Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

New article

Dated July 15 in "New Scientist" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.100-interview-fusion-in-a-cold-climate.html V (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

need help with sources

Can someone with a subscription to these magazines open them and send me a copy of the text by email? (I'm trying to get better sources for the patent section in the article, and I would like to use these) Nature[1] Science[2][3][4]. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, although I couldn't access one Science article, as it was outside of the database's range. - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Another one, this time a Simon article from Social studies of Science [5], it talks about europan patents, and appears to give a world-wide view. Someone with a subscription to JSTOR can send me the full text by private email? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I just noticed that I can read from my university :) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

patents in Europe and Japan

See one granted to Canon in Japan, and one granted to University of Utah[6] (description says clearly "cold fusion", not sure if it has been granted, Britz's patent list should give some clues on this). This last one also reported in CF newsletter[7] saying that Toyota tried to adquire it. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

arbcom case on banning from this page

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#William_M._Connolley_.282nd.29 --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the case which has been renamed to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A Uranium-Platinum Key to CF?

The August 2009 issue of Scientific American has a very interesting article in it on superconductivity. I haven't looked yet to see if the article is on-line; I'm looking at a paper copy as I write this. The title of the article is "An Iron Key to High-Temperature Superconductivity?"; it starts on page 62. On page 66 is a small "side-bar" titled "Material Progress", with the blurb "In the 98-year history of superconductivity, researchers have discovered a diverse assortment of materials that superconduct." Then there is a list of dates and types of materials, the first being elemental mercury in 1911. The most interesting one, because of possible relevance to Cold Fusion, is this:

1979 Heavy fermions -- Heavy-fermion superconductors such as uranium-platinum (UPt3) are remarkable by also having electrons that effectively (my emphasis) have hundreds of times their usual mass. Conventional theory cannot explain these materials' superconductivity.

Well, now! I never heard about THAT before! The superconductivity article in Wikipedia doesn't mention it (of course, 1979 was before the Internet). I'd most certainly like to know more about the circumstances in which electrons can "effectively" have hundreds of times their usual mass, and I don't care a whit about the superconducting aspects of the phenomenon (at this time!). Obviously if muons of 206 electron-masses can catalyze fusion, then so can electrons that "effectively" have hundreds of times their usual mass. In fact, an electron only need to "effectively" have about 50 times its usual mass, to be able to do it. YES, I'm fully aware that this is 100% pure O.R. and cannot go in the CF article at this time. That doesn't mean the editors here shouldn't be aware of it. And, of course, others will see the Scientific American article, and some of those may make this logical connection between HFSC and CF, too, and then it will get published.... V (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A Google search brings up a lot of references to heavy fermion superconductivity. Here's the first result: http://yclept.ucdavis.edu/course/242/HanOh_242.pdf The basic heavy-fermion phenomenon in those heavy elements seems to be this: "These are metallic materials with very large electronic effective mass, 100 or more times larger than the bare electron mass, arising from an antiferromagnetic interaction between conduction electrons and the local magnetic moments (Kondo effect) residing on a sub-lattice of atoms in the metal." Hmmmm....hydrogen with its lone proton has a magnetic moment, and a sub-lattice of bare hydrogen nuclei will be interacting with conduction-band electrons in palladium....  :) V (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Upon further study, it appears that the Kondo Effect, the cause of this unusual behavior of electrons, "only" operates at very low temperatures, within a few degrees of Absolute Zero. Are there any exceptions? Note there are speculations that metallic hydrogen would be a high-temperature superconductor. The article on metallic hydrogen indicates that an alloy such as highly compressed silane (SiH4, 80% hydrogen), can be a superconductor. Palladium normally does not become a superconductor, but when saturated to levels associated with cold fusion (perhaps 45% hydrogen), hmmmmmm.... V (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Invention Reaction

The title of this section is a bit of a play on words, because of the previous section, and because of what I actually want to talk about here, which is in the second-to-last paragraph of the "Reaction to the Announcement" section of the article. This particular sentence seems to me to have a one-word flaw in it (stressed): Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.

The flaw that I perceive has to do with the fact that if CF is happening, then the way it happens is a Natural thing, not something that Man actually causes, and therefore not an "invention". Properly, all we can do is figure out or discover the details of a Natural event. I remind you that even though we discovered nuclear fission and thought ourselves mighty clever to build reactors that used that discovery, Nature was first: Natural nuclear fission reactor. So I submit that the word "invention" should be replaced with "discovery", in that sentence. V (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the intent of the sentence is to say that it would require the invention of a new theory describing this as of yet misunderstood nuclear process. I agree that some wordsmithing is in order. (For what that's worth.) --GoRight (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I see there haven't been any other comments for a while about this. Taking into account what GoRight wrote, I propose this version of the questioned sentence: Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and, if verified, would require theory to be extended in an unexpected way. I'm choosing this phrasing because it is exactly descriptive of what happened when muon-catalysed fusion was discovered/verified. Also, it seems to me a bit rash to assume that "an entirely new nuclear process" is required to explain Cold Fusion, simply because we do not know. While I understand that at least one such has been proposed (involving a Bose-Einstein Condensate of deuterium inside palladium), in one sense even that is still an extension of existing knowledge (merely extended to encompass nuclear events) --and other proposals (such as electron catalyzed fusion) are indeed merely quite straightforward extenstions of existing knowledge. If someone could point out a CF hypothesis that is not some sort of extension of some branch of existing knowledge, I'd like to know! V (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've applied the change to the article. V (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Defining the low temperature fusion reaction as a discovery instead of an invention is both biased and paradoxical. The paradox is that if this is a natural process, then cold fusion is a reality. The bias is to define this as a natural process so as to diminish the achievement and deny the invention. There is no requirement in patent law to define or describe the theory. The only requirement is to show best practice to cause the reaction, for example the reactants, concentrations, temperatures, choice of catalyst, etc. A proper analog in conventional catalytic chemistry is Ziegler-Natta production of polyethylene using TiCl4 as a catalyst. [8]. Even though the mechanism is not well understood, it is an invention and a Nobel Prize was won.

IT is not at all obvious from any example in nature how to effect cold-fusion. The fact that so many could not reproduce the results early on is a testament to the fact. However, competent experimentalist did reproduce the results. Examining the literature, there were 90 reproduction from individual scientists in 1989, and the number are in the thousands now. The references are just to many to name.

On the other hand, hot fusion is not an invention, since high temperature fusion attempts to mimic the sun. Also, a theory is not an invention and can not be patented.Minofd (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not read too much into the word "discovery". It is certain that P&F claimed they discovered some unusual experimental results. The interpretation of those results, provided the results were real and not illusory, does not automatically need to be associated with the word "discovery". (Not to mention that the fusion interpretation preceded P&F by decades.) On the other hand, there is the fact that the word "discover" is related to the word "uncover". When uranium fission was discovered, what exactly was uncovered? Uraniums have been naturally fissioning, every now and then, for billions of years. It was merely never noticed before 1936 or so. Ah, well. V (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Shamoo ref

There's something wrong with the Shamoo ref. OK, I changed the ref in the lead from "shamoo132" to "shamoo13" because it was a red cite error; but there's another problem. The listing of the book Shamoo et al 2003 in the Bibliography section has a link to a Google Books page which goes to a different book: Undead Science by Bart Simon. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry, I keep mixing Simon with Shamoo. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem: I'm always mixing up people whose names start with the same letter. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

SPAWAR neutrons but not charged particles?

Why does this article discuss SPAWAR's detection of neutrons but not their detection of charged particles? Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Gordon FE (2007) Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd–D lattice: emission of charged particles. Naturwissenschaften 94:511–514 ?

I found its erratum amusing: [9] Navy Physics Geek (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Because, unlike the neutron detection, the charged particle detection wasn't reported by lots of mainstream new news sources including popular science magazines, and didn't appear in an ACS press release. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to mainstream "new" sources or mainstream "news" sources? I was under the impression that peer reviewed literature was considered more reliable than news stories or press releases. If that is not the case, please let me know where it's documented. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)(sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, I meant "news". You should know that one paper in a journal is nice, but it's not nice if there is no reply from other scientists, and if other sources say that the field is fringe. The reason is that, like the neutron detection paper, this is a primary source, and we can't really know what impact it has had in the field until it get replies or it starts being cited, or some scientific magazine comments on its impact. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The SPAWAR charged particle detection paper is discussed in Kalman P, Keszthelyi T, Kis D (Dec. 2008) "Solid state modified nuclear processes" EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL-APPLIED PHYSICS, vol. 44(3) pp. 297-302. This is the abstract:

It is theoretically shown that an attractive effective potential is generated via optical phonon exchange between two quasi-free, different particles in deuterated Pd which, in turn, enhances the probability of their nuclear fusion reaction. Mechanisms that may be responsible for extra heat production and nuclear isomer formation are also discussed. Creation of 4 He pairs due to the significantly increased probability of the p + Li-7 -> 2(4)He + 17.35 MeV and d + Li-6 -> 2 4 He + 22.37 MeV nuclear reactions is predicted. Some of the basic questions of fusion reactions in solids seem to be successfully explained.

The theory paper cited in SPAWAR's erratum (Widom A, Larsen L (Apr. 2006) "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C, vol. 46(1) pp. 107-111) is cited in Hagelstein PL, Chaudhary IU (2008) "Electron mass shift in nonthermal systems" JOURNAL OF PHYSICS B-ATOMIC MOLECULAR AND OPTICAL PHYSICS, vol. 41(12) and the April 10, 2008 Current Science by Krivit. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Hum, can someone familiar with these journals comment on this? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the term 'ultra-low momentum' is applied to the neutrons postulated by Widom and Larsen (W-L). This means they are extremely reactive, very very high cross section for reaction in the solid state. That means that essentially none will escape at all, and this fact is noted in the W-L article cited above. That means that the 'neutrons' supposedly observed by the SPAWAR group _disprove_ the W-L theory. Further, the W-L theory does not say anything specific about charged particle generation, it predicts transmutations in the solid state which may lead to tritium and He formation in some cases. However, they point out they are not excluding anything by making that prediction. In other words if someone can come up with a nuclear decay chain initiated by a neutron capture event that would emit charged particles, they would love it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the source allegedly claiming that SPAWAR results disprove Widom-Larsen theory. The SPAWAR group is clearly under the impression that W-L is the most congruent theory to their experiments. There are still transitions which are not yet clear, but those exist in standard physics as well, which is why we are always building bigger accelerators, so that we can fill in those blanks.

And the stated criteria that all three of the works in question (neutron detection, charged particle detection, and congruent theory) have been discussed in other peer-reviewed literature has been met for half a year now. I should point out that EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C and JOURNAL OF PHYSICS B are two of the most reputable physics journals. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

So NPG, let me understand this. Theroists X propose Theory Y which states that the occurrence of Z is a "rare event", i.e. has a nearly zero probability of occurring. Then Researchers A report that Z was observed multiple times and in strength enough that a "5% of Z" observation is used to prove Z has occurred. Of course, both X's and A's results are published in peer reviewed journals. So just to summarize: X says Y proves Z doesn't happen, buy A says they have proof Z occurs easily and with significant strength. Then I say that A's results disprove Y, and you need someone else to tell you it is true? I think we are looking at a case of 'pathological skepticism'. I seem to run into that a lot whenever I point out the internal inconsitencies of the cold fusioneers position. I'm not going to argue basic logic with you NPG. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the figures "nearly zero" or 5% being used. The theory was selected to match empirical results. Do you think that the SPAWAR claim that charged particles come from the same source of neutrons should be included in the article? Navy Physics Geek (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Hmmm…what do you consider to be the numerical equivalent of “These will rarely be experimentally detected.” (Widom, Larsen, Eur. Phys. J C , 46(1), (2006) 107)? Typically a ‘rare’ event will occur at less than 1 in 1 million probability, i.e. “nearly zero”. But, I suppose you could wiki-lawyer that, so let’s discuss the other big problem on top of the fact that there should be nearly zero neutrons detected. I already mentioned this, but to explain further… The W-L neutrons are ‘ultra-low momentum’. Since momentum is mass times velocity, and the mass is not changing much, if at all, this means the velocity is ultra low. That translates to ”very, very slow”. However, the claim by Szpak, Mossier-Boss, et al, in Naturwissenschaften 96(1) (2009) 135, that the ‘neutrons’ are of >= 9.6MeV marks these ‘neutrons’ as fast neutrons (look up ‘fast neutrons' in Wikipedia). Thus there is a fundamental disagreement between the W-L theory and reported observations. The data in fact offer no support for W-L theory, and point to another as-yet-to-be-determined mechanism for ‘neutron’ production.

You are correct that “The theory was selected to match empirical results.”, but the empirical results matched were ‘no neutrons (or other radiation), only He atoms produced’. This points out again the problems with most CF theories, they ‘cherry-pick’ the data they use to base the theory on.

Regarding the “5%” number, I admit I was grossly overgenerous there. The actual number should be about 0.1%. Using Fig. 2 of Phillips, G.W, et al, Rad. Prot. Dos. 120(1-4) (2006) 457, we can round up to see that it takes about 10e4 neutrons to produce one recoil track (average, energy dependent), and using Al-Najjar, S.A.R., Nuc. Tracks 12 (1986) 611, Fig. 5 and 6, we can likewise see that one gets about 10 triple tracks per 10e8 neutrons (on average, energy dependent). Thus the ratio is 1e-7/1e-4 = .001 or 0.1%. By the way, this is still over-generous, because that does NOT fold in the 1 in 1 million probability of actually ejecting a neutron from the solid state that can be potentially detected by the CR39. When I used the phrase “5% effect” I was using chemical jargon that points out the size of the effect is consistent with Langmuir’s Pathological Science criteria, as 5% is where most chemists start getting nervous about reliability, i.e ‘working in the noise’. Less than that of course is progressively worse. Both references cited above were cited by Szapk, et al in their ‘triple-tracks’ article.

Getting back to the point of the original discussion here, I also need to clearly correct a prior statement of mine (correction was noted above already). The Szapk et al results do not ‘disprove’ the W-L theory, they simply offer no support for it for the reason noted above _and_ point out that it is incomplete since it does not predict the formation of fast neutrons. However, the erratum to the 2007 Natur. paper does clearly attribute the mechanism proposed in that paper to W-L. Thus Szpak, et al have actually proposed this mechanism in slightly diffrerent terms in their 2007 paper. However, as noted above, the energetics are completely off for this to be true. So, we are left with several reports of ‘neutrons’ and ‘charged particles’ that seem inconsistent with the W-L theory, and we have no alternative mechanism to consider except ‘mundane’ D-D and D-T fusion, which most people agree is not happening for the usual reasons. In other words, there is no mechanism for the formation of these supposed particles extant. _And_ we have Szpak, et al apparently not realizing what their results mean (otherwise one would expect some comment on this in their 2009 article that presents the energies determined from the tracks). Unfortunately this is an all-too-common situation in the CF field. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I quite understand that Szpak, et al may not have selected the likeliest explanation for the origin of the neutrons they seem to have detected. But It Looks To Me As If You Are Trying To "Spin" This, to somehow indicate they could not have detected any neutrons whatsoever. Tsk, tsk. The data they gathered, indicating they detected Something More Than Nothing, does not disappear just because they might have picked a bad explanation for it. The data simply needs a better explanation. Also, note Some Logic: If They Had Faked The Data, Would It Not Have Matched Their Chosen Theory More Precisely??? All who think the true explanation for the data is Fraud ---take note!!!! V (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you've forgotten most of what I've been saying for the last few months again. Well, I'm not going over it again, but I do note your attempt to somehow associate my comment with 'fraud' and 'spinning' (I especially like the use of caps). Back to the personal attacks again V? To be clear Szpak et al (and others) have detected pits in CR39. They then assume these come from charged particles or neutrons, because that's what CR39 has been used for before, and that's what they want to see. However, we are dealing with a new experimental apparatus here, where the production of nuclear particles is postulated and not proven. There are simple conventional explanations for the pits in this new environment, which Szpak, et al fail to consider, even though their evidence proves such potential causes are present. So, I'm not ignoring anything, but Szpak, et al are. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It did indeed look like an ATTEMPTED "spin" on your part, when the information you provided was incomplete, and did not even mention past discussions. I can agree that the observed pits may have more than one explanation, although details matter. After all, it is my understanding the pits are not DIRECTLY produced by interactions between the experimental environment and the plastic; they appear only after the plastic is removed from the experiment and subjected to some processing that is designed to reveal weaknesses that have appeared in the polymer. It is certainly known that neutrons shoving hydrogen atoms around can cause such weaknesses; what are the CHEMICAL alternatives to which you refer? In other words, for neutrons to not be the cause of the pits, some chemical thing must penetrate the plastic and cause equivalent damage, such that the later processing can reveal it as pits. Please specify those so-called "simple conventional explanations" that can cause internal damage almost indistinguishable from what neutrons can do.

