Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:23, 29 June 2009

Greetings. Hipocrite has requested that I attempt to mediate a content dispute regarding Cold fusion.

About me

These are facts about me that I consider relevant to this mediation:

• According to this, I have never edited Cold fusion. I do not know anything about cold fusion.
• To the best of my knowledge, I have never worked with Hipocrite, Abd, Verbal, Olorinish, Kevin Baas, Kirk shanahan, EdChem, OMCV, LeadSongDog, Enric Naval, Stephan Schulz, Objectivist, Coppertwig. If my memory fails me and I have worked with any of those editors, please notify me so I can amend the previous statement or, if necessary, recuse myself from the mediation and find someone who would be more objective in my stead.
• I have not read the entirety of Cold fusion nor its talk page. This is not because I am lazy, but because I wish to remain as objective as possible. I believe that if I were to read through Cold fusion in its entirety, I would possibly become biased towards the information that is currently presented in the article. I also believe that a similar effect would occur if I were to read through the entirety of Talk:Cold fusion.
• I am not an administrator. I unsuccessfully requested adminship in February 2009.
• I have very little experience with dispute resolution. I have participated in discussions at WP:RFCN.
• I write and review science-related articles on Misplaced Pages.
• I have never been employed as a scientist of any kind, nor have I ever written a peer-reviewed paper.

Subpage

I have decided to confine my attempted mediation to this subpage for two simple reasons: First, this mediation will likely become quite lengthy and require the use of multiple sections which would otherwise clutter up the talk page. Second, in the time that this mediation takes place, there will likely be unrelated discussions that spring up on the talk page. Such unrelated discussions would interrupt this mediation if it were to occur on the talk page. I would like to make it clear that in no way do I intend to use this subpage as a means of concealing the discussion contained herein. Upon completing my introductory statements, I will provide a link on the talk page and notify the involved editors. If someone wants to add a notice to the top of Talk:Cold fusion, you are more than welcome to do so.

Process

What I have read thus far has illustrated to me that much of this dispute (as is the case with many disputes) is comprised of personal attacks, accusations of personal attacks, personal counterattacks, and, more generally, criticisms of how the involved parties present information rather than criticisms of the information being presented. This will not occur here. Debate and argumentation will occur at points during this mediation process, but posts (or even individual sentences) that serve no purpose other than to criticize another user will be deleted. If you have a problem with the way another user is behaving and I have not already intervened, take it up at Talk:Cold fusion, the talk page of the user, or my talk page. If you simply have a problem with the material that another user presents, please try to make your rebuttal as impersonal as possible: "I believe that your statement of 'such and such' is incorrect. According to 'so and so'..." or "Your reasoning is somewhat flawed in that the gilbo sprocket generator...".

As of yet, I do not have a detailed plan for how to go about resolving this content dispute. I intend to make sure that all the involved parties are aware of this page and agree to work within the guidelines that I have set forth. I then intend to gather from the involved parties a detailed outline of the individual statements, sections, or sources which are in dispute. From there, we will work to resolve those disputes.

Participation

If you have been actively involved in the Cold fusion content dispute, please sign your name below. While there may be discussions in which uninvolved parties may participate, this list is for those who are actively involved in the dispute.

This list will serve three purposes: First, it will insure that all involved parties have been made aware of this mediation process and help us identify any missing parties which should be notified. Second, it will provide an opportunity for the involved parties to ask preliminary questions before the mediation begins. Third, it will serve to verify that the involved parties have read through the introductory material, agree to participate in the process that I have set forth, and ultimately agree to respect the final content decisions that we collectively arrive upon. Alternatively, involved parties who believe that this process is unnecessary or that I am not the best possible choice for a mediator can also sign here and express their concerns or refusal to participate.

1. Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Note - I will retract my acceptance of this process if editors banned from Misplaced Pages are permitted to participate. Hipocrite (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Out, untill issues are resolved. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Returned, issues partially resolved. Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

