Jump to content

Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Die Naturwissenschaften isn't properly described as a "Life Sciences" journal.

[1], I took it out. This has been raised before, the SPAWAR results, published there, were discounted previously based on a claim that they were being published in a journal that wouldn't have adequate resources to review the work. At that time, I pointed out that the journal is a publication of the Max Planck Institut, and that it is, like Nature (journal), a general journal covering the natural sciences. [2]: Naturwissenschaften - The Science of Nature - is Springer’s flagship multidisciplinary science journal covering all aspect of the natural sciences. The journal is dedicated to the fast publication of high-quality research following rigorous peer-review process and publishes a whole array of work that reflects the contemporary developments across the broad field of the natural sciences. Particularly welcomed are contributions that bridge between traditionally isolated areas and attempt to increase the conceptual understanding of systems and processes that demand an interdisciplinary approach. However, this does not exclude the publication of high-quality topical articles, which will continue to be the core of the journal.

Chemically assisted nuclear reactions (CANR) is a field which crosses the boundary between chemistry and nuclear physics. The journal is actually an ideal place to publish such research. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The probability of reaction.

Cold_fusion#The_probability_of_reaction. Goodwin Goodstein (1994) covers this in some detail. We have this:

Because nuclei are all positively charged, they strongly repel one another.[85] Normally, very high energies are required to overcome this repulsion.[86] Extrapolating from known rates at high energies, the rate at room temperature would be 50 orders of magnitude lower than needed to account for the reported excess heat.[87]

Sounds devastating (assuming that the reader knows what an "order of magnitude" is, many wouldn't). However, Goodwin Goodstein, note 87 at this point, also points out that this figure is based on the normal distance between deuterium nuclei at room temperature.

At the inter-nuclear spacing in the deuterium molecule, the probability is too small by forty or fifty orders of magnitude. Physicists love to throw around phrases like that one. An order of magnitude means a factor of ten. Too small by forty or fifty orders of magnitude really means too small beyond discussion, beyond imagination, almost beyond meaning. On the other hand, that probability is insanely sensitive to how far apart the nuclei are to begin with. To increase the probability by the requisite 40 or 50 orders of magnitude requires getting the nuclei closer together by just one order of magnitude. It is extremely difficult to imagine how -- given the well-known forces involved -- they can be gotten closer together by a factor of ten in an experiment on a table-top. In fact, the whole purpose of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on hot fusion is to produce exactly that result. Nevertheless, once we have been anesthetized by talking about 40 or 50 orders of magnitude, the idea that a one order of magnitude gap might somehow be overcome is not so hard to swallow.