Regarding claims of fraud, that was generic and not specific. It certainly is the view of some of the editors here that all the CF data which is not the result of incompetence is fraudlent. I was simply taking advantage of the topic to point out that their logic can be faulty in this case. V (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, I would take that sage advice from Carcharot here, you don't have to reply to every comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources?

Where are the reviews? I can't believe there are so many papers and no reviews. Is Kalman et al (2008) a secondary source? 208.54.4.70 (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of two peer-reviewed review articles: Biberian (2007) [10] International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, and Hubler 2007 [11] (Surface and Coatings Technology). (I believe these are peer-reviewed papers in regular journals not devoted to cold fusion.) I think these are already listed as references in this article. There are also books, and the 2004 DOE report, among other secondary sources. (See Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 30#NPOV - Undue.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I collected a list of post-1990 sources when trying to prove some point about CF to other editor, you can check it here.

Personally, I prefer to look at the topic from the historic point of view, which marks it as a theory that fell in disgrace shortly appearing. So I will recommend that you look at this 2005 analysis of how and why the field is currently considered pahtological science[12], or Simon's "Undead Science" 2001 book for a description of the social aspects [13]. Both sources are in the context of Philosophy of science.

From the purely scientific POV, to see hard analyis of hard scientific data, which seems to be what you want. I'm afraid that there is almost nothing to choose from (apart from maybe Biberian and Hubler, which Coppertwig suggested above). As many of the sources from my list point out, the field was abandoned by mainstream around 1990 and since then there have been no mainstream responses to the research put forward by CF researchers. As that 2005 analysis explains in long detail, this prevents the research or its replies from appearing in high-quality physics/chemistry journals, and that's probably why Biberian and Hubler appeared in those journals and not in high-quality physics journal. (If you send me an email, I'll send you a copy of the text so you can read it, in User:Enric Naval, the "email this user" link in the left menu of the page, make sure to specify your own email address in the body of the message) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: Aaaaaand, if you want to read the viewpoint of the CF researchers, even if it's not all that accurate or reliable, then you want to read Beaudette for the social side http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf and Storms for the hard-science review-papers-one-by-one side (in http://www.lenr-canr.org/Introduction.html, search for "The Science Of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"), with the caveat that if takes as good some ideas that the mainstream considers outrageously unprobable or unproven, or simply ideas that lack confirmation. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the removal from this page of a comment by Abd. Abd and the two editors who removed the comment (one of them Enric Naval) are all parties to an arbitration case. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would remove it if it was added, as it would be proxying for an editor banned from this page by a member of the arbitration comity, and has a long standing ban from these pages. The removals are proper and justified. If you have a problem, I suggest you appeal to the AC for the ban to be lifted. Further discussion shouldn't take place here on this topic (Abd's edits), per WP:TALK. Verbal chat 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we allowed to discuss [14], [15], and the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook (2008)? Are those secondary reviews? 99.27.133.58 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is the nearest thing we have to a guide in scientific sources. If we take WP:MEDRS#Definitions as a guide, Kalman is a primary source. For the links you give the first one is some sort of summary of the field (so it's sort of secondary) and the second one is definitely a review and secondary.

As for reliability of those sources, it's very low, for reasons spelled at those discussions. (And we don't discuss the sources themselves, we discuss how to use them in making changes to the article, there is a talk page guideline about how these talk pages are for discussing changes to the articles, and if they are not reliable then it's problematic to use them in the article). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Would [16] be more appropriate for this article, which is really not about medicine? "The secondary literature includes review articles, monographs, chemical encyclopedias and specialist textbooks." Since when is a monograph secondary? A peer-reviewed survey like Kalman, sure, but not a monograph. 99.27.134.237 (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That would certainly be more applicable than some medical reference. But I must be missing something here. Why are we even looking for some other reference? What, exactly, is unclear about Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources? Why is that insufficient for our purposes here?

I might point out that the notion of primary vs. secondary is not at all related to where something is actually published. It is related to the author's relationship to the subject matter at hand. If the author is describing something that they, themselves, were involved in then they are acting as a primary source. If they are summarizing the work of others and/or commenting on the work of others then they are acting as a secondary source. None of that has anything to do with where the content in question was published. --GoRight (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the publication type has relevance to the reliability - or are you suggesting that an (imagined) CF assessment in "UFOlogy today" is worth much - even if its written by a well-known expert? The reliability of the journal is of course an aspect, as is the impact factor, and finally so is the amount of citations that an article got. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

@99.27.134.237. Wow, I had never seen that guideline, thank you very much for pointing it out. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In the specific case of Kalman 2008, and just for the "is this primary or secondary" question. I don't understand how this is supposed to be a survey. It makes two hypothesis (phonon exchange and effects of deuteron content) and it makes equations and calculations to try to prove it theorically, and it cites previous research to support its statements, just like research papers do. But I don't know how it's making a summary of what other sources say: it's making a new theory that is based on old ones, not summing up the old ones. They make their own new calculations and hypothesis that don't appear in other papers. The only part that could be considered a summary is the introduction where they make an overview of what lead them to their research. I see that as a normal primary source similar to other research papers that are also primary sources.

About monographs, the article already has one by Goodstein[17] and other by Platt[18], and Bart Simon made another with the same topic and title as the book that is already listed at the bibliography, it was some 10 or 20 pages talking about the matter (I'll have to find that link and put it there). GoRight's explanation applies to why this is a secondary source. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I'm concerned that we are considering non-peer reviewed monographs as potentially more reliable here than peer reviewed survey material (such as the introduction in Kalman et al 2008). Is that the case or am I misunderstanding something? 99.25.114.234 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Kalman is a review, it looks to me like a primary source proposing new research of its own. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is a review or not, is there ever any situation in chemistry or physics where an unreviewed monograph should be considered more reliable than a peer-reviewed survey of the field published in a reputable, on-topic, high-impact journal, even if that survey is merely an introduction to primary source material in an academic journal article? 75.55.199.80 (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a survey. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you were reviewing physics papers, would you consider space too precious to waste on a survey of the previous work in the introduction? What would you propose for the bulk of an introduction in such papers? 99.60.1.164 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective I agree with the following comments which were removed from this talk page (see [19]):

[removed comment by editor banned from this page]

I have verified these points and I have my own independent reasons for raising them here (i.e. I believe they are an on-topic and pertinent response to the question raised above which is presumably focused on improving the article). --GoRight (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Indexing bot

I set up the indexing bot, per a suggestion here. When the bot runs for the first time it will create an index at Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_index. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: on hydrinos

While this is not hugely relevant to the CF article, we editors here know that hydrinos are proposed as an explanation for the CF phenomenon. We also know that the topic is generally considered to be as "fringe" as CF, if not more so (I'm somewhat skeptical about it, too). Anyway, there appears to be a Recent Development in that field. Here: http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/rowan-university-publishes-further.html V (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The "recent development" is yet another carefully spun press release from BLP. They've been playing this game for a long time.[20].LeadSongDog come howl 21:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Britz' bibliography

In this revert, I re-removed the Bertz bibliography - it's the second link on the DMOZ page, which has several other bibliographies as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the DMOZ list, I’m not really seeing those other bibliographies you mention. Certainly none of the other things listed by DMOZ are comprehensive bibliographies in the sense that Dieter Britz's bibliography is (it lists all 1300+ papers that were published on the subject from 1989 up thru about June 2009). It also lists just about all the books ever published on cold fusion.

In the DMOZ listing, I do see some lists of publications by one group and lists of selected sources. Note that lists of sources by cold fusion advocates are not necessarily balanced. (A good example of a partisan listing is LENR-CANR.org, which lists only books that argue that cold fusion is real. I haven’t checked LENR-CANR all the papers it lists, but I haven’t found any it lists that have negative results, and some important papers with negative results are missing from it, so I suspect its listing of papers is equally biased.) Of those who have done research on cold fusion, Dieter Britz is the closest to a neutral party. (For many years he was undecided as to whether it was real; I'm not sure if he is still undecided.)

The point of external links is not necessarily just to make it possible to get to a web site, but also, when we can, to say sites are the best places to go for further information. For cold fusion, the best place to go is probably the bibliography by Dieter Britz, even if his English does sometimes have a Danish flavor.Cardamon (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice the "all authors" tab before, so some of what I said was wrong. The books and papers unfavorable to cold fusion that I was checking for are listed under it, though not described. It is still true that the main displays of books show only books favorable to cold fusion. Cardamon (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Britz' (note correction) bibliography is the second link on the Cold Fusion DMOZ page. It shouldn't therefore be linked in the EL section (see WP:ELMAYBE). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WLU, I took a look at External links, which your link sent me to. I see that it suggests linking to a DMOZ page. You did that, and I think it was a good addition. However, nowhere does that page say that, if a DMOZ page is linked to, things that are on it cannot be also linked to.

External links does say that long lists of links are not acceptable. Four would not be an especially large number of external links.

By the way, I don’t advocate external links to the other things on the DMOZ page. Britz's bibliography deserves special treatment because it is, in fact, special. I claim that it is "neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into Wikipedia due to the amount of detail" and that, according to Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked #3, it should be linked to. Actually, I hope that Britz’s biography won’t be an external link forever, not because it should be removed, but because it looks potentially useful as a reference.

Does anyone else have an opinion about this whether this should be an external link?Cardamon (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any particular problem with linking to the bibliography, either. It's a good listing, doesn't have any linkvio problems, and is useful to readers. - Bilby (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem either. It certainly offers "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article", as WP:EL says. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this summary of it?[21] Even if it's not suitable for inclusion, I hope it can at least suggest some guidance to editors who wish to improve. Please see also [22]. Thank you. 99.35.129.22 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

"(A good example of a partisan listing is LENR-CANR.org, which lists only books that argue that cold fusion is real. . ."

That is incorrect. We list every book and paper known to us, negative and positive, including every item in the Britz bibliography. We have also uploaded more negative papers than any other web site.

Also, Britz is Australian, not Danish.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.73.234 (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone who sees this particular paragraph may wonder what it is about. Just above as I write this is a post purported to be from Jed Rothwell, who last I heard was banned and whose writings could arbitrarily be deleted. If that happens.... Anyway, Rothwell's post includes a claim that LENR-CANR.org hosts a great many negative papers. What was not said above has been said elsewhere, that all the posted papers are posted by permission, and many papers are not posted because of lack of permission. It could be that the negative papers, referred to by Cardamon as missing, are in that group. V (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

comments by banned editor removed

The DMOZ contains both and the LENR-CARN one doesn't have sufficient support to merit being added. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To-do list

The first item on the to-do list is, "Expand the Cold Fusion Research section to describe all types of experiments that reliable sources claim demonstrate cold fusion." But there is no "Cold Fusion Research section" so I propose the following:

1. Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Gordon FE (2007) "Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd–D lattice: emission of charged particles" Naturwissenschaften, vol. 94 pp. 511–514. should go in "Further developments" (just before the paragraph on India, 2008 or after the "Triple tracks" in CR-39 image) and "Reports of nuclear products in association with excess heat" in a new paragraph at the beginning, referring also to the neutron production described further in the article
2. Widom A, Larsen L (Apr. 2006) "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" European Physical Journal C, vol. 46(1) pp. 107–111. should go in "Proposed explanations" along with criticisms at the end of the second paragraph, and maybe "Further developments" after the discussion of the 2004 DoE report
3. Kalman P, Keszthelyi T, Kis D (Dec. 2008) "Solid state modified nuclear processes" European Physical Journal – Applied Physics, vol. 44(3) pp. 297–302. should go in "Further Developments" (before or after the "Triple tracks" in CR-39 image) and "Proposed explanations" at the end of the second paragraph
4. Hagelstein PL, Chaudhary IU (2008) "Electron mass shift in nonthermal systems" Journal of Physics B – Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 41(12) should go in "Proposed explanations" with a mention of the four contexts of the phrase "orders of magnitude" in that paper along with their parenthetical estimate in the third paragraph of Section 7 (on preprint page 18.)
5. Krivit, SB (Apr. 10, 2008) "Low energy nuclear reaction research – Global scenario" Current Science pp. 854–857. should go in "Further developments" (before or after the "Triple tracks" in CR-39 image)
6. "Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat" should be moved from "Experimental details" to "Proposed explanations" Navy Physics Geek (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for doing this work. I don't have time to look at this in detail at the moment. Maybe if you do it as an edit or show proposed text here on the talk page it will be easier to get an idea of what you're proposing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget my to-do list too, which was never acted upon. I mean, if you're really seeking consensus...

{unindent}Ok – suggestions:

A.) Include:

1.) that the CCs potentially increase ‘excess heat’ error bars tremendously,

a.) implying all known reports may be explained by it

b.) requires CF reearchers address the issue directly, which hasn’t happened

2.) that Clarke, et al 4He results, coupled with DOE report(s), and Paneth and Peters experience

a.) suggests all 4He results are potentially false

b.) requires CF researchers disclose all methods, calibrations, etc. for He measurements, which hasn’t happened

3.) that ‘contamination’ concerns extend to heavy metal transmutation claims

a.) note such in S. Little’s RIFEX report (single specific use, meets RS)

b.) note Mizuno replicated Iwamura, but identified S contaminant insetead of Mo

c.) note BHARC replicated Bockris carbon-arc results but showed they came primarily from dust

d.) note that SIMS, XPS, etc are being misused by CF researchers

4.) that light water cold fusion has been observed and is of the same magnitude as heavy water CF

a.) note that this negates the whole “D + D -> He + 23.8 MeV” limitation to CF theories (which should be obvious from D. below)

B.) Drop

1.) CR39 stuff, esp triplet stuff, as too recent, too suspect

2.) hydrino theory mention (hydrino theory is even wilder than CF)

3.) calling muon catalyzed fusion “cold fusion”

4.) legitimizing the name change to ‘LENR’, point out this is strictly to avoid ‘associations’ with CF

C.) Add section “Is it psuedoscience or not?”

1.) point out Storms omission of final Shanahan pub in his book

2.) point out Hagelstein, et al’s omission of Clarke et al 4He work on SRI samples

3.) point out conformances to Langmuir’s criteria

D.) Move stuff on conventional theory (the ‘miracles’) to a side article, noting that all sides agree CF is not constent with conventional theory Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

E.) explain why, at the current output levels, it's useless as a power source.

I add more points. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Over in the Mediation discussion I mentioned that I would prefer the collection of proposed explanations to be placed in a separate article. It should be plain that there is a lot of material (just looking at the listings above), and the CF article would become significantly bloated by it. Certainly there should be mention in the CF article that there are a number of proposed explanations, with a link. I see Coppertwig suggested a brief description of each, also to be placed in the CF article. I'm not sure how to keep such brief statements from creeping longer and longer as other editors become involved, though.... V (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer essentially the exact opposite. I believe we (the editors of the CF article) have lost sight of what a Wiki reader would be coming to the CF page for – an explanation of what CF is and why it is either not being used everywhere today to solve the world’s energy problem or why it is still considered bad science, given the neutral to positive press coverage it has gotten recently. The history and ‘miracles required’ section are old news and could be summarized in a separate article for those interested, while the main article would address the current issues – what is cold fusion, what is the suppposed evidence for it, what is the supposed evidence against it, and why isn’t the issue gettting resolved after 20 years. To that end, I go back to my original proposal to have a 3-part article: a _brief_ history (with side article), presentation of the case ‘for’, presentation of the case ‘against’ with a comment on the psuedoscientific nature of the field included in the latter part or presented separately. The article we curently have is extremely POV, and the only person who has significantly tried to balance it (me) is routinely Wiki-lawyered to prevent any significant contribution. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a third alternative, that the article should explain why the effect is useless for the production of power. 99.27.133.58 (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's true, the article lacks that. I recall at least one source making an explanation, so this can be sourced. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see that explanation, because anything that produces thousands of percent excess energy that can be scaled up would certainly seem to me to be a viable power source. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting "thousands of percent excess energy" from? Even the best results show a much smaller aggregate effect. 99.60.1.164 (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Typical newbie comment. Also a typical attempt at redirection away from the issue at hand. A) There are at least two claims I can think of out there with >10,000% excess claimed (but never reproduced, as usual). B) The point is NOT that I have to defend _my_ statement, but that '99' needs to defend his/hers on why the cold fusion effect (if real) can't be used for power production. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For the experiments which have been reported in the peer-reviewed literature as reproduced, are there any which include aggregate power production (over all experimental runs) above 5%? The point of a tertiary encyclopedia is not to prove that something does or does not exist, but to faithfully represent the peer-reviewed and especially its secondary literature. It's been almost a decade since there have been any failures to reproduce cold fusion experiments reported in the peer-reviewed literature, hasn't it? In the mean time, there have been several reports on reproduction, more and more of them recently in reliable, highly reputable, peer-reviewed secondary sources. How well do you think the article reflects that? 99.38.151.189 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You have pointed out the essence of the POV problems with the article. "an explanation of what CF is" --is what all the arguing is about. What it is PRESUMED to be is one thing; what actually is going on might be something else entirely. Any reformatting of the article should always start off by describing the initial P&F announcement. There is lots of RS about claims made at that time, both pro and con. The article can then state that many people formed opinions regarding the subject that they maintain to this day, with "con" outweighing the "pro". The result is its "pariah field" status.

