Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 36

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

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

"Cold Fusion" - But not LENR - Disproved

Please don't announce here new issues of your newsletter unless they are being used to propose a change to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

First reported by New Energy Times http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/NET340.shtml StevenBKrivit (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing an edit? Olorinish (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Steven, if you're on here, please do not use "an historic". It's "a historic". I hate it when people do it. Trying to look all snobbish and stuff. Well it's grammatically wrong AND it sounds horrible. So please help do your part to end that nasty trend. It is "an horrible" mistake. Thank you. [1][2] Kevin Baas^talk

In England there are a number of words that begin with "h" in which the letter is silent. So, in English English, "an historic" thing is not necessarily being described incorrectly. I admit, though, that the English version of Wikipedia generally uses American English, in which very few words have that silent initial "h" ("honor", for example), and therefore the default article generally should be "a" instead of "an". Nevertheless, if I see some English English like "colour" instead of "color", I don't think it necessary to nitpick about it. V (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In American english there are "a number of words that begin with "h" in which the letter is silent". But whetehr you're talking american english or england english, "historic" is not one of them. I think color or colour is fine either way. Just like grey or gray. But the thing is they sound the same in speech. From a little bit of research I discovered that "an historic" often comes from not pronouncing the "h" in "historic", which I suppose you can argue "accent" but to that i would reply "an orrible excuse for laziness and slurred speech". the "h" in "historic" is not silent. it is not "istoric". if you said that to me i'd be like "huh?? what does that mean?" "I axed you a question!" Kevin Baas^talk 16:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See the Concise Oxford Dictionary entry for "an". It makes it clear that usage is inconsistent. With that, can we have an end to this off-topic discussion.LeadSongDog come howl 19:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I didn't mean for such a digression. Just to be clear though, we wouldn't have had that discussion if usage was consistent. Kevin Baas^talk 20:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eric. Please accept my apologies for my ignorance of the procedures. I propose an edit that notes that a) the "24 MeV" claimed by "cold fusion" researchers as the best proof of "cold fusion" has not been demonstrated and b) that the values shown by them to the Department of Energy were unsupported and contradictory to the experimental facts.

However, I really don't spend much time here and I certainly am not a Wiki expert. I now leave this proposed edit in the hands of more senior Wiki-experts. Signing off. StevenBKrivit (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To put in my initial thoughts on that. a) would amount to (argument from ignorance (and arguably feigned ignorance, at that). and b) is certainly contradicted by the very report wherein said values were shown. thus it's a dispute and it's npov policy that the article does not take a side in it. and presenting one pov as "definitive" or the other as "contradictory to the experimental facts" would be doing just that. Kevin Baas^talk 19:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Some historical info

I'm starting this section to look into the possibility of finding certain data about the 1989 DOE review of the CF field. This looks a bit promising: http://www.ncas.org/erab/contents.htm --it is the actual document. Why are there no references to this document on the main article page? V (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, this next link can hardly be called "historical", but the anti-CF people might like it: http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S4_O6_Kidwell.pdf V (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, isn't this pro-CF? This presentation says that they observed unexplainable extra heat with deuterium but not with hidrogen (page 25). It says that only part of the heat is explainable by chemical processes. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I looked at it, I didn't see it obviously saying that some of the observed heat was not explainable chemically, so I thought it might qualify as anti-CF. I did notice that different researchers appeared to be involved, than the group who were doing codeposition electrolysis experiments with that CR-39 plastic. If you are right, then I stand corrected. V (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This section seems like a good place to bring to attention this 1989 NASA (! not DOE !) report (which somebody linked on my Talk page): http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900008108_1990008108.pdf I quote from what appears to be the abstract: "An experiment was performed at the Lewis Research Center to look for evidence of deuterium fusion in palladium. The experiment, which involved introducting deuterium into the palladium filter of a hydrogen purifier, was designed to detect neutrons produced in the reaction [D + D -> Helium-3 + n], as well as heat production. The neutron counts for deuterium did not differ significantly from background or from the counts for a hydrogen control. Heat production was detected when deuterium, but not hydrogen, was pumped from the purifier." --This experiment is therefore somewhat equivalent to Arata's deuterium-gas experiments that we have discussed here (and now are archived). We editors here are also at least somewhat familiar with the proposed CF explanation regarding a D+D->He4 reaction, and no neutrons, but plenty of detectable heat, which of course could explain this NASA experiment. Relevant questions might be about the extent to which NASA scientists could be expected to be able to reliably detect neutrons, should the reaction they sought actually have occurred. Does it seem reasonable for any detractor here to think that these NASA researchers were incompetent, if they were able to detect heat when deuterium was pumped through their experiment, but not when ordinary hydrogen was used? V (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be proxy editing for banned user Nrcprm2026. He is not permitted to edit. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, your first statement is nonsense. My prior edit does not repeat the words of any banned editor. And the data that was brought to my attention exists regardless of who brought it to my attention. The data is the important thing, not the editor! Is your denial of the possibility of CF so great that you must stoop so low in your efforts to prevent anyone from seeing relevant data on the subject? Why shouldn't you be banned for such behavior? V (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Does it seem reasonable for any detractor here to think that these NASA researchers were incompetent, if they were able to detect heat when deuterium was pumped through their experiment, but not when ordinary hydrogen was used?" Wikipedia is not a forum. Therefore it is not reasonable to believe that expectations of answers to this question will be satisfied, except if entitlement to answers is granted. Also, I do not believe detractors would be inclined to answer this question, especially if their answer would be definite "yes" or "no". Detractors will likely claim trolling as they are so unlikely to concede that NASA experiments have in fact led to a verifiable anomalous result not characteristic of the kookery, "science-fictiony", and jabberwocky that is so tenuously associated with cold fusion.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 13:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In what peer reviewed source was this work eventually published? Certainly a technical memorandum, even at NASA, is considered as a form of less-formal internal communication, often with quite limited readership. Such documents often reflect informal work that is not subject to the levels of scrutiny given to formal publications. WP:PSTS is clear that such primary sources should only be used with great caution and explains the concerns.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Good points from the two of you. However, to Kmarinas86, are you aware of Arata's experiments? --and of the approximate replication of it, by other researchers, that was published last year in Physics Letters A ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 )? This NASA document describes another experiment in the same vein, all three of which are reported to be associated with anomalous heat production. The editors here need two things: First, a 3rd-party source that references at least the Physics Letters A article. Second, knowledge that the experiments were done, even before that 3rd-party source appears, to prevent knee-jerk rejection of proposals regarding edits, about those experiments, to the main article here. I've seen enough arguing about whether or not some 3rd-party source can be an acceptable reference to think that if the original experimental data was made available as early as possible, to the editors here, such arguing might be prevented. In this case, even if the NASA report can't be directly referenced, it does appear to qualify more as support than as refutation of a cold-fusion or other deuterium-saturated-palladium heat-generating process --it means the knee-jerk detractors have one more thing to stumble over --and yes, the detractors here HAVE been known to claim that various CF researchers are incompetent, or worse, frauds! So why not ask them now, about their opinions of that NASA report, instead of wasting time on it later? :) V (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Another aspect of the NASA document involves the researchers themselves. There are the "usual" CF researchers, and every now and then there are "new" CF researchers. If fraud is happening, then every "new" researcher represents increased risk that the secret (fraud always requires secrecy) will escape and become public. So far, though, only CF detractors claim that fraud is behind claims that the CF phenomeon exists (whether it is fusion or something else doesn't matter yet, but measurements of anomalous heat do matter --and this is very relevant to trying to edit the CF article to include Arata's and others' non-electrolysis experiments; there are editors here that seem to think that if deuterium is put into palladium any other way, it can't be a CF experiment). Anyway, the more new CF researchers there are, the less likely the detractors can be right about fraud.... V (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To LeadSongDog, it occurs to me that there is one possible excellent reason to reference the NASA document when we get around to including non-electrolysis pressurized-deuterium experiments. This reason has nothing to do with the content of the document, and everything to do with its title: "Results Of An Attempt To Measure Increased Rates Of The Reaction D-2 + D-2 Yields He-3 + n In A Nonelectrochemical Cold Fusion Experiment" --this title explicitly links "cold fusion" to NOT using electrolysis! We all know that in recent years researchers have been careful to talk about "anomalous heat" and avoid mentioning "cold fusion" in their attampts to publish data --but as a result some editors here want to exclude that data because cold fusion was not mentioned! I paraphrase the generic argument: "How can it be relevant to the CF article it if doesn't mention cold fusion?" Well, this NASA paper, since it was done in 1989 and well before all the bad stigma got attached to the label "cold fusion", clearly provides the link that can destroy that argument! V (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Some news

It appears the American Chemical Society is still letting people talk about Cold Fusion at their meetings: http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/cold-fusion-at-american-chemical.html V (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed some stuff

I tried to fix some of the prose organization. I did not remove anything but redundancies and all citations and quotations are still there from the previous version. Please let me know if you see any problems. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Some News

OK, actually about a month old. http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/03/21/cold.fusion.moves.closer.mainstream.acceptance It appears to be another take on the American Chemical Society meeting mentioned above. And a "Nature" blog apparently has something to say, too: http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2010/03/acs_cold_fusion_calorimeter.html V (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That was pleasant. The same people have moved to yet another different off-wiki venue. We won't be using it here, of course, it's a blog.LeadSongDog come howl

The first link is just repeating the statements made by Jan Marwan, without apparently making any fact-checking.

The second link is a blog by Nature, and the author looks like a reliable journalist for scientific matters[3]. In the "About this blog" page it says "Get daily reports from Nature reporters scouring conference floors or covering field missions", so this is the standard way that Nature has of reporting about conferences. Awwwww, I want to uuuuuse iiiiiit. It would be totally useful to source how the support of ACS to those sessions has improved (better rooms in better days, and more presentations) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Up: CANR and LENR

I think those two horrible acronyms should be mentioned in the defining phrase, because they're often used. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the header paragraphs ends with this sentence: "Cold fusion research sometimes is referred to as low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) studies or condensed matter nuclear science,[13] in order to avoid negative connotations." I suppose the CANR acronym could be added to that ("Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions"). V (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO they should be in the same sentence as the "defining" sentence where Cold fusion is bolded. I already saw them in a peripheral sentence, but I believe they're used more often by "cold fusion" researchers than the popular media "cold fusion". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we don't want to confuse the readers by jamming too much stuff into the first few sentences. Simply explaining the title of the article is really all that first part needs (in any article!), anyway. There's plenty of room farther down for nitty-gritty details. V (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides

I'm curious to know why Dept of Energy reports are considered reliable sources, yet DARPA reports are not?

I added "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA, did its own analysis outlined (2007) within an internal memo that concludes there is "no doubt that anomalous excess heat is produced in these experiments." and linked to the report - Critique by Graham Hubler of report from DARPA project (2-21-2007), as I thought this would be relevant information in the continuing story in this field.

Why would the US Government commission a report that it considers unreliable?

The report outlines a summary of a number of experiments commissioned by the US govt. and concludes the reproducibility of such experiments has risen to 70%.

I also note that my original modification was removed within 8 minutes, which I feel was insufficient to review said evidence. Christopherbrian (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Newenergytimes" is not a reliable source. If the government published that Critique, perhaps it would be usable, but as it is now, it's not reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying if the US Government published the report it would be allowed as a reference? Christopherbrian (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be worth evaluating if it were reliably sourced. Hipocrite (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is using the 1989 DOE report, published by the "National Capital Area Skeptics" : is this more reliable than New Energy Times ? 130.104.206.154 (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a convenience link. The DoE report is also available at your local national archives. Hipocrite (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are funny. Are you not aware that most of the stuff at the lenr-canr.org site consists of convenience links, yet that site got blacklisted by the anti-CF crowd (and for no valid reason I know of!), thereby putting all its links, whether pro-CF or con-CF, off limits? V (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. If you feel that there are documents on lenr-canr that are unadulterated and need convience linking, bring up a request to whitelist those links. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That was completely on topic and you completely missed the point, Hipocrite. (oh, the irony!) Kevin Baas^talk 14:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that I'm not aware of any "adulteration" in the data that can be found at that site. Can you specify even one paper that has adulterated data? V (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

lenr-canr modifies the papers it hosts by tacking on PoV introductions from it's "librarian." Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

MY point is that none of those comments affect the DATA in the papers. Why would anyone think/claim the comments are more relevant than the data? V (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

okay, because some guy posts an abstract of the articles / papers what have you where it's referenced (note: not in the actual paper / article, which makes your ad hominem statement of opinion, in addition to being ad hominem opinion, categorically false and utterly irrelevant), you considered it inexorably "tainted"?! wow, man, in that case stay from library catalogs, or the internet for that matter, or books! Kevin Baas^talk 16:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Kevin, that's not true. lenr-canr modifies the actual PDF's of the papers to tack on the commentary of the "librarian." Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite is right. lenr-car is not reliable. Take it elsewhere. Thanks, Verbal chat

lets look at a few examples, shall we? direct from their library (http://www.[blacklisted-for-god-only-knowws-what-reason].org/LibFrame1.html), randomly selected :

[blacklisted-for-god-only-knowws-what-reason.org/acrobat/Alexandrovheavyelect.pdf]
[blacklisted-for-god-only-knowws-what-reasonr.org/acrobat/ArapiAexperiment.pdf]
[blacklisted-for-god-only-knowws-what-reason.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf]
[blacklisted-for-god-only-knowws-what-reason.org/acrobat/JonesSEgeofusiona.pdf]
[blacklisted-for-god-only-knowws-what-reason.org/acrobat/RolisonDRanomaliesi.pdf]

Kevin Baas^talk 17:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with whitelisting papers for convienence links. That you have found some unmodified links dosen't mean that all links are unmodified - there needs to be only one modified link, and we all know it exists. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"some"?!?! what part of "randomly selected" do you not understand? No, there does not need to be only one modified link, there are probably tons of such in compendiums or the like like any normal site would do. And if there were any, especially a minority, and especially just one, one could easily disclude just that one. Now Hipocrite, you have made an extraordinary claim: "lenr-canr modifies the actual PDF's of the papers to tack on the commentary of the "librarian.". Please provide evidence (as in examples) to support this claim. Kevin Baas^talk 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

acrobat/ERABreportofth.pdf, of course. Now, let's move on. Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(resolving edit conflict)...And a sound practical argument why all convencience links from a domain should be excluded on the grounds of the existence of those few (if any) actual modified pdfs of papers with "point-of-view commentary" tacked on by the "librarian". Kevin Baas^talk 17:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

They aren't. What links to what papers would you like added? We can have them whitelisted. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

These ones: [4], except, ofcourse, the one that you mentioned. Kevin Baas^talk 17:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not all of those are appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, "appropriate" is way too vague, and obviously subjective. Secondly, then just don't whitelist the "inappropriate" ones. And finally, what would be the point of "whitelisting" them anyways if, as you say, "They aren't [blacklisted]." in the first place? Kevin Baas^talk 17:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't blacklisted, I said that not all convencience links from a domain should be excluded. If you have specific links you'd like back in, please give them - a blanket deblacklisting is another story. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That must have been a miscommunication then. I said "should", and you said "are" -- wait, what? no matter, i know now what you mean to say. yes, i agree that including all convencience links from a domain would be total overkill (after all, wikipedia is not a portal). i was asking something completely different though. I have been trying to steer you to it but you don't seem to be following. You see, we have essentially BANNED AN ENTIRE LIBRARY of books / resources directly related to the subject of this article, and on the basis of, from what i can tell, one commentary in one paper

Now that seems a little incongruous to me. And that's one thing i've been trying to communicate - the incongruenty of it. And the impracticality of it. And that's what I was getting at when I asked for a "sound practical argument why all convencience links from a domain should be excluded on the grounds of the existence of those few (if any)...". Kevin Baas^talk 17:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I repeat, "MY point is that none of those comments affect the DATA in the papers. Why would anyone think/claim the comments are more relevant than the data?" --that is, so much more important than the data that the data must be declared ignorable via blacklisting? V (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

once upon a time, this thread was about the DARPA paper vs the DOE paper

The DOE reports (both of them) have been widely reported about in multiple RS, and those RS consider them as definitive reports, the first one finally killing all hope of public funding of the field (DOE 1989) and the second one keeping those hopes dead (DOE 2004).

Need RS sayng how the DARPA has had significative influence in the field. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did some looking around and the only reference I could find to a Darpa paper involved an internal memorandum that "60 Minutes" mentioned in its "Cold fusion is hot again" segment. There is another internal document that escaped from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which we have discussed before, but I don't recall any significant discussion of a Darpa paper before.... V (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If DARPA release funding for LENR Research as a result of this paper, would that allow it to be included as a reference, i.e., would it be considered significant? Further, Enric Naval refers to RS, what are these? Surely the point is we need to refer to all sources, especially as the current debate centers around what exactly constitutes a RS? Christopherbrian (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hum, you would still need a RS saying the DARPA paper caused that fund release. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Enric, it's quite amazing that you say that both DOE reports killed all hopes of public funding. That's quite some spin, considering that they both actually said the opposite, and proposed topics of further research. Also, Critique by Graham Hubler of report from DARPA project (2-21-2007) is a critique of a CF project funded by DARPA : so, public funds are allocated to cold fusion research today. Time to look at your neutral point of view again. 130.104.206.154 (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a book saying that the Utah CF institute lost a funding of several millions because of DOE 1989. Don't remember if it was Close's or Huizenga's. I think I saw it too in some magazine or newspaper article. I never get around to add it to the article, I need to find the specific source and add it.

Please see WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources (...)". Also the part about questionable sources and about preferring secondary sources. However, i wouldn't mind adding something like "DARPA has made contracts to keep researching CF". --Enric Naval (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. We could also say that the US Navy (SPAWAR) has funded research all along. By the way, they've got a new paper coming out in EPJAP.Carbo1200 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I just added the link to the DARPA study, as I have researched this subject considerably, and thought it was an interesting and relevant link. The immediate censorship of the link and the intellectually flawed arguments justifying said censorship, have opened my eyes more to the nature of wikipedia and I have made a mental note to remember to take anything I read on wikipedia with a hefty pinch of salt, as it seems final entries are heavily edited by people with too much time on their hands, but not necessarily the necessary objective skills to perform such tasks. Christopherbrian (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You just added a link? The history shows you tried twice on July 7 to add a link to a Hubler memo. I assume that's what you are referring to. First off, the CF article is under a sanction that says no one can edit it without prior discussion. The timestamps on your edits to the article (July 7) and the Talk page (July 8) show you only discussed after the edit was twice reverted. Second, a memo from one guy to another person about a contract is not RS, period. No peer review seems to have occurred at all, let alone the idea of anonymous scientific peer review, which is what qualifies journal articles as RS in most cases. What's so hard to understand about that? 192.33.240.30 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry - this was me. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

New Book Out

There is a new book out: "On Fact and Fraud", David Goodstein, Princeton University Press, 2010, that has a chapter on cold fusion (Chap. 5). The last paragraph of the chapter (p.95) starts "When all is said and done, the cold fusion saga offers a classic case study of how scientists, bent as they are on deepening and enlarging their understanding of nature, may convince themselves that they are in the possession of knowledge that does not in fact exist." This should probably be referenced in the CF article as the most current statement on what 'mainstream' science feels about 'cold fusion'. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Further details:

David Goodstein (2010). On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science (illustrated ed ed.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691139661. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

The user reviews (for what that's worth) on Amazon are consistently very good. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the date of the last research that was studied by the author of that book? I would say that that is the date at which the book could be referenced as "latest mainstream thinking". After all, if the author has ignored such recent data as the approximate replication of Arata's experiments, or ignored the SPAWAR neutron-track data, then the book is, basically (and truly!) out of date (not "latest thinking")! V (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus has long been that cold fusion is an exercise in pathological science. This book appears to support that consensus position, and can either support otherwise debatable points, or add new points if new information can be found. It does not get excluded because there are "new results". New results have been just around the corner for years, yet I do not believe Science has published a new article on what would be an utterly revolutionary development - actual, reliable, replicable evidence of cold fusion. Primary source articles are not a good choice to use here per WP:PSTS as they are easily abused on controversial, fringe pages like this one. Secondary sources would be needed to suggest that the consensus is changing, and a lot would be needed to place the shoddy history of cold fusion in the context of a misguided first start. Even if replications were published, it would be months, if not years, before the page would reflect this new work as anything but the minority position. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you ignored what I wrote (and of course ignoring data is typical for anti-CF'ers, witness that university chancellor who started out neutral and couldn't get others to examine the data). I wasn't talking about excluding this book; I was talking about erroneously characterizing it as "latest mainstream thinking" when, if it ignores latest evidence/data, it can't possibly qualify as latest mainstream thinking --it would merely be same-old-thinking, freshly published. V (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And my point was it amply supports the ongoing, mainstream position that cold fusion is still not considered proven. Therefore, the mainstream position is still that cold fusion isn't considered real, and giving this new data, particularly primary source data, significant amounts of text would be undue weight. Cold fusion advocates have been claiming that breakthroughs are just around the corner for literally decades now, but reliable, replicable, consistent results, results desperately desired because of their implications for clean, nigh-unlimited energy, have not been found. When a high-impact publication produces a secondary source stating that the game has changed, then the page can give more text to cold fusion as a reality, rather than as an example of pathological science. Hasn't happened yet. My point is that the mainstream opinion is still that cold fusion is unproven and this book verifies that point. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Cold fusion may be possible, it may be true, but right now no-one can verify that a neutral article should take the position that cold fusion is mainstream thinking.