   Umm. Let me get this straight. This is about Jed Rothwell, who was banned from Cold fusion, not actually from the project, by an administrator later found to have been involved. Whether or not he's still banned from Cold fusion is unclear, but suppose he is. So are you, Hipocrite, as am I. Now, we don't need Rothwell's participation here, but we can't stop him from dropping notes here, unless we semiprotect the page. He's an expert in the field, he's well-known and published, and he knows the literature intimately, it's quite possible he will say something useful, and it's not up to you or me if it stays, ultimately, it's up to Cryptic. You don't want to be here, that's certainly your choice; while your consent to decisions here would be nice, it's not essential as far as I'm concerned, and, below, it looks like it may be more trouble than it's worth. Cryptic doesn't need my additional consent, but to be clear, he may remove this note if he thinks it better. --Abd (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   Clarification: What is (or was) the username of this Jed Rothwell character? I'd like to look into the matter myself before this is discussed any further. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   , but since his siteban he has been disrupting with a traveling IP roadshow. Hipocrite (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   You might review the evidence given at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, which then refers to the RfC that preceded it. Summary: there was long-term conflict between JzG and Jed Rothwell, at Talk:Cold fusion. User:JedRothwell was abandoned in 2006; Rothwell stopped editing the article then, and only posts to Talk pages with comments, as IP, but he always signs his edits. He's a notable expert in the field (not a scientist! not all experts are scientists), and should probably have an article, because of RS mention of him, but nobody has tried to create one and I haven't gotten around to it. In December, 2008, JzG blocked Rothwell's IP and unilaterally blacklisted the web site, lenr-canr.org (and another site on the topic). JzG then claimed block evasion because of another IP he'd also blocked, not behaviorally similar except possibly for POV, not signed, mistakenly claimed to be Rothwell. And in January, JzG declared a topic ban on Rothwell. This was protested.. Without necessity, JzG took the ban to ArbComm, claiming the right to block or ban based on the POV of an editor, which rejected the request as premature, not to mention dangerous. JzG was later found in the RfAr cited above to have violated admin recusal policy. The JedRothwell account was indef blocked, during the consideration in the earlier RfAr, by User:MastCell in an action which has not been contested, mostly because Rothwell truly doesn't care if that account is blocked, doesn't care if he's blocked at all, is quite amused by the whole fuss, and I'm certainly not going to intervene to unblock an old, moot account which the editor may not have access to anyway. The ArbComm non-decision was interpreted by one editor as a topic ban, and the application of that to this page would be basically up to you; see User talk:JedRothwell. Editors may permit edits by banned editors, even if we conclude that Rothwell is still banned, to pages in their user space, I do it routinely at User talk:Abd/IP. To me, the issue with Rothwell is whether or not we want to consider the opinion of a COI editor. My observation is that the facts he presents have never turned out to be false; he obviously has a point of view, as do experts in general. He's known to be heavily involved as an editor of papers for publication, so his claim to be editing a paper for Naturwissenschaften is quite reasonable. He made a comment here that is very much on-point, if we set aside the possible incivility. He has personal knowledge of the editorial process at Naturwissenschaften, and, as he later disclosed to me in email, the editorial process there is grueling. He stated that some of the reviewers he is dealing with know as much about cold fusion as someone like Storms, and "several orders of magnitude more than I know." Whether we take this into account as background, I'm not sure, but I do know that we should be very careful about assuming the reverse without any evidence, as has been the case here. Rothwell was quite amused by the claim, as you can understand given his claimed experience, and that is typically why he makes a comment, and also why some editors are allergic to him. --Abd (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   I thought we were talking about Cold Fusion, not about topic bans, JzG, aribtration, and all the like. If this mediation is about all of the nonsense that you've gone over fruitlessly a thousand times, then I'm out. If Jed Rothwell is going to be permitted to be a dick on this page, I'm out. This seems like a perfectly reasonably request. If anyone who is NOT Abd or a single-purpose account disagress with me, I'm happy to hear from you, on my talk page. I have unwatchlisted this page, as it's has devolved. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   We are indeed here to discuss cold fusion. I asked for information and I was given it. Jed Rothwell is topic banned, indefinitely blocked, has an obvious COI if he is who he claims to be and it's Essjay all over again if he is not. Most importantly (to me), all of his edits thus far have been disruptive and not in the spirit of this mediation. All edits made to this page by Jed Rothwell can be removed on sight by any editor. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm a bit surprised about being named. I have made some comments in the discussion, but I do not have the time to spend on another science vs. pseudoscience conflict. Thus, do not expect extensive contributions to this mediation from me. I do think that the mediator should indeed start from good knowledge of the conflict and read through at least significant parts of the page and the discussion. I also reserve the right to comment on other editors behavior as necessary during this mediation. I don't see this as a pure content conflict. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   Some may agree that there is a behavior conflict as well as a content conflict. I have neither the authority nor the interest to mediate behavioral issues. On this page, the only thing that I consider to be relevant is the determination of which content should appear in the article on Cold fusion. It is for that reason that I will disregard and remove any other commentary. It is also for that reason that I will not read the article, its sources, or the ongoing dispute until I am convinced that it is necessary to do so. Neutrality requires a certain level of ignorance, and that ignorance cannot be regained once it has been lost. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   I do not fully understand what point you are attempting to make by providing this link. Could you please elaborate? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   Just because you close your eyes, the room will not be empty. There have been plenty of arguments (or structurally similar statements) made. Why do you think disregarding them will help in the "determination of which content should appear in the article"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   It is not my intention to disregard logical arguments, but instead to separate those arguments from the name-calling and other content-unrelated issues. I am searching for blue rocks at the bottom of a blue chlorinated pool. Why should I dive in headfirst and sting my eyes when the people who threw the rocks are willing to point them out and provide scuba diving equipment? If you (and all the other involved parties) are able to point to specific sections or diffs rather than restating their arguments, I will read the material you provide, but I will waste neither my time nor my currently unbiased position attempting to find the useful material on my own. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

3. I will respect your role as mediator, Cryptic, because you were recommended to Hipocrite by Jehochman, whom I trust. He wouldn't do that for no reason. It's not clear to me, as well, why Hipocrite developed the list he did. Because you wish to focus on content issues, I will also respect that, and, indeed, believe that it could be helpful. However, as to respecting the result of the mediation, that would depend on what you mean by "respect." I trust that you will decide as you see best, but you are also only one editor. As a neutral editor -- I completely accept your representations on that -- you will be faced with a field rife with complexities and complications, and it's really easy to make snap judgments that are quite wrong. Experts have done it; indeed, the whole position of the field can be seen as based on such judgments. However, if you do your work well, I expect it to be of great influence on the article and on the editorial work. I'll warn you, though, that I was neutral -- or skeptical, actually -- about five months ago. You may be able to keep yourself becoming informed, but, I suspect, it may also be difficult. My position, all along, has been that a neutral judgment of sources, based simply on RS guidelines, would result in a better article than one controlled by editors with POVs about the subject and then about sources based on what those sources say. If a source appears to support a fringe positions, why, it must be a fringe source, to be deprecated or ignored. It's a classic Misplaced Pages problem. You may be able to help, and I'll do everything I can to assist. Thanks for trying.

   I suggest you move this page to your user space. You can use the user page as a consensus page to develop a report, and the user talk page for discussion. That's a practice I've followed with a little success. In your user space, you have a little more authority over the page; sometimes it can make a difference. With just one page, it's easy for discussion to spin out and obscure results; with the user/talk pair, you can keep tight focus and clarity on the user side and let discussion proceed in more detail on the talk side. How you would use that would be up to you: you could, for example, reserve the user page for yourself, for your report, and then let us discuss it and advise you on the talk side. --Abd (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   If you are dissatisfied with Hipocrite's list of involved editors, which users would you suggest omitting/adding? Regarding your concern with my ability to remain neutral and find the best possible solution, I suggest that you read this conversation I had with EdChem if you have not already. Other than that, the only promise I can make is that "I'll do the best I can." Regarding the use of a user subpage, I believe your suggestion is an excellent one. The of user subpage will be quite helpful for cataloging and publishing conclusions later on. The user talk subpage, where this content will soon be located, will be used for discussions such as this one. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   Not dissatisfied, did you think I was? Just puzzled. Does Hipocrite have a dispute with the above editors, or is Hipocrite suggesting that I do? And why EdChem, but I'll look again? Probably some of each. While it would be good to have a list of editors who are "parties," you may also admit others who wish to "testify." It really will be up to you. I didn't see Stephan Schulz as agreeing to participate, just kibbitzing. I think you should ask Hipocrite to clarify what issues he sought your mediation on, because if it isn't about editorial behavior, it's not enough to just identify parties and, indeed, the parties are largely moot except for some process reasons. --Abd (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   While creating this page, I simply asked Hipocrite for a list of the involved editors. The list above reflects the list that he gave me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
5. This seems reasonable to me. Offhand I can think of one other editor, User:Coppertwig, who has been involved in the CF discussion not too many days ago. V (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   That is definitely an oversight on my part. He should have been included, no doubt. Hipocrite (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   No problem. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

