Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

DOE reviews question: inconclusive mechanism versus [promising?] observations?

Do the DOE reviews reject the observation-claims of cold fusion studies?

Some wiki readers may wonder whether evidence of excess heat (or other metrics) from cold fusion is deemed not conclusive, but some may also wish to know whether "not conclusive" means not potentially promising (an image that might be formed from media reports).

The introduction refers to the question of (unknown) mechanism (a good point), but does it cover the question of reviews of observation claims? Is the introduction guided by the idea that the question of mechanism is primary?

In the future, the observation-claims question might be settled. Is it already settled now?

Is this the crux of some of the epic conflicts herein? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific skepticism requires that unless the experimental evidence justifies belief in these miracles, we must conclude that experimental errors are being misinterpreted as positive results."[1]. See also [2] pages 179-180 --Enric Naval (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Many useful points in articles' text. It seems like society may be demanding a "yes or no" answer (categorical). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(Summary of Abd's comment of 19:26, 5 April below:)

The conclusion that the probability was low of it being anything but experimental error were reasonable in 1989-90, but no longer reasonable after sometime in the 90s. Some reputable research groups are now reporting 100% success at excess heat, but, unexpectedly, with energetic helium-4 nuclei and only suprisingly small numbers, (but detectable!), of energetic neutrons.

"Not conclusively demonstrated" just meant there was no certainty that fusion was the cause of the observations. Lack of proof of presence is not proof of absence. But now the emerging consensus is that it's some kind of nuclear reaction. Recent RS generally support the solidity of the calorimetry, except in popular sources recycling older ideas.

It's a fragile effect to initiate, but on rare occasions produces "heat-after-death", where sometimes a huge amount of heat is produced after everything is turned off: a perfectly valid form of "remarkable evidence" despite its rarity.

Present skepticism isn't based on the recent research; it's based on the events of 1989.

Being a nuclear phenomenon doesn't necessarily mean promising as a practical energy source that would be necessarily be funded by DOE; think of muon-catalysed fusion for example. Abd as summarized by Coppertwig 00:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the SciAm article, Enric. Useful. First of all, this is a popular magazine, though relatively authoritative as popular magazines go.

"I entered graduate school wishing to help solve our impending energy crisis, so I studied 'cold fusion' carefully and with an open mind in order to make a wise career choice. I learned that the critical positive results have not been reliably and independently reproduced, and many careful and thorough studies have yielded negative conclusions, although often these unexciting results went unpublished. It is probably impossible to prove that 'cold fusion' is nothing more than the result of misinterpreted experimental errors, but the probability of it being otherwise is low.

I don't know when this scientist studied the matter, but what he says he learned was a reasonable belief in 1989-1990. Sometime in the nineties, it became unreasonable. He is making general observations that are true, but the implication that this applies to, say, excess heat, is misleading. This article was written in 1999, and, by then, there were many careful independent studies. (And apparently many careless studies showing excess heat as well.) He's right about the phenomenon of perhaps finding what you are looking for, but if a researcher does, say, 250 cells, finds no heat in 90% of them, and finds heat in 10%, and the heat is stgrongly correlated with some independent signature of fusion (usually helium is the one that works), and is likewise strongly correlated with a control (such as a cell with normal water in place of heavy water), that is actually conclusive evidence for excess heat. If the research selects the results, it would prove nothing at all.

By the 2004 DOE review, the reviewers were evenly split on the question of whether excess heat was reasonably clear. Given the huge entrenched bias, acknowledged by every independent review of the field, that's a stunning result. There are now research groups, reputable ones, reporting 100% success at finding excess heat. Is it fusion? Whatever it is, it isn't classic fusion, the primary ash is helium-4, and energetic helium-4 nuclei are the primary radiation signature, not the neutrons which everyone was looking for. There are neutrons, but at such low levels (but well above background) that many of the early confirmations of neutrons were probably artifacts, or certainly not conclusive. (For the neutrons, google "Mosier-Boss neutron" and you will find tons of references to the work which was published in Naturwissenschaften in January of this year.

So, as to the question. "Not conclusively demonstrated" meant exactly that. It did not mean "bogus." It did not mean "probably bogus." It meant that there was no certainty that fusion was the cause of the observations. The emerging consensus, rapidly shifting, is that there is some kind of nuclear reaction going on. Is it fusion? Nobody knows. But in skeptical sources, such as Taubes, it's said that if neutrons of a certain energy are found, then fusion is clear. The SPAWAR group found such neutrons, with a very simple method that appears to be artifact-free. (There have been objections raised, but the objections I've seen seem to be based on the theoretical difficulties, and proposals of artifact that don't seem to be aware of the actual experimental data and procedures.)

I have seen plenty of recent RS on the solidity of the calorimetry, and little or none recently that seriously challenges it, other than popular sources where, clearly, it's old opinions being recycled. Shanahan is one known critic who has been published, but his objections don't seem to apply to much of the confirmation, and are simply a proposed source of error for some of them.

If the SciAm editor's comments were considered to still apply, the 2004 DOE review results were phenomenally stupid. Further, understand that the field is extraordinarily complex. Calorimetry is not a simple thing, and the experimental setup that produces cold fusion, as the situation was in 2004, still quite difficult. It's a fragile effect, apparently, to initiate. (Sometimes it's not fragile at all once initiated, hence the "heat-after-death" results, which are sometimes (rarely) drastic; the energy input is stopped, and the cell continues generating heat until, sometimes, it produces more heat than could have been produced by any known chemical reaction. The rarity of such events doesn't discount their validity; indeed, these can be the "remarkable evidence" to prove "remarkable claims." Unless, of course, one wants to assume fraud or major delusion, far worse than simple expectation bias.

Hoffman makes a cogent remark about this. He has the Young Skeptic say, "Truly significant heat is very rare, this must mean that it's a result of experimental error, the heat is not real." (Or something like that, this is from my memory). the Old Metallurgist says, "The residents of San Francisco [and other cities with rare earthquakes) will be happy to know that earthquakes are not real."

Hoffman, by the way, is a skeptic, but one who realizes that lack of proof of presence is not proof of absence. Knowledgeable people active in the cold fusion field are now claiming that low-energy nuclear reactions are a certainty, there are so many studies with so many independent approaches, that they consider it preposterous to continue denying the matter. But that perception hasn't penetrated the wall of skepticism that still exists. At the present time, though, the skepticism is not based on recent peer-reviewed research, it is based, for the most part, on the events of 1989 and the strong belief that cold fusion "died" that year, this is why Simon calls it "Undead Science." It was declared dead, but it didn't die, the work and publication continued, in spite of major obstacles. In fact, if one looks at the 1989 review, it did not conclude what most have assumed, and it, like the 2004 DOE review, recommended continued study and focused grants to target specific questions. Storms reports having taken that seriously, making grant proposals, which were rejected. It appears that nobody ever got any DOE money after 1989; but, we must remember, the DOE is not the review panel, and the DOE seems to have taken the "dead science" conclusion from the report.

We also should keep in mind that the DOE would be interested in funding research reasonably likely to lead to useful energy generation. It is unknown if cold fusion will ever accomplish that. This is really a completely different question from the science, and funding decisions based on desire for cheap energy say little about the science. Nor is it necessary to brew a cup of tea, according to one famous skeptical demand, to show that the effect is real. Muon-catalyzed fusion is real cold fusion, accepted, and brewing a cup of tea with it is so far away from possible that it's a joke to even talk about it. Maybe a method will be found to scale up the reactions and get reliable usable excess heat, but major investment should be based, first, on conclusive demonstration of the heat, and until the physicists sign on, this will remain controversial. They won't sign on until they have the opportunity to truly explore the field, which could not happen, probably, in a one-day exposure (as with the 2004 DOE review.) --Abd (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As to the second source that Enric provided, for example:

The experiments that had the best controls detected no fusion products and little or no excess heat.

Tell you what, if you think this is reliable, just try to put that in the article. It will be demanded that you provide reliable source. The book is reliable source, but not sufficient to counterbalance what is blatantly obvious from peer-reviewed literature, and other reliable source, more clearly sourced and referenced, that shows the opposite. Specifically, there is ample report of experimental measurement of He-4 production that correlates well with excess heat, and likewise with radiation (generally alpha radiation). You can put it in the article, yes, but only if you attribute it and allow balance to appear from what else is in sources of equal or better reliability. Frankly, that piece is so bad that I don't see any role for it except as a citation showing how widespread the misconceptions became. The book was published in 1998, and, long before then, anyone who deeply researched the matter wouldn't have said that.

There is a recent paper that applied Bayesian analysis to the body of experimental replication. They developed four criteria to apply to experimental publications, and showed that the criteria predicted, with high accuracy, success or failure in finding excess heat. This was a 2008 conference paper, we can't use it yet.

This simply proves the case of the "wall of skepticism," and what has been called the "success" of certain critics of creating impression of "bad science" and "lack of replication." What the cited page states is certifiably incorrect, it's not marginal. It wasn't ever true, but the impression that it was true was widely promulgated. To imagine that this claim is relevant today is preposterous. Consider the SPAWAR work (the latest results are just that, the latest results, showing energetic neutrons). The SPAWAR group is using a quite reliable method of showing excess heat, and it, itself, is confirmation of earlier findings. Ample controls, clear findings. --Abd (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I see that you just found the quote. I was wondering how long it would take you to notice that I had already added it 9 days ago XD --Enric Naval (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Enric, re "scientific skepticism" quote: that explains a lot, but I find that a fundamentally illogical approach. I'm with Hoffman on that, as cited by Abd above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

CBS Sixty Minutes to do a report on Cold fusion

preview

My comment: while it is possible that low-energy nuclear reactions could lead to significant energy production, it's far from obvious, and could take a lot of time and a lot of investment; the effect is obviously fragile and difficult to control and may not scale well. On the other hand ... Arata's little bottles of palladium alloy hydride that sit there indefinitely being warmer than ambient, steady, show that something stable can be made; however, with that concept and $100,000 worth of palladium, you could make a water heater and save on your energy bills. Further, I'm suspecting that the basis of the report is the SPAWAR neutron report, which actually does not show that "the energy of the sun" is responsible for the heat, because the neutron levels are way too low. It seems to be the other way around: an unknown nuclear reaction that starts with deuterium and ends with helium is generating sufficient energy to cause a small level of classical fusion, which is a side-show, not the main act. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed proxy edits for banned user by Abd Verbal chat 09:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

diff of removal --Abd (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll put in my two-cents worth, regarding the removal: Please recall WHY an editor might be banned: it is usually for some specific type of offense. Well, the assumption behind a ban is that the editor will continue to be offensive in that way, and Wikipedia doesn't need to have it. Also remember that most bans are temporary, to give banned editors a reason to mend their ways. Well, we all know that some people learn faster than others. If an editor writes something that is both relevant and not objectionable, then why should it be deleted just because the EDITOR has been objectionable/banned? The purpose of the ban is to prevent objectionable posts, NOT to re-define "objectionable" as "anything written by so-and-so". V (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's actually well-established that editors may revert back in useful material from banned editors, on their own responsibility, so I was quite surprised to see the tenacious deletion here, that went far beyond the simple original reversion that is arguably legitimate. I'm considering confronting this, in a very simple way. But first I have an RfAr to file. --Abd (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment above was removed by Verbal, with the edit summary, (→CBS Sixty Minutes to do a report on Cold fusion: nope, banned editor - do not add by proxy. This is not an addition by proxy, period, the summary is preposterous, and the removal is a violation of community practice regarding talk page behavior. I'm warning the editor. --Abd (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC) The removed commentary can be found on my Talk page. --Abd (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some reporting on the program in New Energy Times, see
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/60MinutesTurnsUptheHeat.shtml
Most remarkable is the section on physicist Robert Duncan, with whom CBS consulted and funded for some investigation. Apparently, take a skeptical physicist, show him the actual papers and research, he's no longer skeptical. He's convinced it's real.--Abd (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The full program is here. --Abd (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference to the DoD review mentioned in the report? According to the spot, the report concludes something like "there is no doubt regarding anomalous excess heat" (quoting from memory). I would think this would serve as a counterbalance to the 2004 DoDDoE report since it presumably incorporates the more recent advances such as the work at SPAWAR. Ronnotel (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC) fixed typo per following comment Ronnotel (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be the 2004 DOE report. Note that the reviewers for the 2004 DOE report were evenly split on the excess heat question, which is remarkable considering the massive wall of rejection existing, it's unlikely that this wall didn't affect some of the reviewers. Beyond excess heat, there is the question of how much excess heat. In Pons-Fleischmann experiments, excess heat is highly variable, from none (used to be the norm until they nailed it down better) to melting the electrode (rarely) or more. (No explosions, though, the only explosion was found to be from rapid recombination after recombiner failure. I haven't seen that report, it may be confidential with release only of the page shown. But I'll ask those who should know and who shall not be named or else the sky will fall. There is plenty of RS, though, going back to the 1990s, supporting excess heat as being a real phenomenon. Excess heat does not automatically mean "cold fusion," though put that together with helium and alpha radiation and we have walking and quacking, maybe it's a duck. --Abd (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I should qualify my statement. The 2007 DoD report might serve as a counterpoint to the 2004 DoE review. It depends on the what the report actually says and who is saying it. But I agree that it seems somewhat silly that the person mostly likely to have access to this document, Jed Rothwell, apparently doesn't exist as far as this page is concerned. Censorship is an ugly thing. Ronnotel (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronnotel. Actually, I asked Krivit. If Krivit comes up negative, I'll ask Rothwell. If they both come up negative, the document is probably not publicly accessible. I did find excerpts from a 1993 report to the Pentagon. As found in many sources, the excess heat findings are considered credible and worthy of further investigation. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/GarwinLewisReport/garwin.shtml

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/ has an illuminating discussion of the 2007 report and a screen shot of part of it. Very strange story, actually. --Abd (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on the available description, it doesn't sound like the report is on par with the DoE review. Still, if it became available publicly it might be interesting to cite or link in the article. Ronnotel (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Ronnotel. There is actually a huge body of RS on this topic, covering research not mentioned yet here, the history and sociology of the affair, etc. It is likely much more than one article can bear, we will need to break this down, and it's a huge task, one reason I've been doing so much discussion and so little article editing. I'm not going to make major changes just to see them reverted, until the time is ripe, i.e., there is sufficient consensus for it. The DOE review(s) are definitely of greater weight, but the last DOE review was five years ago, the memo is from two years ago. The article has emphasized a comment in the 2004 review that the conclusions were much the same as in 1989, but what has been largely hidden is that, in spite of the problems with these reviews, they did not treat the field as a pseudoscience or fringe science, but rather as emerging science, still quite controversial, but worthy of investigation. Here, the recommendations for further research were treated by some editors, explicitly, as "boilerplate, they always say that." No, they don't, and there was no basis in RS -- at all -- for such a claim negating the plain words of the reports, and contradicting the individual reports. Cold fusion wasn't, in the view of these reports, a proven hypothesis to explain the experimental results, nor was it proven to be spurious or false. And I'd have to agree with that, certainly as to the 1989 report. By 2004, it's more debatable; when I mention that I think the 2004 report was still reasonable, I get off-wiki flak from Rothwell et al. He may be right. The truth is that "it's debatable."