Are there any secondary sources, published in high-impact journals, that demonstrate the reality of cold fusion? Not primary sources, not single experiments, but review articles? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We are of course still waiting for such articles. Nevertheless, what you have written is nothing more than verification that mainstream thinking has not been looking at recent data, and as a result --of course!!-- can only conclude the same things it concluded before, when examining old data. Duh! WHY has the author of this book ignored the recent experiments (some of which, according to the pro-CF side, are highly repeatable), the experiments that prompted the "60 Minutes" segment? Also, please keep in mind the general shift, in attempts to publish data, that has tended to omit the phrase "cold fusion" and instead specify "anomalous energy" --such actions, to get data into print, hardly serve this article well, as long as editors here insist that every Source must specify that it is talking about cold fusion. Remember that that label is the proposed explanation for the claims of experimental observations of anomalous energy that appears when sufficient deuterium gets into palladium (or sometimes other) metal. I think this article badly needs to stress that point, because then we will be free-er to include a wider variety of anomalous-energy experiments, than just those involving electrolysis. V (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If we don't have the articles, the page shouldn't change, so what are we talking for? Using the term "anomalous energy" to verify text in cold fusion would be an egregious violation of WP:OR. We shouldn't be using the term "anomalous energy" on this page at all, unless a specific source explicitly links the two terms, and even still the use of primary "anomalous energy" sources would still be problematic per PSTS. We shouldn't be stressing that, or any other point - because the scientific consensus is still that cold fusion is not a reality. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you missing the point, or deliberately avoiding it? It is very possible for anomalous energy to appear in some experimental system, without nuclear fusion being responsible for the appearance of that energy. Kirk Shanahan has specifically offered the explanation that such anomalies are artifacts of the measuring process. Others have other notions (the hydrino hypothesis has been mentioned). So, it is possible for the mainstream to be completely correct about the proposed explanation "cold fusion" --but it cannot forever ignore continuing experimental replications of experiments that produce anomalous energy, as if they don't exist. And in fact the mainstream has not entirely ignored it; that's why the SPARWAR results got published by SpringerLink, and why Physics Letters A published the approximate replication of Arata's pressurize-deuterium-gas-into-palladium experiment. Note that Arata used the phrase "cold fusion", while the replicators only specified "anomalous energy" --if the equivalent experiment is described two different ways, does that suffice to provide the link you want? Of course not, you still want somebody else to write about it in RS --which, as I've said, we are still waiting for! But I can still ask why the author of this book ignored that recent data! V (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to utilize an inappropriate definition of 'cold fusion'. To the mainstream, 'cold fusion' is any of these claims to have detected nuclear reaction products, which includes heat, from systems that contain palladium or some other metal in conjunction with some isotope of hydrogen. In other words 'LENR' means the same as 'cold fusion' to the mainstream. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC) In fact, the cold fusion chapter in the book spends considerable time on 'fractofusion' without calling it that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In exactly what way is it inappropriate to say that "cold fusion is a proposed explanation for the claimed production of anomalous energy in a deuterium/palladium (or equivalent) experiment"? While there is no doubt that various researchers in that field, including Pons and Fleischmann, were hoping to find data supporting such a hypothesis, it remains true, in Science, that a proposed explanation is just a hypothesis, until proved! --and certainly WLU wrote about some aspects of that above. The fact is, there are claims regarding various experiments, such as the claims that anomalous energy has been observed, and then there are proposed explanations for why those claims might be valid (or, in your case, Kirk, invalid). None of the proposed explanations really matter, so long as the original experiment-claims go unverified/ignored by the mainstream. Yes, I know that means I'm asking for a rather significant revision of this article, but I'm not asking that its POV become any less neutral than it currently is; I'm asking that its POV become a little less focussed on one particular proposed explanation, and a little more focussed on the data/claims that has caused such an explanation to be proposed! V (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Cold Fusion" is a notable topic. Whatever Objectivist is talking about above is not - it is not adressed in reliable secondary sources - it is adressed only in the marginally published primary sources by its major fringey proponents. Hipocrite (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you are quite wrong; any real scientist knows that "cold fusion" is a proposed explanation, while True Believers are convinced it is an actual explanation. And if I didn't know that difference, I wouldn't have specified the difference in that other paragraph! Not to mention I'm pretty sure the original Pons/Fleishmnann paper talks about CF as a proposed explanation --perhaps the best proposal they could come up with, even though we know they admitted they were seeking data to support the hypothesis-- and not as a claimed fact. That is, they claimed their experiments provided some evidence to support the hypothesis; they didn't say the experiments constituted proof. V (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No true scottsman would ever doubt the existance of this wonderous anomalous energy. Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

An irrelevant remark; true scottsmen are not automatically also true scientists, willing to conduct experiments to see for themselves if there is any validity to others' claims. V (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

PS - you might want to read "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium," to see if it only states nuclear fusion of deuterium is a proposed explanation. Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So? That's one source (not even linked, so I can't see if it was written by a skeptic or by a believer). V (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying you've never read "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium," but you have read all the real important papers on this Cold Fusion stuff? Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that Pons and Fleischman, as well-respected electrochemists at the time of that publication, were True Believers to such an extent that they never used such phrases as "we think" or "we believe" in their article, but only used phrases such as "nuclear fusion must be occurring"??? I did read at least part of that paper more than a decade ago, and don't recall encountering any such magnitude of True Belief bias in it. What about you? V (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[To V] Your writings above imply that ‘cold fusion’ specifically refers to D-D fusion only. However, this is a recent development fostered by the cold fusioneers in an attempt to ‘avoid negative connotations’ as noted in the main CF article. To the mainstream, everything you wrote about is ‘cold fusion’, not just references to D-D fusion. The cold fusioneers have consistently sought to avoid the use of the term ‘cold fusion’, since the US Patent Office rightfully rejects cold fusion claims. Wikipedia should not be in the business of obfuscation. It should clearly state that the umbrella term everyone recognizes for all this stuff is ‘cold fusion’, and all the other terms should then be mentioned as alternatives used to ‘avoid negative connotations’. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Kirk, no, I do not mean to imply that "cold fusion" is only about one type of nuclear reaction. Indeed, one possible meaning for the phrase includes the work done at heavy-ion particle accelerators, when they try to make elements like #110 --they try to impart just enough kinetic energy to overcome proton repulsion, after which, when two nuclei fuse, the reaction could be called "cold". That's because the resulting nucleus is so unstable that any excess kinetic energy, when fusion happens, will result in immediate fissioning of that nucleus. Not to mention the original muon-catalyzed fusion meaning for the phrase. All I meant in what I wrote is that the proposed explanation for the claimed observations of anomalous energy or (alternatively) "excess heat" involves nuclear fusion, and it is called "cold" because if it happens, then it is happening at ordinary Earthly temperatures. I quite agree that the True Believers are willing to say, and the mainstream is willing to sneer about it, that a wide variety of fusion reactions can be postulated as having occured in room-temperature experiments. I don't know how they can be so sure of that, when for ordinary D-D fusion it has been easy to contaminate the experiments with natural helium background gas --other contaminants could obviously explain other proposed fusion reactions. Nevertheless, I stand by the point I made, that so long as there is no proof acceptable to the mainstream, CF can only be a proposed explanation for various claimed observations. Your own work has validity with respect to requiring experimenters to be more careful --but when they do that, and the mainstream still ignores the experimental results, then what? V (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The section is about a new book with a chapter on cold fusion. It's a reliable source. It has turned into soapboxing for cold fusion being sadly misunderstood and 'just around the corner' - a perpendicular position it will probably occupy 'til perpetuity. There's nothing else to discuss, really. If there is new research regarding cold fusion that hasn't already been discussed, start a new section. If it's a primary source, there's not much point in discussing. I don't see anything else here worth commenting on and don't feel like getting sucked into a lengthy debate about an allegedly real phenomenon when the sources aren't appropriate to substantially alter the page. If the primary sources are naught but a series of experimental artifacts and dead ends, they won't appear in a secondary source and shouldn't be on the page. If it's something real, it will be replicated under controlled conditions and eventually become scientific mainstream. Only time will tell. But we need the secondary sources before we change anything. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You still are ignoring what I wrote. I'm saying this book qualifies as RS only with respect to the experimental data it describes. If it does not describe the most recent experiments, then it why is it more deserving of the description "latest mainstream thinking" than any other RS that was published in, say, 1994? Without referencing the latest stuff, it is simply and only a rehash of old stuff. Why is that not obvious??? So, if this is what it really is, why not call it what it is? -- "The latest publication of the same old mainstream opinion, which like the mainstream ignores the last five years or so of developments in the field." By the way, since the authors of the paper that was published in Physics Letters A included a citation/reference to Arata's earlier/primary paper, why doesn't that article count as a secondary source for Arata's primary paper? V (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This section is about a new book. The new book doesn't appear on the page, rendering any arguments over its use somewhat moot - they will have to be decided on the individual merits of the individual uses and citations of the book. It sounds like you have other issues you may wish to address. I would suggest starting a new section, addressing clearly how the page can be improved in an NPOV manner that gives due weight to the scholarly opinion, with references to reliable sources. Again, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and the talk page is not a web forum to discuss cold fusion or a soapbox to advocate for cold fusion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The point of my original post in this thread is to answer a prior call for RS on whether cold fusion was considered bad science by the mainstream. David Goodstein is about as main-stream as you can get. You can access his Web page via the Wikipedia aticle on him, which gives his biography, and he is eminently qualified to represent the mainstream on the subject of cold fusion as bad science. Goodstein, as I quoted, attributes cold fusion to self-delusion, i.e. bad science. That’s a reference from today, not 15 years ago, and counters the CFers claim they are being ‘accepted’. Some mention of it should be in the lead paragraphs of the article. However, my experience in editing the Wiki page is that every edit I make is automatically deleted with little to no discussion, so I’m not fighting that battle again. You all are now aware, you can edit the article if you want. I also agree that V needs to cease and desist with his irrelevant comments. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Kirk, since you were first to mention this book, can you say whether or not it includes any mention of recent experiments? If you can't, why does "most recent publication of same old mainstream opinions" qualify as [paraphrasing implied meaning] "up-to-date informed mainstream opinions"? If the book does address recent experiments, then I could not have a valid argument here, about that single detail. V (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that it does not address recent experiments. However, the POINT is that it DOES represent current mainstream opinion on the subject. Discussions such as you are attempting to induce here are IRRELEVANT to the point being made, i.e. MAINSTREAM SCIENCE CONSIDERS COLD FUSION TO BE JUNK SCIENCE. Did my screaming get through to you at all? 192.33.240.30 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Scream all you want, but that won't change the simple fact that, if this book does not discuss the more recent experiments, then this book, however new, is just a rehash of old opinions. I don't in the slightest deny that lots of mainstream folks formed those opinions quite a while ago and still hold onto them, thereby qualifying those opinions as "current", but I also know full well that if the holders of those opinions don't look at any newer data, then "current" and "outdated" can be entirely equal to each other. Isn't it obvious that an actually up-to-date opinion that CF is nonsense must be able to offer new reasons why the newer experiments are invalid, especially when some of those experiments were specifically devised to address early objections? V (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that everything you write above is your opinion, and is not backed by any published source, as has already been noted. Therefore, all of your comments are irrelvant to whether or not the Goodstein book offers a current mainstream position that can be used in a Wikipedia article. I can easily counter your opinion with mine, and say that if any of the so-called new and relevant data was actually relevant, it would have instituted a change in the mainstream position. Since no evidence of such a change can be found, it is to be expected that the opinion of an expert in scientific fraud (and self-delusion) who primarily formed his opinion in the 1989-1995 timeframe would not have changed that opinion in 2010. And for the record, if you hang on a few more months, you will have that listing of why the newer data is invalid. I have just such a publication coming out in the J. of Env. Monitoring as a Comment on the Krivit and Marwan article. It is on hold right now while Jan Marwan writes a Reply. (And for the record, I am not allowed to write a 'Reply to the Reply', which is a shame because I doubt Marwan will do any better at rebutting my work than Storms, Fleischmann, Szpak, Mosier-Boss, or Miles did.) Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is some readily available evidence that at least some mainstream scientists utterly refuse to examine the recent evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nNRB0K_dw0 --it's not RS, of course, but if you contacted Robert Duncan and asked him, he would likely verify the point. Therefore YOUR error above is to assume that the existence of good data automatically means a revising of thinking --wrong, such a revision is only possible if someone examines the data; if the mainstream refuses to look, then the mainstream obviously will encounter no reason to change its opinion! Duh!!!

(A) I attempted to contact him right after he announced his support of CF, including sending him copies of my papers on the subject. I have never received the courtesy of a reply. I doubt that would change today. (B) a youtube video isn't even worth mentioning here on this page. It is another eample of what I mention in my comment below. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you approached him the wrong way. About the YouTube video, that is simply a "convenience link". The original video was produced by a University and in theory ought to be about at least somewhat RS with respect to the single incident that I referenced above. We have Duncan on tape saying certain things about a fellow scientist! Are you or anyone else here going to say that those statements are fraudulent? V (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not jump to conclusion on Goodstein's position. Here is what he said to APS News recently : "When I give talks on the subject of scientific fraud I’m always asked whether Cold Fusion was an example. [...] Many things went wrong in the course of that episode, but fraud was not one of them. Both sides were guilty of ignoring fundamental canons of good science, the pro-side ignoring contrary experiments and the con side being convinced by theoretical arguments. Most of the scientific community has concluded that cold fusion isn’t possible, but in my view, the final verdict is not yet in." 178.144.43.139 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Which just confirms what I have been saying and what V has been ignoring: "Most of the scientific community has concluded that cold fusion isn’t possible". Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Kirk, you are ignoring the fact that since most of the scientific community reached that conclusion more than a decade ago, they have mostly/simply ignored recent developments, assuming without evidence that the new evidence offered by the pro-CF-ers automatically lacked validity. Obviously, if they don't look, then they won't see anything that has any chance whatsoever to modify their original conclusions/opinions, and therefore, equally obviously, those opinions can persist for many years, not just a mere decade or two. Therefore, as I repeat, this new book is just a restatement of old and NOW not fully informed opinions. They can be called "current" but they cannot be called "up to date". They are not the "latest thinking" of the mainstream; they are "same old thinking". What I am refusing to accept, here, is an obvious attempt to mislead readers of this article, to imply that the "current thinking" of mainstream science, on this subject, is also more knowledgeable than it actually is. V (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, _YOU_ are assuming that (a) Goodstein did not review the current status of the field and determine it was 'more of the same' and thus irrelvant, (b) that all mainstream scientists also did the same, and (c) that cold fusion research conducted since 1994 actually proves something. All of these assumptions are questionable, and ARE NOT RELEVANT to the point that a new book has come out, authored by an eminently qualified mainstream scientist, that says 'cold fusion' is self-delusion. Your responses to this thread are perilously close to Abd's tactic of 'wall of texting'. Copious irrelvant and immaterial comments made for the sole purpose of hindering discussion of a reasonable article modification. I hope the powers that be here on Wiki take notice. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For more proof that you pay inadequate attention to what I write, see the very first sentence I wrote at the start of this section, in reply to your original post. I did not assume anything; I asked a question, and then I stated, basically, "if something, then something else". You do know that people who act on an assumption don't normally qualify it with the word "if", don't you? When you finally answered my question, agreeing with that "if", the text I associated with it became fully valid and not-an-assumption. So, now I ask, why are you writing so copiously to propose text to mislead the readers of this article? I have been writing a very relevant argument against any such wording! If you don't believe me, read it again! And then tell me why the distinctions between "current opinions" and "opinions formed more than a decade ago" and "up-to-date knowledgeable opinions" --that last which by your own words do not exist in that book!-- are irrelevant. V (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

V, your logic in this is ludicrous, but I am tired of arguing with you. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We may now reconsider proposals for new text in the article. How about this:

The latest mainstream-science publication that mentions cold fusion [insert link] reiterates the position that the mainstream reached more than a decade ago --while ignoring all recent developments-- that cold fusion is "junk science".

Kirk, see how easily it can be completely accurate? V (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are engaging in OR - no reliable source says that it ignores anything - that is merely your personal belief, which is not acceptable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, did you not read what Kirk wrote? "The answer is that it does not address recent experiments. [...] 19:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)" If anyone who reads the book can see that it does not contain something, why can't we say that the book does not contain that thing? (perhaps "excluding" would be a better word than "ignoring" ?) To clarify what I'm talking about, imagine an article about uranium mines, and some particular relevant RS document. Even if the following was factual, it would be irrelevant for the article to mention that document and say that it does not contain the word "moon". But it might be relevant (if it was true) to say that document did not contain the word "uranium". V (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

All disputed content must be source. I dispute that this book excludes something. Find a source that states the book excludes something. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine, and I dispute that this book is up-to-date on the subject. Now find a source that says this book includes analyses and/or rebuttals of, say, the last three years' experiments in the field (which should include the SPAWAR codeposition and neutron data published as primary source in Springerlink, and the Physics Letters A primary source (approximate replication of Arata's pressurized-gas-into-palladium data). Thank you! V (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This article should not state that the book is anything other than a book, published when it was published, written when it was written, saying what it says. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The latest mainstream-science publication that mentions cold fusion [insert link] reiterates the position, which the mainstream reached more than a decade ago, that cold fusion is "junk science".

And if what I wrote before is modified to not mention "recent developments", then the text is still highly accurate and not-misleading. V (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Really, should we go find a book that says King Kong didn't step on an ant today? This is WP, not The Very Obscure Fringe Science Review Journal. When an RS publishes a high quality assessment that there's something happening worth talking about, then we can talk about it. Right now, we have a bunch of primary sources in fringe journals, with many quality secondary sources effectively saying "nothing to see here, move along". Until that changes, we have nothing new to include. If you want to change that, persuade a high quality refereed publication to print a review of the primary works. Phys Rev would do nicely. Then c'mon back and we'll happily cite it. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Without a reliable source saying this book is grossly flawed due to a lack of consideration of new experiments, this is all so much waste of time since it is only one editor's opinion. Does everyone agree with this interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE? If so, we can close this discussion and get on with our lives. Editors' opinions aren't worth much, particularly against the mainstream scientific opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Around here WP:CONSENSUS is a joke, due to the fact that the anti-CFers have caused a number of pro-CFers to be banned. And as a result the article is somewhat distorted from the WP:NPOV condition. I can't stop you from distorting it even more, but so long as I haven't been banned, I can at least try to let you know (as I did in this Section) when such distortions are being proposed. V (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Facts and Attitudes

I just encountered some information about this new study: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874 --and am writing this because it seems relevant to the above discussion, if not directly to the main article here. (Indirectly, though, ... hmmmm!) Enjoy! V (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. The story doesn't relate to cold fusion, and there is yet to be any clear evidence of actual cold fusion occurring in any way that is accepted by the scientific majority. Dropping little pointy news stories just pisses people off - which will do a damned fine job of eliminating any and all support for your suggestions purely on the basis of your commentary. You are, in fact, making it harder to get any real evidence of cold fusion on the page - if it ever shows up. The fact that there is still no clear evidence of cold fusion is a failing of the research base, not of the editors here. Skepticisms is warranted, particularly of primary sources easily and egregiously cherry-picked, given the history of cold fusion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And your own writing above exemplifies why the article needs to be broader than to just focus on nuclear-fusion-as-a-claimed-event. It needs to focus on the production of anomalous energy as a claimed event, with the guess that fusion could be responsible, because nothing else so far known (if the energy produced is real) could explain that energy. The more you or anyone else thinks that cold fusion is impossible, the more that any experiment linked to the idea of CF will be ignored, even if the experiment is valid and completely reliably replicable! The ignoring of relevant data, after an opinion has been formed, is essentially what the news article linked above is about. And that's exactly why the Physics Letter A article does not mention the phrase "cold fusion" in it. All that really matters is whether or not the claimed production of energy in these experiments is real --because if it is, then an explanation for it must be found, whether fusion or something else. If it isn't real, then of course no explanation of any sort need be considered. V (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In the vein of the above, I propose that a sentence near the start of the main article be partly modified to read, "Interest in the field increased dramatically after nuclear fusion was described as being the best explanation for the results of a tabletop experiment involving" (rest of sentence would not be changed). V (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh? I thought that Fleischmann already proposed nuclear fusion as the best explanation in the first press conference? Where is the source for this change? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

