| Revision as of 02:13, 17 November 2008 editJohn Nevard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,092 edits →The Summary of cold fusion in the pathological science article is rather unbalanced: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:31, 21 December 2024 edit undoHob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,463 edits →Rename article to LENR (Low-energy Nuclear Reactions) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{GAR/link|19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)|page=1|GARpage=1|status= }} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=23:33, 16 Aug 2004 |
|
|action1date=23:33, 16 Aug 2004 |
| Line 9: |
Line 12: |
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|action2date=18:42, 6 January 2006 |
|
|action2date=18:42, 6 January 2006 |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Cold fusion |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Cold fusion |
|
|action2result=demoted |
|
|action2result=demoted |
|
|action2oldid=34106403 |
|
|action2oldid=34106403 |
| Line 33: |
Line 36: |
|
|action6=GAN |
|
|action6=GAN |
|
|action6date=14:29, 26 December 2006 |
|
|action6date=14:29, 26 December 2006 |
|
|action6link= |
|
|action6link=Talk:Cold_fusion#GA_on_hold review |
|
|action6result=not listed |
|
|action6result=not listed |
|
|action6oldid=96546570 |
|
|action6oldid=96546570 |
| Line 43: |
Line 46: |
|
|action7oldid=215417474 |
|
|action7oldid=215417474 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| action8 = GAR |
|
|
| action8date = 22:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
| action8link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Cold fusion/1 |
|
|
| action8result = delisted |
|
|
| action8oldid = |
|
|
|
|
|maindate=August 24, 2004 |
|
|maindate=August 24, 2004 |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|
|otd1date=2012-03-23|otd1oldid=483531088 |
|
|
|otd2date=2014-03-23|otd2oldid=600909183 |
|
|
|otd3date=2017-03-23|otd3oldid=771633321 |
|
|
|otd4date=2019-03-23|otd4oldid=888975125 |
|
|
|otd5date=2024-03-23|otd5oldid=1214943052 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Physics |importance=High }} |
|
{{Notice|The Cold fusion article was ] of ] from the ] in 2008. Please visit ] before making significant changes.}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=mid}} |
|
{{Caution|This article has experienced a rapid demotion in its status, which could indicate serious content issues. A major rewrite may be needed.<br /> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=High}} |
|
<small>Please see the current discussions and ].</small>}} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBanners |
|
|
|1={{physics|class=GA|importance=High}} |
|
|
|2={{WikiProject Energy|class=GA|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|3={{Rational Skepticism|class=GA|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{todo}} |
|
|
|
{{press |
|
|
|author= ] |
|
|
|date= 3 February 2009 |
|
|
|url= http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/so-is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html |
|
|
|title= So is Misplaced Pages cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Misplaced Pages is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web? |
|
|
|org= ] |
|
|
|section= Home:Life&Style:Gadgets&Tech:Features |
|
|
|collapsed=yes}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ps|style=long}} |
|
|
{{merged-from |List of references to cold fusion in popular culture}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 19 |
|
|counter = 48 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|algo = old(10d) |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(180d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Cold fusion/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Cold fusion/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|target=Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_index |
|
|
|
|
|
|mask=Talk:Cold fusion/Archive <#> |
|
== Citation style -- let's get rid of the two-level abomination == |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
I have added citationstyle to the articleissues template at the top of the article after wrestling with the arcane and Byzantine two-level citation references in use in this article, which obscure the normal links from the references to the articles used in the text. I noticed that Paneth and Peters' original publications in English no longer appear in the article, but I'm not particularly inclined to replace them until there is consensus that we should move from this abominable two-level style of citations to the standard Misplaced Pages practice of one-level named references. Any objections to that? I'll hold off for a week to see if there is any opposition. ] (]) 02:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* The method is not arcane, being documented at ]. I have seen it elsewhere at ], for example. ] (]) 11:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This method is particularly useful when a source is repeated in several places, as in this article. I support keeping it. ] (]) 18:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It's no better than normal footnotes for sources cited multiple times. On the other hand it takes twice as long to check an existing reference or add a new one, and very few articles use it. