Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 46

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 40

←

Archive 44

DOE ARPA-E Funding

Added an initial entry based on Forbes and DOE. Alanf777 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this merits a sentence at the end of the lead. Alanf777 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -- skinr and doe Alanf777 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll change those to named-refs if the para stands. I'm not sure if the first named ref can be empty. Alanf777 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also see my proposal to carve out a "Current Status" section covering 2009-2014 Alanf777 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not relevant to this article. As the Forbes piece says: "LENR technology has suffered from confusion with Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann‘s “cold fusion” experiment, which has largely been dismissed by the scientific community." Wikipedia should not be similarly confused. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

At present Cold Fusion and LENR (and various other acronyms such as LENT) are synonyms. Only Widom-Larson (and their main supporter Krivitt) claim that LENR is entirely different from Cold Fusion. "R" stands for "Reaction" -- which includes Fusion. A split of the article into "Cold Fusion" and "LENR" is not appropriate at this time, if ever. If this is your only objection then the "LENR" information should be restored. Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Alanf777 here: LENR and cold fusion are the same thing. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll undo the last two changes Alanf777 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone remember CMNS (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science)? The organizer of the international cold fusion conference still bears this name[1]. And right there I can see the "Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball-Lightning" and the "International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

David Nagel lists 25 names on the last page of http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NagelICCF18.pdf (he regards the entire field as CMNS) -- I'm sure we don't need an article for each !! Alanf777 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the existing section, but it should read Forbes reports that New Energy Times (or Larsen) reports that the DOE ARPA-E study supports "cold fusion" research. The Forbes article does not actually report that the DOE ARPA-E may support "cold fusion" research. NET is not reliable; is Larsen considered a reliable "expert"? I don't know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Larsen? It would be OK to quote/paraphrase Forbes on "Lewis Larsen, the Chicago physicist who co-authored the Widom-Larsen theory of low-energy nuclear reactions, called the mention “a stunning reversal of a longstanding policy.”" He's too close to quote him on theory, but OK for policy. Adding that would indicate why the FOA is significant. Alanf777 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not uncommon. Something happens (DOE FOA). Somebody notices it and tips off a wiki-unreliable source, and then a wiki-reliable source picks up on that. Since there's no dispute that DOE did it, I don't think we need to document the entire chain. As a co-author of the "Widom-Larsen" effect (vigorously touted by NET, supported by NASA) Larsen is too close to be an unbiased expert. As Nagel pointed out in the above review paper, there are "approximately three dozen" groups of theories, and no consensus. Hmmm ... shouldn't the long-standing "Infinite Energy" magazine (still mainly print) be regarded as a reliable source? Alanf777 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm - problems?

I have to say this addition still strikes me as problematic. It has an entire standalone subsection written in rather a newsy "announcement" fashion to itself, and a meaty paragraph in the lede - which all seems rather undue. More particularly though, the secondary source we use explicitly says its subject is not to be confused with "cold fusion" such as Pons-Fleischmann's efforts. Yet here we are adding it to an article on Wikipedia entitled "Cold fusion" the opening words of which are "This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature". So something's wrong somewhere isn't it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The "about" section you quote is just to distinguish F&P metal-hydrogen CF from muon-catalyzed CF. It could be extended to add "and subsequent research" .. but that's covered in the lead. Since this is the first time the DOE has opened the door even a tiny crack to CF/LENR funding it is significant, and merits a mention in the lead (and I don't consider a 20-word sentence, where the long names make up 10 of those words, particularly meaty). I proposed a new "current status" section which would give it lower prominence in the article as a whole. Alanf777 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

High temperatures are not in fact a prerequisite

The statement that, 'Nuclear fusion occurs at temperatures in the tens of millions of degrees' is perhaps a little misleading, since that is only true if heating is used as the driver. Electrostatic acceleration can achieve fusion with potentials as little as a few thousand volts. This has been conclusively demonstrated by devices such as the Farnsworth fusor, which is within the scope of mainstream science. Awareness of this has a significant effect on the apparent feasibility of other fusion approaches. In fact, any propulsive force which can overcome the coulomb barrier can initiate fusion, and the energy required to do this is quite modest by particle accelerator standards. It just happens that accelerating the particles by way of heating them is a dreadfully inefficient way of achieving sufficent kinetic energy, hence the enormous temperatures needed.--Anteaus (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

One can see above at Types of models section that there are models of classical type who avoid the concept of potential barrier.--5.15.200.152 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of archives′ content

From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?--5.15.178.192 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Only when it's relevant for making specific changes to the article (when a specific source was discussed in the past, when the merits of including a specific fact were discussed, etc).

Sometimes it's used for discussing the behaviour of a specific editor. But a talk page is not the place for this type of discussion. If there is some merit to the discussion, it gets bumped to a specialized noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

An example of need to use probably the archive is shown in the section ″Connection with bubble fusion and sonoluminescence″ for revisiting a past arguing/discussion.--5.15.15.146 (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of Fleischmann-Pons_experiment

See "restored per Wikipedia:Notability - I strongly urge you to read the guideline before reverting".

Note that:

Fleischmann-Pons_experiment is only a copy/paste of parts of Cold fusion as it was in November 2011.
All RS look at this experiment in the context of how cold fusion evolved
F&P's experiment didn't have repercussions outside of starting the field of cold fusion. It doesn't have scientific interest to any other field. It is interesting for sociology of science, but only inside the sociological context of how cold fusion evolved. I find it hard to justify a separate article.
There are not many details about this experiment because of F&P's secrecy
The few known details about F&P's experiment are already discussed all over Cold fusion. You can't explain why scientists changed their opinion without explaining almost all details that are known. Are we supposed to explain all details again in that article? In Fleischmann-Pons_experiment we would have to explain the repercussion of those details. In other words, we would have to repeat an awful lot of paragraphs from Cold fusion. That's a lot of duplication. And it would be more difficult to maintain and keep synchronized.

--Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

For reference, the previous discussion on this topic, from March 2013: Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 44#split "Pons and Fleischmann" from main article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

He has restored the article, claiming "user creates article". But he has restored a slightly modified version of the same copy/paste from November 2011, see commparison). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

All RS look at this experiment in the context of how cold fusion evolved

~~A better title would be "Pons-Fleischmann press release". That is the static content I aim to isolate.~~ I now think the press release should be an aditional article. (Talk:Fleischmann-Pons_experiment#suggest_name_change)

One of the accademic objections to wikipedia is the way history can be rewritten (by annons) on a daily basis. I see no need for that. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Are we supposed to explain all details again in that article?"

Many of these sections use to be more elaborate. We should dig in the archives and find the most elaborate version. Then move that section to the article about that topic. If it still requires mention in the "cold fusion" article it can be brief and link to the full text.

We have a nice and very elaborate manual of style that (provided one can find the paragraph) explains everything in great detail.

In Fleischmann-Pons_experiment we would have to explain the repercussion of those details. In other words, we would have to repeat an awful lot of paragraphs from Cold fusion. That's a lot of duplication.

Up to now the Cold fusion article was also the P&F article. To be a real Cold Fusion article the Pons and Fleischmann coverage has to be reduced dramatically. As this would be a great loss of content it makes sense to have a whole article for this.

"To be a real Cold Fusion article the Pons and Fleischmann coverage has to be reduced dramatically." That makes no sense to me; the media coverage of Pons and Fleischmann is quite significant. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand it wont be easy but when it is done we can expect new editors to understand what it is we are doing here. You might understand the article, you cant expect this from other people. I think Brian Josephson makes a fine example in this. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominated the FP experiment for deletion [2]. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Huizenga's reasoning to Nernst equation missinterpretation

One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.--5.15.200.238 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That's from Huizenga 1993, pp. 33, 47. From page 33. "Based on his interpretation of the Nernst equation (taught in college freshman chemistry courses), Pons concluded that the deuterium pressure in the palladium cathode was equivalent to a hydrostatic pressure of approximately 10²⁷ atmospheres! It seems that it was this incorrect conclusion which led Fleischmann and Pons to believe that, in a palladium cathode, the deuterium nuclei would be forced together close enough to fuse. The Nernst equation, applicable under equilibrium conditions, was used to relate the overpotential in an electrochemical cell to deuterium fugacity. If this simple, but erroneous procedure is followed, a large overpotential does give a high deuterium fugacity. The use of the Nernst equation, however, for the overall deuterium evaporation reaction under conditions of large values of the overpotential for estimation of the pressure of deuterium in the palladium is inappropriate [J. Y. Huot, J. Electroche. Soc 136 631 (1989)] The actual hydrostatic pressure of deuterium in the palladium is many orders of magnitude less than estimated by this faulty procedure."

Another book cites this paragraph from Huizenga, and adds: "'The general message is clear: in using our pre-equilibrium arguments to establish Eq. (2.43), we must ensure that the pre-equilibrium is actually operative if the equation is to be meaningful. If large currents are being drawn, this may not be the case. Accordingly, the reader might note the need for caution in applying the analysis derived in Section 2.8. He/she might also wish to review he discussion of the Nernst equation in Chapter 1 of this book." ^[1]

There was a comentary in a German journal[3] (search "Nernst")

Ebert K; Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 470 (in German).

"Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium" (Electrochemically induced

fusion of deuterium).

** Early comment, reporting on the initial F&P press conference and the paper

in JEC. The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to

the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV).

I don't know how to summarize this in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now looked up the paper by Huot that Huizenga cites, and there seems to be a big gap between what he says and any assertion in the paper itself. If Huizenga thought there was some implication from the paper such as he asserts, he didn't go to any trouble to spell out his reasoning.

The conclusion from all this would appear to be that Huizenga's assertion is overblown, and I suggest that instead of trying to summarise what people think about it as EN suggests that assertion simply be deleted from the article as having insufficient support.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It could be deleted or at least rephrased with according to Huizenga, a critic of cold fusion. I have added the sentence (The equation has been involved in the scientific controversy of denying the reality of cold fusion phenomena) to the article of the equation.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real that addressing a single issue (viz. whether Huizenga's criticism would in fact stand up if one looked properly into the details) seems hardly worth the trouble. This article should really be re-written from the start, with a view to including the totality of the evidence on both sides. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real" because the reliable sources overwhelmingly say it is not real. As has been mentioned, we summarise what the reliable sources say. We are not aiming to balance minority views with the mainstream. Fringe theories are put into perspective with the mainstream. I won't link the policies and guidelines as you have already admitted you have no intention of familiarising yourself with them, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is an unsettled issue from the hastily archived sections about who asseses the reliability of the sources. Which are those reliable and those unreliable and who decides that and the related issue of mainstream vs fringe. In this case it is extremely important who makes this assertions.5.15.195.190 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

text from user talk Brian Josephson about the mainstream vs fringe

Perhaps the situation could be summarised by saying it is pretty well mainstream by now but most scientists go round wearing blinkers and haven't noticed. Of course the fact that people still go on referring to it as if it is all an error has something to do with it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.195.190 (talk)

It would be interesting to know just what article of the Wikicreed legitimises the extent of bias that is apparent in this article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant section on minority views is at Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Due_and_undue_weight. - MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Yes indeed; it is very easy of course to interpret wikicreed in a biased way (metabias one might call this). This is an important point and I will start a separate section for it.--Brian Josephson (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For fringe views specifically: WP:FRINGE, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of the equation to deny the hypothesized fusion of the deuterons

Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.--5.15.178.93 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The equation cannot be used to deny the fusion of the deuterons.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic of current interest.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of journals articles

What journals that publish articles in the field are reliable and what are not?--5.15.176.81 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reliability of sources depends on context. You can't affirm that a given source will always be reliable in all contexts for all purposes.

We have a noticeboard for discussing the reliability of sources. The usual reply to this type of question is: "This is too general. Propose a specific source to support a specific content in a specific article, and then we can discuss it." --Enric Naval (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be echoes of Humpty Dumpty here: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. And again, The question is, which is to be master—that's all. Perhaps I'm being naive, but that's how it looks to me at least since some of the RS judgements deviate from what I'd consider to be reasonable. But then I'm only a scientist and I gather that doesn't count.--Brian Josephson (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For instance some articles from the journals mentioned in the section Publications like International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal, etc. Some of this journals articles should be analyzed and cited in text.--5.15.192.70 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no objections to this type of articles as sources.--5.15.200.152 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Favorable

I found the following articles that gave a favorable opinion of cold fusion:

[4] “What If Cold Fusion Is Real?” Wired magazine.

[5] “Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: Maybe The World Will Change After All”.

[6] “Cornell University Library: Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device”. 7 Jun 2013.

[7] “Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas”

[8] “Falls Church News-Press: The Peak Oil Crisis: Update on ‘Cold Fusion’”

What makes these articles somewhat credible is that they are from sources not specializing in unorthodox ideas like CF, so a major source of bias is removed. (It is not clear if any of these sources openly say that CF has been “proven” to work; I would have to check.) Should these sources be cited? If so, how would they be integrated into the article? The Wired article is a little questionable because the name Wired sounds cheesy; also, it is a hippie magazine, so it may have the bias of being oriented toward unorthodox ideas. The other sources seem more serious.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Wired article is the best of the bunch, and it's speculative. We cannot use arXiv as a source, even if the article were good. There seems little evidence that ExtremeTech is intended to be credible. Forbes would be the best if we could verify that it was subject to editorial review, even though the scientists clearly are not independent of Rossi; columnists are generally permitted to write whatever they want if not libelous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So then Wired can be used.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. That specific article is speculative at best. Jim1138 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Reproducibility (again)

This edit cites this paper:

Bodyagin, N.V.; et al. "Structural and Behavioural Irreproducibility of Solid Materals". Russian microelectronics. Springer. Retrieved 2 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)

I can't access the text. But I can see the list of references, and they are all unrelated to cold fusion? Does this paper even mention cold fusion in its text? Can we have a quote of the relevant sentence(s)? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The words and phrases "Cold fusion", "fusion", "nuclear energy", "nuclear reaction", "nuclear", and "energy" do not appear anywhere in the text of the paper. The emphasis is on the manufacturing of microelectronic devices (the stuff often colloquially referred to as 'silicon chips'), not on (putative) macroscopic fusion reactors. Leaving aside potential WP:WEIGHT issues, the way the paper is used in that edit is clearly a bit of WP:SYNTH intended to bolster a somewhat dodgy implied syllogism (which could be paraphrased as "Variations in microscopic processes can cause some electronic devices to fail to perform as expected; cold fusion devices fail to perform as expected, therefore variations in microscopic processes are responsible.") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

ToaT disingenuously avoids quoting actual text from the article, such as this:

"In the context of materials technology, reproducibility is usually defined as the accuracy to which a value that characterizes the material can be repeated in successive runs if all the process variables are kept constant to a maximum possible accuracy."