I'd like to interject a statement to the effect that in 1994 the Farnsworth–Hirsch Fusor was not as widely known about as it is today. That gadget easily fits on a tabletop and causes fusions. Farnsworth actually beat everyone else in the hot-fusion field, to making a significant-quantity controlled-fusion device; it just wasn't talked about much, for four or five decades. V (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no. It was known for a very long time how to get fusion, and was done in lab devices since way back. He created a practical application (ultimately a neutron generator), but it's not an energy-generating device. Basically, it's hot fusion, on a very small scale. That's why it's "controlled." There are claims it could be scaled to become a power generating device, but the engineering hasn't been developed. Same with all other hot fusion, really, though I understand the big ones are getting close. This has nothing to do with cold fusion; same with Sonofusion, except that people make the mistake of calling that "cold fusion." --Abd (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Abd, I was responding to the statement, "It is extremely difficult to imagine how -- given the well-known forces involved -- they can be gotten closer together by a factor of ten in an experiment on a table-top." Sure, I know the Fusor is a hot-fusion device, but that was not the point; its ability to fit on a table-top was the point. (Even if CF is real, they don't yet get very useful quantities of energy from a table-top device, so the break-even aspect is not a factor.) Also, this article popularized the Fusor in 1998, which is after 1994, lending support to another part of what I had written: http://www.fusor.net/newbie/files/Ligon-QED-IE.pdf High-school students started building working fusion reactors not long after that article was published, and they didn't care about break-even, either. The article mentions Dr. Robert W. Bussard, and hints at a variation of the Fusor that would use magnetic fields for confinement, eliminating one of the key energy-sapping problems with the Fusor. Bussard himself described some of that work to a crowd at Google headquarters: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606 There is also an inside story about that project, available here: http://www.fusor.net/files/EMC2_FusionToPost.pdf (OKAY, gotta stop being off-topic!) V (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He is, here, explaining why some physicists didn't immediately reject the possibility. There is another problem with the claim about physics here. "extrapolating from known rates at high energies." All this is saying is that if the materials behave at low temperatures as they do at high temperatures, then we'd expect this rate. But we already know that materials in a crystal lattice behave differently, and Goodwin cites the Mossbauer effect to show this. Goodwin Goodstein is still convinced that present theory rules out cold fusion. But he's also aware that "present theory" could be wrong or inappropriately applied. What the argument really shows is that if cold fusion works, it isn't the same mechanism as hot fusion. That "extrapolation" depends on an assumption that it is the same mechanism. --Abd (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To sum up both sections, I don't think your summary of Goodstein (I assume that's who Goodwin is?) shows an appreciation of how he weights each of his arguments. Furthermore, you've misunderstood "extrapolating from known rates at high energies". The energies are irrelevant (see muon catalyzed fusion, for example). It takes between 0.01 and 0.1 MeV to overcome the barrier between nuclei, leaving 24MeV of energy that has to go somewhere. As I said before, it's like flying a toy plane into a tornado - the incident energy is irrelevant. And the energy goes somewhere in a very specific way, whether the temperature is at 100 million K, a million K, or 300K. I'm not an expert on nuclear physics (my experience is limited to three years of college, which, incidentally, is three years more than our "expert" Jed), but I'm pretty sure that if unusual reaction pathways were observed in any of numerous isotopes tested in muon catalyzed fusion, it would be a massive event in physics. I'd suggest that you're trusting the cold fusion true believer rhetoric, that "hot fusion reaction products can't apply low temperature cold fusion", a bit too much. Phil153 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Goodstein. The language about "extrapolating from high energies" and my comment about it remain and aren't contradicted by what you stated, Phil. I actually only have two years of physics. With Richard P. Feynman, who greatly influenced how I approach the subject and the world. (I also had Linus Pauling for Chemistry, which probably also explains a lot, and I worked with the Mossbauer effect in sophomore physics lab, hence it was pretty easy to read Goodstein on that and understand what he was saying). Frankly, I don't see that you understand the statement in our article. You are making a different argument, one that Goodstein also raises: where does all the energy go, if we do get fusion. That's the third theoretical incompatibility. What's above is the first. Yes, I'm really getting it, why Jed burned out here. Pay attention, Phil. You don't understand what's right in front of you. Jed is an expert because he has soaked himself in the topic for years, he's probably read about everything that has been written on it. He's also an abrasive personality and probably not suited to being a Wikipedia editor, but he abandoned that idea long ago, and just made occasional comments in Talk. Most of them were quite cogent, if occasionally uncivil, and he was faced with a very hostile environment, I've been reading over the article history in detail, preparing for What Shall Not Be Mentioned. Basically, cold fusion isn't hot fusion. That should have been obvious from the very beginning. If it happens, it isn't happening -- almost certainly -- because some local forces are causing brute-force reduction in nuclear distance. Essentially, it must be some other mechanism, some other pathway, and we really don't know what it is, though there are theories. It's totally correct, if what were happening in the palladium was the same as hot fusion, dead graduate students. Neutron flux has been found (in spite of early failures), but way, way below the level expected from hot fusion. Indeed, the SPAWAR evidence is now for neutrons in addition to ionizing radiation (probably alpha particles, i.e., helium nuclei).
Does it appear that I'm pro-cold fusion? I wouldn't be surprised. However, I'm really pretty solid with Goodstein's position. It seems to violate known physics. Yet there is some solid experimental evidence that doesn't seem to have any other explanation. Goodstein was writing in 1994. Do you have any idea how much work has been done since then? --Abd (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No, you're confusing Goodstein's position. Pay attention Abd (stupid thing to say, isn't it?). The statement "Cold fusion isn't hot fusion" is manufacturing a distinction that doesn't exist. You see, there's a thing called fusion that happens when nuclei get within close enough range of each other. Incident energy, or even muon shielding, is irrelevant to how it works and what products it creates. This is proven beyond doubt. You appear to not understand that. Unless you are suggesting that there is some entirely new, non fusion process going on like Blacklist Power's mechanism, which let's face it, is desperate grasping at straws that even the cold fusion advocates usually reject, this is fusion involving the nuclear force. Most agree on that.
I'd like to interject a remark to the effect that although "fusion ... happens when nuclei get within close enough range of each other", this only happens after at least one of those nuclei has escaped its electron shell. As was specifically pointed out in a reference I found some time ago, for hot fusion. http://books.google.com/books?id=KKW908I8TzIC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=%22nuclear+fusion%22+%22electron+shells%22&source=bl&ots=FUugDw4T2o&sig=bIs6rJSyuXKt2MoCeLOjf8cwUFw&hl=en&ei=SYyQSfyRG8H7tgf1zKCsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result But why that fact seems inappropriate in an article about cold fusion has yet to be explained by anyone posting to this discussion page. ESPECIALLY is that fact relevant to the article if there is truth to your statement about "manufacturing a distinction that doesn't exist". V (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall seeing any document which mentions electron shells as a barrier to cold fusion. Does anyone else know of one? My take is that in cold fusion, supposedly the deuteron does not really have a shell of its own, but instead occupies space in between the Pd atoms and shells, inside pockets that make it likely that deuterons spend a lot of time close to each other. In this scenario, the deuterium shells are not really a barrier at all. Olorinish (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Well clearly it would be an electrical force - in addition to the protons in the nuclei - to overcome. probably much easier since the distances are greater at that point and the particle is orders of magnitude lighter. I recall seeing it mentioned on a book i read on cold fusion, in the phrase "electron screening". But the thing is, one could argue that this doesn't really apply so much in a plasma because the electrons are freely floating anyways. That might be why you've never seen it mentioned. Or it could be that the mass and distance ratios in comparison to protons make the effect relatively insignificant. I wouldn't know - i'm not a scientist. just sort of a (semi-) educated guess.
As to your take - that is a common theory. i think p and f proposed that themselves. multiple d2s get packed w/in a single Pd lattice, (while their electrons become part of the Pd crystal, thus not being a barrier between said d2s anymore) thus getting closer to fusionable distance. Now it's rather trivial to show that the packing ratio does, in fact, exceed 1, but that still leaves you pretty far from fusionable distance. One could argue that the relative elctronegativity of the surrounding crystal would push the d2s towards the center of the lattice, cutting the occupied space in, for example, half, but i don't think that would make that much of a difference. All in all, it's a decent start but it's not sufficient. Kevin Baastalk 13:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If that is a "common theory", then why isn't it in the article? (Oh, all the references to it are published in "unacceptable" sources?) Here are a few known facts: Electrolysis of water can yield hydrogen. Typically the hydrogen appears as a gas, two-atom molecules, each with two nuclei accompanied by electron shells. Hydrogen molecules are significantly larger than helium atoms: http://www.standnes.no/chemix/periodictable/atomic-radius-elements.htm Yet hydrogen can permeate various metals (such as palladium) while helium cannot: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6103028.html (scroll down toward the bottom, at end of second paragraph of Example 4). Therefore it logically follows that hydrogen is doing something special, when it permeates metal. If it is interacting with the conduction band of the metal, per the above theories, each atom of hydrogen giving away its sole electron to that band, then it would be obvious how the hydrogen can permeate; the bare nucleus is about 1/100,000 the size of the atom. On the other side of the metal the nuclei would take some electrons back and emerge as gas once again. INSIDE the metal, of course, is where Cold Fusion is claimed to happen. Why should the article not contain an explanation of why electrons shells are not a factor in the CF enviornment, when we certainly have a reference indicating they are a generic barrier to fusion??? IF they are not a factor, of course! V (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the electron shells are much of a barrier to fusion. For one thing, it's easy to strip the shell from hydrogen or deuterium; in normal water, neutral pH, one water molecule per 10^7 has been dissocated into a hyrogen ion (H+), no electron, plus a hyroxyl radical (OH-). In a strong acid, dissociation is complete (pH 0). In electrolysis, hydrogen ions, basically free protons (though they keep gaining electrons and losing them, passing them along) are attracted to the cathode, where they gain electrons from the cathode (the electrolyis current) and combine with each other to become H2 gas. With most electrodes, this bubbles out, but with a palladium electrode, if I'm correct, it's absorbed for a time, until the electrode is saturated. No, the barrier to fusion is the positive charge on the nuclei, they repel each other, strongly. The electrons are very weakly bound, and they are "spread out," so the charge isn't heavily concentrated where two atoms might be approaching each other. And that's as far as I'll go now, before I stick my foot in my mouth.
Okay, here goes the foot. Above, the image is of hydrogen molecules (neutral charge overall) being stripped of their electron by the metal. I don't think that's what happens. The hydrogen is not attracted by the charge of the cathode, only dissociated protons are. But there don't have to be very many of them. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Abd, in one sense I don't care how trivial a barrier the electron shells are, to fusion. Remember the phrase "a little bit pregnant"? If electron shells are in fact even the slightest barrier to fusion, then fact is fact, and an encyclopedia is supposed to be about facts. In another sense, though, Things Are Relative. How much would it cost to give a mass equivalent to your body kinetic energy such that it could orbit the Earth? In terms of pure energy, purchased from the electric power grid, maybe $10. In terms of the way we actually apply energy to accomplish the task, hundreds or thousands of dollars per pound. Electrical systems can be quite efficient at accomplishing tasks, and that ease can cause forgetfulness about various difficulties that might previously have been associated with certain tasks. Remember how messages were sent before the invention of the telegraph? Temperature is a brute-force way to strip electrons from an atom; electricity is an efficient way. I'm saying here that this efficiency should not lead to ignoring the existence of the problem it solves. V (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In the separate comments I've made above, among these indented paragraphs, I'm trying to point out a certain logical thing. (1) If fusion is fusion and cold fusion should be compared on an equal basis with hot fusion, then electron shells are a factor, a problem to solve, worthy of mention in the article, because the temperatures that break electron shells, for hot fusion, are not present in cold-fusion conditions. (2) If cold fusion should be treated differently from hot fusion, such that electron shells are not a factor, then in essence we are saying that the thing known to be a problem in other circumstances is not a problem here --yet no explanation of why it is not a problem is given in the article.
There seems no logical reason why nothing on that topic should exist in the article. V (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Find some reliable source on what you are saying, it could be in the article. Otherwise, I'd say, it's a diversion. We don't need to explain why something is not a problem. There are millions of possible things that aren't problems. In a metal like palladium, if I'm correct, the electrons are pretty much smeared out, they don't belong to any atom, and I'd think that the same would be true for the absorbed hydrogen or deuterium. Indeed, in that environment, hydrogen may behave like a metal. Somebody help me to stop! I haven't studied this stuff for more than forty years.... I really am working on the article and want to find sources, not just make up science from my imperfect memory and poor analysis, which may or may not be better than that of some others here. I found a very interesting source yesterday and notified the editors of it here, a 2007 review article in a peer-reviewed journal that somehow escaped the notice of lenr-canr.org, as well as, possibly, Storms and others. (I wrote to Rothwell, who was offended by the bad English in the article. Goes to show. Spelling above substance, I've always said, Right?) I'm sure we'll be looking at it. Once I can get a copy.--Abd (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
"I'd say it's a diversion" --that's opinion, not fact. The existence of electron shells is a fact; that two nuclei cannot interact without at least one losing its shell is a fact (even muon catalysis requires getting rid of at least one electron shell). We have a reference regarding generic fusion and shells; we have Phil talking about a distinction that does not exist, with respect to cold and hot fusion (he's talking about the event, not whatever might lead up to it, and I tend to agree that much of the actual event is indeed going to be independent, since the Strong Nuclear Force is known to be overpoweringly stronger than anything else in Physics). At least one of the distinctions that do exist between cold and hot fusion must, logically, somehow be associated with whatever mechanism enables CF to occur (provided it does indeed occur, of course). So long as we don't know which distinction is the key, why should any of them be left out of the article? The article could present a list of those distinctions, and plainly state the Simple Obvious Logic that if CF is real, it somehow depends on at least one of them, and nobody yet knows which, or how --and that lack of knowledge, even after 20 years of theorizing, is exactly why many physicists have assumed and continue to assume that CF cannot be real. V (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Back to his other point about experimental evidence, which I did not address. Goodstein's position is clearly that there is no cogent explanation for what's been observed, but that this is not evidence of much weight toward a new process. There's a monstrous difference between "While these are apparently careful scientists, we don't know every possible detail of the experiments and how error and bias could have arose, and a cogent explanation is lacking" and "There are careful scientists, and the lack of cogent explanation for their results gives a good chance that there could be something new and exciting happening here". Goodstein is very clearly in former, even if he doesn't explicitly spell out every step in his reasoning. Especially since he goes to pains to point out how theories have been wrong before, and how experiment is king. For him, P(experimental results on their own->cold fusion) is very low, which is why the theoretical objections are king. As for "having any idea how much work has done since then", I'm not sure if you have any idea how it's basically the same kettle of fish. When Arata produces nonsense like his tiny temperature differential in 2007 as proof of something, and gets excited about it, 13 years after Goodstein, you can see the field isn't producing much new. The CR39 stuff is interesting to layman like me who doesn't know the first thing about CR39, but not enough, by itself, to indicate something given the burden of proof. BTW, Goodstein published this paper in 2000 (can't remember the journal) so presumably he still stood by it then. Phil153 (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's start with what is clearest. Phil, above, confused the first theoretical reason, given in our article, why "cold fusion" is impossible, with the third reason. That is, in an argument about nuclear distance and the extremely low rate of fusion "extrapolated from known rates at high energies," the first argument in our article, he raised the issue of where the excess energy would go if fusion occurred. That's the third argument, not the first. The third argument would lead us to expect gamma rays from deuterium fusion, and since gammas aren't observed, Q.E.D. The first argument is one that, if correct, would lead us to think that fusion wouldn't happen. Except, of course, fusion does happen at low energies, under the right conditions; that is, there isn't any doubt, Muon-catalyzed fusion.
I did not claim that Goodstein was claiming "weight toward the discovery of a new process." I simply noted that Goodstein points out the problem: theory that indicates one thing, and experiment that appears to indicate something different. If this were just one isolated experiment, it would be one thing. Some things will never be explained. However, it's many experiments, and many of the shortcomings of the early work have been addressed and overcome. For example, stirring the electrolyte! Better neutron detectors. Running the experiment inside a mountain to greatly reduce background radiation. Better calorimetry. Recombination of all the electrolytically generated gases. And on and on. But the more recent SPAWAR work is terrifyingly simple. Kowalski, while appearing to debunk the SPAWAR CR-39 results (not successfully, mind you), actually verified the basic experiment. The biggest problem, cited over and over again, has been the difficulty of reproducing the excess heat and other phenomena. Yet, it appears, reproduction rate has steadily increased, as more and more was understood about the specific conditions that generate the effect. In spite of the early reports, such as the New York Times article that is cited in the lead (and which had a fabricated title! -- I just fixed it), that Fleischmann had supposedly produced fusion "in a jar of water," implying simplicity, it was far from simple and far from easy. The claims of vast, cheap energy might turn out to be just as impossible with the Fleischmann effect as with muon-catalyzed fusion, not because it doesn't happen, necessarily, but because it is so difficult to set up and maintain the reaction. Those electrodes disintegrate, weird stuff happens with them. And palladium is expensive (though it isn't consumed, there would be costs to recycle it). The SPAWAR group uses co-electrolysis to simultaneously plate the electrode with palladium and generate deuterium gas, so the built-up palladium is immediately fully loaded, and, as prior work might lead one to expect, excess heat begins immediately (they claim, and there isn't any particular reason to doubt this observation). Right away, this disposes of the whole idea that power has been stored up in the electrode from all the "dead time." But using this for power generation isn't necessarily simple, and it could prove to be impossible. Abd (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was definitely confused what you were writing about and admit to skimming your long post. Your last paragraph says:
He is, here, explaining why some physicists didn't immediately reject the possibility. There is another problem with the claim about physics here. "extrapolating from known rates at high energies." All this is saying is that if the materials behave at low temperatures as they do at high temperatures, then we'd expect this rate. But we already know that materials in a crystal lattice behave differently, and Goodwin cites the Mossbauer effect to show this. Goodwin Goodstein is still convinced that present theory rules out cold fusion. But he's also aware that "present theory" could be wrong or inappropriately applied. What the argument really shows is that if cold fusion works, it isn't the same mechanism as hot fusion.
There's been a lot of discussion and theory about the probabilities of various reaction product and I thought you were continuing that vein. Goodstein mentions the Mossbauer effect to discuss why physicists suspended judgment about the reaction products (it's directly relevant, since it involves the way nuclear products can behave differently to expected).
Since you're talking about the initial reaction, I have no idea why what you're talking about is relevant to the article. Cold fusion requires a different mechanism to overcome the electric repulsion...we know that. Neither Goodstein nor anyone else thinks this repulsion magically disappears in a crystal, so I don't see how it matters. Could you summarize your point for creating this section in two sentences max? Or maybe summarize text you propose to include? I'm struggling to see how Goodstein affects anything on the repulsion side of things (although it's clearly relevant to the end products). Phil153 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm usually talking about more than one thing at a time. Sorry. Look at the beginning of this section. I quote what's in our article, which sounds like a very strong argument, with this huge number, 10^50, as the ratio between an extrapolated reaction rate and what is necessary for the reported heat generation. When I was young, I read a book, How to Lie with Statistics. Basically, you can present numerical data in ways that will create a false impression without actually lying. One of the things Goodstein points out is that, sure, that's one way to look at it (but he says 10^40 -- 10^50), but then he points out that the necessary reduction in distance between the nuclei is only 10^1. I.e., one-tenth of the normal separation. (By the way, this isn't a simple calculation, it's not specified in sufficient detail.) So what does CF require? A change in a value by 10^50 or a change in a value by 10? The statement in the article is what has been referred to by others as a "negative" about cold fusion without any counterargument. Is there a counterargument? Why is this an argument showing a "violation of basic principles of physics"? I'm aware that we can find reliable source for such a statement, but it's certainly not clear in itself.
Predicting the frequency of am emitted photon for an excited nucleus, when the photon is free, not bound, is fairly straightforward. However, when the nucleus is part of a crystal structure, it can be different. A nuclear process proceeds differently in this case. This is the Mossbauer effect. The nucleus, unbound, would emit the photon (a gamma ray) and recoil, to conserve momentum. But when it's in the crystal, it can transfer the momentum to the whole crystal, shifting the frequency of the emitted photon a bit. The crystalline environment is affecting how the nucleus behaves, even though there are, we might think, these "vast spaces" that would make this impossible. (This touches on argument three.) Mossbauer won the Nobel Prize for his work, the year I became a freshman at CalTech, which was his school.
In the end, what is important here is, indeed, the article. But what we do here is to discuss the article, which necessarily involves discussing the topic, as background. I find the current text *in that section* to be POV imbalanced. So I'll be looking to find ways to balance it, if possible. Consider this a request for assistance. --Abd (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Abd, I have been following this talk page for a long time, and I can honestly say that I don't understand what assistance you are requesting. Can you summarize in two or three sentences what you want to change about the article? Olorinish (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(Long thread moved to its own subsection below, to preserve the sanity of people trying to make sense of the indentation) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Phil, some of what you wrote is exaggerated. In hot fusion the 24MeV, when that is what the fusion produces, mostly takes the form of a gamma ray. As you know, that is rare; most of the time the products of hot deuterium fusion are associated with about a sixth of that much energy. You may be aware that some of the CF people claim to have found those other reaction products. If true, and regardless of whether or not enough were found to explain the total heat measured in CF experiments, those products would indicate that somehow SOME cold fusions had happened in spite of the Coulomb barrier. I would consider that to be a significant chink in the wall of objections raised by the detractors; it would mean they are at least partly wrong. It would mean it would be worthwhile investing some thought into how those few cold fusions managed to happen. It might mean that after that problem was solved, the answer might point the way to solving the objections regarding how 24MeV could appear as heat instead of as a gamma ray. One kind-of-fun thing to think about: BOTH the CF people and Kirk Shanahan could be right. Heh, Kirk's work could explain where the 24Mev went (it didn't happen), and the CF people could still chortle over the few cold fusions that actually happened. After all, how often is it, in other heated arguments, that the truth lies in the middle? V (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


POV problems in "incompatibilities" section

(this thread moved to its own subsection, for clarity) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) Sure. Request assistance in balancing apparent POV in Cold_fusion#Incompatibilities_with_Established_Physics section. The very title is POV. However, certainly there is allegation that Cold fusion is "incompatible with Established Physics." It's a claim that has long been made, and there is broad -- but uninformed -- opinion about this, and lots of RS, in fact, on the issue of Bad Science, i.e., scientific consensus by press conference and mass opinion, as distinct from peer opinion. But this shouldn't be presented as a fact. It's not a fact, it's an opinion, even if widely held among those who haven't studied the field and especially the more recent evidence. What do we have on the other side? Anything? I can find things, but I'm asking for assistance!

(Editors here have insisted on peer-reviewed, reliable source for anything that smells like support for cold fusion; okay, do we have such source for the claim about incompatibilities?) Sauce for goose is sauce for gander. I'm not implying that the sources there can't be used, but only that we should use the same standards for all sides. --Abd (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That section seems pretty NPOV to me, including the title (which I wrote). Olorinish (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed that section a bit, and I can't find POV problems. The sources are from Accountability in Research journal, an article from knowledgeable source David Goodstein at some silly publication from Caltech (American Scholar), and Scientific American, which look adequate for unchallenged statements. What part are you exactly challenging? (and I mean that you challenge the content so that better sources can be looked for) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
It may be time for editors here to re-read the WP:REDFLAG section of WP:V.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"? OK, since sources such as New Energy Times and Infinite Energy have been excepted from the mainstream, they qualify as "exceptional", right?  :) In a more serious note, what if the title of the section was changed to "Cold Fusion vs. Hot Fusion Theory"? V (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources aren't pitting cold fusion against hot fusion, they are comparing cold fusion against several nuclear fusion phenomena, conventional nuclear physics, fundamental laws of physics and existing physical theories.


--Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in what I meant by the proposed title. " Cold Fusion vs Hot-Fusion-Theory " --that first quote, Enric, seems to partially equate hot fusion theory with conventional nuclear physics. The section is not about "Cold Fusion Theory" vs "Hot Fusion Theory". Note that the first Big Problem, getting the nuclei close enough, has a known CF-type solution (muon catalysis) that does not violate any aspects of physics, yet was totally a surprise when it was discovered. (A similar discovery would make the Scientific American conclusion just as totally surprised/wrong.) So, regarding "miracles", I might recommend reviewing one of Arthur C. Clarke's Laws, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." A miracle is simply something we don't understand YET. V (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
How about "Incompatibilities with conventional nuclear physics"?
Rationale: I pick the wording from the guy that makes TV programs that educate the masses in Physics-related matters. I suppose that he chose in his article the wording that would be more understandable for the layman reader, which would fit the goals of wikipedia. The Scientific American wording is "existing physical theories", which, honestly, sucks a bit. Scaramuzzi wording is "fundamental laws of physics" which will probably be more protested than the actual one. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not unreasonable, and the biggest strike against my suggestion was how easily it could be misinterpreted. However, I happened to think that if the words were switched around, "Hot Fusion Theory vs Cold Fusion", that problem would be solved. Another problem, though, is that too many casual readers don't know that a modern Theory is more than just a guess, so using that word can lead to other misinterpretations. ("Evolution is just a Theory", see? Of course, the correct response to that is, "Creationism is just a Hypothesis!", followed by encouragement to study the meanings of those words as used in Science.) And then there is another problematic aspect, which I didn't originally consider: muon-catalyzed fusion is not hot fusion, but has the same product yields as hot fusion. So, how about "Known Fusion Facts vs Cold Fusion Data"? It is the CF data, after all, that encourages proponents to think that fusions happen in that environment. That they don't match up well with known fusion facts, that IS what that section is about! V (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Sources are not comparing against fusion "facts", not even against fusion theories, they are comparing against physics theories or nuclear physics.... It's not a comparison of one type of fusion against other.... --Enric Naval (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it to "conventional nuclear physics". (funny how the old title had "Established Physics" in capital letters) --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Enric, you seem to be missing the point that "fusion" is not the whole of "nuclear physics", conventional or otherwise. And it is glaringly obvious that various facts about already-observed fusions are on stage front-and-center, in basically saying that there are difficulties with CF as an explanation for observations of excess heat, in that section of the article. Why is it not equally obvious that IF cold fusion really occurs inside deuterium-saturated metal, and typically does such things as the D+D->4He reaction, yielding heat instead of gammas, then certain details about how fusion takes place there must be different than the details of either hot fusion or muon-catalyzed fusion? V (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
topic derrailment. Pages are to discuss changes to the articles, per WP:TALK --Enric Naval (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(unindent) There is more. Yes, CF requires something quite different from either high-energy fusion or muon-catalyzed fusion. However, excess heat isn't the only reason to suspect that some nuclear process is taking place. There is other evidence for condensed matter nuclear reactions besides the electrolysis work and heat generation; neutrons, other radiation, transmutations. There are hypotheses that attempt to rationalize the fusion, such as electron capture by a proton, creating a neutron which can then approach other nuclei and cause transmutations, including the particular one we call fusion. Every hypothesis, I'm sure, has its difficulties, including the one of rampant experimental error. The first step for a scientific approach would be, not to try to find a theoretical basis for the experimental results, but simply to verify the experiment. But an experiment that may depend on unknown sensitive conditions can be difficult to reproduce, many attempts may fail. However, usually, with time, the exact conditions that generate the anomalous result are likely to be identified. This can take years! Hence the early rejection of the F-P work, before there was adequate time to conclude that reproduction wasn't possible, such that the field itself became a pariah field, is itself an example of bad science, and we have RS for this view. This is a big story that I don't think we are adequately covering. But I think I'm going to begin by a systematic examination of the sources we have, and other editors will be very welcome to join me in that, I'll announce it here, for sure. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


"But I think I'm going to begin by a systematic examination of the sources we have..." Abd, please don't do that here. Talk pages are not the place to discuss the details of various documents. They are for discussing CHANGES TO THE ARTICLE! You have been soapboxing, not improving the article with all this text, so stop it. Olorinish (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
For the section title, how about "Difficulties with nuclear explanations"? I think the current title "Incompatibilities with conventional nuclear physics" is better than the previous title, but still find it non-NPOV: If a nuclear explanation is later established for the (alleged) phenomenon, I'm not convinced that that explanation will necessarily be incompatible with current established nuclear physics. I don't think conventional nuclear physics enumerates all the possible things that can happen with those materials: for example, muon-catalysed fusion would not have been listed before it was thought of or discovered.
Re a systematic examination of the sources: that's a necessary step to establishing due weight for the article, therefore an appropriate topic of discussion on this talk page. The discussion should not aim to establish "truth", i.e. things like whether or not there really is excess heat produced not explainable by things like experimental error, whether or not cold fusion is occurring etc., but to establish how much weight to place on various POVs about various aspects of the topic, as well as the relative weight on the aspects of the topics themselves, i.e. how much space in the article to devote to each aspect of the topic in this article. There can also be subarticles expanding on various aspects. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Not obtaining consensus is bad. Source analysis will continue at User:Abd/Cold fusion/Sources --Enric Naval (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I haven't been soapboxing, but neither did I intend to conduct this examination here. I can do it in one of two places: In my user space or in Talk space as a subpage. Apparently, cautious examination of sources isn't part of what Olorinish considers essential to the process of "improving the article," and he's welcome to the opinion, I'm just not likely to join him in it. I'm working on improving the article, and it starts, to my mind, with thorough discussion, not the kind of one-liners that have become far too popular. Nobody is obligated to read what I write, or what anyone else writes. You want to see voluminous text, take a look at RfArs where stuff actually does get considered in detail with wide participation. Total mess. Avoidable if a few editors discuss with thoroughness, which takes patience and time. Olorinish, your work on the article is appreciated. Be careful, though, of the Sisyphus effect. It is what happens when edits are made which don't reflect true consensus, the boulder rolls down the mountain again. Articles which have not gone through what is necessary for true consensus are very difficult to maintain and they tend to become hodge-podges. When consensus has been found, all involved editors -- or at least nearly all! -- become maintainers of the article, and if the process has been documented, new editors can be pointed to that and can remain welcome to join or specifically question the consensus. Otherwise, the wall is up, being battered and pounded and requiring constant effort to maintain. In any case, I'm deciding right now to do it in my user space. It can be moved to article Talk space if there is any agreement on that. It will keep me busy for quite a while, plus I've got Other Important Stuff to do. User:Abd/Cold fusion/Sources. All editors are welcome to help. Underscore help.
@Coppertwig, "If a nuclear explanation is later (...) will necessarily be incompatible with current established nuclear physics. I don't think conventional nuclear physics enumerates all the possible things that can happen with those materials (...)", aka WP:CRYSTALBALL (that being said, replacing "conventional" with "current" on the title could solve this problem.
Ah, I think I found the problem, I separated the "cold fusion as a nuclear reaction" from the rest of explanations. Now go find reliable sources for those. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, let me put it this way: the section title "incompatibilities with current physics" violates WP:V by implying that there are incompatibilities between cold fusion results and current physics. Not being explained by current physics is not the same thing as being incompatible with it. If it violated the law of conservation of energy, for example, we could talk about incompatibility. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
(I cut your comment above to create a new section and re-signed it) "problems posed by current physics"? :P The results are not compatible with current physics, you know, that's why they are called "miracles". --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem: just please provide a source to verify that statement. Just now I re-read the Incompatibilities section of this article. The only statement in the section which seems to me to be asserting that the alleged phenomena are incompatible with current physics is the last sentence, "The speed of...", which gives as a reference Goldstein, who says "It proved that there are still genuine surprises waiting for us that, once understood, don't violate conventional physical laws". I still think "difficulties with" is a better description of the section than "incompatibilities"; no one has provided any argument against using "difficulties with". I suggest "Difficulties in reconciling with current physics". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll "second" that motion. V (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The label "difficulties" is more vague than "incompatibilities," so I oppose using it for this title. The current references 7-9 document the view that CF is incompatible with established physics. Olorinish (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
So, we have documentation for a particular POV? But the article is not supposed to reflect a particular POV; it is supposed to be evenhanded in its descriptions. I would not object to statements indicating there is a POV that considers CF to be incompatible with what we know, so long as there also are statements indicating that muon-catalyzed fusion was a wild card, too, before its mechanism was understood. That is, some proponents hold the POV that CF may also fit neatly into current physics, once the mechanism is figured out. (Denunciations by Authority, of course, merely turns brainpower away from trying to figure it out.) Anyway, the point is, the section heading should be NPOV --and as previously pointed out, even CF proponents admit the theoretical problems are difficult. V (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(<<outdent) I suggest "Lack of explanation compatible with nuclear physics" as the section heading (or "Lack of explanation compatible with conventional physics"). Note that I consider the current heading to violate WP:V, so it's urgent that it be changed; the suggestion with "difficulties" has been criticized as being less specific, but that seems to me to be a much less serious problem than violating WP:V. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Coppertwig and V. However, I'm not the Lone Ranger. I'm already making more possibly controversial edits to the article than I like, or at least it is possibly being seen that way. I'll be happy to support a better title. The "conventional" title suggested above is fine with me. Cold fusion definitely is that, it is the very paradigm of incompatibility with "conventional physics," i.e., it almost certainly requires new theory. Consider this week's reports of neutrons (which merely confirm and demonstrate the notability of what was actually reported last year or even earlier). If anyone can figure out a "conventional" explanation of the observations under the reported experimental conditions and observations, I'm all ears. Even determined skeptics are starting to say, "Well, okay, neutrons, but no proof that they are caused by fusion. Fine. Occam's razor isn't a proof of anything, but it sure is a wise guideline. The real point, made and understood among those actually familiar with the field, as distinct from those "experts" making off-the-cuff remarks, eagerly reported by writers looking for "balance," is that evidence of nuclear reactions in the palladium deuteride environment has passed the point of no return. It's now a strong experimental result, which has been confirmed in most -- if not all -- details, and, because, compared with the original CF work, it's relatively easy to confirm, the shoe is now on the other foot. As to the present point, yes. Specifically, the experimental results require a revision of the concept that quantum mechanics is adequate to describe nuclear behavior in the condensed matter environment, and the more difficult quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics is needed. This vindicates Fleischmann's original research goal, to show exactly that. He wasn't looking for an energy source, he was doing fundamental scientific investigation, probing the boundaries of what is known. Pd catalyzed fusion was only an example. --Abd (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Other explanations of cold fusion

From Storms 2007:


Anyone has a problem with this list going under the new "Explaining cold fusion as other phenomena" section? --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, alas, yes. The way that new section is worded (in the article body, not above), it appears to be wanting NON-FUSION explanations for the observed heat. You appear to be listing explanations for why fusion might be able to occur (and thereby produce heat). While both types of explanations should be in the article for balance, the current wording would appear to preclude one type. V (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Also, the third miracle has to do with propagation of heat and has noting to do with nuclear theories, so back to "physics theories".
I now divided it into 3 sections: "incompatiblities with current conventional physics theories", "Unproven explanations" and "Proven explanations". And, err.... well, I had a bit of a problem filling that last section.... --Enric Naval (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

SOMETHING ODD: There is a subsection titled: "Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat", immediately followed by the "Explanations for cold fusion", inside of which is a "Proposed explanations" subsection and a BOX containing this: "Please help improve this section by expanding it with attempts to explain cold fusion as something other than a nuclear fusion reaction." I would say that box is out of place. V (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see someone has done something about that; thanks! V (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

40 or 50 orders of magnitude

(section cut from above --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

This statement seems too strong to me: "Extrapolating from known rates at high energies, the rate at room temperature would be 50 orders of magnitude lower than needed to account for the reported excess heat." It needs qualifiers. For example, perhaps it should say "in the absence of muons". There could be other assumptions also needed. "unless some unknown process is affecting the rate"? "under ordinary conditions"? "under any conditions anyone has thought of yet"? Physics doesn't dictate that the rate is necessarily 50 (by the way, should that be 40 to 50, per Goldstein?) orders of magnitude lower; it might dictate that under some set of assumptions (including the absence of muons, as well as temperature, and perhaps some other things) that that is the rate. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That sentence is a quote from Scaramuzzi (see cites below). Goodstein says "40 or 50", Scaramuzzi says "more than 50". This refers to the distance between deuterium nuclei in a deuterium molecule. None of the two mention anything other than high/low energy or room temperature that migh affect that rate.