Want to talk about "fringe," how about biological transmutation? Reported in RS (Storms, 2007). Plausible experiments which, if accurately reported, are next to conclusive. Replicated. And easily and immediately identified as quite "fringe." Yet sufficiently notable to warrant mention somewhere in the project. I have a special affinity for the report given prominence in Storms because the method of identification of the rare Fe-57 isotope reportedly produced, by bacteria which needed iron, was Mossbauer spectroscopy, which method I did in physics lab at CalTech, it's insanely specific and accurate. Most editors wouldn't see that immediately. --Abd (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Something I posted a while back and appears to have become archived, but may be relevant in terms of the "60 Minutes" report: http://www.analogsf.com/0904/altview.shtml There is a Choice Quote in the article: "I think we’ve reached a point where the deniers are now going out on a limb." V (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of comments from this page

Verbal has been repetitively removing comment from this page, on the argument that it was from the allegedly banned JedRothwell. Whether or not Rothwell is actually banned is moot, because it's clear that there is an argument that he is, though that has not yet debated and decided by a neutral administrator. Any editor may revert edits from a banned editor, on sight. However, it's well established that an editor may revert these edits back in if the editor considers them a contribution to the project; this can even be done with article edits from banned editors. In a recent case of a topic ban, I consulted with an arbitrator on this issue, noting that a banned editor could make an edit and self-revert, and that any other editor could then revert it back in, and the original edit, self-reverted, would not be a ban violation. In prior situations, I have reverted in edits from banned editors, been taken to AN/I over it, and was sustained, so I'm quite clear on policy and practice on this. The original removal(s) were legitimate; however, reverting me and Coppertwig in our decisions that the comments were relevant, or, in the latest extremity, reverting a reference to the move of the comments to my Talk page, as suggested by Verbal, is not legitimate and violates Talk page guidelines. Comment from other editors is invited; because Verbal's latest two edits have clearly crossed into edit warring, I have warned Verbal, and, since this editor continued removal in spite of warning, I have asked the editor to suggest a mediator. I greatly prefer this to going to AN/I, which I consider a move of last resort. I must attend to other business, I will return with diffs and references to policy later today. --Abd (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do it here, another violation of WP:TALK. Take it to your talk page, I'll see it, as will others here. Verbal chat 14:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do what? What part of WP:TALK is violated by notice here of a problem in discussion on this page, and inviting comment regarding the usefulness of the removed discussion? No, my Talk page -- or Verbal's -- are places where personal disputes may be resolved. This section does not raise a personal dispute, begins with facts and review of community practice, and what is relevant here is the usefulness of the removed discussion, the rest is context, and I don't believe the facts stated are controversial. Diffs will be supplied for the convenience of editors reviewing this. --Abd (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I could, of course, go to AN/I at this point; however, if there is no sentiment here for the retention of the material on this page, or for, as was most recently removed, notice of and links to the discussion as moved to my Talk page, I wouldn't bother. I move slowly and carefully, until the time is ripe.--Abd (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jed is still up to the same behaviour that got him banned from this page (WP:OR, WP:UNDUE exaggeration of the importance anything positive regarding cold fusion, denial and smear of anything negative about it, applying WP:RS only to the sources he likes, etc), so I see no reason not to keep applying the ban. It's blindly obvious that he doesn't believe that he did anything wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Other editors enabling his problematic behaviour is also causing further disruption. This banned editor seems to be the Dana Ullman of Cold Fusion, and long as his ban stands his posts will be removed. This is not the place or the way to get Jed unbanned or to try to work around his ban. Verbal chat 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no position asserted here that the comments cannot be removed. The issue is the removal of re-additions by other editors, taking responsibility for them, and precedent is clear on that. I reverted in an edit by ScienceApologist here, to the article, after he'd been topic banned. I've reverted in other contributions from banned editors, it has been appealed to a noticeboard, and was always confirmed as legitimate. You are out on a limb, Verbal. Enric, you can "keep applying the ban" as long as you like, unless he's unbanned and that's clear. But don't revert insertions of comments from other editors, who take responsibility for them. Verbal keeps misstating the issue, repeating "proxying" over and over. Jed only adds discussion, as a COI editor, and he's expected to be biased, there is a total misunderstanding here of WP:COI. The only problem with Jed was occasional incivility, and if I'd been treated as he was treated -- it's likely to come out in the current RfAr wherein he is mentioned -- I might be uncivil too. --Abd (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about Jed and his buddies, see http://en.alternapedia.org Kirk Shanahan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.33.240.30 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very important for people to remain courteous and assume good faith, or else you might get banned from wikipedia like this editor: [3] Olorinish (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The "taking responsability" part of the policy was for content in the articles, not for comments on talk pages. This is just enabling Jed to keep using this page as his soapbox for his personal opinions (I already described in my post above the problems that got him banned). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's correct (about the policy). However, article content is stricter than Talk. This whole affair, in which this matter of the ban of Rothwell is just one incident, is now before the Arbitration Committee, and looks like the RfAr will be accepted, and that the Committee may examine the behavior of all parties, which includes Enric Naval and Verbal, since they have commented before the RfAr, see the acceptance vote of FloNight. Looking at the ten acceptance votes so far, I get warm fuzzy feelings, every one of them is spot on. We'll see. Pursuing a dispute with an entrenched administrator can be hazardous to one's wikihealth, but I've been pretty careful. We'll get to see just how many mistakes I made, I'm sure that every one will be dredged up, these things can be quite thorough. --Abd (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

60 Minutes piece broadcasted on April 19, 2009

Now that the 60 Minutes piece on cold fusion has been broadcast, Energetics Technologies' technique seems to bear on the "x" discussed in Dr. David Goodstein's article. Is this enough to merit an inclusion in the "Further Developments" section?

Krellkraver (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

An Overlooked Book?

Here's a book on the subject that seems relevant. Both sides of the issue are included, and the preface indicates quite a large number of papers were researched in writing it. I specify "overlooked" in the section header here only because I don't recall seeing it mentioned here before, and yet the book is in its second edition:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/books/excessheat/ExcessHeat.shtml
V (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Beaudette's book does not deal with the CCS. I was in contact with him right at the time he was proofing his 2nd edition. He challenged me to explain several papers that he though proved excess heat, so I did, and I never heard from him again. Cold fusioneers are good at bringing up explanations for objections that they have actually answered. It's the ones they can't answer they never talk about (see Storms 2007 book for a prime example). Unfortunately, those are the ones that strongly suggest CF isn't nuclear. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Beaudette was listed in the bibliography for quite some time, but then someone decided it was self-published, I think, and it was taken out. However, it's cited all over the place, we should probably put it back. Kirk, if you never heard from him again, why, that must prove you were right, eh? How about McKubre? Further, it's difficult to use CCS to explain away results like this, reported in Undead Science, Simon, 2002, p. 144:

"Melvin Miles at the China Lake Naval Weapons Research Center in California performed some of the most highly regarded helium experiments during the 1990s. Miles collected the gases that bubble off during electrolysis experiments, generating excess heat, and sent them to other laboratories for blind analysis using mass spectroscopy. In one set of experiments, six out of six cells producing excess heat also produced anomalous helium-4, while eight out of eight cells that did not produce heat also did not produce helium-4. In addition to this, Miles reported that the amount of helium could be correlated to the excess heat measurements such that the reaction D + D -> 4He + heat might be the prevailing reaction."

If I'm correct, Kirk, your CCS theory or analysis provides a possible explanation for excess heat in some measurements, but wouldn't it also predict loss of heat in some? Why would it favor error in one direction over the other? And then, how would this calibration constant shift manage to produce the correlation with helium? Miles' results actually answer two objections: possible calorimetry problems, and possible confusion of helium from natural occurrence with that from whatever is producing the impression, at least, of excess heat, plus the correspondence between heat and helium is supportive of fusion as the "result," not necessarily the specific reaction path. I.e., the workers who have confirmed Arata's excess heat from direct gas-loading of deuterium into palladium black or nanoparticle palladium alloy are hypothesizing that four deuterons are fused to one Be-8 nucleus, which then fissions into two energetic helium nuclei. This would, of course, explain where the missing momentum would go, and why there is no radiation (other than the alpha radiation detected by the SPAWAR group and others over many years) which is rapidly absorbed with the kinetic energy converted to heat and leaving the helium). it's an intriguing hypothesis.

Anyway, I've asked on your Talk page my first question. By the way, folks, Simon, quoted above, is a reliable secondary source, usable in the article. There are other results that are similar, from Miles, and from others. Storms (2007) discusses this work, pp 86-87) and gives more information than Simon:

"First, 12 studies produced no extra energy and produced no extra helium. Second, out of 21 studies producing extra energy, 18 produced extra helium with an amount consistent with the amount of extra energy. The exceptions were one sample having a possible error in heat measurement and two studies using a Pd-Ce alloy. Miles calculates the chance occurrence of this result as being 1 in 750,000."

And then there is McKubre, as reported by Storms (p. 89), with a nice chart showing a direct ration of estimated energy in kJ (from calorimetry) to measured helium; this set of experiments used palladium deposited on carbon, exposed to deuterium gas. "The helium content of the cell increased over a period of 45 days and exceeded the concentration in air after 15 days." From "a single very careful measurement made at SRI," "reported by Peter Hagelstein and co-workers," Storms reports the determination of energy generated: 24.8 +/- 2.5 MeV/He, which is consistent with d-d fusion being the source of the energy and the helium. (This is the Arata process, this work was replicating Arata's results.)

Storms goes on to note, after citing many other studies:

Once again we are faced with good work being done by independent laboratories producing an "impossible" result. To reject this work, we have to assume that errors in helium measurement and errors in heat measurement both conspire to produce a similar ratio regardless how or by whom the measurement is made. In addition, we need to assume these errors only operate when anomalous heat is actually detected. If the data are accepted, we also need to accept that somehow helium and energy are apparently being creaetd at the same time without generating gamma emission. Or this information can simply be ignored, as it was by many members of the DoE panel convened in 2004 to evaluate cold fusion.

I see that what we have in the article is pretty wimpy compared to what I've reported here from RS. Anyway, I'll appreciate your comments, Kirk. --Abd (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New paper out

The infamous Jed R. has posted a new paper to his banned website by D. Kidwell, a presenter from ICCF14 (lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KidwellDtraceanaly.pdf). This is the same Kidwell that was denigrated in New Energy Times, Issue 30 (newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.shtml), Item 12 under subheading “Two Oddities” (just search on Kidwell) . This paper is an excellent example in several aspects of what a good cold fusion paper should contain, and is highly recommended reading. When you read it, be careful to note:

a) the description of instrumentation, reagents, and methods used b) the comments on MS interferences, both from what he calls ‘adducts’ (which are the equivalent in ICP-MS to molecular ions in SIMS, see footnote 5) and from overloading of the instrument (aka ‘memory effects’) c) the comments on limits of detection of trace contaminants in the bulk Pd material (comments also made by Scott Little and brought up by myself on these Talk pages (and rejected as non-RS) – this paper shows that this knowledge is ‘standard knowledge’ in analytical chemistry) d) the fact that this paper does not make any CF claims, it’s strictly a study of ICP-MS applied to trace level analysis of Pd e) the fact that this is all about _trace_ level contaminants (standard analytical chemistry knowledge says that trace level work is significantly harder than non-trace work, thus necessitating better methods and proving the problems noted above are not detracting from the results, which no CF paper has done to date).