6. I wish to participate in the process, am generally willing to respect consensus, I like the process you've set up, and think that a consensus arrived at via mediation is likely to work well and I'm unlikely to try to go against it, but am hesitant to make an absolute commitment to "ultimately agree to respect the final content decisions that we collectively arrive upon." Thank you for arranging this mediation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   I am glad that you are willing to participate, but hesitancy worries me. The phrase you've highlighted is the most important element of this mediation. The power of any mediation is derived from the fact that the participants all agree beforehand to respect whatever decisions are made. I hope you also understand that "we" in this sentence refers to all of the participants, not to all of the mediators (even though there is only one). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   Misplaced Pages:Mediation says "Agreement to mediate does not obligate the parties to accept any proposed agreements." I'm a member of the Harmonious editing club; I voluntarily follow 1RR; I tend to act in a mediator-like role, and I believe I have a good record of following consensus. I plan to follow Misplaced Pages policies, including WP:CONSENSUS. However, I generally don't sign blank cheques or agree to as-yet-unspecified terms. You can choose to trust me, or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   First, Misplaced Pages:Mediation is not policy. I am not obligated to adhere to any of its proposed guidelines. Second, there is an inherent incompatibility between your statements "I have a good record of following consensus. I plan to follow Misplaced Pages policies, including WP:CONSENSUS." and " am hesitant to make an absolute commitment to 'ultimately agree to respect the final content decisions that we collectively arrive upon.'" Do you or do you not agree to adhere to the eventual consensuses that will be arrived upon by the participants of this mediation?

   I applaud your optimism, but I don't wish to predict the future, i.e. whether any consensus will necessarily arise out of this mediation or not. WP:CONSENSUS says "Consensus can change". If something in some future situation will be the reasonable thing to do or will be required by policy, why would you need me to say something about it now? Perhaps you're confusing the concepts of mediation and arbitration. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'm increasingly worried about this. In the absence of some definition of "consensus among the participants," and with the selection of participants being highly likely to be biased at this point, which I'll explain, I can't agree to be bound by that consensus. I just ran, a bit more than a month ago, an RfC on admin misbehavior, at which two-thirds of the participants argued that I was completely off-base, many of them that I should be banned for even raising the issue; and many of those with the latter argument are represented in the list of possible parties here. Yet, at ArbComm, I was confirmed in my claims by almost every arbitrator. What was "consensus" at the RfC? Did I abide by it? Should I have abided by it?

   This mediation effort was initially defined by a specific issue for which mediation was not necessary, it was a transient issue, probably moot, how to determine what version to revert to during protection. Instead of addressing that directly, Cryptic, you proceeded to define a much more complex mediation process than would be appropriate for that issue. Fine. There are other issues. But they have not yet been defined, and until they have been defined, there isn't any basis for deciding who should be a party, and, as well, for my decision to participate in the mediation. I'm willing to mediate one issue at a time. You may well take that approach, but if you are questioning Coppertwig's commitment, you really should question mine.

   Here is what I suggest: let a complainant define an issue, a single issue. Pursue that informally as an independent editor who seeks to help resolve a single issue. If that proves impossible, and if it seems that expansion is needed, then use this page as a more complex form of informal mediation. For that one issue, invite other interested editors to participate. No promise to "respect" a decision is needed. Rather, later, failure to respond to the attempted intervention of a neutral editor can be used against an editor, it's a precondition for RfC, for example, likewise for RfAr.

   I absolutely respect your intentions, Cryptic. But you've stated that you have no experience in mediation. Fine, you can learn. But starting with a complicated process, burdened with promises that editors may later find conflict with WP:IAR, isn't a good idea, and that the meaning of the promises isn't clear doesn't help. Just pick a dispute and talk with both Hipocrite and I and anyone else who wants to help, and do your best to find compromises and consensus. You might report these efforts on the user page to which this talk page is attached, as a history of "mediations." I assure you I will fully cooperate with this, and will confine my comments as you request. You have already removed comments from me, which, again, I fully accept and respect. Thanks for your efforts, so far. Normally, for mediation to be of effect for further process, it must take place on the Talk page of the editor subject to further process. There is no need that all the process take place there, only that your efforts be documented there. So if, for example, you find that my positions have been improper, you can then attempt to gain my agreement on my talk page, as could Hipocrite or anyone else. If, then, I act contrary to this, I could be subject to RfC. I can't post to Hipocrite talk, but Hipocrite has waived notice, etc., so it could be said that I've already attempted to negotiate a dispute, pick any dispute. But there isn't someone else who has attempted this with the same dispute. You could be that person, as could be anyone. Good luck, I'll help as I can, and do, still, encourage your efforts. --Abd (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   What I propose is this: You (the involved editors) will populate the list of specific content issues which Coppertwig started below. We will then choose one of those issues to discuss. As a neutral third party, I will provide input and ask questions in an attempt to find the best possible solution for everyone involved. When I am able to identify such a solution, I will post my thoughts on the user page and we will move on to the next issue. I will strike the statement in question regarding consensus. It seemed like a good idea at the beginning, but after putting a considerable amount of thought into the matter, I realize that it isn't really logical. If you choose to have further discussions on the issues after this mediation, if you choose to incorporate bits and pieces of my suggestions and ignore others, or if "consensus" here (if such an event actually occurs) is entirely ignored afterwards, so be it. That will be your choice. Does this sound reasonably to everyone? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

7. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to participate, or what is involved, but I'm not against anything that might help the project. I've been more involved on the talk page than editing the article. If putting my name here means more than just being willing to look in and add a comment now and then, please let me know! Verbal chat 21:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
8. I'm in a similar situation as Verbal. My interest in CF is insuring that sources are represented in the proper context and given due weight. My involvement has been limited mostly to the talk page for several months. Most recently my concerns on the talk page centered around a large portion of material derived from Storm's book. Specifically a small portion of text concerning biological transmutation. Latter I found out that Storm's book also took the phenomenon of spontaneous combustion seriously. It seems Storm wants to believe in things very badly (while I enjoyed the the x-files its not how the real world works). I believed the entire Storm book should be ignored in terms of scientific fact and theory since the author has embraced so many ideas well outside the mainstream. At the same time I do think the response that proponents of CF offer to the mainstream/historic perspective should be presented with the proper weight (I'm not sure how this would best be done and that is why I stick to the talk page). I also think Storm is a reliable source for what many CF proponents believe but I don't think his ideas can be treated as anything more than wp:fringe.--OMCV (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
9. I've nearly given up hope of being able to improve the article, so for weeks now I've limited my input to reference gnoming. The last straw was having been reverted for claiming that the scope of Naturwissenschaften is what that journal's official site says it is: Life sciences. I don't have sufficient patience to continue reading through thousands of words discussing the most trivial of points. I'll opt out of this unless someone asserts that I've behaved badly.LeadSongDog come howl 07:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
10. I don't really understand what "participation" is, but I want to participate, if it means that I read stuff and comment when I have something to contribute. Cryptic, what is the difference between an editor participating in mediation and one who is not? I actually think the article is pretty good these days. Olorinish (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

    The only requirement I place on editors who "participate" is that they read the introductory material I've written before they sign their name. This insures that the validity of whatever conclusions I publish will not be disputed by such arguments as "Wait, screw that, he's not an admin!" Also, if you list yourself as participating, I may ask you to make comments if your name is brought up in discussion. For example, if an editor provides a diff involving something you've written, and another editor argues that the first was misconstruing what you had written, I would ask you (via your talk page) to clarify the meaning for us. Other than that, there is no obligation to participate if you are "participating". Does this answer your question? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

11. I am signing to acknowledge that I have been notified. But I haven't been very active on the cold fusion page or discussion for some time. Frankly I haven't even been following it all that much lately. I'm not aware of any significant disputes on it currently and consequently don't believe I will have much to offer here. But for what it's worth, I'm here. Kevin Baas 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
12. I have been following the CF pages for quite a while, on and off, though not editing. I am willing to participate, provided the discussion remains focused on content issues. EdChem (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
13. --GoRight (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
14. I'm not that interested, but since i'm following this, and there have been some comments that i felt the need to place ;-) I'm going to add myself per request. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Content issues

I was planning on waiting until we had finished assembling a list of participants, but Coppertwig has taken the initiative to begin the list of content issues. All involved parties are welcome to expand or modify the list. Signing individual entries is not necessary.

• Whether or not the beryllium-8 hypothesis should be mentioned in the article.
• Whether or not the patent should be mentioned in the article.
• Whether or not the American Chemical Society Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook should be included in the bibliography.

Marwan, Jan; Krivit, Steven B. (2008), Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8

• Whether or not to include the following text: "According to Storms (2007), no published theory has been able to meet all the requirements of basic physical principles, while adequately explaining the experimental results he considers established or otherwise worthy of theoretical consideration." link to context.
• To what extent to include speculative material and which sources can be used to verify this material.
• Should we state that Naturwissenschaften is a "life sciences" journal?
• Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?

Moving forward with mediation

It seems that all involved parties want to move forward with the mediation, though Hipocrite has not edited this page in some time. I have notified him of the fact that he is still allowed to participate here. In any case, does anyone have any suggestions for which issue we should discuss first? I would prefer to take on the "smaller" disputes first and build up to the larger ones. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment to say I remain fully committed to this process, but totally indifferent to what we discuss first. Hipocrite (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Starting with any of them is fine, and I can't easily decide that one issue is smaller than another, but if I had to choose I'd suggest starting with the Naturwissenschaften/Life Sciences issue as the smallest. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I started the section below and presented context and argument for removing "life sciences," subject to the mediator's approval. --Abd (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. No sense sitting around discussing what to discuss when we could just go ahead and discuss it! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturwissenschaften a "Life Sciences" journal?

Should we state that Naturwissenschaften is a "life sciences" journal?

Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?

Sorry, I'm a bit confused at this point. We all agree, it seems, that Naturwissenschaften is not a reliable journal for new advances in fusion, without replication in other, more traditional journals. We all agree, it seems, that new advances in cold fusion aren't being published in other, more traditional journals. From this, we determine that we will include information about the very exciting publication of random cold fusion results with limited notability based on their publication in Naturwissenschaften, without any kind of other reliable source publishing similar results? This dosen't seem kosher to me - in fact, it seems that the only logical conclusion is to exclude everything published in Naturwissenschaften that isn't in it's obvious field of editorial expertise - life sciences for a technical but not cutting-edge audience. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this comment interesting. How have you come to the conclusion that everyone agrees "that Naturwissenschaften is not a reliable journal for new advances in fusion, without replication in other, more traditional journals?" I know I have just arrived at the discussion but even reading the above dialog I don't see how one can come to that conclusion. Are you referring to some past agreement or something?

I believe that the generally accepted standard for inclusion in science articles has been "peer-reviewed journals". Naturwissenschaften certainly seems to meet that objective criteria. I think it a mistake to start trying to apply additional subjective criteria to the mix because it only invites the introduction of POV through personal preferences.

Even though Naturwissenschaften publishes mostly "life sciences" material their publication is clearly multi-disciplinary and it includes natural sciences within their scope. I have seen no evidence to suggest that their peer-review process is any less rigorous in the natural sciences than it is anywhere else. I can only assume that the "peer" in "peer-review" means exactly that. Do you have any reason to believe that they are asking biologists to review nuclear physics articles? I would be quite surprised if they did. --GoRight (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the basic rule of WP:RS reads "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in such indexes should be used with caution. Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." Given that the basic substance of academic RS is "just getting published dosen't make it reliable," and "don't just find a single study you like and use it," why do we feel the need to mention this paper at all? Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re-opened 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The scholarly acceptance of a source paper does not enter into RS considerations directly. RS guidelines establish notability, from the fact of publication by an independent publisher, they do not establish "scholarly acceptance." The issue of acceptance and how balance is handled arises mostly when there is a conflict of sources. I agree that an isolated publication in RS doesn't negate an established general consensus. However, where the new publication provides previously-unconsidered evidence that can be used to question that consensus, no contradiction has actually been shown. Nevertheless, it's a standard compromise to add an OR comment, with isolated RS: "There has been little or no mainstream acceptance or review of this claim," or other such synthetic text, unsourced. The view I'm expressing should be understood: by the weight of publication in peer-reviewed journals, cold fusion would be considered a legitimate controversy, and if we consider the most recent publications to be the most authoritative, as peer review would consider the prior work, we might be at the point where the existence of some low-energy nuclear reaction would be considered established. However, it's obvious to me from indirect evidence that the general opinion still exists that cold fusion was rejected conclusively twenty years ago. I do believe that our standard is WP:V, and that articles on science, as to scientific fact, reported without attribution but only sourced, should be based on publications of high quality, i.e., special emphasis on peer-reviewed secondary sources, however, this does not demand that we treat as fact what many editors contest, rather, we are free to attribute and otherwise make clear that there is significant or even widespread dissent. Thus I consent to a certain level of WP:WEASEL where it increases consensus. --Abd (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I will simply reiterate the following, . If the more favored journals have decided to focus on topics other than Cold Fusion then by definition we won't be able to find lots of papers on the subject in those journals. This does not, however, imply that there is no on-going research in the area. We know that there is. We also know that it is being conducted within reputable organizations.