The fact that no specific reference to CF etc. is made in the article is a red herring, the issue at hand being the fact that irreproducibility is a generic property of materials (which distinguishes claimed cold fusion from thermonuclear fusion, which occurs in a plasma). --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the lack of any reference to cold fusion, processes that resemble nuclear fusion, electrolytic cells, special properties of palladium, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That is true, but irrelevant. Perhaps you cannot see the rather obvious connection between the italicised extract and the CF article, but your own failure to do so in no way proves that this is the case. And connections that are obvious to any reasonably competent person cannot legitimately be characterised as original research, even if people would very much like to do this in order to have an excuse to revert. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some obvious connections that Wikipedia can make without a source, but I can't see this as one of them. If there were a Wikipedia article on microscopic irreproducibility, then the Russian microelectronics article might be a good source for that article. However, that article has been deleted twice as not being notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

An example of microscopic irreproducibility is the previous mention of an individual nuclear fission event. It had to be reminded in case some editors here have forgotten. There is no reason that individual fusion events should not be irreproducibile since this is the case for fission. Failure to see the connection could mean either tendentious/biased attitude or the lack of understanding required to asses the suitability of the quote. (I have to repeat myself concerning the lack of understanding.)--5.15.176.133 (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(re comment by Rubin above) Someone once famously said 'he would say that, wouldn't he?' -- very relevant and how predictable! Sorry to be so cynical about this, but that's about all one can do when people bring up this sort of argument which wouldn't convince any knowledgeable person. By the way, someone has sent me a link to a very interesting analysis of w'pedia editing re this kind of topic, but as this isn't supposed to be a forum I won't go into details here. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To rephrase my comment: It's clear (to any knowledgeable person) that it (anything related to the alleged contents of the Russian article) cannot be added under the current Wikipedia policies. Whether the policies should be changed is another matter, which should not be discussed here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? What policies support the assertion alleged contents of the Russian article) cannot be added under the current Wikipedia policies.?--5.15.176.133 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No Original Research. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? In what way do you think that policy applies here? What are specific aspects that would allow the conclusion that using this source is OR? Whithout the specific aspects your answer is evasive and not convincing.--5.15.207.101 (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:No original research you can find, for example: "(...) and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly". I am sure you can find more sentences that would apply here. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Makes the statement explicitly? What is that supposed to mean? That if a w'pedia article contains a sentence X then some RS must contain the exact same sentence? --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore my b*ll***t detector is flashing, telling me it has picked up a truly shocking case of what they call 'economy with the truth'. The article quoted states in full: Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Omitting mention of the words in boldface above appears to be an attempt to hoodwink readers into thinking that what is merely recommended as 'best practice' is compulsory. Retraction would appear to be in order. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, that approach is not required for all statements. However, if you read on, you will see that the policy says 'Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.' This statement has been challenged - and on an article such as Cold fusion with a contentious history, it is best to assume that every statement you put into the article will be challenged. - MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, every statement will be challenged. Whether such challenges are reasonable or not is another matter, as the above 'economy with the truth' very well demonstrates. You may have noticed that I have not added anything to the article for some time, as I know from experience that would be a waste of my professional skills, which can be better applied elsewhere. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

By and large, the policies make good sense. It is only the way they are applied by some editors that creates the (widely recognised) problem.--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The source just straight up doesn't mention cold fusion. There is absolutely nothing surprising about it being removed. It seems what you don't like is that we are following the no original research policy and you are doing it to try and rebut a source. Clearly using OR to rebut a source is never going to be acceptable, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already pointed out the irrelevance of your first sentence. Please look at what I said! --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In the context of the reproducibility it is interesting to notice another domain with problems in this regard, but not so controversial, the field of bioelectromagnetic studies. This has had many failures to replicate the results as pointed out by the book Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (vol I) edited by David O. C(arpenter?), Academic Press, 1994.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the problem seems to be a very general one -- I've been reading that a sizeable fraction of all published papers are wrong. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the ireproducibility of materials is a feature of complex systems through chaotic behaviour (as stated at least by Kozima).--5.15.53.183 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Impurities favorable and unfavorable to reproducibility

In Pd systems it is claimed by McKubre etal that Al and Si on the surface of Pd enhances reproducibility.--5.15.0.43 (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Some metals can lower the reproducibility, like Zn or Cu.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It can specified whether there is some influence from thermodynamic non-ideal alloys.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Content suggestions that don't provide any source

Alternating current electrolytic experiments

I suggest inclusion in the article of the answer to next question (rephrased comment): Are there some experiments performed with alternating current in electrolytic enviroments?--5.15.207.101 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this is an article talk page and not a general page for discussion (see WP:NOTFORUM), IRWolfie- (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This aspect is self-evident. You need not repeat this statement as a buzzword. I brought this up in order for some experiments reports of this type to be included in article , if there are some.--5.15.195.97 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to rephrase your initial comment so as to make its relevance more obvious to people. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed a rephrase is appropriate (to underly that this not forum) to contrast with direct current electrolytic environment experiment (F&P). Perhaps a suggestion of rephrase would be helpful.--5.15.196.40 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you study a source such as the Library at lenr.org and then come up with specific suggestions as to what might be included in the article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent content-based suggestion. I have browsed the mentioned repository an I have noticed some works with content related to some aspects I was considering to raise for discussion of inclusion.--5.15.202.119 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

lenr.org is not a reliable source and the papers it includes are generally fringe views and minority positions (WP:UNDUE), IRWolfie- (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

lenr.org is a repository of articles (many of them) which have been published in reliable journals. As for the fringe labelling, it is just a pure subjective assertion of some wikieditors who insist on their biased POV despite the evidence to contrary.--5.15.208.179 (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No source is inherently reliable (some are fairly close, like Nature and Science). Also bear in mind that WP:DUE weight applies, particularly with regard to WP:FRINGE positions. Minority views, even when published in peer reviewed journals, should not be confused or misrepresented as the mainstream position. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A pretty confused response! You don't ask of a library of physical books whether it is a reliable source or not; it is a collection of sources (books) some of which are reliable and others not. Likewise some of the items in the lenr.org library are published in reputable journals with good refereeing procedures and can thus be considered reliable. It is a nonsense asking how reliable the library as such is. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The topic of this subsection is the inclusion in the article of the answer to the question if there are any reported experiments in which the cold fusion phenomena occurs in systems containing only heavy water subjected to an alternating electric field through electrodes, considering that the Reported results section in the article begins with the enumeration of the constituents and conditions for experiments: metal/electrodes, deuterium/heavy water, type of system (gas contact, electroytic, etc) and excitation (fields, acustic waves etc)--5.15.177.181 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the work of Bockris and Sundaresan reports results of such kind with carbon electrodes in simple water.--5.15.53.183 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Connection to field-dependent effects could be established, like Wien effect.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Biased views - Gary Taubes

Clearly Taubes book has a biased attitude focused on the emotions of scientists he interviewed rather than on scientific aspects. Thus the reliability of this source should be reassesed.

It seems that Taubes and Huizenga are the pillars of the biased attitude on cold fusion present in the article--5.15.198.54 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Taubes accused Bockris of contaminating electrolysis cells with tritium, allegation disproved.--5.15.0.43 (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, the extreme skepticism makes the material more notable. Until all doubt is removed we cant really place the critisim in historic context, we can try but it isn't easy. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable yes, but less reliable (disproved).--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Appeal to the scientific method

Robert Duncan

Robert Duncan should be quoted in the article about the need to apply the scientific method to cold fusion. Or perhaps someone from the editors on this page would want to cast doubt on his reliability?--5.15.197.212 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, but I'm sure no bookmaker will give you good odds concerning how the editors on this page will respond. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Browsing the archives of this talk page (for example Archive 41) one can find a sample of totally inappropriate attitude/response of some editors on this page illustrated by a small quote about Robert Duncan by user Greg L : --5.15.202.138 (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You asked me if I know who Robert Duncan©™® is (honestly, a mental image of a dog with its tail wagging came to mind with that). I am exceedingly pleased to respond, “F--k no, and proud of it.” So I just now googled his name and stopped at the first site that wasn’t Wikipedia (*queue “eye rolling” clip from B‑roll*) or (literally) Cold Fusion Now-dot-com, and looked at this blog about the fellow, where there were individuals who seemed to be less-than-impressed with His Highness Of Cold Fusion. As for what “LENR” means, it’s just one of the many—as Sarah Palin might say—*sciency*-sounding pseudonyms to avoid saying “cold fusion”; an effort to put lipstick on a pig and pass it off as a prom date.

Their (expected biased) reaction should not be taken seriously, if it contains fallacies.--5.15.195.97 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And is the kind of language used in the above consistent with WP best practice? If it is, it should not be. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Collapse per WP:NOTFORUM - no edit proposed. This is not the place for a discussion about editors, or a forum for general discussion about cold fusion.

subsection with another quote hastily removed by IRWolfie.--5.15.198.117 (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where that is from in the archive, but be aware of the fallacy fallacy. If you want to make a suggestion, then make it, but don't use it as an opportunity to attack random editors. I reverted one of your additions which amounted to a pointless personal attack on an individual. Picking quotes and declaring them ignorant without further reasoning is also incredibly authoritarian (I assume Brian will speak out against attacks on scientists based on authority, right?) and also fallacious. Digging up past utterly unrelated comments also adds nothing to the current discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The quote has not the intention to attack some individual user but to underline some reasoning unawareness from some editors who make hazardous assertions here concerning the reliability of some sources they do not like, among other aspects.--5.15.198.117 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You have shown no such thing. Please focus on making your own arguments for inclusion of specific content rather than creating straw men from the archives, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What a hasty reaction from a user! I was about to give details about the relevance of the second quote when a user hastily intervened and caused an edit conflict. So I will restore the second quote with details.--5.15.194.94 (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You have provided no relevance at all. We aren't here to discuss your beliefs or anyone beliefs about the scientific method. They are irrelevant to this article. We do not base our articles on original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? No relevance at all? You have not pointed out any argument supporting this assertion. It is not about belief in the collapsed content, it is about noticing a modus operandi of some editors who, by lacking deep understanding of the scientific method pointed out by their edits, have a pattern of editing in this talk page of disregarding anything that opposes their views about the topic of cold fusion and the sources which support it by misconceived appeal to wikipolicies of NOR and UNDUE using them as buzzwords ad nauseam. Such editors are not able to asses the reliability of sources and to appreciate what is OR and what is not OR. Using the collapsable box is also a sign of disrespect to counterarguments which they do not like.--5.15.206.0 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The subtleties of the scientific method

I have found quotes in the archive of this page which indicate that some wikieditors are not very aware of the subtleties of the scientific method. The entire subsection has been hastily removed by another user who has interpreted the use of that quotes as a personal attack.

The removed quote contains assertions about the correctness of theories and the acceptance by scientists. These aspects are contrary to the scientific method because their insist to much on present models and assumptions on (thermo)nuclear fusion and the so-called scientific consensus and thus denying the validity of the cold fusion experiments due to contradiction to current models. Current models and assumptions have not an absolute status which would allow the categorical conclusion that cold fusion results are necessarily an error. The current models and assumptions are perfectible. Using them as premises to categorically deny the reality of cold fusion is a great reasoning error and thus a serious deviation from the scientific method.

I^ll restore the quotes later when I^ll find time.--5.15.195.89 (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The deviation from the scientific method (by group think) has generated the shortcoming of DOE conclusions as well as the so-called incompatibilities with conventional fusion.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Quote by Brian Josephson

The lecture Pathological Disbelief could be cited regarding the deviation from the scientific method in the case of cold fusion in comparison to other cases.--5.15.196.180 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

For instance, in the case of the origin of meteorites there has been little scientific base to object to the non-terrestrial origin of meteorites as pointed out by Max von Laue in his History of Physics (Geschichte der Physik, 1958). Some newtonian disciples considered that meteorites could not have come from outer space because this was seen a disturbance of cosmic harmony.--5.15.198.26 (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've read somewhere of a different objection to non-terrestrial origin. As all planetary orbits are elliptical, it was thought meteorite orbits must also be elliptical, but an elliptical orbit would have hit the earth some time in the past. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Although Max von Laue does not specify explicitly what kind of disturbance to cosmic order was involved, it seems this must be it, the cosmic order consisted in the assumption of the same type of orbits for both planets and meteorites (whether or not with the same eccentricities).--5.15.210.172 (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be continued elsewhere or the cabal will become restless ;-) I just wanted to make the point though that surely Newton at least was aware that hyperbolic orbits were equally in conformance with his laws? --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course the discussion could be continued elsewhere to prevent allegations of irrelevance. I was trying last night to post something similar on your talk page, but the content has at some moment suddenly disappeared. I′ve posted a rephrased version of the lost content here this morning.--5.15.197.78 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The concept of cosmic harmony is an influence from Plato, as pointed out by John Desmond Bernal in his Science in History.--5.15.7.76 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Incompatibilities with conventional fusion

What is the scientific base of the reasoning that cold fusion must have the exact mechanism as conventional fusion in free space, otherwise its existence is denied? (the answer should be specified in the article)--86.125.163.60 (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with this subject, but I see the article on the subject has a section Limitations, and it looks from this that it may not be correct to apply the Nernst equation. The article states specifically:

In dilute solutions, the Nernst equation can be expressed directly in terms of concentrations (since activity coefficients are close to unity). But at higher concentrations, the true activities of the ions must be used. This complicates the use of the Nernst equation, since estimation of non-ideal activities of ions generally requires experimental measurements. The Nernst equation also only applies when there is no net current flow through the electrode. The activity of ions at the electrode surface changes when there is current flow, and there are additional overpotential and resistive loss terms which contribute to the measured potential.

The situation I believe is that Fleischmann was aware that the naive application of the Nernst equation indicated that fusion should not occur at an appreciable rate, but in view of the uncertainties he thought it worth trying the experiment just to see if anything happened -- and the meltdown showed that it certainly did and he hastily checked for radioactivity and used smaller amounts of Pd in future experiments. The latter part is in Beaudette's book and there are no doubt lectures by Fleischmann somewhere that would confirm the rest of what I have said.

In any event, the article would be improved by including the fact that the Nernst equation becomes more complicated at high concentrations and if there is an electric current, as that will indicate that Huizenga might not have been right in his criticism. Ideally someone would look at his book and see what exactly he said. If I have time I'll ask the experts to check on this rather important point. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed this page and the controversial aspects (especially those concerning Nernst equation) presented here. It seems there have been many omissions of important aspects in the history of this topic. Nernst equation is one of them. It has stated by its author originally appealing only to concentrations (thus considering tacitly ideal solutions) and at zero net current (thermodynamic equilibrium of electric and osmotic force).

Its original formulation appealed to a doubtful concept - the dissolution tension of metals - which had implausibly high values and has been dropped being replaced with the notion of activity due to non-ideal solutions (ionic solutions being non-ideal from start). The nature of ionic solutions has been pointed out firstly by Arhenius and then by Max Born with his simplified version of the heat of solution of solid salts, thus underlying the presence of mobile ions.-

The relevance of the equation to the present topic seems to be in whether or not some factors could trigger the fusion of deuterons in solid lattice of transition metal hydrides, perhaps differently from the mechanisms in conventional fusion.-- 188.27.144.144(talk) 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

See below "Classical models" section.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Shortcomings of the DOE report conclusions

As some editors complained about the lack of a specific edit proposal, I suggest that the shortcomings of the DOE report should specified in the article (of course using sources in order that some editor not say that could be OR).--5.15.209.114 (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, there are 186 footnote references and a lengthy bibliography for this article. If you want to argue for a change, you'll need to provide sources to back up your claims.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the DoE report, its 2004 report included the following text (page 4):

Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic. Those reviewers who accepted the production of excess power typically suggest that the effect seen often, and under some understood conditions, is compelling.

In conformity with requests by some editors, I should like to ask, before including it in the article, whether there is a legitimate reason why this quote should not be included? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the article already discusses the 2004 DOE review. We should be careful to avoid giving it too much weight. Olorinish (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic, I'm afraid. It would be different if that short quote was similar to something already there, but that isn't the case -- in fact what little reference there is to the 2004 review is a little misleading (see below). And one might characterise my suggestion by saying that the sentences quoted fill a gap in what is there at present.

If you think too much is there re DoE reviews, the answer would seem to be to remove some of the material regarding the 1989 review, which was less searching than the 2004 review and therefore deserving of less weight. And it isn't exactly right to say 'reviewers found that cold fusion evidence was still not convincing 15 years later'; rather it was some reviewers (roughly a half) that was not convinced by the excess heat measurement. Would you like me to try and improve the article in that respect? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is an article about cold fusion, not excess heat. Olorinish (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(insert: This article, amoung many other things, is also the article about Excess heat - 84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC) )

The subject of cold fusion is intimately bound up with experimental evidence that it is occurring, and heat in excess of what can be explained in conventional terms is one of the main lines of evidence. In addition excess heat is one reason for the subject being of general interest, since if it can be produced on the scale claimed by Rossi and Defkalion it would have important practical implications in regard to energy production. Therefore there is an intimate connection between the two.