Undoubtedly the CF proponents who dominate this forum will cite ‘non-RS’ again, but in the opinion of this professional scientist familiar with both the cold fusion field and analytical technology, this is a must read. But I have no intention of debating that here. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Kirk. The problem is going to be that conference papers aren't peer-reviewed. My opinion is that we can and should cite them for discussion purposes, but they aren't reliable source in themselves, and, you surely realize, this applies to the many hundreds or thousands of conference papers that are "pro-cold fusion," as well as the handful that aren't. By the way, this paper appears to assume that the FPE (Fleischmann-Pons effect) is real. What, exactly, is your point? However, I haven't reviewed the paper in detail, and the application of it to our topic here would probably require WP:SYNTH, something I consider fine on a talk page, but not in the article.

By the way, the New Energy Times article on ICCF14 is fascinating. Quite simply, investigative reporting on this level involving cold fusion or condensed matter nuclear science doesn't exist anywhere else. If one is interested in what is actually going on in this field, reading NET is a must. Because NET mixes reporting of fact, interviews, etc., with editorial comment, its use as reliable source is subject to great caution, at least, but for background, it is utterly invaluable. --Abd (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, _I_ assume the Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect is real. I assume there are 'new' elements detected. I assume there are pits in the CR-39. I just don't require a nuclear process to get them. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Real dumb experimenters, electrochemists who don't understand calibration constant shift? Mouse turds in the cells? Mouse bites on the CR-39? Come on, Kirk, don't leave us hanging! The Fleischmann-Pons effect isn't merely an appearance of heat caused by calibration constant shift, because it's known to exceed possible errors from that, and it's been shown with many different calorimetric procedures, plus it's hard to melt palladium with calibration constant shift or to boil away one bucket of water after another in a heat-after-death experience reported by Mizuno, and many other similar reports. There has been one peer-reviewed critique of the CR-39 results, by Kowalski, and I doubt Kowalski himself believes it any more. It was demolished in a reply in the same publication. And then the very distinctive patterns from energetic neutrons? Are you saying that you don't need a nuclear process to get energetic neutrons, missing from controls? There comes a point where excessive skepticism begins to violate Occam's Razor. I hasten to add that healthy skepticism is essential; Mizuno apparently said goodbye to the field at ICF14 because he felt there wasn't enough of it. But healthy skepticism doesn't reserve skepticism for the work of others, it includes itself in its purview; a very good example is Nate Hoffman (1994). --Abd (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Against my better judgement... "isn't merely an appearance of heat caused by calibration constant shift" - Actually, yes, it is. If you had actually read my 1st paper or the manuscript version of it on lenr-carn.org, you would have understood that, if you can handle algebra. "because it's known to exceed possible errors from that" - No, that's the point of my publications, a 1-3% error can explain the data in the Storms case, no info is provided by anyone else to be able to actually assess it, but the Szpak, et al publication I analyzed and published a comment on fits the pattern, as does most all of the other claims to have observed excess heat. "and it's been shown with many different calorimetric procedures" - no, it hasn't. Oh wait - inretrospect I'm not sure what the 'it' you refer to is, I thought it meant the 'falsity' of the CCS. Please clarify. "plus it's hard to melt palladium with calibration constant shift" - didn't ever claim that, I believe I actually did mention once that an explosion can produce that kind of appearance, but that was probably on sci.physics.fusion, which I'm sure you don't read either. "or to boil away one bucket of water after another in a heat-after-death experience reported by Mizuno" - you need to stop shilling for Rothwell, or I may have to bring up the rat pool party again (and the more rational evaporation explanation that Jed couldn't understand). "one peer-reviewed critique of the CR-39 results" - yes, I haven't published any comments on the CR-39 yet, but I did post two conventional mechanisms to develop pits back in 2002, which have never been addressed to date (there was one handwaving mention of one possibility, but I don't think it was in reference to what I posted in 2002, and we don't do science by handwaving). "the very distinctive patterns from energetic neutrons?" - to what are you referring? Surely not the 'triplet' garbage. 10 examples or less in a plate with possibly 100's of thousands of pits, and you expect me to believe the 'triplets' are not coincidental? Real n-ray thinking there Abd. Interesting to hear about Mizuno, seems he has a modicum of common sense left. "There comes a point where excessive skepticism..." - Yup, you've been talking to Rothwell far too much. It really astounds me that a person who claims to be capable of editing a technical article on Wikipedia has so little judgement. But, as I've said before, I can't fight a screwed up system like Wikipedia. Bye. Kirk shanahan (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So many points, so little time. I didn't get anything on Mizuno from Rothwell except that Rothwell translated the book, so the references to Rothwell and his alleged lack of understanding are completely moot. You seem to have completely missed the point about those "10 examples," which is comparison with controls over many experiments, and that the 10 examples are obviously outside the heavily pitted areas, or on the back side of the CR-39, away from the cathode. They are missing from controls. And that's 10 examples in one run, not 10 examples overall. My guess is that if other experimenters re-examine their CR-39 samples, they'll find those neutron tracks. Conventional explanations of the pits? Remember: controls, and for *all* the radiation (i.e., the copious pits), CR-39 protected with thin mylar, CR-39 outside the cell, CR-39 suspended above the electrodes in the effluent gases (Oriani), please, be my guest, even if you haven't published, clue us in. I'm all ears. Yes, I expect you to believe that the triplets aren't coincidental. If it were one run, fine, some cosmic ray burst came down and smashed some poor heavy nuclei to pieces. Anyway, go ahead, there isn't any serious published criticism, and we need some. Give it your best shot. That's what experts are for, advice, to clue us in. Though, of course, not to control the article, that's for a different project. --Abd (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See my general response below. Your fixation on 'nuclear' will most likely make it impossible for you to answer my challenge. This bias you have makes your comments here pure POV. Neutrality is supposed to be the rule. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Abd, I have to disagree. Stuff being reported in this source is not notable. Wikipedia should report on Cold Fusion whatever information is deemed noteworthy enough to be published in reliable sources. We are not here to cover obscure details that are essentially original research. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, thanks, but I think you have missed a few things. I didn't start this section, it was started by Kirk Shanahan, who is a published author in the field, one of the few skeptics in recent years to have that honor, and we are blessed with his participation, serious and knowledgeable critics of cold fusion are getting hard to come by. I stated that we couldn't use the source for the article, but that it might be interesting for background discussion. In other words, as to the article, I agreed with the position you are claiming is in opposition to mine. The usage of the paper cannot be ruled out completely, but, in any case, nothing can be used at Cold fusion without a key ingredient: consensus. There has been long-term exclusion here of reliable source (not the paper in question here) based on some very shaky claims about priority of sources and synthesis of contradiction, but that is going to take quite a bit of time to address; meanwhile the field is shifting rapidly with recent events. However, as to New Energy Times, it could be considered a blog or private news report by an expert, a professional journalist, paid to do the work, and there is plenty of RS calling him just that, recently. (The discussion on RSN is way out-of-date.) The news report on ICCF14 is coverage that simply doesn't exist anywhere else in depth, detail, and actual reliability; unfortunately, it's mixed with editorial comment. Notability decisions are tricky, and there are no hard-and-fast rules beyond, in the end, that they are decided by consensus. To find consensus in situations of high controversy is known, off-wiki, to require extensive discussion, sometimes requiring obsessive detail, and too often we substitute "rough consensus" for deeper consensus, and the result is long-term dispute that never reaches resolution, blocked and banned editors but constant newcomers raising the same points, and ArbComm cases. But, hey, thanks for showing up! Stick around if you like, help keep us honest.--Abd (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys are crazy. Reread what I wrote. I already said none of you would accept the paper as 'RS' because it doesn't fit Wiki's screwed up rules. So why are you arguing about whether it is RS and who said it is (it isn't and no one has!)? Abd, for the record, you do NOT have my consensus, and you will never get it until you can correctly repeat back my points and explain why they are important, possibly even crucial. Your contributions to this page have dumbed it down to a typical 5th grader level, and are highly biased towards the 'pro-CF' side. Revert to Sept. 17 2008 and start over, and maybe we'll see about getting my consensus. Kirk shanahan (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, I have made very few edits to the article. I know quite well I don't have "your consensus," it takes time to get that, and it also takes civility. Wikipedia's "screwed up rules" actually are quite sophisticated, but you have to understand the context and the purpose of the project, something which evades your understanding. I know what you wrote. I don't know if you noticed that I was the one who put your papers on calibration constant shift back in the references when you complained that they had been removed. Was that part of how I damaged the article and dumbed it down? Or is it just osmosis from my ignorance in Talk here? You want consensus? Start with one point, make it as narrow as possible. It works if pursued with good faith, try it. We might need to move the discussion off this page, however, and maybe bring only a result with a reference to the full discussion. --Abd (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You first. Answer my challenge above and perhaps I'll answer yours.

For those who don't know what's going on with my references to Abd shilling for Rothwell, a) what he says has already been said by Rothwell years ago on spf and answered by me there, and b) see http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg31406.html Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rothwell is also an expert on the topic, possibly more widely informed on it than anyone else on the planet, except maybe Krivit. If my independent conclusions or opinions resemble his, sometimes, I'm gratified. My opinions here are not based on assuming that Rothwell is an authority or that Shanahan is not, but on the direct evidence I've examined, and the opinions of other reviewers. As to challenge above, I'll review it, but what is above seems to be a shotgun, not a single issue to be examined. If Shanahan doesn't lead the way, I will. He's listed critical points on his Talk page, some time ago, so I may start there, or I can extract a few points from his comments above. I'll link here to any discussion started there. --Abd (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed Shanahan's comments above, and while they contained questions, I found it very difficult to extract a clear point to discuss. So I'll ask again, "What challenge?" Shanahan, Please be specific and don't mix it with irrelevancies like Rothwell or "screwed up rules" that don't necessarily apply here in Talk, and especially in User Talk. You are an expert, pretend I'm your client. You've "challenged" me, you claim. Please explain what it is, without the noise. Let your challenge, if it is one point, be the one point you raise. You can raise it on my Talk; I don't necessarily watch yours so I might miss it, or not. --Abd (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have, however, initiated discussion on User talk:Kirk shanahan. --Abd (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Some more relevant info?

I'm well aware that a lot of web sites are presenting lots of the same information, because of the hype over the 20th anniversary of the P&F announcement. Nevertheless, some of them seem to come up with odd tidbits that others miss. So, here's a couple of things I found:

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=after-20-years-new-life-for-cold-fu-2009-03-23

Search that page for the comment by lewisglarsen

Next: http://www.groundreport.com/Arts_and_Culture/The-ghost-of-free-energy

That page has some stuff in it about CR-39 which seems to be independent of the SPAWAR data. And there is a remark made, about publishing new data, that we already all know about here: "They say it is a Catch-22 situation whereby the tide of scepticism deters journals from publishing, which in turn prevents scepticism from ever receding." V (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

mmm.... Groundreport.com looks like a blog, but this is on the About page: Every day Ground Report’s network of over 4,000 international contributors publish breaking news articles, videos and photos, which are vetted by trusted corps of trained editors. That might qualify as reliable source, or at least somewhat reliable source. The facts in the article are pretty well established, I could probably find independent source for most of them, but the author puts them together in a clear way. Let's see what comments we get. There is lots of regret expressed out there in reliable source for the situation, the effective blacklisting of papers on "cold fusion," and how this inhibited true closure (both ways!). So we have all this great reliable source showing lots of phenomena that point to low energy nuclear reactions, we have secondary sources reporting this, we have very little recent reliable source on the same level that is truly negative, but we also have media reliable source and "scientist" opinions that cold fusion isn't worth the time of day, that "it" was never replicated, etc. So how to balance this? I think I know, but it's going to be a lot of work. One step at a time.

I want to note something: "it" was the Pons-Fleischmann report. It was wrong. It reported two basic things (of the top of my head): excess heat and radiation. The radiation was a mistake, everyone working now in cold fusion would say: there wasn't any significant radiation and we wouldn't expect what he found to be real. It was either a complete mistake or it was definitely not radiation at an important level. So, yes, you can say that "it" wasn't replicated. However, half of it, the important half, the excess heat, was, in fact, replicated, I have a list of over 150 peer-reviewed papers saying just that. We can find skeptical sources saying things like, back in the early 1990s, "they claim there are N papers, but I've looked at the papers, and only 10 of them are good studies, and there are more negative studies than that." Notice that the statement accepts that there are confirmations of excess heat, and good studies to boot. There is a very simple hypothesis that accounts for the excess of negative studies in the early days: nobody, including the cold fusion researchers and Pons and Fleischmann knew how to make the damn thing reliable. But that has changed. The shift began to occur in the 1990s, and the 2007 Chinese paper, from Frontiers of Physics in China, I cited above (now in archive, I think) reported that studies "in the last year" were 100% "successful," showing the phenomena every time. I haven't asserted these sources with article edits yet, because I was very new to the topic and wanted to assess the editorial environment; that phase is, I suspect, over for me. --Abd (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

CR-39 is mentioned in Hoffman, A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects (1994), a quite reliable independent secondary source, pp. 57-58:

there is an interesting example of an artifact negating a possible positive result. The mainland Chinese have a team investigating anomalous nuclear effects in deuterium/solid systems that have come up with interesting evidence for charged particles involving charged-particle burst tracks on the plastic film CR-39 with Dd/D systems but not with Pd/H systems. When P.B. Price et al. did the experiment, they found a pair of tracks, but no burst mode. The discrepancy was found to be a chloride film from an aqua regia rinse. This cleaning step formed a few hundred angstrom thick barrier over the palladium that prevented the creation or permanent recording of charged-particle bursts from the palladium surface. The linking of the disappearance of particle burst tracks with the chlorine barrier layer was confirmed by augur analysis of the surface and replication of the effect with chlorine gas exposure rather than an aqua regia rinse.