In this case we have a paper that has been peer-reviewed by a respected journal in an area that they have published multiple papers previously. We have, to my knowledge, no evidence to suggest that their peer-review processes are not up to the task of reviewing articles in this field. Indeed, judging from the number of such papers published over the past few years on this topic one could make the argument that this publication is better qualified to conduct such a peer review since they have chosen to keep current with the latest research whereas the more favored journals have abandoned the field as pathological science.

In view of this I see no reason that the venue in which it was published should be considered a disqualifying factor. --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As an extra reply to Hipocrite's 15June post above, I'd like to say that it is widely known that there is a considerable lag in the top journals, between submission and publication. The CF article in Naturwissenschaften is quite recent; I'm pretty sure there simply hasn't been time for references to it to appear in other journals. Therefore you are making an impossible demand, which properly should be ignored until it is reasonable to expect such references to actually begin to appear. V (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what the exact question is here. The section header seems to assume that we are using the Mosier-Boss paper as a source. That's not accurate, we are using New Scientist, which refers to the Naturwissenschaften paper; and that was published at a time, around March, when the Mosier-Boss was the subject of wide media notice. Because the paper is notable, regardless of its scientific status, it's a service to the readers to cite it. Now, at another point in the article, this same paper, which refers to the Takahashi theory of Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate fusion, which would, he predicts on theoretical grounds, immediately fuse four deuterium nuclei or two deuterium molecules to Be-8, which then decays promptly to two alpha particles, thus satisfying practically every objection that's been raised to cold fusion (no primary neutrons! no theory! not the branching ratio of d-d fusion!), while explaining, as far as I can see, most of the experimental anomalies. In the edit war that started on June 1, I believe I added this source to what had already been accepted in Talk, on this theory. It's currently removed. So we could examine Naturwissenschaften as a secondary source on the Be-8 theory, through the citation in the Mosier-Boss report. This is merely a supporting source, for the theory is already covered in Storms (The science of low energy nuclear reaction, World Scientific, 2007) and He Jing-Tang (Frontiers of Physics in China, 2007) and there is a major paper by Takahashi in the American Chemical Society Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook (2008, Oxford University Press).

V is incorrect about CF articles in Naturwissenschaften. The earliest CF paper I see there is in 2005. The subject paper was available on-line 1 October, 2008 (There is a very recent N. paper now on-line, on CF theory). Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons. Pamela A. Mosier-Boss & Stanislaw Szpak & Frank E. Gordon & Lawrence P. G. Forsley, Naturwissenschaften (2009) 96:135–142 DOI 10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x. The relevant text from Mosier-Boss:

The multibody reactions proposed by Takahashi (1994) involve deuteria occupying the tetrahedral and octahedral sites in the metal lattice. In the proposed 3D and 4D fusion reactions occurring in the metal deuterides, high-energy α particles are formed that dissociate deuterons in the system to produce neutrons with a continuous spectrum in the 0 to 10 MeV region. These high energy α particles are also expected to produce Bremsstrahlung X-rays. Experimental data that support this mechanism are evidence of recoil carbon and oxygen atoms on the backside of the CR-39 suggestive of 1.25–8 MeV neutrons (see discussion in “Electronic supplementary material”) and Bremsstrahlung radiation that has been observed in the X-ray and γ-ray spectra obtained during Pd–D co-deposition (Szpak et al. 1996).

Should this be taken up next? Is Naturwissenschaften RS? --Abd (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)This is a most strange discussion. People seem to argue that because there are very few peer-reviewed papers on the subject, the papers suddenly become more scientific? That rules and guidelines for science has suddenly been put on hold? That the journal is suddenly more reliable because it is publishing fringe/pathological science? That popular science media such as New Scientist should suddenly be our guide to science articles? The only relevant questions here are: Has the paper had an impact? Ie. do other scientific papers cite it? Or is it a lone wolf with little to no scientific relevance that we can determine at the moment? Are there any independent assessment reports on the subject? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd, fine, if enough time has passed for more articles either supporting or refuting the 2005 article, then where are they? I think the answer is, that one didn't make a big enough "splash" until the 20th anniversary arrived, and it along with at least one other by the SPAWAR team got lots of notice. So, while the "top" journals may have thought they could ignore anything related to the 2005 paper THEN, I think now they cannot, so that is what we are waiting for. Meanwhile, since I've seen several times and places a statement to the effect that "Misplaced Pages is about verifiability not truth", the answer to KimDabelsteinPetersen should be something as simple as, "The CF article can always safely state that such-and-such article contained certain claims." V (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I've overlooked which is a peer-reviewed secondary source reviewing the 2004 DoE review.

Glad you asked. First of all, here is the 2005 paper: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSevidenceof.pdf ... They cite themselves in Naturwiss., 2007. The 2005 paper, like all of their Naturwiss. publications, was a "short communication," reporting results from a particular form of co-deposition electrolyis, found to be reliably reproducible, and, for whatever reason, that particular form (codeposition in the presence of an electric field) hasn't been much taken up by others, if I'm correct, I think they may have found that magnetic fields were more effective, but I'm not sure. The paper is cited in Kim, 2009 and Kalman, 2008. It is cited in Takahashi . This is published by World Scientific, and that's the first chapter, a review of the field. (This is an edited selection of papers from ICCF 12, 2005).