Please note that the above description explicitly specifies whole deuterium molecules. That means the deuterons are surrounded by their electron shells. This is why it should be obvious that getting at least one deuteron out of its shell is pretty important! Why, I might wager that if a deuteron could escape its shell and hover over the shell of a neighboring deuterium (meaning that the original distance between the nuclei is halved), then the probability of fusion occurring at that distance would increase significantly. It might now be unlikely by only twenty or thirty orders of magnitude, instead of forty or fifty! :) V (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


--Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent). What should be clear is that the spontaneous reaction rate for unassisted deuterium fusion at room temperature would be 40-50 orders of magnitude lower than necessary to explain the heat generation. This is really nothing more than saying that if you have some pure deuterium at room temperature, it is not going to fuse, period. However, as muon-catalyzed fusion shows, that doesn't mean that low-temperature deuterium fusion is impossible, only that it doesn't happen spontaneously. If it did, there wouldn't be any deuterium around! This is not equivalent, to be clear, to the statement that "there is no chance that two deuterons will fuse at room temperature," which muon-catalyzed fusion makes quite clear, give the two reluctant partners a matchmaker to bring them together, they may well fuse. We know that muons can do this. There are enough muons around that there is, in fact, some rate of fusion of deuterium naturally at low temperatures, still very low, but much higher than the spontaneous figure. I think there might be some reference about this from S. Jones. What about electrons? (The muon can do it because it has the same negative charge as an electron.) One of the theories floating about, that more than one author seems to have accepted as reasonable, is that in the metallic lattice, where electrons are largely free, behaving very differently than with isolated nuclei, they may be able to catalyze fusion by allowing the nuclei to approach, in a similar way to how we know muons can accomplish the trick. So I'm a bit concerned about the presentation of this as an argument against cold fusion; there is utterly and absolutely no doubt that the spontaneous fusion rate for deuterium at low temperatures is so low that it just doesn't happen, and we would not even be considering the topic unless there weren't reason to think that some conditions might catalyze or cause it. Why did Fleischmann run palladium electrolysis experiments for so long? He had theoretical reasons to suspect it might occur, see http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf Thus the argument, though it is indeed made, shouldn't really be an argument against cold fusion, it is misleading presented that way, but only background as to why cold fusion is remarkable at all.

I'd like to interject the fact that on Earth deuterium is about one atom per 6500 of protium-hydrogen. That means that most of the time, even if one deuterium got itself hooked up with a cosmic-ray muon, it would not likely encounter another deuterium before the 2-microsecond lifspan of the muon ended. I'd also like to note that elsewhere on this page an additional factor was listed: "The current density of the electrolysis is larger than 280 mA per cm2" --that means electrons are moving under the influence of an external force, causing them to not move in normal pathways that might keep them from closely approaching loose deuterons in the metal lattice. Indeed, we might expect the deuterons themselves to be moving toward one end of the metal lattice under that same external force, opposite the direction of the electron flow, and possibly accumulating to an even higher "local loading ratio" than such oft-mentioned figures as 80%-90%. V (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a simple analogy. Put hydrogen gas and oxygen gas together at room temperature. What happens? Nothing. The spontaneous reaction rate is zero. With a spark, bang, the hydrogen and oxygen bind to each other, releasing heat, the heat causes more combustion, etc. However, there are also catalysts which will bring the suitors together, getting around their reluctance, so combustion below the ignition temperature does, in fact, happen. Fuel cells. Indeed, biological metabolism.

It is also very clear that the conditions under which catalyzed fusion might occur are necessarily very unusual, or else we would have far less deuterium around. From what we now know about palladium-catalyzed fusion (yes, we know something about it, collectively), it might simply not occur at all in nature, the natural occurrence would be far lower than with muon-catalyzed fusion. A rare metal, unoxidized, apparently persnickity about impurities, plus deuterium gas, and possibly flow parameters? --Abd (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If I'm undertanding the quotes correctly, he's talking about the probability that the two atoms of a duetrium molecule, under normal conditions, just all the sudden decide to fuse. While that's an interesting piece of trivia, it's about as relevant to this article as it is to any article on conventional thermodynamic fusion. It's useful, perhaps, as a baseline. ('xcept that we really should be talking about atoms in separate molecules) Or a control in a scientific experiment: "This is how fast plants grow w/out light." But used in any other context, it would just confuse the reader and quite possible even mislead them. Because really, it doesn't have any relevancy outside of that. Kevin Baastalk 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Anachronism

Ref 53 (Di Giulio et al) is dated May 2002, yet is being used to back up a list of journals that the text implies recently published cold fusion papers. Something needs to change: either a more recent source or rework of the text to remove the implied recent publication. Best option would be to simply provide cites for the most recent CF paper in each journal listed and state the year parenthetically in the text.LeadSongDog come howl 13:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have a list of peer-reviewed publications that should make it easy to do that. While this borders on original research, it's the kind that can be acceptable if it is rigorously verifiable, which it should be. Hmmm... subarticle time. Basically, if the information is presented in such a way as to be complete, it will take up too much space, yet it is verifiable and of interest. Actually, the list I have is just of publications showing excess heat. I'd really like to make it a complete list of peer-reviewed publications on the topic. The problem with an incomplete list is that it can be alleged to be cherry-picked. On the other hand, the complete list is enormous. I think there is a way to deal with this. We need the list, even if it is only in Talk space. However, if we have a list article, we can then summarize it here.
One of the arguments presented with the N ray analogy about cold fusion is declining publication. Is it declining? Or is it increasing? The list I have doesn't cover China at all, which is active in this area, with nuclear physicists doing much of the research. --Abd (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(Hey, hey, no original research by counting publications, ok? Also, those comparisons were done in 1989 or a few years later at most. They need to be qualified for chronology when included in the article. Whether the comparisons still stand nowadays is a different matter.) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree about chronology. In this field, it is crucial to know when something was published, not only the content, because, obviously, the field has radically shifted over the last twenty years. Early failures to confirm were quite simply little more than that. For example, one "failure" was a finding that neutrons were way below the level needed to support the interpretation that the predominant reaction pathway involved neutron emission. This was a "failure to confirm" one specific finding of Fleischmann, and it isn't controversial, except when generalized to be considered a general rejection (which it was, by many, since neutrons were considered crucial if it was fusion). Other attempts to replicate the excess heat were, in hindsight, doomed to failure. It was a very difficult experiment, not likely to be replicated by research groups that were not fully informed as to the original conditions -- which took F and P years to develop -- so what those experiments established was exactly this: the conditions are marginal and difficult to predict. However, it became known by the mid-90s how to do it, and there is a serious lack of research refuting what's been published about that. By this time, however, the "critics" had essentially abandoned the field, only returning to make what can often be seen as ignorant comments based on their prior knowledge and not the new evidence. We saw that this week, where critics made comments, reported in the media, that showed they had not read the research, but were simply presuming, from shallow press reports, what it would be.
We can count publications. Whether or not we can report that, or how we report it, in the article, is a separate matter. That is exactly the kind of OR that is allowed in Talk. Look, if some bozo says that there has been no replication of the F-P work, and even though the very report being described in the article is a form of replication, it's quite relevant for us to refer to a list of peer-reviewed publications that we or someone else has compiled, and we can review that list and pick it apart if we need to. If there are, for example, 150 p-r publications on that list, and we can see that it is mostly accurate, at least, it shouldn't be difficult to find consensus on some statement placed in apposition to a claim of no confirmation, that "There are, however, over N publications showing confirmation of excess heat in the palladium deuteride environment." We should have some independent source on it, but it need not be particularly reliable *if the list is there and readers can count the items.*
As I've mentioned, we could create an article, List of palladium deuteride excess heat experimental reports. The article would be a list of peer-reviewed publications, (or would include other publications from reliable source), and it would show separately, experimental reports of failure to confirm, success at confirmation, plus peer-reviewed criticisms of the experiments. By definition, if this list is complete, it is NPOV. And then we can report numbers and dates as a baseline as a summary of the list. Simple to do, and I plan to do it. Help is appreciated, especially from critics. It's damn hard to find those negative papers, beyond the very early ones. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Additions to "further developments"

I edited the latest insertion by Abd [6]. I cleaned up the following:

  • Delinking of all the redlinks
  • Writing for proper weight
  • Added more sources instead of press releases
  • Removed irrelevant information