The Chinese work was published as an AIP paper in 1990, see the expanded comment below. It's possible that Price refers to it in his 1989 paper, in which case it was even earlier. Because of the review by Hoffman, this is usable stuff. There is an extensive history for the use of CR-39 to show radiation in cold fusion experiments. This affair also shows how negative results were -- prematurely -- worked up to show rejection, when, in fact, negative results were simply negative results, which may have other explanations besides the non-existence of the phenomenon. It cuts both ways, and that's why it was so damaging that the normal scientific process was shut down by 1990. --Abd (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

search for early Chinese work

Unfortunately, Hoffman doesn't reference sources for this beyond the name of Price in the text. I found this: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LiXZtheprecurs.pdf Response by Xingzhong Li, et al, to the Price finding, 1990 AIP paper. Cites Price as: P. B. Price, et al., Phys. Rev. Letts. 263, 1926 (1989). Remarkable comment in: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Srinivasannuclearfus.pdf Srinivasan, M., Nuclear fusion in an atomic lattice: An update on the international status of cold fusion research. Curr. Sci., 1991. 60: p. 417. One of the unique features of cold-fusion experiments, and possibly the main reason for this phenomenon to be looked upon with considerable degree of skepticism119 by the scientific community in general, is the poor reproducibility of the experimental results. During the crucial months immediately following the first announcement by Fleischmann and Pons there was a scramble the world over to replicate the apparently simple ‘battery and bottle’ electrolysis experiment. After months of patient experimentation, however, many experienced research groups failed to obtain any positive evidence for the claimed phenomena. They neither found excess heat nor neutrons, tritium or gamma rays[120-134]. Some experiments that were tailored to look for charged particles also failed to give any positive results[123,134]. By December 1989 there were perhaps more experimental papers with ‘negative results’ published on the topic of cold fusion than those with ‘positive results’. However, as of the present writing, the situation has been fully reversed, following the appearance of a large number of papers with positive results during 1990, as described already. The persistent efforts of many dedicated experimentalists appear to have turned the trend and the reproducibility has begun to improve significantly, as may be seen for example from the title of one of the recent papers[135] from Los Alamos, namely ‘Reproducible neutron emission measurements from Ti metal in pressurised D2 gas’. Price is cited for the bold text as note 123: Price, P. B. et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1989, 30. I finally found the original Price article: [4] Abstract: Searching for evidence of ‘‘cold’’ nuclear fusion in deuterium-loaded Ti and Pd foils with plastic track detectors, we detected the emission of α particles from trace-heavy-element decay, but found no evidence of dd fusion. Cycling TiD2 and PdD>0.4, in high-pressure D2 cells between 1 and 15 bars and 77 and 300 K, gave an upper bound of 0.7 cm-3 s-1 for the mean rate of dd→3He+n fusion. For electrolytically deuterated PdD0.8 our upper bound is 0.0018 cm-3 s-1 for the mean rate of dd→p+t. This is ∼1.5×106 and 180 times lower than ‘‘cold’’-fusion rates reported by Fleischmann, Pons, and Hawkins and Jones et al., respectively. There is much to consider here for the article.--Abd (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

New URL for CBS video on cold fusion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4967330n

For a report on why the video was edited, see

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=74 --Abd (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Relation to theory

I propose changing "in view of several theoretical reasons cold fusion should not be possible" to "in view of the lack of explanation of cold fusion using conventional physics", as I believe this is a better representation of the views generally presented in sources, for example Goodstein, who says "It proved that there are still genuine surprises waiting for us that, once understood, don't violate conventional physical laws". [5] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the current wording is the result of an earlier discussion regarding the phrase "conventional physics". We do not necessarily need to invoke non-conventional physics to explain fusion (muon catalysis fits within conventional physics, and likely an alternate catalyst could, too). The theoretical problems of cold fusion stem directly from knowledge about previously observed fusions, and I suggest that that is the point the article should be making. So: in view of the lack of explanation of cold fusion using knowledge gathered from past observations of fusion V (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This sentence probably refers to the first weeks after the PF announcement, see how the following sentence continues with what happened after the first weeks/months: "By late 1989 (...)".

I think that no explanation had yet been proposed at that time, neither using conventional physics nor using them, while Koonin and others had just given a talk giving reasons for why it shouldn't be possible, Goodstein says that this talk "[executed] a perfect slam-dunk that cast Cold Fusion right out of the arena of mainstream science"[6]. In the presentation by Koonin one of the points was "Cannot be accommodated by acepted theory". No opinion on how the sentence should be worded, just providing some info. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to use the exact quote, referenced, I can't especially argue against that. But it wouldn't hurt to clarify to the reader that "accepted theory" about fusion is derived from observations of known fusions, so that if cold fusion is real, certain aspects of the event must differ from what is known. In other words, just because so-far-observed hydrogen fusions have certain characteristics, CF detractors have mostly assumed that all hydrogen fusions everywhere must have those same characteristics --an assumption which must be wrong if CF is real. V (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems with the article is that it makes no clear distinction between the rejection of 1989-1990 and what then ensued. Reviews of the field, such as Simon (Undead Science) and Goodstein make it clear that, just as the original press conference bypassed normal scientific procedures, so too did the rejection. It's obvious, especially in hindsight, that if cold fusion is real, it's an elusive effect requiring conditions which were not known by anyone in 1989, Pons and Fleischmann spent five years getting to the point where, what, 10%?, of their experiments showed excess heat. Further, P & F held on to secrets for quite some time because of patent concerns from, first, the University of Utah, and then IMRA in France. The success ration didn't get up to 30% or better until much later, with many different groups working on improving it. Now there are techniques that show anomalous heat immediately, and they've been replicated, but .... the so-called "mainstream" journals reject papers in the field without review. That's breaking down, for contrary to what's been alleged here, Naturwissenschaften is mainstream. As we saw in March, it's easy to find nuclear physicists who will cheerfully repeat what was a rapid judgment in 1989, but without seeming to be aware of the newer findings. This makes synthesizing text across the time span problematic; we should probably be careful to note when results were reported, and when criticisms were made. Often the early criticisms are repeated later, in response to more recent reports, and even though the recent reports specifically addressed the early criticisms, examples abound.

On the point of theoretical possibility, the real theoretical situation wasn't that fusion at low energies was impossible, it is that there was only one known mechanism, muon-catalyzed fusion. It doesn't violate existing physical theory if there are others, so the question is, first, are there any others? And how would we know? There are theories that have been constructed which explain the effect without "new physics," and others which do use "new physics." "New physics" would refer to new theoretical constructs, such as hydrino theory, if I've got it right, that postulate realms of behavior not otherwise observed. We can't say that these are impossible, but, sure, they are unlikely. However, P & F were looking for evidence of a situation where quantum mechanics would not be adequate to explain results, where the more complex and difficult quantum electrodynamics would be necessary. It seems they may have found one, and, through others, a whole class of phenomena; but this doesn't actually involve new physics, necessarily, just a more sophisticated and complete analysis of existing physics. --Abd (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert over alleged copyvio

I add a convenience link to a copy of the Naturwissenschaftern paper by Mosier-Boss, et al, on the neutron finding, hosted at newenergytimes.com, newly removed from the blacklist. It was removed by Bilby citing copyvio. There is no apparent copyvio. I'm not an expert, but this basic issue is the same as with lenr-canr.org, which has been reviewed by experts. (1) no legal risk to the project for a link in a reference unless there is unreasonable neglect of probable violation. (2) violation is unlikely, New Energy Times is quite visible, and papers there would be hosted in compliance with copyright law, it's preposterous to assume otherwise. This isn't some transient hacker site! I would revert but I'll wait. Do I need to cite all the discussions on this with respect to lenr-canr.org? Where the argument was basically blown out of the water? --Abd (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't lenr-canr.org, so it needs to be looked at separately. I had a look at the paper, and it states that it is copyright Springer-Verlag 2008. The place where it is hosted at Springer repeats the copyright claim, and charges for copies of the paper, so it isn't one of the freely downloadable papers that they sometimes have. Although even if it was, the copyright claim is still valid. So without any evidence to the contrary, (nothing on New Energy Times that I could see showed that they were permitted to redistribute the paper), I removed the link (quietly) per WP:COPYLINK. As an aside, the paper was published in the January 2009 issue of Naturwissenschaften, but the e-publication date is 2008 (hence the year of copyright). Normally I reference to the journal, so my guess on year would be 2009, but it may be that 2008 is the correct year to use. - Bilby (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at the year issue, you may be right. As to copyvio, the same situation existed with lenr-canr.org. Except it was Elsevier, in the one case that was examined closely. Now, in the case of lenr-canr, we had an email from Rothwell asserting permission from authors and publishers, at one point, but in the end, this wasn't important. However, on the face of it, Springer is, I'm told, fierce about enforcing copyright. Given how prominent NET is in the field, it's probably preposterous to assert copyvio. This was the argument that carried the day with lenr-canr.org, and it was reviewed by people who should know. Because we have no actual knowledge of copyvio, only the kind of assumption you made, Bilby, there is no legal risk to Wikipedia, only a general guideline to avoid linking to copyvio sites. I have an inquiry in to NET to clarify this, and I think that Krivit may have made statements about this in the past. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the removal of this link. NET is may be a big fish, but in a very small pond. Springer-Verlag claims copyright, NET is not a generally a WP:RS, so I don't see why they'd be a reliable source that they're not breaking copyright - I'd like to see something from SV or the wikipedia foundation copyright people okaying this. I find Abd's arguments unconvincing. If SV is fierce on copyvio then we shouldn't host this link. Abd, and others, please propose NET links first to avoid this kind of removal. Verbal chat 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not forget that while we might not be able to use a tempting convenience linke, we ought to at least be able to reference the original document to the extent that a publication like Springer allows (usually an abstract page). I say this because not having any link leaves the possibility open for some editor to come along and delete article text based on the claim that there is no RS for it. So, having a link to even just an abstract page can allow the Wikipedia article to describe stuff that is located in the RS article, and casual deletion can be detered. The full original article is of course available to anyone who wants to pay for it. It might even be "fair" for someone doubting the Wikipedia description to buy the RS article; that person might think twice in the future before challenging other similarly-referenced information.  :) V (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The doi number in the reference already generates a link to the Springer abstract page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Abd, I understand where you're coming from, but I think lenr-canr's assertion that they get permission is important. I've had a look at lenr-canr now, and they seem to mostly link to copies of conference papers, which is perfectly reasonable as in general conferences are much nicer about this. Similarly, I think you're understating the importance of Wikipedia's stance on copyright - it's policy, not a guideline, and it is important to avoid contributory infringement. In this case, I'd argue that it is reasonable to expect that Springer and the journal would not give permission for open distribution of their papers, (especially those published in the last 12 months), and given that there is no evidence to the contrary, we should assume that they didn't. - Bilby (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, Bilby, for the wrong reason, though you hinted at the right reason in your first sentence. Whether Springer allows reproduction or not in general is moot, they might have given permission specifically, there might be special agreements with authors, etc. However, you are right. Lenr-canr claims permission. When I looked, I found what I'd not noticed before. New Energy Times doesn't claim permission, but, instead, claims fair use for their list of papers, which, I'd say, is a tad iffy for the reproduction of a published paper in toto. Now, perhaps, I understand why lenr-canr.org doesn't have copies of this paper, and why I'm going to need to work on delisting lenr-canr.org (because there are many published papers cited in our article that they host, with claimed permission). Without better information on New Energy Times, I'm certainly backing off and will, I assume, only assert links to it that are, on the face, hosted with permission, or are their original material (which is most of the site.)--Abd (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Enric, yes, we can see the abstract. I recommend, if possible, reading the paper. It was being used to make a claim that isn't supported in that paper, detection of neutrons together with excess heat. The paper doesn't actually say that, it reports neutrons from palladium-deuterium codeposition electrolysis, but reports no association with excess heat; it does report, I believe, association of neutrons with copious alpha radiation. I believe there are other papers that do report association with excess heat of alpha radiation. It's quite iffy using an abstract to source text, abstracts can be misunderstood. --Abd (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutron radiation

I reworked this section and want to report on something that I didn't put in. The main problem with detection of neutrons is that neutrons are penetrating radiation, and there are neutrons generated from cosmic rays. Some of the neutron work was done deep underground, to avoid this background, other work was done with detectors that could analyze particle paths to distinguish where the particles were coming from. But there is another possible artifact that could confound these experiments, and one might think it could apply to Mosier-Boss as well. M-B detected very low levels of neutrons, but well above background, and these were controlled experiments, i.e., it's not simply running an experiment and finding triple tracks and announcing neutrons, the experiments are run under various conditions.

One of the problems pointed out by Hoffman is that cosmic rays can generate neutrons from collisions with the deuterons that don't happen with hydrogen, making light water as a control not conclusive as to the matter of neutrons. However, Mosier-Boss did run control experiments simply immersing the CR-39 in the electrolyte.

M-B cite prior work on neutrons:

There have been reports of neutron emissions in the Pd–D system (Jones et al. 1989; Takahashi et al. 1990; Lipson et al. 2000; Mizuno et al. 2001). To our knowledge, this is the first report of the evidence of the emission of ≥9.6 MeV neutrons formed in situ during a Pd–D electrolysis experiment.