This paragragh describes stuff that we as editors here may know about, without being able to say anything about it in the article. If the Washington Post counts as RS for claims, then there is the claim by Michael McKubre that the "con" people will be "scientifically dead" if CF ever proves to be as real as its presumed description. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54964-2004Nov16?language=printer --which is a potential explanation for the vehemence of the "con" group, such as was described by Robert Duncan in this video, at a presentation hosted by the University of Missouri: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nNRB0K_dw0 (verifiable CLAIMS, of course).

Partly because of the controversy it seems to me that the best way to present much of the data in the article is to present it as "claims made". It is a purely neutral POV to say things that way, regardless if the claims made by one side outnumber the claims made by the other side. After all, your own claims are such that the CCS could invalidate a huge number of other claims.... V (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of presenting claims as claims, but I also feel it is imperative to present the conventional counterexplanations to the unjustified claims of nuclear solid-state reactions. That's where the current article falls completely flat. The current format is not even conducive to doing this IMO. The format of Sept. 2008 was much better.

Perhaps we can seek a consensus toward that approach to the article.

Re. the McKubre claims that 'the "con" people will be "scientifically dead" if CF ever proves to be as real'. In my case, my published position is that a) cold fusion can never be proven to not exist and b) evidence presented to date does not compel one to accept a nuclear explanation for the observed effects. Thus, if tomorrow someone produces clear evidence that CF 'exists' by showing full control over the effect and the presence of excess energy, I say 'bravo', because we can use an alternative to fossil fuels. And my comments to date will still stand, since, to date, there is no good evidence that cold fusion exists. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you will be quite mistaken in claiming that cold fusion can never be proven to not exist. It will take some tech we don't have YET, but can expect to eventually have, as most technology improves with time. We simply need to start with a full assay of the content of a palladium electrode shortly before a significant CF event begins to happen (if it happens in that electrode, and remember, we want one of those rare megajoule events). Then we need appropriate control of the environmental sources of helium, and finally another full assay after the CF event is over. An increase in the quantity of helium present should be associable with the heat produced by the CF event (and even not considering heat any excess helium 3 will be notable, since it is so rare naturally). If the helium isn't there, then fusions were not the cause of the heat. Simple. V (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

B.4 In the body of the article, under Further Developments, it already said "A number of researchers keep researching and publishing in the field, working under the name of low-energy nuclear reactions, or LENR, in order to avoid the negative connotations of the "cold fusion" label.". I just put it also in the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see that sentence was there on May 28 when I posted my list intitally. I agree with the change Enric made today. So, we can call Item B4 handled. Now on to the rest... Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

B.2 aka Hydrino theory, is under mediation at here. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to drop it entirely from the article. The hydrino theory proposes fractional quantum levels for H. Integer quantum levels come out of the solution to the particle-in-a-box problem, where the boundary condition is that the wavefuncion be zero outside the box (the box 'holds' the particle). It was discovered by examining H atomic spectra that the discrete line structure observed could be explained via a 'particle-in-a-box' type formulation, and all H atom wavefunctions were the solution to the p-in-a-b problem. Subsequently, it was found that within approximation, this also applied to all atoms, molecules, etc. To allow frational quantum levels is to allow nonzero wavefunction amplitude outside the box, which destroys the whole 'particle-in-a-box' problem (it isn't in the box anymore!), and necessitates a completely different way to describe interactions at the atomic level. The hydrino theory, to be able to do that, needs a whole lot more confirmation than it curently has (and I doubt we will ever get it), and so it is purely speculative at this time, and as such should not be advanced as an 'explanation' for an effect we don't even have control over yet. It is a humongous example of 'getting the cart before the horse', and Wiki shouldn't be in the business of promoting wild, unproven ideas. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources supporting any of those proposed changes other than A.3.a? Navy Physics Geek (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Goodness, James Salsman? James P. Salsman? He was posting to sci.physics.fusion in 2001 on the same subject (as was I). people didn't think much of his arguments there. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, the Wiki-lawyer strikes. I have decided that I am _not_ going to go through it once again. Go back and check the archives for all the recent discussion over the last year or so for details. The answer is that yes there is direct RS for some of the proposed changes, other parts (like dropping stuff) require no RS, and other parts are just standard knowledge in the science field. What your comment says to me is a) you didn’t understand what I wrote, and b) you haven’t done any research to see what has been going on for the last year on this page. As I said, I’m not going through it again, because it’s an infinite time sink. Every time a new guy who thinks he can ‘fix’ the article shows up, I always have to start over. And for some reason, most of the time the new guys end up as ‘pro’ fanatics like Pcarbonn, Abd, and V. No more, done with that. Time for somebody else to tilt at the windmills. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for name change (B.4)

About the reasons for the name change, Shamoo in pages 132-133 says "[CF researchers] purposely tried to bypass the stigma (...) In many instances the labels can be more accurate descriptors for the phenomen, but there is no doubt that they may be also safer labels", and then he goes on to detail cases where researchers avoided to use the CF name not because it was less accurate but to avoid its stigma. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

They also avoid more critical peer review by doing this. Most mainline scientists know that 'cold fusion'='bad science', and are therefore more alert to publications promoting it when they are asked to review it. On the other hand, not all recognize 'heavy water electrolysis', 'emmission of charged particles', 'excess enthalpy', etc. as manifestations of the 'cold fusion' field. Then, when they (CFers) send their papers to journals who haven't been involved in the long running dispute, they have a much better chance of getting 2 of 3 reviewers to allow publication, simply because those reviewers are pulled from a pool of uninformed scientists. Most of my Internet comments back on spf were on published papers that really shouldn't have made it through review. The triplet thing is a prime example. Peer review is certainly no guarantee of correctness. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If people are reviewing a scientific paper more or less critically on the basis of it's name then they should have their license revoked. Kevin Baas^talk 15:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any licenses, there aren't any reviewers of the reviewers, peer review is the least level of quality control we can have, and many times people don't do a good job. Welcome to the real world. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(A.3) Contamination in heavy metal transmutation claims

• 3.a) Little's RIFEX (it tested a CETI Patterson Power Cell)
  • Search for Evidence of Nuclear Transmutations in the CETI RIFEX Kit, Scott Little and Hal Puthoff. "In Run 1 and Run 2 the system was probably contaminated with Pt from the Pt anode. In Run 3, with the Pt removed from the system we see a much smaller but still measurable quantity of Pt in the reacted beads, almost certainly due to Pt contamination of the circuit."
  • Calorimetric Study of Pd/Ni Beads From the CETI RIFEX Kit, Scott Little and Hal Puthoff "Thin-walled glass jackets would have provided much better thermal performance but were rejected because of possible contamination from the glass constituents (...) The iron powder in the JB-WELD epoxy clearly contaminated the system during Run 1 (...) Since the uncoated beads contain 130 ppm Fe, this leaves about 70 ppm (47 micrograms in the bead bed) of Fe that somehow appears in the reacted beads. Possible identified sources for this iron include [several sources] (...) We believe that these elements appear in the reacted beads as a result of electrodeposition of cations in the electrolyte that were either present initially or were dissolved from various sources in the electrolyte circuit. (...) In our opinion the possible explanations for this discrepancy in quantification should be prioritized as follows [list of possible causes where nuclear transmutation appears at the end] We do not lightly place nuclear transmutations last in this list. One must consider the possibility that the excess heat measurements were in error. If there were no excess heat, essentially all incentive to search for evidence of nuclear reactions would disappear. Further, we would no longer be tempted to interpret relatively minor discrepancies in the analysis of the cell components as such evidence. Our own calorimetric measurements on the beads in the RIFEX kit⁶ show no evidence of excess heat. This is at odds with Dr. Miley's experimental results³ but consistent with the possibility that there are no nuclear reactions occurring in the RIFEX kit."

• • "The SIMS [performed by Miley to compare with their XRF analysis] directly analyzes the thin bead coating upon which contaminants from the entire volume of electrolyte tend to be deposited by the electrolysis. In essence, the RIFEX experiment serves as a preconcentration step for SIMS analysis of trace elements in the electrolyte. This realization has an enormous impact on the matter at hand: Every SIMS element that sits below the 1 ppm line could possibly be coming from an undetectable trace contaminant in the electrolyte. (emphasis in the source) For the purposes at hand, we will therefore ignore all of the SIMS results that are below the 1 ppm line. We simply do not have the means to prove that those elements were not present in the electrolyte at the start of the run. Even if we employed analytical methods with 10x better sensitivity only a handful of additional elements would be included. The majority of the SIMS results are several orders of magnitude below the 1 ppm line. (...) As far as we are concerned, Miley's SIMS analysis of our Run 3 beads does not change the conclusions and speculations presented earlier in the main report."

• • An Attempted Replication of the CETI Cold Fusion Experiment, Barry Merriman, with Paul Burchard. "no metallic parts---other than the essential beads and platinum electrodes---contact the electrolyte, in order to prevent the possible contamination of the bead surface by other metal ions. It is also closed from the atmosphere, except for a thin (1/16'') tube that releases built up gases from electrolyssis to the atmosphere. (...) During the procedure, a plastic wrap cover is kept over the beaker to prevent contamination from airborn particles. (...) Note that during the preparation, the solution is not allowed to contact any metals or human skin, directly or indirectly through the utensils (...) Experimental Procedures. Avoiding Contamination. Since contamination of the active bead surface or electrolyte by dirt, oils, metals, skin and other impurities is thought to impede the reaction, great care was taken in the cleaning, assembly and operation of the experimental apparatus. (...) Washing. All components and utensils that directly contact the electrolyte or beads during assembly or operation were carefully cleaned as follows (...) Assembly. For all assembly, disposable PVC antistatic lab gloves are worn (...) The only lubricant used during assembly is purified water from a lab squirt-washing bootle. In particular, no oil or silicon based lubricant are used on the various tube and stopper fittings. (...) The inline heater was constructed so that no metallic parts come into contact with the electrolyte and no plastic parts can be burned or melted by its hot filament, to avoid contamination of the electrolyte."

Enric, I've been waiting to see if anyone else would comment first, but of course they haven't. You've found the links I referenced in prior discussions and tried to use in my Sept 18, 2008 revision to the CF article. My point was to give an example of what extra work needed to be done to declare the detected heavy metals NOT contamination (with Scott Little finding the opposite of course). I was Wikilawyered on these references heavily, and I expect you will be too if you actually try to modify the article with these. However, this does represent 'mainline' thinking on the transmutation issue, i.e. it's just contamination. Good luck. You can probably reach me through Wikimail if you have questions. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• 3.b)
• 3.c)

See R. Sundaresan, J.O'M. Bockris, "Anomalous Reactions During Arcing Between Carbon Rods in Water", Fus. Tech. 26 (1994) 261 vs. M. Singh, M.D. Saksena, V.S. Dixit, and V.B. Kartha, "Verification of the George Oshawa Experiment for Production of Iron from Carbon Arc in Water", Fus. Tech. 26, (1994) 266. Make sure you note the impact of the dust cover vs. the Bockris statement that "Adsorption of iron from water or the surrounding atmosphere was established as not being the cause of the increase of iron."Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• 3.d)
• 3.e)

placeholder to look at this later. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

replication of Arata experiment published in Phys Letters A

I would think that wikipedia should report on Kitamura group’s paper, “Anomalous Effects in Charging of Pd Powders With High Density Hydrogen Isotopes,” published in Physics Letters A online July 3. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 130.104.236.154 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's less than two week since publication, which seems a bit like recentims to report on it in any depth. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is possible for an article to have a "news" section, without implying that the news is weighty. Why, right at the start of the section there could be a statement to the effect that "The following are reports of recent developments in this field, as yet unconfirmed." Please note, though, that in this particular case, the new report appears to be some substantiation of an older report, which various editors here had claimed wasn't RS enough to be mentioned. What say they now? Can this give the OLD report enough RS to now be mentionable??? V (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If this were a medical article, I would cite WP:MEDRS which emphasizes secondary sources (mainly review articles). In hard science articles that are contentious, I would suggest a similar caution as it is difficult to navigate WP:UNDUE on recent, revolutionary and unexpected results. Without evidence that this particular paper has had a substantial impact on cold fusion research, I wouldn't substantially rewrite any part of the page. Was this substantiation by the same research group that produced the original report? Has it been replicated elsewhere? Is there any evidence that it's a reliable, repeatable, theoretically valid research result? Given the controversy over cold fusion, skepticism within the scholarly community is high and we're enjoined to present the opinion of the scholarly majority. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I second the comment on recentism, especially after looking over the paper. In a very short time, I’ve come to the conclusion that this is one of the worst papers in the CF arena yet. I have posted an explanation of this on my user talk page. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about what I was saying in my other post above. We have a report in Physics Letters A, one of the very TOP Reliable Sources, describing a CF experiment. If the experiment is described as being a replication of a previous experiment, then this report is an RS reference (and "secondary" in its own way) to the original report, that such an experiment took place and certain results were reported. The original sourcing for that original report was not considered to be Reliable enough, but now we have PLA talking about it!!! Do note I'm not asking for much, here. The CF article here could say something about Arata performing an experiment and claiming certain results, and PLA can now be used as a reference, that the experiment was done and the claims were made. V (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