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 09:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It is better when a source is cited multiple times on a page that is constantly changing like this one: either you have to insert the full citation in each reference, or you have to make sure that the first reference where it is cited in full does not get deleted inadvertently. Either way is worse than the system we use. This one also has the advantage that we can easily cite a reference in the talk page, eg. Storms 2007 : it is easy to find in the alphabetic bibliography. ] (]) 16:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Changed more POV-pushing == |
|
|
|
|
|
I go away for three days and come back to find a lead rife with POV-pushing and pro-CF innuendo. I removed it or changed it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issues: |
|
|
|
|
|
#Stop claiming that CF evidence have been published in "numerous peer-reviewed journals". We've already discussed the fact that they are unable to publish in the top-tier journals of their field which is far more relevant to this page than the fact that they manage to squeeze in to low-impact factor journals be they "numerous" or not. |
|
|
#Stop trying to segregate the journals, books, and conferences. They are all part of the same ploy; the same ploy that scientists have met with skepticism. |
|
|
#Stop inserting "conclusively" before the word "demonstrated". We discussed above how using the adjective "conclusively" makes it seem like it actually was demonstrated. The adjective as it is used here looks like it is being used to sow doubt in the reader's mind as to whether it was possible that the claim had been demonstrated, just not "conclusively". It's actually the opposite sense that works in science per ]. This innuendo must stop. |
|
|
#Stop trying to cook up favorable statistics from the 2004 report. "A third of the reviewers found the evidence somewhat convincing". Or we can say, "Most of the reviewers did not even find the evidence to be somewhat convincing". Note that we've discussed the fact that the 2004 report did not vindicate cold fusion advocates, it explicitly was not in contradiction to the 1998 report. That's the sense that the reader must get. None of this "cold fusion is making progress! They convinced a third of the panel!" Bullcrap. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:#As ], CF papers have been published in the top third of all journals. Since when does wikipedia rejects these reliable sources ? |
|
|
:#The skepticism of scientists does not justify the rejection that you actually do. |
|
|
:#] is in no way part of the scientific method. Is the ] issue based on extraordinary evidence? Not at all. |
|
|
:#Stop inserting ] words. The statement is verbatim from the DOE report : there is no reason to hide this from our readers, as it does represent what the DOE found. ] (]) 16:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::#Top third in a data-dump of journals, most of which are not even obliquely related to the topic. I suggest that only half of the journals in your analysis were relevant to the subfields which means that most of the cf-publications were in the bottom half of relevant journals in terms of IFs. |
|
|
:::#The skepticism of scientists is the ]. |
|
|
:::#No one said it was part of the scientific method and this is a red herring on your part meant to obscure the fact that the article should not be advocating a positive treatment for cold fusion. |
|
|
:::#The verbatim statement is cherry-picked. There are no weasel words inserted. |
|
|
:::] (]) 21:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::We have plenty of references saying that the majority of scientists reject cold fusion. Nobody mentioned trying to "hide" the results of the DOE report from readers, but the lead should only be summarising the main points of the article and if the only thing it says about the 2004 DOE is "one third of the reviewers were somewhat convinced" this doesn't give an accurate impression of the full contents of the report. Saying "most scientists" doesn't violate ], since that guideline explicitly allows uses "when the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion" and gives as an example "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth", so "most of the reviewers" or "most scientists" are acceptable. The Pioneer anomaly may not require any new physics at all to explain, so there aren't any "extraordinary claims". |
|
|