There is a reason this report generated such a flap in March. --Abd (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reports of nuclear products in association with excess heat

Cold_fusion#Reports_of_nuclear_products_in_association_with_excess_heat has some problems. I tried to fix them, I was reverted. So, here we go.

The section heading refers to "association." These are not merely findings of nuclear products, they are nuclear products associated with excess heat. 100% association would mean that whenever there is excess heat, there is a finding of a nuclear product, and vice-versa, no excess heat, no nuclear product. The section gives the general reader little clue that this is the meaning, and treats the finding of helium, for example, as if it were simply an absolute measurement of helium, which, of course, then suffers from the problem of background helium. Current text:

In association with excess heat, researchers have reported observing gamma rays, neutrons, and tritium (3H) production.[76],[77] Although these reports do not measure quantities commensurate with a rate of deuterium fusion that would account for the excess heat, the quantities were reported to be in excess of background levels.

This first sentence is correct. What the article doesn't make clear is that consensus in the field is that excess heat is accompanied by helium generation, at levels commensurate with d-d fusion to form helium, with release of the known energy from that reaction accounting for the excess heat; it's not being released as gamma rays. The actual reaction may not be directly d-d fusion; for example, a paper I was just reading hypothesizes 4-d fusion to for Be-8, which then fissions to two energetic He-4 nuclei. These, then will occasionally generate other forms of radiation; hence the low-level findings of neutrons, X-rays, gamma radiation, etc. The low levels of these other products, then, are a characteristic of whatever process is taking place; they are not totally absent, but the levels may vary not only with excess heat but with other factors as well. Current text:

Considerable attention has been given to measuring 4He production.[78] In the report presented to the DOE in 2004, 4He was detected in five out of sixteen cases where electrolytic cells were producing excess heat,[79] although the amounts detected were very close to background levels and contamination by trace amounts of helium normally present in the air is difficult to avoid.[80] Gamma radiation was not detected, which led most of the scientific community to regard the presence of 4He as the result of experimental error.[80]

Again, yes, the first sentence is true, though what the source says is stronger: "Although there appears to be evidence that supports the existence of both elemental and isotopic anomalies near the cathode surface in some experiments, it is generally accepted that these anomalies are not the ash associated with the primary excess heat effect. The primary focus of attention has been on helium as the primary nuclear reaction product.[53]"

But the second sentence isn't supported by that source, as far as I could find. I changed the text to:

In the report presented to the DOE in 2004, an initial series of experiments, later replicated several times, was described where ⁴He was detected in eight electrolysis gas samples collected during period of excess heat production (as determined by calorimetry), whereas six control samples gave no evidence for ⁴He

This is what's in the source (Hagelstein, et al, New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides,[7] presented to the DoE in 2004:

3.1. Correlation of Excess Heat and Helium

The first and historically most important experiments were performed by Miles et al., to correlate the helium content of gas produced by electrolysis (D2 or H2, and O2) with the average heat excess during the interval of sampling. Because of the very low 4He concentration expected and observed (1-10 ppb) extensive precautions were taken to ensure that samples were not substantially contaminated from the large ambient background (5.22 ppm). In an initial series of experiments, later replicated several times,[55],[69] eight electrolysis gas samples collected during episodes of excess heat production in two identical cells showed the presence of 4He whereas six control samples gave no evidence for 4He.

My edit was reverted by Enric Naval with a summary that indicated the text was supported by the Scientific American source.[8] However the text itself attributes the report to the Hagelstein paper, not to Schaffer in the Scientific American article, and what is in the Hagelstein paper is a far stronger report than the weak finding (weak in appearance as explained) that is described in the text. No "correlation" or "association" is described. Basically, the whole point is missed.

The Scientific American source has Some experiments eventually did report helium 4 production, although great care must be used to avoid contamination by trace amounts of helium normally present in the air. That's true, but isn't necessarily relevant to the Miles findings. What's happened is that editors have mashed together material from two sources. The real key here in the Hagelstein claim is the correlation, and it goes much further than simple "presence of/no evidence for," the amounts of helium found were commensurate with the estimated excess heat, such that estimates could be made for the energy involved in the formation of each helium nucleus from two deuterons, and it's the right energy. And other work, such as that of McKubre, confirms this energy value.

Our text papers the correlation over. It isn't supported by the source named. I did find, on page 19 of the Hagelstein paper, a reference to a chart showing "6 of 16 results of helium measurements in paired cells," which isn't what our article implies. Hagelstein is making a strong case for helium generation correlated with excess heat, quantitatively. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

From DOE 2004:

“ "The detected ⁴He was typically very close to, but reportedly above background levels. This evidence was taken as convincing or somewhat convincing by some reviewers; for others the lack of consistency was an indication that the overall hypothesis was not justified. Contamination of apparatus or samples by air containing 4He was cited as one possible cause for false positive results in some measurements"quote in a book full text of final report of DOE 2004 ”

Additionally, Schaffer's analysis in Scientific American is a secondary source providing an analysis of a primary source, including not only the experimental data but also how much and why it has accepted by the scientific community. Schaffer should be preferred over our own analysis of the original paper. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Enric, the text attributes to Hagelstein's presentation what isn't the core of it, on the topic of helium. What they actually presented trumps the objection about background. Tell me, do you understand why? Simple question. Hint: it has to do with the title of the section, Reports of nuclear products in association with excess heat, and the text you restored doesn't! The title is not "Reports of nuclear products."

And how could the article presented in 1999 be considered a criticism of a report presented in 2004? Sure, with quite a bit more text, you could tie things together, but that's not what's there. It's actually a poor job of synthesis, and you've taken responsibility for it by reverting it back in. I'll wait a bit before reverting. --Abd (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What Abd says is reasonable, and I support Abd's version. A 1999 paper can't be used as a secondary source to evaluate a 2004 report without a bit of OR. I also ran across the report of 8 runs with helium and excess heat and 6 runs with no helium and no excess heat: Abd is right that that correlation tells you something, regardless of a priori reliability of the helium measurements. I'm not sure whether it was the same or a different study, but I also saw something about the use of measurements of another substance (was it argon?) in conjunction with the helium measurements, as a way of determining whether contamination from the air was occurring; it would be good to say something about that, I think; and given the existence of such measurements, the current wording "there is the possibility of contamination" may be too strong. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

|Thanks, Coppertwig. I'm going to toss in a complication here, but it is only for background and to keep us from tipping the balance too far the other way. It turns out that there is substantial controversy within the CF community over the precision of the energy estimates, and addressing it is going to be complicated. But for starters, this editorial by Steve Krivit, which seems to sum it up well. To balance Krivit's view, I'll note something: under the d-d -> He4 hypothesis, any loss of helium, by whatever mechanism, will increase the estimate of energy per helium nucleus formed. Helium in evolved gases, for example, will probably be only half the helium generated, roughly. Further, if there are any other net exothermic reactions taking place, this will also likely increase the estimate as well (and there is evidence for other reactions). What remains uncontested, though, in fact, is that estimates of net energy per helium nucleus are consistent with the known value of 23.8 MeV (which allows them to be pretty far off, given all the variables). Further, time correlation isn't contested. --Abd (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

@Copper, I was unclear, the 1999 Scientific American is of course not analyzing the data from DOE 2004, it's analizing the reports of presence of Helium that were available at 1999. DOE 2004 is also a secondary source, it's analyzing the results available at 2004, and it says things that are very similar to what the 1999 source says (that's why I could source some of the sentences from both sources). P.D.: Hum.... maybe it should be rewritten to explain first the 1999 source's conclusions and then the 2004 source's conclusions, that would solve any synthesis problem.

@Abd, the possibility of contamination is sourced from both Scientific American and DOE 2004. Do you have any reliable secondary source examining the presence of helium and its significance?

Hagelstein was, and still is, being used only to source only one sentence, a sentence that I didn't change at all, and which doesn't conflict with the other sources but those don't make statements about how important the helium presence is. Turns out that it was a review that was sent to DOE 2004 reviewers so they would examine it and make conclusions for their reports http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEreportofth.pdf. It was later published as a conference proceeding in the 11th Cold Fusion Conference[9]. Now, you see, the paragraph that I quoted above is from the final report of DOE 2004, it's the conclusion of the panel after reading the evidence in Hagelstein's review. We should be use the conclusions from the final report, not our own interpretation of an intermediate review, specially if our own interpretation conflicts with that of the final report. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable secondary source examining the presence of helium and its significance? Sure. Storms, 2007. It's more complete than Hagelstein, I was simply pointing out that what was in the article, what you reverted back in, wasn't what was actually reported in Hagelstein. Still isn't. However, I'll fix that, I'll put in Storms. It's a stronger claim anyway. There are two issues here: what are the researchers claiming, and what is the basis for criticism. The comments about difficulties of measuring helium don't address the correlation *at all*. Suppose the background were noisy, and the measurement so close to background -- or nonexistent -- what would be seen? Well, depending on what level is used for "background," a certain percentage of the cells would be above the control level, and the rest would be below, but this wouldn't be correlated with excess heat, at least not ordinarily. What Storms reports is, from a series of reports from Miles,

12 studies showed no excess energy, and produced no extra helium. Second, out of 21 studies producing extra energy, 18 produced extra helium with an amount consistent with the amount of excess energy. The exceptions were one sample having a possible error in heat measurement and two studies using a Pd-Ce alloy. Miles calculates the occurrence of this result as being 1 in 750,000."

But before this Storms notes:

Measurement of helium is a challenge because air contains enough helium (5.24 ppm) to make the small detected amount appear to be the result of air leak or diffusion through the walls of the apparatus. In addition, very few laboratories have access to tools needed to measure small helium concentrations with required accuracy. In spite of this limitation, on at least seven occasions at laboratories in three countries, helium has been found in amounts consistent with energy production. Of these efforts, four deserve special discussion because great care was taken and the data are presented in a form permitting evaluation.

Storms is much more specific and thorough than any of the other, earlier sources. The four laboratories would be

• Miles, summarized in "a recent review," Storms notes, and cites Miles, M., Correlation of excess enthalpy and helium-4 production: A review, in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Hagelstein, P.L., and Chubb, S.R., World Scientific Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA 2003, pp 123. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatioa.pdf
• Bush, B.F. and Lagowski, J.J., Methods of generating excess heat with the Pons and Fleischmann effect: rigorous and cost effective calorimetry, nuclear products analysis of the cathode and helium analysis, in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion, Jaeger, F. ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, Vancouver, Canada, 1998. pp. 38. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushBFmethodsofg.pdf
• Gozzi, et al. a series of references are provided. From the lenr-canr.org bibliography and library:

• Gozzi, D., et al., Calorimetric and nuclear byproduct measurements in electrochemical confinement of deuterium in palladium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995. 380: p. 91.
• Gozzi, D., et al. Excess Heat and Nuclear Product Measurements in Cold Fusion Electrochemical Cells. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304.
• Gozzi, D., et al. Helium-4 Quantitative Measurements in the Gas Phase of Cold Fusion Electrochemical Cells. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304.
• Gozzi, D., et al., Quantitative measurements of helium-4 in the gas phase of Pd + D2O electrolysis. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995. 380: p. 109.

• McKubre, M.C.H., et al. The Emergence of a Coherent Explanation for Anomalies Observed in D/Pd and H/Pd System: Evidence for 4He and 3He Production. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheemergen.pdf
• and then "A single very careful measurement made at SRI is reported by Peter Hagelstein and co-workers." This cites the report to the DoE. So we have, in Storms, a secondary source review of this paper, in more detail and later than the 2004 DoE review.

One more citation. Above, I referenced an editorial in New Energy Times that might be seen as casting cold water on the 24 MeV/He4 correlation between excess heat and Helium-4 detection. In the next issue, there were responses from a series of well-known researchers in the field and some others, giving great detail and perspective on the situation[10]. Among other things, Miles points out that Preparata and Chubb had predicted He4 would be found, from theoretical considerations. Miles says that he was trying to show that Schwinger was right, Schwinger had (earlier) predicted that the reaction was D + H -> He3, but instead of He3, he found He4. To quote:

MM: When we first came out with helium-4, Preparata made a trip from Italy to our lab in China Lake. He was so excited about it because his theory previously predicted the helium-4 based on quantum electrodynamics (QED), and that's the theory that Fleischmann liked. He and Fleischmann became very close because they both agreed that was the correct foundation for a model that would explain the helium-4 production. In Chapter 8 of his book, Preparata presents his case for cold fusion and production of helium-4.

The second person that I didn't know beforehand, who contacted me and was quite excited, was Scott Chubb because he also had published a theory that predicted helium-4 in the outgas. Both he and Preparata predicted correctly that we would find helium-4 in the outgas. They were both excited that I verified that. I don't know who's right and who's wrong on theories, but I give them both credit for having a theory that predicted what we found experimentally.

This is the first time I've heard that serious theory, instead of the hunch of Fleischmann about quantum electrodynamics vs. quantum mechanics, had predicted major findings in the field. The absence of theory has long been alleged. --Abd (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(All the research done at 2003 and before should be considered as covered already by DOE 2004).