recentims says "Maturity, judgment and the passage of time are sometimes required to provide proper perspective." about adding information that may be subject to the recentism challenge. So far the consensus is that the material is too recent to warrant inclusion. More passage of time is required to establish notability. My judgement is the work is mis-billed in the Journal as a replication when it fails to pass scientific scrutiny. Maturity is required of the editors here to come to a justifiable consensus position. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've written? Arata's original experiment is most certainly not a recent item!!! It is that experiment and that one only that could be mentioned in this CF article, with the PLA article as secondary RS for the fact that the original experiment was done, and the additional fact that certain results were claimed. V (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And Arata's experiment has been discussed here before as well. Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've written? Kitamura's paper is NOT a replication of Arata's experiment. Further, it produced significantly different results. Only a die-hard CF advocate would fail to see this. Kitamura et al are reproducing one of the fundamental flaws in the cold fusion argument. They run an experiment that contains aspects that are similar to other experiments, observe a different and new anomaly, and then claim they have replicated prior work. No, they found a new problem in the new experiment. To prove it is related to the old problem, you need an independently-arrived-at, substantiated explanation for both that then shows the same effect is active, not different ones. You can't collect anomalies and claim the count proves a point, each must be explained separately. (No further arguments with V on this. If others have questions, I may address them.) Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, with Kirk deciding to stop spouting nonsense, maybe some progress can be made. In this particular case there is this in my 5 Sept post above (stress added here), "If the experiment is described as being a replication" --and Kirk above saying, "Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've written?" Obviously that's nonsense when I did not specify that the "if" interpretation must be correct. And all of what Kirk wrote completely ignores the point that because Kitamura's work has some similarities to Arata's work, Arata's work is cited as a reference in Kitamura's PLA paper, thereby giving Arata some RS that indeed he did perform an experiment and claim it yielded certain results. Which is basically why I said Arata's work could now be referenced in the CF article here. V (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, sometimes your -- shall we say -- "creative obstinacy" makes it difficult to maintain an assumption of good faith. Suffice it to say, from a thorough reading of the discussion above, I see no valid reason not to put the info in the article. Kevin Baas^talk 15:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the slam Kevin. It really added to the discussion. Re. Good faith and V - V has proven many times he is unwilling to learn from me, resorting instead to ad hominem attacks and other symptoms of bad logic. I don't assume he has any other agenda than that. As usual, I was explaining my comment to a hostile audience, and as ususal you have to chip in you 2 cents. The one thing you did accomplish however is to finally break the camel's back. I'm gone. Do what you (plural) want. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Kirk's over-analysis of Kitamura's paper borders on WP:OR. Kitamura has already been refereed by a well-regulated peer review process and been published in a reliable source. I see no reason not to include a fair description of it in the article and let the reader make up their own mind. Ronnotel (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I would suggest waiting for commentary from other sources on the experiment. Again, with the intent of MEDRS in my mind, I wouldn't report on single studies in pretty much any circumstance. In the scholarly community these are primary sources. I would think a coherent program of research with replicable, well-accepted results would be appropriate. Without that, why wouldn't we report on every single paper that's published on the subject? And what could be said without engaging in OR? "In August, 2009, one group reported anomalous heat"? There's no context, no indication it's meaningful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the two experiments. Arata's work was done in 2008. Here's a description apparently dated 2008/06, and refers to Arata's work as being announced three weeks earlier: http://physicsworld.com/blog/2008/06/coldfusion_demonstration_an_up_1.html So, the Physics Letters A article is about another experiment, an intended replication (even if more accurately it could be called a "variation on the theme") of the 2008 experiment. After all, Arata's experiment was rather different than most CF experiments, which employ electrolysis cells. I'm saying that the existence of the PLA article, because it is about replication of some of the elements of Arata's experiment --and regardless of whether or not it supports the conclusions of the 2008 experiment-- that PLA paper is RS that the 2008 experiment was done, and that certain results were claimed at that time. Also, there is a context, which is the context that CF researchers haven't given up, and some of their experiments are starting to be noticed by the community that rejected the conclusions of 20 years ago. Else why does the PLA article exist at all? V (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it relevant in the context that back in the beginning many were criticizing the very low reproducability, and many of that lingers on today, while at the same time some well reknown scientists have worked at constructing experiments specifically to answer that critique and have claimed high reproducability. Yet their experiments, from what I understand, are very expensive to set up. And as the phenomena is still very poorly understand, "variations on the theme" is - perhaps a bit ironically - the best approach to learning more about it. In any case, I see all these things, coupled together with the fact that reproducability is very much in dispute with C.F. in comparision to other fields, providing a context in which the info in question is more relevant and significant. Kevin Baas^talk 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to especially point out that because Arata's experiment (not to mention the variation reported in PLA) does not incorporate electrolysis cells, it represents an almost radically different aspect of the entire CF debate. In recent years the CF proponents have decided that the reason there were so many early replication failures was because it was (and still is) difficult to start with a palladium electrode and saturate it enough with deuterium from electrolyzed heavy water, for events to occur that can be interpreted as "excess heat production". So apparently Arata decided to just try using sheer pressure to saturate the palladium with enough gas. Less messy, fewer components involved, and perhaps easier to replicate --and he claimed success. The PLA article is the first publication of any attempted replication/variation on that theme, that we know of, and its authors also claim success. The high profile of PLA may quickly lead to other attempted replications/variations on Arata's theme, when Arata's original publication didn't (heh, not RS enough!!!). I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some CF detractors decide to try this new and different approach to CF, just to prove it wrong. Maybe they will succeed at failing to find excess heat, maybe not. In any case, the current CF article is written from the perspective that only electrolysis experiments are worthy of describing. I'm saying that's no longer true, with the PLA article being RS for Arata's 2008 experiment. I see the current article actually mentions Arata, but doesn't say anything about the experiment he performed. V (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley has closed, and as a result of the case, editors of this article and related content are subject to discretionary sanctions. Details of these sanctions are available here. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing the To-do list?

I propose removing the to-do list. Nobody has edited it for a while, and I, for one, don't think it includes anything that needs to be done. Numbers 1 and 7 have been accomplished reasonably well, while numbers 2-6 call for expanding the article in ways that don't appear to be warranted. What do other people think? If you disagree, which items do you think should stay? What should be done about them? Olorinish (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Olorinish (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Lack of accepted explanation using conventional physics"

I propose replacing the section title "Lack of accepted explanation using conventional physics" with something shorter like "Inconsistencies with conventional physics." This topic has been discussed before here. In response to Kevin Bass's last comment, I would say that he is right that using "issues" in this section title would be accurate since it includes the possibilities of criticisms, but that "inconsistencies" would be more accurate and more helpful for readers. What do other people think? Olorinish (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, anything with a less blatant POV, but meaning roughly the same thing, is fine with me. That section has the purpose of pointing out places where the known facts don't get along with the idea of nuclear fusion taking place inside basically ordinary solid metal. Fine. But that doesn't automatically/guaranteed mean it can't happen (and that the section should be written from that POV); it MIGHT mean there is an as-yet-unknown fact or two waiting to be discovered. V (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Olorinish (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources? II

I copied this section from the archive, because the question about whether the introduction of a peer-reviewed paper is a secondary source to the extent that it summarizes previous work on the subject is valid and should be discussed if there is any hope of improving the article. 98.210.193.221 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it. Anyone who wants to read the old discussion can go here: Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_34#Secondary_sources? If you want to re-ignite discussion, summarise the previous discussions, or start a new one. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. The main question (which I feel makes more sense in the context of all the other secondary sources discussed in the deleted section) is: Is the introduction in Kalman et al (2008) a peer-reviewed WP:SECONDARY source to the extent that it is the most recent summary of work on the subject published by a reputable, reliable, high impact factor academic journal?

In particular, can this excerpt be considered WP:SECONDARY?:

At the beginning of this decade in several experimental works, solid state environment dependent increment of the cross section of low energy fusion reactions was observed. The full, theoretical explanation of this so-called “screening effect” still seems to be missing. Also, it was about two decades ago that Fleishmann and Pons first published observation of a phenomenon that is today called “cold fusion”. The experimental situation seemed rather controversial and the observations were considered contradictory to basic features of nuclear processes that are thought to be related to the effect. Recently, however, in a sequence of experimental works evidence of tracks of fast charged particles was found, that were emitted from nuclear fusion events in Pd/D during electrolysis and it seems experimentally proved that alpha particles of energy between 11–16 MeV and protons of energy of 1.6 MeV were emitted from palladium chatode.

98.210.193.221 (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing an edit to the article? What would it look like? Olorinish (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if it were up to me I'd put that whole paragraph in the intro, with a little copy editing for clarity and style without changing the meaning, and including the original citations to the references. It comprises the most recent de facto secondary source I've seen. 98.210.193.221 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Absidy is not. Hipocrite (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What? 98.210.193.221 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Secondary? It certainly is not. What is needed is a type of article known as a "Review", not the introduction to another experiment a newly proposed theory.LeadSongDog come howl 02:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The paper in question is theory, not an experiment, which I believe does make a slight difference on the question. I disagree, the copy in the introduction of a theory article referring to the previous work in the field meets the WP:SECONDARY criteria just as much as a review or a meta-analysis would. Are there any reasons to the contrary? 68.125.52.101 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

98.210.193.221: Check out my edit to the introduction. Does that address your concerns? Olorinish (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a very small step in the right direction, although postulated/proposed makes little difference. 99.27.133.215 (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Argh. That will teach me not to trust excerpts. Yes, it is a theory article. But it's still primary. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/References_and_external_links#What_to_citeLeadSongDog come howl 07:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That document says that a monograph can be a secondary source. It doesn't say a peer-reviewed monograph, just a monograph. Is there anywhere else in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that agrees? I don't think so. The summary of the last couple decades in Kalman et al (2008) is at least peer reviewed. "Argh"? Is that an expression of "oh geez, all the dominant editors since we started banning the proponents have been wrong and it's making me feel uncomfortable"? 99.27.133.215 (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's really unproductive for you to pretend that you're some random IP user. Please log into your account. With regards to your point, propose a concrete change to the article and we will consider it. Untill then, I strongly suggest that every user here remember that this article is under sanction, and trying to right past wrongs ("all the dominant editors since we started banning the proponents") is at odds with the goals of talk pages. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question for editors 98.210.193.221, 68.125.52.101, and 99.27.133.215: Have you ever edited with a named wikipedia account? Whether you have or not, I would really appreciate it if you would edit using an account. Thanks. Olorinish (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That would indeed be helpful. See the definition of monograph to understand why this isn't one. "Argh" simply expresses me kicking myself for an obvious error made in haste. LeadSongDog come howl 13:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the record of bans from and because of this article, how could revealing editor identities possibly be expected to improve the quality here? What we need are editors with the courage to resist the hegemony by improving the article in accordance with the secondary peer-reviewed literature. Whether we know who they are is, at this point, likely counter-productive. 98.210.193.221 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Proposed explanations" section

I could use some help with this section. Does anyone know of good references that describe deuterium nuclei implanted in palladium, quantum tunneling of deuterium nuclei, electrochemistry that drives deuterium nuclei, that sort of thing? Thanks. Olorinish (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some of those crossed out at the top of this page, if they haven't been archived yet. Try a Ctrl-F search on "proposed explanations". Why is "Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat" listed under "Experimental details" instead of "Proposed explanations"? 99.191.74.42 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, think the article is easier to read with the "Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat" section near the excess heat section. They both describe details of experiments, while the discussion section at the end describes the big picture. Olorinish (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Contamination as the cause of 'new' heavy metals

In what may be another excellent effort, D. Kidwell and coworkers have ‘gone the extra mile’ and discovered that the claimed production of Pr in deuterium flow through Pd membrane experiments may well be due to contamination. The abstracts of talks to be given at ICCF15 is posted to the Web (http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/docs/Abstracts-11-9.pdf), and in it (Session 3, talk O_6) an abstract states that the NRL lab has conducted a study where samples that were supposed to have produced transmutation were examined at the NRL lab and at another lab that has claimed prior success (MHI). When NRL found no Pr when MHI did, a Pr contamination was found at the MHI lab where the analyses for Pr were conducted. In other words, the lab that claimed to have detected Pr produced by heavy metal transmutation was in fact contaminated with the very element they found! Surprising isn’t it (not to chemists).

This note is posted to illustrate to Wiki editors that the idea of contamination as the source of ‘transmutation products’ is normal, everyday chemical thinking, not OR or anything like it. I will not be responding to comments on this, as my only point is what I just said. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that nuclear transmutations for any elements other than hydrogen, and natural radioactives, is very much more unlikely than for hydrogen and natural radioactives, unless lots of neutrons become present for who-knows-what-reason. Most atoms simply have too many electrons in the way, keeping their nuclei apart, for transforming events to happen to them. V (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh certainly contamination is the more likely source, all things being equal, and steps should be taken to rule it out. (And noone here is arguing that contamination is some kind of exotic process -- that's a straw man.) And it is not OR to mention the possibility of contamination and briefly discuss it. In fact, I believe the article already does that. The problem comes in when one narrates an opinion on it without explicitly attributing that opinion to notable, reliable, third-party sources. Kevin Baas^talk 13:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And btw, i don't recall mention of Pr - i do recall mention of Molybedumum as a "product", which is quite rare, making it an unlikely contaminant, and also that the molybedumum was exactly 2 alpha particles above the "source", which makes it a rare isotope of molybedumum - i'd be surprised to find any significant quantities of a rare earth metal in a lab (save in a labelled canister), and even more surprised to find rare isotopes of one - did they check the atomic weight of the contaminants they found? I'd be very interested. I'd also be interested in learning about the experiment they're refuting. I suppose I should read the link provided. Kevin Baas^talk 13:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, read it. sounds like they are checking the atomic weight (ref. words like "characteristic" and "signature" when refering to an element). it makes them look kinda sloppy, actually - why would they prepare the samples in different places, anyways? i think they should do that contamination search for the moylbedumum, too. Kevin Baas^talk 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

MoS2 is used in UHV systems to grease the threads of the bolts used on the Conflat flanges to prevent galling after bakeout. It is very common in UHV systems, which 90% of surface analysis techniques require. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to the introduction.

I reverted the addition of this sentence to the introduction:

It did, however, find that the observation of excess heat can be reproduced at will under the proper conditions, and that many of the reasons for failure to reproduce it have been discovered.

I did it because I don't think the first part is accurate, and because the second part does not convey the message of the 2004 report accurately. Am I missing something? Olorinish (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That was the assertion of the cold fusion proponents making the submission to the DOE panel. The report itself contained nothing of the sort and in fact disgreed with that claim by the proponents. Phil153 (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. In other words, the text that Olorinish took out could instead have been clarified, to indicate that it was a statement made by cold fusion proponents in 2004 when they were requesting a second DOE review. Appended to that text could be a sentence about the review occurring, but also disagreeing (something like 2:1 ratio of panelists) with the proponents' view. Fine. I say such clarifications are a superior thing to do, in an encyclopedia, than the removal of information. By definition, after all, an encyclopedia is supposed to be encyclopedic ("complete") --and information-removal, historically, has far more often been indicative of a POV agenda, than it has been about error-correction. Because if 1/3 of the panelists tended to agree with the proponents on this issue, then that should mean the experimenters have managed SOME increase in reliability since 1989 (just not as much as claimed). V (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the article. The sentence removed was placed in the lead, where it was inappropriate. No information has been removed. Phil153 (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rules Reminder

I'd like to point out a couple of Wikipedia rules being ignored by certain parties above. These are WP:IAR and WP:BURO. Please remember that the primary goal of Wikipedia is to have good and accurate and complete articles. The last of those three is difficult for the CF article because the topic is controversial and still being researched. But the other two goals are much more possible. I'd like somebody to explain how removing relevant data from an article improves it and makes it more accurate. V (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV. Welcome. Hipocrite (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. "weight" is as easily achieved by adding more stuff as by removing stuff, especially in a controversial article*. The RS and V conditions have been met, in the case of the argument in the previous section (although if you keep deleting the references, you can stupidly pretend that they don't exist). And NPOV is a matter of how data is presented, not "what" is presented.

• I will amend that point to note that in cases where some issue has been resolved (e.g. "polywater") two sides of that issue no longer exist. Therefore balance is irrelevant; there are only facts supporting one side of the original issue. In the CF controversy the facts will eventually decide the issue, not the people trying to prevent key facts from being seen. V (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I contend that no one has removed relevant data. Weak theories with poor supporting evidence not taken seriously by the scientific community (i.e. electron screening theory, hydrino theory, calibration constant shift) are not facts and while the may be briefly mentioned in appropriate sections, as they are already in the article, they violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE if we give them any more weight than that. Thus I oppose the continued attempts by WP:COI editors to insert them. This is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate list of everything related to cold fusion. Editorial exclusion is required. Phil153 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you contend wrong, to the extent that Aqm was attempting include experimental data and not just theory. It is my understanding of the experiments that the deuteron-beam data indicates that inside metal, a lesser beam energy is needed to initiate fusion than outside metal. I agree that it is theory to interpret those fusions as being a result of electron screening, but I disagree strongly that the data itself is irrelevant, when the CF article clearly uses outside-any-metal data to claim that low-energy fusion is too improbable to occur inside metal! That is, the deuteron-beam-at-metal data directly/partially refutes that claim, by giving us some actual particle energies associated with fusions inside metal. V (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, this is an article about cold fusion. The electron screening theory as relates to cold fusion, would need to show that >50 orders of magnitude increase happen inside metals. There is no such data, just huge amounts of hand waving.

The "experimental data" that Aqm includes shows, amid multiple warnings of error and uncertainty (i.e. this is NOT established) that fusion in a beam striking metals may be increased by < 10 orders of magnitude (i.e. it's still at least 40 orders of magnitude too low to account for cold fusion).

In addition, I've heard mentioned here that extrapolating from known fusion rates, cold fusion would need 130 magnitudes of order increase in order to occur. Goodstein, the reference for that section states ">50 orders of magnitude". How do we know he hasn't already the metal effect in his writings? This is EXACTLY why we don't allow synthesis, which is what this addition is, not to mention a conflict of interest (Aqm cited his own published paper). It has no place in the article.

This is is not about squashing data or cold fusion, despite what the insane conspiracy theorists say. It's about sticking to our content guidelines. I also opposed excessive mention of Calibration Constant Shift, which disproves cold fusion if true. Phil153 (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Aqm stated there are something like 40 papers on this aspect of fusion. How many does it take to establish that fusion is observed to occur in metal when struck with a deuteron beam? How many papers are there that claim a magnitude-difference of 130 vs 50? Not to mention you still seem to be missing one of the key points here: To the extent this new data is valid, the old extrapolations are wrong. Period. (And, the article can say so.) Which means more new data needs to be gathered until the correct extrapolation is discovered. And a correct extrapolation is indeed extremely relevant to Cold Fusion!!! (Regardless of whether or not it supports or denies the pro-CF conclusion.) Meanwhile, you (and/or others) still oppose including a description of Arata's 2008 experimental variation on the CF theme (recently supported by additional third-party experiments and secondary RS publication), that involves direct pressurization of metal with deuterium. It is quite obvious to me that that is the ultimate straightfoward extrapolation of a high-intensity low-energy deuteron beam, impacting metal! The topic of Cold Fusion is wider than it is narrow (remember muon-catalyzed fusion?), and desperate attempts to restrict this article only to electrolysis experiments are doomed to fail in the long run. Because even if CF turns out to be a scientific illusion, a complete article will need to review all the different things that were tried! V (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil: could you give a WP ref for the "content guidelines" you are following? From WP:fringe, in notability, "If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future." It seems to me that you and Hipocrite are trying to keep the article at pre-1994 levels and attempt to block anything beyond that date.