Storms (2007, p. 64, see note 272) cites this paper. Given that what the paper reports is really a detail, and that there is much citation of other papers (the group has a long list of publications in peer-reviewed literature, much of it about the codeposition technique), the low citation of this paper isn't surprising. It's not the most notable work they have done, but, probably because they reported high reproducibility -- one of the features of codeposition, and it has apparently reached 100% -- Naturwissenschaften decided to publish it. They report in the 2009 paper (often cited as 2008 since it appeared on-line in 2008) that:

These triple tracks have been observed in every Pd–D co-deposition experiment that has been conducted using Ag, Au, or Pt cathodes in both the presence and absence of an external electric or magnetic field. When Ni screen is used as the cathode, tracks and triple tracks are only observed when an external electric or magnetic field is applied. Triple tracks are indicative of a reaction resulting in the formation of three particles of equal mass and energy. In this communication, the origins of these triple tracks are investigated.

Absolutely, if we maintain the definition that cold fusion is "fringe" and a "walled garden," there is a problem. What publication occurs in mainstream publications -- and Naturwissenschaften is mainstream -- can be dismissed as "isolated," without mainstream response. To be exercised to write a critique, or, even more so, to do research to confirm or fail to confirm reported results, one must, first of all, be following research in the field, and, even more important, not have a belief that such research must be flawed and that this opinion is scientific consensus. So, even though we have plenty of recent source and evidence that questions the "consensus," and very little recent source that confirms this consensus -- which, though it was never based on sound scientific process, did clearly exist twenty years ago -- there has been, through persistence of opinion, a strong force confining research and response in the field to those easily considered within it, any new "convert," previously skeptical, such as Robert Duncan (physicist), is dismissed as "deluded."

My suggestion is that we apply reliable source standards evenly, and without assuming that a publication in a peer-reviewed journal must be due to problems with the review. That alleged problem with Naturwissenschaften has been asserted over and over here, without any evidence of it other than speculation based on an assumption from the bulk of their published papers being on life sciences topics, when a deeper examination shows that they'd be expected to have the best of review resources available. With some publications the problem might be real, but we actually have no evidence about it. We do have some evidence, if we choose to honor the testimony, that the review at Naturwissenschaftein is rigorous and done by experts. To exclude this source can be seen as circular, particularly if we realize that such exclusion is part of a pattern of exclusion, such that the growing body of research and theoretical exploration in this field is entirely excluded, even though reliable source and notability standards would suggest its inclusion. No claim is being made by me that we should present cold fusion research as being established science, though we are getting close to that point, in my opinion. As far as I can tell, the blackout on publication (positive and negative!) in certain prominent journals is still maintained.

It is irritating to see, in discussions on this, claims that "if the research was good, it would be published by Nature (journal)," or other widely-respected journals that are known to refuse to even review papers in the field. We have reliable source on that refusal, it's well-known. Is this covered adequately in the article? --Abd (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course these are all straw man arguments. As far as I can see no one ever claimed any of these things. But as I pointed out above the metric you propose is wholly inappropriate for judging the suitability of this paper in this context given that the journals you will favor have chosen to ignore this field of study. Again, we know that there is active research being conducted in this field and it is being done within respected organizations. The fact the your otherwise preferred journals have chosen not to publish things in this area doesn't negate either of these facts in the slightest. The only relevant question here is whether the paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, or not, and as far as I can see based on what has been presented thus far it was. --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Britz autobiography was finally added back to Cold fusion after a long absence, I see, proving that my presence isn't essential to improving the article. There is an analysis of the peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion, it might be eye-opening, it's at lenr-canr.org. Note that the Britz bibliography is compiled by an electrochemist, a skeptic on cold fusion, and the analysis of papers into positive and negative is his. In a section in the analysis, Rothwell discuss where he disagrees with some of the classifications, but the basis of the report is done straight from Britz, and can be verified against Britz. It is simply not true that there are "very few" papers on the subject. As of April, 2009, the lenr-canr database lists 2066 journal articles on cold fusion. Britz has 1390 papers. Apparently the bulk of them are positive, with negative papers almost disappearing by about 1997. Page 11 of the analysis shows a chart of the papers in the Britz bibliography by positive/negative/undecided (Britz's categories).

Has the Naturwissenschaften triple-track paper had an impact? Well the work has had a wide impact, because of being featured at the ACS LENR conference in March, and media notice, a whole list of articles could be cited, the New Scientist article is merely the best-researched of these popular media commentaries. Most articles mention Mosier-Boss and the SPAWAR group and neutrons, but not the actual published paper. KDP seems to incorporate an assumption that Naturwissenschaften is a low-reliability journal, which is quite the contrary of what is true on the face, there is much discussion above on this. What's the specific question here? Source for what? The usability of a source depends on the use to which it is put. The neutron work is new, it became visible in 2008, and there hasn't been a lot of time for replication; on the other hand, it does confirm earlier reports of low levels of neutrons, some of which was quality work. (Note that the whole field suffered for years from Fleischmann's error in reporting much higher levels of neutrons, a result retracted early on.) --Abd (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help shed some light. The reason I split this off into a new section was the following statement by Hipocrite: "it seems that the only logical conclusion is to exclude everything published in Naturwissenschaften that isn't in it's obvious field of editorial expertise". At that point, I realized that the argument had swayed from "How should we characterize Naturwissenschaften" to "Should the article even be mentioned at all?". I figured that this would probably be a question that you all would want to discuss once the first discussion ended. If I am wrong in this assumption, and you guys would like to discuss this later (or not at all), I'll collapse this discussion and open another.

Actually, I believe that this would be the most sensible solution, for the most compelling argument I have read thus far is that the paper is too new to have been cited in other peer-reviewed articles. Some may interpret this as meaning that we should remove it until such citations appear, some may interpret this as meaning that we should include the article until there is stronger evidence that it should be removed. I interpret it as meaning we should not worry about it for now, bide our time discussing other issues, and resume this discussion when enough time has elapsed for us to see if any other scientific publications have cited it. Any thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And **I** think the optimum solution is for the CF article to have a "News and Rumors" section, which can include anything that meets the WP:Verify criterion. Then those editors whose anti-CF opinions are based on 20-year-old data, and not recent data, can't enforce equivalent ignorance upon the average curious article-browsing visitor. And anything in that "news" section, not later supported by more data, can legitimately be recategorized as "old news, not supported". All we would need to argue about would be "How much time does it take for it to be 'later'?" V (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree on some level, but any such section would have to be reconciled with WP:NOTNEWS (and so I would stay away from the specific title you used above). I also would NOT want to see supportive peer-reviewed research arbitrarily excluded from other sections just because this section exists. --GoRight (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out part of the problem to Hipocrite a while back on the CF talk page, that plenty other articles don't wait for 3rd-party publications of information, before that info gets included in the article. We appeared to be using different defintitions of "3rd party". For example, regarding the new Star Trek (film), is there yet any publication equivalent to Storms' review of publications in the CF field (that is, "a review of reviews, of the movie")? No? Then why does that article exist? All it has are 1st-party and/or 2nd-party descriptions! So, while we wait for equivalent 3rd-party publications regarding recent CF events, the precedent exists, under SOME sort of naming scheme, to include news. Else, to be consistent, much of Misplaced Pages should arbitrarily be deleted.