??? Didn't you just say "press conference"? As in, "major RS publications (e.g., "New York Times" et al) printed what Fleischmann said"? My main point here is that the article here is about claims. Why should the article imply that cold fusion must be the explanation for the experimental results, when in fact cold fusion is claimed to be the explanation for the experimental results? And, don't the experimental results stand or fall on reproduce-able merit, regardless of any explanations? So, what were the experimental results? MOSTLY, excess heat. Partly, data suggesting the presence of nuclear-reaction byproducts. And we certainly know that later on, the evidence for the usual nuclear-reaction byproducts was never adequately/successfully replicated (not even the SPARWAR CR-39 data is a replication of the Pons/Fleischmann results). But we also know that there have been quite a few claims of production of excess heat, some even from researchers who were focusing on seeking the usual nuclear-reaction byproducts --and who mostly, so far as I can tell, apparently decided that the excess-heat data didn't matter if the usual nuclear-reaction byproducts weren't there. Well, the excess heat mattered enough for Kirk Shanahan (and perhaps others?) to put significant effort into explaining it away. Such criticisms have been taken to heart by at least a few researchers, who conducted their experiments somewhat more rigorously, and are still claiming to have detected excess heat. We also know there is a million-to-one chance that the D+D->He4 reaction could explain the heat without producing any of the usual nuclear-reaction byproducts of fusion. We do not know whether or not that particular Cold Fusion explanation is valid, of course. But it should be obvious to all editors here that if it was valid, then all the experimental claims involving excess heat from deuterium-saturated-metal become relevant to this particular article! --including any claims that were correctly invalidated by Shanahan's or others' work. I do not know the best way to weed out the many claims, but I am quite sure that this article's excess focus on comparing cold fusion to hot fusion, as if physicists correctly know absolutely everything on both subjects, does not address the fact that the claims of excess heat have continued to accompany better experimental procedures --and that eventually, it must be explained once and for all. 06:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@V. Please, find source(s) for "Interest in the field increased dramatically after nuclear fusion was described as being the best explanation (...)". I can't recall reading such claim in any source. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have quoted the existing text in the article, that I was proposing to change? That text implies that fusion was a factual part of the experiments, not a claimed explanation! All I'm trying to do is make the sentence more precise. Didn't you yourself write in your first post above, "I thought that Fleischmann already proposed nuclear fusion as the best explanation in the first press conference?" --the article is not saying any such thing, at the moment, in the sentence I think should be modified! Next, regarding what Kirk wrote below, his logic is as flawed as usual. The only major nuclear reactions known that can release energy are fission and fusion, and nobody is suggesting fission, due to the experimental materials used, so therefore, any "LENR" or "CANR" that is tied to an energy release is just some sort of fusion reaction in new-speak disguise. I am not adopting anything written by Krivit. I have for a long time known that the excess heat measurements are the most important data to replicate. If the mainstream was to put some effort into trying to reliably replicate them (which so far as I currently know may be possible with either the SPAWAR codeposition experiment or Arata's pressurized-gas experiment), experiments currently being ignored, then the mainstream just might find itself having to find the source of that energy. If the energy can really be produced reliably, of course! And if the energy is real, then so far fusion is still the best candidate explanation, in spite of all those failures to detect relevant-to-hot-fusion stuff like neutrons and tritium and helium-3. That's because even if the D+D->He4 reaction is a million-to-one shot, it is still, per the mainstream(!) more likely to be correct than, say, the hydrino explanation; D+D->He4 is a known reaction, after all. Finally, the other flaw in what Kirk wrote relates partly to the relatively few experiments in which a great deal of energy was claimed to have been released, with such effects as palladium electrodes melted in spots --I've said before it takes real heat to do that, not illusory heat resulting from miscalibrated calorimeters-- and partly to the whole other category of experiments, involving pressurized deuterium, in which the calorimetry is a great deal less complex, since no electrical energy flows through the experimental materials and generates modest/baseline heat. I duly note that Kirk thinks he has found a flaw in them, also, but like everyone else I must wait to see, before offering any opinions about it. V (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Myself, I usually cite both the original text and the new text. But I also cite the sources used to support the new text!

Yeah, I said those words, but that was my wording, let's not confuse that with the wording used by sources (it has already happened to me a couple of times). From sources that are already in the article:

On March 23, 1989, two electrochemists announced at the University of Utah in the United
States that they had discovered a method for creating nuclear fusion at room temperature, using
simple equipment available in any high school laboratory.Lewenstein 1994

[Pons and Fleischmann] claimed at the press conference in 1989 that they had fused deuterium nuclei using routine electrochemical techniques on their lab bench. This was a huge claim to make - nuclear fusion had been thought possible only at temperatures in excess of a million degrees, when nuclei could overcome Coulomb repulsion. (...) Physics World

The first report on "cold fusion," presented in 1989 by Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons, was a global scientific sensation. Fusion is the energy source of the sun and the stars. (...) Everyone thought that it would require a sophisticated new genre of nuclear reactors able to withstand temperatures of tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit. Pons and Fleishmann, however, claimed achieving nuclear fusion at comparatively "cold" room temperatures — in a simple tabletop laboratory device termed an electrolytic cell. ACS press release

Sources say that P&F announced nuclear fusion at low temperatures. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well, if that is what the sources say, then I agree that Wikipedia cannot say otherwise. However, I'm fairly sure there is some RS somewhere about P&F retracting the claim that they had detected fusion byproducts (other than excess energy). Is it therefore not obvious that at that point "cold fusion" became just a proposed explanation for their observations of excess energy (which most certainly were not retracted)? V (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Present the source, when you find it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@V. "Pons and Fleischmann acknowledge that their experiments don't produce the typical signs of fusion--neutrons, gamma rays, tritium, and helium in amounts correlated with excess heat. They argue that a "hitherto unknown nuclear processo--a new form of fusion--must be causing the heat." (p. 10) "(8 May 1989) Fleischmann is reported to admit that neutron detector may be faulty.¹¹⁷ (citing from [Wanhingon Past Wire Service], "Fueion result in ermr," Allentown (Pa.) Morninn Call. 10 May 1989, p. Al.)" (p. 34) Lewenstein 1994 There is no mention that the interest increased at that date, or that any increase happened because of Fleischmann retracting his claims about neutrons. Also, I don't know if Fleischmann ever said that no nuclear fusion happened in his cells.... --Enric Naval (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree a good Source needs to be found. But above you now appear to be trying to confuse the issue. My proposed edit could only have been relevant to the initial announcement, not any retraction --and perhaps I should have said something about that in my last post above, when I agreed that the available RS cannot allow the proposed edit. So, if some appropriate RS is found, then a completely different edit would be needed somewhere, describing cold fusion as a hypothesis to explain the various data claims. V (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Cold Fusion" is the whole field, not the subset you are attempting to restrict the name to. What you are talking about is D-D fusion at room temperature, a specific explanation of some cold fusion results. Please stop confusing the issues. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@V Well, when you find an appropiate RS, then propose your edit again. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Enric. Kirk, I do understand that the whole CF field includes a lot of Believers who insist that fusion must be happening in their experiments --and it is obvious that the mainstream backlash against CF is related to that unscientific attitude. But the whole field should also include some scientists who haven't committed themselves to that opinion. My mistake here, apparently, was to think that the latter group was also the larger group. V (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(partial undent) It has occurred to me that the 1989 and 2004 DOE reports both support the notion that, to paraphrase, "something is going on" (mostly the production of excess energy) that is worthy of additional if low-level research. I'm fully aware that neither report supports fusion as the explanation for the energy, but the key point I'm trying to make here is that the experimental evidence for that energy-production, however-small the excess normally was, was too great to ignore. So, in terms of the Scientific Method, the most logical thing to do is to devise experiments that very reliably produce that energy, after which even the mainstream would feel an urge to start hunting down its source, be it fusion or something else. V (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem V is that you are incorrectly interpreting what was written. In normal scientific parlance, saying that 'well-founded and thought out proposals should be funded' is just science motherhood and apple pie. All it means is that they were being polite by offering up the standard scientific position that any conclusion made today may be superceeded or even overthrown by better work tomorrow. Note the word 'better'. What they said clearly eliminates 'more of the same' proposals, which is what we see most of the time in the CF field. Lots of people doing essentially the same thing over and over, with no new clairty or understanding being added. To get funding, a new CF proposal would need to do something to resolve the controversies and clearly demonstrate that the effects are not 'noise' due to contamination or just not understanding the true noise level. You're never going to get that when the CFers continue to ignore the reasonable conventional alternatives. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but there have been "other" experiments, such as that unpublished NASA pressurized-gas experiment ( http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19900008108 ), and Arata's similar experiments that were published in a minor journal, and then approximately replicated and published in Physics Letters A ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 ). I am aware that a calorimeter isn't the only way to detect excess energy in that class of experiment; the Gas Law equations will associate any excess energy with extra gas pressure in the system. Which could take us back to electrolysis experiments, if they were sealed, and allowed the gases generated to be recombined controlled/catalytically at a distance from the cell, where the energy of recombination could be cooled at the precise rate of recombination. (There would be some leftover oxygen that needs to be directed to a small storage tank; this is the oxygen associated with the hydrogen that permeated the metal electrode.) Any excess heat in the cell would raise the gas pressure inside that sealed system.... Since the SPAWAR people say their codeposition experiment starts producing excess heat quickly, something like that could be a double-check of their calorimetry. WP:OR stuff? Some of it; some I saw at one of the Google "knol" pages (equally non-WP:RS). V (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The NASA report you cite primarily says they found no neutrons after a good try. It gives a little information on an apparent heating that was observed, but to me it just looks like Joule-Thomson coefficient effects. Not enough info to really decide. You may want to hold off on crowing about the Arata-Kitamura stuff. Current indications are there will be something coming out in the near future that will cause you to have a lot of egg on your face if you don't. The rest of your post is your speculation, which is inappropriate for this page. Please stop. None of your post changes or challenges anything I said above. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The NASA document clearly indicates a difference in energy detected when deuterium and not plain hydrogen was used in their experiment. Yes, the focus of that experiment was on fusion byproducts (of which the only one observed was energy.) There is nothing speculative at all in what the Gas Law says happens to a confined and heated gas. And there is no speculation associated with noting that Arata-type experiments involve confined gas (and other experiments could involve confined gas). The only speculation in my prior post involves how such facts might be used, which qualifies as "simple obvious logic", and is far from inappropriate when there is so much argument in this field about calorimetry. Didn't you talk about "reasonable conventional alternatives" above? V (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"The NASA document clearly indicates a difference in energy detected when deuterium and not plain hydrogen was used in their experiment." - Actually temperature, not energy. And the point is that that likely arose from the Joule-Thomson effect. Without actual experimental parameters to convert the observed temps to energy, we will never know. This is an anecdotal observation, of minimal value.

Kirk, if you don't know that temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of molecules, you need to go back to school.

"The only speculation in my prior post involves" postulating and interpreting new experiments aimed at proving some point. That is NOT what this page is for. Please stop.

"proving some point" --wrong, the goal was about gathering better data.

"Didn't you talk about "reasonable conventional alternatives" above?" Yes I did, based on cited literature or well-known science, not some speculative experiment that has never been conducted. You may be correct that watching pressure in a sealed system might be useful, but again, that is NOT what this page is about. We are supposed to be discussing article edits. What edit are you proposing? Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, none. These last several posts by more than just myself have been an example one of those common things, where a conversation drifts. Certainly I started the partial undent here with information that I thought might lead to a possible edit. :) V (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for incivility, V. If you don't understand the Joule-Thompson effect why not just read that article rather than telling others to go back to school? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He was implying that a temperature measurement is not the same thing as an energy measurement, and any such implication is quite wrong, at one of the very elementary levels of scientific knowledge. The Joule-Thompson effect does not change that fact one whit; all it does is, in essence, add another variable to the parts of a system associated with energy storage/release. So, while that Effect can occasionally explain some observed energy, it does not at all invalidate any actual measurement of energy. I also note that the NASA document clearly indicated that they only saw extra energy when deuterium and not ordinary hydrogen was used in their experiment, and I note that the Joule-Thompson effect article makes no distinction regarding the two isotopes. That means that if the JT effect is responsible for observed energy when deuterium was used, the same thing should have happened when plain hydrogen was used. There are times when Kirk's attitude needs to be yanked short (and, yes, times for my attitude to be yanked short, also!). V (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

To be able to tell what is going on, you need the mass of gas moved, the mass and heat capacity of whatever it is that is being heated up, which might be the same if the temp meas device is in the gas, to be able to compute whether the observed T rise is attributable to the JT effect or not. But the report says none of this information, i.e. it is an anecdote completely unuseful for anything real. And yes, H2 and D2 have different JT coefficients, just like every other physical property you can measure for H2, D2, and T2. I think you are short on facts V and very, very long on attitude. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Kirk, here are some links for you:

http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/Encyclopedia.asp?GasID=36 (some physical properties of hydrogen)

http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/Encyclopedia.asp?GasID=20 (some physical properties of deuterium) --Hey, why doesn't the deuterium article have this info? Note the boiling point is only about 3 degrees C higher than that of plain hydrogen, despite every atom massing twice as much. That's because the important thing there is the Van der Waals forces between molecules --and that factor is also an important thing for the Joule-Thomson effect.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TWR-3SP97PR-6&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1413871041&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=25d476f4073700add5ca3c6a687af60d

That last link indicates that deuterium behaves much the same as ordinary hydrogen, with respect to the Joule-Thomson effect. So, that Effect cannot explain the energy seen by the NASA experimenters. Have a nice day, Kirk!

Please note that for every property listed under the same conditions (be careful, a couple of temps are different) on the Air Liquide site, the D2 and H2 properties are different. The paper you reference says that the 'maximum integral inversion reduced pressure' for H2 is 40 and is 32 for D2. If you actually want JT coefficients at several temps see: Johnston, Bezman, and Hood, J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 68 (1946), 2367, and Johnston, Swanson, and Wirth, J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 68 (1946) 2372, and Michels, DeGraff, and Wolkers, Physica, 25 (1959) 1097. They show the JT coeff. are different for H2 and D2 at several T's and P's.

Your patholgical skepticism is showing (pathological because it concludes things that are against the available evidence). You take data that supports my position and claim it doesn't, simply so you can 'win' the argument. That's enough for me, you have proven there is no point in trying to educate you or even 'discuss' anything with you. You are a fanatic cold fusion advocate who will attempt to suppress any opinion or fact that tends to discredit cold fusion, irregardless of how it makes you look. This is why you automatically oppose anything I say and block all suggested edits, not because you actually have a case. You are a clone of Rothwell, PCarbonn, and Abd. Signing off of this pointless debate. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kirk, "different" does not automatically mean "different enough". Neon is much more massive and complex than helium or hydrogen or deuterium, but its Van der Waals forces are still low enough for it and those lighter gases to all behave similarly to each other with respect to the Joule-Thomson effect. That is, if neon is not different enough from plain hydrogen, with respect to that Effect, then why should we think that deuterium is different enough from plain hydrogen? V (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For the rest of the readers of this discussion, it is useful to look at the Air Liquide pages referenced above and confirm that H2 and D2 properties are different, because it means that if chemistry is the basis of the Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect as I claim, then H2 is NOT a control for D2, and in fact it is impossible to run a 'control' experiment under identical conditions using H2 or D2, or H2O and D2O for that matter, because all the properties are different which leads to different results for the same experimental conditions or to different conditions to get the 'same' results. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this is all original research without reliable citations to back it up, it's naught but pointless soapboxing and using wikipedia as a forum for discussion - both of which are inapporpriate. Objectivist can think whatever s/he wants, and feeds on people paying attention to his/her arguments, which have absolutely no chance of affecting the article. If we WP:DNFTT, this pointless discussion ends. Let Objectivist get the last word - it won't matter anyway. From the inital comment about an unrelated NPR discussion to this argument about "different enough" gasses, there has never been anything sufficient to alter the main page. So let's just stop. Objectivist can have a final rant, and we can all go on with our lives. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear to you all, 'V' has clearly adopted in his discussions the recent tack taken by Steve Krivit, who has written articles for his blog and elsewhere on how 'LENR' is not 'fusion'. However, the common usage of 'cold fusion' is as a catch-all term covering all aspects of LENR, including as a subset, room temperature D-D fusion. In fact the book by Goodstein extensively discusses the subfield known as 'fractofusion' without ever using that term. The Wiki article should not be confused by buying into this attempt to legitimize 'LENR' by somehow disassociating it from 'cold fusion'. They are one and the same.

Who said disassociating 'LENR' from cold fusion would legitimize it? Who said 'LENR' and 'cold fusion' are one and the same? Some people believe that LENR is a better explanation for the alleged observations but that the original idea of cold fusion does not explain them well (especially alleged electroweak interactions) and that "cold fusion" people are wrong, so explain that.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Historically, the term cold fusion was applied first by journalists to describe the work of F&P (realizing it had previously been applied to muon-catalyzed fusion). During the heyday of cold fusion (1989-1992), the term 'LENR' was not seen. It was developed later by cold fusioneers in an attempt to avoid having to talk about 'cold fusion' in patents and articles, since the US PTO blocks 'cold fusion' patents (just like 'perpetual motion' ones), and most scientific journals stopped publishing 'cold fusion' papers after c. 1992. By avoiding the negative connotations associated with the term 'cold fusion', whatever work is being discussed is seen as more reliable, since the highly unreliable term 'cold fusion' is not mentioned. If pushed (which I am not), I can document these kind of discussions between cold fusioneers, especially in the arena of getting patents circa 1994-5. 'LENR' stands for 'Low Energy Nuclear Reations' . The 'Low Energy' means the same as the 'cold' in cold fusion, so you could equally talk about 'cold nuclear reactions'. 'Nuclear reactions' can be more than just fusion, but the useage of cold fusion that V is so valiently trying to get deleted from the article is that of a catch-all term to cover all the types of work thought to be caused by LENR. It is not precise, yes, but it is the common useage. Lots of people have lots of ideas what the LENR are, but none have any recognizable proof. The original idea proposed by F&P, as noted in this section of this page, was D-D room temperature fusion. The primary evidence presented for that was quickly shown to be wrong, leaving F&P with no known mechanism to propose. Understand that to the mainstream, 'cold fusion' people and 'LENR' people are one and the same. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet according to the mainstream, cold "fusion" cannot be identical to low energy "nuclear reactions" which exist outside the scope of fusion. So why does LENR redirect to Cold fusion? The redirect basically assumes that those who argue for LENR follow the "cult of personality" behind cold fusion. This is demonstrably not the case. I say the cold fusion article should be reduced greatly to only discuss the alleged fusion effect. Everything referred to as "LENR" but not "cold fusion" should be moved to a separate article.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 14:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it should. To the public, which constitutes most of the Wikipedia readers, the terms are indistinguishable. And as I said above, that's becaue the cold fusioneers are playing semantics games. Wikipedia is not going to have an article that devles into and justifies why one should be considered separate from the other or which term is more correct. The idea is to provide a useable refernce for the average person. By explaining all this as I did above the article does its job. If it doesn't do that now, then someone needs to edit it. There is no 'picking of sides' on the 'personality cult' disagreement. That whole thing is a triviality overall. In fact, it is primarily an invention of Steve Krivit. Once conclusive proof is developed for LENRs, then we (scientists) can work on getting it named right. So far, it's nothing but hot air anyway. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the bolded statements by V of 16 July, I couldn't agree more. The issue is whether there is any energy or not, and so far, none has been proven. I would also like the refs to the work showing that some CFers have taken my criticisms of cold fusion calorimetry to heart. I haven't seen it. As late as this year people have published calorimetric claims of extreme precision where an analysis of a small change in calibration constant clearly shows effects 10-100x that level. One key characteristic of cold fusioneers is that they only deal with criticisms they can answer, and ignore those they can't.

Regarding nuclear fusion as the best explanation: The claim by F&P is that they began their experiments in 1983 or so because they thought QED suggested something interesting might happen. Their original claim was to have observed spectroscopic evidence of D-D fusion, which was later shown to be in error, but they also claimed that the apparent excess energy detected exceeded anything that could be obtained chemically, leaving only nuclear explanations as possible.