BTW you have not identified yourself, your qualifications re this article, or your purpose for being here. From your WP contributions list, it appears that last year about this time you turned WP professional. No substance in the contributions, but corrections (some may be very good - I didn't check), etc. The pattern is like Hipocrite's. Your first "case" appears to be CF. Do you get paid much for your work? Is it fixed salary or by quota. I seem to see about 10 - 30 "contributions" per day. I don't expect to be told who hired you (you may not even know, but it looks like WP). Your work on the disambiguation project was impressive. Are you American or "offshore" hire? Do they check what you write? If not, can you tell us about it.

I'm sorry if these comments are WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, but not very! This is what scientists do for a living.

Hi Aqm. Please review WP:CIVIL, and WP:DICK. I am not paid to edit Wikipedia, your suggestion is both rude and kind of stupid if you look at my edits to the cold fusion article. I have added quite a bit of material that is deemed pro cold fusion by advocates such as User:Pcarbonn (nearly everything crossed on his list in now in the article because of my edits). You're seeing patterns that don't exist and for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Funny that the cold fusion advocates are the ones seeing these non existent patterns...when I opposed the addition of much of Kirk Shanahan's work, he never claimed I was working for Blacklight or SRI. The homeopathists and other fringe advocates make the same claims, it's par for the course. Lack of critical thinking skills, conspiratorial beliefs and belief in fringe topic x go hand in hand.

My work is in optics/materials. I have no expertise in either cold fusion or nuclear physics generally. My interest in editing lies in stopping POV pushers, people with conflicts of interests, or spammers from degrading Wikipedia articles, especially in science topics. If you think that makes me unqualified to edit, consider the difference between our homeopathy articles, written and controlled by editors with broad interests, and those of Citizendium, written and controlled by homeopathy "experts". One is accurate and the other is a very sad joke. Please direct further comments about me to my talk page.

WP:Fringe, WP:Undue and WP:Synth are some of our content policies that your addition runs sly of. I have explained how. If you want further opinions, please start mediation (there is already one active, linked from the top of this page) or an RFC/article. Phil153 (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil> Thank you for the information. A background in optics, and particularly in materials, is important in understanding CF. If you are serious about the balance in WP reflecting a neutral position or that of the population(s), then you need to recognize that these 3 positions may be in serious conflict. Also, recognize those positions are shifting quite rapidly and WP is supposed to shift with them. I will try to work with you to help make that transition in WP as correctly as possible.

I have provided (above in Probability of Reaction) what I believe to be answers to the reasons that you have expressed for reverting my earlier attempts to add new and pertinent data from an adjacent field. I have tried to include quotations and specific points of reference in the citations, since you do not have the time to read them or the rest of the CF literature to see what is common in the field and what is WP:OR. If you are not able to agree with my arguments, then we will need to proceed to the Original Research Noticeboard. If you are specific in your objections, I can address them. If not, I have to guess where you are coming from and end up spending time building a "wall of text" (in Hipocrites complaint) to justify my inclusions against a 2 word edit.Aqm2241 (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Stresses

I read where the electrodes they used has internal stresses which were relieved durign the experiment, releasing energy. Jokem (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is incapable of producing heat in the cell for many, many hours. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Branching ratio

This section has some serious errors. It should read (substantive corrections in bold).

Deuteron fusion is a two-step process,[112] in which an unstable high-energy intermediary (4He*)is formed:

   D + D → 4He*

The 4He* state, is at least 23.8 MeV above the 4He ground state (the lowest and stable level). This energy is the difference between the mass energy of a pair of deuterons (D) and the Helium atom (4He).

High-energy experiments have observed only three decay pathways for this excited-state nucleus, with the branching ratio showing the probability that any given intermediate will follow a particular pathway.[113] The products formed via these decay pathways are:

   n + 3He + 3.3 MeV (50%)
   p + 3H + 4.0 MeV (50%)
   4He + γ(24 MeV) (10−6), where γ is a very-energetic and penetrating gamma ray

Only about one in one million of the intermediaries decay along the third pathway, making its products comparatively rare when compared to the other paths.[76] If one watt of nuclear power were produced from deuteron fusion consistent with known branching ratios, the resulting neutron (n) and tritium (3H) production would be easily measured.[76] These products have been measured, but some "cold fusion" researchers reported different branching ratios or detecting 4He, but without the expected neutron or tritium production. This last result would require branching ratios strongly favoring the third pathway, with the actual rates of the first two pathways lower by at least five orders of magnitude than observations from high-energy experiments.[114]

1) I'll provide a proper reference to replace 112 and maybe 113.

2) The last sentence and a half in the paragraph has been deleted as redundant: the half sentence, because it repeats the first part of its sentence; the last sentence, since it is the subject of the next paragraph.

3) Is high-energy in the last sentence considered WP:SYNTH, if it is not spelled out in ref 114? Aqm2241 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't like getting rid of the sourced statement that the expected gammas were not there. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis, again

It's prohibited synthesis to take what a citation says and then discredit it by looking at it's internal citations - "Rob said that the value of pi was 3.14, but his citations were to a paper in 1992 and 1993, so we can't just say rob said pi was 3.14, we need to say he based it on old studies!" It's original research to take what a source says and then interpret it in a novel way - "This 1998 source looks at 1990 papers, so even in 1998 people were using only 1990 sources!" - you need to find someone who actually says that in a reliable source, not just synthesize it yourself from your understanding of what's True.

It's coming to a point where either new-editors to this article will need to learn how to edit based on wikipedia norms, or someone will have to request that the sanctions on this article be enforced. Hipocrite (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

When an author writes a book or article, it is logical to infer that they are aware of documents available at the time of writing. Unless there is clear information somewhere ("I stopped paying attention to this field a few years ago, but this is what I remember..."), that means that they probably did not use ONLY the sources listed in the bibliography. I also object to the vague phrasing of "authors did this...", especially considering that there is at least one very recent book critical of cold fusion (Sun in a Bottle).

I politely ask Aqm to propose edits that he expects to be controversial here before putting them in the article. Olorinish (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, silly request; almost every edit to this article is controversial! V (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize to Hipocrite and Olorinish. I got carried away when I saw what was being said based on such shody citations. Since I have not been allowed to introduce recent citations, I saw no options to balance the article except by pointing out the fallacies in the existing "story." Unfortunately, facts are not allowed to interfere with the "quality" of a WP article. Therefore, a news item by a society editor stating that people are "really taking a new look at Cold Fusion" is much more acceptable than a count of the number of papers (theory or experiment) in the 15 International Conferences on CF. Independent of the fact that some of the papers are trash, the society editor stating the number makes it acceptable to WP (in your hands), whereas a statement of fact is not.

Many articles in WP are very good. I often use it as a source of readily accessible references. Until now, I did not realize why some people consider it something to be avoided in papers. Recognizing that a good article can be quickly destroyed, I now see that a paper that has an expected lifetime of many years cannot depend on transient citations.

The use of 10 year old articles, based on 15 year old papers, appears to be the present acceptable norm for this article. Therefore, can we retitle it "Historical Cold Fusion" and start a new article "Modern Concepts in Cold Fusion?" Or would you guys block anything from the 21st century in that also?

Hipocrite, you do not seem to have any interest in this article except to have something to control - you've learned the game. And you live up to your ID. I have better things to do with my time. You apparently don't. I'm sorry for you. I never played video games with my son, because it took too much time to learn the tricks and to build the reflexes to be competitive. Why should I take the time to play your games? I'll go back to writing papers that can make a difference. Goodbye.Aqm2241 (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the article "Historical Cold Fusion" would not be accurate considering that it has a lot of discussion of post-2003 events. Olorinish (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A Proposal

How about we create a "Miscellaneous Cold Fusion Information" page, and put a simple link to it in this article? Then, on that page, we write something like this: "Because Cold Fusion is a controversial subject, it can be difficult to achieve consensus regarding what should be written into the main article. But it is not difficult to provide an easy way for the reader to access source information. Read the following at your own risk!" --and then we follow that with a long list of links, all different from those in the main article. V (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a page would probably violate the wikipedia prohibition of link depositories [23] and/or indiscriminate collections of information [24]. Olorinish (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Probability of Reaction

I had added material (2008 ref) to update a sentence that was based on old references (2000 and earlier):

20:54, 23 October 2009 Aqm2241 (talk | contribs) (89,438 bytes) (Updated item 1 in discussion section. A lot of low-energy work has been carried out in the last decade.)

The added material:

However, more recent low-energy measurements indicate that extrapolation from high energies is inappropriate (extrapolated rates are much too low). Sufficient low-energy data does not yet exist to allow reliable extrapolation much below the keV range.

In "undoing" the new material and reference, Hipocrite invited me to explain why I had added the material. (Perhaps in reading this more recent reference of a decade of research he got a wrong impression.) However, I am not sure what he meant by his remark:

21:00, 23 October 2009 Hipocrite (talk | contribs) (88,810 bytes) (This study appears to go the other way. Please explain on talk. Thanks.)

Perhaps, I need to rewrite the sentence to remove any ambiguity.

Also, I am unable to access the reference in the present text, so I cannot tell what is meant by "high energy." Given the date, it could be many MeV. It is unlikely to be below 25 keV. Since the region of concern is in the eV regime, more recent data from the 3-10 keV region should be important if it differs from the extrapolated values for that energy.

I realize that I should also include a reference to the arXiv papers that would be accessible to all. I think that I can find one that is also in a refereed journal.

Aqm2241 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd say that "probability of reaction" is not being appropriately connected to the particle energies, by your modification. See, the products of high-temperature reactions have certain energies (mostly MeV stuff), and no other products or reaction pathways are known to exist. Since in CF experiments the known high-energy products are typically not seen, there is a tendency to conclude that fusion could not be happening. On the other hand, there are all those measurements of excess heat, which need explaining. About the only explanation that makes sense, provided fusion is actually occurring, is, "There is some other reaction pathway than the known/standard three." Such an alternate reaction path could perhaps spread appropriate MeVs of energy among more particles, such that each recipient only has KeV of energy. If the research you are talking about is detecting KeV-energy particles, then it needs to detect ENOUGH of them to add up to the total normal MeV released by fusion. Because deuterium fusion ALWAYS releases a total amount of energy measurable in MeV. V (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Source was Czerski, K.; et al. (2008), "Measurements of enhanced electron screening in d+d reactions under UHV conditions", J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., no. 35, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/35/1/014012 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)

I quote what look like the relevant parts:

From the abstract "The total cross sections and angular distributions of the 2H(d,p)3H and 2H(d,n)3He reactions have been measured using a deuteron beam of energies between 8 and 30 keV provided by an electron cyclotron resonance ion source with excellent long-term stability."

"2. Experimental setup. (...) The Zr target (foil, 1 mm thick) was implanted up to the saturation level close to the chemical stoichiometric ratio of about two (two deuterium atoms per one metal atom). (...)"

"Before the yield measurements started, the target surface was cleaned by means of surface sputtering using 10 keV Ar+ ions. Atomic cleanness of the target surface could be controlled applying Auger electron spectroscopywhich is sensitive for a surface contamination smaller than one monolayer. (...)"

"The ultra-high vacuum has been achieved by a differential pumping system allowing to reduce the gas pressure at the ECR ion source of 2 × 10−7 mbar to a value of 5 × 10−10 mbar in the target chamber. The partial pressure of water vapour—the main source of target oxidation—amounted to about 5 × 10−11 mbar. In spite of the UHV conditions, the target surface had to be sputtered in intervals of several hours of deuteron irradiation, which enhanced the complexity of the experimental procedures. (...)"

"4 Discussion and conclusions. (...) The determined screening energy Ue = 319 ± 3 eV is close to the value of 297 ± 8 eV obtained previously under poorer vacuum conditions [1]. Thus, our UHV experiment confirms the large Ue for the Zr target and does not support the result achieved by the LUNA collaboration of Ue < 40 eV. The same group has recently determined a higher value of the screening energy for Zr of 209 eV (...) measured, however, at an increased target temperature of 200 deg C and with a relatively small target-deuteron density.(...)."

--Enric Naval (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, then I've managed to misunderstand what was being originally talked about in this Section. The actual subject is the amount of kinetic energy needed to overcome electrostatic repulsion such that fusion could happen at all. I'm fairly sure MeVs of energy are not needed for that; I'm pretty sure a Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor creates ion energes of perhaps 20KeV (there is a statement in the fusor article that for deuterium-tritium fusion, 4KeV suffices). I'm interpreting the idea here as indicating that if two deuteron beams collide inside some foil, the properties of the foil reduce the required beam energy, for fusion to occur. If true, cool! --but I need more data to be sure they are actually on-to-something. V (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

keV deuterons can fuse. However, the high-energy data indicates that the probability drops exponentially with incident beam energy. The new data (below 10 keV) indicates that the probability stops dropping in this region. Therefore, the extrapolation from higher energies is incorrect. Since I am unable to access reference 111, and references 108 - 110 are simply not in the bibliography, I have no way of checking the statements. Unless, these reference problems are corrected, the whole section should be rewritten. (It probably should be anyhow, since there are more reasons why the data is incompatible with fusion as viewed by conventional physics.)

V has misinterpreted the experiment which is a simple deuteron beam implanting deuterium into a target and then bombarding that implanted deuterium with deuterium of the same and other energies. The fusion rate is low and thus the statistics are poor without long runs. Long runs give time for contamination to build up. This is the reason for use of the new UHV system. However, they confirm (at least some of) the earlier results showing much higher fusion rates than predicted for low energy interactions. These are very careful conventional nuclear physics experiments that show that earlier predictions (based on extrapolation to this region) to be incorrect. If some predictions based on prior conventional results are wrong, then others are likely to be as well.

I am sure that Hipocrite does not want such papers in the section. However, he has not yet had a comment. Being a newbie in the Wikipedia, can I revert to my addition or amplify/clarify this important contribution? I would probably use this 2008 arXiv ref that is a preprint of a Phys. Rev C article. http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4538 Aqm2241 (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the refs 108-110. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand how this in any way is related to cold fusion by a reliable source. I understand the analysis you are doing, but that's your research. Arxiv is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, the new guy Aqm2241 says this particular Arxiv article is a preprint of something that supposedly eventually appeared (or will appear; how long from May 2008 to actual publication?) in Physical Review C. I'd like to know, if an article is accepted for publication in an RS journal, why the article cannot be referenced before actual publication takes place? One advantage of Arxiv appears to be that articles are accessible without being a registered journal subscriber. So if the article has actually been published, it could be beneficial to Wikipedia readers, to prefer to link to the preprint instead of to the actual article. V (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you are failing to see the connection to the cold fusion article, remember that one of the main arguments against the possibility that it can happen, that argument is derived from a low probability that the reaction can happen at low particle energies. The phrase "50 orders of magnitude" has been in the article for quite some time. The evidence offered by Aqm2241 would indicate that that "50" is significantly larger than whatever actually is the correct value, when deuterons exist inside metal. I won't say that a lower number automatically means CF must be real; I do say that this new data would weaken that particular argument against CF. V (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrite is asking for a reliable source that relates observation of increased fusion rates in metals to the cold fusion subject. Here is such a source : Kim YE, "Theory of Bose-Einstein condensation mechanism for deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in micro/nano-scale metal grains and particles.", Naturwissenschaften. 2009 Jul;96(7):803-11. You can find the PDF by searching the title on google. 130.104.236.154 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"anomalous deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in metals at low energies" not the same as "cold fusion", I suppose, because it's not electrolysis, but cold-fusion supporters consider it a related effect that helps to demonstrate the possibility of CF?. Page 13 of McKubre's report to DOE 2004 had half a page describing similar experiments [25](page 14). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reintroduced the recent data. The arXiv ref is in print in Phys. Rev. C. (There may be 40 journal articles on the topic.) I have altered my text to clarify the nature of the experiment. Thank you: Enric Naval for fixing the references and for the comments above, V for understanding and supporting the use of the arXiv ref, and 130.104.236.154 for the Kim reference (even tho I couldn't find the PDF, it looks as if it should be inserted somewhere?)Aqm2241 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

These sentences were recently added: "However, more recent measurements with lower-energy deuterons indicate that extrapolation from high energies is inappropriate (extrapolated rates are much too low). [112] Sufficient low-energy data does not yet exist to allow reliable extrapolation much below the keV range." "The greatly-enhanced reaction rate is attributed to electron screening."