However, searching suggests that quite often in WP the means of detection of something such as 'nuclear reactions' do not appear in the main article on the subject, which perhaps suggests a separate article describing the methods of testing the cold fusion claims, including measurement of excess heat. However, if there were such an article people would probably be immediately suggesting its removal, and so I would favour this aspect being included in the main article, perhaps with a more logical organisation than at present. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It is stated in the article that DOE considers the theoretical proposals to be the weakest part of CF reports. What is the scientific base of such assertions about theoretical models? The answer is important to be specified in the article.--5.15.62.129 (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

DoE is now funding LENR research, page 7 box 3.6 http://www.floridaenergy.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/DE-FOA-0001002-FOA-IDEAS.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.89.28 (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

See new section -- in article and talk. Alanf777 (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Collapsable text box - abusive use

It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.--5.15.179.182 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's appropriate to use when it's completely off topic and disrupting the page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.192.114 (talk)

Of course it would be justified in cases that are really as you say but here it is not the case, your labeling as off-topic and disrupting the page has little base and is just the opinion of some editor lacking convincing other reply to the pointed facts/deficiencies.--5.15.213.209 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. This sure looks like censorship to me, and I think it would be wise for editors not to act in ways that may give rise to a suspicion that censorship in some form is involved in their actions. The problem is augmented by the fact that a certain degree of expertise is sometimes needed to judge whether something is irrelevant in the context or not, and editors do not always have the expertise that is required. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the expertise of some editors who complain of supposedly irrelevant archives search and attack when it comes to their shown (lack of) expertise pointed out by previous comments, there is some wikirule which underlies the necessity of some expertise in fields where is needed and the lack of it would a problem. This wikirule is WP:Competence#Lack of technical expertise.--5.15.193.118 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic of current interest.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutron involvement in triggering cold fusion

Another aspect which should be presented in article is the role of neutrons, as there are some claims that lacking background neutron cold fusion does not occur (experiments done with Kamiokande machine in an isolated cave at high depth).--5.15.206.146 (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what and who these claims are? Then they can be evaluated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Claims for instance, by T. Ishida 1992 Study of the anomalous nuclear effects in solid-deuterium systems, Thesis, Tokio University in coperation with S.E.Jones.--5.15.21.236 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

TNCF model

It would be useful to mention the Trapped neutron catalyzed fusion (by Kozima) in the subsection Proposed mechanisms.--5.15.205.255 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This model assumes the existence of stable trapped neutrons in some solids connected to triggering of cold fusion.--5.15.37.249 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The source of initial neutrons is from the background neutrons.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

References for the model by the author.--5.15.55.216 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

An extension of TNCF could cited.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

An extension who deals with the possible existence of the trapped neutron not only in solids, but also in liquids and as solvated neutron analogously to solvated electron and solvated proton.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.--5.15.177.58 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that rather sounds like it would end up as a POV fork. I think the real issue is that you and Brian don't like what the secondary sources say. It is also unnecessary, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think some of us are capable of being sufficiently objective. But you and others would find reasons to dispute an objective article, and on account of that alone I'm rather inclined to consider user@5.15.177.58's suggestion not that useful. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources, those like Huizenga and Taubes are clearly given undue weight. Also finding unreasonable reasons to dispute an objective article is tendentious editing. Perhaps there are lesser to no objections to a user space rewrite/draft.--5.15.200.250 (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Current Status Section

Short of a complete rewrite, a lot of information is buried in the "history" section. Following the structure of Fusion power I think that a "Current Status" section is appropriate (of course, "current" will migrate to "history" on a timescale of maybe 5 years). A subsection of "current financing" could include the Kimmel/SKINR grant and the recent DOE funding proposal. Similarly, "current research/progress" could contain recent reports. Alanf777 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A five-year window 2009-2014 would bring in a good selection Alanf777 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic of current interest.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Reported helium generation - competing hypothesized mechanisms

How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?--5.15.206.234 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Err ... do bear in mind that 'This is not a forum for general discussion about cold fusion'. There's a time and a place for everything! But if you have a specific proposal for this article, do go ahead and make it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I consider that the statement about not forum can be tacitly assumed. The answer to the asked question about competing reactions, assuming its existence, should be specified in the article.--5.15.212.24 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.--5.15.41.17 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an additional assumption in Baym&Legett for proving the impossibility theorem.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Excess heat as due to difference in conductivity of heavy water/water with lithium salts

There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.--5.15.62.129 (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Taubes can be cited as according to Taubes....--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic of current interest.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

There no good reason to archive the talk page with time between archiving of 1 month for unreplied sections. The archiving settings could be changed.--5.15.41.17 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Who has made the setting of archiving this page of 1 month since the last unreplied comment in sections?--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The page should be delisted from bot archiving.--5.15.4.233 (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Increased to 60 days. Delisting would need a commitment from a long term editor to do it manually, something which seems unlikely. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The 60d period has been restored. Delisting is not necessary but an increase of the period to 90-120d even 150d would be fine.--5.15.185.79 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there some unexplained problem being caused by archiving of idle discussions? Certainly talk pages of over 100k length are not desirable. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Idle or not, they are topics of current interest which have not been settled. About the inndesirability talk pages of over 100k length, where is such option specified?--5.15.183.49 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to change it back to 30, the talk page is far too long. We have 21 threads here, and even that is too much for a talk page, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So what if have 21 threads? If they are of current interest, we could have 80 (unsolved) threads and it would not be a problem. Too much for a talk page? According to whom? To the tastes of IRWolfie?--5.15.183.49 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Keeping a talk page below 75k and 10 sections is recommended in WP:TALKCOND. This is well above that. It makes it difficult for others to get a handle on. It should be restored to 30 days. Jim1138 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This is recommended, but not imposed, especially when there are topics of current interest. There are other pages with at least 23 threads unarchived for (many) years.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Archiving settings visibility

Where are displayed the archiving settings for this page? Are they visible just for registered users? if yes, that would be a discrimination of IP's.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The settings are visible at the top right of the page in the orange archive box: Threads older than 1 month may be archived by MiszaBot I. Jim1138 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--5.15.183.49 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Quality of experiments

Something should be inserted in article about the quality of experiments and experimental design in regards to reproducibility, like the following text:

After the announcement of the Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, there has been great debate between the deniers and the believers of the science of cold fusion phenomena. The debate continues to this day after two decades since the announcement. In other sciences, this situation is rare typically due to the fact that experiments are either reproducible or not. In this particular situation, the poor reproducibility of the experiment has been a major issue. As a result, the truth about whether or not cold fusion is even possible has been questioned. The purpose of this paper is to clarify why this unique situation occurred. We divide the process of experiment into four phases to analyze why "poor reproducibility" occurred. (1)Setting up the hypothesis, (2) Planning of experimental design, (3) Implementation of the experiment and (4) Verification of experiment. We would like to discuss what the problems have been in each phase.We interviewed the scholars in the field of Cold Fusion and found that the following problems have occurred in the four phases. (1) Hypotheses: There have been a number of hypotheses. Therefore, it has been difficult to get specific, measurable feed back. What one believes theoretical plays outs quite differently in experimental form (2) Experimental design: Each experiment may appear to have been carried out under the same conditions. However, variations appeared in the experimental results. It is possible that there were unknown conditions in metal, gas, and other components. Such unknown conditions might have not been considered in the experimental design. (3) Implementation of the experiment: Preventing the dispersion of the gas such as nano-structure of the metal as well as the gas such as hydrogen is very difficult. Hence, it has been difficult to control the experiment perfectly. (4) Verification of experiment: There has been some uncertainty about the various hypothesis and experimental conditions. It is difficult to write specifically about all the experimental conditions in the papers. Therefore, reproducing the experiments have been difficult for other researchers. In this study, we focused on the quality of the "implementation of experiment". In particular, we analyzed the prototype of the venture companies outside of Japan. We looked at the photos and the data of the prototype. We also analyzed the structure of the prototype, material, gas, and the method of heat measurement from the photos. We came to the conclusion that the results and outputs that the company claims are quite different from what they appear to be. Moreover, the data and the information which contained a lot of noise were announced without peer-reviews. In conclusion, "the lack of clear hypothesis", "difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions" and "uncertainty of information" led to the current controversy of Cold Fusion. It is important to solve these problems in order for the society of Cold Fusion to be in the main stream of the scientific society.

by E. Igari, T. Mizuno--5.15.41.17 (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current scientific consensus is that many of the experiments, specifically a subset of the negative ones that conclude no cold fusion exists, are quite robustly reproducible under controlled conditions. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is equally the case that many experiments require a lot of expertise to reproduce the effects under investigation, which means it is strikingly easy (though uninformative scientifically) to reproduce a null result! --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You may be right for what little I care; I was speaking merely to what the scientific consensus appears to be. As always, the scientific consensus may be wrong, but it's not Wikipedia's place to attempt to overturn it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The scientific consensus may be wrong or even lacking, especially in the case of CF. From the above probabilistic approach follows necessarily: the probability of reproducing a result and the probability of the complementary event, namely of not reproducing the result(s) must be considered.--5.15.191.89 (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Other aspect concerns the factorial design approach to experiments, considering the rather loose connection between theories of CF and experimental results.--5.15.191.89 (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The influence of alloys electrodes can be tested.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic of current interest.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Types of models

Several types of models, considering or avoiding the potential barrier to fusion of deuterons are reviewed by Chechin&Tsarev Int. J. Theor Phys. (1993)--5.15.41.228 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC) 4. 1 Barrier Circumvention (Avoidance)

      4.1.1 Transmission Resonance (TR)
      4.1.2 Lattice Induced Nuclear Chemistry (LINC)
      4.1.3 Barrier Free (BF)
      4.1.4 Coherent Deuteron Disintegration
      4.1.5 QED Neutron Transfer
      4.1.6 Bineutron (2n)

4.2 Barrier Reduction

      4.2.1 Heavy Particle Catalylists (HPC)
      4.2.2 Superradiance (SR)
      4.2.3 Lattice Vibrations (LV)
      4.2.4 Quantum Electrodynamic Confinement (QEC)
      4.2.5 Screening and Effective Mass

4.3 Barrier Ascent

     4.3.1 Fracto Acceleration (FA)
     4.3.2 Fracto Acceleration Plasma (FAP)
     4.3.3 Interface Acceleration (IA)
     4.3.4 Lattice Collapse (LC)
     4.3.5 Quantum Mechanical Transient

4.4 Narrow Nuclear Resonances (NNR) 4.5 Multibody Fusion 4.6 Exotic Chemistry--5.15.191.239 (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

brought text--5.15.200.152 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Classical models

The models which avoid the barrier resort to hypotheses concerning forces that could facilitate the fusion of deuterons thus making the barrier concept unnecessary.--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic of current interest.--5.15.183.49 (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Connection with Bubble fusion and Sonoluminescence

It should be specified what are the connections between the two types of fusion.--5.15.41.228 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

They have their own articles and are mentioned in the parent article of Nuclear Fusion. They were mentioned in passing in an older version of this article, but as their hypothesized mechanism involves localized pockets of very high energy (temperatures) it was argued that they were not part of this topic and the mention was removed. Personally, I rather liked the old section describing other things that are sometimes incorrectly called cold fusion, but I would have to concede that this article is already quite long. I do see that someone has added an 'in popular culture' section again this time as 'cultural references'- such a section seems to get recreated and then redeleted every few years here.--Noren (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to that discussion (probably in some archive of this page) to see what kind of arguing was used?--5.15.15.146 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully, the "popular culture" section will survive if we only allow mention with high-quality sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Navy SPAWAR researchers are in a 1 hour and 3 minute video on YouTube claiming that the reaction is highly repeatable, makes gamma rays, neutrons, and transmutes metals into other metals, and creates Tritium. The talk was filmed at the U of Missouri. NASA has 2 videos on YouTube, both saying the reaction is a real thing, that it creates heat, that NASA is contracting for a space plane built around the Nickel-Hydrogen LENR reactor ,, that the Windom Larsen theory fits most of the observed phenomena in the reaction. I question the glaring omissions of these items from this Wiki. NASA slideshows on presentations that NASA Langley made at other NASA facilities are also on YouTube, they discuss the space plane, and aircraft with "unlimited hover". Why do we seriously consider that Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems (Pacific), and Langley, don't know a nuclear reaction when they see one? We shouldn't be bitter, but re-consider. 98.30.129.141 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Search for relevant videos on → Youtube.com. — Loadmaster (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As the last three NASA-related papers that I checked stated essentially that "cold fusion would be extremely useful if it worked, so more research is recommended." Although quoted by editors as saying that it worked, they did not. Hence, if you can provide a specific NASA paper which actually said that it works, I might consider it worthy of addition. As it stands, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Taleyarkhan's results

Bubble fusion and sonoluminescence seems to have close connection to cold fusion by mechanism as Rusi Taleyarkhan's experimental results indicate [9].--5.15.187.130 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Got a wp:RS? Hint: Peswiki isn't it. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? By what criteria do you rate the reliability of sources for this article? How have you decided that Peswiki isn't RS? Please deploy the algorithm!--5.15.187.130 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Peswiki is by its own words openly edited. It is a classic self published source. Indeed a quick glance shows that it publishes every lunatic free-energy idea it gets.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If Peswiki is considered non-RS Taleyarkhan paper(s) mentioned there could be cited directly.--5.15.2.110 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Biased language

The article now partly shows language that goes beyond neutral and encyclopedic attitude. Example:

Many years after the 1989 experiment, cold fusion researchers still haven't agreed on a single theoretical explanation or on a single experimental method that can produce replicable results and continue to offer new proposals, which also fail to convince mainstream scientists.

Why should all researches agree on any one explanation? Are they all working together or following the same (hidden) agenda? How does a scientist achieve the classification of being "mainstream"? The whole field continues to be worked on, for whatever motives, multiple they may be, and it is WPs job to document that work, not to take side, or even support that decision to be made by the reader, for one or another side. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the excerpt must be rephrased. The demand of only one explanation is somewhat Procustesean and not very well-founded given, for example, the complexity of the phenomena and the possible generation of helium by deuteron fusion but also by other reactions .--5.15.53.120 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing isn't great. More accurate, although not easily sourced, is that there is no "accepted" theoretical explanation (even among the fringe community) nor any experimental method that has produced replicable results. Perhaps the "explanation" clause should be removed, but the "experimental method" clause should be strengthened. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow the topic cold fusion and the valuation of the proponent's motives are two separate storys; we might not want an extra article for the latter, but we should not mix these aspects as well. I propose to describe the discussion between the two (or more) sides, including attributions like "pathological", in _one_ paragraph. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User discussion

- Moved from my discussion page after a revert of my edits by User Enric Naval in this article. -

that information is on the cited sources

In reference to [10]. That's not original research by a wikipedia editor. The sources say, among other things, that it's a symptom of pathological science, that cold fusion proponents meet it, and that consequently the cold fusion field would have the characteristics of pathological science. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Enric, the attribution that researchers on cold fusion may be following "pathological science" is now four times in the article. This does not look like the spirit expressed in WP:NPOV. It is IMHO questionable if any valuation of something being "pathological" can be scientifically profound. The "sources" saying that may be reputable experts - in physics, but also in sociology of science? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion has become an example of pathological science, for a number of different reasons. It's only natural that it pops up in the text as you explain things.

There is no requirement anywhere that the sources have to be authored by people who have the degree of sociology of science. (but one of the authors happen to have such a degree, Bart Simon, and another has a degree in sociology and is expert on demarcation of fields of knowledge Thomas F. Gieryn) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Bernd.Brincken Wikipedia can point out when a discipline is widely regarded as pseudoscientific, or when some critics notably allege a discipline to be pseudoscience; see [[11]]. Such evaluations are, like much of the "philosophy of science", themselves non-scientific, but are nevertheless encyclopedic, and many people (including me) consider opinions about such distinctions relevant to their understanding of the topic. I would presume classifications as "pathological" follow the same guidelines. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

About "nowhere near enough" to "not enough", that doesn't convey that the distance is off by an enormous amount, even assuming the most optimal circumstances. See the language in some of the sources:

"Deuterium distance (...) Thus even under the high D/Pd values attained by electrolytic charging, the D-D spacing remains much too large for any fusion reaction."[12] 2004 DOE report
"The closest approach between the neighbouring deuterium nuclei (...) more than double the bond distance in deuterium gas molecules (..) Deuterium gas does not spontaneously fuse, and the situation within palladium is even less advantageous" (emphasis was in the original) Close, pp 257-258
"In D₂ gas molecules (...) the theoretical cold fusion rate is 3 x 10^-63 sec ^-1 (...) As stated previously this corresponds to one fusion per year for a solar mass of deuterium! (...) In the palladium metallic lattice, however, the mean spacing of the deuterium niclei is even larger than that in D₂ molecules (...) [achieving the fusion rate claimed by Fleischmann and Pons in metallic palladium lattice] requires a high-grade miracle (...) Even an enhancement of 40 orders of magnitude (10⁴⁰), necesary for the Jones et al. fusion rate, has still to be included in the miracle class." Huizenga, p. 112
"Several theorists performed calculations (...) but they quickly found that the upper limits for fusion under their conditions made the possibility of fusion astronomically unlikely." Simon, p. 50

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The language in the sources is in the sole responsibility of the authors - they are likely not bound to concepts like WP:NPOV or WP:OR - so their attitude can not be taken over in an encyclopedia. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an objective assessment of a physical phenomenon, not a political opinion. And it's made by physicists, so I don't see the argument for WP:OR. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The arguments from the assessments cited here are overblown/misconceived. Objectivity is lacking, especially in Huizenga's analysis.--5.15.187.130 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And about "have not yet" and "have yet failed". I am not an English native.