In the end, I don't see the point of the proposed revison, it adds nothing, it clarifies nothing. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Without a source, there's not much point in continuing this discussion. Interest increased because P&F had a press release before they had confirmation. I'm not bothering to read the OR dump above. Sources are important, opinions are not, and there's no point in even debating. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW - The CCS and new paper

I never could seem to get people to understand why the CCS is a critical concern for cold fusion calorimetry. Today, I realized there was an alternate way to approach the topic, and I have added a section to my user Talk page describing it. Please comment on it on _that_ page in the COMMENT section following the 'new' explanation. Also, won't be too long now before my response to Krivit and Marwan's paper in J. Environ. Monitor. is published. I sent proof corrections in yesterday, and Marwan has written a reply to my comment (which I haven't seen yet). When they come out I will summarize here with suggested article additions. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That notation is way over my head. A prose version would help a lot more; can you describe it at around the level of this introductory article, or the interview that goes with it, or even this update tech report from the subject of that interview? All three of those are a lot more accessible for the audience here, I'd venture to guess. Those show an MIT professor's perspective on the topic, and go in to detail about the controversy. Ura Ursa (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The non-technical description is: There is a standard way to compute uncerainty (random error) in any computed variable based on the known or determined uncertainty in each measured value, known as propagation of error theory. When that is applied to cold fusion calorimetry, the error bars derived are 10-100 times what cold fusioners claim as their random error. Further, that 10-100x error bar typically encompasses the reported apparent excess heat when using the usual 3-sigma limit. This means the CFers are 'working in the noise', which is one of Langmuir's signs of pathological science. The rest of the post is just showing the details to prove to pathological skeptics that I'm not lying. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

10-100x sounds a little far-fetched. does that take into account mutual information? redundancy (error-canceling)? if it's done wrong, i could see an easy exponential explosion in calculated error where the real error actually stays pretty constant. really, IMHO to get an accurate estimate it should all be measured in information-theoretic terms and the final result should be in terms of something like KL-divergence. but that's a digression. point is if the figure of 10-100x doesn't sound a little suspicious then you're probably biased. Kevin Baas^talk 15:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Error analysis in science is notoriously underappreciated as a subject. Routinely, even in the best work, error bars are under-reported, in a few famous cases by orders-of-magnitude. Arguing that one should be suspicious of someone pointing out that first-principles errors are 10-100 times larger than reported errors seems to me to be looking backwards. The cold fusion papers in general do not discuss error analysis in great detail and the noise effects are of great concern to every neutral evaluator who has carefully considered their implications. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

SA is correct. Kevin, did you even bother to read the post on my talk page? I think not. In one case I compute a 30W 3-sigma band as compared to the 75 mW 3-sigma band typically reported, which is a factor of 400. The Storms work I reanalyzed is a little more than a factor of 10, but that is with what essentially is a top line calorimeter (98-99% heat detection efficiency). Cruder calorimeters giver more room for error (which is a reversed way of stating another of Langmuir's criteria, namely that as the measurement techniques improve, the signal gets smaller). I think this pretty much shows Kevin is a P.S. when it comes to my posts at least, something I had noted before. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course SA is correct. What of what I said would suggest otherwise? And why would I need to bother reading your post on your talk page? The logic is all self-contained here. Error analysis is a tricky thing and one has to be careful about it. But I guess saying so makes me a P.S. (whatever that is), doesn't it, Kirk? TALK ABOUT CONTENT, NOT EDITORS. Kevin Baas^talk 03:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issues due to omission of facts

There are quite a few very biased proponents and naysayers about Cold Fusion. However one of the most convincing ways to lie is to tell the truth but omit key facts.

The results of Muonic fusion are qualitative in nature yet we believe them yet the data from Aqueous Cold Fusion is too quantitative for the indicated reaction conditions. (The bias of one Nuclear physicist to Cold Fusion might in part be because his Lab blew up, no doubt because he was a careful experimenter trying to get into the second wave of papers.)

The theory behind Muonic fusion takes the Muon (as 507 times heavier than an electron) and replaces the electron in the quantum equation of the Hydrogen molecule. The resulting equation has the two nuclei in much closer proximity than a normal Hydrogen molecule, with neutron(or proton or deuteron) tunneling amplitude being significant in the other nucleus. The tunneling amplitude is high enough that it seems to be quantitative for the thousand or so reactions before the Muon decays.

The theory behind Aqueous Cold Fusion was that Molecular Hydrogen becomes Atomic Hydrogen after absorption by Palladium exists interstitially as protons within the metallic orbitals of Palladium. As the Palladium saturates with Hydrogen, two Hydrogen nuclei will occupy these interstitial sites becoming similar in proximity to the Hydrogen Nuclei in the Muonic Atom. Defects and Impurities (or lack of) in the Palladium metal will help crowd these Hydrogen nuclei.

Most Chemical Suppliers (and jewelers) sourced bulk Palladium as 99% with x impurities. Palladium absorbs Hydrogen readily, but at ratios above H:Pd of ~1 or higher the Palladium undergoes a phase change reaction that can be violent. Palladium used in Hydrogen gas purifier membranes is 5% Silver to avoid this reaction. (Palladium is also alloyed because it is very soft like Gold.) A 20 gram disk of Palladium will purify (pass through)enough Hydrogen from a chemical Hydrogen generator to fill a ~25 liter Weather Balloon in a few minutes. There is no mention of the 104 Kcal per mole generated by the recombination of atomic hydrogen to molecular hydrogen. Another fact that this article omits is that all "successful" experiments used concentrated Lithium Hydroxide (Deuteroxide) at an alkalinity that would cause considerable overvoltage of Hydrogen resulting in injection of Lithium atoms into the Palladium matrix (a common side effect in ElectroPlating. The "fusion" is said not to occur if Sodium Hydroxide or Protonic Water. If, accounting for cathode size and shape variation, a Palladium membrane can pass that much Hydrogen then one shouldn't need to preload hydrogen for a week. Electromigration of defects, impurities, metals (Lithium?) could conceivably take that long. Although Hydrogen flows freely through Palladium, Helium does not. Very few Palladium cathodes were sacrificed (dissolved) to determine trapped gasses and other fusion products.

Shjacks45 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, your post above is so laced with errors that I don't have the time to address them all. What change exactly are you proposing for the article? Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I will collapse this topic if no reliable source is provided for this info. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is one glaring error that I feel obliged to point out, regarding that first post: The mass of a muon is actually more like 207 times that of the electron, not 507. I'd also like to know more about that claimed "phase change reaction that can be violent", when the H:Pd ratio gets high enough. This is the first I've heard of such a thing --and if true, that alone might explain the energy observations of just about all the CF researchers. Note that I'm expecting this to be different from something long known, that the permeation of hydrogen into palladium is normally somewhat (not violently) exothermic. V (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I didn't know the Muon weight (times electron is relative and not accurate anyway), it is from another wiki that apparently has accurate sources like this one. (Or Kcal vs KCal, point was there is enough heat from Hydrogen recombination to melt Steel.) By "violent" I meant enough energy to break a glass beaker, used in many attempts to repro CF. Part of the cathode is out of the solution so I presume that pressure (due to voltage) of Hydrogen entering the electrode would create more than 2Pd:H ratio typical of adsorption. Need a lot of pressure to get to 1:1.5 ratio. The Pd gas purification membranes on a Gas Chromatograph I used was made for a regulator, 300 PSI max recommended. Industrial Hydrogen cylinder is 7000 PSI. Steady state there is no heat in the Pd membrane except from pressure differential. Note the CF requirement to preload the electrode with Hydrogen for a few days. Yet Hydrogen travels through Pd separation membranes rapidly.

I wasn't questioning "violent"; I was questioning "phase change reaction". Such a change would be more physical (like an atomic-lattice rearrangement) than chemical, and of course have nothing to do with nuclear fusion (even though the old old term "heat of fusion" --associated with a melting point-- might well apply, heh!). Like I wrote, before, this is the first I've heard of such a thing as a phase change reaction when lots of hydrogen gets into palladium. Finally, regarding something else you wrote, the reason the CF researchers doing electrolysis experiments need to run those experiments for many days is because hydrogen comes out of the electrode almost as easily as it goes in, when running at ordinary atmospheric pressure. That makes it obvious that considerable time can be needed to accumulate deuterium/hydrogen inside the electrode, to the level needed for unusual stuff to begin to be observed/reported. V (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would assume someone moderating the cold fusion page would be familiar with the references on the Wiki already. The concept of tunneling is discussed in several key papers on low temperature fusion quoted in this Wiki, I had perhaps wrongly assumed that "neutral" moderator had read these papers himself? I would think that anyone in charge of this page knew that the Solution of Schrödinger equation for Hydrogen was a Wikipedia article under "Hydrogen Atom". I received my Chemistry degree over 30 years ago and the Sources I regularly quoted for my daily work, including legal depositions, were usually copyrighted. References like the Chemical Rubber Handbook, ASTM Test Methods, ASME Procedures, Merck manuals. In college and as a UW alumna I've used references to Journals such as Journal of the American Chemical Society and Tetrahedron Letters, publicly available at the University of Washington Libraries but inaccessible (but often referenced in Wikipedia)on the Internet without payment. There are public papers on www.lenr-canr.org but I thought you should be familiar with those. The point remains that your providing detail for the Anti Cold Fusion arguments and refusing to provide details about Cold Fusion (making it appear empty) makes the writing in this Wiki BIASED against Cold Fusion. If you think the writing is neutral then you could explain to me why you think so.

By the way, this is a discussion page. Other posts, anti cold fusion posts, don't seem to be required to put references in their posts. I don't remember a Wikipedia policy for requiring references in Discussions. Definitely seems to underscore your bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shjacks45 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's nice, but could you propose a specific change, and give a specific reference for that change? Otherwise, we are not going to get much work done here.

(for example, taking one of the statements in your opening post, you could propose to add "all "successful" experiments used concentrated Lithium Hydroxide (Deuteroxide) at a certain alkalinity", and then giving a source for that statement.) --Enric Naval (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a question. Suppose we added a line to the article somewhere about the fact that hydrogen in general has a very easy time passing into/through palladium. While there is plenty of WP:RS that that is true, is there any RS anywhere about why it is true? So far as I know, nobody actually knows exactly why. But I did see a post somewhere on the Internet where the well-known thing called "The Table Of Electronegativities" ( http://0.tqn.com/d/chemistry/1/0/w/v/PeriodicTableElectronegativity.jpg ) maybe offered a clue to part of the mystery. It is obvious for anyone to see that Palladium and Hydrogen have the same electronegativity --so, The Question:-- would we need some RS that actually says, "palladium and hydrogen have the same electronegativity"???. It means that there is "no conflict" for electrons, in terms of chemical reactivity, between the two elements. Also, the SPAWAR codeposition experiment relies totally on that fact; the electroplating of palladium out of solution, while simultaneously electrolyzing heavy water, yields a 1:1 ratio of the two elements ("100% loading" of palladium with hydrogen, the CFer's say) exactly because they have the same electronegativity. And because SPARWAR gets high loading from the get-go, they don't need to wait a long time before being able to make claims of observing excess heat. NITPICK: it is possible to find Electronegativity tables in which the value of hydrogen is 2.1 and palladium is 2.2 --not identical-- so I don't really know what the real values actually are. Does anyone? Anyway, the SPAWAR experiment certainly indicates they are very close to being the same. V (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Any conjecture regarding electronegativities of metals being relevant to cold fusion experiments is original research. To wit, iridium has an electronegativity similar to that of hydrogen and palladium but does not have the hydrogen absorptivity that is known for palladium and platinum. There are external references that say the peculiar properties of palladium and platinum are what get cold fusioners so hot and bothered, but that's as far as we can go. Speculating on why these metals are good at absorbing hydrogen is well-beyond the scope of what this article can handle. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, seconding that - original research. The point of the page is not to argue that cold fusion is possible, based on X, Y and Z and the "casual comment" that hydrogen can pass through a palladium lattice is just as inappropriate as a "casual comment" that suggests a reason why cold fusion is impossible. These aren't "casual comments", these are original research soapboxing that attempts to push the idea that cold fusion has been unjustly rejected. The scientific consensus is that cold fusion was an example of pathological science, and this hasn't changed yet. Please stop trying to prove that cold fusion actually exists - wikipedia is about verfiability, not truth, and when it is verifiable that the scientific community accepts cold fusion exists, we can document this. Until then, per WP:UNDUE we summarize the skeptical scientific consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you guys having fun blowing stuff out of proportion? I quote from my post above, "I did see a post somewhere on the Internet where the well-known thing called "The Table Of Electronegativities" ... maybe offered a clue to part of the mystery." Do you not understand that that was the WP:OR --not anything I posted above? Nor was I talking about trying to prove cold fusion is real; I was talking such documented consequences (in WP:RS, too!) as the SPARWAR codeposition experiments --all I was doing was explaining why "codeposition" is a logical and possible and, during electrolysis, an experimentally achievable result of two elements having similar electronegativites. I quote: "...because SPARWAR gets high loading from the get-go, they don't need to wait a long time before being able to make claims of observing excess heat" --that is not at all about "proving" cold fusion; that is merely a report of claims made. Just because I chose to focus on the extra energy they've almost casually said they saw, and not mention the neutron-track data they thought was more important.... To ScienceApologist, that is a good point about Iridium, and obviously it means that even if the electronegativites thing is a factor, it is not the only factor as to why palladium likes absorbing hydrogen. Hmmm...we could find plenty of RS saying that palladium is a good catalyst while iridium isn't ... but of course then we would also need some RS indicating that that could be be the extra factor... and I already said that I didn't know if anyone knows the answer to the mystery.

Meanwhile, I see neither one of you bothered to answer the Question I asked about. If anyone can see the obvious for themselves, from an Electronegativites Table, that the values of hydrogen and palladium are the same, do we need RS where somebody actually wrote that the values are the same??????? V (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider this fun, I consider it annoying and unnecessary. Cold fusion = rejected, so there's no reason to play "let's pretend" with electronegativities. This isn't a scientific article, since cold fusion isn't science, so there's no need to pull in irrelevant sources. If you're not suggesting an actual change to the main page, don't bother posting. If you're suggesting a change that hints, nudges or alludes to "excess heat" - don't bohter unless you have a source, it is reliable, and is explicit about supporting cold fusion. This is not a chat room. "Extra factors" and speculation are irrelevant - cold fusion is considered nonsense; unless a source is explicit and reliable about the point you are trying to make, it's a pointless waste of time. Why should we bother including information about electronegativity when, again, cold fusion is considered nonsense? The answer is, we shouldn't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: the electronegativities of elements are irrelevant to this page unless a reliable source has commented on them as being relevant to cold fusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, if I wasn't absolutely, crystal, 100% clear on that before, allow me to voice my agreement now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The two of you are obviously deliberately avoiding paying attention. There is indeed a valid reason to talk about electronegativies in the article, and that is simply to explain to the reader what a "codeposition" experiment entails, and why such an experiment is possible to do. The SPAWAR experiments have reached WP:RS publication (at least two "Springerlink" journal papers), and while the anti-CFers desperately tried to declare Springerlink to have become non-RS simply because they dared to publish a CF paper or two, the anti-CFers failed in that endeavor, which means this article is free to discuss the SPAWAR experiments in appropriate detail. Per the "Omission of Facts" title of this Talk Section, I see the article currently mentions the SPAWAR experiment but not in best way, in the "Publications and Conferences" section: "(SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons in a standard cold fusion cell design" --that faultily implies they were not doing codepositon! --which certainly can use a relatively standard-design electrolytic cell, but at least one of the chemicals being electrolyzed (a palladium compound) is very far from standard! Do note that such a detailed description, about stuff any decent mainstream electro-chemist would have no trouble with or objection to, has nothing to do with trying to prove that CF is real. The only thing we might need is a bit more in the way of third-party RS, about the SPAWAR experiments. I have no reason to think such will not appear in due course if we don't have enough already, and so it doesn't hurt to get prepared, by getting all the worthless objections out of the way now, instead of later. So, what are your next worthless objections? V (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone's objections "worthless" is a borderline personal attack. The supposed "non-standard" use of palladium in an electrolytic cell needs to be discussed in a reliable source: not just "prepared for". There is no sense in us having discussions about things which may or may not happen in the future. Wait until the sources you think are bound to show up actually appear. Then we'll discuss it. Until then, this is in violation of WP:TALK. I suggest archiving this discussion and all other discussions of this nature which are not suggesting immediately actionable edits to the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes a comment worthless is the ignoring of relevant information before putting one's fingers to the keyboard (not to mention the deliberate focusing on minutia as if it was more important than the relevant information). Here are some links that may be relevant:

[5] (paper presented at American Physical Society meeting; the first thing it says is that codeposition experiments have been replicated), [6] (Note the authors mostly work at different labs) [7] (this page lists several publications of SPAWAR codeposition experiments)

[8] This one may be the most interesting --looks almost like a University Course on Cold Fusion! Does that count as Secondary RS?? (and some of the links there refer to the SPAWAR codeposition experiments)

Those links were basically found by a simple Google search for [ spawar codeposition ] --more than 1500 results. If the word "excess" is added to the search, the number of results drops to about 250, but it offers a chance to focus on excess heat and not CR-39 tracks. Here's an organization I never heard of before:

[9] --perhaps they don't care what the source of energy is, as long as an experiment yields excess energy? (Reminds me of companies making high-temperature superconductors without caring why they work.) Of course I'm fully aware that there is controversy regarding the claims of production of excess energy. Just for fun, here's a link describing CF kits-for-sale, for anyone to find out if excess energy can be produced: [10] :) V (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The only pages that use the words "cold fusion" are a page by a high school teacher (the "university course"), and a mail archive, neither of which are reliable secondary sources. And here is a three year old source from Wired saying we shouldn't believe in cold fusion based on SPAWAR. Anything new, and explicit? The consistent point made is you are asserting "X is cold fusion" and insisting we take your word for it. Again, it's going to take a solid, high-quality source (more likely set of sources) claiming cold fusion is a real deal to change the page. Simple google searches don't help - reliable sources do. The fact that you would present this is a reliable source is indicative of the problem. This is a personal web page by an author that doesn't appear to have any real publications - just a bunch of personal observations and presentations at conferences. Presentations are not reliable sources, particularly not for surprising fringe claims, and particularly when it's well noted that cold fusion conferences, sparsely attended by true believers, still occur. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these links belong in WP without some context. SPAWAR is already mentioned and discussed in what I deem to be enough detail for this article. The personal webpage of the math instructor at Montclair State is neither timely nor particularly accurate. That there are companies selling cold fusion kits is an amusing anecdote, but one that probably only bares one sentence mentioning. If you'd like to workshop a suggestion for how to write such a sentence for this article, I'd be amenable. Start a new section, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit I didn't look too closely at that teacher's site; do note, though, that I said "looks almost like" --I didn't say it actually was a university course. Next, I object to you, WLU, spouting the outright lie that I was "asserting "X is cold fusion" ". I have been describing experiments in the cf field; I have not been claiming that any of them prove cold fusion has been happening. And how can you possibly think the SPAWAR researchers are not investigating the subject of cold fusion when their papers so often talk about neutron-detection results? Not to mention, I see you have distorted your description of that Wired article, which says, exactly, "Should people believe in cold fusion based on the SPAWAR experiments (alone)? Probably not." Replication matters!!! --which is where that new paper comes in, with multiple authors from multiple labs (linked in my prior post). I fully understand the mainstream view that it is at the very least jumping-to-a-conclusion to insist that nuclear fusion is happening in those experiments; all I care about here is whether or not any of those experiments can generate excess energy, AND whether or not it can be replicated. I am getting the impression from you, that just because the mainstream thinks cold fusion is impossible, so also is impossible any excess energy in these experiments --even though it is the excess energy that the experimenters had to observe before jumping to the conclusion that fusion was responsible-- but you have never said why there cannot possibly be some other event going on instead of fusion, to cause some excess energy. I am reminded of the equally-derided "hydrino" hypothesis, and that recent remark about a "phase change reaction", mentioned earlier in this Talk Section. Are you going to say that We Know It ALL, and that is why there cannot possibly be ever-in-a-trillion-years anything unusual going on in those experiments????