::Out of interest I had a look at what the online edition of the ] had to say about cold fusion. They gave it only one paragraph (a lot less than ]) and that paragraph consisted of a description of the Pons-Fleischmann experiment followed by "Efforts to give a theoretical explanation of the results failed, as did worldwide efforts to reproduce the claimed cold fusion". Note that this gives the pro-cold fusion side a lot less weight than this article does. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The references say that scientists are skeptical, not that they reject CF. That's what the scientists say, and we state it clearly in the intro already. The DOE, being another entity, said something different. The DOE said that they did not find the effect to be conclusively demonstrated, that 2/3 were not convinced, and that 1/3 was somewhat convinced. Let's not confuse the two different opinions. Let's not force the DOE to say what the scientists say, if the DOE did not say it. ] (]) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::They say things like "Cold Fusion is a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between Cold Fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all." That's a lot stronger than "skeptical". The current version of the lead (as I write this, anyway) is fine. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 07:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Current quote conflicts with ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Pcarbonn changed the quote to the conclusions of Charge Element 1 which is a quote which violates our ] policy. In particular, it give equal weight to the minority view (one reviewer) as it does to the majority review (two-thirds of the reviewers). I recommend using the quotation from Charge Element 2 since it is more in-line with our policies. ] (]) 01:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Some quotes from WP:WEIGHT : "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them", "On such pages, though a view may be described, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant". I believe we are perfectly in line with that policy when we quote the conclusion of charge element 1 of the DOE report. Please note that the minority view include the 1/3 of reviewers who were somewhat convinced. ] (]) 07:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You are confusing the issue. This is not a page on ]. This is a page on cold fusion. As such, the minority view on the subject (the 2004 DOE panel) does not deserve more weight than the majority view. Right now, by using this quote we are weighted in terms of sheer amount of wording much more heavily toward the minority view of the panel than the majority view. It's not hard to see why a cold fusion proponent would want to weight the discussion in such a fashion, but we are here to write a ] account, not an advocacy screed. ] (]) 07:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::When I count the amount of wording devoted to each views, I don't see any significant difference between the wording you propose and the one I propose. Both have a statement about the one reviewer who was convinced. The statement I propose has the advantage of being more precise and informative. ] (]) 11:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Suggestion - why not say "Of eighteen reviewers, twelve thought X, one thought Y and five were unconvinced." to remove ambiguity?] (]) 15:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Good idea. I support it. ] (]) 16:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::That's fine. It gives enough weight to the skepticism by replacing "somewhat convinced" with unconvinced. ] (]) 20:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Unfortunately, Pcarbonn has reneged on his agreement and has tried to push back repositioning the weight towards the cold fusion advocates again. I reverted, but we may need to go back to the drawing board. ] (]) 08:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Indeed, I agreed on the use of 12, 5 and 1, instead of 2/3, 1/3 and 1. I still don't agree on the rephrasing of the DOE statements to align it to your skeptical opinions. This is as question simple enough to be addressed by WP:NPOVN or an RfC, so I'll raise it there when I have some time. ] (]) 08:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Change a direct quotation paragraph to a single sentence == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the issue is that we use a direct quotation in the lead, which is something that we probably shouldn't do per ] and ]. My feeling is that we should simply summarize the report without pandering. There is no need to say who was "convinced by evidence". All we need to do is say that the report is in-line with the conclusions of the 1989 report and leave it at that. A single sentence will do the trick. |
|
|
|
|
|