Please remember WP:UNDUE, Storms 2007 is way less notable than the DOE report and Scientific American. I think that it's ok to add Storm's conclusions if you find them significant, but you shouldn't replace the conclusions of the other two better sources, you should give Storms them way less space and relevance than those sources, you shouldn't imply that the other two sources are somehow wrong just because Storms says that they are, and you should make clear that Storm does not reflect the mainstream thinking in the matter (just plain attribution to Storms should accomplish that). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but how do we determine due weight? It seems, Enric, that you are holding some assumptions about that. Perhaps you should review WP:UNDUE, which provides some guidance on it. On science topics, peer-reviewed publication has priority. My own view is that we don't exclude anything that is found in reliable source, though we have quite a bit of discretion as to where and how we present it, and that we make these decisions by consensus, not according to fixed rules. My original point here is that a rather arbitrary juxtaposition was made of material from quite different sources, anachronistic, with the criticism being very general and not necessarily applicable. No, we can't assume that the 2004 DoE review covered all prior research, we know exactly what they considered. What they primarily considered was the McKubre presentation, which was that of a small subset of researchers working in the field, not even necessarily representing the consensus in the field (though they are certainly strong figures in the field.) We have, now, an independent review of the field by a neutral (nay, originally quite skeptical) physicist retained by CBS News. How much weight do we give that? How do we know what "mainstream thinking" is? We know what it was, but, in fact, it was always a complicated question. Mainstream what? All scientists, including, say, biologists? All physicists? All chemists? All those familiar with current research in the specific field? It's all problematic in a field which was rejected outside of normal scientific process. The shutdown of access to major journals, which allowed poor negative research to be published, but response was suppressed, is well-known, now, we have plenty of RS on it. It's a huge story, that mostly we haven't told yet. Storms less notable than the 1999 Scientific American report? What part of the report? Some of it was favorable to cold fusion, you know! Absolutely, no repression of reliably sourced information. Balance it with other reliably sourced information. Okay?

I'm going to repeat a question, since you passed over it: Enric, I'm not confident that you understand the issue of "correlation" or "association," as distinct from simply finding helium in a cold fusion cell. Can you relieve my anxiety on that point? --Abd (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to asses the notability of Storms' book, and I could only find one book review at the Journal of Scientific Exploration [11] Looking at google scholar[12] it seems that his book hasn't been cited by anybody. So, yes, it seems to be less notable than an "ask the experts" report published by the Scientific American in the 10th anniversy of FP announcement, and it's certainly way less notable than DOE 2004 report. Again, see WP:UNDUE.

(your anxiety is noted but my knowledge about statistics is off-topic here, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page to discuss it) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I asked, Enric, is that you don't seem to have answered the central objection at all, about correlation or association vs raw findings, but have focused on other issues, hence I suspect you don't understand it. Anyway, don't worry. I'm just going to edit the section according to the source, or according to better sources. Storms is actually a stronger source than the McKubre report to the DOE, truth be told. Storms is important as a review of actual, named, papers that otherwise wouldn't be sufficiently notable, in particular, conference presentations by expert research groups. As to disagreements we may have, there isn't anything that can't be handled with dispute resolution process. Usually at quite a low level. --Abd (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The SciAm report is notable and quite useful as to the state of the field in 1999! That is 10 effing years ago, Enric! What would those experts think if they saw the energetic neutrons found by SPAWAR? What would they think if they saw the Bayesian analysis presented at ICCF 14 showing that you could predict, with amazing accuracy, which experimental papers would find excess heat and which wouldn't, from characteristics of their description of the experiment, four criteria? (That's another statistical analysis that shows, quite convincingly, that the negative results were negative because they didn't reproduce the experimental conditions!)

What would they say if they visited the labs and talked with the researchers, and carefully reviewed their work, as the CBS advisor did with Energetics Technologies in Israel?

You have consistently, Enric, tried to compare an off-the-cuff comment by a physicist at Rice University, reported in the media on the basis of a single interview, with reports from investigators who spent significant effort reviewing the literature. As of 2004, it's clear, half the reviewers were convinced excess heat findings were conclusive. Where would the level of agreement be today? The evidence has not gotten weaker! Reproducibility is way up, the Chinese paper was reporting, as of 2007, over the previous year, 100% success. At what point do we notice that the balance shifted?

I'll answer that: we start to follow what is in peer-reviewed reliable source, preferentially, and we use other source as well to report on how society views it all. We start telling the full story, not one expurgated and effectively censored by editors who wikilawyer out solidly sourced material because of WP:UNDUE weight arguments. If a topic is truly fringe, then the weight of what is in reliable source will -- with appropriate caution -- reflect it. This is the problem, Enric: peer-reviewed reliable source is now, majority, on the side of cold fusion being real. That's not common when the media sources have been the other way. I've only seen a few examples in my life, say, this one and Atkins Nutritional Approach. The research has shifted, but the prior conventional wisdom is still, apparently, majority POV in popular sources. --Abd (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit what you like, but if you violate WP:UNDUE then don't act surprised when you get reverted or reworded for compliance. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG, you mean my edits can be reverted? Look, Enric, around here, I expect to be reverted when I don't violate WP:UNDUE. I'm going to insist, though, on accuracy of what's in the article, that it be true to source and not synthesized, and that what's in reliable source be included. One of the problems here is that some active editors seem not to understand the sources, always a problem when people without the technical background and specific interest become very active with an agenda. I've been a bit distracted, what with all this RfC and ArbComm flap, and I'm eager to start using the sources I have, which, by the way, include Taubes and Huizenga, I didn't just buy books by "true believers." Well, okay, perhaps the last two are true believers. In themselves and their firmly held opinions. Taubes I know as an excellent science writer, and Hoffman claims Taubes is quite accurate as to fact, and only off-the-wall (not his exact words!) when he's mindreading as to people's motives. I also now have good relationships with experts in the field, who know the sources, and who aren't shy about telling me when I'm full of shit, so .... let's go! --Abd (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that prolongating the discussion here right now is going to repercute into improvements in the article. I suggest that you do your edits to the article, as this gives specific examples of what you mean, and other editors can tweak them. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

POV tag placed

Cold_fusion#Reports_of_nuclear_products_in_association_with_excess_heat

The current text misrepresents the claims made before the DOE in 2004 by McKubre et al, vastly weakening them, and then juxtaposes them with general criticisms that may not apply to the experiments in question. For example, what levels are close to background? What, indeed, is "background"? Level of helium in ambient air? Average level of helium in control cells? Hint: it's the latter, and the levels in the control cells, and generally in the cells under test, is much lower than ambient. What's been done here is to mash together nonspecific criticisms with specific claims, as if those criticisms were made of the specific experiments. Essentially, criticism of any cold fusion experiment becomes, by extension and synthesis, criticism of all of them, even very careful ones and even later ones which addressed prior objections. We need to rewrite this section to reflect what the section header says. The criticism is of general findings re helium, i.e., someone runs experiment, sends off a sample, Helium is found. That's pretty shaky. The section is about "association."

The source has, not 6 out of 16 (that's in a later section not strongly about association, but, frankly, much more difficult to understand), but "12 studies produced no helium and no extra energy." Of 21 studies that produced extra energy, 18 produced helium." (That's a combination of different studies, so there are some problems, but I'm just picking this example; within a single study, there is actually more uniformity, and there is, in addition, correlation of the amount of helium with the excess heat.)

This is a far stronger claim, and "background" doesn't explain it at all. In fact, the correlated results strengthen both findings of excess heat and findings of helium, absent some independent process that would produce both or not neither. Obvious hypothesis: whatever produces the helium also produces the extra heat! Now, what would do both? We better not say the name, because we'll be called fringe. Leakage of ambient air would produce helium, but not heat. Calorimetry errors would produce an appearance of heat, but not helium. How to put them together? The probability of this being by chance aren't difficult to estimate.... hint: very low. Miles wrote one in 750,000. I haven't done the math, but we treat people with medicine, risking their lives, with far higher probability of error than that. We invest huge sums of money with far higher probability of error than that....

The big objection of nuclear physicists to cold fusion research? Where's the ash? Helium is the ash. There is then the problem of the transfer of momentum to the lattice or the rest of the cell, and that's addressed, in fact, by the more recent findings, confirming much earlier ones, of alpha radiation (which is, of course, correlated with heat and is, in fact, the same finding as helium except it's energetic helium nuclei. That's where the energy is going; the problem of momentum has more complex solutions, such as an intermediary product of Be-8 which then rapidly decays to two energetic helium nuclei. If this is what is happening, it's quite convenient: it means no harmful radiation; alpha radiation like this is non-penetrating, and helium is harmless or even useful. Other ash is found, but not in enough quantities to explain the heat, this includes the SPAWAR neutrons from the big media flap in March.

If you don't want to read this stuff, watch for edits to the article. There will be some. Reading here isn't obligatory at this stage, because any important arguments will be repeated succinctly and with reference to RS. --Abd (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks, LeadSongDog, for fixing the section-POV tag. I saw that and didn't have time to deal with it. --Abd (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you were right in that I was misrepresenting heavily the source. Indeed, I had cited the wrong source (Hagelstein's review to DOE2004, instead of DOE2004's final report). No wonder that the text didn't fit the source :P --Enric Naval (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I reworked the section to separate the 1999 source from the 2004 source, put them in chronological order, attribute who said what and when, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation?

There have been some recent reports in favor of cold fusion, but there is still no sign that the mainstream view of scientists is that neutron production or nuclear-related heat has been "confirmed." If someone thinks differently, let's discuss it here. Olorinish (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are a series of reports, the later reports confirm what the earlier reports state. That is not the same as this being accepted by "the mainstream," an entity that is pretty vague. We have sources on what the mainstream was twenty years ago, and we have sources that provide some indications about later. The SPAWAR work is, however, a strong confirmation, particularly interesting in that the level found was so low, which, indeed, confirms earlier work. It's not a "replication," because the various experiments used different methods.

It's an unusual problem because there isn't any clear definition of "mainstream." The last DoE review was 2004. Long before then, the cold fusion community had given up making neutron claims, because the levels were so low that, first of all, as Storms notes, a showing of neutrons doesn't provide much evidence about what is going on, it is likely a rare side-effect, and the levels were so low that arguments about cosmic ray and artifacts were difficult to overcome. Storms notes this in explaining why he's not covering the neutron findings. So what is the "mainstream" view on neutrons? It's meaningless. What we do know is that the Naturwissenschaften reviewers thought the paper worthy of publication. We know that the American Chemical Society thought it worthy enough to feature it in their press release on the recent low-energy nuclear reactions session, and it was widely seen as highly newsworthy. No cogent criticism has appeared, as far as I can see; negative comment on science blogs, etc., has been largely confined to regurgitation of opinions from twenty years ago, reminding us of the coulomb barrier, etc.

In my view the neutrons are not coming from cold fusion. They are coming from hot fusion. They are the right energy, apparently. But, then, how is hot fusion happening in this cold fusion cell? And the simplest hypothesis is pretty obvious: cold fusion is creating energetic particles with sufficient energy to occasionally cause hot fusion. Indeed, those particles are what was previously detected with CR-39, that's what produces the copious pitting. Alpha particles, i.e., helium.

Obviously, I'm not putting this in the article. However, it's a simple fact that the SPAWAR report confirms earlier reports of neutrons. "Confirms" doesn't have the meaning that Olorinish seems to place on it. It doesn't have to do with "conclusive." It has nothing to do with whether or not the "mainstream" has accepted the results or the implications. --Abd (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an additional complication, regarding the fact that the SPAWAR people have indicated their CR-39 evidence indicates neutrons of greater than 9MeV of energy. I'm not sure if that is the minimum number needed to crack a carbon-12 nucleus into three alpha particles, or if it is a number derived from the magnitude of a triple-track. That is, the more energy a neutron has, the more energy the three alphas will have, and the more damage they can do inside CR-39 before they stop moving. Well, the complication is that the only way to get a 9MeV+ neutron from fusion is if the fusion reaction is the deuterium+tritium reaction --and that normally produces a 14MeV neutron. So, why didn't the SPAWAR people say they saw evidence for 14MeV neutrons??? Perhaps the magnitude of the triple tracks they saw simply wasn't large enough.

Well, then, where did the extra (14-9=) 5MeV go? One possble answer relates to the "electron catalyzed fusion" (ECF) hypothesis that I've mentioned on other occasions, which supposes that a lot of the conduction-band-electrons in the metal can get involved and carry away energy. Note that the ordinary two-deuterium reaction, when it yields tritium-and-proton or helium-3-and-neutron, also yields a total energy (maximum) of about 4MeV, while the reaction that yields helium-4 also has a total energy of nearly 24MeV. Logically, if ECF can carry away say 5MeV from the two-deuterium reaction, then the product of that reaction MUST be helium-4, because that is the only way more than 4MeV can be released. And since researchers aren't being killed by (24-5=) 19MeV gammas, it follows that ECF, if this is what is happening, can carry away rather more than 5MeV.

Back to the SPAWAR experiment, which uses "co-deposition" of palladium and deuterium, with one result being that the deposited metal is very very thin (think 2-dimensional vs 3-dimensional). This will reduce the number of conduction-band electrons available to participate in ECF, so less total energy can be carried away. If less than 4MeV gets carried away, then the two-deuterium reaction can yield tritium or helium-3. The tritium is then available to react with a deuterium, potentially able to release a 14MeV neutron. However, if ECF in the very thin deposited metal is causing the reaction and carrying away a few MeV...then it logically follows that the neutron will have less than 14MeV. It all "fits". Whether or not it is true is another matter altogether, of course! V (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another fine source

See http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=06-P13-00008 for a transcript of Public Radio International's February 24, 2006 "Living on Earth" show. The segment "Cold Fusion: A Heated History" seems to be a balanced presentation in language that is fairly comprehensible.LeadSongDog come howl 17:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent find, LeadSongDog. Please, folks, read this. It's RS, carefully researched, balanced. Since then, the evidence has gotten stronger, not weaker. Long before this, the CF field had mostly accepted that neutron findings were going to be useless as a proof of nuclear reaction. Now, we have very good evidence for neutrons (Mosier-Boss, 2008, Naturwissenschaften, widely reviewed in news media), just at levels such that they don't tell us much about what's going on, they are obviously some kind of sideshow.