Abd, I know you're excited and believe that cold fusion is on the verge of being vindicated (I'm not sure you're aware of previous flashes in the pan), but there's no reason to redlink all the things you think will have articles if it does become vindicated. There's also no need to insert irrelevant and poorly weighted histories. This is just a press release, this is still a fringe field, and the claims are still not accepted or even close to being accepted by the mainstream. We're an encyclopedia, not News of the World. Phil153 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I also undid another edit from Abd [7]. I can only describe this edit as whitewashing. (and sorry for using this strong language, but, well, it's what I would think from any similar edit that I found in any other article) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That's borderline, Enric. Anyway, suit yourself. Here is what I did:
Technology", in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. At the conference, researchers with the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of neutrons in a cold fusion cell using a CR-39 detector,[1] a result published months earlier in the peer-reviewed journal Naturwissenschaft.[2] The findings were described by the researchers as "very significant", but mainstream confirmation of the results is lacking.[3]
I removed the "very significant" comment because it is the researchers talking about their own work. Significance is indeed established by the media response, but the citation given is inadequate to support that, and I would much rather see, if we are going to have text about significance, have it be sourced from independent statements. They do exist. As to "mainstream confirmation of the results is lacking," that was not supported by the source, and is apparently synthesis. (I.e., "I'm not aware of mainstream confirmation, therefore we can say there is no mainstream confirmation." However, around here, whatever confirmation of cold fusion is published, it is apparently, by definition, not mainstream. Naturewissenschaften is pretty mainstream, that they have published the SPAWAR work is a kind of "mainstream confirmation," but this is all attempt to create an alleged POV balance through synthesis. I put in what was solid from the sources, nothing more, and definitely less than was possible (my original edit to this section had much more information.)
Enric Naval then made this edit:
The findings were described by the researchers as "very significant", although it was criticized because it doesn't explain how could fusion could happen in the described conditions.[4] Krivit pointed out that the results could be caused by some other unknown nuclear process.[4]
Since the report isn't about cold fusion, but about the detection of neutrons, and proposed hypotheses about the cause of those neutrons are not central, and because the criticism isn't shown to be informed, the source is a wire service, which is problematic for WP:RS. The Krivit comment is true. Krivit, if you read what's available of his comments, considers the work very significant and is really only trying to distinguish between the core of the report (Neutrons!) from the speculations and hypotheses, on which one must know much more (about the context and the continued experimental work) to have a cogent opinion.
So, I edited it again, to:
The findings were described by the researchers as "very significant". Steven Krivit of New Energy Times noted that the results could be caused by some unknown nuclear process other than fusion.[4]
As far as I'm concerned, the "very significant" fluff could be taken out. If it wasn't significant, we wouldn't allow it in the article! The "criticized" was passive and not attributed.
Then, I addressed other issues in the report with [8]:
I simplified the caption of the triple-track image.
I replaced reported detection of neutrons in a cold fusion cell using a CR-39 detector... with reported detection of neutrons in a palladium/deuterium co-deposition cell, finding characteristic triple tracks in a CR-39 detector....
This is much more informative and specific. If you look at the CR-39 article, you will see classic triple-track pitting from neutrons. What is a "cold fusion cell"? Remember, some of us don't believe there is any such thing as cold fusion. But I presume that most of us do believe that there are cells where palladium and deuterium are co-deposited onto the cathode, and this has been done since the 1990s, it is one of the simplest and most reliable methods of setting up the Fleischmann-Pons effect. The paper doesn't mention "cold fusion cell." The press release doesn't mention a "cold fusion cell." Krivit is saying that it might not be fusion. He's right: there are other low-energy nuclear reactions that have been proposed. In fact, if "cold fusion" is the cause of the heat, that is, if there is some predominant reaction that generates the heat, that reaction isn't the cause of the neutrons, at least not directly, because there are far too few neutrons to be more than some unusual byproduct. It's connected, whatever it is, but how connected I'm not sure.
I also took out reference to Naturwissenschaften as a "life sciences journal," which was clearly placed there to impeach the credibility of the journal with respect to articles on a field that crosses over chemistry and physics. But that's a gross misunderstanding of the journal, derived from some weird way that Springer classifies the journal on-line. If you look at the mission statement of the journal, which I've cited elsewhere, it's very clear that this is quite like Nature, it's a general natural sciences journal, which expressly solicits articles on crossover topics, and physics and chemistry are included.
This was reverted by Enric Naval with (Undid revision 279799778 by Abd (talk) oh good god)
Indeed. Enric then reverted again with (revert too, of course it's a criticism, read the source, he is explaining all that is wrong with the paper)
First of all, what's the source and who is being talked about? This is the text that Enric replaced: The findings were described by the researchers as "very significant", although it was criticized because it doesn't explain how could fusion could happen in the described conditions
Passive voice, unattributed criticism, please, no. Further, as Krivit points out, the paper is reporting significant experimental results, and whether it is explained or not is really beside the point. These aren't physicists, they are chemists, and chemistry is what they did, though they used one tool from nuclear physics, CR-39. They report, previously, in these cells, excess heat and copious short-range ionizing radiation. In this report, they show the presence of small numbers of energetic neutrons. So, the "criticism" is that they don't provide an "explanation." But some very bright physicists have been working on this problem for 20 years and there is no consensus on explanation. Before explanation comes experiment and data, and it's been pointed out many times in reliable source that if it's demanded that theory come first before we will look at the data, this is the "death of science," I think it's been called.
However, in fact, the paper does present mechanisms, and refers to prior theoretical work; however, this isn't central to the paper.
The "criticized" here is apparently referring to the Agence France-Presse report. In that report, we have this:
Paul Padley, a physicist at Rice University who reviewed Mosier-Boss's published work, said the study did not provide a plausible explanation of how cold fusion could take place in the conditions described.
"It fails to provide a theoretical rationale to explain how fusion could occur at room temperatures. And in its analysis, the research paper fails to exclude other sources for the production of neutrons," he told the Houston Chronicle.
"The whole point of fusion is, you're bringing things of like charge together. As we all know, like things repel, and you have to overcome that repulsion somehow."
There are two criticisms here: one is that no theoretical basis is provided. But that's obvious, in fact. This isn't a paper on theoretical physics. The criticism boils down to "This looks like cold fusion, which is impossible, because [of the Coulomb barrier]."
The other criticism would be cogent, if it were accurate. I.e., And in its analysis, the research paper fails to exclude other sources for the production of neutrons. It's bogus objection. This was the source of my comment somewhere that we should extend a little assumption of competence to these people, the paper was, after all, published in a major journal with tight peer review.
Neutrons are a characteristic sign of nuclear reactions. You get them from fusion or fission. So, what sources would there be? Cosmic rays can produce fission and fusion reactions, and certain alpha emitters can cause fusion-fission reactions in a target. Is it a reasonable hypothesis that the neutrons are from cosmic radiation or from natural radioactivity in the apparatus?
The hypothesis is easy to test, actually. I think it might be about time that editors here read the paper. This was published in a peer-reviewed journal, what is there trumps what is in the media about it, as well as comments by a physicist who might just be responding to a reporter's phone call without studying the research. Had this physicist ever heard of the SPAWAR work before? The paper itself is at http://www.newenergytimes.com/Library2/2008/2008BossTripleTracks.pdf
Please look at the left-hand column of p. 136. There is extensive discussion of alternate possibilities for the radiation (which includes the ionizing radiation reported previously).
After reporting prior work from other researchers finding radiation, they describe this:
After etching, it has been observed that the density of tracks on the CR-39 detector is greatest where the cathode had been in contact with the detector (Mosier-Boss et al. 2007). This indicates that the source of the tracks is the Pd that had been plated on the cathode. The distribution of the tracks along the length of the cathode is inhomogeneous suggesting that some Pd sites are more active than others. Results of these experiments also showed that the production of charged particles occurred in bursts. Control experiments indicated that the tracks were not due to radioactive contamination of the cell components; nor were they due to impingement of D2 bubbles on the surface of the CR-39 detector; nor where they the result of chemical attack by D2, O2, or Cl2 (Mosier-Boss et al. 2007). These experiments also indicated that LiCl is not essential for the production of energetic particles and that the density of tracks significantly decreases, by at least three orders of magnitude, when H2O is substituted for D2O. Since the natural abundance of deuterium in light water is 0.015%, it is possible that the tracks observed in the light water experiments could actually be due to Pd–D interactions. Microscopic examination of the CR-39 detectors used in Pd–D electrolysis has been done in areas where the density of tracks is less. In these areas, what appear to be triple tracks are observed interspersed among the solitary tracks. The number of these triple tracks is very low—on the order of a ten or less per detector and are only observed in heavy water experiments. These triple tracks have been observed in every Pd–D co-deposition experiment that has been conducted using Ag, Au, or Pt cathodes in both the presence and absence of an external electric or magnetic field. When Ni screen is used as the cathode, tracks and triple tracks are only observed when an external electric or magnetic field is applied. Triple tracks are indicative of a reaction resulting in the formation of three particles of equal mass and energy. In this communication, the origins of these triple tracks are investigated.
This is the conclusion of the paper:
The mechanism by which DD and DT fusion reactions can occur in Pd is not yet understood; nevertheless, theories are currently under development. However, since no tracks, single or triple, were obtained when CuCl2 was used in place of PdCl2, it can be concluded that the deuterium must be inside a metal lattice for these reactions to occur and not simply adsorbed on the surface of the metal. This implies that the metal lattice facilitates these reactions indicating that nuclear phenomena can be influenced by the atomic and electronic environment.
Now, is "in its analysis, the research paper fails to exclude other sources for the production of neutrons." in any way a cogent criticism of the paper? It appears that they excluded everything they could think of. If this physicist can think of something else as a reasonable possibility, why, I'm sure he could write a communication to Naturwissenschaften. Meanwhile it should be understood that we have peer-reviewed reliable source, the paper itself. We have the press release by ACS, and we have massive press notice, and, so far, nothing seriously notable as criticism except yesterday's lunch, i.e., all the old criticisms recycled as if nothing new had been found. Take a look at the early criticisms, how important neutrons were considered. There is a very interesting comment in The Economist today:
Certainly there would appear to be something strange going on. But even if Dr Boss’s results really are evidence of high-energy neutrons, many physicists will continue to deny that cold fusion could be real. That is because there is no theoretical explanation for electrochemical cold fusion within the existing laws of physics.
So: "Physicist denies that cold fusion could be real. Dog bites man. The Pope is Catholic." Sure, this article must note the existing "consensus," which is not a scientific consensus but a social and political phenomenon. That consensus wasn't confirmed by the 2004 DOE report, it was not ever a real scientific consensus, but a kind of mass hysteria (the initial rush to confirm or refute) combined with natural skepticism. The skepticism was quite appropriate, and it remains appropriate, but at a certain point, healthy science will start to look at experimental data. From what I've been seeing, the data has actually been strong for more than a decade, indicating LENR, and the inertia and frozen assumptions from twenty years ago is quite adequate to explain the skeptical half to two-thirds of the DOE panel. We have to remember that those panels were convened, not to make scientific determinations, but funding determinations. It remains unclear whether or not there are serious energy generation possibilities from cold fusion. The conditions are extraordinarily sensitive, and the heat generated low compared to the expense of the preparation and intrinsic cost of the materials. Sure, it's possible that it could be scaled up, but ... Fleischmann wrote that commercializing cold fusion would take a Manhattan-level project, i.e., truly massive investment. I still find the 2004 DOE conclusions reasonable, but it should be noted that the "mainstream journals" haven't responded to the suggestions of the DOE, though, in reality, that's not the case with all mainstream journals, Naturewissenschaften is not a fringe journal. Nor is, in fact, Frontiers of Physics in China. Or the Japanese physics journals that Arata has been publishing in. Etc. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I will be reviewing the edits made in the last day further, in line with what I've discussed here, and, of course, all comments are welcome. Except, please don't waste space with tl;dr. Just dr if it is tl. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Errrr, hum,you are mixing here a lot of topics that have their own sections below. I was talking about this edit, where you remove the "claims" part from a caption, and the qualification from a journal. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mosier-Boss SPAWAR paper on neutrons.

Naturwissenschaften, Volume 96, Number 1 / January, 2009, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss, Stanislaw Szpak, Frank E. Gordon and Lawrence P. G. Forsley, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/ Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons

Abstract: Since the announcement by Fleischmann and Pons that the excess enthalpy generated in the negatively polarized Pd–D-D2O system was attributable to nuclear reactions occurring inside the Pd lattice, there have been reports of other manifestations of nuclear activities in this system. In particular, there have been reports of tritium and helium-4 production; emission of energetic particles, gamma or X-rays, and neutrons; as well as the transmutation of elements. In this communication, the results of Pd–D co-deposition experiments conducted with the cathode in close contact with CR-39, a solid-state nuclear etch detector, are reported. Among the solitary tracks due to individual energetic particles, triple tracks are observed. Microscopic examination of the bottom of the triple track pit shows that the three lobes of the track are splitting apart from a center point. The presence of three α-particle tracks outgoing from a single point is diagnostic of the 12C(n,n′)3α carbon breakup reaction and suggests that DT reactions that produce ≥9.6 MeV neutrons are occurring inside the Pd lattice. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the production of energetic (≥9.6 MeV) neutrons in the Pd–D system.

review of this in New Scientist:[9]. Nice image: [10].