I looked at the two abstracts and didn't see that they state that extrapolated rates are much too low, or that low eV extrapolation was unreliable, or that the greatly enhanced reaction rate is attributed to electron screening. Could someone point to full copies of the articles, and to relevant text in the articles, or at least post the relevant sentences? Olorinish (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Recently this was the status of the newly added material in the Probability of Reaction section: "One measurement with beams of low-energy deuterons in metal foils found anomalous results where high fusion rates can be achieved with lower energies. The greatly-enhanced reaction rate is attributed to electron screening.[112][verification needed] There is still not enough data to allow reliable extrapolation much below the keV range. Supporters of cold fusion already mentioned similar experiments in the report that was submited to the DOE commission in 2004, as an effect that could explain the results found in cold fusion.Hagelstein et al. 2004:14-15"

I removed all of this. It is not clear from the links that these experiments are relevant to cold fusion, especially considering that the beam energies are so large, so including them is a case of synthesis. If people think the beam experiments are worthy of inclusion, they should be in a separate section in Experimental Details, since they use an entirely different experimental setup that, according to Hagelstein, appears to produce fusion. However, since the only published report mentioned is from 1995, it is likely that this line of research has not been fruitful, so it probably shouldn't be included in this article. Olorinish (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Olorinish, are you making the assumption that the subject of "cold fusion" must ONLY be about electrolysis experiments? Because Arata has certainly widened the definition, as was discussed in a now-archived Section. There is a reason why some CF proponents now prefer the abbreviation "LENR" (low energy nuclear reactions) as a generic topic description. Not to mention, think of the "disconnect" between comparing hot fusion in free space to proposals of fusion occurring inside solid metal --why should ANY of those so-called "reasons why fusion can't happen" be in the article? These deuteron-beam experiments are most certainly about deuterons in solid metal, and therefore are far more connected to the CF topic than the anti-CF "miracles that must happen"! I am therefore going to revert your removal. V (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, you cannot say it is "synthesis" to have it in the artice if the CF proponents talked about it in 2004. 216.54.28.10 (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC) (hmmmm....looks like my log-in timed out between those two edits) V (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like synthesis to me. An experiment said something about shielding. CF proponents said something about shielding. Unless the experiment said something about CF, it's not related to CF. Hipocrite (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If a primary argument against the idea of CF is that nuclei repel each other too strongly at low particle energies, then any mention of shielding by CF proponents, against that repulsion (as happens in muon-catalyzed fusion) is them doing the synthesizing, that the deuteron-beam data indicates solid metal is affecting (reducing) the amount of repulsion, and therefore is a counter-argument, against that primary argument against CF. There is no synthesis by any editor here, about that, if the CF proponents made the connection in 2004. V (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

V, I am not making the assumption that CF only includes electrolysis experiments. I am saying that we should keep the synthesis to a low, reasonable level. Regarding the use of hot fusion results in this article, to me it is obvious that we should use the most relevant data about known fusion events, which happens to come from high energy experiments. Adjustments to extrapolating those results to fusion inside metals may of course need to be made since solids are complicated places. Olorinish (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the links (abstracts only) it is clear that they are relevant for deuterons in metals, but it is not clear that those articles are relevant for cold fusion. This is in contrast to the experiment discussed in the 2004 summary, which proposed that the beams were causing fusion. Asserting that the recently discussed experiments are relevant for fusion is definitely synthesis, especially if the article does not discuss fusion directly. Olorinish (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a synthesis backed by a reliable source (natuurwissenschaften), so I see no reason to exclude it. 91.180.163.210 (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Hipocrite and Olorinish (H&O) are being disingenuous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disingenuous). They apparently have not read (or admit to reading) the particular literature of which the added reference is simply the most recent of over a decade of published work. Yet they delete these additions.

Hipocrite has claimed that the connection between shielding and CF is synthesis. This can be attributed to the fact that there is no theory section in the article (only a discussion section that addresses "inconsistencies"). Why is this? Should I write a theory section based on my 2 publications in refereed journals? Would H & O consider those references to be inadmissible to the article? Could they block, or have they (and/or others) blocked, such an entry (beyond obstructing by simply deleting such entries daily)?

However, in response to their criticism and based on a presently admitted reference (Storm 2007), in a few words I have provided an acceptable basis for this concept of shielding as a major theme in CF. See "(such as electron shielding of the nuclear Coulomb barrier)" in a revised Proposed explanations.

Olorinish claims: "Asserting that the recently discussed experiments are relevant for fusion is definitely synthesis, especially if the article does not discuss fusion directly." The abstracts of the deleted papers talk about 2H(d,p)3H reactions (their experiment). Is this not a direct nuclear fusion process? It takes no synthesis to provide that connection.

Olorinish admits to having read only the abstracts of the papers that I referenced (even tho I included a link to one of the references that permits anyone to see the full arXiv paper, http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4538 by clicking on the pdf link to the paper). Had he bothered to read the paper (which he can do now with the above simple instructions) before deleting it, he would have seen Fig 3, which shows the deviation from old theory below 15 keV. (If he needs help in interpreting these data, he has no business editing this article. But, just to help him out, old models predicts a value of F to remain at 1.) If year-2008, 15 keV, data is irrelevant to the CF discussion, then surely pre-year-2000, multi-MeV, data is irrelevant. In that case one of the 3 inconsistencies must be removed.

By the way, Figure 3 of the accessible paper shows the failure of the old model in the low keV range. Extrapolation of the old model to below 10 keV must therefore be considered incorrect (and inadmissible?). Extrapolation of the new data (because of statistical uncertainty of the data in an exponential function)down to the eV range (of CF) could raise the expected cross section by 10 to 100 orders of magnitude (replot the data on a log-log plot).

In a similar vein, the 1999 references 77 and 108 - 115 are not refereed papers and therefore should be deleted from the article. [Scaramuzzi, F. (2000), "Ten years of cold fusion: an eye-witness account", Accountability in Research 8 (1&2) might be in a refereed book; however, since I cannot access it, I cannot confirm any of its claims. Should it be deleted? Based on "O's" logic for removing my references, it should be!] If these early papers are deleted, all of the section and much of the Wiki article must be rewritten.

Should I begin this process?

If H&O's obstructionist deletions (with flimsy excuses) continue, I will request that their editorial privileges to this article be suspended.Aqm2241 (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Aqm2241 is correct that I had not read the Huke paper when I made my deletions, although I had tried to open the file and had asked for help in reading that paper before doing so [26]. Now that I have read it (at least parts of it), I see that it does mention fusion. As I have mentioned before, I think the wikipedia cold fusion article would be improved if it had some discussion of deuterium behavior inside a metal [27], which is the field of this article. However, its applicability is limited because it describes beam implantation experiments, and because the authors do not (as far as I can see) assert that their results are relevant for low temperature interactions. Perhaps we should mention it briefly by adding a sentence at the end of the "Probability of reaction" paragraph: "However, electron screening has been reported to increase deuterium fusion reactions in metals initiated by deuterium beams. <Huke ref>"

I've been away from Wikipedia over the weekend, and now see some controversy getting close to a boil. Olorinish, I'd like to know how an extrapolation to low particle energies cannot be relevant to the Cold Fusion article. After all, that is exactly what was done in the paragraph that mentioned "50 orders of magnitude" (from experiments that were about deuterons and fusion but not inside metal). Do you deny that deuterium in a CF experiment consists of low-energy particles? So why should experiments that were not done in the "typical" hot-fusion environment, yet involve deuterons and metal and fusion AND extrapolation, not be relevant to this article (which is about claims of deuterons fusing in metal)? V (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, extrapolation to low particle energies can be relevant to a cold fusion article, since that the proposed fusion mechanism is for low energy particles. That is why I proposed a sentence incorporating the Huke reference into the article. Olorinish (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of a reference to Scientific American, that would be inconsistent with the wikipedia policy on reliable sources which states, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed..."

Regarding the Scaramuzzi article, I have not read it and I don't know how to view it online, which I think should count against it when deciding whether to use it in a wikipedia article. However, following AGF, not being easily viewable online doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be used in a wikipedia article. Whether it should be deleted depends on whether there is a reasonable chance it has been misrepresented, and whether synthesis was used in describing it, among other things. Aqm, do you have any reason to think it has been misrepresented or is flawed in some way? Anybody else out there, are you familiar with it, and can you vouch for how it is being used here? It seems to me that both the Huke figure 3 and the quote in the current footnote number 111 could be true. Perhaps there is an enhancement of some amount (figure 3 shows evidence for an enhancement of 2 in reaction yield), but that is not enough to account for 50 orders of magnitude in reaction rate discrepancy.

Responding to 91.180.163.210, I assume you refer to the natuurwissenschaften article mentioned above, but I don't understand your point. Could you explain it?

Finally, in response to the claim that I am "obstructionist," I want to point out that I recently proposed expanding the section on possible explanations [28] [29] and have occasionally made pro-CF edits [30]. Olorinish (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize to Olorinish if I misinterpreted his actions. I was annoyed to see no reference beyond 2000 in an important section critical of CF. Then to have a delete based on abstracts only, when I had specifically included a 1 click access to the full paper, was a bit much. The tone of the article is decidedly anti-CF. To find the most recent reference as a (perhaps) obscure journal that is unavailable ($815/year subscription fee with no guarantee of having access to back issues that are not available for purchase) added insult to injury. There appeared to be a deliberate policy to prohibit the last decade of research in the field - and rapid deletion of such references was the method of implementing that policy.

Olorinish comments (presumably about the recent article) "However, its applicability is limited because it describes beam implantation experiments, and because the authors do not (as far as I can see) assert that their results are relevant for low temperature interactions." Since the main argument against CF in the "Probability of reaction" paragraph is from high energy deuteron beam experiments (MeV range) that correctly predicts results down to the 25 keV range, a violation of that model below that range is critical to the argument. The conventional argument extrapolates the data down to the eV range to get the 50 orders of magnitude referenced. Any data showing such extrapolation to be untenable merits a stronger comment than "electron screening has been reported to increase deuterium fusion reactions." The "factor of 2 enhancement" that Olorinish refers to is at 6 keV. Extrapolation of the new data below that range gives values that vary over 100 orders of magnitude by the eV range. This could allow CF results to fit actual experimental nuclear physics data. However, the data are not yet accurate enough to go this far. Thus my comments in "talk" suggesting removal of the section, if new data are not allowed.

Re the Sci. Am. ref. Apparently following Olorinish's argument, a letter to the editor in Sci. Am. from a crank is a valid ref whereas a paper in arXiv by a senior scientist with 20 years experience in the field is not. Several of the references in the article are editorials or "letters." If they were pro-CF, I am sure that they would not be allowed.

Re Scaramuzzi ref. From the abstracts available, it is in a journal issue devoted to positive results (papers supporting CF). Yet, the comment about 50 orders of magnitude, while correct, is used as a negative comment because it may be taken out of context. The long article (Goodstein, David (1994)) gives Scaramuzzi's pro-CF views. Were Goodstein's excellent article to be pro-CF, it would probably not be allowed, since it is not a reviewed aricle.

If I thought that a theory section (that Olorinish suggested) would be allowed in the article, I would write one. Since I have refereed papers (e.g. K.P. Sinha and A. Meulenberg, Current Science, 91, 907 (2006), http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0603213 that addresses the tunneling issue requested), the normal excuses for eliminating it would not hold. However, constant deletion or dilution of the input would essential keep it out as effectively. The fact that I had just submitted a paper on the deuterium implantation issue (also requested) and had it deleted before any discussion took place makes me pessimistic. Aqm2241 (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am interested to know who exactly Aqm2241 is - given that you have now appealed to your authority ("Should I write a theory section based on my 2 publications in refereed journals?" "Since I have refereed papers") I think it's imperative that you tell us exactly who you are. Additionally, you should also read WP:COI. Hipocrite (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To Hipocrite - have you revealed who you are? Where? Are you an expert, or only an editor? You are the one blocking any new published results (from the last decade, both here and at Nuclear Fusion). I am simply trying to add 3rd party refereed references that are less than a decade old. What are your motives for your editing of this article?

WP:COIstates "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." It seems that you might be implying that being an "expert" in a field eliminates the editor because he has a point of view. And publishing in a field is proof that one is such an expert. (Why would anyone go to the trouble of publishing unless he had a POV?) How does one prove a negative POV for someone who has not published? Turning the POV statement around, "Where blocking development of an article is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I believe that actions are the only "proof."

If you are not an expert, you should not be a contributing editor. (I have not followed the discussion long enough to know if Hipocrite is a contributing editor - or only a "deleting" editor. Perhaps someone in the group of editors, who has been here long enough to know, can give me an opinion on that subject (unless a negative comment would be construed as a personal attack and result in their being "barred").

I have a PhD in nuclear physics with nearly 40 years experience in the aerospace industry. I have coauthored 3 papers on CF in refereed journals (many more in unrefereed journals). The first, nearly 2 decades ago, questions some electro-chemical aspects of the F-P experiment. The more recent papers address the issue of overcoming the d-d Coulomb barrier. My present work is concerned with overcoming a problem posed by CF data that violates more fundamental aspects of nuclear physics. Since this problem could not be published in most refereed journals (rejected as being CF related), it should not be included in the Wikipedia under present guidelines and scrutiny. (Although, being negative, I am sure that it might be publishable and would be unchallenged in this topic. If so, I would be happy to contribute a 4th item in the "Inconsistencies with conventional physics" section.)

I clearly have a POV - I want to see a balanced picture of the subject. I am retired and therefore I have no financial or academic restrictions or incentives on my publication history. Living modestly, I am financially independent and have no need or desire to personally profit from the success of CF. I, as most people actively involved in research (of which CF is only a portion in my case), have more important things to do than to fight with people on this site. This gives a tremendous advantage to those who wish to (or are paid to) block further development of the topic by deletions supported by 1 sentence comments (maybe). (A random sampling of 10 of his prior posts has not revealed any constructive additions to the topic by Hipocrite. Could a couple be pointed out so that I can believe that he is really trying to improve the article?)Aqm2241 (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I second the call by Hipocrite for the self-identification of Aqm2241. I have a problem with someone who reads the current article and thinks it is antiCF when in fact it is very, very pro-CF, and who then reacts agressively when challenged. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Big Grin --hey Kirk, if an anti-CFer thinks the article is too pro-CF and if a pro-CFer thinks the article is too anti-CF, then perhaps the truth is actually closer to balance than either is willing to admit.... V (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can state why an uninformed reader of the current article would be able to correctly state why CF has not been accepted by the mainstream today, then perhaps I am too critical of the proCF stance of the current article. Note that the idea that the hot fusion theory, even when extended to lower energy regimes as Aqm2241 wants to include, is not applicable to the CF discussion is a given, agreed to by all, as stated in my item 'D' of my 'To-do' list as posted here 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC) and reposted on 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC). 192.33.240.30 (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry forgot my login had timed out. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer is "difficulties replicating the claimed results", and I'm sure the article says as much, including describing some if not all of the types of difficulties. In the discussions here I have opposed your own pet difficulty (CCS) first on the grounds you didn't originally explain it clearly enough, and second on the grounds that it cannot be true in the very few cases where the electrolyte boils (actual not illusory heat has to exist for that to happen), and third on the grounds that you can't explain why CCS never occurs in control experiments to the same extent you claim it occurs in the main experiments. I was not, however, one of those who reverted your attempts to add text about it. My personal policy is that data should generally be included, not excluded. It merely needs to be sensible and consistent with other data. CCS by itself is a fairly sensible idea, but it can't explain everything. If it is added to the article, its weaknesses need to be added, too! "Data should generally be included, not excluded." Got it?

Next, you are still not saying something clearly enough. The article as-is certainly extends hot-fusion theory to low-energy levels in its explanation of why Cold Fusion shouldn't be able happen in electrolysis cells. What you wrote above implies it should be removed. OR it implies you support the hypocrisy of keeping that anti-CF stuff while rejecting any pro-CF description of possible flaws in one or more of those arguments (the essence of the stuff Aqm2241 wants to add). Since I support data-inclusion, I support keeping the existing anti-CF stuff and adding whatever relevant new information comes along, be it either pro-CF or anti-CF. It just happens that in recent years most of the new stuff has been pro-CF. Time will pass and the new stuff will either be verified or refuted. The article shouldn't care how it turns out; it just needs to include data impartially, to keep readers up-to-date! V (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer is much more detailed than you suggest, and you know this because we have discussed it ad nauseum. So, your comments above are disingenuous and form no basis for me retracting my statement that the article is heavily biased on the ‘pro’ side.