I am not rushing to shift the article, but am pointing in the direction I believe we need to move. --Abd (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, look at the links at the bottom of the article. Why aren't we linking to those sources for further reading? We now have a See Also to New Energy Times, but what about the other one? lenr-canr.org. These can be considered advocacy sites, though lenr-canr.org claims to try to be neutral (but the site owner obviously has strong opinions), but that can be stated. If you want to learn about Cold fusion, would you only want to read reports and documents by skeptics? --Abd (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Park book

Please, man, Robert L. Park is not a dubious reference. He's a Fellow and former executive director of the American Physical Society, his book was published by Oxford University Press, and he got reviews at lots of places, and free access ones were glowing endorsements: The Guardian[13], The Economist[14], The Independent[15], New York Times[16], Human Biology journal [17], Angewandte Chemie[18], Discover[19], Issues in Science and Technology[20], Science[21]. The only negative reviews were in the Journal of Scientific Exploration[22] and in the Times Higher Education Supplement[23] by Brian D. Josephson (I loved his opinion that the book should carry a disclaimer saying "the opinions in this book are unquestioningly shared by many scientists, but they should not be"). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the edit fixed multiple problems, including "electron flux". The previous version said "[not]...accepted" but not by whom, or what theory exactly, or when. "Several miracles" is opinion, not fact, and not necessarily still the author's opinion. Park had said that "energetic neutrons are unambiguous evidence that fusion has taken place", and now that neutrons have been reported, he says: "They say they find great mysteries, and perhaps they do. Is it important? I doubt it. But I think it’s science." [24] Here, "important" would mean practical use for the energy produced. Abd as summarized by Coppertwig 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd's original comment of 01:42, 30 April 2009

Enric did not understand the removal. Here is the diff: [25], (→Lack of neutron radiation: who's been writing this article, anyway. Add proper reference to Mosier Boss. Accepted as plausible? By whom? Remove dubious Park reference, redundant triple-miracle comment.). This is what was there: Fleischmann and Pons reported an electron flux of 4,000 neutrons per second, while the current understanding of nuclear reactions would dictate that even an energy output as low as 1 Watt would have given a flux of 1012 neutrons per second, which would have traspassed easily the walls of the cell and killed both researchers by radiation poisoning. There isn't still an explanation accepted as plausible for this lack of neutrons, as any explanation would require several "miracles" to happen.<ref>{{harvnb|Simon|2002|Ref=Simon2002|p=49}}, {{harvnb|Park|2000|p=17-18}}</ref> The question about who's been writing the article should have been who is "editing" it. Electron flux? "There isn't still an explanation accepted as plausible" has a lost performative: by whom? And "still" would have to refer to the date of publication. The claim of "plausible" is from Simons, and it was with reference to a specific theory proposed by Walling and Simons in 1989, a theory which predicts helium at levels which are actually found. But, at the time, it wasn't considered plausible, for reasons given elsewhere in our article. Simons is talking about 1989: "There was no agreement as to its plausibility; the theory simply required too many "miracles." What does Park have? It's very interesting. He says that "energetic neutrons are unambiguous evidence that fusion has taken place." Now, the absence of neutrons is not proof that fusion has not taken place, because of the d+d -> He4 mechanism, in which case there are some "miracles," which has a certain sound to it, and the words were used that way, for polemic effect, back in 1989. That is, some unexpected or unexplained conditions: what is normally a rare form of fusion is the predominant form, the energy normally emitted as a gamma ray is "transferred to the lattice" -- this is actually an error! repeated in the 2004 DOE report --, and a single energetic alpha particle violates conservation of momentum, there must be some other product. However, there is a fairly common theory that does reduce to only one miracle, and which seems to be consistent with all the evidence: 4 d -> Be8 -> 2 He4 at 24 MeV each. There is no transfer of energy to the lattice, there is alpha radiation, which is absorbed by the matter it passes through, and since the NAE is at the surface, half of this energy ends up as heat in the electrode and half as heat in the electrolyte. The miracle is that *four* deuterons fuse. What would this take? Rather obviously, it would take confined conditions, this would *never* happen in a plasma. But it's only one miracle. If that happens, all the rest is explained. The two helium nuclei are ejected with equal and opposite velocity, thus conserving momentum. A "transfer of energy to the lattice" isn't necessary at all. The stuff about trespassing the walls is true, but basically fluff. This is commonly referred to as the "dead graduate student effect." Park has a much more recent opinion than what he wrote in Voodoo Science. He's turned. From his blog, ... the American chemical Society was meeting in Salt Lake City this week and there were many papers on cold fusion, or as their authors prefer LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions). These people, at least some of them, look in ever greater detail where others have not bothered to look. They say they find great mysteries, and perhaps they do. Is it important? I doubt it. But I think it’s science.[26] "Important" would refer to production of useful energy through LENR. There are reasons to think it possible that LENR will never be a significant power source. The demand for a cup of tea brewed with a cold fusion heater was for show, not for science. We don't demand cups of tea for muon-catalyzed fusion. However, the fact is what is said in our article: there is no accepted theory as to how cold fusion would happen, and if we don't know what's happening, we can't really predict what can be done with it. It may not be scalable. Or it may be scalable. He is agreeing that this is science, the process of developing and testing knowledge. --Abd (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Park's comment has been blown a bit out of proportion, and claims that Park has changed his position are most probably incorrect. That's because a) he hasn't made any retraction of the claims made in his book, b) just back in November 2008 he had commented unfavorably on Arata's findings[27]. c) looking at that same column I noticed that just six hours ago he wrote: "An appearance on an evening entertainment program [CBS] won't make [cold fusion] science, and it's unlikely to change the minds of many scientists, but it's the most they've had to cheer about."[28]

You are right about "plausibility" in Simon, the current level of acceptance of the ⁴He theory needs a better source.

The "transfer of energy to the lattice" is mentioned as a serious problem in the theory in 1994 by Goodstein [29], in 2000 by Scaramuzzi http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Scaramuzzitenyearsof.pdf in 2002 by Park, and in 2004 by DOE 2004 [30]. Goodstein specifically mentioned the Mössbauer Effect as the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen in cold fusion: no heat is produced at all in the lattice.

The theorical problems are called "miracles" by Heeter in the Scientific American [31], Scaramuzzi, Park, Huizenga (Simon in "Undead Science" seems to source the exact word from his book), Taubes in his book and probably also in a Science magazine article[32], a review of the field by a guy from the Bhabha center in India quotes Hagelstein calling them "miracles"http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Srinivasannuclearfus.pdf and then says that Hagelstein's impression is reflected by the conclusions of DOE 1989, and, eh, you know, just look at this google scholar search and pick any relevant entry, there are plenty of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Implying that any solution to the problem involves multiple miracles is incorrect. The theory D + D + D + D → ⁸Be → ⁴He + ⁴He requires only one "miracle", and doesn't involve any "transfer of energy to the lattice": the energy is carried away by the two alpha particles. Maybe sometimes there's more than 100% loading of deuterium in the lattice, and more than one deuteron occupies the same niche; maybe fusion occurs when there are four in a niche. Many other theories have been proposed. New phenomena seem to be "miracles" until they're understood.

Bottom line: we need to consider the timing of sources, and what evidence those sources would have been considering, not just what they say as if a source on a matter of science is authoritative forever, to be given equal weight with later research and review. Abd as summarized by Coppertwig 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd's original comment of 17:55, 30 April 2009

Enric, I know the "miracles" problem. The point is that "transfer of energy to the lattice" is a problem that doesn't apply with Be-8 fission, there is no transfer to the lattice, the energy is entirely found in the equal and opposite momentum of the two alpha particles. The only "miracle," then, is that Be-8 is initially formed, and, if it happens in a single process, it truly is one miracle, not many. The point is that implying that any solution to the problem involves multiple miracles is incorrect, I just pointed out one, and I didn't invent it, where there is only one "miracle," and any new discovery that shows an exception to previous overgeneralized theory can be seen as a "miracle" until it's understood. Further, to take comments made early on, and then in secondary sources a bit later, as applying to all theories, including those developed later, is synthesis. What we are going to have to do to be fair to all the sources is to start presenting cold fusion as both history and science. There is a history to the claims and counterclaims. In other words, the problem I have with the language that you seem to think you should establish, when it wasn't challenged as such, isn't over the existence of that language, it is that we should not report this as scientific fact. It's not. It was opinion and theory and can't be generally applied outside its original reference, which would be the theories specifically considered by the source. It applies to nothing else. I've been making inquiries about the Be-8 theory, I want to see what is found. I may have seen it only in conference papers. My own thinking about it isn't terribly relevant, but lattice behavior of deuterium could be very different than we expect. It is possible to get loading of deuterium in the lattice above 100%, and loading is subject to local variations. Above 100% means that there are extra deuterium atoms occupying the normal positions in the lattice. Two is obviously reasonably common. What about three or four? What if, whenever four deuterium atoms occupy a single "position," which would be rare (thank God it's rare!), they fuse. How often would this take place? It's possible that a QED analysis of the result would show a high fusion rate. I don't know if that's been done. If that analysis does show a possibility of fusion at some realistic rate, we'd have a theoretical basis for cold fusion that requires no miracles at all, merely something quite unexpected. To repeat the hypothesis, some local condition causes four deuterium atoms to fuse, but probably not two or three unless at very low rates (very much lower than what is already very low!). They form an excited Be-8 nucleus which immediately fissions to form two alpha particles at 24 MeV. This predicts that (1) alpha radiation would be found at significant levels, vastly above background. Check. It predicts that helium will be found in association with excess heat at a value, if all the helium is extracted and measured, and the generated heat (which results from the normal absorption of the helium energy as the local medium slows and stops the alpha particles) is accurately measured, of 24 MeV/He-4. Check! So ... one miracle, which might not be a miracle at all. I hasten to add that many brilliant minds have worked on the problem, and there are many theories to account for what's happening, and some of the theories claim to not involve new physics. Getting a paper published on a theory that explains cold fusion, though, may still be extraordinarily difficult, for a long time, they have been rejected without review by most "mainstream" publications, and what is being published under peer review is mostly raw experimental report, with a few reviews. Still, the Mosier-Boss report does speculate a bit on what is going on. Hot fusion, in fact (i.e., same input, same output, just no proposed mechanism for getting the energy to do hot fusion, though it's obvious, given that these cells generate the famous excess heat that requires, it's long been claimed, nuclear process. Nuclear process generates more energy than is required to overcome the coulomb barrier.) I mean, if that's not interesting, I don't know what is. Bottom line: we need to consider the timing of sources, and what evidence those sources would have been considering, not just what they say as if a source on a matter of science is authoritative forever, to be given equal weight with later research and review. --Abd (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

More on Bob Park's current opinion of the field - new What's New talks about cold fusion again - science, but not promising and researchers are prone to embracing any scientific sounding nonsense that purports to show excess energy. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 00:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that the topic here, Cold fusion, was started by two scientists, experts in their field -- which included calorimetry -- that, indeed, found excess heat, a finding which has been repeated as shown in 153 peer-reviewed papers. Yeah, the original report was mixed with errors: the neutron findings were bogus, they were not nuclear physicists. It has become quite reasonable to assert a consensus, now, of excess heat. That was already a 50% opinion of the 2004 panel, and there has long been expert opinion that the heat is real, for example, Hoffman in 1995 points out that the people doing the calorimetry (some of them) were experts at it, and the calorimetry has never been successfully impeached in any conclusive way. Is the excess heat from fusion? How would we know?

Park, from today's blog, I'd say, was backing off from earlier claims that this is all "voodoo science," but hasn't really realized the import of recent findings. Neutrons. Previously, the critics considered neutrons to be the signature of fusion, neutrons were considered conclusive, and that there were no neutrons was considered conclusive evidence, by many, that there was no fusion. (Never mind that there is another previously known pathway that doesn't produce neutrons). Okay, there are neutrons. The SPAWAR group was confirming earlier work; though they estimated the energy of the neutrons, that was original. Where are experiments and confirmations, at what point does this become real science?

I can say it: secondary source. And we have plenty of secondary source on this! Not as much as I'd like, for sure! But enough. --Abd (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, you say the Fleischmann-Pons (FP) neutron findings "were bogus": is that actually accurate? I mean, I don't know: I haven't read much about it. If we don't have a reliable source commenting on the FP neutron detections in light of the more recent confirmed neutron detections, then we have to be careful what we say. We can quote sources, but need to be careful about implying that a statement is or is not fact. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is. If I'm correct, Fleischmann retracted. I should find the sources, but we currently say that Fleischman reported 4,000 neutrons per second originally. Later work found nothing like that, Mosier-Boss found 10 neutrons (but in a small area, a single CR-39 chip, I'm not sure the size, I could look it up) over weeks of electrolysis, that's something like five times background or more, plus it was confirmed over many experiments. Other reports show what are low levels of neutrons, nobody confirmed the originally reported high levels. Ironically, the Fleischmann report was the basis of a major criticism in the other direction: the level was way too low to represent what fusion would be expected to produce, therefore it was considered strong evidence against fusion, hang the excess heat. So nuclear physicists rejected the neutrons (and found contradiction in the report, the famous "missing Compton edge," showing probable artifact) and then concluded that the excess heat (Pons and Fleischmann's expertise) must be an error also, and that conclusion proved to be quite persistent and durable, in the face of very substantial evidence to the contrary.