What's more, including an entire paragraph devoted to the DOE report is overkill. We don't devote an entire paragraph in the lead to the 1989 report. I think that since we devote one sentence to the 1989 report, devoting one sentence to the 2004 report is fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 08:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I oppose that. That paragraph has been worked on by many editors in the last 2 weeks, and we were close to reach a consensus. The 2004 DOE provides the most notable and recent assessment of the cold fusion controversy, and the reader deserves to know more that just one sentence of it. That you do not like its conclusion is not a good reason for eliminating the paragraph. ] (]) 09:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It has nothing to do with liking the conclusion or not. Right now we are focusing too much on one report at the expense of the subject material. We do not need an entire paragraph in the lead on the 2004 report, and the current lead makes it seem like a full quarter of the article will be about the 2004 report when that is far from the case. ] (]) 10:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Brooks' book == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to get opinion on how to use the following sentence from Brooks' book : "13 things that don't make sense": |
|
|
|
|
|
: "In the years since the DOE report came out, there has been a further breakthrough, too. The cold fusioneers now have reliable evidence that, whatever the calorimetry considerations, some kind of nuclear reactions are definitely going on in their experiment." (p. 66) |
|
|
|
|
|
He is referring to the CR-39 evidence from SPAWAR. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 12:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: In a word, don't. My impression from the is that his level of understanding of physics is rather low. There is no reason to consider the book a reliable secondary source (like a textbook or review article) and it is certainly not even a reliable primary source (no peer review). |
|
|
: It's not our job to evaluate the content, but I would like to make the personal comment that I have trouble using words like "reliable" and "definitely" - much less "bulletproof" - when it comes to CR-39 detectors used by themselves. If the dozens of experiments with time- and energy-resolved neutron detectors didn't yield unambiguous results, then CR-39 can't either. |
|
|
: --] (]) 13:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Funny you should say that his level of understanding of physics is rather low : ] has a PhD in quantum physics. Also, please remember that CR-39 are routinely used as detectors in nuclear physics, and that they are very sensitive (thanks to their integrating nature) and straightforward to analyze, unlike time- and energy-resolved neutron detectors. The evidence presented in Natuurwissenschaften is "almost incontestable", as Brooks put it (and I agree, for what it's worth). ] (]) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Brooks is certainly not a reliable vetter of SPAWAR's claims.He is a science journalist and cannot have a professional opinion on the subject since he doesn't work in physics any longer. His opinion is not encyclopedic on this matter. ] (]) 04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Off topic=== |
|
|
|
|
|
::: At the risk of getting off-topic (on-topic being whether Brooks is a reliable source): How does the sensitivity of CR-39 compare to a scintillation detector (or one based on neutron absorption)? How is etching and counting pits under a microscope more straightforward than analyzing pulses of light? Why is CR-39 not even mentioned in the ] article? --] (]) 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If I'm reading study correctly, it appears that CR-39 detectors are used to calibrate scintillation detectors. Is that accurate enough? ] (]) 16:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Nice. What's more accurate, the guitar string or the tuning fork used to tune it? The thing about "]" devices is that they get more accurate by the second, quite literally. I imagine that property is very useful when sensitivity is an issue but time is not. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I don't know what a scintillation detector is, so I don't know. counting pits is more straightforward than analyzing pulses of light because it is easier to do, it doesn't require high-technology and there is less room for error. (Besides, as previously mentioned, it's natural integrating effect makes it tough to beat.) I don't know why it's not mentioned in said article. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Oh, and by "less room for error" I mean it's less prone to electromagnetic interference and things like that. It's more "robust", to put it in a word. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Here is what Mosier-Bos (Natuurwissenschaften 2008) says on CR-39 : CR-39 is an allyl glycol carbonate plastic that has been |
|
|
widely used as a solid-state nuclear track detector. |
|
|
