that they keep using. MigFP (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
          • You are right. This article is not about replication by independent researchers. Replication has been done by Winthrop Williams at the University of California, Berkeley, and presented at the APS meeting last year. (I don't think that it has been published in a peer reviewed journal though) Pcarbonn (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese research project

Should the largest research effort to date on the subject (the 1992-1997, $20+ million program by the Japanese government) be mentioned in the lead?

• Can someone elaborate further on this? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It is mentioned in a comment by Noren on the article talk page. JohnAspinall (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Is there a source for "largest research effort to date"? MigFP (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that this effort should be mentionned in the history section, but I don't see why it would have to go in the lead. To give the impression that CF is bogus ? That would be an invalid argument: as the DOE says, negative results can be discounted on the ground that the necessary conditions were not present. What would you say to those who say that hot fusion is bogus because over $15 Billion have been spend on it, and it is not delivering energy yet ? (see [23]) Pcarbonn (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would say that such a hypothetical person was terribly confused as to the difference between reliably reproducing a phenomenon, and reliably making an energy profit from it. JohnAspinall (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest mentioning all the major research efforts for which reliable sources exist, and summarize them by location only in the lead (e.g., "India, the Salamander Isles, and New Elbonia have active government research programs, while Japan has abandoned theirs. There are X ongoing industrial and academic research efforts." or something) MigFP (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link. I am not in agreement that the phrase, "...the largest research effort..." is really needed, as that could give undue influence to its viewpoint -- and is something that would be hard to quantify. I do not believe that it merits inclusion into the lead, but that it would work best when integrated into the arguments against Cold Fusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Faraday effect

How much prominence should be given to the Faraday effect as an explanation to the observed excess heat?

• This theory has no notability. It is discussed in only 2 of the 1300 scientific papers on cold fusion, and not mentionned elsewhere. If nobody is referring to these papers, Wikipedia should not either, for due weight reasons. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Futhermore, the 2004 DOE Panel defined excess power as "beyond that attributable to ordinary chemical or solid state sources". Explaining excess heat by the Faraday effect is a logical contradiction, because the Faraday effect is chemical. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to repeat what I wrote below about the (lack of) completeness of the 2004 DOE review. But, I will repeat this: If we follow this attitude down to the last detail, then, we are not allowed to write an article at all. DOE did it for us already. All we have to do is copy and paste the DOE reports, and we are done. Any words added or removed from the DOE reports would be "original research", and therefore prohibited... --Rabbiz (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with the decision that the article should represent the 2004 DOE review and other reviews, please explain why in the topic above ("DoE report or other sources?" and "controversy?").

We can do a lot of things on wikipedia, but not play with the core policies of verifiability and neutral point of view. Many people have varying opinions on the DOE, but that's the most notable review of the field, and we should better stick to it. We can't represent the view that the DOE review lacks completeness until we have a source for that.

I would hope that the mediator would help us resolve this rather long debate. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbon wrote: "We can't represent the view that the DOE review lacks completeness until we have a source for that." The source is the two papers by J.E. Jones et al. and Shkedi et al., which were missing in the DOE review. Steven E. Jones who participated in the DOE review is NOT the same person as J.E. Jones. I understand that you have a difficulty accepting the fact that these two papers were missing, nevertheless, they were missing. And, they were published in peer-reviewed professional academic journals - "archival journals" as DOE called them . I don't understand what bothers you so much about these papers. --Rabbiz (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If we accept the 2 papers by Shkedi, then we should also accept the papers on transmutations by Iwamura, and then someone else will come with 2 additional papers that he happens to believe that they are important, and then we'll be in a mess. We can't include 1,300 papers in the article, and we need to stick to wikipedia policies on notability. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about this policy. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides, while J.E. Jones is author of one of the paper, S.E. Jones of BYU is a co-author of the paper. So there are 2 Jones in that paper, and one of them presented to the DOE in 2004. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me me repeat here what was said in another section - all of the papers published on excess heat (excluding nuclear measurements) can be classified into exactly 5 groups:

a) did not find excess heat,

b) found excess heat but the cause is unknown,

c) found excess heat and the cause is speculated, without evidence, as being CF,

d) found excess heat and the cause is experimentally proven to be non-CF,

e) found excess heat and the cause is experimentally proven to be CF.

Group a is the majority. Group b is smaller than group a. Group c contains exactly one source that I know of - F&P. Group d contains two sources that I know of - Shkedi et al and Jones et al. Group e is, so far, empty.

Until this mystery is finally resolved, all the groups need to be represented with sufficient detail to enable the intelligent readers to understand the issues involved and reach their own conclusions. Omitting any one group would be either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. --Rabbiz (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat here what I said in another section. We MUST respect [[Foundation_issues|wikipedia's fundamental policy of neutral point of view. All significant view points should be presented according to the prominence of each. None of the views should be given undue weight. Articles may not include tiny-minority views at all. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Galileo, Pasteur, and Einstein were also a tiny minority view at their times. The policy you cite is for political/religious etc. topics where the entire discussion is about view points rather than facts. Science is different. What people think about science is totally irrelevant. The earth is round, not flat, because of the facts not because of people's view points. The cold fusion article is going to be much much longer than the nuclear physics article. Is cold fusion so much more prominent than nuclear physics with its tens of thousands of published articles?