I think the significance of this paper has been missed in the media reports. Neutrons are not a common product of whatever is going on within the palladium lattice. He-4 production is reported by a multiple reports as being commensurate with excess heat measured. Earlier efforts to find neutrons either failed to find them, or the levels found were very low, approaching background or noise levels. Mosier-Boss's work confirms that the level is very low but it is present. What this means is that the normal or most common pathway involved in the reactions doesn't produce neutrons. I think Mosier-Boss proposes deuterium/tritium fusion for the neutrons. This is a side effect. Whatever is happening inside the lattice isn't just one simple reaction, lots of very messy stuff is happening in there, apparently. One of the researchers at the press conference yesterday described his first experience trying electrolysis with palladium foils; in the end, there were signs of mini-explosions and local melting having taken place in those foils, plus evidence of nuclear transformations. It's almost as if a new world has been opened up: one of the criticisms at the 2004 DOE conference was that there wasn't just one effect being proposed, there were many. Too much new stuff, it's confusing. Some find this result, some find that, it's very easy to suppose that it is simply all nonsense, after all, doesn't nature behave itself? --Abd (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What this means is that the normal or most common pathway involved in the reactions doesn't produce neutrons.
You're assuming way too much. Surely you can see this?
The fact remains that much of the "evidence" is directly contradictory. That's one the huge black marks on the field that both you and Jed(BA in Japanese) seem not to appreciate - instead, true believers usually wave away contradiction with increasingly unlikely rationales, and everything is seen as "real" and positive. People who actually work with nuclei and know them intimately, such as nuclear physicists and chemists, understand that many of the results are laughable and certain to be wrong. Even in the unlikely event that some cold fusion mechnaism is confirmed, I think you'll find that most of the results are error.
Of all the possible outcomes that involve something real for cold fusion, by FAR the most likely is that some process is producing low levels of neutrons, and the rest is total BS. Phil153 (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"much of the evidence is directly contradictory" --I'm assuming you mean self-contradictory. Please provide 3 examples. V (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Phil, I hope he doesn't mean self-contradictory, as that would be reflect poorly on his intellect. Empirical evidence cannot contradict itself, it always contradicts OTHER empirical evidence (and at that it only seems to) or none at all. Not even on the quantum physics scale can nature contradict itself. At best, it can be ambiguous. "Self-contradiction" can only happen when the thing contradicting is made out of multiple, smaller things, which individually contradict each other. For instance, a person making two different statements that are logically related but incommensurate is contradicting them-self. But evidence as such can never even truly contradict other evidence (nonetheless itself), because nature is always consistent. Only interpretations of the evidence can.
Also, where you say "contradictory", I see no contradiction, I see incompleteness. Perhaps it's the thing where one person says the tree is brown and another green, when actually it's brown on one side and green on the other. In computer programming, when you have an organizational problem, you add a level of indirection. You seem to be subtracting a level of indirection to create an organizational problem where there is none.
You say "Of all the possible outcomes that involve something real for cold fusion, by FAR the most likely...". I would say rather that right now there isn't any "most likely outcome". (And regardless we are only dealing w/the a priori probabilities.) We do not have enough information. That is, the information entropy and the KL-divergence are fairly high right now. We really don't know very much about how nuclear stuff behaves in condensed matter, a state that physically and mathematically is way different from a plasma. We also have things happening that don't fit what we expect (from nuclear plasma physics, at least). See I take a world view that takes information theory as a first principle, so to speak, in contrast to what one might call a more "cartesian" world view. And that says (among other things) that the most likely outcome is that our model will be updated somehow but until that happens -- by definition -- all outcomes (updates) are equally likely. (though "equally likely" is somewhat of a deceptive term because there is always a prior, i.e. a metric to the space of probabilities, even so-called "flat" ones.) In any case, my standpoint is "We don't know, but I would certainly like to find out." Perhaps I'm a little tougher to satisfy. In any case, I think it's a far better stance than prematurely jumping to a conclusion and vociferously decrying all others only to run the risk of being grossly mistaken in the end. Kevin Baastalk 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, while evidence gathered in a single experiment cannot contradict itself, the phrase "much of the evidence", when fairly obviously referring to the whole body of work, can indeed include experiments with contradicting results --the star witness for that were all those CF failures after the 1989 announcement. However, to clairify what I meant, I would like to point out that I was specifically trying to prevent comparisons between CF data and standard theory. We already know about those contradictions, of course --and they are not relevant unless theory is supposed to trump data. So, I want to know more about which "directly contradictory" experiments Phil is talking about. V (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth I had originally confused yours and Phil's dialogue together (i.e. erred in attribution). (I'm not feeling well so my mental acuity is somewhat diminished.) Then in going back in correcting this error I had done so incompletely. No offense meant and I'm clear on what you meant now. Sorry. Kevin Baastalk 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The prior SPAWAR work shows high levels of radiation. Phil153, you are making assumptions about "true believers." Nobody knows "nuclei" intimately. Period. In particular, we don't know how nuclear behavior is different in the condensed matter state as distinct from the plasma state, partly because it is extraordinarily difficult to study. Basic nuclear science was developed and studied with interactions where individual nuclei interacted, which takes high energy when they are in isolation, and the math is much simpler. We already know that when they are not in isolation, different things can happen; muon-catalyzed fusion and the Mossbauer effect are examples. Above, there is a paper giving a plausible -- to this nonspecialist -- theoretical explanation for condensed matter nuclear reactions at low temperatures. There are other hypotheses; these are being generated by physicists, Phil, and, in particular, nuclear physicists. Some process is producing low levels of neutrons. That's right. My conclusion also. What kind of process produces neutrons, Phil? Please do remember the controls. Lots of criticism of the present work is based on some strange assumption that there are no controls.
However, the hypothesis that the predominant reaction is D2 + D2 -> He4 plus energy, with the energy being expressed with high energy alpha radiation due to Mossbauer-effect-like coupling, even though it goes substantially further than the Mossbauer effect in terms of how much coupling must take place, is consistent with both the measured excess heat and measurement of He4. Prior work on neutrons showed either no neutrons or low levels, difficult to distinguish from noise, except for experiments where measurement error was either found or was a reasonable assumption. Mosier-Boss simply found a way to detect neutrons at very low levels, because the detector is integrating by nature, whereas prior efforts measured short-time-scale radiation levels.
So what we are seeing, in fact, putting it all together, is evidence of a whole class of reactions, with different pathways and different products. There is a pathway that generates neutrons. What is that? It might well not be fusion, but, Phil, it would be, practically by definition, a low energy nuclear reaction. (Though there is some possibility that local conditions create hot fusion conditions on a very small scale, similar to the claims about bubble fusion.)
But how did it happen that Mosier-Boss found neutrons? They were looking for them, Phil, because they had already found excess heat, alpha radiation, and He-4 (which is the same as alpha radiation after it has lost its energy to heat, which is what ionizing radiation does). They look at the heat and the levels of He-4 found and they match. Phil, what will happen, I predict, is that we are going to go into each detail for each issue and find community consensus on it. Be careful how tightly you stick yourself into some position. I am not predicting what the consensus will be, I will simply present what evidence we have. In such a discussion, because it's not in the article, we are not limited to what is clearly RS; however, there is plenty of RS on this topic. We will also use subpages or user pages for this, at least for preliminary work.
Now that people know how to find the neutrons, I'm going to predict that there will be efforts to correlate the neutrons found with the tritium pathways, i.e., by comparing neutron levels with levels of tritium found, which were always too low to be considered proof. But correlations of weak evidences, repeated over substantial numbers of experiments, can actually be quite powerful. Many of the objections raised against prior work on the basis of low repeatability ignored the consideration of controls.
Abd, the tritium thing isn't so easy because the T+D reaction is a significantly higher-probability reaction than the D+D reaction. So, any tritium that gets produced is likely to be almost immediately consumed, with only neutrons and He4 to indicate that that pathway happened. And the He4 is problematic because of the oddball D+D->4He direct reaction (the extent to which it occurs that is greater than 1-in-a-million is the extent to which it interferes with measuring 4He produced by D+T fusion). I'd like to see more data about high-energy protons. 3He should get produced as often as tritium, and may not be consumed quite as quickly (fusion with a deuteron means 2 protons repelling 1, instead of 1 repelling 1 when tritium fuses with a deuteron), but when it does fuse, a proton shoots out instead of a neutron. And when it doesn't fuse, 3He should accumulate to a detectable level. In fact, because I forgot about the electron-shell issue while writing the preceding, it is possible that there are very very few energetic protons; any 3He produced might immediately grab 2 electrons from the palladium conduction band and become unavailable for fusing by low-speed deuterons. That is, the electron shell of helium would prevent any loose electrons from being able to shield the nuclei, when one approaches the other. ("electron catalyzed fusion"). I think I've mentioned before that the electron shells need to be out of the way, for CF to happen.... The net result of the preceding OR is that, thanks to the 50/50 split of 3H/3He production, neutrons measured should be correlated with a measurement of 3He. V (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I confess to making a silly error (have had other things on mind today). When D+D->T, we also get a high-energy proton. I don't expect the T to last long enough to accumulate to significance. When D+D->3He, that is when we get a high-energy neutron. OF COURSE a neutron count could be correlated to a measurement of 3He! Duhhh... V (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
And now for silly error #2: confusing 4 different reactions (my mind really was mostly thinking about other stuff yesterday!) Anyway, to try to set straight the above mess, the relevant reactions are: D+D->T+p, D+D->3He+n, D+T->4He+n, and D+3He->4He+p. To the extent that the first two happen at all in the CF environment, we should be able to observe a 50/50 split of production of modest-energy protons and neutrons. We can reasonably expect the tritium (T) to be consumed as described above and for 3He to accumulate as described in my shell-in-the-way explanation below. Neutrons released from the D+T reaction are significantly higher-energy than neutrons released from the reaction that creates 3He. Anyway, if we have a 50/50 production split of T and 3He, and if all the T is consumed and yields high-energy neutrons, then there should indeed be a fairly close correlation between high-energy neutrons and 3He. Whew! V (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, V. We don't know, really, what is going on in there, so we don't know how to apply fusion cross-section information from other areas. He4 is known to be the predominant reaction product in these experiments, no matter how "problematic" it might be, theoretically. And that is why there are only low levels of neutrons, they are happening, almost certainly, because something else sometimes happens. Actually, V, I think you just contradicted yourself. The electrons aren't "out of the way" if it's electron-catalyzed fusion, which is indeed one hypothesis that is reasonable among others, they are very much there. In the lattice, though, they aren't attached specifically to the nuclei, they are present in a very different way, and the theory is that they may then be able to serve as matchmakers.
Not a contradiction, but apparently my assumption was incorrect regarding its understandabilty. Start with the background that if two whole atoms are involved, their nuclei can't interact easily because the electron shells repel each other and keep the nuclei too far apart (the shells are in the way). Jump forward to an opposite situation in which neither nucleus has an electron shell; one or more loose electrons could come along and shield them from each other, so they might get close enough to fuse, slightly similar to muon catalysis. Now back up to the intermediate situation where one of those nuclei has an electron shell. The shell repels other electrons. Therefore if a bare nucleus penetrates that shell, no low-energy loose electron can accompany it, to shield the two nuclei from each other. Since it is reasonable to expect that any He3 nucleus, once formed, will immediately grab 2 loose electrons from the palladium conduction band and put them into orbit (http://www.standnes.no/chemix/periodictable/electronegativity-chart.htm --H and Pd are the same, but think about the electronegativity of doubly-ionized helium!), the logical consequence is: Even if it just grabbed 1 electron, the resulting shell ("in the way"!) means that nucleus is no longer available for electron-catalyzed fusion. OK? V (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There was a prior report in New Scientist on the same work as is involved in the current report, but before the information about neutrons had been published. http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/101ns_001.htm. SPAWAR has long been reporting strong ionizing, but non-penetrating, radiation from those cells, at copious levels. The present report should be read in conjunction with the prior work. Radiation detection isn't new, what is new is neutrons shown to be associated with the cathode. This research is, in a way, being presented for political effect. One of the biggest objections to cold fusion, from the beginning, has been the missing neutrons. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for it, but it involves hypothesizing new reaction pathways or mechanisms. What Mosier-Boss has done is to show that, yes, there are neutrons, so that old objection disappears; there is now evidence that there is fusion at a very low level. When neutrons were found by Georgia Tech, it was immediately big news. Unfortunately, they not only didn't actually detect neutrons, there had been an unexpected problem with the detector, and they probably also weren't getting cold fusion, either. Practically nobody knew how to find the effect then. Subsequent failures to detect neutrons were thought to have sealed the coffin. However, we now know that there were, indeed, neutrons, but at quite low levels. Some of the early results, dismissed because of the very low levels, may actually have been real, i.e., caused by neutrons from cold fusion in a minor pathway (under the conditions), but the evidence wasn't conclusive or even close. That, in turn, explains why some researchers were tantalized, seeing results they couldn't duplicate. Scaramuzzi writes about the history, how early results kept him looking, even though he later concluded that these early results were in error. But Fleischmann's excess heat wasn't an error, he'd been careful about it; only his neutron measurements were truly problematic. --Abd (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It's really a remarkable situation in science, I know of no analogy that actually holds. How many international conferences, with papers published by major universities, were held regarding polywater or N-rays? The effects of wishful thinking as an explanation, often given, is a hypothesis. Is it falsifiable? Taken to an extreme, no, it isn't. At a certain point, however, that hypothesis breaks down. It appears from what I'm finding in the vast literature on this topic that it was falsified by 1990 or 1991, i.e., by then it was clear that something anomalous was happening, and that LENR were a reasonable hypothesis. But by that time the mainstream wasn't following the research, it had already concluded "junk science," and mainstream scientists are busy, they don't have time to follow what they believe are junk science claims, known to be false.
Except the evidence that they were basing a judgment of "false" on wasn't scientific evidence to that effect, except considered in isolation. I.e., the published claim that Fleischmann hadn't stirred his cells and that the experimenter attempting confirmation found an appearance of excess heat, which disappeared when cells were stirred, did not at all show that Fleischmann's work was in error; rather it set up a new and reasonable -- and falsifiable -- hypothesis about the source of the heat observations. And it was shown to be false, but by that time few outside the field were listening.
I have come to the opinion that there is fusion happening. But I arrived here, early in January, neutral on that topic, or actually slightly biased against it. See, I was very familiar with Fleischmann's work in 1989, and followed what was happening as closely as I could, given that I had no access to a university library. Nevertheless, like nearly everyone else except those involved with the research and who had seen anomalies themselves, I developed a sense of "too bad, it would have been great." I was aware, over the years, that there was continuing work, and, indeed, I attributed this to be probably the die-hard phenomenon. I was totally unaware that replication efforts were succeeding with increased frequency as the researchers learned how to set up the special conditions, because it didn't get media attention, and, in fact, through this period we see the popular press repeating over and over, when it did cover the topic at all, repeating the error about lack of replication. It took Fleischmann and Pons years to get their technique to a point that the university believed that it must be announced, they were not ready to publish or announce. So along come hordes of physicists trying to quickly duplicate what had taken expert chemists years to do, and when they didn't succeed, in a very short time, we know what happened.
Yes. Pathological science. The whole story, as is available in reliable source, must be told, not just half of it. The issue of balance has been used quite inappropriately to exclude masses of material found in reliable source; in order to avoid balance issues, the classic solution is subarticles. The article on the overall topic maintains weight balance, but subtopics each have their own balance depending on the exact subtopic. For example, what methods of calorimetry are used, what are the problems associated with each, how do these apply to cold fusion research, what do we have from reliable source on this? The cold fusion article cannot possibly bear the weight of this. Hence an article was created Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments. I presume you know what happened. But, I predict, we will get that article back, or something like it. The article was userfied to User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments so that it can be seen and information from it taken back to this article. Was that a POV fork as claimed? How? The main editor was Shanahan, which was a problem, sure, because he is COI. But we could have fixed that problem. It's only a POV fork if it is not NPOV, or if it is used to preferentially exclude information needed for this article's balance; however, that is addressed with proper summary.
There were editors working on this article who had strong POVs, some of who were quite knowledgeable, and it was quite unfortunate that they have been (from both "sides,") banned, because what we need is not the exclusion of POV, but the creation of NPOV text, which we can only recognize through consensus. A claim of consensus based on stability, when, clearly, reversion is being used to keep reliably-sourced information out on the undue weight argument, is a false claim. It's not stable, it requires constant maintenance by a faction, against what may be a smaller faction here, but which then effectively trolls for POV editing from the outside world, when people with some knowledge of the topic (including researchers involved with it) recognize the imbalance of the article. That will still exist no matter what, to some degree, but when we have actually found consensus, the active editors will be united in maintaining the article against whatever would upset the consensus, and it will be much easier. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC

Discussion discussion

The above discussion is so far into WP:OR and specifically WP:SYNTH that it's embarassing. Please redact.LeadSongDog come howl 22:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OR and SYNTH on the level I engaged in, where reasonably verifiable by review of the sources, and representing proposed consensus or approach to consensus though discussion, is permitted on Talk pages if reasonably related to what can ultimately go in the article. I'm not going to redact. And there is much more there that is directly related to how we will proceed to find consensus on the article. So ... suit yourself, LSD. Turn on the coffeemaker, tune in to the community and the sources, or drop out. If you don't want to read what I write, fine, you are not obligated. When it turns into edits, you will have lost no rights, unless the community -- njot just me -- made a decision without your participation, and even then you can -- respectfully -- challenge it. Turn on the coffeemaker, tune in to the community and the sources, discuss, or drop out.--Abd (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you say this, but policy and consensus does not agree with you, Abd. You need to accept that. The very top of this talk page says, in a template that's all over Wikipedia: This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. I don't think the above could be described as anything but using this as a forum for general discussion of the subject. I'm a violator on this as well, and I don't think it's right to tell people who raise this issue and ask you to redact to basically buzz off if they don't like it. Phil153 (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The proof is in the pudding, Phil. Want to take it before the community? That's where consensus is found, no single one of us or small group has the right to claim to represent consensus when there is disagreement. I couldn't stop you if I wanted to. But WP:NOTAFORUM, interpreted as some interpret it, makes finding genuine consensus difficult, so, maybe it's time to confront that. Ready for it? You think something is inappropriate for a Talk page, to the point where the incivility or disruption of taking it out is outweighed by the distraction of leaving it in, you know what to do, but I can't predict my own response in advance, nor that of the community. Well, maybe I can. Depends on what you do! You think my behavior inappropriate, I presume you can read dispute resolution guidelines.--Abd (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not me that's complaining, since I do it too, mostly in response to your off topic adventures. I'm merely supporting the validity of LeadSongDog's (and other's) complaints. Your assertion that there is disruption or incivility by enforcing WP:NOTFORUM, when accepted policy explicitly says that such comments may be removed by anyone, is not helpful. Nor is your assertion that complainants should basically buzz off if they don't like it, or that you won't reconsider your actions short of dispute resolution. If someone told me that I was writing hundreds of kilobytes of comments insufficiently related to improving the article, I'd respect their request. Phil153 (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be nice of you. I'm not you, and I don't think that my comments are insufficiently related. Phil, you have overlooked that WP:DR starts with direct communication, then very gradually escalates. I know what I'm doing, Phil, and the sooner you realize that possibility, the easier it will be. Removing someone's comments is almost intrinsically disruptive or uncivil, which doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. I noted the balance. My participation has almost always brought forth the kind of complaint that arose here, for many years. I've been tossed from mailing lists by moderators, but whenever there has actually been a discussion among list participants, the conclusion was that it was related and valuable. The fact that some people don't think so points, more properly, to a suggestion that they not read it. Reading Talk isn't obligatory. If I make some long, allegedly or actually rambling statement, that includes, say, a justification for an article edit, and I make the edit, you can still revert it as if I hadn't made that statement. However, if someone else (not me) then reverts you and refers to the statement and discussion, you might then have some obligation to read it before reverting again. --Abd (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
If you knew what you were doing you would have already succeeded in your campaign to get lenr-canr unblacklisted. Good faith is gold. Your above reply is basically "I'm 100% right, the 3+ people complaining and requesting are wrong/less intelligent/haven't had time to read it, end of story". Not a helpful approach to anything, let alone a collaborative editing environment. Phil153 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this page has turned into a gushing FORUM full of OR and SYNTH. It would be much better if editors brought their ideas here in a clear and concise manor. If a sentence or citation is so complex or controversial that it need to be defended with a 5,000 byte statement...that spirals into 50,000+ byte two party dialogue concerning esoterica...that no one else wants to wade through...and everyone forgets what the original point was. Well it doesn't serve the talk page goals.--OMCV (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
OMCV, would you care to explain how people can decide-by-consesus what should or should not go into an article, without discussing it? Without bringing up information that supports each view (include/don't-include), regarding each item? V (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The WP:NOTAFORUM policy is clear that discussion on article Talk pages is to be for the purpose of improving the article. I do not discussion cold fusion here except for that purpose. When I wish to have a discussion with an individual editor, I use user Talk or email. However, when I wish to bring up a topic that I consider has bearing on the article, and wish to both inform and solicit comment from editors interested in the article, for the purpose of preparing to form or review actual edits, I do it on article Talk. There is no other place to do this, though we could create one in WP space, or create a mailing list. One approach to the problem of a burgeoning Talk page is refactoring. I've started using, in some places, collapse boxes with discussions, giving some summary of the discussion at the top or after the box, describing the discussion as it bears on the article. It's work, but it can be worthwhile. Imagine how useful our Talk archives would be if they were refactored according to topic. That's actually suggested, but it is hardly ever done. If the policy and its application is not clear, and if disagreement on this remains, my suggestion about WP:DR was not defiant, it was a real suggestion that could generate value for the project. The policy, properly, leaves broad discretion in the hands of editors working on an article. And then there is always WP:IAR, Rule Number One, which we sometimes forget, but which should always be remembered whenever someone tries to claim that a matter is definitively decided and closed because of a policy or guideline. Consensus is how we decide the scope and application of guidelines and policies, until and unless we are operating at the level of ArbComm or the WMF, which decide by vote or delegated authority.--Abd (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What about putting some collapse boxes in the main article (could lead to less need for subarticles)? That complete lisct of references you talk about below might also be a good candidate for a collapse box. The reader could expand anything the reader finds interesting. V (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Haven't seen it done, but it might be possible, or it may be deprecated. It's kind of six of one and a half-dozen of the other. Subarticles aren't a problem, as long as we have editorial consensus and we make sure that the subarticles aren't POV forks. I think we can handle that.
Off-topic quick comment: Collapsing article text to reduce the need for subarticles? Please don't, there are very good reasons not to do that, but I'm not going to argue them here, make a suggestion at WT:MOS where people familiar with this stuff can explain it better. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't see a clue in the MOS, and "reasons not to do that" might not apply in some situation. If an editor thinks it should be done somewhere, I see no guideline against it, but ... accepting the edit or proposal is up to the other editors; I'd suggest arguing, if there is to be any arguing, from our purpose and principles and a that point getting advice from other experienced editors makes perfect sense. The problem with "making a suggestion at WT:MOS" without having an example where some editors think it should be done is that you may get an answer that isn't grounded in the particular needs of the article. On the other hand, subarticles may be better. There is then focused discussion on the subtopic on the Talk page for that subarticle. My own opinion is, without having participated in or followed old debate on it, that certain kinds of subarticles that truly are subtopics, not simply related topics, should be done through file hierarchy; which then clearly shows that the subarticle "belongs" to the main article. But that's way ahead of what's needed right now. --Abd (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll just make one point: adding collapsable boxes does not change the size of the article. A 100KB article will still be a 100KB article even with boxes. Nah, I'm not going to argue this here, not the proper forum. You can make a sandbox or something to show an example. Also, scratch WT:MOS; read WP:SIZE instead and make a suggestion on its talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If it is better to have sub-articles than collapse boxes, that's fine with me. However, I do think a collapse box might be appropriate for something like a long long reference list. V (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree that this is possible, V. Enric, the issue isn't article size as in memory space, but rather clarity an usability for the reader. Absolutely, don't argue this here. It's one thing to toss out an idea just to explore possible implications for the article, quite another to try shoot it down based on pure speculation. If an example appears where it would be appropriate, we can try it. If anyone objects, well, we can consider that too. (Note that there could be accessibility issues, there are people reading Wikipedia with devices that might not render collapse boxes properly, etc. But trying to anticipate all this in advance, bad idea. The purpose of bringing it up here is simply to explore various ways we can present the article. Collapse boxes make a great deal of sense in refactoring talk pages. --Abd (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Variations on "pathological science"

I know this is off-topic, but for the purpose of comparison, due to all the discussion above about pathological science, I'd like to point out that here is an outfit that made some claims a couple years ago about having discovered a perpetual-motion device, and then invited people to study it. They are now inviting companies to license it.... http://www.steorn.com The steorn Wikipedia article indicates they still haven't revealed to the public details about how it works. IF it works, of course. The CF field is a model of Good Science, not pathological science, in comparison, because HOW its results are obtained are fully explained. (WHY those results happen is another issue altogether.) V (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic --Enric Naval (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Blatantly "impossible," and they know it. I'd say that if they have, in fact, found something, they may be going about it exactly right, not in terms of science, but in terms of how to make a ton of money and bypass the skepticism. They might even make the money if it's bogus, but that would take some awfully stupid engineering companies, I wouldn't bet on it. More likely, there is an energy-conserving explanation that is, simply, not obvious, and more focused work on it, and especially with efforts to scale it up, will reveal it. On the other hand, if one of those engineering companies does manage to scale it up and they start manufacturing usable power sources ... we will have to revise some long-standing concepts, much deeper than those involved with cold fusion (which doesn't violate conservation of energy in spite of some media sniping to that effect.) Basically, at this point, nothing to see here, move along. V, you are correct, the CF field is real science. The report above is based on what is claimed to be a reproducible experiment (they loan out the apparatus and engineers were invited to take it apart, etc., but some of those reviewing it seemed to express the idea that "we don't know why it works, but it works." That's an observation, but since we don't know what "it" is, beyond what little can be derived from the video (Looks like there is some rotational energy involved, and they talk about the interaction between gravitational and magnetic fields, but the level of motion they are getting could be caused by some *very* subtle effects. I made a radio when I was something like ten or twelve that was powered by ... radio. There are sources of energy floating about. Normal vibration of the earth, for example, can be turned into useful power on a very small scale. For all practical purposes, this isn't science, it's only one element of science, an observation, and since it is secret in details, it isn't "human knowledge," our topic, which is, by definition, shared knowledge. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
A little late to the party, II, but welcome. We've been discussing this very press release and the media fallout above. It is not merely a presentation at the ACS conference, the substance was published in Naturwissenschaften in January, I think. so, peer-reviewed and notable because of all the press attention, a useful combination. The press reports are typically awful, repeating stuff that quite simply isn't true, (as to 1989, "but nobody was able to replicate it," which is a rather stupid statement for any reporter who actually looks into the topic, what with 150 papers or so published in peer-reviewed journals over the last twenty years that show excess heat when palladium is packed with deuterium, radiation, Helium-4, etc, but a little of the coverage has been reasonably good. --Abd (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Collapse for readability. The CR-39 paper is already mentioned at Cold_fusion#2009_reports, and includes an image of the triple tracks. Collapsed discussion includes an explanation of the phenomena. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not joining any party. I don't know enough to comment much, but I do think the article should be mentioned in the body of the article. II | (t - c) 00:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Aw, c'mon. "Party" means fun, not factional affiliation. Overlooked guideline: WP:FUN. I'm serious. If editing Wikipedia isn't fun, it's doomed, because it will only be edited, then, by POV-pushers, COI editors, or random ignorant anonymous editors -- for whom making a small contribution, or vandalizing, is fun. Sure, there are a few who might be called highly motivated NPOV editors, but there are more who think themselves such but are actually POV-pushers, and the former kind (true NPOV believers, who believe in it more than they believe in their own opinions) tend to burn out, there comes a point where it just isn't emotionally worth it to push the boulder back up the hill. --Abd (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It is. See Cold_fusion#2009_reports, at least that's where it is now. With an image of one triple track. FYI, it's not being noticed much in the media, but the image we have below the triple-track is from prior work of Mosier-Boss. Basically, they found, and published some years ago, high levels of ionizing radiation, probably alpha radiation, low-penetration, using the same technique: CR-39 chips placed next to the cathode. That radiation can't penetrate the chip, it only affects the surface. They found the neutrons when they examined the other side of these chips. The cathode side of the chips is heavily damaged, when they run the experiment as long as they do when they find the neutrons, you can see it is altered (a milky appearance) with the naked eye. My guess is that they find the neutron tracks at all depths from the back, but they wouldn't be visible in the region that is affected by the alpha radiation. In any case, contrary, again, to what some have said, the previous co-deposition CR-39 work has replicated, though I'm not sure about the neutron findings. The technique of co-deposition is much simpler and more reliable than the bulk-palladium electrolysis methods. Given that the work had already been published (we had been discussing it here, for example), what really happened this week is that the ACS didn't just schedule a session to appease a few members. They expanded the session to four days from a previous one, and they issued a press release that emphasized the importance of the work, to the media. It got attention, which is what has been missing for a long time, notice of voluminous of experimental work, much publication in peer-reviewed journals, but almost entirely outside the U.S. Conferences and books, building up a whole field off the radar of the general scientific community, not because they were secretive, but because that general community had its mind firmly made up, especially the bulk of nuclear physicists. But, see, the experimental work here involves chemistry. Who is the expert here? (Some of the researchers, though, are physicists, for example, a Chinese review paper I cite above on this page is by a nuclear physicist who also published on the topic something like 15 years ago, but with a classical physics-type confirmation that something anomalous was going on.) --Abd (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, glad to hear that the paper is covered. Your post had too much information. Here is not the place to educate me on cold fusion... II | (t - c) 03:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you stated that you believed the article "should be included." I discussed why I agreed. It is indeed significant, but mostly for political reasons. Neutrons were expected, and they were hard to find, they didn't exist at the expected levels. That is probably the number one reason that cold fusion was widely rejected. It's obvious that whatever is going on in the lattice doesn't usually generate neutrons. A huge body of research was generated to study what does occur. But what is taking place there is very complex, and more than one kind of low-energy reaction apparently takes place. It's the old story of the elephant and the blind men. A group of them encounter an elephant; they can't see it, but they each are able to feel parts of it. So one reports it is like a tree, another reports it's like a snake, another reports it's like a vine. Etc. The reports are discounted and rejected, because, obviously, they are reporting different things, if there were really one thing there, they would be confirming each other in details. This problem was raised in the 2004 DOE review. --Abd (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

About those missing gamma rays, a question.

From the article in the section on "theoretical incompatiblities."