"yet" implies that it will eventually happen? Aren't we making a prediction that proponents will eventually agree on one method, and that they will eventually convince other scientists? And "still" is for things that keep happening right now? It sounds to me like "still" is more correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Failed" is biased language IMHO. This can and must be expressed more neutral. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with rewording to remove "failed". It hadn't occurred to me that this word was a problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And removed. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Biased Language? Generally, yes. I agree with Bernd.Brincken. There's also ambiguous, undiscerning language. Take the example in the first paragraph: "It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no accepted theoretical model of cold fusion."

Man, is that a loaded statement!

For one, "It" is ambiguous about what "it" is. Is "it" "the actuality of excess heat" or "the assertion that excess heat's source is fusion (D+D,D+P,etc.), or what? It's easy to muddle when we're not careful to be discerning and explicit in our writing. And when we do muddle, we open up the opportunity for any number of interpretations such as reading it as bias. If "it" means assertion of fusion as a source, and in the early years, then "rejected" might be apt. If "it" means observation of excess heat in later years, then "rejected" not so much.
Also "loaded" into the question is the idea that a field requires an "accepted theoretical model" to be valid. Mankind made excellent use of fire for a few years, and even engineered with it, before we understood fire or heat. We accepted and rejected numerous models of heat all the while warming our toes with it. Not having acceptance of one model of something is not a basis for acceptance or rejection of the fact of it (as is implied by the statement). In this case, only excellent calorimetry can do that.
The statement implies rejection for all time. In the earlier days both a fusion explanation and excess heat were rejected in large part, now the actuality of excess heat and even it's source being binding energy (by some pathway) isn't so widely frowned upon. In the beginning those ideas were frowned on, but not so much now. The tone asserts a strong rejection of all of "it" over the entire 25 years.
Not least, the statement is argument from authority. It implies an idea that science is something to be adjudicated by a body of mainstream authority. Ugh! Science is assessed by the testing of models for reliability and throwing them out when they fail. It isn't presided over.
Ubewu (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"it" = "the whole field of cold fusion"

The reasons for rejection are sourced from RS.

The rejection comes from "most scientists". Sometimes described as "the scientific community".

It's still rejected by most scientists. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It was hard to figure out whether "it" meant "the Cold Fusion name", or "the assertion that only fusion is the source", or "the measurement of excess energy", or any of a number of interpretations. I'm glad you came along and clarified it for me with such authority. Since "it" is ambiguous, we should clarify that in the text as well. Apparently, according to an authority, it means "the entire field, every thing about it, and for the whole of the last 25 years". We should clarify "it" with words to that effect. Since there is no bias, clarifying "it" like that shouldn't cause any change in the current cool, cut-and-dried, exclusively rational tone. Right? Ubewu (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

(Looking at the whole paragraph, "it" is also used in the previous sentence, and it refers to "the hypothesis"). A bit of clarification would be fine, but your version is a bit excessive. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right about my version being excessive. I was being melodramatic and snotty. Sorry, it was somewhat uncivil of me. :-) Ubewu (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DOE ARPA-E Funding

Added an initial entry based on Forbes and DOE. Alanf777 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this merits a sentence at the end of the lead. Alanf777 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -- skinr and doe Alanf777 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll change those to named-refs if the para stands. I'm not sure if the first named ref can be empty. Alanf777 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also see my proposal to carve out a "Current Status" section covering 2009-2014 Alanf777 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not relevant to this article. As the Forbes piece says: "LENR technology has suffered from confusion with Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann‘s “cold fusion” experiment, which has largely been dismissed by the scientific community." Wikipedia should not be similarly confused. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

At present Cold Fusion and LENR (and various other acronyms such as LENT) are synonyms. Only Widom-Larson (and their main supporter Krivitt) claim that LENR is entirely different from Cold Fusion. "R" stands for "Reaction" -- which includes Fusion. A split of the article into "Cold Fusion" and "LENR" is not appropriate at this time, if ever. If this is your only objection then the "LENR" information should be restored. Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Alanf777 here: LENR and cold fusion are the same thing. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll undo the last two changes Alanf777 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone remember CMNS (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science)? The organizer of the international cold fusion conference still bears this name[13]. And right there I can see the "Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball-Lightning" and the "International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

David Nagel lists 25 names on the last page of http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NagelICCF18.pdf (he regards the entire field as CMNS) -- I'm sure we don't need an article for each !! Alanf777 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the existing section, but it should read Forbes reports that New Energy Times (or Larsen) reports that the DOE ARPA-E study supports "cold fusion" research. The Forbes article does not actually report that the DOE ARPA-E may support "cold fusion" research. NET is not reliable; is Larsen considered a reliable "expert"? I don't know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Larsen? It would be OK to quote/paraphrase Forbes on "Lewis Larsen, the Chicago physicist who co-authored the Widom-Larsen theory of low-energy nuclear reactions, called the mention “a stunning reversal of a longstanding policy.”" He's too close to quote him on theory, but OK for policy. Adding that would indicate why the FOA is significant. Alanf777 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not uncommon. Something happens (DOE FOA). Somebody notices it and tips off a wiki-unreliable source, and then a wiki-reliable source picks up on that. Since there's no dispute that DOE did it, I don't think we need to document the entire chain. As a co-author of the "Widom-Larsen" effect (vigorously touted by NET, supported by NASA) Larsen is too close to be an unbiased expert. As Nagel pointed out in the above review paper, there are "approximately three dozen" groups of theories, and no consensus. Hmmm ... shouldn't the long-standing "Infinite Energy" magazine (still mainly print) be regarded as a reliable source? Alanf777 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So what if there is no consensus about theoretical aspects? Does this deny the experimental facts?--5.15.31.171 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm - problems?

I have to say this addition still strikes me as problematic. It has an entire standalone subsection written in rather a newsy "announcement" fashion to itself, and a meaty paragraph in the lede - which all seems rather undue. More particularly though, the secondary source we use explicitly says its subject is not to be confused with "cold fusion" such as Pons-Fleischmann's efforts. Yet here we are adding it to an article on Wikipedia entitled "Cold fusion" the opening words of which are "This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature". So something's wrong somewhere isn't it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The "about" section you quote is just to distinguish F&P metal-hydrogen CF from muon-catalyzed CF. It could be extended to add "and subsequent research" .. but that's covered in the lead. Since this is the first time the DOE has opened the door even a tiny crack to CF/LENR funding it is significant, and merits a mention in the lead (and I don't consider a 20-word sentence, where the long names make up 10 of those words, particularly meaty). I proposed a new "current status" section which would give it lower prominence in the article as a whole. Alanf777 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wired

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup - how about adding informations from this site? --22merlin (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There's little there which isn't quoting New Energy Times or Infinite Energy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wired usability seems to have been mentioned in other (above) thread.--5.15.29.119 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

High temperatures are not in fact a prerequisite

The statement that, 'Nuclear fusion occurs at temperatures in the tens of millions of degrees' is perhaps a little misleading, since that is only true if heating is used as the driver. Electrostatic acceleration can achieve fusion with potentials as little as a few thousand volts. This has been conclusively demonstrated by devices such as the Farnsworth fusor, which is within the scope of mainstream science. Awareness of this has a significant effect on the apparent feasibility of other fusion approaches. In fact, any propulsive force which can overcome the coulomb barrier can initiate fusion, and the energy required to do this is quite modest by particle accelerator standards. It just happens that accelerating the particles by way of heating them is a dreadfully inefficient way of achieving sufficent kinetic energy, hence the enormous temperatures needed.--Anteaus (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

One can see above at Types of models section that there are models of classical type who avoid the concept of potential barrier.--5.15.200.152 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Particles can be accelerated by electric field if charged, even in ionic solutions.--5.15.31.171 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Howmany users have been banned as a result of the confusing scope?

I'm not interested in asserting or exposing any editor conspiracy, that said I would like to know howmany users have been banned for being overly optimistic. It seems a very popular motivation to ban people. I'm most interested in the way the confusing scope creates such disagreements.

A simple example would be the endless discussion about including NASA in this article. At first sight the article contains many news sources. Further examination reveals that the only sub topic that may use such sources is our Pons and Fleismann coverage. At first sight I thought not including NASA was very biased editing. In the amount of time it took me to figure this out I could have easily been banned. To state the obvious: Wikipedia has many articles. Millions of them. Some topics have thousands of articles. 1500 mentions of Power Rangers is my favorite example. Cramping everything related to cold fusion into one article create a very confusing scope. This comes at a price, the price is that we will have to ban many users who simply don't get it. Whatever you think is accomplished it cant be worth that much. I see over 800 Paula abdul articles. These have been written using the same notability policy. I don't want to work with editors who each think the scope of the article is something different. It is a terrible idea, I've tried this, it didn't work. It had no effect.

Your thoughts? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Those user were banned because of tendentious editing and POV pushing, not for the reasons you state
Forking the article wouldn't change the behaviour of POV-pushing editors. On the contrary, it would be easier to POV-push. In the past, POV-pushing editors created forks of this article where they presented only the positive parts of the field.
I think that it would be harder to maintain two separate articles, because the topic can't be separated easily (as I explained in the section above).
What is the benefit for the reader? I think it's better to have everything organized in this single article.
A copy/paste of a few paragraphs doesn't look like a fruitful way to go forward
Cold fusion is a smallish field that got a lot of publicity years ago. In those months of glory, it earned a place in popular culture. And there is an intriguing story of how science announcements can go bad. And another story about how scientists can stick to a field after most scientists have abandoned it, mostly because of Pascal's wager (if it worked, it would every energy need in the world!!! Even if the chance of success is beyond minuscule, the earnings of succeeding are so great that it justifies spending any amount of money!!!!!!! Imagine if it turns out to be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). But there is not much beyond that. After +20 year there is no independent verification of any significant advance in getting heat from that process. We can't report the advances on this field because there hasn't been any, despite the many claims of replication.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we don't divide articles on popular topics only because they are popular. Power Rangers is a bad comparison. It has many TV series, games, collectibles, fan culture, copycats, parodies, etc. It has many articles because it needs them. Every article needs to justify its existence on its own.
Independient experiments only get their own articles if they are heavily important for whatever the reason, for example Michelson–Morley experiment. And you want to make an article about a press release that announced a experiment that was later shown to be flawed and didn't result in scientific advances?

--Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(deleted) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article on "Fleischmann-Pons experiment" is a bad idea at this time because it is likely to be a POV fork [14]. Already there is discussion there attempting to develop it "according to a particular point of view" [15]. Olorinish (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of POV forking you should provide evidence of it. Accusations should happen after I do something wrong. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Those user were banned because of tendentious editing and POV pushing, not for the reasons you state

I disagree.

Forking the article wouldn't change the behaviour of POV-pushing editors. On the contrary, it would be easier to POV-push. In the past, POV-pushing editors created forks of this article where they presented only the positive parts of the field.

Try assume good faith.

I think that it would be harder to maintain two separate articles, because the topic can't be separated easily (as I explained in the section above).

You dont have to maintain anything.

The topics can be separated.

What is the benefit for the reader? I think it's better to have everything organized in this single article.

It is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

A copy/paste of a few paragraphs doesn't look like a fruitful way to go forward

That is the way [wp:spinout]] works.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we don't divide articles on popular topics only because they are popular. Power Rangers is a bad comparison. It has many TV series, games, collectibles, fan culture, copycats, parodies, etc. It has many articles because it needs them. Every article needs to justify its existence on its own.

We dont create articles by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we use the notability guidelines.

Independient experiments only get their own articles if they are heavily important for whatever the reason, for example Michelson–Morley experiment. And you want to make an article about a press release that announced a experiment that was later shown to be flawed and didn't result in scientific advances?

The Water fueled car is an imaginary automobile that hypothetically derives its energy directly from water. Our article has sections with their own article. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell has a section Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car and the Gasoline pill to!

If our pseudoscience can have all these nice things, then why would we deny the professors this?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment by 84.106.26.81 that "You dont have to maintain anything.", my response is that people who want Wikipedia to provide accurate and useful information about cold fusion actually do have to maintain the relevant articles. If there were additional cold-fusion-related articles on Wikipedia, it would take extra work to stay up-to-date on any changes. Keep in mind that this topic has a history of biased editing, sockpuppet use, rambling, and rudeness, so it has been especially hard to get something close to NPOV. Olorinish (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You keep accusing other editors of biased editing but that is just one perspective, if we would call it bias the same could be said about you, Enric Naval, IRwolfie and Arthur Rubin. Pointing this out to you has no constructive effect. BIAS is the wrong terminology, it only creates friction.

I quote enric:

"Cold fusion is a smallish field"

I quote enric again, same talk page contribution:

"After +20 year there is no independent verification of any significant advance in getting heat from that process."

An article is either about ONE thing or it is about a GROUP of things. There exists no such thing as "that process" in the scope of this article. If Enric wants to write about "that process" he may do so on the article about "that process". A "field" of research with reliable, positive, peer reviewed results is not "that process".

If Enric doesn't understand the scope we cant expect new editors to know what is going on here.

You end up setting the stage for endless arguing.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Splitting of Fleischmann-Pons_experiment

Not done

Fleischmann-Pons experiment

I would like to see a link above the section: "Cold fusion#Fleischmann-Pons experiment"

::Main article: [[Fleischmann-Pons experiment]]

It only needs copy/pasting into the section. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Events preceding announcement

The section Cold fusion#Events preceding announcement doesn't have to be in this article. The exact text is available here: Fleischmann-Pons_experiment#Events preceding announcement.

It extends slightly into the next section:

In mid-March 1989, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on March 24 to send their papers to Nature via FedEx.[29] Fleischmann and Pons, however, pressured by the University of Utah, which wanted to establish priority on the discovery,[30] broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on March 11, and disclosing their work via a press release[31] and press conference on March 23.[28] Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to Nature after the press conference.[29]

The section and the paragraph can just be removed without loosing anything. (feel free to do so if you have editing privilages) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

note: Rather than follow my instructions, the spin out article has how been deleted by consensus. The spin out was considered duplicate content(!?), a pov fork(?!) and many other nonsensical motivations, this while non of my arguments have been addressed(?!) A consensus of invalid arguments is still a consensus of course. For now I will just accept that you cant read the edit guidelines when asked to. I may consider deletion review later but until I do the deletions proposed here should not be implemented.84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

no accepted model

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=595860863&oldid=595841265

I know this argument was really used to reject the Pons and Fleischmann replication results but our wording doesn't sound as sensible as it should. We fail to explain why a theoretical model would be necessary for the acceptance of experimental results.

The theoretical model was only relevant to the experimental results because so many results sit on the edge of the error margin. With a model there would be a vague effect, without a model the replication results look more like measurement errors.

Sticking with the correct scope is also important.

We currently have this:

Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature, compared with temperatures in the millions of degrees that is required for "hot" fusion. It was proposed to explain reports of anomalously high energy generation under certain specific laboratory conditions. It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no accepted theoretical model of cold fusion.

Cold fusion gained attention after reports in 1989 by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, then one of the world's leading electrochemists,^[2] that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat"), of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.^[3] The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.^[4]

I suggest this to be more accurate:

Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature, compared with temperatures in the millions of degrees that is required for "hot" fusion. It was proposed to explain reports of anomalously high energy generation under certain specific laboratory conditions.

Cold fusion gained attention after reports in 1989 by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, then one of the world's leading electrochemists,^[5] that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat"), of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.^[3] The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.^[4]

The Pons and Fleischmann experiment was rejected because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because no accepted theoretical model existed.