I acknowledge your objection, though, and could suggest "Recent Developments" as a section title, with a description something like, Due to the time delay between first publication of new experimental results, and publication of follow-up experiments, information in this section cannot be considered as "solid" as information in the rest of the article. V (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a kind of paradox: is cold fusion "science"? What if it is just "history"? We have much of the article presently cited to newspaper reports and non-peer-reviewed publications, especially ones which are critical of cold fusion. My view is that the article is both science and history. When we write science articles on noncontroversial subjects, we simply state what is known, we don't write "according to," or "it is claimed by So-and-So that...." The standard being suggested (wide review, appearance in peer-reviewed secondary sources) is applicable when we want to state "scientific fact." But a much lower standard is appropriate for the history of a topic; this is where ordinary reliable source, independently published but not necessarily peer-reviewed, comes in. The SPAWAR work on neutrons is notable, so it should be covered. How it is covered is another question. Can we report that neutrons are found in low levels in cold fusion experiments? No. That's not an accepted fact, a scientific consensus not yet. But can and should we state that the SPAWAR group has reported finding them, or however we say it, when we have ample secondary source of the ordinary kind commenting on the work? See, for another example beyond New Scientist, see the IEEE Spectrum. We don't have peer-reviewed secondary source on the neutron findings yet, to my knowledge, though we do for much of the older work, such as helium/excess heat correlation. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

On the basic issue. Original claims in the Naturwiss. article are primary source, to be used with caution. However, this article also reviews prior work, including work by others. Acceptance of this coverage of prior work, by peer review, creates a strong source, not impeachable by mere speculation. We could treat secondary review in the article of prior publications as authoritative, depending on details. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Regroup

This discussion is splitting into separate discussions, making it somewhat difficult to keep track of (both for me and, I suspect, for those who have not yet participated). So far, these seem to be the solutions that people have proposed:

1. The Naturwissenschaften article should not be mentioned in the text.
2. The Naturwissenschaften article should be treated as History / News.
3. The Naturwissenschaften article should be treated as fact.
4. We should just move on to other discussions until more media attention/citations are given to the Naturwissenschaften article.

It seems to me that option 2 is the most reasonable compromise. As Objectivist pointed out, while it may be difficult or even impossible for cold fusion to ever make definitive statements regarding the validity of experiments, it can always simply state what the researchers have claimed without presenting it as fact. The (arguably) biggest strength of Misplaced Pages is how well it "rolls with the times", and I think this solution best serves that goal: If the article in question is given more media attention or is cited in other articles, the section which discusses it can be amended or expanded. If not, it can simply exist as a historical record and can be shortened as necessary later on.

The question now is how to achieve a balanced and fair representation of the article in cold fusion, but I think that this can be worked out with a combination of editing and focused discussion here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody here has proposed that the "article" be treated as "fact," by which I understand that the contents, in general, what the article describes as experimental results, would be treated as fact. It's possible that with some specific text in the article, referring to prior work by others and thus serving as a secondary source on that, having passed peer review, we may derive fact from it, such as the fact that the Takahashi Be-8 theory exists and is taken seriously in the field. But as to the primary claims in the article, it's primary source, and we don't take primary sources as fact other than the fact of notability and existence of the source itself. Sometimes when a secondary source clearly contradicts the primary source on which it is based, or the very existence of the primary source contradicts what is claimed in a secondary source, we will cite the primary source, but without synthesis or explicit statement of contradiction, presenting to the reader sufficient verifiable information for the readers to come to a conclusion themselves. We have an example before us, secondary source claims that the U.S. Patent Office rejects cold fusion patents, ipso facto, and then two recent patents that explicitly claim energy generation from the palladium-deuterium process. I.e., cold fusion. This isn't actually a contradiction to the claim of rejection, because of timing, what it contradicts is an impression that something stated in the past would still be true. There is another exception noted somewhere, by the way, a patent that was issued due to the age of the inventor, which apparently is a loophole which bypasses normal patent review.

From my perspective, the specific article ("Triple tracks") is highly notable, we have adequate media and popular science secondary source on it. There hasn't been time to see peer-reviewed secondary source. From the secondary sources we have, this is indeed News or History, and is very usable in the article, just like what we find in older secondary sources. This is also how it's been treated, in fact, at the article, by consensus, and suggestions here that this be excluded entirely were never accepted there.

I haven't seen sufficient reason here to totally exclude the article as a source so I'd suggest a conclusion here. We currently reference it merely because the article is mentioned in secondary source, so that readers can see what our sources have been referring to. Our text doesn't depend on the article. The specific usability of the article as a secondary source, itself, will come up when we turn to the Be-8 theory of Takahashi, and can be discussed there, in the presence of a specific example. --Abd (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

With regards to "experimental results, would be treated as fact" ... Unless it is replicated independently (with other papers), experimental results can most certainly not be be fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• nr. 3 is out of the question. 2 shouldn't be a problem though, depending on weight. It is news, and as long as the scientific community hasn't reacted, it can't be used as more. Popular science mentions are written from press-releases, not from a science point, so since there hasn't been responses, its simply a science paper, with (completely) unknown impact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a little more than that. But we don't need to decide that now. --Abd (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with KDP that 3 above would be premature at this point. Regarding 2, I think V's suggestion above of a section highlighting "Recent Developments" with a one sentence disclaimer to distinguish the content of that section from other material for which 3 actually would apply makes a reasonable compromise. Judging the proper WP:WEIGHT for newly emerging results such as this is likely to prove tricky given that the "favored science journals" are (seemingly) no longer participating in a substantive way (i.e. through additional publications), but this can be given proper consideration on a case by case basis. --GoRight (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• We have an agreement on #2 as far as I can see. Cryptic, can you note this and open up the next discussion? I will propose one that may be more important than the patent issue. --Abd (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• number 2 is cool for me. I'm afraid that most of the media coverage was caused by announcement during the 20th anniversary. Later independent research/replication/validation of the phenomena should clarify if we should move it to #3. Also, as Kim says, it needs acceptance by the scientific community, and impact is still unknown. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of patents

I would prefer to discuss one issue at a time. I'll uncollapse this discussion and allow it to continue once we've reached a conclusion regarding Naturwissenschaften. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Should proposed theories explaining cold fusion be mentioned in the article?