It looks like we are not going to reach agreement on this issue. Let's see what others have to say. --Rabbiz (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Faraday Efficiency not Faraday Effect? Faraday efficiency is a complete non-issue here, either in closed cells or in steady state flow-through cells, for reasons which should be obvious from freshman physics (namely: how much of the input electrical energy is converted to chemical energy ie faraday efficiency and how much to heat is irrelevant if all the chemical energy is converted right back to heat). Faraday effect is electro-optical in nature, I see no way which it could apply. Finally, the amount of excess over a long experiment, as reported, is simply too great to have been stored by any chemical mechanism, being orders of magnitude greater than total enthalpy of formation of all constituents of the cell. ObsidianOrder (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about the Faraday effect misnomer. The correct term is Faraday efficiency. The reduction of the Faraday efficiency is a continuous process that applies to short and long experiments alike. It is not related to energy storage. It is related to a mistaken assumption about the quantity of gases produced during electrolysis and how to deal with it in the mathematical computations. For more information see [24] --Rabbiz (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Some times, when one stare too long and hard at something without blinking, it starts to become difficult to see clearly. Therefore, here are some of my thoughts in the hope that they might freshen up the debate and suggest solutions, as basically I don't really disagree too much with any one of you.

This is what I would like see included in the article for the benefit of the lay reader.

• First: it is a scientists job to study and explain phenomena. Moreover it is essential that he find a way of explaining the phenomena in a way that agrees with what has gone before. E.g., the bulk ( but not necessarily the totality) of quantum mechanics.

• Now the prime phenomena is that: helium is being generated when experiments adhere to a certain protocol. (The question of net energy -however small- is just a product of the phenomena under study).

• The ratio of the total number of supportive/non-supportive experiments and papers is less important than their design, adherence to the design, quality of the captured data, and so on. Guy mentioned Cochran, and what they do is a systematic review and give each paper a 'weight' according to the quality of the research done. York University have worked out a review protocol for medical articles and this might give an idea of what I mean:http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm I imagine that the Naval Research Laboratory review followed a similar path.

• Such reviews are important because good research often costs bundles of money and the pot is only so big. This needs to be mentioned. Also, students are often required to do some 'research' as part of their course and are nearly always badly funded, thus they generate much worthless data.

• This brings me to another point that would help the reader to understand the history. One should take with a pinch of salt everything one scientist says about another scientists work because at the end of the day – If they don't get the money then they don't get to do the work... or even have a job that can keep their family fed. They look so mild mannered on television – should you see them in a fit of professional jealousy you will understand what I mean. They can be very vindictive and thoroughly unpleasant towards their some of their peers.

• Reasons for funding v. not funding: In those experiments that succeeded in transmuting hydrogen to helium – the data and design has been found good enough that to say and consider soberly that this really happened. However, to design an experiment to fit in to the 'existing theory as it stands' requires for the 'measurement' of particular emission of radiation (such as Neutrons) which are absent. It requires 'measurement' of higher velocities that the hydrogen nuclei can possible move in the electrodes etc. It needs a way of quantifying some of the parameters of variables, in units of measurement which have never been defined before. It is problems like this, that makes it difficult to justify moving a research proposal on CF up the priority list to a point where it is likely to be funded. This is where the basic science needs to be done before it can move forwards again. And of course the basic science needs to be funded too, if its to be done – so CF has been stuck in a sort of limbo. I think that if the article included mention of the very fierce competition that exist in 'pure' research it would help put some of the controversy into understandable context. It is unfair (and is due perhaps a misunderstanding) to say that it must be pseudo-science or something, if it is not being funded. Often with these things it is simply case of asking the question is it possible yet based on what we know and realising the time is not ripe. --Aspro (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

An aside: Where Guy comment's about “advocates summarising the work of advocates” we think he must be getting confused with another United Kingdom organisation called National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) who seem keen to use this method of obtaining a consensus opinion.BMJ Editorial: The failings of NICE True, Cochrane had some problems in its early days, with a small number of its reviews but this was put down to such things as inexperienced reviewers Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ. They do not seek 'advocates' however, where as NICE invites them to sit as stakeholder on the panel. Looking as some of their past decisions, if either has a talent for 'abject nonsense' it appears to be the preserve of NICE alone and not those of the Cochrane Collaboration. Further, whilst med school teaches much that has been derived from the sciences they do not teach doctors how to understand science. Most clinical trials quoted, are regrettably, examples of poor science. Just because clinicians don't know any better and quote them right, left and centre, does not mean that scientists will hold them up with the same regard. So making blind assumptions along the lines of, what happens in the field of medicine must be a reflection of normal practice else where, is perhaps not a wise thing to do. --Aspro (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)