I prefer "existed" because after rejection publication of such theories had been refused. (Julian Schwinger wrote no less than eight theoretical papers after the rejection) There is no need to attribute it to "the mainstream scientific community" because wikipedia doesn't do statements of facts without it. But if you want it inthere I have no objection. Something like:

The Pons and Fleischmann experiment was rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because no accepted theoretical model existed.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Replication of cold fusion has failed, and there is no theoretical reason to think it would work. It fails on both experiment and theory. It's not just the P&F experiment results that are rejected, the existence of such a phenomenon is rejected. Your wording seems to try to undermine the mainstream view of cold fusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As Michael Shermer puts it:

Science picks up where theology leaves off. When a theist or creationist says “and then a miracle happens,” as wittily portrayed in my favorite Sydney Harris cartoon of the two mathematicians at the chalkboard with the invocation tucked in the middle of a string of equations, I quote from the cartoon’s caption: “I think you need to be more explicit here in step two.”
— in Russell Blackford and Udo Schüklenk (eds.) 50 Voices of Disbelief : Why We Are Atheists Wiley-Blackwell (2009) ISBN 978-1-4051-9045-9

Without a testable hypothesis which withstands experimental testing, there is no science in the theory, just blind faith. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Any scientist with a significant interest in cold fusion would have read Julian Schwinger's papers whether or not they were published. If Julian Schwinger's papers had any real predictive power and cold fusion was possible, one would think CF confirmed by now. As there is no credible evidence for CF, the statement that the mainstream rejects CF should be retained. Jim1138 (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is still no "accepted theoretical model". Thus the use of the present tense "doesn't exist"

the field was rejected because it couldn't be replicated at all. Nowadays we have claims and reports of successful replications. Independent reviews of the experiments are still sorely missing. Lack of review means that the replications could be full of methodological flaws. And nobody would know. ("review" means people from other departments going into your labs, poking instruments, demanding recalibrations and replacements, examining all raw data, observing manipulation of cells, demanding extra analysis of material, re-runs, etc)

I'm not convinced that experiments with unreliable and inconsistent results should be counted as successful. Specially when they lack thorough reviews of methods.

F&P's original results had lots of surplus heat; in addition to relatively high amounts of neutrons, tritium and gamma rays. Check their paper "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium" J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. Volume 261, Issue 2, Part 1, 10 April 1989, Pages 301–308. I understand that current claims of replications are only for small amounts of heat or for small amounts of nuclear byproducts. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"Topic of current interest"

I believe most of them tagged by 5.15.183.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are not "topics of current interest", and should be archived, manually, if necessary. If consensus can be obtained, I have an extension installed which allows me to click the "Archive" button on a thread, and it usually gets archived. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Support out of date and/or forum discussions. Jim1138 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that those threads are concerned with aspects that should be mentioned in article and they have not been objected to inclusion, however they seem undecided and thus of current interest.--86.120.172.55 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Support non-active discussions and the talk page is huge. Second Quantization (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose These aspects are not relevant and here votes are not counted. Supposedly non-active discussions can activate very quickly if some user decides to cites some sources in the article to address the mentioned aspects.--5.15.3.82 (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Support re-archival without prejudice per the Wikipedia:TALKCOND Guideline. I understand that some threads may not have been fully addressed, but the practice of re-opening large numbers of old threads at one time with a sprinkling of generic tags is not conducive to drawing individual attention to specific threads. I think a re-archive of 5.15.183.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s mass un-archive is needed, but this should be done without prejudice - it should be acceptable if 5.15 or others were to selectively reopen an older thread or two while adding a comment detailing specifics of what it was in that thread that they think could be acted on to improve the article. (However, if the consensus of this discussion is to re-archive, another mass de-archiving or a reversion of a closer's re-archiving would be disruptive.)--Noren (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I've archived the threads considering the support for it. None had been active for about two weeks. Second Quantization (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

How have you assessed the support? By counting votes (3.5 Support to 2 Oppose)?--5.15.32.35 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you make a change for the benefit of themselves and the poor science inventor. With the changes and can make wikipedia, monetary thank for these research Mount inventor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.127.155.170 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ill mention some of the topics of current interest to be discussed.--5.15.35.32 (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It's not for posting personal opinions on primary papers. I hope that your next suggestions are backed by sources that are usable in wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course these topics to be discussed for inclusion backed by usable sources. (BTW, are primary sources forbidden on w'pedia?) I'll ad some additional topics that need to be clarified and added to the article.--5.15.37.240 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to have understood what was being asked. You need to provide a specific proposal to change the article. Please make sure that your next edit here contains specific wording to update the article. This should be listed in the form: "I'd like to change X to Y. Here are the sources used to backup the change". Thanks.--McSly (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned some sources to be cited on some of the proposed topics. The specific excerpts to be cited can be established by reading the sources and selecting excerpts. I'll propose some specific citations from the sources. Feedback on specific excerpts from other editors who read the indicated sources would be useful.--5.15.53.167 (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Huizenga denial by Nernst equation

I found a RS that quotes Huizenga's assessment of Nernst equation in the context of analysing electrolysis. It doesn't find any problem with Huizenga's assessment: "The general message [of Huizenga's assessment] is clear: in using our pre-equilibrium arguments to establish Eq. (2.43), we must ensure that the pre-equilibrium is actually operative if the equation is to be meaningful. If large currents are being drawn, this may not be the case. Accordingly, the reader might note the need for caution in applying the analysis derived in Section 2.8. He/she might also wish to review the discussion of the Nernst equation in Chapter 1 of this book." Understanding Voltammetry pp. 56-57

The only other RS I can find is in German: Ebert K; Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 470 (in German). "Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium" (Electrochemically induced fusion of deuterium). [16]. Dieter's summary is "(...) The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV)"

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Cited excerpt

What exactly is the excerpt from the Huot reference cited by Huizenga in his book?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

text from archive by Brian Josephson which refers to the Hout reference in Huizenga's book:

I've now looked up the paper by Huot that Huizenga cites, and there seems to be a big gap between what he says and any assertion in the paper itself. If Huizenga thought there was some implication from the paper such as he asserts, he didn't go to any trouble to spell out his reasoning. The conclusion from all this would appear to be that Huizenga's assertion is overblown, and I suggest that instead of trying to summarise what people think about it as EN suggests that assertion simply be deleted from the article as having insufficient support.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

end of text from archive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The excerpt is very important for enabling the understanding whether Huizenga's criticism is valid or not.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Incompatibility to conventional fusion

This topic is closely connected to that of Types of models. A source for this can be the paper by Baim and Legget Phys Rev.--5.15.37.240 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is Baym, by the way, not Baim, and also it is Leggett, not Legget. I've commented on that paper on my talk page. Summary: it is inconclusive in the current context.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I consider seeing this discussion that although inconclusive, a proposed citation phrasing from the source could be:

Possible intrinsic sources of enhancement of the fusion rate include {3 possibilities listed there}. The source analyzes the first possibility and asserts the unlikeliness of solid state enhancement of the fusion rate.--86.125.167.74 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to include the reason given for them thinking it unlikely (more than 1000 atoms needed), so users can have the complete picture. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, good idea!--86.125.167.74 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The analysis by BL could be right tangentially in excluding the solid state enhancements of fusion rate.--86.125.186.149 (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't actually exclude it. In the absence of proof, what they said they thought very unlikely might actually be so. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've had a reply from BL now, which I'll quote:

... we agree with your implied position that one should keep an open mind about phenomena (including at least some of those usually regarded as "para-normal") which while not clearly violating the basic laws of physics as we know them do not have any obvious explanation within these laws. In such cases the ultimate arbiter is experiment.

--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This leads to the question how can various posited mechanisms (solid state enhancement vs exotic mechanisms) of CF be experimentally discriminated/discerned?--5.15.181.68 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As has been noted by people in the field, the regular route to gaining understanding is funding → experiments → data → understanding. The flow along this route is slow at the present time. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting to know what are factors that contribute to this low flow along the mentioned route. Perhaps some of them could be the low reproducibility and the tendency to theoretical denial of actual experiments due to difference of mechanisms from conventional fusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.53.36 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Quality (and design) of experiments and statistical analysis

Considering the aspects from the previous section regarding the discrimination of mechanisms by experiments which are the ultimate arbiter the question of how experiments should be designed to allow gathering of useful data for understanding and discerning the mechanisms appears stringent.--5.15.53.36 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The designed experiments must be (due to the issue of reproducibility) statistically analyzed. An example of (citable) statistical analysis is given by AIP source.--5.15.53.36 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Types of models

An appropiate source for this topic would the paper by Chechin and Tsarev from International Journal of Theoretical Physics.--5.15.37.240 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Taleyerkhan results and connection to sonofusion

Neutron involvement and TNCF model

Deuterated aqueous solutions ionic conductivity difference

Gary Taubes' (disproved) allegations

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

New Publication on the website of the Board of Education and Science http://snto.ru/feedbacks?cid=8&item=56 New publication "Results " http://www.itogi.ru/paradox/2013/35/193536.html Hello could you mene help promote technology and can my film about cold fusion technology will help in prodvezhenii . Are you concerned about Rasulov Alexey, for what reason . I spoke at an international congress in 2010 http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/2 ... on the issue of cold fusion . Now published an article about cold fusion is in the WAC in the journal "Energetic" publication in May 2013 http://www.energetik.energy-journals.ru/content/2013/5-2013/. Could you assist me in advancing technology , to show interest in this technology , it's the same technology as nuclear fusion , ie project " ITER " , please give a note that a competitor tokamaks. here's another article in the papers on this topic for each other Kursk http://www.dddkursk.ru/number/895/pla ..., and red star http://www.redstar.ru/2012/01/21_01/ 3 .... As there is a publication in the Journal of the inventor and innovator in May article called lightning to nuclear power plants. Recycled paper for analysis attached. Also have a group on the website of the Russian nuclear community http://www.atomic-energy.ru/papers/24062. Waiting for a reply by email. My phone 89508760167 . Address Kursk, Kursk region , village Vorontsov , 68 305 501 Index . Sincerely Rasulov AV

109.127.181.110 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Publications

JzG - - I assume that you will be here in person rather than in 'bot', since you have been forewarned on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ‎ (→‎Cold Fusion: new section)

   "There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and 
   our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)"

You (JzG) eliminated a sentence "In 2007 they established their own peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.^[6] " based on its link to a "not reliable secondary source" (your claim). If there were a link to a commercial advertisement in the NYT about the JCMNS, instead of the ISCMNS link, would that be acceptable to you?

You are wrong on several counts that betray both your POV or carelessness. Assuming that cold fusion is "fringe" today (with over 4,000,000 hits on Google) and stating that a peer-reviewed journal (JCMNS) is "not reliable" is purely POV (yours or that of those you are supporting). Stating that the link is to the journal rather than to an organization's website (ISCMNS, a reliable secondary source for this purpose) is carelessness. Deleting important material, which had been discussed previously, with only a cryptic and invalid comment is not appropriate: 4 April 2014‎ JzG ... (they created a journal, source: link to the journal. Which is not a reliable secondary source.)

I went through the anti-fringe argument 1.5 years ago in this talk area and no one could come up with a valid reason for maintaining CF as a fringe topic. The topic could be considered "WP:controversial"; but, despite the major effort of the anti-CF group to keep documentation of mainstream research and publication out of the article, considering it to be fringe is untenable. It is only the unwillingness of that group to allow sufficient post-2000 publications to remain in the article that they can convince themselves (and certain administrators) to maintain the charade of their fringe argument. Aqm2241 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion is considered fringe "today" for reasons that should be obvious once one reads over WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and, of course, WP:FRINGE. As such, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is as reliable as any "journal" published from within the walled garden of astrology, homeopathy, etc. I.e., Regardless of the number of Google hits produced by the endless number of blogs and websites devoted to the topic, or the number of self-published papers its devotees can produce, without mainstream support, fringe is still fringe. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem - do you consider the CF article to be anti-CF (and therefore mainstream) or neutral, but specific to the topic? If the former, then it should be clearly identified as such. In that case, only a few exceptional articles could be allowed to support the minority view. Since there are mainstream anti-CF views, this would be a legitimate position. However, there are few mainstream descriptions of, or experiments on, the topic (perhaps none since 1991). If this article is a specific article on CF, not 'views on CF', then the balance shifts the other way. The anti-CF references are then the minority and must be held to the higher standard.

If the anti-CF crowd is treating the CF article as a minority and fringe position relative to a mainstream "view," then it needs to be retitled. Are you, or is anyone, authorized to speak for the anti-CF club, to decide what the article is. I would be happy to retitle it, if the decision is that it is a view of, rather than an article on, CF. Too much time and energy has been expended on trying to create an article that must meet different standards from the editors' viewpoints. Aqm2241 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqm2241 (talk • contribs)

Aqm2241 your instance on labeling other editors must stop. You have absolutely no idea what my personal views on the topic are. If you believe I or any other editor is acting in bad faith, as your use of "anti-CF" implies, the take it to the proper venue. Personal attacks, thinly veiled or otherwise, do not improve the article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem Forgive me if I have misjudged you. You consider yourself an 'honest' skeptic and I can respect that. However, your apparent turning a blind eye to the overt removal of pro-CF mainstream references and external links from the WP:CF article certainly pointed to acceptance of the anti-CF position and actions. Everyone has a POV and I believe few men would object to being labled (women don't seem to like it). There is nothing wrong with being pro- or anti-CF, as long as it does not detract from the article. I see no evidence of bad action in your case (but, to be honest, I haven't looked very hard). I had asked you a question that I thought would clarify some of the problems. If people see the article from different viewpoints, then they will have different expectations.

An earlier discussion had asked whether the article was a 'history' of the Fleischmann Pons effect or more. Was it resolved? If not, we could be having the same problem now. My question was whether CF was considered to be a mainline topic or a fringe topic. The header on the CF talk page says that it is controversial. 'Controversial' requires an attempt at equality. It also requires the controversy to be described. There should be a section in the article devoted to the controversy. If editors perceive the article as fringe, then they should treat it differently than if it is fringe in a mainline article (e.g., a nuclear physics topic) or controversial. What is proper or acceptable editing on one case is vandalism in another. Thus, actions and perceptions unnecessarily polarize the editors. I still have not heard anyone address what they consider the article to be in those terms. The anti-CF group appears to consider CF to be fringe, but the article to be a mainstream subject. I have a problem with that. Maybe it can be resolved.

From WP:PARITY - "Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects." I do not believe CF to be a mainstream subject (yet). This article is specific to a non-mainstream topic. Therefore, I consider blocking and deleting of pro-CF views and references (particularly high quality ones) to be vandalism. If you still consider CF claims of excess heat and nuclear reactions to be extraordinary and the CF article to be a mainstream article, then you might even consider arbitrary deletion of pro-CF mainline journal articles to be justified as fighting WP:Undue, because the referenced journals are not 'extraordinary'. While I doubt that I could convince you about the claims, particularly if the appropriate references are 'not allowed', we might come to some agreement about the nature of the article. If all editors came to such agreement, the article could be made 'whole' and perhaps a second one, or second part, could also be agreed upon. Aqm2241 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Still considered fringe in 2013.

I recall that the journal is published by the organizer of the annual CF conference? It should be given preferential treatment among proponent sources. I find it natural to mention the most influential journal in a fringe field, when speaking about publications. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

How about: no. We know they publish journals for each other, but unless you can find reliable independent sources that establish the significance of these journals, then citing the existence of the journals to the journals themselves is WP:OR and discussing them at all is WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Guy - You clearly seem to think that Cold Fusion is a mainstream article on the subject and therefore pro-CF views and papers are a minority position and fall under the WP:undue ruling. Would you care to defend the title of the article if it considers the cold fusion research to be a majority activity? If CF is a majority activity, could you quote some majority-position research in this area in the last decade? Two decades? If the title were "Cold Fusion in the 20th Century", I would give you a bit more slack. "Cold Fusion in the 21st Century" is a whole new ball game. You say that you have learned about CF from a friend who worked in Fleischmann's lab. If he was not the janitor who cleaned up after one experiment burned its way thru the lab bench and part of the floor, then I would be interested in what he had to say. Perhaps, you could write a letter on what he had to say to the editor of Nature and have it, as a tertiary source, become an acceptable reference for the CF article?