• The beryllium-8 hypothesis .
• The hydrino hypothesis]].
• Storms' comment on cold fusion theories.

Background: the present article has the following text relevant to theory:

• Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.ERAB report, 1989, conclusion 5
• The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced in April 12, 1989 that it had applied for its own patents based on the theoretical work of one of it own researchers, Peter L. Hagelstein, who had been sending papers to journals from the 5th to the 12th of April.New York Times, 1989
• In a biography by Jagdish Mehra et al. it is mentioned that to the shock of most physicists, the Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger declared himself a supporter of cold fusion and tried to publish a paper on it in Physical Review Letters; he was deeply insulted by the manner of its rejection, and was led to resign from that body in protest.
• Considerable attention has been given to measuring 4He production. In 1999 Schaffer says that the levels detected were very near to background levels, that there is the possibility of contamination by trace amounts of helium which are normally present in the air, and that the lack of detection of Gamma radiation led most of the scientific community to regard the presence of 4He as the result of experimental error. In the report presented to the DOE in 2004, 4He was detected in five out of sixteen cases where electrolytic cells were producing excess heat. The reviewers' opinion was divided on the evidence for 4He; some points cited were that the amounts detected were above background levels but very close to them, that it could be caused by contamination from air, and there were serious concerns about the assumptions made in the theoretical framework that tried to account for the lack of gamma rays.
• Production of such heavy nuclei is so unexpected from current understanding of nuclear reactions that extraordinary experimental proof will be needed to convince the scientific community of these results.1999 Scientific American article
• Section titled Lack of accepted explanation using conventional physics which raises the "triple miracle," The probability of reaction, The branching ratio and Conversion of γ-rays to heat
• Section titled Proposed explanations, with this text:

By 1998, many groups trying to replicate Fleischmann and Pons' results had found alternative explanations for their original positive results, like problems in the neutron detector in the case of Georgia Tech or bad wiring in the thermometers at Texas A&M, thus bringing most scientists to conclude that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion, at least not in a significant scale.

Among those who continue to believe claims of Cold Fusion are not attributable to error, some possible theoretical interpretations of the experimental results have been proposed.Derry, 2002 As of 2002, according to Gregory Neil Derry, they were all ad hoc explanations that didn't explain coherently the given result, they were backed by experiments that were of low quality or non reproducible, and more careful experiments to test them had given negative results; these explanations had failed to convince the mainstream scientific community.Derry, 2002, ibid Since cold fusion is such an extraordinary claim, most scientists would not be convinced unless either high-quality convincing data or a compelling theoretical explanation were to be found.1999 Scientific American article

We have no coverage of actual proposed explanations in the article, and the edit wars of May 21 and June 1 were largely about attempts to insert them. Coverage of the hydrino hypothesis had remained after May 21, and the Be-8 theory after June 1, but were both removed by the reversion under the June 1 protection to May 14, and have not been reasserted. The article implies that no serious theories that could possibly explain cold fusion "using existing physics" have been proposed. What exists in peer-reviewed reliable source and in academic and peer-reviewed secondary sources on this?

The Be-8 and hydrino theories are covered in Storms (2007) as to current notability; we have reference above to older theories, such as those of Hagelstein and Schwinger, which are no longer considered within the field to be of much import. In addition, there is Widom-Larsen theory, which I have not researched. Hydrino theory is new physics, and was apparently allowed on May 21, ultimately, because of RS covering it, and it was balanced with negative RS on hydrino theory. The Be-8 theory, more accurately, the Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory, does not involve new physics, but only, apparently, the consideration of a previously unconsidered physical possibility, which is double-deuterium (molecular) fusion under lattice confinement, possibly through the formation of a two-molecule Bose-Einstein condensate, which Takahashi then predicts, from quantum field theory, will fuse within a femtosecond or so, 100%. This theory, if correct, predicts nearly all the observed phenomena: Be-8 rapidly decays to two alpha particles at 23.8 MeV each, they will transfer most of their energy to the experimental environment, there will be no primary neutron or gamma radiation, the nuclear ash is helium, matching experimental observations, it will happen at the surface (the molecular form is not present inside the lattice), the TSC itself is neutrally charged and thus experiences no Coulomb barrier and may directly cause some heavy-element fusion with the kind of atomic number plus 4 that has been observed, energetic alpha particles can cause secondary fusion resulting in low levels of neutrons and other products. Mosier-Boss (Naturwissenschaften, 2009) cite Takahashi's theory to explain their neutron results, and the theory is cited by He Jing-Tang (Frontiers of Physics in China, 2007), a peer-reviewed secondary source. This explanation is my own, based on reading many papers by Takahashi and discussion of the theory on-line, it is here for background, not for inclusion in the article; at this point what we have,for the article, is mention of the Takahashi theory in two or three reliable secondary sources. It should be covered, based on what is in reliable secondary source about it.

Note: The comment from Storms about no theory accounting for the experimental observations is one that I don't personally agree with, but which is from a reliable source by ordinary standards. I think that the Takahashi theory does, in fact, account for nearly all experimental observations, and I've seen little from Storms to contradict this. But there are details that I might not be aware of. The biggest problem would be the level of secondary reactions from the hot alpha particles generated, I think that Storms may consider that if Be-8 decay is what is happening, there would be more secondary reactions, but I've seen no decent analysis of that position and he doesn't explain. This should be falsifiable, for once those alpha particles are emitted, they should behave as any alpha radiation of that energy, which is rapidly dissipated through the emission of Bremsstrahlung radiation (which is reported) and thermal transfer, they are no longer confined by the lattice, the half of them that are radiated away from the surface. There is also a very recent paper in Naturwissenschaften, on Bose-Einstein condensate theory and cold fusion, and there have been other papers published over the years that propose Bose-Einstein condensate role in cold fusion. --Abd (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)