Perhaps the answer relates to an inherent dilemma, caused by the anti-CFers here! If something other that fusion is going on, that would mean we need to write a different article than this one! So, hmmmm, maybe we should start writing such an article. How about "Anomalous Energy Experiments" ? V (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's time for you to get over your battleground perceptions, stop guessing about what the future will hold and suggest we start writing articles about it before breakthroughs happen, and stop trying to use Wikipedia to right great wrongs you perceive to have been done in the context of cold fusion arguments. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Again you misinterpret or misunderstand. I am not predicting any such thing as a breakthrough. I am talking about a great many existing experiments in the CF field where the experimenters report seeing excess energy --and in recent years they have carefully avoided using the phrase "cold fusion" in their papers, to increase the chance of publication. The approximate replication of Arata's pressurized-gas experiment is one such, getting deuterium into palladium in a different way than by using an electrolysis cell. Since they didn't use the magic words "cold fusion" in their paper, though, the feeble excuse has been raised time and time again that the experiment does not deserve mention in this article. But it most certainly could deserve mention in an article about Anomalous Energy Experiments! V (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A wall of text, no sources, a lot of assertions and no reason to change the page. Objectivist, please let it go, there's nothing here to support a change - either policy or source basis. Again, this talk page is not a soapbox, please stop using it as one. I'm now in WP:DNFTT territory for this section, if there's a source I need to comment on, I will but otherwise I'm not wasting more time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion with much less certainty that "cold fusion = rejected", because I don't see how that view could possibly be construed as supported by recent reliable published sources, and have posted such a source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_72#Hagelstein's cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften for comment. Ura Ursa (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link: http://www.reference.com/browse/pd.d. --in which is specifically stated, regarding Pons and Fleischmann, "Lacking an explanation for the source of such heat, they proposed the hypothesis that the heat came from nuclear fusion of deuterium (D)." I know we have lots of RS slanted toward them insisting that fusion was happening, but that does not seem a reasonable thing for highly regarded researchers to do, so I kept looking.... --V (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a mirror of wikipedia. The copyright date is 2001-2006, so it's probably a 2006 version of our article. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Hey, folks, just because something is on the internet doesn't mean it can be used for our article. There is, in fact, lots of peer-reviewed secondary source material to use, and it's not being used. I find it amusing that my own post to the Vortex list was cited above as referring to a company selling kits to replicate cold fusion. It was suggested that you could verify excess heat for yourself. No, probably not. Those kits are being designed to be cheap. Only about a centimeter of gold wire is exposed as the cathode. The most expensive thing in the kit is 25 grams of D20, after that, it's the platinum cathode. I've never seen reports of excess heat from a codep cathode surface as small as that. The radiation detectors are LR-115, cheaper than CR-39. These kits are being optimized for neutron detection. If they work. That remains to be seen! There are *many* ways to get this wrong. No, this couldn't be in the article unless I get some press, which is way, way premature! --Abd (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Old claims and new data

Violation of WP:TALK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The present article talks about claims made in the 1920s and 1932 regarding palladium loaded with hydrogen. The first reference is similar to Arata's (and others') modern experiments (except now they use deuterium and not plain hydrogen). The second, of course, was the inspiration for Pons and Fleischmann. I'd specifically like to ask about the relation between the 1920s experiments and approximate replication of Arata's experiment that was published in Physics Letters A ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 ). The current article doesn't say anything about the detection of energy in the 1920s experiments; the PLA article strongly focuses on the detection of energy. I see that the article currently references other references, regarding the 1920s experiments, and so it could be nice to find the orginial publication data. I found this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=eq7TfxZOzSEC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=%22Friedrich+Paneth%22+%22Kurt+Peters%22+hydrogen+palladium&source=bl&ots=Se6FAOoRY0&sig=Q5vtl96k9g8rJbqN-m7NO5fYOrM&hl=en&ei=JABbTMCqFoaWsgO_p-CyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Friedrich%20Paneth%22%20%22Kurt%20Peters%22%20hydrogen%20palladium&f=false that pretty much says the same thing as the current article (and could perhaps replace the current reference-to-a-reference) --although near the top of that page is a statement to the effect that when four ordinary hydrogens fuse to make helium, considerable energy is released. It seems unrealistic to think that the 1920s experimenters were not looking for energy as well as for helium, coming as their research did hot on the heels of Eddington's proposal for why the Sun shines. I also understand, however, that they could well have not found any energy (especially since they didn't use deuterium), and therefore didn't report it. It would be an interesting question, though: "Where did they think the energy went?" --when they were very willing to claim to have detected helium! (Isn't speculation fun?) V (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I did at least offer a link that should be an improvement, for the article, in terms of replacing an existing link. V (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How was WP:TALK supposedly violated by the collapsed text? Ura Ursa (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence was certainly inappropriate. But because anti-CFers are desperate to prevent people from seeing relevant data, that's why the whole block was collapsed. The rationale is equivalent to that used regarding files at the lenr-canr.org site --that is, if a file has a little bit of stuff added to it, then the anti-CFers claim that the entire file is corrupted and worthless, and if one such file exists at that web site, then the whole site should be blacklisted. STUPID rationalizing, that is.... V (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, next time you want to have a general discussion about the merits or demerits of CF, you should go to the VORTEX-L mailing list. That list is intended to host that type of discussions; wikipedia isn't. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Where in the above collapsed text is there something about the merits or demerits of CF? V (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe this text has been collapsed improperly and should be restored. Ura Ursa (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ura Ursa, all editors here, except for those who are COI, have equal rights. If you are subject to conflict of interest rules, then you should declare so and be especially careful how you conduct yourself. I'm COI, myself, clearly, and Dr. Shanahan should, my opinion, likewise be considered so. If you are not COI, and you believe that the discussion above should not have been collapsed, then you may remove the collapse. But don't revert war! Once is enough for an action, twice is often too much. (After that, we'd seek consensus, or address the problem in a different way.) If you need help, I'm, shall we say, quite experienced in this area, and may be able to advise you, particularly off-wiki. However, my opinion is that Enric Naval was correct in what he did, if not in how he justified it, and collapse is mild compared to what he could have done, which would be to simply remove it. What's clear about the above discussion is that it was not about proposed changes to the article, it was about background, or questions about CF. Quite simply, this is not the place to ask such questions. I'd suggest many other possible places, such as my user Talk page, Dr. Shanahan's talk page, the Vortex list as suggested by Enric Naval, or, maybe even better, Wikiversity:Talk:Cold fusion, to start, because original research is allowed on Wikiversity. (Dr. Shanahan: you would be most welcome there, just be nice, okay?). You will actually get answers from those who know the field, I can probably guarantee that. And maybe, then, if the answers can be rooted in reliable source, it can eventually come back to the article. Discussion here should be limited to proposed changes to the article, particularly those clearly based in peer-reviewed or academically published secondary sources, or, in some cases -- like this -- about our own discussion process. --Abd (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

New Paper(s) Out (as promised)

My lengthy paper, ‘Comments on "A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research"’, has now been published on-line. (Comments on “A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research”, Kirk L. Shanahan, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, Advance Article DOI: 10.1039/C001299H, Letter ) Paper publication to follow. Along with it is a response authored by almost every ‘name’ in the field of cold fusion today. “A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research: a response to Shanahan”, J. Marwan, M. C. H. McKubre, F. L. Tanzella, P. L. Hagelstein, M. H. Miles, M. R. Swartz, Edmund Storms, Y. Iwamura, P. A. Mosier-Boss and L. P. G. Forsley J. Environ. Monit., 2010, Advance Article DOI: 10.1039/C0EM00267D, Letter.

[note added 9/16/19] The page and volume numbers have been assigned. My comment is in JEM 12 (2010) 1756-64. The reply by Marwan, et al, follows immediately. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The journal does not allow me to download from the Web page, and my library does not have an active subscription, so I have ordered the papers. Of course I know what my paper says. I will let you know what the response is when I read it. The authors didn’t bother to send me a courtesy copy. The J. Environ. Monit. disallowed a Reply to the Response, so no immediate response is possible by me.

For input to the Wiki CF article, my paper states the following while roughly following the original Krivit and Marwan (K&M) papers layout (theory and history not considered) (comments below are highly condensed):

- K&M do not cover conventional explanations

- Cold Fusioneers do not recognize and consider the CCS (with no explanation given as to why)

- Heat-after-death experiments are extreme examples of a possible CCS error

- He detection experiments do not adequately address contamination issues

- Heavy metal trasnsmutation results are most likely contamination caused

- Pits in CR-39 plates outside the electrolyte have been noted as coming from contamination, and such is not eliminated adequately in CFer papers

- Pits in CR-39 plates in the electrolyte can be conventionally caused by shockwaves (amongst other things)

- CR-39 ‘triplets’ are accidental overlaps of individual pits

- Temporal correlations of, i.e., heat and helium levels, are useful only if it can be certified that the ‘heat’ and ‘He' signals are real, i.e. come from a LENR (the point of the whole paper is to show that cannot be assured)

- The use of 5.2 ppm He as the ‘acid test’ of He production is not correct.

- Overall, many important details that would address these issues are never published.

The conclusions drawn are:

- CFers do not consider conventional explanations, which limits the validity of their conclusions

- The CFers are working in the noise, and thus are meeting one of Langmuir pathological science criteria, and in fact CF is pathological science

- The primary problem is irreproducibility.

- No serious analysis of results is attempted, thus all claims to have observed CF are accepted.

- There is a large body of evidence, but it is loaded with bad results which should have been rejected, rather than included in that body.

- The cold fusion field observer is fully justified in rejecting unsubstantiated claims of novel nuclear reactions

- A working CF-powered device would silence all criticisms

What we here now have is a journal article, i.e. RS, that clearly states nearly everything I have been trying to say is wrong with the CF field for the last several years. By the fact that it is published, it supports the mainstream view that CF is pathological science. I propose we reinsert the additions I made to the CF article in Sept. 2008 in order to provide balance to the article, which currently over-emphasizes the supposed positives of CF research, and fails to address current objections. (I also reiterate that the section on how CF doesn’t fit theory is only partially relevant from a historical point of view only, and should be drastically reduced or relegated to a side article.) However, since I have been continuously accused of “COI”, I will not edit the article myself unless consensus to do so is developed here first. It will likely require some major surgery as the article is substantially different from back then.

Also, I will take WLU’s advice and ignore all comments by V.

Once I get the Response by Marwan, et al, I will post a summary if desired. Alternatively, I can leave it to the CF advoctes here to do as I have done above. We all can anticipate they will say everything I wrote is wrong. That is a given, they are ‘True Believers’ after all. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not everything you say is wrong. And I see you actually left out something. I distinctly recall you talking about hydrogen-oxygen recombination as a source of energy to explain experiments in which an electrode became melted in spots. And you have never explained why, when two identical-as-possible experiments are running, if one has that happen and the other doesn't, but both produces some excess heat, then CCS must be the explanation for the one where the electrode didn't melt, while of course the heat measurements in the one where it did melt must be correct (we all know that real detectable energy had to be involved for that to happen!). V (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What you are discussing incorrectly and incompletely is the mechanism I proposed that could produce the observed CCS. The new article did not even discuss that point, which is why it is not in the list above. The rest of your comment is ignored. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course you must ignore the irrationality in your argument that I exposed. You claim that a CCS phenomenon, a miscalibrated instrument, could explain some observed energy as an artifact of the miscalibration, while also describing a source of real and possible-to-measure energy. You can't have it both ways!!! V (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Also, I will take WLU’s advice and ignore all comments by V." lol.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 20:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if you're ignoring the logic already, it doesn't really make a difference anyways. Kevin Baas^talk 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is amusing to see the pro-CFers come out of the woodwork whenever I post. They seem to think that my prior post was a violation of some kind. I would like to note that V did bring up one point regarding my new paper which I felt needed a brief response, especially since I have spent so much time trying (and failing) to educate the pro-CF crowd here about the proposed mechanism for the CCS. I posted that and ignored V's other trolls, which I will continue to do. I also note that so far there has been no substantial comment on my proposed edits. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is amusing to see a scientist use logical fallacies such as ad hominem and false dilemma so reliably. Kevin Baas^talk 16:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please document these assertions. Failure to do so indicates that your comment is, in fact, an ad hominem attack. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

-

Hi Wikis, just thought I’d pop my head in here for a moment. Harp Minhas, editor of J. Environmental Monitoring, sent me a copy of Shanahan’s paper – he said it had already gone through peer-review. It appeared to me identical to the one he posted on the publicly available federal Web site. Minhas gave me an opportunity to argue with Shanahan. This link will get you access to the Shanahan pre-print and my informal response.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/3518responsetoshanahan.shtml

Since Shanahan, an original author, has apparently been permitted to participate here for many months with his assistance to the Wiki editors, I can’t imagine that it would be a violation of etiquette if I offered some of the same as well. Rather than fill these pages with my own deep commentary, I instead offer the July 30, New Energy Times Special Report “Cold Fusion is Neither” for your information.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35900outline.shtml

I’m not proposing any edits to Wiki, of course, just trying to be helpful to those of you who would like some deeper insight. I’m not likely to engage in discussion here, though I’ll consider for response any emails sent to me directly.

Shanahan mentions “True Believers.” Some of you may find it interesting that I have written a detailed article on this; it’s part of the Special Report.

Also, if any of you would like to reference my two peer-reviewed Elsevier encyclopedia articles, let me know and I can send you free copies.

Best regards,

Steven “no longer pro-cold fusion” Krivit

-

StevenBKrivit (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I invite all Wiki editors to read Krivit's response as referenced. I also add that you need to read it carefully with two things in mind in particular. (1) Krivit admits he tried to get this published as an official Reply to Comment in J. of Environ. Monit., but failed to meet publication requirements. ~~He calls this Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)~~What he describes is 'negotiating' with the journal editor. One doesn't 'negotiate' with editors, one conforms to the standard rules of scientific debate. Krivit was unable to do that, but that's not his fault, he's not a scientist, and didn't have help on this one. (2) Make sure you look for technical comments in the response. There really aren't any, which is why it couldn't pass muster at the journal. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake! The article referenced by Krivit as his response is a new one. The one I was referring to is the old one (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/35pdf/3566shanahan-jem-response.pdf). (Actually the primary difference seems to be that Krivit deleted the first couple of paragraphs in his new response.) He refers to my paper as a 15 pager there when his in JEM was 16 pages. In fact, my article is 8-1/2 pages long in the proofs, with 1-1/2 pages being references. (His paper also had about 1-1/2 pages of refs.) Wiki editors should also note that in both he attempts to use my Wiki activities against me somehow. Also, don't be fooled by the "no longer pro-cold fusion" sig Krivit used. He is just following on with his crusade to get cold fusion renamed LENR. As I've said before, they are one and the same. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

-

Kirk Shanahan, your comments "Krivit admits he tried to get this published as an official Reply to Comment in J. of Environ. Monit., but failed to meet publication requirements" and "it couldn't pass muster at the journal" are false and are misrepresentations.

JEM never received any draft from me. As I wrote, "After Harpal Minhas, the editor of Journal of Environmental Monitoring, and I made several attempts to agree on the parameters for my response to Shanahan’s comment, I gave up and decided to publish a version independently." "Negotiating" was your word, not mine, however, you could characterize my discussion with Minhas as such. However, the "negotiating" centered only around rules of engagement. As I mentioned, I never sent Minhas a draft of my response for him to consider, let alone pass muster or judgement. It was Minhas' rules of engagement which *I* declined to accept, as is my prerogative.

Your comment "he's not a scientist, and didn't have help on this one" is also misleading. I am not a scientist; I am a journalist, editor and writer, and I am quite pleased that I have been able to learn the subject matter and communicate it to the degree which I have. However, I had very little help from Marwan on the original paper. Similarly, I had no direct help from any scientist on my two peer-reviewed chapters for the Elsevier encyclopedia. Or on my review paper for Current Science.

Readers who would like the facts about me and my perspectives can very easily obtain them directly through the New Energy Times Web site and my published work. They can form their opinions of my perspectives on LENR independently of any middleman. That's it for now. Bye bye.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

-

Mea culpa. Please note the strikethrough and modification to the text regarding 'negotiating'. However, the point still stands. You don't negotiate with editors over how to write a Response. It's a standard process, well known to all who routinely participate in the scientific process via the literature. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Kirk, thank you for publishing your arguments. How do you respond to the SPAWAR charged particle detection results? Do you have a list of the people who have claimed to reproduce that work? How do you think the government should resolve the difference between ONR and DOE on these issues? Ura Ursa (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In my paper I make the points that the SPAWAR results have two potential conventional explanations: shockwave-induced mechanical damage and O2 bubble-induced oxidative damage. Until those conventional mechanisms are excluded, there is no certain proof of any charged particle or neutron production. (I further disagee they have shown the so-called triplets are anything other than 3 overlapping pits.) I don't keep a list, but the only people who have done this to my knowledge is those involved in the 'Galileo Project', which also did not address conventional causes. (I generally make the technical mistake of lumping all those who use the SPAWAR protocol under the term 'SPAWAR group'. This is a technical mistake because some laymen fail to understand it is the protocol that fails not just the group.) ONR is not at issue with DOE. A few SPAWAR researchers and one or two NRL people believe CF is real. There are a few DOE people who do too, although they are not working or publishing. To try to tie these ideas/beliefs to organizations is not correct. It is people who are making the claims, not organizations. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How can shockwave-induced mechanical damage or O2 bubble-induced oxidative damage produce beta radiation? The difference is that ONR approves research on the subject, and DOE does not. Ura Ursa (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You have RS on that ONR-DOE statement right? The official stated position of DOE, arising from both the 1989 and 2004 DOE Reviews, is that well thought out proposals should be funded. To my knowledge, DOE has no position saying that CF research is banned. There definitely is a bias against, I agree, and I have been subject to that too. Yet I still publish and follow the field. I think you have become a victim of the CFers victim mentality. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

According to NRL researchers K.S. Grabowski, D.L. Knies, D.A. Kidwell, D.D. Dominguez, C.A. Carosella, V.K. Nguyen, A.E. Rogers, and G.K. Hubler in their presentation to ARL's LENR workshop in Adelphi, MD on June 29, 2010, NRL has had eight full-time LENR researchers working for the past 18 months. That is in addition to SPAWAR personnel and contractors at Nova Research in Alexandria, and it's certainly more than "one or two." I would still like to know how mechanical or O2 damage can produce any kind of radiation capable of being altered by an external magnetic or electrostatic field. Ura Ursa (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your question assumes a fact not supported by the evidence- that beta radiation is produced. The experimental results were pits appearing on CR-39; beta radiation was a hypothesis put forward to explain that result by some of those who used the SPAWAR protocol. I haven't read Kirk's new paper, but I do know that others in the 'Galileo Project' who also used the SPAWAR protocol were not convinced of this hypothesis. Rather than a nuclear explanation, chemical or mechanical effects could explain the pits that are formed. Also as an experimental result, they found that the pits made in CR-39 using the SPAWAR protocol have an appearance unlike those made using ionizing particles. Kirk, I think you may be painting those who participated in the 'Galileo Project' with a bit too broad a brush. I've been meaning to check out this book but haven't managed to do so yet - the "Null Tests of “Free-Energy” Claims" chapter may be a reliable source concerning these results.--Noren (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention, the pits are claimed to be evidence for neutrons, which are mostly not ionizing particles. If a neutron strikes CR-39, my understanding is that what happens is, the neutron physically knocks some atom out of position in the physical structure of the plastic, weakening it at that spot. An etching process is used to reveal those weak spots as pits. There is thus an implication that other sources can damage that plastic. I don't know, though, that any of those sources can exactly imitate the type of damage that a neutron can cause. A shock wave, for example, tends to affect things on a wide front, affecting many atoms simultaneously, while a neutron is more like a bullet among atoms. V (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To Noren: I'm not sure which 'brush' you are referring to. In my paper I cite the unpublished results of Little showing various kinds of physial/chemical damages cause pits, and I cite his conclusion to that effect. (I also cite Oriani and Fisher's publication of the same fact.) That's all I cite from Galileo, but I mention the SPAWAR group has published some results from it, and also that they claim nuclear particles of course. However, both Little and Oriani and Fisher cite difficulties in telling the pits apart from 'legitimate' ones. For the record I also don't know 'that any of those sources can exactly imitate the type of damage that a neutron can cause' (to use V's words), which is exactly my point. Until we do know, we can't assume the pits are due to radiation only. My whole thesis, since the beginning, has essentially been that the CFers have jumped to a conclusion without adequate justification. (That means, with adequate proof, they could prove 'CF' is real tomorrow.) By the way V, SPAWAR articles claim 'charged particles', not just neutrons (which are uncharged, but are ionizing radiation.) Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Kirk, it depends on what the neutron hits. Other ionizing particles can rip electrons from atomic orbits because they are electrically charged and can attract or repel those electrons as the ionizing particles pass by. Some (like energetic photons) can do it by more-direct interaction with an electron, giving it energy by, basically, striking it. A neutron mostly ignores electrons, though. I can imagine it ionizing a typical hydrogen atom because its nucleus has about the same mass as the neutron, and so a hard-enough "knock" can make the proton leave its electron behind. But this is seldom going to happen when a neutron hits a carbon nucleus that has almost 12 times its mass, or an oxygen nucleus that has almost 16 times its mass, and so on. Note in my post above I stated "mostly not ionizing". However, since plastics like CR-39 have a lot of hydrogen in their chemical structure, it does follow that neutrons can do some ionizing in there. V (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that article basically says what I wrote above. It adds the fact that the proton, once knocked hard by a neutron, can do quite a bit of ionizing on its own. It spells out that neutrons are indirect ionizing particles; I was talking about direct ionization. Even neutron-absorption leads to indirect ionization. And note the article does not say what I wrote (but what I wrote is quite true) that when a fast neutron hits a nucleus like carbon or oxygen and bounces off, the event is unlikely to make that nucleus lose its electrons. (A really fast neutron might do something to a nucleus called "spallation", causing it to lose a proton or alpha particle that then does some ionizing, but such neutrons are extremely rare.) V (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Noren, the AIAA book you refer to is about (potential) breakthroughs in propulsion systems, and Scott Little works for Hal Puthoff who is trying to find proof for the ZPE paradigm. Hal has published several papers on using a putative ZPE device to propel rockets, etc. The book has an article in it by Scott Little, which I attempted to use in my extended debate with Pcarbonn to show he was a 'qualified' source for quotes, etc., in the Wiki CF article. Of course, P didn't agree and we moved on to argue about other things. Scott's article is short and discusses what he has done in the whole excess energy field. He has a section on cold fusion, 7 parageraphs long, which mostly cites some history and describes his MOAC calorimeter performance. One paragraph explains that he has looked at several cold fusion cells, and he says "None of these cold fusion experiments have shown any convincing evidence of excess heat in our calorimeters." This article should be RS in my opinion, but it is a Proceedings article. It certainly substantiates the mainline view than CF is not proven. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Add section on x-rays