These detectors have been used extensively to detect |
|
|
and identify such fusion products as p, D, T, 3He, and α |
|
|
particles resulting from inertial confinement fusion (ICF) |
|
|
experiments (Séguin et al. 2003). They have also been |
|
|
used to detect neutrons (Phillips et al. 2006). When a |
|
|
charged particle passes through the CR-39 detector, it |
|
|
leaves a trail of damage along its track inside the plastic in |
|
|
the form of broken molecular chains and free radicals |
|
|
(Frenje et al. 2002). After treatment with an etching agent, |
|
|
tracks remain as holes or pits. The size and shape of these |
|
|
pits provide information about the mass, charge, energy, |
|
|
and direction of motion of the particles (Nikezic and Yu |
|
|
2004). Therefore, CR-39 detectors can semiqualitatively |
|
|
be used to distinguish the types and energies of individual |
|
|
particles. Advantages of CR-39 for ICF experiments |
|
|
include its insensitivity to electromagnetic noise; its |
|
|
resistance to mechanical damage; and its relative insensitivity |
|
|
to electrons, X-rays, and γ-rays. Consequently, CR- |
|
|
39 detectors can be placed close to the source without |
|
|
being damaged. Furthermore CR-39, like photographic |
|
|
film, is an example of a constantly integrating detector, |
|
|
which means that events are permanently stamped on the |
|
|
surface of the detector. As a result, CR-39 detectors can be |
|
|
used to detect events that occur either sporadically or at |
|
|
low fluxes. ] (]) 16:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:There was an done over at earthtech, but unfortunately I'm not aware of this being published other than at that web page. They find that pits don't have the appearance of pits made from alpha particles. They were also able to make similar pits while electroplating other metals (including Cu and Ni), with pit formation depending on the anion plated as well as the metal. They conclude that "...chemical origin is a distinct possibility and therefore that nuclear origin is not a certainty." |
|
|
:Also see slide 22 of Ludwik Kowalski's ], entitled "Large pits we observed cannot be attributed to alpha particles or protons, or neutrons." --] (]) 04:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Earthtech's criticism cannot explain the triple-tracks reported in the later paper of Mosier-Boss (2008), indicative of energetic neutrons. Furthermore, Earthtech's paper has not been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. ] (]) 10:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It is unfortunate that they have not yet published this in a forum we can use in the article space, but this may just be a matter of time. I am hopeful that there will be discussion of the topic in the forthcoming book by some of the scientists at Earthtech, , which is set to contain a chapter entitled 'Null Tests of “Free-Energy” Claims'. --] (]) 16:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Criticisms based on theoretical grounds have been contradicted by experiments" == |
|
|
|
|
|
What exactly is that supposed to mean? It's in the DOE 2004 section of the introduction, but none of the papers seems to discuss any of the theoretical objections mentioned in that report. The sentence is also extremely weasely. What criticism and which experiments? --] (]) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If by "weasely" you mean "vague", then yes, it is vague. "It's in the DOE 2004 section" - do you mean that it's in the DOE report? "of the introduction" - the introduction is a summary of the body of the article and it is ''supposed to be'' vague. The body of the article should have the criticisms and the experiments. According to ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I disagree about anything being supposed to be vague. Vague is not the opposite of detailed. And the full section on the DOE report is not enlightening about this statement, either. --] (]) 23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::True, specific is the opposite of vague. ]<sup>]</sup> |
|
|
|
|
|
I was referring to the controversy between the empiricists and the theoreticians ]. I remain astonished that this dispute based on conservation of mass from the most reliable of all the sources in the article according to the criteria in ] and ] is not enthusiastically supported by everyone for inclusion in the introduction. ] (]) 20:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have re-inserted and expanded with clarification: |
|
|
:Criticisms based on theoretical grounds have been contradicted by experiments; for example, suggestions that excess heat is due to non-anomalous causes have been disputed by those who have measured the volume of recombined output gases;<ref name="Shanahan 2002">{{harvnb|Shanahan|2002}}</ref><ref name=Szpak2004>{{harvnb|Szpak|2004|Ref=Szpak2004}}</ref><ref name="Shanahan 2005">{{harvnb|Shanahan|2005}}</ref><ref name="Shanahan 2006">{{harvnb|Shanahan|2006}}</ref> similarly, experimenters have denied theoretical criticisms of radiation detection<ref>{{harvnb|Mosier-Boss|Szpak|Gordon|Forsley|2008}}</ref> and of results showing ].<ref name="IwamuraSakanoItoh_2002_4648">{{harvnb|Iwamura|Sakano|Itoh|2002|p=4648-4649}}</ref> |