You suggest that I am advocating pathological science and that the scientific community considers that is what CF is. I publish and communicate with physicists and engineers in 3 different fields. Most are surprised that CF is still active and are generally interested in the positive results. A few do have the closed mind and POV that you seem to enjoy. For the most part, they are not the ones doing active research. On the other hand, perhaps you have data and many physicist friends that are both knowledgeable on the subject and agree with your POV. Since you are so set against CF and want to eliminate any positive references, why don't you just leave the title and eliminate all but one line, "bullshit", and save us all a lot of grief. I'm sure that you can find a reference for that. It expresses your POV, your OR, and all of the other excuses that the anti-CF club has been using over the years to deny evidence and to convince themselves of their rightness and righteousness. Aqm2241 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

See the arbitration case linked at the head of this page. The world views cold fusion as pathological science, it is not Wikipedia's job to fix that for you. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's still considered fringe science. See for example page 176 of the recent book "Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem", where cold fusion is cited as an "example of institutionalized fringe science" and where the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is specifically mentioned as part of this institutionalization. --Noren (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are the authors of this recent mentioned book? This labeling "example of institutionalized fringe science" is just rant.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Noren, your reference is very interesting. Note that the author described CF as "institutionalized fringe science." The book is a collection of 24 essays by various experts seeking to identify the distinctions between science and pseudoscience. The essay you referenced is titled "Belief buddies versus critical communities." I find it very interesting that her description of "belief buddies" (p 169, many with "little relevant scholarly training," p. 177, and as a marker for pseudo science, p 179) seems to fit the anti-CF crowd very well. Her description of CF as institutionalized and composed of self-critical, communicating, credentialed, individuals (characteristics of science) gave it "borderline legitimacy" (p 176). Since the anti-CF crowd often takes quotes from pro-CF author's introductions to identify problems with CF research or data, you may as well also. Please put it into the article text, so that we can add a legitimate CF reference (see my comments below). Aqm2241 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not a Wikilawyer and sometimes am somewhat slow (naive?). I just realized that the reason that the anti-CF club must remove legitimate sources that are pro-CF is that they have to maintain the fiction that CF is fringe. Then, to show that they are 'neutral', they can allow as many pro-CF as anti-CF references. Thus, they play the game.

We can help them play their game, and still improve the article, by finding as many anti-CF comments as possible. Since the anti-CF crowd would allow (and claim) even blogs as strong tertiary sources (if they fit the proper POV), the pro-CF group could play along just to permit additional legitimate CF-documentation to be referenced in the article. Of course, the discerning reader would see the difference in quality of the references, but the anti-CF crowd is not trying to convince a discerning reader. Since it cannot 'kill' CF, it only wants to preserve the fiction that CF is fringe-science. Furthermore, some of the anti-CF group are less than honest and know that periodically, they can bring in a 'big gun' and just arbitrarily 'erase' many of the pro-CF references to maintain the appearance that CF is still only "fringe" and no real work or progress is happening. For example, I note that all of the Forbes references are now gone. Some sources that are 'legitimate' when publishing anti-CF articles would be labeled as fringe and/or worthless and not be allowed, if publishing non-anti-CF articles (e.g., http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.4.2409). However, the anti-CF articles from these same journals must still be retained to keep the WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe charade intact.

Speaking of WP:Fringe, within their own definition, they violate the Wiki tenets: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." Clearly the anti-CF group will not allow "more extensive treatment" under any circumstances. (They may even deny the notability of CF, since they apparently believe it is fringe. Apparently, they consider the article to be about the failure of CF - a majority viewpoint? - thus they can claim that they are only suppressing "undue weight.")

I also note that there is no section in the CF article on why people should be interested in the success of CF (cheap energy, little or no radioactive waste, reduction in green-house gases, no concern about strip-mining or fracking, off-grid living) and no figures indicating demonstrated levels of power and energy generation (e.g., last figure in http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/). Aqm2241 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's covered in commentaries, but you can't say there would be little or no nuclear waste because it's pure conjecture, there's no actual evidence of a nuclear process at all so conjecture about the level of waste is not going to fly. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A major argument against CF (based on the assumption that CF must follow known high-energy D+D fusion patterns) is that there is no proton or neutron radiation commensurate with the heat produced in the claimed D+D => 4He fusion reaction (see note 4 in the article). The fact that nuclear ash (protons, neutrons, tritium, 3He and 4He at very low levels) has been observed & reported repeatedly in numerous laboratories proves the nuclear process(es). Aqm2241 (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem was, they didn't detect all at the same time. One lab detected ash A but not B, the other lab detected ash B but not A, etc. I read this in a source, but I don't remember which one......

Even when detecting the same ash, the ash/power ratio was different. I am not sure if I read this in a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This fluctuational behaviour seems to be a defining feature of chaotic systems where the same initial condition does not produce the same effects.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's also consistent with random experimental error. Don't forget old William and his useful cutlery. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In such case, the same group would detect different ashes on each one of their cells, right? And the same ash would be detected at different ratios on each cell.

Instead, each group is detecting the same ash in all their cells, which have the same initial conditions. That's suggestive of problems in procedures: group A uses a method that overcounts background-levels of ash A, group B doesn't realize there is contamination from ash B in one step, group C measures ash C with an uncalibrated or inadequate measurers, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Once the finding can be replicated independently without the need for True Believers taking part, I am sure it will be published in the peer reviewed journals. Until then... Guy (Help!) 09:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Replication has not have to be 100%, it can have a frequency distribution like other stochastic and processes such as earthquakes occurrence, wind intensity, composition of fission products. A statistical replicability seems to be an experimental fact that needs to be considered as intrinsic feature of the phenomena.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It has to be consistently reproducible, or a compelling argument has to be made as to why it usually fails. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

100% reproducibility seems an excessive demand. There are stochastic phenomena like wind intensity distribution and earthquakes frequency which have an intrinsic random occurrence. To give an additional example of a more similar nature to cold fusion namely nuclear, the composition of nuclear fission products at a given momemnt is not reproducible for two nuclear fission reactors operating simultaneously at the same time or for the same reactor successively. The composition of nuclear fission products is the statistical averaging of individual fission events of single nuclei. No one is insisting that the composition of fission products should be reproducible.--82.137.9.236 (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

See my comment above....... Each cell is an independent reactor. If your theory was correct then each cell would be giving different products. We wouldn't have each group reporting that all their active cells give the same products. Products would be different for each ell, not for each group. (This has derived into unsourced comparisons of personal theories, and talk pages are to discuss changes to the article, not for discussion of the topic, etc., etc.. It has been good, I can't encourage this behaviour by continuing the discussion. These discussions belong to the vortex-l mailing list and other such forums, not to wikipedia's article pages. Please go there to find people interested in discussing this, and forums that welcome this type of discussion). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody needs to do anything to maintain the impression that CF is fringe: it is fringe. A very good friend of mine worked in Fleischmann's lab back in the day, I am quite well informed on this. You are advocating pathological science, and Wikipediua is not the place to fix the fact that the scientific community in general considers you to be doing this. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know the name of your friend and whether he has published some articles on some (negative) results.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

He has never published anything on this, as far as I know. I know he did some work for Fleischmann (I remember the jokes about the "thermonuclear shield", a ceramic basin covering the apparatus in case of boiling water ejection) but his publications are primarily on biosensors. Oh, and the current standard undergraduate text on analytical chemistry. You can Google him: Professor Séamus Higson. I bet him a fiver he'd be a full professor before the age of 40 and I collected it at his inaugural lecture :-) I also showed him our FA version of this article; he said it was a fair and accurate. A lot of special pleading has been added since. I haven't asked him recently, but he shakes his head ruefully when the topic is mentioned: he liked Martin Fleischmann and largely blamed Pons for the science-by-press-release fiasco and the race with Jones, which trashed a formerly very sound career. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that there is a Séamus mentioned in Archive 5 of this talk page, but not his full name.--82.137.8.198 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

3 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

New Publication on the website of the Board of Education and Science http://snto.ru/feedbacks?cid=8&item=56 New publication "Results " http://www.itogi.ru/paradox/2013/35/193536.html Hello could you mene help promote technology and can my film about cold fusion technology will help in prodvezhenii . Are you concerned about Rasulov Alexey, for what reason . I spoke at an international congress in 2010 http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/2 ... on the issue of cold fusion . Now published an article about cold fusion is in the WAC in the journal "Energetic" publication in May 2013 http://www.energetik.energy-journals.ru/content/2013/5-2013/. Could you assist me in advancing technology , to show interest in this technology , it's the same technology as nuclear fusion , ie project " ITER " , please give a note that a competitor tokamaks. here's another article in the papers on this topic for each other Kursk http://www.dddkursk.ru/number/895/pla ..., and red star http://www.redstar.ru/2012/01/21_01/ 3 .... As there is a publication in the Journal of the inventor and innovator in May article called lightning to nuclear power plants. Recycled paper for analysis attached. Also have a group on the website of the Russian nuclear community http://www.atomic-energy.ru/papers/24062. Waiting for a reply by email. My phone 89508760167 . Address Kursk, Kursk region , village Vorontsov , 68 305 501 Index . Sincerely Rasulov AV

109.127.181.110 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

It seems that some users are making unfounded allusions of semi-protection of this talk page.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It will, however, be semiprotected if you insist on continually restoring the WP:FORUM cruft. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to obstruct legitimate comments under the impression/pretext/labeling that they be WP:FORUM cruft is disruptive.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Obstructive archiving of discussion in progress

I notice on this page and from its history that attempts of obstructive ending of valid discussions by tendentious archiving and other means by some users (JzG, Binksternet, etc). This is an example of unacceptable behaviour.--193.254.231.34 (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that it has been suggesting that edits should be commented, not behaviour. A recent edit like that of McSly of trying prevent legitimate comments is unaceptable.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

just create a new section. That's very simple. Make sure it relates to a specific change request of the article.--McSly (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to create new sections since the name of section(s) in the archived fragment is appropriate to my comment.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The text has been copied there now, so it's too late to change it. Create a new section and add as much context as you like. Right now, the only thing you are doing is waste everybody's time.--McSly (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Copying to archive can be undone if it has been done prematurely. There is no such thing as too late to change it. Your insistence on a certain version of the archive is not reasonable and it is the origin of time wasting.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. This page is for actionable proposals regarding improvements to the article, see WP:TPG. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Using forum as pretext to hide discussions that mention some objections to subtle tactics against improvement of the article such as the hatting just removed is not acceptable here. Also modifying wikisyntax to hide other users' comments and even an entire section that refers to content handling procedure is also not acceptable.--82.137.14.68 (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Objections to someone's edits should not be hidden.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of the archive

I see that there some aspects concerning the (re)use of the archive have been discussed here. I consider that some archived sections such as Edit requests can be reused adding subsections with date of request.

I also notice that there are some users who remove other editors comments or objections to their edits, objections that should not be removed.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I explained above the reuse of archive to add subsections when when a user (McSly) interrupts my subsections I was about to add.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

His interruption of my intended additions cause disruption to the flow of writing aspects to include in article and are not to be accepted.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Closure of some subsections

I notice this very interesting feature of closure of some subsection by JzG (see above at topic of current interest). He has no right of closure for unsettled topics just based on his personal opinion. His abusive closure will be undone.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your determination to continue grandstanding and POV-pushing is noted. Feel free to go away and find another project that is happy to promote pseudoscience, fringe science and pathological science: Wikipedia is not that project. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also your determination to promote your personal opinion that CF is fringe is noted. Please stop all this nonsense talk about fringe and pathological science which in case does not apply.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion, it's a verifiable fact well established in the arbitration case. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

One can wonder how well established is the fact of fringe labeling based on sources by top scientists that have a statistical relevance and exclude error propagation by persistent reuse of comments made by Huizenga and Taubes-like sources? Top scientists (Nobelists in physics like Gordon Baym) have been cautious from the beginning in asserting impossibility.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be impossible in order to be fringe and pathological science. Those require only a pathological belief in a single explanation of something, pursued to the exclusion of open testing to see whether it is real and if so what it might be. Science very rarely says that anything is impossible - even homeopathy, which is the most self-evident twaddle, is discussed in terms of the absence of evidence of effect, mechanism and basic science, rather than dismissed outright as the nonsense it is. Popular science books will tend to use informal terms like impossible, ridiculous or whatever, published science will merely say that after X years there has been no published proof of an effect that is reliably reproducible by independent scientists. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Absence of evidence or evidence of absence? Who says anything about a single explanation and who excludes open testing? I think the cautious language is preferable to judgement of value like dismissed outright as the nonsense it is.--82.137.13.159 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In science, the burden of evidence is very firmly on the claimant. They have failed to make their case. The court of science has recorded a verdict of "not proven". Nobody doubts that the faithful are sincere in their belief, but you know what happened to the boy who cried "wolf!". They are not going to get any significant traction until they have solid basic science showing a credible mechanism. It's like homeopathy in that respect: we know they can reproduce the result, albeit unbelievers seem not to be able to, but what grounds are there for believing that these results are anything other than chance? There are precedents, e.g.: Jacques Benveniste and his water memory, Prosper-René Blondlot and his n-rays. Science has learned a lot about the power of belief over the years. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you have partially misunderstood the modus operandi of science. Science and especially the scientific method operates by falsification/disproving which implies the evidence of absence and it has little if at all to do with belief. Even if an (imaginary?) court of science (who are the members of this is another question) may have recorded a verdict of "not proven" until the evidence of absence has convincingly emerged, there is no justification of categorical labeling. Even some theorems can be not proven at some moment and hold the status of a conjecture. A classical example of disproving is the disproving of the geocentrism. Search for mechanisms can be in investigation.--82.137.9.236 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The section will be restored. No one has the right to archive aspects whose inclusion needs to be discussed.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Those sections were meandering, with no improvement to the article in sight. e.g.: Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_46#Cited_excerpt was proposing a comment in wikipedia to counter a famous book, #Incompatibility_to_conventional_fusion had become a discussion about the general topic.

In WP:TALK#Others.27_comments "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article),(...)" (Personally, I would have preferred a "collapse" template) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

1) It is an improvement in sight because knowing exactly what has been quoted from Huot by Huizenga gives additional insight about the usability of Huizenga's book as a source.

2) WP:TALK#Others.27_comments's specification mentioned above do not apply here where aspects that should be presented in article require clarification.

As a general conclusion from the two aspects in reply to Enric Naval and other aspects mentioned in this section archiving is not necessary and the section Topics of current interest will be restored.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If the section is restored, the person responsible may be blocked for disruption. The only arguments for inclusion thus far are from people with no other interest in Wikipedia. We understand your passion but we're not here to play a part in rehabilitating the image of cold fusion within the scientific community or elsewhere. Cold fusion is regarded as fringe and pathological science, this is the consensus view of independent experts, we reflect that view per our foundational policies and specifically because of the arbitration case noted at the top of this page. Cold fusion is a walled garden and until it starts getting meaningful input fomr outside of the walled garden (which does not mean being allowed to talk among yourselves at meetings not devoted to CF), our article won't change.

Change the outside world first, Wikipedia changes later. That's the rule. And it's going to be applied with especial rigour here because of the past excesses of CF proponents on this article. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@188.27.144.144, You can check the reliability of Huizenga's book by the positive reviews it got. And by the times it has been cited by other authors. I don't see any source saying that Huizenga's book contains misrepresentations. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Citing by other authors does not necessarily exclude error propagation. The best check of reliability can be done by seeing what is the base of the assertions made by Huizenga based on some scientific article cited. This may involve specialized knowledge of physical chemistry and mathematics according to WP:CIR#Lack of technical expertise.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say that your arguments pertain more to the land of not providing reliable sources that directly support the removal.

In contrast, in the last thread, I managed to find a science educative book that takes Huizenga's analysis as a correct analysis that should be taken into account when doing experiments. And another source that makes a point similar to Huizenga's point. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to cite a source that says Huizenga's book is inaccurate if it is the case. Just analyzing the article(s) cited by Huizenga's and comparing to the full text of those article one should immediately see (although this may require specialized scientific expertise) if Huizenga's assertions are overblown or not and if there is a misquotation of articles or not.--82.137.13.159 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And then we're back to using unpublished original research of primary sources.... --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not OR, just immediate inference. No source is required to see if there is an error in some source similarly to seeing that 1+1=3 is false. Specialized technical expertise can and must be used if and where necessary.--82.137.9.236 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read Huizenga's source. But a primary source titled Electrolytic Hydrogenation and Amorphization of Pd‐Zr Alloys surely requires quite a lot of "specialized knowledge" to interpret, something that it discouraged by WP:PRIMARY. Especially when we already have an interpretation by a secondary source. You are unlikely to get anything done about this until you can provide more than unpublished research made by yourself. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reading and understanding (using technical expertise if it is required) (primary) sources is not interpreting them and is a necessary condition for those who want to have a say in shaping the content of the article. Checking for (and noticing) possible discrepancies and misquotations of primary sources must not be discouraged under the pretext that would be considered interpretation. A quote from WP:CIR says : ″Insufficient technical knowledge is not usually a problem, unless when adding, deleting, or changing technical content. Not everyone needs the same skill set—and as long as people operate only where they're capable.″ And those who say that haven't read a source that is discussed are in a not very legitimate position because of the WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT that forbids citing directly a source not read.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: I have read Huizenga. I have not read the source cited by Huizenga. In other words, I have read the secondary source, but I have not read the primary source cited by the secondary source. That should be OK by wikipedia standards.