I was trying to ask Kirk about the beta electrons, protons, and alpha particles measured by varying an electrostatic or magnetic field around the SPAWAR/Galileo experiment and detecting different patterns of such radiation at the same location. I would also like to know if Kirk has a response to the x- and gamma-ray findings which are summarized in that link. Ura Ursa (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't respond to that part of your comment, as I agree with Noren. There is no certain proof of any kind of radiation as long as the conventional mechanism(s) remain unassessed experimentally. (Note: It has been shown and published that mechanical damage causes pits, that is not the issue.) This will be particularly difficult to do for the shockwave idea, possibly impossible. However, if a conventional mechanism can be shown to apply to the excess heat claims, then the idea the pits arise conventionally becomes very realistic. The supposed damage due to X-rays and gamma rays also is unproven. Radiation (ionizing) of all types damages plastics, so that is not a question. The question is whether the damage seen in CF CR-39 plates is due to radiation or something else. I don't feel the answer to that will be forthcoming very soon. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Did Noren say the conventional mechanism(s) must be assessed before any kind of radiation can be measured? Why would anyone think that? There are dozens of ways to measure x-rays at a distance, and people have been reporting them consistently with all kinds of detectors. Hagelstein just published a review of more than a thousand such measurements. How do you explain the x-rays? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I said that, for the last 10 years, in print, 'RS' print at that. Only the first sentence of my reply above referred to what Noren said. Why would anyone think that??? If you are on a jury in a murder trial, and the prosecutor provides evidence that John Doe killed Mary, but the defense successfully impunes the quality of the evidence _and_ brings out other evidence that seriously suggests James Doe did it, would you send John to the gas chamber? On what basis?? It is a trivial concept that when you have two equally likely explanations for something, choosing one over the other is not a scientific choice, but an expression of personal choice (or bigotry). The scientific thing to do is go get more data to resolve the situation. There are dozens of dozens of ways to mis-measure x-rays too. Which Hagelstein review? I haven't seen it. How to explain x-rays: By which method? It makes a difference. I brought up years ago solid reasons why xray film can't be trusted. Devices can malfunction, etc. Be more specific. However, I am not an expert in radiation detection devices and how the malfunction. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope science is done with the preponderance of evidence rather than the beyond reasonable doubt standard. Hagelstein, P.L. (2010) "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment" Naturwissenschaften 97(4):345-52. Here are some excerpts: "Pt K-alpha x-rays have been observed in Fleischmann–Pons experiments.... Bush and Eagleton reported the observation of Ka x-rays from Pd, Rh, Ag, and Pt from a PdAg alloy correlated with the excess power. In this experiment, the excess power was given as 5.2 W over 64.4 h. About 1,800 Pt Ka x-rays was seen with a detector efficiency of 0.0033, resulting in an estimate of about 1 x-ray/J. In experiments reported in Iwamura et al. (1995), excess heat was observed uncorrelated with x-ray emission; a dominant Pt Ka was seen in the x-ray spectrum." Ura Ursa (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually science is never done simply on a preponderance of evidence. Collecting data is just one part of science. What has to go along with that is some kind of interpretation. This is not the false supposed requirement of having a full explanation of whatever its going on, but instead is a serious discussion of what the data is, how it is collected, whether it is of adequate quality, and how one goes about reproducing the data. In the case of bodies of evidence purported to only be posssible if a new low energy nuclear reaction is ongoing, in fact there are conventional explanations of equal or better explanatory power that have not been eliminated. When one has two interpretations of one set of evidence that are equally likely (speaking very broadly here, as the idea of a LENR is a really big stretch vs any conventional mechanism) the only conclusion one can make is that the issue remains undecided. Everyone has to go back to the lab at that point and get more dta that will decide between the two or more altenatives. This is where the CFers fall down. Instead of doing that, they wave their hands at what they don't like and act as if that disproved it, then they proceed on as if no criticism (alternative) had ever been made. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't be suggesting that CFers have spent less time going back to the lab to get more data over the past 15-18 years than their detractors, are you? Ura Ursa (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am explicitly stating that most of their work (if not all) does not incorporate criticisms. Thus it will never resolve any issues, and thus is pointless. Repeating the past mistakes never helps. Most of their work is of this type. For example, they have know since 2002 (actually 2000 in all likelihood) about the CCS problem. They choose to ignore it or claim it is unimportant, but every publciation they put out on calorimetry shows it could be the dominating factor. This is why they should get no funding. They won't take the steps necessary to advance the state of the art, preferring to burn lots of bucks get more of the same confused data. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What steps do want them to take to address the CCS problem? Ura Ursa (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, it's not what I want, it's what produces the impression that they have actually considered the problem analytically, and then used those considerations in drawing conclusions. So far the situation is this. Up until my publication of 2002, no one realized it was a problem. Post-2002 there was one generic derrogatory comment made on it by Fleischmann, Miles, Mosier-Boss and Szpak (in 2004), and a detailed one by Storms (2006), which only dealt with the proposed mechanism that might produce a CCS, not the CCS itself. I rebutted both of these comments with lots of facts and figures (not unsubstantiated claims as they have stated in the response to my recent comment), so it certainily can't be concluded that their pubs rule the day. However, that is what they conclude, and they therefore ignore the CCS problem completely. When forced to consider it, by my recent comment in JEM for example, they grossly misstate the problem in a fashion that makes their version clearly incorrect and then claim that "obviously" the CSS is not an issue (this is known as using a strwaman argument, not an acceptable practice). There are probably a variety of ways it could be reasonably addressed. What I would do is what I did in my reply to Fleischmann, et al, and do some numerical estimation of how big a shift would be needed to cause the observed signals to be classified as 'noise'. If that change ends up as outrageous, they might have the beginnings of an argument that the CCS is not important to that work. So far though, they don't even think about it. If they would conclude the effect might be a reasonable explanation for their observations, then they would have to do some subsequent work to prove it isn't before they can claim they have evidence for a LENR. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How can CCS be measured experimentally? Ura Ursa (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article says nothing about x-rays, other than in a title of a reference. Would anyone object if I added a section about x-rays after the section on heat, citing the existing x-ray source, Hagelstein's 2010 review which hasn't been added to the article yet, saying that the "Pd/D system emits X- rays with a broad energy distribution" as stated in Boss et al. (2009) [11]? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The abstract you point to says nothing about xrays. I don't have the paper, it seems the book isn't out yet, at least via Amazon, even though it says the release date was (to be) July 23. Until it is actually out, it isn't published, so it's not RS. If you are citing RS you should be able to say what you want. Prior eveidence of xrays is very shaky, based on others comments in the literature, but I am not an expert in how spurious signals can be obtained with nuclear counting equipment. I have mentioned hypering and heat sensitivity of X-ray films as a likely explanation for fogging, and I do so again in my recent paper. I don't believe any of it, but that shouldn't stop anyone from using proper RS properly. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for a copy of that chapter -- someone might let us read it. The same information is in Szpak et al. (1996) "On the Behavior of the Cathodically Polarized Pd/D System: Search for Emanating Radiation," Phys. Lett. A. 210:382-90 when they were plating on to nickel. The url is www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSonthebehavb.pdf but apparently lenr-canr.org is on the Wikipedia blacklist (?!?) Ura Ursa (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here it is! Are there any objections to using these three sources (Szpak et al 1996, Boss et al "2009", and Hagelstein 2010) for a new section on x-rays? Ura Ursa (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There are still no accepted explanation for CF, and we shouldn't start listing every attempted explanation (there are dozens of explanations, we would be picking one explanation over others when none is accepted, we would be giving prominence to explanations by insiders in a fringe field before they are accepted outside of the fringe field, etc.).

And about listing experiment results. Cold_fusion#Reported_phenomenon only lists phenomena that got prominence outside the field (and I just deleted from "nuclear transmutations" a paragraph that cited only primary sources from researches in the field). There are also dozens of different experiments claiming to have found a huge variety of stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree promoting one theory over the others is a mistake on a fringe subject until the secondary reliable sources have something to say about whether, for instance, Widom-Larsen is better or worse than BEC or other theories.

But is there any reason to omit the single empirical finding which the skeptics have the most difficulty dismissing? Doing so introduces deliberate bias, does it not? Empirical observation is not theory, so the reliable secondary sources standard is appropriate for x-rays. There are so few secondary sources (and do any of them even talk about theory? I think some of them mention transmutations, though) that there's no danger of the article ballooning in size if we summarize the emperical observations they include. Ura Ursa (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"the single empirical finding which the skeptics have the most dificulty dismissing" <-- if this is the reason for inclusion, you should find a secondary source stating so. (actually, mentions in any secondary sources outside of the field could do the trick. For example, I checked Goodstein 2010 but it doesn't seem to mention much beyond Scaramuzzi). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing saying that detractors have the most difficulty dismissing x-ray evidence, I was only proposing including the empirical x-ray evidence because it is thoroughly documented in the reliable secondary literature. However, when we talk about what should and should not be included in order to present an unbiased article, isn't it true that the x-ray evidence, for which there has been no viable explanation other than nuclear processes, ought to be included? Ura Ursa (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that x-rays are not "thoroughly documented in the reliable secondary literature". They are documented in Hagelstein's review, who is a supporter of CF. They lack an outside review that frames how importance mainstream gives to the claims that x-ray have been measured and correlated to excess heat. That why I looked at Goodstein, who is an outsider. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There are 136 mentions of x-rays in Britz's bibliography. Before I go through looking for detractors who found x-rays (which I think may be a fools errand, because I doubt anyone finding x-rays sticks with the non-nuclear hypotheses for very long) please explain why we need outsider claims for empirical observations instead of the usual WP:RS standard. Doesn't the fact that we are supposed to summarize the most substantial controversies first mean that we need to use the peer reviewed secondary sources for fringe empirical observations, even if there is a stricter standard for theory? Ura Ursa (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

From WP:PARITY: "The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field (in this case, physics, nuclear physycis, or maybe chemistry); limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.". --Enric Naval (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That section talks entirely about fringe "theories," not peer reviewed reports of empirical observations reported in the secondary literature. Those aren't "theories" or "views." In any case, at least two of the current NRL researchers were documented detractors before they were assigned to the field, but there might be better examples in Britz's bibliography. I'll look. Ura Ursa (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

i would also add that a single piece of evidence is never conclusive. It has to replicated (in detail, so that it is reproducible). The Wiki article should focus on the supposed large bodies of evidence, and not get drawn off into trivialities. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the x-rays are trivial or have not been reproduced sufficiently? Ura Ursa (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Other way 'round dude. You are proposing to add a section on x-rays, when all of your predecessors found it not worthwhile. Do you have secondary RS as Enric suggested to show us that people besides the fanatics think it might be real or important? If not, then drop the issue and save us some time. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As one of those "predecessors", I'd like to interject the comment that this Talk Section is the first I've heard about X-rays being reported in any of the literature. I don't know how many other "predecessors" also lacked that information, but it would be a very simple reason why no X-ray section has been proposed before (WAS it proposed before, and archived away, before I started posting here?). V (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There are about 25 mentions of x-rays in the archives, the first being from Jed Rothwell, which explains the redundant autoradiographs that most of the experimenters looking for x-rays used. Ura Ursa (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you want a report of x-rays in a review from someone who is previously on record as disbelieving that any nuclear processes are occurring, or someone who had never before produced surprising results in the field? Why would that be better than the reports above from peer reviewed literature review? Isn't external mention the standard for fringe theories, whereas reports of empirical observations at the fringes should follow NPOV because we're supposed to order the controversies by how substantial they are? Ura Ursa (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What I think we all want is a) a proposed edit to look at, and b) the RS justifying adding it, esp. in light of what Enric wrote above about avoiding undue weight to fringe theories. What I would call acceptable RS would be something like where one of the DOE review panels considered x-rays, etc. or some other summary of the field like Goodstein's article where they discuss the people or process that produced collected radiation data. In other words, anything where significant consideration is given to radiation data that does NOT originate from a known cold fusion researcher. Unfortunately for you, to my knowledge, no such RS exists, which is probably why your predecessors didn't try to put it in. Most of the RS available revolves around the DOE reviews and the state of affairs back in 1994, primarily because most mainline scientists quit the field about ten. Exceptions are my papers on calorimetry and Clarke's papers on He detection. So just put up a proposed edit in a new section here, with supporting refs (i.e. RS) and we'll comment. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose: "X-Rays / X-rays have been observed in Fleischmann–Pons experiments. (Hagelstein 2010) The cathodically polarized Pd/D system emits X-rays with a broad energy distribution. (Szpak et al 1996)" Would one of the previously neutral experimenters confirming Arata and Zhang's gas phase x-ray observations be satisfactory as a third outside source? Ura Ursa (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else would chip in here, but I guess not. So, as I said above, I don't believe the Hagelstein reference is published (yet?), so until then, it doesn't count. The third ref you give is unspecified at this point, so all you have is the one Szpak ref, and we are back at the point of injecting fringe theory favoring material into the article. So, I'd vote 'no', no section on x-rays. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Hagelstein review says "Published online: 05 February 2010". Does that change your opinion or do you still want someone to propose a specific reference from one of the several previously neutral experimenters in Britz's bibliography who confirmed x-rays from Arata and Zhang's gas phase experiment to go along with it? Ura Ursa (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you said (at the NoticeBoard) that this article had been published in the RS journal Naturwissenschaften. If it hasn't actually been published yet (unless ACCEPTED pre-prints count, which perhaps is what you linked), then I might have to agree with Shanahan, that we can't use it until it is "officially published". 208.103.154.83 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was officially published in April 2010, in Volume 97, Number 4 of Naturwissenschaften. There have been five issues published since, so this line of argument is pointless. Ura Ursa (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So we will just use the same argument now re: Hagelstein as we did re: Szpak. Too much support from fringe theory sources, none from mainline. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific. All Naturwissenschaften articles qualify as mainline, so this new Hagelstein article is mainline, too. Are you talking about the "thousand papers" that were examined in the process of this article getting written? Were ALL of those thousand articles published in fringe journals? Or, more relevant to the current discussion/section here, were only the articles that mention detecting X-rays published in fringe journals? I could agree you might have a point if that were true. On the other hand, since the Naturwissenschaften article now exists for the mainstream to get started thinking about looking for X-rays in CF experiments.... V (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refer back to, and understand, the above comment of Enric Naval on 03:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC). Balance has to be maintained. Cold fusion is a fringe theory, and the article should make that clear, not push the fringe theory. Therefore, no undue focus on minor issues in the field, especially to the exclusion of the major ones. Show us RS discussing x-rays (or whatever) from authors outside the fringe group to substantiate the proposed edit's relevance and importance, and its impact on balance, and then we can discuss. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You are saying that a peer-reviewed secondary source in a journal which has already been decided a reliable source for this article is still a fringe source? On what grounds? Would you personally remove a section on x-rays which cites the Hagelstein review, the Arata and Zhang gas phase confirmations in the primary literature, and Szpak et al 1996? Or would you merely advocate for its removal? Ura Ursa (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cold fusion is a fringe theory" is not a basis for the exclusion of any reliably-sourced material from the article. There is no objective standard for "membership in a fringe group." What is found in reliable source is what we can use, and "reliable source" is dependent only on the publisher and publishing process. Storms (2007) is a secondary source review of the field, and it's dicey excluding Storms as a source; this wasn't published by a "fringe publisher." Storms covers many papers reporting X-ray emissions.

I see that there was a question at RSN about the Hagelstein review published in Naturwissenschaften. There is some remarkable material there. I'm sure we will be suggesting changes to the article based on this source. The paper is original research on a specific question, upper limits on the energy of the helium known to be generated -- this paper assumes that helium is being generated, a fact which should not be overlooked: the NW reviewers are passing such claims routinely now. The paper is reliable, peer-reviewed secondary source on the evidence that Hagelstein examines to come up with his conclusions. They are remarkable conclusions, by the way.

The basic conclusion is that as a reaction product, the alpha particle must be born with an energy less than 6.3 to 20.3 keV in order to be consistent with the absence of neutrons between 0.008 and 0.8 n/J as measured in Fleischmann–Pons experiments where excess heat is produced. Measurements of 4He correlated with energy production in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment suggest that the reaction energy is 24 MeV per helium atom produced. If so, then the experimental results are consistent with the alpha particle having less than 0.1% of the reaction energy.

I could go on to describe the theories that are actively being considered in the field; I heard Hagelstein speak on this at MIT this year, and others. People are working on various mechanisms whereby cluster fusion might transfer energy to, say, an entire nanoparticle. (Cluster fusion is necessary to deal with the problem of conservation of momentum; the reaction must produce two alpha particles; if there were only one, the energy would have to be carried off by a gamma ray, which would be detected.) Takahashi himself at one point predicted that an unspecified amount of the energy would be radiated by a series of photon emissions, by an excited Be-8 nucleus, formed from the BEC fusion of two deuterium molecules (i.e., four deuterons), before the Be-8 decays. Unfortunately, I think, if I recall correctly, the ground state decay is something like 90 KeV/He-4, well above Hagelstein's limit. But I will emphasize what Hagelstein says, which is what Storms published in 2007, and it is still true. We can't say yet that we know what is happening.

"Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?" --Abd (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Widom-Larsen theory, heavy fermions, and heavy electron/proton interactions

Moved to User talk:StevenBKrivit. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not happy about these collapses and moves. The first link removed, Two Decades of “Cold Fusion”, is clearly vital to understanding the history of the topic, and simplification of Widom-Larsen theory is useful if you can get past the low-contrast backgrounds. The fact that heavy fermions, an accepted non-controversial field of research, also deals with heavy electrons in metal alloys is also appropriate here. Ura Ursa (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the problem, Ura Ursa. This isn't a page for exploring the background of this topic, nor for debating the various theories extant. We might start to look at how the article is impoverished in its presentation of the various theories that have been presented over the years, as they are covered in reliable secondary sources. I'll merely add a link to what was moved,[12] and point out that this was not the place to ask Mr. Krivit a question, and his personal answers would carry no authority. However, if he points to a reliable secondary source, that would be quite useful, I'm sure, and he is even the author of some such sources, made reliable by how they were published. --Abd (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The CFers Response to the 2010 JEM Shanahan Paper

I had promised a comment on the Response to my Comment on Krivit and Marwan’s article. As expected, according to them, I am completely wrong, everywhere. They come to this conclusion by systematically misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I wrote. Case in point, they refer to the idea that my CCS problem requires random results. In fact I have clearly published that that is not true, it is highly non-random. Yet they state it is according to me (their strawman), and then use it to prove I can’t be right, except it is _their_ proposal that is incorrect, not mine. It is truly astounding the level of denial these folks evidence. The rest of the paper is the same way, so I’m not going to bore you with details. I suspect some CF promoter will want to work it into the article. For my part that will be fine as long as done correctly. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to that Response? Not to mention, OF COURSE the CCS phenomenon is non-random. It is controlled exclusively by Kirk Shanahan: Any experiment that detects small amounts of excess heat must be a CCS thing, and any experiment that exhibits such large amounts of excess heat that CCS cannot possibly explain it, must be explained instead by hydrogen-oxygen recombination. :) V (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The link to JEM's on-line publications of accepted articles is http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Journals/JournalIssues/EM#/AdvanceArticle . Undoubtedly you will have to buy the article(s) as I had to, it is a subscription journal like all the rest. You will have to look for it, as they keep adding new ones. When I posted this, my article was 4th and the response was 5th in the list. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