The article could be easily altered to address Aqm’s concern. In the section under discussion you change ‘50’ to ‘many’ and add a correct reference to the paper she cites, and voila!, issue solved. What the real problem here is is the way Aqm has attempted to ‘join’ the debate. She violated multiple etiquette rules in editing the article without prior discussion and then attacking people (Hipocrite) who objected. It seems clear she came here with an agenda in mind. On that basis alone any edits by her should be reverted. They might be included later after appropriate discussion, but that remains to be seen, as she has violently resisted this approach. Also, her ‘call to authority’ certainly justifies the request for revelation as to his true identity.

V, you continue to be a roadblock to a balanced and informative article on cold fusion. Your other name should be 'Obstructionist', not 'Objectivist'. I will not argue with you further. I have already conceded that you fanatic CFers outnumber me. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course you have to quit arguing with me; the illogic of your existing CCS argument can't beat actual logic. I stand by what I wrote, you can't explain why CCS never occurs in control experiments (using protium) to the same extent you claim it occurs in the main experiments (using deuterium). So, as long as you think CCS needs to be mentioned in the article without also mentioning flaws like that, I will oppose you. Add it flaws and all, and I will support you. Because perhaps it does explain some of the experiments. V (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Viscosity and adhesion. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but a very-much-incomplete argument. The Viscosity of cold ordinary water can easily exceed the viscosity of warm Heavy water, they are so nearly the same value when at the same temperature. And their surface tensions (can be related to adhesion) are even more nearly the same. V (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gosh darn! You're right. Ordinary water at -20C will be more viscous than heavy water at 50C. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Can you cite a source for that?? Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I did already; see the Viscosity and Heavy water links above? The data was in those articles. Now, as how the data got into those articles, I didn't check. Anyway, the point is, I don't see that the viscosity and surface tension aspects of water vs heavy-water are different enough to explain the difference between CCS affecting the outcome of a CF experiment, and not appearing at all in a control experiment; your argument is very-much-incomplete without such an explanation. (Note the surface tension of D20 is slightly less than regular H20 at the same temperature; to the extent it is related to adhesion then H20 should stick to the electrodes better than D20, allowing more heat to build up in the control experiment, not less.) V (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

if you want to appear impartial i suggest refraining from the use of copious superlatives. Kevin Baas^talk 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would you ever presume I want to remain 'impartial'? I have never said that, I have said many times my objective was to bring balance to the article by adding the antiCF side of the story, which I have never been allowed to do due to comments like yours and other actions by Wikilawyers like Pcarbonn, Abd, and V (and often yourself). 192.33.240.30 (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry forgot my login had timed out. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Because if your aim is truly to bring balance, as you say, then in order to do so you must be able to remain objective in spite of any personal biases. Being objective means being able to judge information, ideas, etc. in a way that is not partial to any given side. That does not mean that you have to spend exactly 50% of your time working on material that supports one view and 50% working on the other view. That means that whatever material you happen to be working, you have to honestly judge by the same rules and standards as you would any other material, and by the same interpretations as wikipedia's rules and guidelines, etc. that's what impartiality means, and without it, no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to achieve your goal of a balanced article. You do not need to be impartial on what you write about - we all have our different strengths and different areas that we can contribute in. But you DO need to try be impartial in how you EVALUATE it. Those are the rules. (And it's just good practice when it comes to thinking about anything, anyways.)

Having said that, I didn't say you need to be impartial or even try to be impartial, i just presumed that you should like to appear impartial. And by that I mean appear as if you can and want to critically evaluate what's being discussed, because if it doesn't appear that you can or want to people aren't going to listen to what you have to say. And I presume that you want people to listen, otherwise what would be the point of your speaking? And again I don't mean that you have to refrain from stating your opinions and what not. Just that I would think that you should like people to have faith that you can reason without being unduly influenced by them. Am I wrong? Kevin Baas^talk 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When you walk up to a see-saw with a big pile of rocks on one side only, it is trivial to see that the see-saw is unbalanced. To balance it, you can do two things, remove all the rocks from one side or add rocks to the other. In our case, if we removed all the rocks we would have only a limited history of the event left (the see-saw itself), so the only practical option is to add rocks to the other side. Especially since all the rocks already on are so nice and pretty (at least in some people’s opinion, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, right?). So, I began adding rocks. But, the people who put all the rocks on the other side didn’t like me ‘playing’ with them, so they knocked all the rocks I had added off. I tried again, and they knocked them off again, etc. To add my chosen rocks to the other side does not require me to know anything about the other rocks except about how much they weigh and about how many there are. I don’t have to do anything to the other rocks at all. I just work on my side to balance out the see-saw. Truth be told, the rocks on the other side aren’t as pretty as my rocks, nor as nicely shaped, or piled nearly as neatly. I definitely prefer my rocks to theirs. But, I don’t go over and knock their rocks off. That’s just rude.

Now, in the real world I do have to know a little about the supposed facts that people have placed in the article to support the cold fusion position, because if I add irrelevant material it will correctly be deleted. However, Wikipedia’s rules have been misused to severely limit the facts and figures that I wanted to add to the article to counterbalance all the supposedly fine work done ‘proving’ the nuclear version of the story. I persisted for some time thinking that logic would prevail, but I was roundly disappointed. In the end, almost no one will know who contributed to the article, so Kevin, I am not interested in who does or doesn’t realize it was me adding things. I just wanted a balanced article, which y’all ain’t got now. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: "In the end, almost no one will know who contributed to the article,": true, but the goal is to have "the end" come sooner, and for that one needs to concern themselves with what happens now. Kevin Baas^talk 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. What are you talking about? Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that if one seeks to reach one's ends quickly and accurately, one must carefully consider the means, for no end is reached without means. A hasteful speaker may need to utter few words to speak their mind, but that will certainly not be the last time they speak before their task is complete. A careful and eloquent speaker, on the other hand, may take longer to speak, but need speak only once, and thus will finish first. Tortoise and the hare. Castles made of sand. I'm sure there are many more parables and what not with the same idea. Really just a tangent, though. I didn't need to reply and probably shouldn't have. Kevin Baas^talk 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear sir; Please stop insulting me. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, have you considered the possibility that your actions might have been insulting to others? I see you utterly ignored my earlier point that if in 2004 the CF proponents mentioned the deuteron-beam-into-metal experiments, as support for CF, then that qualifies as verifying, using the words you wrote when you reverted my reversion, "that it has something to do with cold fusion". Aqm2241 even offered a reference (part of the deleted text). How can you possibly delete a reference associated with a claim, and then ask for verification the claim was made, without your action being a kind of insult??? V (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have. I try to insult as little as possible. I don't engage with you because I can't figure out a way to do it without being insulting. I'll continue that policy here. Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you plan on continuing a policy of insulting-via-actions, regardless of words, why shouldn't you be banned? I see you are still avoiding explaining how your reversion-action could have been anything other than biased censorship of facts --the kind of thing that causes POV-pushers to deserve to be banned. V (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A single purpose disruptive account which does little but kibbitz with the most disruptive elements of this article thinking I'm engaged in "biased censorship of facts," is pretty much a badge of honor. Oops, there I go with the insulting you. Sorry about that. I'll stop commenting. Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you aren't capable of insulting me in any manner that would bother me; true insults require personal knowledge of the recipient, and you have none of me. Meanwhile, stupid lies are easily shown to be such, regardless of who states them. (That's what makes them stupid lies instead of ordinary lies.) I use my Wikipedia account mostly for discussing things; sometimes I edit something. The evidence-of-the-moment suggests you use your account to delete stuff without bothering to offer a sensible explanation why (and you still don't offer an explanation after being specifically asked for it); who is being more disruptive??? V (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected a recent entry on work in a field pertaining to CF. (My thx to whoever made the insertion.) I have also requested that, based on his history, Hipocrite be banned from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion. If any one agrees (or disagrees) with me (before or after reading my reasons stated in that talk), I would appreciate their comments there.Aqm2241 (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I missed Shanahan's earlier comments. I am new to editing Wikipedia topics. I apologize if I offended anyone by my presumption. I was not aware of the need for "discussions" as a prelude to adding references. It never occurred to me that "permission" was needed to add recent publications to a section that had most recent references nearly 15 years old. I thought that my edit summary was sufficient. When Hipocrite deleted my entry and showed that he did not understand it, I was unaware at the time that unless a delete or revert is imposed, a request for information might not be noticed. However, I opened this discussion topic and tried to explain the meaning of the reference. Debate followed - and polarized. Nothing was discussed about putting the refs back in. Attempts were blocked. The article is not improved. (By the way, is discussion not required for reversions as much as additions?)

The explanation is that this particular article is much more about a controversial topic, than is the average Wikipedia article. Therefore discussion of a proposed change, first, is highly recommended. V (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Shanahan's suggested solution doesn't quite work. The 50 orders of magnitude is a quote from a legitimate reference. The reference mentions extrapolation - but not to what energy. If extrapolated to room temperature, the real value should be over 130 orders of magnitude. Both are too close to zero to matter. The important point of my adding the new reference was to indicate that the model used 20 years ago is no longer valid. There is 15 years of non-CF data and at least 2 modifications involved in correcting this earlier model and the perception in many nuclear physicist's minds. However, experiments of the type that nuclear physicist will except can no longer be extrapolated. How do we show that within the framework of a divided editorial board?

Hypocrites most recent reversion to my new attempt to address the issue is based on "synthesis." This raises some points.

  1. I have stated that 20 legitimate references and 3 groups (of more than 20 non-CF physics)
have confirmed the new results. Only 10 papers are specifically identified (in the reference that
I supplied) as agreeing. Is it necessary to put 20 references (out of perhaps more than 

50) into the paper. Or is is sufficient to prove it in discussion and keep the article from becoming too bulky. Since the result is target-material dependent, and some materials agree with the original model, should the experiments be classified as failures and rejected?

  2. If 3 of the papers report the same results, but do not declare them anomalous, can I only 

say that 7 have confirmed the difference from the old theory (adding the other 3 would be synthesis)?

  3. In technical papers, are equations considered to be "statements" that can be quoted? What
about values from substitution of variables? Is this considered to be synthesis to substitute 
 a different temperature or energy into an equation than is actually talked about in the paper?
  4.  Can a reference figure be "interpreted" as a language; or is that original research and
only statements by the authors allowed. A scientist does not need to "state" that extrapolation of
the data beyond a point is meaningless, if he shows a figure with error bars
that will make a figure "blow" up beyond that range. Does Wiki allow that such a statement by
an editor must be considered synthesis?

I think that you see the problem. An obstructionist, with 2 words, can block a legitimate change or force 2 days work that can be undone with 2 new words. How do I respond to Hipocrite's revert? He won't discuss the issue. He just waits for the next attempt and reverts it as well.

Is this sufficiently well discussed to put the reference and comments back in?Aqm2241 (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, your comment is way too long for me to respond to in a point-by-point format, but just to let you know, the CF article has been a battleground for the last year or so. I lost. I tried to add a section on the conventional explanations for all the effects noted by CFers and claimed to ‘prove’ a nuclear cause. But, I was ‘Wikilawyered’ to death. In part, that’s what you’re getting now. For my own part, I will not be editing anything you write, so you can safely ignore me. However, my point is that your addition is irrelevant and/or moot. It was stipulated long ago that hot fusion theory does not apply to cold fusion. You just change the playing field a little, but your keV beams are still way way far away from chemical reaction energies, which is all that is available under standard cold fusion experimental conditions. In fact, I have complained long ago that the whole ‘Probability of Reaction’ section was a waste of space for that reason and you see how much that got me. You’re correct, anyone can block your edits. Welcome to Wikipedia. You just have to see if people let you put them in. But the article is still grossly biased towards the supposed reality of cold fusion, and no one seems to want to change that, so I have given up. Hopefully I won’t feel the need to further respond here. P.S. You still need to identify yourself. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain where the reference mentions cold fusion? Quotes would be helpful. I further suggest that you stop calling people names ("obstructionist" and what not) Thanks. Additionally, it's almost impossible to evaluate your questions about wikipedia without examples of what you want to change about the article. Perhaps if you were to make short clear proposals on this talk page we could discuss them. Finally, as I previously stated, I'm happy to engage in discussion with you here, as long as you remain civil. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, it is not necessary for a reference article to mention cold fusion, for it to be relevant to this article. For evidence, see the links (to other Wikipedia articles) in the first paragraph of the main article. Hardly any of those articles mention cold fusion, yet they are linked because they offer relevant information. Now I'm aware that there is an invisible line across which one can shout "synthesis!" and say that a reference cannot be directly linked. However, if someone else outside of Wikipedia has done and published the specified synthesis, then we can reference that. In this particular case I think that Aqm2241 provided a 2004 reference indicating that the pro-CF people had indeed done this particular synthesis, and therefore no objection to this deuteron-beam data, on those grounds, can hold water. V (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpea. I started the 'Obstructionist' thing. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted Aqm2241's reinsertion of the material, it was (very obvious, to me) synthesis per WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources would be needed for most of the material that was added. In response to your specific questions, I would say that all that you listed is synthesis; you can get other impartial opinions at the Original Research Noticeboard Phil153 (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil, maybe a compromise similar to what I discuss here would be good. [31] What do you think? Olorinish (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil153, Thank you for pointing me to WP:SYNTH. Could you please address the numbered issues above. For example, item 4 addresses figures and other forms of representing data and trends. WP says:'"Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing."' Therefore, replotting data on a different scale would not be synthesis, it would be "rephrasing source material." Interpreting the results differently than did the author would be considered original research and/or citing oneself (unless another reference can be found to support the point). Likewise for item 3. Plotting an equation from the text onto a plot from the text that has no such plot could be questionable. Extrapolation of an existing curve might be questionable - unless the equation for the curve is provided in the text.

Phil153, could you help me on item 1? Since 10 references are identified in one citation and 1 - 15 in others, is it required to write "10 publications, from 3 groups of researchers, last year; 15 publications, from 2 groups of researchers, in 2006; and 7 publications, from 2 groups of researchers,in 2002; and one paper from 1992" to get the same point across? The problem (other than the obvious misuse of the Wiki requirements of such an action) is that, because there is an overlap in the referenced groups and papers, the implied information could be incorrect. To state, in this context, that one experiment (identified by a citation) makes this claim, while true, is a clear violation of the intent of the paper and should be classed as POV.

RE item 2, pls address this. Perhaps it is synthesis to say that the 3 citations (that have data showing the anomaly, but do not use that word) confirm the anomalous behaviour. On the other hand, if the data are plotted and display significant deviation from the theoretical curve, I would contend that the paper has "said" that the behavior is anomalous (unless otherwise stated).

If you wish to further contest my inserted sentences point by point (as being synthesis), please address the items and then we can go to the Original Research Noticeboard on the issue. In the near future (how long does the noticeboard take and is it only advice or does it have some authority?), I will undo your revert unless you can convince me otherwise (or provide a viable option - which I might accept and even welcome).

Kirk, could you give me a time frame for the period that you were trying to introduce refs for the alternative explanations to CF. I might try to reintroduce the issue, since I much prefer people looking for alternatives rather than blanketly denying the validity of all CF data. I disagree with you about the importance of the discussion section. CFers are always hit over the head with the "3 inconsistencies." Thus, they are sensitive to the issue and might also like them removed from the table. So I would be surprised if they would obstruct such a change. However, the 3 inconsistencies (plus at least 1 more) are legitimate "targets" that must be addressed. That is one of the reasons that I am trying to add a reference or two.

The high energy (>10MeV) data is what shapes the nuclear physicist's mind. Generally, it is on what their argument is based. "Legitimate" (i.e., non-controversial) keV data forces them to rethink that issue. So, while I agree with you that hot fusion does not relate directly to CF, it has provided the nuclear energy levels and the framework within which CF needs to be addressed. (We have no other large conventional data base. The CF data base is growing; but, at the present rate, it would take millenia to get to the same size as that of present nuclear physics.)

If "identification," meaning name as well as credentials, is a legitimate request on Wiki, then I will be happy to comply. Aqm2241 (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Time frame: For the first go ‘round or the second? I first tried to add some balance to the article in April 2006. My contributions at that time were shunted to a side article by Pcarbonn, a currently banned editor. I protested that to no avail. So after awhile I left, thinking, “Well, at least the info is there.” Then I checked back a few months later and found that the side article had been deleted. All my contributions were gone. Checking out what happened, since the missing contributions were recovered by Abd and are now on his page, I see that the side article was branded POv and OR and etc., and was deleted in Oct. 2006. pretty good tactics on Pcrbon’s part wouldn’t you say? I did not pursue the issue.