The γ-rays of the 4He pathway are not observed. This type of radiation is not stopped by electrode or electrolyte materials, making it necessary to postulate that the 24 MeV excess energy is transferred in the form of heat into the host metal lattice prior to the intermediary's decay.[5] The speed of the decay process together with the inter-atomic spacing in a metallic crystal makes such a transfer inexplicable in terms of conventional understandings of momentum and energy transfer.[6]

D+D fusion results in a helium nucleus. Energetic helium nuclei are nothing other than the alpha radiation found in the earlier SPAWAR work, and also reported in the recent Naturwissenschaften paper. However, if I'm correct, conservation of momentum requires that the vector sum of momenta of the reaction products equal that present before the reaction. In other words, we don't get an energetic alpha particle without getting something in the opposite direction. This may be why some theories are proposing that the mechanism involves 4D, not 2D. The product would be two energetic alpha particles carrying away the energy released by fusion; because these interact with the lattice and other materials, the energy is converted to heat. Anybody know of reliable source on this approach to solving the problem of the missing gammas? If I'm correct, what we get from standard DD fusion is an energetic alpha particle in one direction and a gamma in the other. And we don't get significant amounts of gammas. (Apparently, the SPAWAR group has detected gammas or X-rays also. Prior groups found radiation evidence on X-ray film.) --Abd (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the "third miracle". The only hypothesis I know of that answers all the miracles was not RS-published and is this one: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cold_Fusion_Hypothesis It presumes electron-catalyzed fusion as the answer to the first miracle, and it notes than unlike muon catalysis with its lone muon, there are lots of electrons available in solid metal, to participate in the reaction. Instead of talking about "quantum tunneling" it points out that as fusion begins the two nuclei are some distance apart and that they are able to exchange "virtual pions", some of which will be electrically charged. Any electron that is in-between the two nuclei, enabling the start of fusion, can interact with those pions via the electromagnetic force, acquire energy, and be ejected. (In muon catalysis, note that the muon is 206 times closer to a proton than is an orbiting electron; the electrical attraction is 2062 or 42436 times stronger --possibly doubled because of the nearby proton in the other nucleus-- yet the muon (206 times as massive as an electron) can often acquire enough energy to shoot away from the reaction site, to some place where it can catalyze another fusion.) As soon as the electron leaves the scene, the twin charges of the protons in the two nuclei can attract another electron from the conduction band of the solid metal; the point of greatest electrostatic attraction is in-between the two nuclei. To some extent other electrons are already there, thanks to their "cloudiness" per Quantum Mechanics. Any significantly-present electron can then interact with the virtual pions, acquire some energy, and also be ejected. If enough electrons get involved that way, before the nuclei merge, then the total energy removed from the reaction could suffice to prevent a just-formed 4He nucleus from needing to break into, say, tritium and a proton, thus answering the second miracle, regarding reaction percentages. The third miracle is simultaneously answered because of all those electrons that carried away energy (no gamma needed). When the metal is very very thin, such as during a co-deposition experiment, not enough electrons are available as just described, so more-often the result of the fusion is tritium-and-proton or 3He-and-neutron (and an occasional gamma or X-ray of rather less energy than 23.8Mev could be associated with 4He, depending on how much energy actually got carried away first by the available electrons). V (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the third miracle. However, the gamma problem assumes isolated nuclei. It also assumes that DD fusion is what is happening. There might be some other pathway. The classic proposal to solve the gamma problem is to postulate that somehow the recoil energy is coupled to the lattice. But if, instead, it is transferred to an energetic ionizing particle (electron, perhaps), this particle, then, would mostly transfer the energy to the lattice or otherwise to the immediate environment. What the Mosier-Boss would brings into relief is that there is more than one kind of reaction taking place. It's quite well established that neutrons aren't present in quantities sufficient to explain the excess heat; the neutrons found are significant, very significant, in fact, but far, far below what would have been expected. Note that even a tiny amount of radiation generated by the electrolysis or other catalytic action is quite as revolutionary with respect to theory as full-blown, clearly positive-net-energy-generating fusion would be.
We definitely need to work on the theory sections. There are lots of theories that have been advanced to explain possible low-energy nuclear reactions. Too many, in fact, cold fusion researchers have lamented. Mosier-Boss have estimated the energy of the neutrons, which gives a clue. It's a bit like what we have seen in this week's media reports, which repeated over and over that the excess heat wasn't replicated, when, in fact, it's been replicated many times. (Replication isn't the end of the question, because perhaps there is some systematic error, but it is one thing to say that the experiment couldn't be repeated, and another to claim that the interpretations haven't been proven.) And then we see objections on the basis that no theory has been advanced to explain the results. Besides that being the cart driving the horse, it's also misleading: there are many theories that have been advanced, some by highly competent theoreticians. But because the experimental results weren't considered solid, few bothered, apparently, to review and critique these theoretical explanations and, from the "mainstream side," to design experiments to test the hypotheses. So part of our review process here will be listing the theories that have been advanced, particularly those in reliable source. Lack of response to a publication doesn't establish that it isn't usable as reliable source, though it does require caution about weight, which is mostly about how the research is presented. --Abd (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Cold_fusion#2.-_The_branching_ratio (the section on the second miracle) explains that there three known pathways. The second miracle refers to how the first two pathways are observed much less frequently than they should, and the third miracle refers to the lack of y-rays when the third pathway should be happening. It also explains how the transfer of the y-ray energy to the lattice can't be explained using the "conventional understandings of momentum and energy transfer".
And no, I don't know of any RS giving an explanation of how this energy transfer could happen (there might be non-accepted-by-mainstream fringe theories, I think that the "lattice behaves like condensed matter" is the most famous one and the only one notable enough for inclusion. Just provide acceptable RS for the other theories to see if we can fit them in the article. P.D.: Indeed, the Frontiers of Physics in China paper you brought here[11] was about condensed matter) . --Enric Naval (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of Mosier-Boss paper by Wissenschaft-online

[12], in German. I've read the google translation and it looks like this report has a bit deeper coverage and more balanced criticism. And the article also repeats a number of common errors, and the better criticism still seems to neglect the care exercised in the experiment to rule out the cause of the neutron detection from other sources, including natural background. If this were just one experiment, one piece of plastic, the experiment would be quite vulnerable to that explanation, but it's not, the paper covers a series of experiments, including various controls. For example, no deuterium, but hydrogen, no triple tracks. --Abd (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you proposing we do with this source, as relates to article improvement? Phil153 (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose we get a good translation! --Abd (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Lack of accepted explanation using conventional physics"

This title is better but it would be good to have a title that reflects the fact these subsections are about the reasons against believing the cold fusion reports. Therefore, they need a title that gets across the idea of "problems" or "weaknesses" or "criticisms." I tried to be very neutral by using the word "incompatibilities." Keep in mind that there is already an explanation (not universally accepted) that is compatible with conventional physics: The pro-cold-fusion researchers are incompetent. Therefore, we shouldn't focus on the "lack" of explanations, but the lack of consensus. Does anyone have any better ideas? Olorinish (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I preferred the old version, for both brevity and accuracy. The old old version, "Theoretical Issues", was even better. I'd also note that we shouldn't be renaming this like madmen, as has happened lately; lots of places, including news articles, link to this specific subtitle, and it should be stable, not changed on a whim because someone believes cold fusion is real. "Theoretical issues" is just fine. Phil153 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to "Theoretical Issues". I might ask why it got changed away from that, to the POV-laden "Incompatibilities" label. Olorinish, I don't even object to including a statement to the effect that many physicists have assumed that the chemists were incompetent, so long as it is accompanied by a statement to the effect that those chemists consider those physicists to be incompetent chemists, plus arrogant or worse. After all, it takes arrogance-or-worse to assume that just because they , the physicists, were unable to replicate the chemists' data, the data must therefore be essentially impossible to replicate, or even fraudulent.
Hmmmm...note to Kirk Shanahan: Why didn't they see the CCS effect? Why should that effect exist only in experiments that are otherwise-interpretable as supporting the claims of P&F? Simplest answer: CCS does not exist in a significant way.
Anyway, building upon the other paragraph, it remained and remains true that the field of nuclear events is traditionally a field in which physicists play, not chemists, and that is the ultimate reason why the failures of the physicists, to replicate the chemists' data, assocated with this particular physicists' playground, led to the current low status, worldwide, of this research area. V (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Plenty of chemists laugh at it as well. Go read or ask at professional chemist forums what they, as chemists, think of cold fusion. They have as much contempt for it as the physicists. It may have a bit more respectability (or a couple of friends in high places in the ACS), but let's not pretend this is a physics vs chemistry thing. Phil153 (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not pretending this is a physics-vs-chemistry thing, especially because I know full well that chemistry has been technically a branch of physics ever since atomic structures began to be understood (1920s?). However, the CF arena is a physicist-vs-chemist thing; we have lots of data supporting that description! V (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This has been described many times. Chemists observe phenomenon in chemistry experiment. They are expert chemists, and they can't explain the result with chemistry. They say "this isn't a chemical effect, and the only thing we can imagine is that it is nuclear. The nuclear physicists, mostly, say, "this can't be nuclear because you can't do nuclear physics with your chemistry set." Now, which side of this is right? More to the point, which side is using the scientific method?
Hint: is the chemists, because they are doing and reporting experiments, developing hypotheses, trying to falsify them, building a body of knowledge. The physicists in this particular story are sitting on their theoretical laurels, and when other physicists publish theories to explain what the chemists are finding, they ignore them, they don't do the hard work to check the math and the quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. You ascribe the ACS seminar as being due to a few "friends in high places in the ACS." Perhaps. Something wrong with having friends? But do you think that friends would call on friends to lay their reputations on the line for some fringe crackpot theory? And how did they manage to trick the reviewers at Naturwissenschaften? And can we rely on your speculations about what you'd get by asking "a professional chemist forum" what they think? You know, if I went and did that and brought it back here and tried to rely on it even for discussion here, I'd be taken out and shot. Maybe that's what you are aiming for, little would surprise me lately. --Abd (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


(written earlier today, before Objectivist (V) commented) If the headline discriminates against those that "believe" that cold fusion is real, it's POV. There are explanations of cold fusion, including some that don't involve new physics but rather new analysis. Problem is, hardly anyone is paying attention to them. If you don't believe that cold fusion happens, and you are a theoretical physicist, how likely are you to dive into some very difficult math just to prove it wrong? On the other hand, those damn neutrons! WTF are they doing there?

Olorinish, your POV is showing. "The pro-cold-fusion researchers are incompetent." You really should start reading reliable source on this. Stop reading the junk in the media, some of it is correct, but most of it is just recycled old reports like "nobody could confirm." Start reading the peer-reviewed journals, much of this stuff is available at lenr-canr.org or newenergytimes.com. And read the section I will start below on Hoffman. --Abd (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with using "Theoretical" in this section title is that it does not reflect the fact that cold fusion reports are in conflict with previous nuclear reaction experiments, not just previous nuclear reaction theories. The problem with using "issues" in this section title is that the section is not just about issues, it is about criticisms. To keep the article NPOV, it should contain the strongest reasonable evidence and the strongest reasonable criticisms. The present version does a good job of both; I simply want the labels to reflect what is in the text.
Abd, I consider it insulting for you to tell me to start reading "reliable source" on this, especially because I recently claimed I have been keeping up to date. The "Triple tracks in CR-39..." article is interesting, and people should replicate the work, but a lot more is needed to overcome the poor reputation of the field. Olorinish (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware, Olorinish, of the degree to which the SPAWAR work is, itself, a confirmation of earlier work, going back at least to 1990? And that earlier aspects of the SPAWAR work have been confirmed? (I have the impression that the neutron findings have also been confirmed, though I'm not aware of peer-reviewed publication, which takes some substantial time. Or should!) In any case, we can agree that the article is interesting, though by this time we'd have practically no choice about that, given the media coverage. Now, tell me, what does the "poor reputation of a field" have to do with science? I know of one effect: publication can be suppressed, but that is all the more reason to pay extra attention to what does pass peer review. Sorry about the "insult," I'll admit I was feeling a bit peeved by, The pro-cold-fusion researchers are incompetent, which, I hope you can see, was a tad POV, eh? (And simply not true, unless by "pro-cold-fusion" you mean the nonscientists, not people like Mosier-Boss, or, for that matter, Fleischmann. (There is a good discussion of Fleischmann's errors in Hoffman, and the errors were politically serious but did not cut to the heart of the research. It's the excess heat!) How about letting us know what you've been reading and your impressions of it? What do you think about the Mosier-Boss report in detail? I know some don't like to see this discussion here, but I think it is actually crucial to our project, we don't discuss very well by trading sallies into the article. Or we could create a subpage, I suppose, to discuss a particular piece of work, what's in sources about it, and the various considerations involved. --Abd (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Abd, I know that you are trying to improve the article, and you raise interesting questions, but I would really like to focus discussion on improvements to the article. In the past two years or so that I have been keeping tabs on this article many people have come and gone, and I think part of the reason they are gone is that they burned themselves out, which is something I don't plan to do. I actually think the article is pretty good as is, and that much of the recent text on the talk page is distracting from the task of improving it. Olorinish (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Then your best course of action is clear: don't be distracted! But don't try to stop others from discussing what they consider worthy of discussion toward the purpose on which we agree. As to the present state of the article, I've been thinking of suggesting that the POV tag is removed, I'm not sure that the remaining problems are worth the ugliness. I certainly wouldn't object to its removal. However, I would disagree with "pretty good." It's acceptable for the moment, there is a huge story to be told, based on reliable source, that isn't told because it's consistently been excluded. That story will probably require more than one article; the science alone is probably worth more than one article, the story (i.e., "history") another. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
[13]: "at issue": 1: in a state of controversy : in disagreement 2: also, "in issue" : under discussion or in dispute That pretty clearly includes criticisms. So there is no contradiction or lack. In fact, "issues" is the more inclusive term. And it's also stronger than "criticisms", as it acknowledges that there are, well, issues, whereas "criticisms" on the other hand, can be absolutely baseless.
As to theoretical, well, that's precisely the nature of the issues. Ya, theories are models fit to empirical evidence. But they are not the evidence itself - or the empirical itself. You seem to be confusing the map w/the territory, as it were. You see, Cold fusion reports are not in conflict w/previous nuclear reaction experiments, they are in conflict with the theory developed from previous experiments. (And that is subject to dispute, actually.) A subtle but important distinction. Without such a distinction there would be no distinction between "theory" and "experiment" in the first place. Kevin Baastalk 13:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ ACS Press Release 'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source
  2. ^ "Neutron tracks revive hopes for cold fusion". New Scientist. Retrieved 2009-03-24.
  3. ^ "Scientists in possible cold fusion breakthrough". AFP. Retrieved 2009-03-24.
  4. ^ a b c "Scientists in possible cold fusion breakthrough". AFP. Retrieved 2009-03-24. Cite error: The named reference "afp march 2009" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 2, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4
  6. ^ Goodstein 1994, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_27&oldid=1142756794"