I don't know how to put it in the article yet, but the significance of the Mosier-Boss neutrons is really great, and it was widely viewed that way, to the extent that many media sources described this as some new discovery, which it wasn't. They were merely confirming earlier work with a very simple technique, and probably finding what others would have found if they had known where to look. Lots of other researchers reported the heavy pitting of CR-39 that almost certainly represents alpha radiation, and probably ignored the very small levels of triple tracks. They probably didn't even examine the backs of the chips; if they did, and saw a couple of triple tracks, they may not have realized the significance; after all, most researchers have been interested in determining what's going on that generates excess heat; and the neutrons do not explain the excess heat. 4,000 neutrons per second did not explain the excess heat! Not even close. It's a side-effect, not the main show. But what a side effect! It essentially requires the presence of some nuclear process in the cell, thus, with a single modest claim, overturning the whole theory on which rejection of cold fusion is based! What's the nuclear process? It's fairly obvious: deuterium into a black box, helium and alpha radiation at roughly the right energy out. A very small percentage of those alpha particles then causes other hot fusion reactions that produce neutrons. --Abd (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Papers published at lenr-canr.org by people who work for "Lattice Energy, LLC," are not reliable sources. Try to avoud using them. Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree re lenr-canr.org. Not sure about LE LLC, but they do sound suspect. Verbal chat 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Storms is a notable author in the field. I originally reverted Hipocrite, but undid that because there are other sources less reasonably disputed that would be available for the facts, which Hipocrite merely tagged for citations after removing the one that had been there for a long time. I'm not going to pick today to argue whether or not a paper by Storms, cited to show theories proposed (it is verification of proposal), with original publication on lenr-canr.org, can be used. The place of employment or a company that an author has consulted for has nothing to do with RS. There are a number of companies working in the field, they are real, and they are legitimate, but it's also true that the field has attracted charlatans and frauds. After all, there could be trillions of dollars worth of energy expenditures at stake, or, alternatively, people who believe this to be fleeced. No big surprise. --Abd (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The source was placed by Enric Naval with [33], citing earlier discussion at Talk:Cold fusion, Other explanations of Cold fusion. The paper was apparently published not by lenr-canr.org, but by New Energy Times, on-line. I'll find the link. --Abd (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion for Dummies by Edmund Storms. This is not the strongest source to use, I suspect, but the author is notable in the field, for sure. He's the author of many published papers on the topic, plus the 2007 book, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, World Scientific, 2007. --Abd (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (WP:V) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-published material, if used, should be attributed, since the author's personal expertise is what makes it usable. "According to Notable Wing Nut, he was innocent of fraud and accurately reported all data in his published paper.[cite NWN's blog]" --Abd (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think you're confusing two things. We can use self-published material, even by someone who is not an expert, for information about that person, as in the hypothetical example you give. Separately, we can (carefully, under some circumstances) use self-published material by an expert who has already extensively published elsewhere. For example, if the author of a book and many articles on cold fusion now posts on their blog "I was wrong: cold fusion is real after all", or something, we might be able to use that, in a similar way that we would use a published article by that expert, i.e. it might or might not require attribution. Well, a statement like that would require attribution anyway, but some sorts of statements might be simply reportable as facts without attribution. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How much weight for Storms book?

Abd recently added 5 paragraphs based on the Storms book [34]. Including all that text gives far too much weight to a single source which, to my knowledge, does not represent mainstream thinking on cold fusion. To make the article more useful to the typical reader, these sections should be greatly condensed. In fact, I condensed them fairly well into a single sentence [35], although reasonable people might find an additional point or two worth including in the article. What do people think is the appropriate amount of space the Storms discussion should have in this article? Olorinish (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

By definition, theories regarding what is happening in cold fusion experiments isn't "mainstream." The section of the article is intended to examine theories that have been proposed to explain low-energy nuclear reactions. We can't do that without presenting non-mainstream theories! I boiled Storms down to the essentials of his presentation, omitting the details, but I don't see how to reduce it further without distorting it, and I explained this below (which was written before seeing the above comment. Absolutely, what I wrote could use editing; better, we should reorganize all the theoretical material, for there is now quite a but of duplication. Storms organizes the issues, beginning with the challenges that theories in this field face. We could pull that out, but should be able to refer to it within this section, making sure that the other section includes all of his "challenges." There are many theories that have been presented, I was just reading one published, peer-reviewed, last year. But that's a primary source, not analyzed by a secondary source yet. We could refer to it as a proposed theory, but the strength of the Storms presentation is that it's an overview of the field of cold fusion theory, even though it's certainly not perfect. --Abd (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Storms is reviewed or cited in:

M. Srinivasan, CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 94, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2008
John L. Russell Jr., Low energy nuclear reaction polyplasmon postulate, Annals of Nuclear Energy, Volume 35, Issue 11, November 2008, Pages 2059-2072. On this one, I only have the search engine return: Fortunately, two recent books, in 2007, by Edmund Storms “The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” (Storms, 2007), and in 2006, by Hideo Kozima “The ... The abstract is of interest in itself:

An explanation is proposed for the nuclear reactions that occur in the electrolysis class of LENR processes. The proposed explanation postulates that a proton, or deuteron, dissolved in the hydrogen bearing metal cathode, absorbs its associated atomic electron to become a short lived state of the neutron with the resulting neutrino in a singular wave function centered on the neutron. The energy required to initiate this endothermic reaction is supplied either by the ion current during electrolysis type experiments, or by ion bombardment in plasma type experiments. It is the energy of this bombardment of the cathode with heavy ions that creates a coherent polyplasmon field within crystalline metallic grains that are present in the metal cathode of typical active electrolysis cells. The LENR process consists of a second order reaction mediated by a coherent plasmon field excited in the conduction electrons in a hydrogen bearing metal that is in the form of crystalline grains of the order of a few microns in dimension. The coherent plasmon field in each grain is called a polyplasmon. The metallic grains typically form during solidification of a metal, the impurities being forced to the grain surfaces. The resulting grain thus forms a resonant structure that can be filled with a number of coherent plasmons, i.e., a polyplasmon.

Energy from the polyplasmon is coupled to the nucleus via electron capture by hydrogen. Because the neutrino has mass, its wave function has a second class of solutions. This description can take the form of a short lived pairing with the neutron that results from electron capture by the hydrogen nucleus. This short-lived compound particle is named the “dion” and in the case of deuterium results in a “dineutron”. Because the dion and dineutron are formed with essentially thermal kinetic energy, they can capture in nearby nuclei, either in hydrogen or in the host metal. Most of the resulting exothermic nuclear energy is absorbed in the plasmon field by a variety of mechanisms that increase the intensity of the plasmon field and hence the rate of electron capture – that then increases the rate of nuclear reactions. This stochastic chain-reaction process continues in the grain until it is terminated by the random occurrence of losses preventing the continuation of sustaining nuclear reactions before the plasmon field decays away, or until the rise in temperature of the metal grain alters the physical properties of the metallic grain sufficiently to disrupt the polyplasmon field.

Multiple reported experiments confirm that most of the nuclear energy released is absorbed by the host metallic cathode and the electrolyte. Calculations from first principles are consistent with many of the reported quantitative and qualitative phenomena.

Enjoy. Do we put this theory in the article? Attributed, of course. --Abd (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the book published by Kozima, referenced above at the end of the truncated sentence from Russell: [36], this is published by Elsevier. A well-known "fringe" publisher? Not. Appears to have extensive coverage of theory. --Abd (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion (HOW), first pages:

Step 1: Put on a white coat and white slacks. Act like a professional.

Step 2: Go into the bathroom. You will need the tub.

Step 3: Gather a Dewar flask, and anode, and a cathode. Find some nice palladium or nickel. You'll need them in bulk -- thin films or powder. Some people use plasma, but those people are imbeciles. Get some white shoes and put them on. Get ready to excite your palladium with electricity, magnetism, or a laser beam.

I should get a white coat, don't you think? I've already got the white beard and white hair, so it should look nice. Sew the arms to the back and turn it around, and it's a straight jacket, they are always white as well. --Abd (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

|}

An article on the Widom-Larsen theory is found at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Widom-Larsen.php. --Abd (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

More RS (peer-reviewed] for Widom-Larsen: [37]. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding CF explanations

Is there any objection to writing an article about Cold Fusion Hypotheses? Obviously this article could link to that and benefit by not needing to cover, here, all the explanations that have been proposed, while such an article could focus on proposed explanations for CF, refer to this article to reduce its own footprint, and not worry TOO much about RS (none of them are RS, right?). All that would be needed for that article is verifiability, that each hypothesis described has been published. V (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, in theory, sure. A content fork. Care should be taken that it isn't a POV fork. The theory you propose, V., is one that I support, but historically, it's easy to get deletion of what will be called POV forks even if they aren't. If we have consensus here on it, we can do it. In fact, didn't I just suggest just that as a solution to the present problem?

No, in fact, Storms is RS, and there is plenty of RS besides that. Thus, since some editors seem to want the Storms material out, I'll start putting in other RS material, much shorter, wherever the relevant facts aren't in the article. Storms was nice as an overview, filtering out the less notable theories, but without that overview, we are forced to cover all of them! In the end. All it takes is patience, watch and help! All of you! And if at some point you think Storms was better, by all means, replace Storms, or support someone else replacing it. I may or may not revert removals, it depends on what I judge as the least disruptive action without undue sacrifice of article quality. I don't see a rush, but I'm also not going to lie down and pretend I'm dead. I'm not dead yet, that will come soon enough. --Abd (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Storms in Infinite Energy (magazine): [38] --Abd (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Review of Storms (2007) in Infinite Energy (magazine): [39] (Review by Scott Chubb] --Abd (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think such an article can hardly be POV if it covers a lot of hypotheses.

I just saw an interesting thing about "RS": http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/ --Not to imply that anything like that has happened in Physics, but it doesn't hurt to be wary.... V (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of New Energy Times from the blacklist

This publication was once listed as an external link, as was lenr-canr.org and Dieter Britz's bibliography.

I just looked at the 2004 Featured Article version of this article, and, while it had problems, it had much better external links. I also see, in the Bibliography, books about the topic that were later removed. The FA version also had a link to lenr-canr.org for conference papers, all things that I'd expect to see in a good article on this topic.

In any case, http://newenergytimes.com is now usable, courtesy of a neutral administrator requested by me at AN. For reference, the AN discussion, and the blacklist discussion.

It takes time to do this stuff, next will be lenr-canr.org, the blacklisting of which was no more proper than that of newenergytimes.com. If any editor wants to be notified of a request for lenr-canr.org whitelisting here (it's meta blacklisted, so it's not as simple to fix, at all, but a local whitelisting would make the meta listing moot for us), please indicate here and I or anyone else aware can notify you. --Abd (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It still has to meet WP:RS, and I wouldn't expect to see any lenr-canr.org links in a good article. Abd's "neutral" closing admin had a long running dispute with JzG and was censured for it (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Viridae). NET also seems to fail WP:RS, so any use would be exceptional and have to be very well justified. Verbal chat 08:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, your POV is showing. I didn't choose the closing admin, there was a neutral notice at WP:AN, and JzG, while he made a comment in the discussion, wasn't involved any longer. It was not his action being reversed, effectively, but Beetstra's, and he had already recused himself. So, let's find out what the actual consensus is, if someone else doesn't beat me to it, instead of blabbering more. I'll be adding an external link, and we'll see what happens. Note that we already have an external link to lenr-canr.org in Martin Fleischmann, and that was heavily reviewed. We should have many more here, as convenience links, if nothing else. Same with NET. Abd (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2009

Could you propose the link here as NET isn't a WP:RS. Also, I didn't say you chose the admin, but it did happen to be one who should have recursed. From your criticisms of JzG I'm surprised you don't agree. Also, things like "Your POV is showing" are inherently uncivil, please strike it. Verbal chat 14:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

RS not necessary for external links. People are already complaining about how much I Talk. Cutting to the chase, --Abd (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

External links should be reliable, and add to the article. They should meet the criteria in WP:EL. Why do you think NET meets the criteria, including reliability, and what do you think it would add to the article? Verbal chat 17:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Link added per WP:IAR: If I were a reader, I'd want the link. I will add some diffs showing views of other editors on this. The position that an external link is not allowable because some POV may be attributed to it is preposterous. As to WP:EL, please review Links to be considered: Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Whether or not NET "fails to meet criteria for reliable sources" is debatable. But whether or not this site contains "information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" is not. It does, period, and it's invaluable for news on the topic, the "state of the art," and the precise nature of the controversy. --Abd (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Suffice to say I disagree, and using IAR in such an area, where objections were already raised, is a bit galling. However, it is moot as I've added a See also link to the new article you've written: New Energy Times. Verbal chat 17:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. Good move. Adequate. As to Gall, you made some good ink with it. That's the use! Look how quick this was! We could have argued for forever. Now let's see if it sticks to the paper. --Abd (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have put this back as a "See also" link, we should link to our articles where appropriate. Verbal chat 09:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)