Then in July of 2008, I was asked to put the ‘skeptics’ position in for balance by Steve Krivit (7/9/08 18:02). I decided to try it. Big mistake. I first significantly edited the article in Sept. of 2008. My changes were immediately block deleted by Pcarbonn. I have been in a running battle since then. Note that my oft stated position is that the CFers should get their say, and I and any other skeptic should also. I proposed separate sections of the article (history, the pro side, the anti side) with pros and antis being disallowed from editing the other section (history is neutral, anyone could edit). In the end about the only thing that has happened is that my 3 papers are still referenced, with no explanation of their significance. To be clear, my general position is that ALL of the purported evidence for a low energy nuclear reaction can be easily attributed to conventional chemical effects, and that the CFers refuse to pursue those effects, pursuing instead only a ‘nuclear’ solution. Do you think the article makes any of that clear, that there are conventional explanation available but unpursued by the CFers?

Beams: Next time a CFer friend of your gets beat over the head about the hot fusion theory, tell them to look at the ‘beater’ with doe-eyes and say ‘So what?’. The high energy physicist will be unable to answer that question intelligently. Which points out why the whole Probability of Reaction section is a waste of space, including your proposed mods to it. But in fact, the idea that anyone os still saying this to them is a bit of a canard. The only time that gets said is when the reporters dig up one of the guys who participated in 1989-90. Generally speaking, I haven’t seen one of them who is up-to-date.

Identification: As you are well aware Wikipedia, at best, only ‘forces’ people to sign their posts. (That isn’t even really a requirement.) You have done that. Wikipedia rules require no more. But, as Hipocrite noted, you have asserted that you have relevant publications and you are an expert. We have no way to confirm that unless you uncloak. I for one would like to check your assertions. I find CFers routinely assert things for which there is no extant evidence. I want to Google Scholar you and see what your pubs are and how you are tied in to the CF field. You have that option available for me. It is professionally courteous to identify yourself. If you don’t, I (and others) will be forced to conclude you have a reason to not do so, and given the antagonistic way you have entered the scene, we all would suspect a sock puppet of a banned user. As I said I am not into opposing anyone with other than words, but I would suspect such behavior on your part would lead to continued difficulty. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aqm2241,

Let me try and explain this. You insertion is WP:SYNTH because it uses published material not about the subject of the article to try and advance a position. This policy is in place to stop editors from "picking and choosing" published articles that don't mention the topic, in order to spin the article to their favor. For example, if I cited something that said "long period calorimetry is highly unreliable", for which there are numerous non cold fusion sources supporting exactly that statement, that would be violating WP:SYNTH because it picks and chooses material unrelated to the topic, introducing bias. However, if I quoted a paper or an expert discussing cold fusion and making the same claim, that is not synthesis. Make sense?

In addition to that, you've selectively quoted parts of the paper to support your position while not including highly relevant parts that detract from it. For example, the paper you use as your source states: "A material dependence is conceivable though a small effect. Otherwise it would have been already discovered given that...nuclei of importance have been investigated in multiple chemical compounds including pure metals for decades". Contrast this with your (unquantified) text: The greatly-enhanced reaction rate is attributed to electron screening. Your addition is full of synthesis and does not belong in the article, in my humble opinion, and the opinions of others, who have reverted it. Phil153 (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil, there is one aspect of the CF situation that the paper likely doesn't address. The deuteron beam pushes lots of deuterons fairly quickly into a small region of a relatively larger piece of metal. Since we know hydrogen can migrate through metal, it follows that as soon as the spot hit by the deuteron beam gets "full" (a.k.a. "loaded") enough, migration to surrounding regions will keep that spot from getting fuller (max loading at that spot depends on beam intensity, of course). Meanwhile, an ordinary CF experiment affects the whole surface area of a piece of metal. Loading happens/exists at the same rate/level all over it. So, while it might be fairly easy to get a high level of loading at one spot with a deuteron beam, the total amount of fusion, if it happens and is helped by the metal, is going to be harder to detect than the total amount of fusion that might happen in a loaded-throughout-to-the-same-high-level piece of metal. And we all know, here, about how difficult it has been to prove that fusion has been happening in ordinary CF experiments! V (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you really mean to phrase that last sentence that way, V? It reads as the equivalent of "Fusion is happening, but it's been hard to prove." Hardly objective, is it?LeadSongDog come howl 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was in a bit of haste; had/have other things to be doing. Note that if fusion hasn't been happening, then of course it would be difficult to prove that fusion has been happening. I think that's what I had in mind when I wrote that. V (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First to Kirk: I can now understand why you want a name. Too easy to make unsupportable claims. I am Andrew Meulenberg. I would suggest that arXiv would be a good place to start for my recent work. ArXiv doesn't like me (because I have published CF papers and they have to put them in the arXiv), so several of my other papers (non-CF) have been rejected as "inappropriate." Others have been relegated to general physics instead of the appropriate condensed matter physics. Now that I am more publicly identified as pro-CF, I may find other blocks ahead. For other recent work, go to http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/time-to-build-a-first-look-at-the-initial-plan/ and search for meu. The 2008 and 2009 presentations have been recommended to go into Acta Astronautica. If you are interested in "out-of-the-box" space systems, I can send you reprints. Re your earlier attempt: I'll take a look at it to see about its reinsertion. (Maybe we can compromise with a "horse trade." I may learn politics yet!)

Next to Phil: Thx for explaining your reasoning on synth. However, the sentence prior to my intended insertion is "Extrapolating from known rates at high energies..." Even tho my ref doesn't have the words cold fusion in it, it is a rebuttal to the prior sentence. In a court of law, I believe rebuttal is allowed. If the high-energies sentence were not there, my insertion might be synth. Now I have another question for you. The authors of my reference have presented a paper on this subject at a cold-fusion conference and have an earlier paper in the arXiv that spells out the connection. (Because of that statement their paper could not be published in their normal journal. They pulled the statement and it was immediately accepted in another journal.) Neither of these sources (arXiv or ICCF proceedings) is considered to be a legitimate Wiki citation in the present environment. Nevertheless, they prove that the authors have, with intent, made the connection and I have not synthesized the connection. Is that acceptable? If I get a quote directly from the authors and show where the sentence is included in the arXiv and deleted from the published paper, would I need to include all of that info in the topic to prevent the citation from being deleted? Or is it sufficient to include it in the discussion? Kirk, perhaps you can see some of the source of "antagonism."

Re selective quotes: Phil, I believe you misread or misinterpreted the "small effect" quote. At 25 keV, it is negligible. At 10 keV, it can be a factor of two. If extrapolated to 100 eV, it would be many orders of magnitude. (Look at the figures.) This "small effect" is the active research area of several groups and more than 10 publications. It could only be funded because it is important in astrophysics. BTW the 50 orders of magnitude are from a paper by a pro-CFer. Is it therefore considered "out-of-context?" It is referring to a real problem that CF has with conventional models. If the citation (ref 108) were readily available, the connection for including keV range experiments would be clear. However, stating such a POV in the article would be called (WP:SYNTH). If ref 108 or another ref states that "low-energy data is required to understand CF," would that be sufficient to eliminate the SYNTH argument? Could I then include such data from a different ref. that does not have cold fusion in the text? Would I have to add an additional sentence and citation to include the connection in the article so that 2 weeks from now someone else won't pull it out for the same reason?

Phil, do you still claim that the citation is not about the subject? If so, the previous sentence (50 orders of magnitude) is not about the subject either; it is simply words out of a paper that is on the subject of cold fusion.Aqm2241 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, given that the CF article is too long already, could you consider putting your explanation of the CF results as a new subject (I'm not sure of the best title)? Does being the author of a new article give the "owner" any special rights? The new article could include both CF models and alternatives (satifying Olorinish's, yours, and my desires) and would be linked from the "Proposed explanations" section in this article. Unfortunately, few models have been allowed in WP-allowed citations (although that will change in the next year). Would lists of titles or abstracts (in non-allowed references) be allowed in such an article - to indicate the breadth of interest and ideas? Perhaps Storms' book would provide a basis for much of such a discussion. BTW, if Storms' book refers to a citation, can we use it in the same context as he did? I think that it becomes a secondary reference in that case. I think that lists of papers to be presented at conferences are allowed. I'm not so sure about lists that also contain the abstracts.

I have reintroduced my refs and comments to the article. I think that there is sufficient evidence described above to prove that the refs pertain to CF and that these comments are not synthesis [e.g., Screening is described in "Storms." Association with energetic d-d experiments is referred to in "Scaramuzzi" and prior sentence in the Topic (which I have expanded to clarify the use of extrapolation)].

As mentioned before (and discussed above), the ArXiv citation is also in Phys. Rev C; but, via the arXiv, this WP-allowed PRC citation is accessible to the interested public - not just the scholars.Aqm2241 (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see no such "evidence". This is a contentious topic under discretionary sanctions and you have reinserted for the third time something for which there is no consensus. I think hypocrite's changes are a fair compromise, but probably still introduce too much weight to the fringe viewpoint. This is a section on why conventional physics rejects cold fusion as plausible, and the electron screening model is certainly not accepted theory. It's a weak synthesized pseudo-rebuttal from the fringe perspective in an article which doesn't mention cold fusion and in my opinion gives too much weight to it. Please read WP:FRINGE. Phil153 (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, WP:UNDUE sets out some of the concerns I have about your additions, far better that I can. Phil153 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you stated:"I suggest that AqM engage on talk as opposed to wall of text." Could you explain what you mean by that. I had comments up on talk for 2 days w no response. I put the reference back in and before I had a chance to comment on talk, you had reverted it (within the hour) and added a blocking change (within another minute, but you were right - it needed doing). Now that I have added additional material on talk, would you care to "engage."

Specifically, you have challenged the arXiv ref (as did Phil). Objectivist replied to your 1st comment. You did not respond. I replied to Phil's deletion of my reentry of the ref for the same reason (re: arXiv, had he not read Objectivist's comments? - if so, why no talk?). Neither he nor you responded. You have now deleted it again without any "talk." (Your comment "Arxiv not a reliable source. If it was published in phys rev c, cite that" was constructive. It is not talk.)Aqm2241 (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I have been asked to provide name and credentials to edit this article. I have complied. I assume that you and Hipocrite have done the same. Could you please provide me with the reference points? I need to know if I'm talking with scientists or professional critics. Kirk has provided his reasons for being here. They are valid and I can respect them and him. As a result, I would work with him to achieve, at least some of, his goals. I would like to be able to do the same for you and Hipocrite. I'll respond to your Points above once I know better where you are coming from.Aqm2241 (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am neither. Moving on, please stop synthesizing sources using your original research. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Screening as a point of discussion: Some editors think that electron screening is SYNTH because they apparently don't know the CF literature and, in this article, it is only mentioned in Hegelstein's DOE citation. I plan to introduce "Laser Stimulation of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions in Deuterated Palladium," K.P.Sinha and A.Meulenberg, Current Science, Vol. 91, No. 7, 10 October 2006, pp.907-912 as a WP-approved secondary source that assumes electron screening is a critical point in CF. The paper repeatedly addresses the issue (e.g., "Inclusion of effective-charge reduction from electron screening raises the cross section by another 7-10 orders of magnitude." ) as anyone familiar with the CF literature knows. You will note that CF is never mentioned in the cited paper (for political reasons). However, LENR (for Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions as mentioned earlier in this WP Cold Fusion article) is clearly mentioned in the text. Therefore, electron screening in CF should never be considered SYNTH again. Aqm2241 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Citing yourself is beyond poor form. Hipocrite (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So is claiming OR, when it is not. I think my "WP-legal" violation of "form" is needed - to counter your "legal" attempts to block my improvement of the article. You think your actions are needed - for whatever reason. Aqm2241 (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

added ref - see "screening" above. Aqm2241 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I cited myself too. Unfortunately, Wikipedia rules are in conflict with scientific practice where it is common for someone to cite their relevant work when discussing a topic. This is another example of how the Wikilawyers win. It might be instructive for editors to consider how Andrew's and my work would have been included in the article if we had not pointed it out.

To Andrew, I am not interested in editing the article. After two attempts it is clear to me that the proCF crowd will win becasue there are more of them and they are more fanatical, and becasue Wiki's rules make it difficult to address controversial issues like this. I still feel the Probability of Reaction section is extraneous.

To V, again you miss the point, as usual. That comes from not reading the information you are discussing.

To J, your 4 points are totally incorrect. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

To Kirk: I almost gave up for the same reason. If we all gather together and get rid of the technical lightweights, we might have a good article again. Hipocrite seemed proud of his lack of scientific background. Phil declined to answer (probably on the grounds that it would tend to incriminate him). Neither gave a reason for their being here. I assume that there may be editors on the pro side that are in the same boat. I think that they are here on a "power trip" and the article suffers from it.

Did you get a chance to read my suggestion about your starting a new topic on CF theory (pro and con). I can contribute one of my papers to both sides of that topic. So if some of the contestants in this present topic have no technical background, but can count up to 2, they can't claim WP:COI. On the other hand, since this is considered fringe science, they may insist on 10 articles against CF for every on for it. Frankly, I don't think that there are that many papers that have sought to explain the PF data rather that to debunk it. You may be more familiar with them. I think that I can add a few more that have been published.

I intend to reinsert my earlier comments re the recent low-energy fusion work. My quotations here are for those who are not technically inclined and/or cannot get the information from the citations.

Re: recent publications showing 1) data that differs from the early 1990's model on which much of the objection to CF is based; 2) data spread and error limits indicating the difficulty extrapolating to energies below the keV range (in particular, fig 5); and 3) the screening values presented (e.g., fig 5) are based on curve fitting of data to the exponential correction (in Bold) in the next reference. Huke et. al. have 20 citations referring specifically to such experimental results. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.78.015803; Ref to Fig 5 for data, uncertainties, and fitting curves. Replotting the data and curves on a semilog plot is allowed as "restating the text." Would such a figure be useful in the article?

Re: Showing the relation of screening with LENR and the observed functional dependence for the "correction." From Czerski et. al.: "1. Introduction The enhanced electron screening effect was observed for the first time in the 2H(d,n)3He and 2H(d,p)3H reactions preceding in metallic environments [1 - 1997]. An exponential-like increase of experimental reaction cross sections for decreasing projectile energies could be explained as a result of shielding nuclear charges by surrounding electrons leading to a reduction of the Coulomb barrier in terms of a so-called screening energy Ue."Aqm2241 (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Aqm, any such insertion should be limited in scope. As I have suggested, it seems reasonable to discuss the effects of a solid material on atoms when considering whether they fuse, since that is a different environment than a plasma. However, the beam experiments being discussed are not really the same situation as the deuterium-infused metal situation either, so I don't think they should have more than one, maybe two sentences of discussion. Also, it is important to keep in mind that Couloumb's law is well established, which is far less true of beam or modeling data about electron screening. Olorinish (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I question why the current text isn't sufficient, and further, why Aqm wants to insert this new text where he does. Surely it belongs in "Proposed Explanations"? The article currently has: Supporters of cold fusion suggested to the DOE commission in 2004 that electron screening could be one explanation for an enhanced reaction rate. and Cold fusion researchers have described possible cold fusion mechanisms (e.g., electron shielding of the nuclear Coulomb barrier), but they have not received mainstream acceptance.[116]. This is more than sufficient per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue, especially considering that Aqm's own source (1) calls the data into question, (2) is not directly about cold fusion and (3) shows effects (at best!) 40 odd orders of magnitude too small to account for cold fusion. I oppose its addition to the "Probability of reaction" section, but you could probably put a well qualified sentence into the proposed explanations section. Phil153 (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Olorinish and Phil have missed the point that I was trying to make. Kirk may have gotten it when he said he thought that the whole section should go.

1) If high-energy data/theory is mentioned, then low-energy data/theory (3 orders of magnitude closer to the CF regime) must be mentioned. That is not pro-CF POV, that is simple logic. The fact that it challenges the pre-1989 nuclear physics model is pro-CF, but not POV. Eliminate the statement about 50 orders of magnitude (a misquote from a pro-CF (originally 1994) paper), and the new low-energy data does not belong in the section. If I removed that sentence, I would make people upset. I think that if you did it, you might settle this particular issue. It would be a travesty, but no more than it already is.

2) I don't think that I brought up the screening issue. That was a quote from DOE 2004 - not my citation. When I mentioned that my citation also made that statement (since most CF-papers do), I was accused of WP:SYNTH & WP:OR and the ref & comment was deleted.

3) Re: screening being well established? I doubt that there is any solid-state text that does not have a chapter - or at least a section - devoted to it in its many forms (and almost always associated with the Coulomb field).

4) Hipocrite's suggestion for moving my inserts into the Proposed Explanation section is constructive. If you delete the 50 orders of magnitude sentence from its present location, I will move my insert and the rest of the paragraph (including a proper and accessible reference to show that CF is more that 100 orders-of-magnitude from the extrapolation based only on high-energy experiment and model). I assume that you will block it there as well, but I'll be a Charlie Brown to your Lucy.Aqm2241 (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)