We are talking about the interpretation of a complicated scientific equation that even trained people have problems getting right, and its application in a difficult environment with lots of confusing variables. That sounds to me like "technical content". I can't agree with you on this. Never mind that WP:CIR is an essay while WP:PRIMARY is policy. You are welcome to ask for uninvolved output in the reliable sources noticeboard or in the talk page of the "no original research" policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The equation is pretty simple and not needs a so-called interpretation. You should not try to obstruct the use of specialized expertise where is needed by opposing two wikirules. Without technical expertise you can't have a say in handling technical content and deciding what source is usable for what assertion. Every editor should wikioperate where he is capable. Perhaps an addition to WP:PRIMARY from WP:CIR should be made that emphasizes the necessity of technical expertise which is absolutely necessary in handling technical content. Editors who do not show enough understanding should stay out of topics out of their reach and not obstruct editors who have sufficient understanding for managing technical content/sources.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the book Understanding Voltammetry. Nernst equation seems to be quite complicated to calculate and to get right. Understanding this equation without specialized knowledge should be really difficult.

Book This educational book details explicitly what pieces of knowledge are needed to understand the Nernst equation. Almost a page and a half of explanations. After that, it recommends to "consult a college-level algebra book" if you don't understand the maths involved. The google preview ends there.

[www.chembio.uoguelph.ca/educmat/chem7234/Lecture%201.ppt Lecture] on college-level course "Fundamentals of Electrochemistry". Lots of maths and chemistry concepts are needed to understand the applications of the equation on different types of cells.

Please stop claiming that this equation can be understood without technical knowledge on the subject. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely one cannot reasonably expect that editors not or insufficiently familiarized with the concepts needed to understand the equation dictate or impose editing restrictions to editors who are familiarized and notice errors in quotation in a secondary source like Huizenga's and want to remove them without appealing unnecessarily to another source that would notice the errors in the first secondary source.--82.137.9.180 (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The unfamiliarized editors should firstly familiarize themselves with the necessary concepts and only then when they prove their familiarization exert to right to edit topics previously not understood.--82.137.9.180 (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely the secondary sources are clear enough on the topic, without need of specialized knowledge to understand them. And that's the best situation, according to wikipedia guidelines. We are only following wikipedia's guidelines about reliable sources. If you think that this is an imposition, then maybe wikipedia is not the right place for you. You will have to find a website that allows unpublished personal research. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Enric Naval One of the issues with this topic is that it is so little discussed outside of the waled garden of cold fusionists, and their followers are so determined to expand it ad infinitum, that each successive revision is proportionally more reliant on a tiny number of partisan sources. Much of it is really a rambling timeline of trivial events that manifestly failed to change anybody's mind. I guess this is inevitable in fringe and pseudoscience topics (homeopathy was the same for a long time, for example). Guy (Help!) 14:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you are referring to Cold_fusion#Subsequent_research, and some of the paragraphs at Cold_fusion#Reported_results? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

To the IP editor from Kursk

Edits appear above from IP addresses 109.127.181.110 and 109.127.155.170 both with the same ADSL provider in Kursk. If they are for one person, would you please consider registering an account? Registration is free and actually improves your privacy. It is quite difficult to hold a real discussion with someone whose name and address keeps changing. Details are at wp:WHYREGISTER. If you prefer, you can register on the Russian-language Wikipedia, as accounts carry across between languages. Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Nehotela you Zalata fee izibretatelyu grief, and then here in Russia small fees or none at all, you can publish material after talks addressed alexras.82 @ mail.ru Rasulov A.V. Posmotrimte movie about cold fusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGrTWCcsYk8 In this article, you can take anything you publish yourself, http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/download/cong10% 2803% 29.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexras82 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is any of the preceding contribution by Alexras82, or the content of the previous section, anything to do with 'improving the cold fusion article', the purpose of the talk page? Just wondering. And did the editor's cat type a few extra characters while the editor wasn't looking? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's likely that Alexras is the IP. Alexras also seems to think that Wikipedia can promote the existence of a fringe journal by reference to a link to the fringe journal, which is of course not correct. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think this page is for profiling other editors in the negative sense. This is combative behavior that can not be confused for trying to work with other editors. 84.107.128.52 (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Content handling

I also notice a suggestion by Enric Naval that is not complying with all guidelines, that technical content should be managed without understanding of topics edited. Insistance of editing certain topics with undestanding them is becoming disruptive and vandalism.--193.254.231.34 (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |}

Second DOE report

The analysis of the second DOE report should be more detailed in the article.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what specific change to the article are you proposing.--McSly (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the best proposal in this case is adding some details from the mentioned available sources like the report proper and Choi and Feder. Especially the paragraph 4 from Feder is interesting to cite.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring and Disruption on Talk Page

Not relevant to the article
The editing of this talk page is disruptive and involves talk page edit warring. There have been too many allegations of disruptive editing of this talk page, which are themselves disruptive. There has been a silly edit war as to whether to insert or remove a list of publications. There is no reason given for removing the material. Personal attacks, trolling, or disruptive material may be removed, but there is no need to remove a list of questionable publications. Stop edit warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC) There are statements being made by unregistered editors that cold fusion is no longer considered fringe science. Those statements are simply contrary to scientific consensus. If the unregistered editors are here to make the case that cold fusion is no longer considered fringe science, they are wasting electrons. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC) It seems that some users (registered or not is not important) are just wondering if the statement of cold fusion being considered fringe can be take for granted as if it were an axiom. One cannot dogmatically accept this assertion and want to see what is its base by analyzing sources that seem to be doing this labeling. This is a reasonable way to proceed.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Hi, I was asked to comment here. I'm not sure what is happening, but I see in this diff there was a re-posting of old archived material that was unlikely to be helpful. 94.53.199.249, if you have a suggestion, it's best to post a fresh request under a new section title, but try to avoid repeating requests that you know have been made before, unless you have new sources or a new argument. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Template Housekeeping

The template at the top of this talk page referring to sanctions linked to the wrong ArbCom case, which had to do with climate change. I have changed it to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, because cold fusion is considered by the mainstream scientific community to be fringe science or pseudoscience as usually defined. There was also an ArbCom case entitled Cold Fusion, but it was decided after Pseudoscience and resulted in a few editors being topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you parse the enforcement provision in the link you deleted "1) The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions." (the original ruling includes that wikilink to this article) as the wrong ruling having 'to do with climate change?' The Abd-WMC case was resolved years after the Pseudoscience case, and the arbitration committee found it necessary at that time to make it utterly clear that sanctions apply to this article whether or not someone chooses to argue whether or not this topic is pseudoscience. (In fact, you'll see from the current talk page that some still actively dispute this categorization.) It is therefore useful to link to the decision which specifically nails down that this particular article is subject to sanctions whether or not one considers it to be pseudoscience. Things get muddy because the committee decided to retroactively merge logging of enforcement with the earlier pseudoscience case for purposes of simplifying recordkeeping ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=484342294#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Discretionary_sanctions_in_cases_named_after_individual_editors ). However, I think there is value in maintaining the link to the Cold Fusion-specific ruling to avoid misunderstandings... after all, this article was problematic enough that the arbitration committee found it necessary to single this page out for sanctions years after the pseudoscience ruling had been in effect. Perhaps all three should be linked in the template? --Noren (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I had been looking at a different William M. Connolley case. My mistake. The case does indeed involve cold fusion, and explicitly states that cold fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions. The pseudoscience discretionary sanctions are also applicable. I agree that both cases should be cited, and possibly the Cold Fusion case, although it did not restate the sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretending something is pseudoscience while it is not is a great example of unacceptable behavior. 84.107.128.52 (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretending that something is science while it is pseudoscience is also problematical, and is subject to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

New reference - CF is rejected by mainstream

FYI - those who want to, you might consider including:

Y. Liu, R. Rousseau, "Towards a representation...", Information Processing and Management, 48, (2012), 791

as a ref to the mainstream rejection of CF. Quotes:

"These are clear indications that the theory of cold fusion is not accepted." - Section 9. "The Fleischmann-Pons article provides a case of an immediate explosion of attention, soon followed by the rejection of the ideas proposed in it." - Conclusions Kirk shanahan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

for the full title "Towards a representation of diffusion and interaction of scientific ideas: The case of fiber optics communication" i don't see how this is a relevant source, from what i can tell this guy is neither a Chemist, Physicist, nor a Cold Fusion Researcher and the subject matter is not about CF. The article already has plenty of sources to the mainstream rejection of CF in the Fleischmann-Pons aftermath, however, you might note that not all mainstream journals reject CF. In Storms (2010) review of cold fusion in Naturwissenschaften, in his conclusion he states:

"Where does the field of study stand at present? First of all, a large number of studies (Storms 2007) reporting production of large amounts of power and energy are now available for evaluation." and "Therefore, the claimed occurrence of unusual nuclear reactions under conditions thought not to cause such reactions is supported."

see [[17]] if you'd like to read it yourself. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know if someone can find a recent comprehensive review that is published in a mainstream peer-reviewed-journal that can be used as a source offering the counterpoints to those offered in Storms (2010) as I am considering writing a new section based on the current status of CF offered in this journal article. any help is appreciated. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be nice. Unfortunately, the marginalization of this subject means that there is only supportive literature of it. Normal skepticism, devil's advocacy, and careful review simply do not exist for the field. This is unfortunate, but that's simply the way things will remain until, for example, SPAWAR, ENEA, McCubre, etc. get their work published in Nature or Science or somesuch. jps (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing of Talk Page - Further Reminder

Not relevant to the article
I have been told that disruptive editing of talk pages for articles that are subject to discretionary sanctions is subject to discretionary sanctions. The posting of walls of text to this talk page is disruptive editing. If the reason that the unregistered editors are here is to get this article rewritten to state that cold fusion is considered science rather than fringe science, then they are wasting electrons. Any further disruptive posts will be reported to arbitration enforcement, and possibly to sockpuppet investigations. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC) if you are referring to me, noted regarding the amount of text in my previous section. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC) I was referring to the IPs, and I did not consider your comments to be disruptive. However, you have been notified. As the template notes, it does not imply any misconduct on your part. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove E-cat

E-cat, like many other cold fusion claims before it, seems like a flash in the pan publicity stunt. I suggest removing mention of it from this article per WP:ONEWAY. jps (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Until such time as the E-cat is either proven as a scam, or releases a commercial device for sale, I don't recommend removing it as there are still ongoing developments in the story. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing developments is not a rationale for keeping it in an article about cold fusion. It may be a rationale for having a separate article, but we have such a thing. jps (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Rossi and friends still supply press releases and non-peer-reviewed 'reports', but from a scientific standpoint it is hard to see any tangible 'ongoing developments'. The scale of the promises grows, but the actual deliveries.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding a paragraph on Reproducibility

I would like to add this:

A review of the subject by Storms in 2010 suggests that the reactions do not occur uniformly throughout the electrode but rather in small sites referred to as ‘Nuclear Active Sites’, the exact nature of which is not well understood. “Because the number of these sites is variable, many failures are experienced when no active sites are present… Often, failed replication results when important nano-structures are not present, conditions that are very difficult to reproduce reliably.”

to the bottom of the section on 'Reproducibility', anyone have a problem with this? source is: Storms, Edmund, "Status of Cold Fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften, 97:861–881, (2010) [[18]] Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This text and source are not okay. The source is not an independent source as would be required for such a claim. Naturwissenschaften's editorial review of cold fusion is controlled by Storms himself which means that there hasn't been adequate peer review of this statement. jps (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I would be reluctant to give much weight to this publication. It appears in a journal with a relatively modest impact factor (2.278), but more troubling is that the paper appears to be well outside the journal's usual scope and competence; Naturwissenschaften is specifically dedicated to papers in the general biological sciences. If you look at other papers published by this journal, this one is pretty emphatically an outlier.

Moreover, Storms is certainly not offering an unbiased take on the field; he's a true believer who is using a review article to push his personal point of view. (And he's pretty far out on the fringe, even for a cold fusion proponent. About the only 'biology' aspect of his Naturwissenschaften paper – and presumably the wedge by which he managed to get the paper kinda-sorta in-scope for publication – is his enthusiastic embrace of the notion that living creatures have harnessed low-energy nuclear transmutation to produce required minerals—despite an utter lack of convincing evidence.)

Finally, experienced Wikipedia editors will also cringe to note that Storms specifically acknowledges the contributions of User:Abd and User:JedRothwell to his manuscript. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Another issue is that an article at Wikipedia is not the place to debate why some experiments may have failed to reproduce results. The take-home message in an encyclopedic article like this is that there are no reproducible results, and there is no mainstream support for the reported phenomenon. The article may benefit from the addition of findings from an independent source, known for its reliability in the field, if that source were to assert that various reproducibility experiments were flawed for certain reasons. However, an article at Wikipedia is not available for the promotion of fringe ideas by diluting the fact that results have not been reproduced with suggestions for why such failures occur. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

First, I am 100% certain that nowhere in the world does the scientific review process does not allow one to peer review ones own work, despite Storms being on the editorial review board of Naturwissenschaften, due to ethics he personally would not have had anything to do with the peer review process for this paper, and to suggest so is at best original research on your part. I admit that him being on the review board would certainly have had an impact on the paper being accepted for review, HOWEVER, remember that Storms was put on the review board knowingly by the rest of the scientists at Naturwissenschaften and they personally OKed this paper. it is Original research to suggest that the article in question, from a reliable journal, is not a reliable paper. unless you can find a source that says so of course. Saying that he 'wedged' the paper in is literally accusing of academic misconduct, of which there is (to my knowledge) no evidence.

User Johnuniq has a point however and I will not add this section, however Storms 2010 meets all criteria for a reliable source. to say otherwise undermines the whole idea of a reliable source in wikipedia standards. it is not YOUR job to decide whether an article from a reliable peer reviewed journal is a reliable source. It just is. If you are calling it a 'biased source', may I remind you that wikipedia policy recommends the inclusion of opinionated sources (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources). I am not convinced that it is a biased source but that is the only guideline that even marginally applies from Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources that you might be using to call this source unreliable. Furthermore, avoiding 'undue weight' recommends the use of review articles, which this is, please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship and don't waste my time pushing your POV.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A discussion on whether this source is biased or unbiased would be useful as it bears importance on how information from it is written about in the article. However, this does not have any bearing on whether the source is reliable or not. please discuss to reach consensus. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The question of whether a source is "reliable" always needs to be considered in context—what is the topic of the article? what text would be verified by the source? There is also the question of WP:DUE—even if a source is reliable in a certain context, how does the text/source fit in the article? Those lofty considerations are not required for the source in question because it is clear that the journal and the author are not independent from those who promote cold fusion, and the article already has sufficient coverage of that side. If this article concerned a scientific topic where 40% of those in the field support a particular explanation, 30% support something else, and the remaining 30% think various other things, a source like the one in question might be acceptable as showing the opinion of its author. However, this article has none of those properties. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely with you about the issue of Due and Undue weight, I 'am not' suggesting that this article be rewritten from the point of view of this review paper. this represents 90% of your last post. However, the question of whether the content in this paper is reliable is not affected by due or undue weight. That merely affects how much content in the article is written from the POV of CF supporters. I reiterate, Storm (2010) is a reliable source, and may be cited when weight is due. I think there are a few things in this article that could be a nice addition to the wiki, particularly elements of the conclusion, I'm talking 2-3 sentences, this is not undue weight. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My comment, in hindsight, comes off a bit critical and reactionary. Thanks for your input on this matter. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Storms review is only a reliable source for what cold fusion proponents believe and does not qualify as the highest quality source we would use for an evaluation of a subject by WP:FRIND. Note that the text you are advocating is basically a rehash of Storms particular idea that the lack of reproducibility is due to a phenomenon he, as far as I can tell, invented out of whole cloth and is advocated by no one but himself. That there has been no critical review of his claims is simply a side effect of the research into cold fusion being marginalized, but 1) as there was obviously no critical review in place for that article, 2) Naturwissenchaften certainly did not choose a critical reviewer for the article, and 3) the whole point of putting storms on the board was so that he could handle submissions of cold fusion papers and similar subjects to the journal, it's obvious to me that we have a situation where the journal was basically allowing cold fusion promotion to be published unencumbered by critical review. That's not uncommon for medium to low impact journals. I can point to a number of journals which have done the same thing over the years from time to time in a lot of different areas. The idea is that if you relax your review standards you can get more papers published and perhaps increase the standing of the journal. This technique, however, tends to backfire after others notice the pattern. I see that Storms is no longer listed on the editorial board of Naturwissenchaften, for example. I wonder if they decided that this experiment was not in their own best interest. Well, this is speculation, but it is important to go through when evaluating whether sources are reliable for the approaches desired. In this case, I am pretty convinced that this is not a reliable source for anything but Storms' opinions, and you haven't made a convincing case that Storms' opinions should be included in this article. jps (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OBVIOUSLY Storms review is only a reliable source insofar as it represents what CF proponents believe, i have already said this. First 1) what evidence do you have for this? or is this your own opinion? 2) again what evidence do you have for this? I would like to know. 3) accusing someone of putting his own paper through without review is tantamount to accusing of academic misconduct, you had better have some evidence of this you your opinion means exactly nothing. Your wild speculations on whether the source is reliable based on your own POV makes no relevance on the subject at hand, see WIKI:POV and WIKI:Reliable source. I repeat: Storms (2010) is a reliable source insofar as it represents the views of cold fusion proponents. Stop pushing your POV, your opinion has no relevance on reliable source status, its a published paper in a reliable journal. So unless you have EVEIDENCE of professional misconduct and a lack of proper peer review stop waiting my time. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already shown the evidence. That Storms sat on the very editorial board of the medium-impact journal in which he was published is a classic WP:REDFLAG especially when WP:FRIND is concerned. That's all we really need to do. What I'm asking for is for you to find a better source. This one isn't good enough and it is clear that you are the only one who thinks otherwise. jps (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's medical articles, where I often edit, this type of issue is common enough that it's actually addressed in the guideline for identifying reliable (medical) sources, WP:MEDRS.