V, I suggest you google 'systematic error'. When I did, I found out, without even going to the pages brought up, that a systematic error is not random (of course I already knew this, but you never believe me, so I supply proof). The CFers response completely mis-states my proposal as being one of random errors. There is no excuse for that, they just refuse to know. Which proves the point I make in my Comment that they refuse to deal with conventional explanations. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you please describe an experiment which could measure calibration constant shift? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is "No", because you have not proposed an article edit for discussion, so I don't see why we need to start this discussion. The long answer is "I already have", the 'experiment' used the very same data that Dr. Edmund Storms used for his 2000 presentation (so he did all the data gathering), I just analyzed the data differently. So, I suggest you read my first paper to understand what I did. The manuscript version can be obtained at Jed Rothwell's lenr-canr site, look under my name in the index. Then remember that science is conservative, meaning that when an interpretation of data is available that does not violate known physics/chemistry, and produces a reasonable interpretation, meaning you don't have to stretch your thinking to the breaking point, that explanation is to be preferred over one that suggests known physics is wrong and requires mental backflips to try to understand what might be happening. 'Cold fusion' was only a reasonable last alternative to explain apparent excess heat signals as long as there was no other reasonable alternative, i.e. it was the explanation of last resort. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Should calibration constant shift be described in the article as an effect which can be measured experimentally, or as an alternative hypothesis for interpreting data? If there is no way to measure how much calibration constant shift is occurring, then the article should say that, shouldn't it? If it is possible to measure the extent of CCS, could you please at least explain in a few sentences how someone might go about measuring it? Ura Ursa (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ura, some of the comments that got archived a long time ago from this page were about experiments deliberately attempting to find evidence for a calibration-constant shift, and none succeeded. Shanahan never explained why it only occurs in experiments where he wants it to be an explanation, and doesn't appear in experiments designed to prove it can actually happen. Also, if the X-ray thing is valid, then Shanahan has ANOTHER problem, trying to make his purely-chemical explanation produce X-rays...normally, fairly-high-speed electrons are required to exist, before X-rays can begin to appear, and the voltages to cause such electron speeds are MUCH higher than those normally found in an ordinary electrochemical cell. I'm not aware of ANY ordinary chemical reactions, including Cs+F->CsF, that can produce X-rays. V (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you find that discussion in the Archives or History for me, please? If an effect can not be measured, it might be a hypothesis but it can not be a falsifiable scientific theory. You would think that Shanahan would want his readers to understand how his theory could be tested. Maybe that he can't is why he feels that the experimenters don't listen to his arguments? Ura Ursa (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm sure it was more than a year ago, and I don't know enough about how to search the archives to find it. Also, if memory serves, the discussion was a bit short on specifics (references to the experiments). 208.103.154.105 (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There has never been a valid test of the CCS outside of my reanalysis of the Storms data. There are many instances of where CF data seems to support the CCS, but it is too little to firmly do so. There are no examples proving it doesn't apply. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a page for debating Cold fusion or the merits or demerits of Mr. Shanahan's hypothesis. This is a page for the discussion of changes to the article. I am now COI on this topic, so I will be confining my comments to Talk pages, except for making non-controversial edits to the article, or, if I think changes I'd propose might be controversial, to sometimes making self-reverted edits, so that changes can easily be seen directly, much easier than looking at an "explanation." As to the above, I don't see a proposed change there, rather a personal defense by Mr. Shanahan of his position against "CFers," which is probably out of place here. His Talk page would be fine for that. --Abd (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the whole topic before commenting Abd. If you notice it started with me supplying the promised brief comment on the new RS publication from J. Environ. Monitor. that responded to my new RS comment in the same journal. Subsequent to that is a little discussion of my comment, probably undertaken by Ura to be able to formulate his/her proposed edit, since it would probably be considered inadequate for me to formulate the edit to be added from that Response. I agree, extended discussions of CF without relevance to an article edit is not kosher here. You may also note the immediate ad hominem attack by V, and you may wish to chastise him/her for that too. (And it's 'Dr.' to you...) Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, Dr. Shanahan. Before seeing the above, you might notice I was writing "Dr. Shanahan" elsewhere, so I had no intention of disrespecting your academic credentials. I've been following the publication described, but I don't yet have a copy of the response that was published with it. V is often a bit off, but I didn't chastise you personally, so why would you expect I'd chastise him? Below, I do comment on your recent comment that was almost purely personal without addressing the substance. On the substance of your note here, I myself fell into the error of discussing background with a goal of eventually leading to edits. It's quite unpopular, and irritates those who want to see simple questions to which they can respond, more or less, Yes or No. So such background discussion should go to individual talk pages or sometimes a working draft or the like in user space, sometimes in Talk space (which also allows subpages). Most frequently, a change will be proposed by an actual edit to the article, it's efficient to avoid discussing changes that don't actually need discussion, and then we have something to sink our teeth into, so to speak, here. However, you and I are both COI, so we shouldn't be the ones to make final decisions and should avoid making, ourselves, controversial edits to the article. We are advisors here, allowed to participate in discussion, but not to determine the results. It actually makes a great deal of sense, and the shame is that Pcarbonn was community-banned last year based solely on his advice on this Talk page, as he, also, went from being an uninvolved editor (I believe), once banned, to working in the field. Opportunities abound! --Abd (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed explanations

Well over a year ago, there was some level of consensus found on the Proposed explanations section. See a poll that was undertaken at [13]. (There was a "competing poll" started, linked from there, but results from that poll, a simpler type of poll, were translated back to this poll. Later, there was some dispute about how this was translated, but "we do not vote," and the poll was simply intended to sense consensus. From the combined results, there was consensus approval of two versions: [14]. There was very low approval for the version that was restored by an admin, but, that is pretty much what stands in the article. It's time to look at this.

The changes were sourced from multiple reliable sources, some of it, or some from at least one secondary source review (and that was attributed, as I recall). Without this kind of material, the article makes it appear that there aren't any theories that might explain cold fusion, except "ad hoc" ones. In a sense, that's true, in that no theory has been well-confirmed by the traditional process of making predictions that are then found to be accurate. Such predictions are extremely difficult in the field, because the details of the reaction are still unknown, and accurate calculations from the theories that exist are extraordinarily difficult. This fact, too, was covered in the material, that no theory has been found to be fully satisfactory to explain all the observed phenomena.

Note that only two theories were given that propose an explanation, beyond the theories of "experimental error" or "misinterpretation of results." There are others; these were merely some well-sourced ones, and one of them is widely rejected by those in the field. But it is reliably sourced!

Comment on current thinking among researchers. Not for the article.

The best opinion that I get from researchers in the field is that some kind of cluster fusion is responsible for the effect. That would cover Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory, but Storms believes that larger clusters are involved, as does Kim, I think, though I haven't discussed this with Kim.

For physicists reading this, Takahashi uses classical quantum field theory to predict fusion within a femtosecond if a particular physical configuration of two deuterium molecules forms with sufficiently low relative velocity, allowing collapse into a Bose-Einstein condensate, which then fuses to a single Be-8 nucleus. This would explain, in fact, the "triple miracle." What then happens is very difficult to predict; originally I assumed that the Be-8 would immediately decay into two He-4 nuclei, with equal and opposite momentum, kinetic energy 23.8 MeV each. But apparently Takahashi has predicted that the excited nucleus would radiate energy for a time before fissioning, and the behavior of a fusion taking place within a Bose-Einstein condensate is, shall we say, unknown. The electrons are included in the collapse; they also might carry off some energy. Theory, here, is totally out on a limb. I've talked with Hagelstein about this, and we agreed that an experimental approach was to start looking for evidence that D2 exists in the molecular form, in confinement, at various depths in the metal deuteride. NMR spectroscopy? Difficult, still, since D2 will exist at the surface already, in abundance. People should appreciate how difficult it is to study a phenomenon which obviously only occurs with very low cross-section, and possibly underneath the surface of a metal, and under very poorly-understood conditions. (But the conditions are much better understood now than they were in 1989.)

There are two standard objections to Takahashi's theory:

It is easily thought that this would produce significant alpha radiation at relatively high energies, and Hagelstein was published this year in Naturwissenschaften as establishing an upper limit on the energy of such radiation that is quite low. I'm writing off the top of my head now, and as I recall, the limit was well below 100 KeV, maybe as low as 10 KeV. The radiation reported by various groups is probably from secondary reactions; that is how SPAWAR explains the neutrons they have reported. This reported radiation tells us almost nothing about the primary reaction, just that something is happening there and you don't know what it is, do you, Dr. Jones?" That's why the SPAWAR neutrons are important, but, as was pointed out long ago, the levels of neutron radiation are far, far lower than expected if the reaction were classical deuterium-deuterium fusion.
Dr. Storms has pointed out, in private correspondence with me, that it would take energy to form the tetrahedral configuration that Takahashi studies. Where would this energy come from? My own answer to him was that sufficient energy might be available from ordinary thermal motion; we are not talking about a bulk process, but one where the actual reaction is quite rare. The energy would only be needed to bring two deuterium molecules close enough; as they slowed from normal intermolecular repulsion, outside of confinement, normally one or both molecules would dissociate; but if this happened within confinement, they might stay together, and if the approach velocity, angular velocities, and confinement were just right, this combination might reach "top dead center" and at that point, TSC collapse would take over. But talk about original research!
The knee-jerk response to multiple-deuteron fusion has been that it would be supremely rare, but this was thinking in terms of plasma fusion, of the idea that if the collision of two nuclei is rare, then three would be rare upon rare, and four ridiculously rare, like age-of-the-universe rare. But that's a misunderstanding of Takahashi's theory, which really starts with a cluster that amounts to two deuterium molecules, three or four of the electrons included. And in confinement, where spatial co-location becomes far higher in probability. Please respond to this only within collapse, this is not for article editing. --Abd (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The current version of this section: [15]. Because the article was in difficult conditions before, with revert warring taking place, I am putting together what I consider the best of what was removed, to suggest an alternative. My view is that we should, for starters, simply decide which version is better; if the present version is better, then we should stick with it and maybe incorporate something usable from the past, if the version I propose is better, then we should implement that and then fix it. Neither version is likely to be ideal, in my opinion. For efficiency, I'm proposing through a self-reverted edit, so you can see the section in context.

I propose to use this version for that section, or something improved upon it. This is based on the version just before protection. Note that I also changed, for this, the header of the top level section, to separate out the theoretical objections from the proposed explanations. This may not be ideal as an approach, but we have long had the preposterous situation of a Proposed explanation section that doesn't describe, at all, any sourced, notable proposed explanations, and there are more than I've put in. At that time, this was just the start of it.

There was substantial discussion of the issues involved here at [16]. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe you mis-remember. As far as I recall there was no consensus reached, in part because 'illegal' tactics were being used. Further, the proposed section(s) you cite uses unsubstantiated fringe theories to defend a fringe theory. Not consistent with Wiki policy. The most that should be done is to note that there are a variety of extant theories proposed to explain CF results which cannot be proved/disproved at this time due to lack of reliable results, point to Storms' book, and leave it at that. On the other hand, there are several RS papers now that describe the conventional proposed explanations that are underdescribed in the article given the current major focus on describing all the experimental observations that supposedly support a nuclear explanation. That does need to be changed, and when I get the time, I will re-propose a section to do just that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, his memory is correct, and so is the record. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there were no "illegal" tactics used. Also, wiki policy says nothing on the matter of your rather egregious interpretation. You clearly made that up. etc. etc. etc. Point is, Abd is correct. And his recommendation on how to move forward is sensible and prudent. Kevin Baas^talk 14:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I never agreed that his proposed section was acceptable. Perhaps your consesus is everybody except Shanahan? Given that I and Enric are about the only ones trying to rein in the CF fanatics, that rejects 50% of the commentators. Wiki policy, as stated above by Enric, says "The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field (in this case, physics, nuclear physycis, or maybe chemistry); limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.". (Enric Naval 03:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)). Given that there is no explanation of the conventional exlanations for the observations other than a sentence or two, more than a sentence or two on the putative nuclear theories is in violation of this policy. The primary 'illegal' (note the quotes please, they indicate that the word is used figuratively) method was wall-of-texting, but ad hominem attacks, refusal to accept corrective comments, etc., were also prominent. Abd's proposal violates Wiki policy. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The poll to which Abd refers was and is deeply flawed. Abd's reinterpretation of Woonpton's views (to which she strongly objected) produced a strong feeling that Abd's actions were unhelpful and led to some editors declining to participate. Any alleged consensus from that poll was illusory. EdChem (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

EdChem, this is completely irrelevant to the questions before us today. No claim is made that we should accept that alleged consensus text if we believe that the current version is better. Nor should be we shy about improving either, based on what we find in reliable sources and our advancing and developing consensus. I will say, however, that the argument EdChem gives would not apply to the competing poll that was set up, anyone could have !voted in that poll instead, and that poll was fully considered in what I wrote. The only reason I even mention the prior issue and the polls is to establish that the proposed text is reasonable within some kind of appreciation of what existed as apparent consensus in the past. It is not binding. --Abd (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You are claiming the poll has value for a present discussion. I am saying, as someone who watched that earlier discussiuon, there is nothing of value to be resurrected from it. Simple. EdChem (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It has value only to indicate a starting point, and I've repeatedly stated that, including directly above. The poll clearly indicated consensus at the time, and I've still seen no response from you, Ed, then or now, on the substance here, which is the content, not ancient disagreements over poll techniques. --Abd (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well then Abd, why did you even bring it up (the poll, or the presumed consensus, which looks today like it never was)? Just post your proposed edits and quit the editorializing on what happened in the past. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

EdChem: I don't know to what you are refering when you say "Abd's reinterpretation of Woonpton's views", and I certainly don't see how that would make the poll "deeply flawed" or any alleged consensus "illusory". That seems to me at best a gross and rather bald application of black-and-white fallacy. Kirk: you've made a lot of accusations, but i will only ask you to substantiate your last and most egregious: that abd's proposal violates wiki policy. please show me the policy that abd's proposal violates. (and yes, the consensus actively and intentionally excluded kirk and nobody else (rolls eyes).) Kevin Baas^talk 15:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a policy debate, I am simply stating that the poll was highly problematic and disputed as I believe anyone seeking to use it now should be made aware of its illegitimacy. EdChem (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How about we assume, for now, that the poll was flawed? So what? If we are going to debate every alleged misrepresentational nuance of every comment, we will never get to the purpose of Wikipedia: content. --Abd (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The policy is quoted right above! It all involves NPOV, undue weight, fringe theory, etc., etc. A Wikipedia CF article that does NOT give the reader that the mainstream view of CF is that it is bogus, and that does NOT explain the valid reasons for this is heavily biased. Adding more strange junk about more irreproducible and unexplainable effects just biases it further. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Kirk is rejecting the position that ArbComm has taken on Fringe Science. That's okay, he's COI; he is showing why a COI editor shouldn't be making controversial edits to the article, but should stay on Talk, to advise us as a (relative) expert. I see no attempt to add "strange junk" about "irreproducible and unexplainable effects" is circular, since what he might be attempting to exclude is proposed explanations! In any case, if we were to write the article to "give the reader that the mainstream view of CF is that it is bogus," without dating that view, when it is patently obvious from current publication that something has shifted, we would be giving it a POV slant. It became a very popular view among scientists, especially those not actually involved with the research, that CF was "pathological science," and there is RS for that. But the balance of publication has radically shifted in the last few years. Papers on this topic are being accepted in mainstream publications, and some of these papers simply treat low energy nuclear reactions as a reality. Are the peer-reviewers being hoodwinked? But, I'll remind us, we are here only discussing some minor changes to the article, and if every discussed change turns into a debate over the status of cold fusion, we will spin our wheels and get nowhere.

Are the proposed changes presented neutrally? Do they misrepresent what is in the sources? Are the sources sufficiently reliable for the purpose? If so, keeping the article, as it is, is maintaining the exclusion of reliably-sourced text, in a way that imbalances the article toward, indeed, the idea that "cold fusion" is purely "bogus." This is not the scientific consensus at this time, among experts. And that can be shown with high certainty to be true since 2004. So what is "cold fusion"? That's another story. We don't know. Our article should present the notable proposed explanations. --Abd (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What is it?

(The very name of the article shows a difficult-to-root-out bias. Fleischmann later regretted having asserted that he'd discovered a "fusion" reaction. He didn't have adequate evidence for that! (He thought he'd found neutrons. He'd made an error, the physicists were quick to point out!) The problem is, partly, "What is fusion?" The fusion that was widely rejected, in the early days, is still rejected by most in the CF community as well. Almost everyone assumed that if there were a nuclear reaction taking place, it would have to be d + d fusion. It is quite unlikely to be that, which is implausible for all the reasons that the article correctly reports. However, what the article does not report is the evidence, extremely strong and covered in secondary sources -- including Huizenga (1994)! --, that the major ash is indeed He-4 (which could imply some kind of deuterium fusion, but not necessarily the simple, two-particle deuterium fusion, which almost certainly doesn't happen, the signatures are quite thoroughly missing). Instead, the article covers, on this, only an obvious error on the part of the anonymous bureaucrat who compiled the 2004 DoE report summary. Certainly it does not mention Huizenga's comment, academically published, and certainly it does not mention the many secondary sources covering this. This was all pointed out more than a year ago....

Steve Krivit has trouble with "fusion" because he's been promoting Widom-Larsen theory, which is basically Rube Goldberg, my opinion and that of many in the field. W-L theory proposes a mechanism for the production of "ultra-low-momentum" neutrons, which would have a very high capture cross-section, and which would, if formed, produce a series of nuclear transformations. Steve doesn't consider this "fusion," even though it proposes helium as a product, starting with deuterium. A purely semantic distinction! But this is why the field, as a science, is not called Cold fusion formally. It's because we don't really know what the reaction is, so calling it "fusion" is way premature, from this point of view. However, it isn't controversial any more that the primary ash is helium; W-L theory is fringe within "fringe" -- or emerging science.

Increasingly, those in the field are dropping the "shame" and, from the beginning, as Bart Simon documents, they have called the field "cold fusion" in casual conversations. But formally, no, for the reasons I've explained. Fusion is still a hypothesis, other possibilities have not yet been completely ruled out. --Abd (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that poll and now I am reminded of how disgusted i was with people. Rather than being helpful and productive and work together, some people saw the poll as an opportunity to try to criminalize Abd with very very tenuous and very bad faith accusations that where in clear ignorance and contradiction of his tone and explicit words. it was disgusting. if i were one of them i'd be embarrassed. and now you take that filth and model it as if it were some prized treasure. i find it all quite strange.

now the basic idea here is quite plain as it was before: before we go into edit warring lets find a very that is, if not mutually satisfactory, at least less contentiuous, on the basis of history and objective things rather than opinions, and then we can agree to work together in good faith and slowly come to a better version w/out so much warring. we're all adults here, i presume, that should be within the realm of possibilities. Kevin Baas^talk 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What happened here, in brief summary, was an invasion from "outside," with larger agendas being pursued, by some editors with no interest in or knowledge of cold fusion itself, and that's a huge story that I will not tell here. I agree that we should now turn to what could have and should have been continued in the year I've been absent. Something is wrong if an article on a topic as notable as this one depends on one person (on any side of an issue). I've watched, over the year, many arguments here that were grounded in neither Wikipedia policy or what is in the large corpus of usable publication, unable to respond on-wiki. I personally benefited from being banned, for when I saw it coming, I turned to begin working in the field itself, I had been completely neutral when I started here, skeptical, in fact. I was convinced otherwise by detailed study of the available material, which, by the way, included every skeptical source I could find. I started a business selling materials and, eventually, kits for replication of cold fusion experiments, starting with the relatively simple neutron findings of SPAWAR. Much of what has been written about the SPAWAR work here has been off, both on the positive and negative side. And that will be a subject for other discussions. For now, what are the notable theories that are proposed as explanations for apparent LENR effects? I could start with Huizenga et al, in their presentation of Edward Teller's meshugatron. Why isn't this covered? I'll write proposed text. --Abd (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you choose to characterize the situation in quite direct battleground terms. I feel that I should point out that, contrary to your "outside" generalization, I can think of at least one person (ahem) who disagreed with your actions who has been active on this page for far longer than you have. I should also point out that in addition to being inaccurate in describing the history of the persons involved, the contention that we should dismiss some editors' contributions as being "outside", and thereby judge editors by the length of time they have been editing this page is not a helpful construction. Long time editors do not own a page to any degree greater than more recent arrivals. --Noren (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, were you listening to anything that he said? Kevin Baas^talk 13:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) The discussion on which I based the claim of consensus was referenced in my comment. That's an objective statement. Every single editor who commented [on the versions] was willing to accept two of the proposed versions. Dr. Shanahan did not comment, but it would have made little difference if he had. (In the original poll, a version that had been suggested by him was included. It had no sustained support, so that version can be found in one of the collapses in the poll). --Abd (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)added [on the versions] per comment from Noren, below. --Abd (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I commented on that poll and I most certainly did not express willingness to accept two of the proposed versions. Please retract this false characterization of my comment immediately. --Noren (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, feigned indignation and an inequitably demanding attitude.... clearly a republican. Kevin Baas

Noren, I assure you that if I were aware of a disagreement from you, as to the proposed versions, I would not have stated what I stated. Thinking that I'd overlooked something, preparing to strike my statement or refactor, I looked and found only one "comment," but it did not relate to the versions themselves, and was only your criticism of me and the process. I looked through all the history of the Talk page for June, so if you commented further, it would have had to have been elsewhere or elsewhen. However, when I wrote "commented," I meant, of course, "commented on the versions." There were other comments about the poll itself, i.e., debate over process rather than content, so I've added, above, the clarification of my meaning. Let's not go there again. It doesn't matter if you failed to comment then, you can comment now. Do you have any specific issues with the content proposed? Particularly in comparison to the present content? --Abd (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of "undue weight"

^talk 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC) There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about this issue of "prominence," and, further, there are issues in how alleged fringe science is presented that are not well-articulated in policy, last I looked. In the end, we make ad hoc decisions about the article, here, seeking consensus among those interested, and if there is conflict, we escalate discussion, widening it; for example, if there is an issue over what constitutes reliable source for a fact, that we cannot resolve here, we can go to the reliable source noticeboard. We can run a request for comment. In any case, there is a difficulty with the statement from Enric, because the nature of the "entire encompassing field" is not clear. What we call "cold fusion" may not be fusion, it might be something else. However, the discoverers of excess heat in the palladium deuteride system, the original phenomenon observed (correctly or not), were expert chemists, and they said that what they observed could not be explained by chemistry, so they proposed a nuclear reaction. Later, Fleischmann regretted having proposed that it was "fusion," because the evidence for this claim was weak, and, it turns out, based on experimental error. However, the excess heat findings have never been successfully refuted, Dr. Shanahan's efforts being the most notable attempt, the only one still standing in some sense. And it is barely notable. (It's notable because there is response to it from researchers in peer-reviewed papers, those form a kind of secondary source allowing us to cover it briefly in the article.) So, is this a chemistry topic or is it a nuclear physics topic. And the "weight" of opinion, we might find, could depend on whether we are considering chemists or physicists. It is a very complex issue, but one which, fortunately, we do not need to resolve, because we don't really depend on some kind of imagined poll of "scientists." We use our reliable source standards to determine the relevant body of evidence from which weight is determined, and we simply avoid misrepresenting what is in that body of evidence. It is, however, still, a complex decision, and one which is only resolvable through seeking consensus, which can require a great deal of discussion, at least initially. --Abd (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, if we mention Dr. Shanahan's CCS theory in the article, will this be providing undue weight? It could be argued so, but this is where we run into the misinterpretation of "undue weight." Due weight is determined by the balance of reliable sources that are available. Undue weight is not an excuse to exclude what can be reliably sourced. --Abd (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion of "undue weight."

Undue weight is not a complex judgment based on our synthetic understanding of what is "accepted" and what is not, with what is not "accepted" being therefore rejected. That would be a view that would guarantee endless conflict. Rather, a fact, if found in reliable source, and especially if found in more than one, particularly reliable secondary sources, cannot be excluded from the project. How the fact is presented, though, is a different matter. For example, in the subject section, there is a claim from Dr. Storms: According to Storms (2007), no published theory has been able to meet all the requirements of basic physical principles, while adequately explaining the experimental results he considers established or otherwise worthy of theoretical consideration. This is, of course, not controversial, i.e., if we were to argue that Storms didn't make that claim in his book, we'd be arguing something preposterous. He did. And it's notable because Storms (2007) is a secondary source, published by an independent publisher not known for promoting fringe science, and Storms is widely published in the field and thus his opinion is notable. Further, isn't what he wrote our consensus here as well? Is there anyone here who believes that such a theory exists?

By the way, I think that Storms is substantially incorrect, in a way. Storms himself leans to cluster fusion, and as a general explanation, it is quite predictive of many of the known phenomena; but not with sufficient accuracy that it is, as yet, clearly falsifiable. I quoted Storms to point out the general consensus, within the field, that no theory has become King, with proven sovereignty and superiority, such that all other theories can be definitively ruled out. We will need to look at Widom-Larsen theory, and since Storms covers it, and perhaps some other secondary sources, it is probably sufficiently notable to include. It will be especially notable enough if an article is created on theories that have been advanced to explain Cold fusion. That's going to take time! --Abd (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So, would it be violation of UNDUE to cover Shanahan's theory?

To answer my own question, no, brief reference to Kirk's theory would not be undue weight, if we decide that it is sufficiently relevant to the article. However, there is a veritable mountain of fact available on this topic in reliable source, and I am only referring to what is available in secondary sources that we can use, not the ocean of material in conference papers and primary sources or secondary sources that are self-published. If we present every fact on the level of notability of the CCS theory, our article would become enormous.

There is an obvious solution, and it was previously interdicted by the objection of editors who were largely ignorant on this topic, but who were certain that the whole thing was bogus. The solution is topic forking, not to create havens for fringe views, not to avoid the process of finding consensus, but to categorize information so that details are covered in sub-articles. Our system will rather confusingly call this a "main article." I.e, the main article on a subtopic. So, here, we would have a section on excess heat that would, in summary style, cover the topic of excess heat. Dr. Shanahan's theory is not notable enough to be in Cold fusion, but would be mentioned in what is currently sitting neglected at User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments. Dr. Shanahan was a major contributor to that article, and it was, in my view, improperly deleted; I can help shepherd that through the recovery process. Currently, the calorimetry article shows undue weight toward Shanahan's theory, but that can be fixed. To give an overview, Jed Rothwell compiled a list of 153 peer-reviewed papers showing excess heat in palladium deuteride experiments, as I recall. The list and general analysis of cold fusion publications as to balance (positive/negative) can be found at lenr-canr.org. Dr. Shanahan and all editors here are invited to work on that article in my user space, before it is moved back to mainspace; there, I will consider myself allowed to edit, even though I'm COI.

If you want to respond to this diversion from our main topic in this section, please respond within the collapse. We can later take this discussion to a section where some action based on it is proposed, if needed. --Abd (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Shanahan, unfortunately, in his response above, reduces what should be a sober examination of sources and facts and the balanced presentation of them, into conflict between "CF fanatics" and a handful of lone defenders trying to rein them in. That's unfortunate. However, we are lucky to have Dr. Shanahan here, as the only remaining active scientific critic of low-energy nuclear reaction research, with one recent publication under peer review, a secondary source, and we should cut him a great deal of slack, as a relative expert on the critical arguments. I do not believe that the subject changes violate policy, and it appears that they were accepted at the time by Enric Naval, and I assume we will see what he says now. Enric was generally reasonable here, back then. Consensus can change, and there is no requirement that we accept, uncritically, what was standing for a short time then, even though it was improperly removed (as was later seen in the Request for Arbitration that ensued).

Meanwhile, if Dr. Shanahan has any specific criticisms of specific elements of the proposed change, those will be most welcome. If he believes that this will unbalance the relevant section, he is likewise invited to present reliably sourced text that will improve the balance. --Abd (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Kirk Shanahan

Specific comments:

- Delete all discussion of hydrino theory. As noted in proposed text, it is unaccepted by mainstream, serious flaws have been pointed out, and there seems to be no response to the critics. As discussed previously, we don’t use pseudoscience to support pseudoscience.

- ‘Proposed Explanation’ header needs to be underlined or something to distinguish it from subheaders (like the ‘Patents’ header just under your proposed section)

- Retitle ‘Theory of…’ to ‘Proposed Nuclear Explanations’ and move 1st sentence under ‘Proposed Ex..’ immediately below the new header. I think a line or two on some other theories would be appropriate as well.

- Add section ‘Alternative Chemical Explanations’ - Start with discussion of the fact that effects can be explained separately with conventional explanations. Begin with electrochemical recombination of H2+O2 producing apparent excess heat, noting that it occurs, but also noting research showing it is not important at high current densities. However also note much older work may have this problem, as it was initially assumed to not be a problem. Then discuss the CCS problem and proposed FPHE mechanism that can give it. Moving to ‘nuclear ash’, discuss contamination proposals and evidences to explain observed 4He and heavy metals. Discuss shock/O2 proposal for CR39 tracks (I will write this subsection). Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirk. My detailed responses are individually signed so that responses may be threaded --Abd (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hydrino theory. Hydrino theory is definitely not accepted by the mainstream. I think Krik has misunderstood the purpose of this section, and perhaps of Wikipedia itself. It is not to "support" a "pseudoscience" (nor to "refute" it). It is simply to report, for our readers, what theories have been notably proposed to explain the experimental phenomena known as cold fusion. The current section pretends there are none of note, other than "error." I do not accept hydrino theory, but the theory is mentioned because it's notable, and there are adequate mentions in reliable source. Absolutely, we should not present hydrino theory as something accepted by the mainstream, and, in fact, hydrino theory is also generally rejected by the cold fusion community. It could conceivably explain excess heat -- if hydrinos are real -- but not the heat/helium correlation, which is, as you must know, the most solid evidence for cold fusion that exists. We'll get to that! It also would not explain the reports of various kinds of radiation, nor other reported nuclear transformations, nor the strong preference for deuterium as a reactant, in most CF experiments, over hydrogen. Here, though, that's all moot. The theory is notable, that is why it would be included. The text is sourced. By the way, cold fusion is not regarded as a "pseudoscience," nor is hydrino theory, both are falsifiable, and were it a pseudoscience, you would not be finding anything from yourself on the topic being published as a peer-reviewed debate, nor the burgeoning publication of papers relating to it, under peer review. But that's another question. Consensus here has been that it is, at most, "fringe science." I will contend, when it's necessary, that it is actually "emerging science," still controversial. It is not necessary to consider this for the consideration of these changes. Proposed theories are proposed theories, and the section makes it clear that none have been accepted. But there are theories passing peer review, and being mentioned in secondary sources. That's enough for us. --Abd (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hydrino theory is not relevant to this field. If you think it is, please give some RS suggesting it is.

Alos, you fail again to understand the relevant Wiki policies. Look at the bottom of the Cold Fusion article page. It lists relevant topics to the article, and includes 'fringe science'. Wiki policy is NOT to give UNDUE WEIGHT to fringe science claims/theories. Hydrino theory is definitely fringe. Thus even using it here gives it undue weight. Then there's the undue weight it gives to cold fusion. The only difference though between it and the other 'theories' you mention is that hydrino theory has apparently been negatively critiqued. Most CF theories have not been tested by any 'outsider'. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You do know that I agree with you, Dr. Shanahan, right? Except historically. Nobody is advancing this theory any more, and Mill's work is entirely with hydrogen now. Historical facts, though, are still facts. (I want to cover the Meshugatron, you know, there is plenty of source!)

Now, what sources do we have in the proposed change to the article?

Article in the Guardian on hydrino theory. I put this in, and, unfortunately, I don't think I read it carefully enough. Cold fusion is mentioned in the article, along with Mills, but they are not connected. So if this section goes back in, this would not be a source! There are, however, three others.
[17] covers what may be two related topics. Most importantly, it directly connects Mills' theory and "cold fusion." The other aspect of this report, independently, covers a hypothetical particle, a very close union of a proton and electron. That is actually quite similar to a "hydrino," i.e., to a proton with a collapsed electron.
R.L. Mills and S.P. Kneizys, Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion, Fusion Technology, 20, pp. 65-81 (1991). This would be the original source where Mills made the claim, as you can see from the title!

Would that be adequate source? Well, maybe. See, we are talking about "proposed explanations," and it is possible that this can be based on a proposal. Attributed, to be sure. Would this really be enough? Probably not at this time. But there is more, which changes the situation. I originally put in hydrino theory because this is covered in Storms (2007), which is a review of the whole field, and Storms lists hydrino theory -- even though I know he doesn't believe it -- as one that has been advanced as a possible explanation. So we have to add:

Storms, Edmund, The science of low energy nuclear reaction, World Scientific, 2007, p. 184-186. He also criticizes it, by the way. Originally, the section was supported by Mill's own work, as cited in Storms. I think the mention of Storms was taken out because some editors were allergic to Storms.

Storms also mentions, by the way, Shanahan's theory, in two places, p. 41 and in more detail at p. 172. My opinion is that this establishes sufficient notability for this theory to allow brief coverage. Other published responses to Shanahan may also accomplish this. --Abd (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Reformatting. Reformatting is easily accomplished through the ordinary editorial process, with any change. I'm not reviewing those suggestions at this time because it is much easier to go over them when real content is being reformatted. Nothing stood out as a problem, though, from Kirk's suggestions. --Abd (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative chemical explanations. In a different world with a different Wikipedia, I'd readily accept this. However, what would be needed are peer-reviewed or academic secondary sources from which we would derive text on these explanations (or sometimes ordinary media sources will suffice, as long as "scientific fact" is not being asserted. Dr. Shanahan is specifically invited to point us to this. I can probably find some. For example, the "cigarette lighter" hypothesis (involving D2-O2 recombination), I think, has been covered. The whole issue of "nuclear ash" will require separate consideration. I have good secondary sources on this, and, in fact, there is a forthcoming review article on the topic, I'm told it's accepted at Naturwissenschaften. Obviously, though, we can't use that yet. Meanwhile, Dr. Shanahan is cordially invited to participate at Wikiversity:Cold fusion. Original research is allowed on Wikiversity, and he could write relatively freely there, under certain constraints, which I'd be happy to assist him with. As to the NW article, my name is mentioned! I'm excited about that; this is the journal that published Einstein, so ... it's full circle for this Cal Tech dropout. --Abd (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the self-promotion. Failure to include this section will produce a more biased article. The only way to remain neutral (recall NPOV?) is to present the conventional explanations as well as the far-fetched ones. If you will not allow this section, I contend we should not allow your whole section in. Furthermore, nuclear ash is an integral claim to the CF field. It was in both DOE reviews, and in the recent Krivit and Marwan review, no separate consideration required, and in any case, the information is already liberally scattered throughout the CF article. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Self-promotion? for a personal snippet in smalltalk? Compared to reams of your coverage of your own paper above? You've missed my point entirely, Kirk, it is not that "I won't allow this section." I'm COI just like you. It's not my decision. It's that I suspect the editors who can edit won't allow it. I'm getting that you still don't understand that I'm trying to improve the article so that it is both complete and rigorously neutral, so that it is informative and also fully satisfies RS and NPOV and UNDUE guidelines. Let's cooperate on that, okay? Can you help by pointing to some reliable sources on "Alternative chemical explanations," so we can get to work on it? We will, I assume, develop, or assist in the development, of language for that, with references, and present it to the regular editors for their approval. However, in spite of the quid pro quo that you seem to be demanding, "Alternative chemical explanations" isn't relevant to the two proposed explanations (one of which is about a form of "fringe chemistry" and the other is nuclear in nature) and the overall comment by Storms -- which also covers your own theories, which are not accepted. It would simply be more detail on what is already there, and I would do what I could to support it. As I wrote, I could already write some of this, and assume that I will, in any case. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below) I agree with Dr. Shanahan that failure to cover "alternative explanations" is a serious failure of the article as it stands. I assume that we will work on this, and that the proposed inclusions I prepared, last year, would only be part of what would be inserted. The obvious proposed explanations are

Experimental error. I.e., that the reported results are experimental error, perhaps cherry picked to emphasize positive results, with an effect that negative results frequently don't get reported. This is a real and serious problem, by the way. I won't present, now, why this is a preposterous explanation! If the preposterousness is not covered in reliable sources, tough! Well just have to present what is covered. (Note that it is highly likely that there are many reports that were in error in some way, most notably Fleischmann's initial neutron report. One problem with this is with reported series where all cells were reported, including "unsuccessful" ones. There are no "unsuccessful" experiments except those where the results are not reported!)
Chemical effects, such as unexpected recombination, causing an appearance of excess heat where there is none. Difficult to see how this could have much effect on closed cells, and the more serious excess heat work used closed cells for this very reason.
Contamination, a proposed explanation for helium results, as well as for reported nuclear transmutations. To my mind, other than helium, the evidence for nuclear transmutations is relatively weak. However, if helium is produced, we could reasonably expect a low level of other nuclear transformations. What's in reliable source, will be our standard, I assume. Reliable source, note, does not expire, so we should ultimately cover, somewhere, all the stupid things that were said and reported in 1989-1990, if it's covered in reliable source. Wikipedia articles on a scientific topic should cover, not only the science, but the history of the topic.!
Fraud has been alleged but is highly improbable, no fraud by a major researcher has been proven, allegations were generally dismissed.
Background radiation or radionucleide contamination or concentration has been alleged with some radiation and transmutation reports. If not, it should be! Suppose that something about electrolysis concentrates atmospheric radon on the surface of the cathode? Unlikely, but so is cold fusion (or at least it was unlikely from the limited view in 1989).
Chemical damage has been alleged for CR-39 results. Difficult to allege with the "back side" wet results, even more difficult for the dry configuration results.
Electronic noise has been alleged -- or shown -- for some electronic radiation results, and also for possible calorimetric error.
Calibration Constant Shift -- Shanahan's theory -- has been alleged, this could lead to calorimetric error. To be a cogent criticism, this would have to be systemic error, as I think he claims, and this has difficulty explaining other evidence. But I assume that we can find sources on this.
Mass hysteria. Naive hopes for free energy. Ignorance of nuclear physics. Greed for research funding. Incompetence. Fanaticism. Zombies ("die-hards"). I think all of these have been alleged and may be found in reliable sources. These proposed explanations, however, may say more about those proposing them than about those being ridiculed.
Probably I've missed something. --Abd (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Abd seems offended by the fact that I am here attempting to get my own work included in the CF article. He elsewhere say I have a COI conflict. I agree, and have stated so before, that it might seem that way given the way Wiki policy is written on this. However, two points: (1) In science, you are expected to defend your own ideas. The only time you don't have to do that is when someone else steps up and does so for you. You don't solicit a 3rd party to defend your ideas. They volunteer as the case may be. Thus Wiki policy is in conflict with standard practice. This leads to point (2). I would love to have someone else do this. Please, step up! {listening....[chirp, chirp]...nope, just the crickets}. So, should we not include my 4 RS papers in the CF article, because the only person suggesting them is me? I suppose we could decide to do that, but I think all can see it would lead to unbalance. Abd, if you have a specific place where you think I have lied or otherwise misrepresented something, please point it out. Otherwise can the comments. Also, what did your self-promotion have to do with the article? Ans. nothing. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Abd responds to Dr. Shanahan. This is ultimately relevant, and covers some policy issues, but is long and could distract from our immediate task.

"Alternative chemical explanations" is most assuredly a "Proposed Explanation". In the article, a variety of experimental evidence is cited, almost exclusively to support the CF idea. For balance, the opposite side needs to be heard. Your unwillingness to do this just highlights your strong bias. (P.S. My alternatives are certainly accepted. They are published in a RS, a peer-reviewed journal article. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Kirk misreads my emotional state. Yes, I expect Kirk to "defend his own ideas," and I will defend -- as I have in the past -- his right to do that. He's COI, and in the Request for arbitration that arose out of the situation here, I proposed that COI editors be specially protected, provided they confine themselves to Talk page discussion and are civil in it. And I'd personally cut them quite a bit of slack. An expert in a topic can sometimes become a little heated when debating with Randy from Boise. Was my proposal accepted? No, it was ridiculed, because I was faced with editors who really didn't want COI rules enforced when it came to them or their friends. They completely missed the "protection" part, only the part where I affirmed present COI rules! And one of this crowd subsequently arranged to have Pcarbonn banned from here again, based solely on his very civil arguments for a supposedly fringe position here, only on Talk, i.e., he was behaving exactly how someone with a COI -- as he had by that time -- should behave. The history of this article has been a travesty. But what can we do? We can start to work for an informative and neutral article here, going forward, and I intend to participate in that, as I'm permitted.

Publication of a paper on a new theory is not enough, or publication of a series of papers doing the same by the same author. We will be looking for secondary source review. Now, it's my opinion that if a theory is publicly refuted, and the refutation is published under peer review, that this makes what is covered in the second paper from the first paper "covered in secondary source." We would need to make sure that the review paper doesn't distort the original. This is why I believe that we will find adequate source for Shanahan's CCS theory, and I've merely been asking him to provide the references! I assume that should be easy for him, easier than writing about Stuff that has nothing to do with our text.

It would also be off-balance to then report only the original material and not the peer-reviewed "refutation." And there is no way to get all of this clear without consensus, which is our real standard.

It's been well-established: the way to establish balance, if text supported by reliable source is asserted and could unbalance the article, is to assert text with contrary implications from reliable sources of equal or better quality, not to exclude reliably sourced and verifiable information. Such exclusion violates basic Wikipedia policy. It is sometimes argued that there is no contrary source because "the field is fringe and nobody wants to bother to write on it." That is a circular argument, because, by definition, a fringe field will have a paucity of reliable sources. There is a logical error in the argument. We determine "fringe" by the balance of what is in reliable sources. What those who want to exclude what they think is "fringe" will often do is to try to impeach what would ordinarily be considered reliable source because the "author is fringe." Again, that's circular. Why is the author "fringe?" Because what he writes "supports a fringe theory." How do we know that the theory is "fringe?" Well, there is a paucity of sources. Because every source that supports the theory is rejected, ipso facto.

This should not be confused with what appears in ordinary reliable source (generally not peer-reviewed papers and peer-reviewed secondary sources) stating that a field is "fringe," or, notably, in this case, "pathological science." We can report that. But this is only, generally, reporting some notable opinion, so it would require attribution, and this kind of opinion, in science, can easily become obsolete, because sometimes new evidence is discovered or it is realized that existing evidence was misinterpreted. So it should also, probably, be dated. Anyone who has been watching publication in the field of low energy nuclear reactions can see that there has been a sea change in publication since 2004, when the DoE again repeated its 1989 recommendation for further research and publication. The "votes" in the 2004 DoE review, alone, establish this topic as no longer true fringe, which is why there was so much edit warring over coverage of that review in the article, because there are still editors very much opposed to allowing the article to reflect more recent sources, because they believe that cold fusion is bogus, like Dr. Shanahan. But I'm not ready to try to establish this for the article, let's just try to get some basic facts in. --Abd (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Prior discussions

[18] On Storms' comment on proposed theories, and on the Be-8 hypothesis (Takahashi).
[19] On Storms' comment and the Be-8 theory.
[20] On hydrino theory.
[21] On the "proposed explanations" section that existed at that time, which only covered "error" and hydrino theory.
Just so we don't re-invent the wheel. --Abd (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)