"Other indications that a biomedical journal article may not be reliable are [some medicine-specific points] or its content being outside the journal's normal scope."

While not explicitly spelled out in the general WP:RS guideline, this type of publication certainly should raise a flag in any journal. When a biological-sciences journal publishes a fringe physics paper, it's definitely getting out of scope. It is reasonable for us to question whether or not the journal's editors have sufficient relevant expertise to select appropriate, independent peer reviewers and to properly evaluate such reviews as they received. (Remember, even in 'peer reviewed' literature the final decision to publish – or not – rests with the journal editor(s), not with the peer reviewers.)

I remember an instance a couple of years ago where intelligent design (anti-evolution) advocates were pushing for heavy coverage of a paper on irreducible complexity that appeared in the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, a small medical journal. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 116#Baylor paper for one of the discussions. Two key concerns raised during that discussion were that the paper fell outside the journal's scope (why would a medical journal with a strong emphasis on clinical results publish a paper on evolutionary theory, and why would we trust it when it does?) and the fact that the paper's author sat on the editorial board, and would therefore have enjoyed more than the usual amount of influence over the decision to publish. (As I noted in that discussion, this type of problem isn't restricted to low- or even medium-profile journals; PNAS managed to publish this silly thing in 2009, for instance.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well reasoned but the similarities from that intelligent design paper and Storms (2010) are not analogous, the difference being that the ID paper was an opinion piece that was neither a research paper or review article, meaning that there was nothing to peer review. It bears many similarities to the case however, like you say he is on the editorial board, and an ID paper in a Biomed journal is (somewhat) similar to a CF article in a natural sciences journal. However, the paper in question was seriously derided in two replies to the ID article, the CF review article was criticised only on the grounds that it was TOO critical of several areas of research by not including enough of an in depth discussion. Dr. Joseph Allen Kuhn also was previously the HEAD of the editorial board, meaning that he had a very large influence, Storms was promoted to the board knowingly by the other editors that he was a CF proponent (given that he already had a book written on the subject, meaning that the other editors must at least in majority support his views). I still support that Storms (2010) is a Reliable, Biased source that represents a reliable source of Storm's opinions and (as he is in good standing in the CF community) the larger CF community in general. Therefore the issue of weight due or undue should be heavily considered (at a later time given suggested content inclusion) and note that undue weight should not be given. However, his conclusions in the article could well be given weight of 1-2 sentences as this is the only review article on the subject that has been written in recent years, positively or negatively. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the situations aren't identical, but they're sufficiently similar to be instructive. On the other hand, since you did spend so much time closely inspecting that old discussion, I'm sure that you also noted another key issue that was raised. To wit, that intelligent design paper had been published only a few months before the discussion, so it was difficult to determine how important or relevant it was perceived to be by the 'experts' in the field.

In dealing with Storms (2010), we don't suffer from that handicap; we can actually look at how often his 2010 paper was cited, and in what ways, to get an idea of whether his perspective is considered useful. Doing a quick search in Google Scholar, we find 16 citations in the four years since publication: [19]. Most of those are not in peer-reviewed journal articles. 7 cites are just Storms referring back to himself in various documents. One cite is a direct response from Steven Krivit (a prominent cold fusion believer), criticizing the original paper; interestingly, Krivit didn't even notice the Storms paper to comment on it until 2013. Another one is Liu and Rousseau's paper on, ironically, citation trends over time ([20]), which had nothing whatsoever to do with cold fusion. Even among the in-universe characters of the cold fusion world, Storms' paper seems to have attracted little attention or respect.

In other (fewer) words, then, we don't have to rely solely on our own evaluation of the quality of Storms' review article. The field of cold fusion researchers have done so for us—and despite being about as sympathetic an audience as Storms might ever hope to find, they have seen fit to ignore it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems clear to everyone that YES the only reason he could get this review published was because he was put on the review board which in my mind is sad. That the scientific community won't allow any discussion on a topic that has changed quite a lot in the past 20 years. I will note that the citation count is probably pretty irrelevant, as most CF papers aren't actually listed in google scholar. I'm going to give up now as I'm sick of arguing and its making me feel frustrated and i feel this has gone on long enough. Anyone who 'supports' CF even tentatively or sceptically has abandoned these wikipedia articles because of the difficulty of citing anything and don't blame them. I don't blame you guys either you are just following the rules.

I want to ask a question though. What if this wikipedia article is affecting the 'consensus' or overall viewpoint of CF? Wikipedia has grown beyond being a simple encyclopaedia, due in no small part to great contributors such as yourselves. When people want an answer to a question, such as "is there anything to this cold fusion thing that I've heard about?" where is the first place they look? My guess, 90% of the time it is this article. (I wonder if there is a way to check via google records). With that sort of thing happening there isn't much chance of a change without some massive irrefutable event. I am not saying that anything can be done, it is just something to think about. Does wikipedia's stance on Fringe articles affect the entire evolution of that fringe environment given wikipedia's high status? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is often a first stop for promoters of fringe ideas of all stripes. Being completely ill-equipped to decide which idea is continental drift and which idea is N-rays, we are stuck being equally cruel to all novel ideas. There are a bunch of Wikipedia policy arguments and essays with respect to this: WP:NOR, WP:RGW, WP:CBALL, WP:MAINSTREAM. The alternative is a free-for-all. That approach may be a good one too (e.g. [21]), but it is not the approach Wikipedia adopted for better or worse. My advice to cold fusion supporters has always been: go effect the change you want to see and come back. Submit your work to high quality journals. Address the reviewers comments if they come back rejected and keep pressing. If it is true and you convinced Robert Duncan on the basis of scientific work alone and not (as cynics have suggested) with the promise of bringing in a huge investment from Sidney Kimmel to Mizzou, you can probably convince some independent high-impact journal somewhere. jps (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

On citation counts, I'm not asking you to take my word for it, or insisting that Google Scholar's index is the final word. (Though Scopus isn't kind to Storms' paper either; I haven't checked Web of Science because I'm out of the office and there's only so much time in my day.) If there are a lot of reputable papers that cite and endorse Storms' summary of the field, but which aren't captured by the usual publication indices, then by all means call attention to them. The problem is that Storms seems to be occupying something of an outlying position even within the world of cold fusion proponents – the fringe of the fringe, as it were – and we should be very reluctant to present such an individual's views as representative of the state of the field. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I've learned a lot about citing reliable sources. I think that this section can be closed now. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Going Forward - RFC

I propose that, if anyone wants changes to the article, we should first get Wikipedia consensus via a Request for Comments. The first question that I plan to include in the RFC is whether cold fusion is considered by most of the academic community to be pathological science. The second question is which of the four categories of questionable science, as defined by the ArbCom, cold fusion belongs to. The four categories are: first, areas that are universally considered to be pseudoscience; second, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience, but that have a following, such as astrology; third, areas that are widely accepted as valid, but are considered by some to be pseudoscience, such as psychoanalysis; and, fourth, alternative scientific formulations. Does anyone want to add any other questions to the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ARBPS, principles 15 through 18, for the four categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy on Non Peer Reviewed Journal Articles

I would first like to point out a flaw in the coverage of this article, which I'm sure has been pointed out in full before now, however I will bring it up again and expect a reasoned and reasonable response from level headed wikipedia seniors and not a reactionary response involving name calling and abuse as has occurred on this talk page previously. I also fully admit that I am not a regular wikipedia contributor, but am a scientist (an academic Engineering Geologist and Biologist).

Regarding the current war on this article because of a POV issue regarding a sliding scale with 'believers' on one side and 'blind rejecters' on the other separated by a healthy amount of middle ground people as well, I respect those that have the viewpoint that Wikipedia should only support reliable sources and enforce that policy.

However it should be noted that there is a group of researchers actively researching cold fusion claims. As most users who frequent this talk page well know. These scientists, despite a wish to do so, and a strict adherence to scientific method, regardless of whether their paper supports or does not support the subject cannot be accepted by peer reviewed mainstream journals or by the patent process. This results in an unfair situation in which those wishing to investigate the field within the realm of scientific endeavour will be unable to publish regardless of the outcome of their experiment, this is unscientific (the previous sentence is original research, but is included for context). This has resulted in this entire field writing articles and publishing them in journals that are reviewed only by other CF scientists or by self publishing without peer review, this is a damn shame but unavoidable given the wider scientific consensus.

QUESTION: Does this mean that we are categorically not allowed to post information form these articles?

From what I have read regarding fringe policy on wikipedia... it appears not, see the following comment:

Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

-from Wikipedia:Fringe under the heading 'Peer-reviewed sources help establish the level of acceptance'

This indicates that these sources may be included, so long as it is noted that the views are those of the group of researchers from that journal and not of the wider scientific community.

1. The above sentence seems to indicate that a lot of information that has been gathered by researchers in non peer reviewed journals that has perviously been denied access to the article by that (unavoidable) status should be included in this article, under a heading of 'non peer reviewed material' of course.

2. While I realise that the Scientific Community is of the consensus that CF is not real, I also note that this article is NOT a science article, its is a FRINGE article. Therefore under different rules regarding the inclusion of non peer reviewed journal articles. It appears to me that this policy has not been followed, given the apparent removal of nearly all information in the article not directly opposing cold fusion or else related to the original 1989 experiments and immediate aftermath (as opposed to what I remember about the article state 1 year ago, widom-larsden theory info comes to mind, and I would be curious to know why it was removed.)

3. Within the article, few references to the ongoing work in this community is mentioned, and where mentioned the comments seem to be always cited from a highly derisive point of view from some mainstream source, rather than any citation from a primary source (which of course would be non peer reviewed due to peer reviewed journal policy).

possible solution: I suggest that following the guideline above from Wikipedia:Fringe more primary sources from non-peer reviewed JOURNAL articles be included in a new section entitled 'Ongoing Fringe Research' or something similar. Always of course form the point of view or noting that this research is the views of the group represented by that journal and not of the wider scientific community.

NOTE: caution must be taken, as 'believers' may attempt to use any change in policy to insert quite a lot of unreliable stuff, HOWEVER, this should be balanced against the outright rejection of all sources by 'blind rejecters' which is also unacceptable. (note that the two terms used in the previous sentence are my own personal opinion and should not be construed as derision of a wikipedia user's personal character, rather they are labels based on my own scientific belief in impartiality and the weighing of all information regardless of source based on its own merits and credibility)

as stated above I would like some responses from moderators regarding these interpretations and consider any comments mocking my personal character to by highly unacceptable.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess my point is that it is the purpose of an encyclopaedia to inform. This article is not informing readers about any ongoing research, and mentions that research in one sentence in the summary which is written from a viewpoint that implies that these scientists are completely unreliable. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The way to think about this is to consider the hundreds of other contentious topics at Wikipedia. Suppose a reader who knows little about Shakespeare beyond standard high school education developed an interest in whether Shakespeare's plays were really written by Shakespeare. Would they want to spend time studying Shakespeare authorship question knowing it was based on the work of proponents of extreme minority viewpoints? Or, would the reader be better served if the article were based on reliable sources published by acknowledged experts in the field? To put it another way, no, this article will not have a section written by editors who select primary sources in order to advance a position. In the future, please restrict commentary to article content because the amount of soapboxing and irrelevant chatter on this page is tedious. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

your analogy is not really relevant, but that aside, you didn't answer my question regarding the policy that I cited. This IS commentary on article content... I'm saying that theres content missing. The only reliable experts in the field of cold fusion today have no way to publish in a reliable source. (note i am not saying all CF researchers are reliable, i am merely noting that if there was such a thing, they would not be able to publish in a reliable source)Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing this discussion I have to underline in this context that the article mentions some (cluster of) peer reviewed journals. Articles from the mentioned journals could be used to add further content details. These are reputable journals.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

is it this quote 'Cold fusion reports continued to be published in a small cluster of specialized journals like Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Il Nuovo Cimento. Some papers also appeared in Journal of Physical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, and a number of Japanese and Russian journals of physics, chemistry, and engineering.[105] Since 2005, Naturwissenschaften has published cold fusion papers; in 2009, the journal named a cold fusion researcher to its editorial board.' that you refer to? if so I agree.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course this is the quote. Should these articles be detailed by issue, year, journal, perhaps as a list of number of articles for each journal?--94.53.199.249 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Doing some research it seems that a review article was conducted by Edmund Storms in Naturwissenschaften.

Storms, Edmund, "Status of Cold Fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften, 97:861–881, (2010)

with several followup replies

Krivit, Steven. B., "Nuclear Phenomena in Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research," Naturwissenschaften. DOI 10.1007/s00114-013-1080-z, (Aug. 15, 2013)

Storms, Edmund, "Efforts to Explain Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions," Naturwissenschaften, DOI 10.1007/s00114-013-1101-y (Oct. 30, 2013)

these are reputable sources are they not? and can be used to create a new section about the current state of research summed up by this article and its followup comments.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

moreover he repeatedly cites his own book as a source of additional information (as an even more comprehensive review) http://www.amazon.com/Science-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction-Comprehensive/dp/9812706208 would this be considered a reliable source, as it seems to be being considered by Naturwissenschaften? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

^ Richard G. Compton; Craig E. Banks (2011). Understanding Voltammetry. World Scientific. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-84816-586-1. Retrieved 27 September 2013.
^ "60 Minutes: Once Considered Junk Science, Cold Fusion Gets A Second Look By Researchers". CBS. 2009-04-17. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help)
^ ^a ^b Fleischmann & Pons 1989, p. 301 ("It is inconceivable that this [amount of heat] could be due to anything but nuclear processes... We realise that the results reported here raise more questions than they provide answers...")
^ ^a ^b Voss 1999
^ "60 Minutes: Once Considered Junk Science, Cold Fusion Gets A Second Look By Researchers". CBS. 2009-04-17. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help)
^ Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.

[ComptonBanks2011-1] Richard G. Compton; Craig E. Banks (2011). Understanding Voltammetry. World Scientific. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-84816-586-1. Retrieved 27 September 2013.

[2] "60 Minutes: Once Considered Junk Science, Cold Fusion Gets A Second Look By Researchers". CBS. 2009-04-17. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help)

[FP1989-3] Fleischmann & Pons 1989, p. 301 ("It is inconceivable that this [amount of heat] could be due to anything but nuclear processes... We realise that the results reported here raise more questions than they provide answers...")

[FOOTNOTEVoss1999-4] Voss 1999

[5] "60 Minutes: Once Considered Junk Science, Cold Fusion Gets A Second Look By Researchers". CBS. 2009-04-17. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help)

[6] Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]