|
|
] (]) 21:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, you cannot say that. It's simply not neutral. There are many sources which cast a pall of doubt on cold fusion experiments and therefore it is questionable whether they "contradict" anything. Also, you are misusing the term "theoretical" when you probably mean "speculative" -- and even so, that the criticism is "speculative" or not is a POV that is held only by a tiny minority. ] (]) 03:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Can you summarize the same facts in a more neutral way? ] (]) 05:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
While I believe that IwRnHaA is going a bit too far in terms of ] in his latest edits, I strongly support his view that the article should represent the view of the most reliable sources. In fact, this is what wikipedia policies require. Here is what WP:NPOV says : "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views '''that have been published by reliable sources'''. Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors.". Please note that the policy does not say that the article should represent the view of "most scientists", and for good reasons. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ranking of sources per reliability == |
|
|
|
|
|
To help resolve the dispute, I would propose that we establish a ranking of the source per reliability, indicating wether they are favorable or not. To help rank them, ] says "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". |
|
|
|
|
|
So, here is a start according to this ranking and ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
1a secondary reputable peer-reviewed papers: |
|
|
::'''Favorable''' : Biberian, Jean-Paul (2007), "" (PDF), ''International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology '3''' (1): 31–43, :{{doi|10.1504%2FIJNEST.2007.012439}}, '' |
|
|
|
|
|
1b primary reputable peer-reviewed papers: |
|
|
::Too many to cite, even if we limit ourselves to the top third of journals by impact factor. Mix of favorable and skeptical articles. See bibliography in our article, or D. Britz bibliography. |
|
|
|
|
|
1c books published in University press: |
|
|
::'''Negative''': Park, Robert (2000), Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-513515-6 |
|
|
::'''Favorable''': Marwan, Jan and Krivit, Steven B., editors (2008), ''Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook, /, |
|
|
::'''Favorable''': Storms, Edmund (2007), Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations, Singapore: World Scientific, ISBN 9-8127062-0-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
2 university-level textbooks: |
|
|
|
|
|
3 magazines published by respected publishing houses: |
|
|
::'''Negative''' : Feder, Toni (January 2005), "", Physics Today 58: 31, doi:10.1063/1.1881896, |
|
|
::'''Favorable''' : Anderson, Mark (August 2007), "", Wired Magazine, retrieved on 25 May 2008 |
|
|
::'''Favorable''' : Jayaraman, K. S. (January 17, 2008), "" , Nature India, doi:10.1038/nindia.2008.77 |
|
|
|
|
|
4 Government technical reports, including of panel surveys -- note: this might be higher if, for example, there had been some attempt at a comprehensive survey of researchers. |
|
|
::'''skeptical''' : U.S. Department of Energy (2004), , Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, |
|
|
::'''Favorable''' : Szpak, Stanislaw; Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., eds. (2002a), , Technical report 1862, San Diego: Office of Naval Research/Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, |
|
|
|
|
|
5 books published by respected publishing houses |
|
|
::'''Negative''': Taubes, Gary (1993), Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion, New York: Random House, ISBN 0-394-58456-2 |
|
|
::'''Negative''': Close, Frank E. (1992), Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion (2 ed.), London: Penguin, ISBN 0-14-015926-6 |
|
|
::'''Favorable''': Brooks, Michael (2008), 13 things that don't make sense, New York: Doubleday, ISBN 978-0-385-52068-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
6 mainstream newspapers |
|
|
::Too many to cite. See our bibliography. |
|
|
|
|
|
7 academic conference proceedings |
|
|
::'''Favorable''' : Hubler, G. K. (5 August 2007), "" (PDF), 'Surface and Coatings Technology '201' (19-20): 8568–8573; (), :{{doi|10.1016%2Fj.surfcoat.2006.03.062}}, '' from SMMIB 2005, 14th International Conference on Surface Modification of Materials by Ion Beams |
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that all the recent publications have been favorable. Also, the 2004 DOE report is hard to place in this ranking. I welcome contribution to this list, especially from the skeptical side. ] (]) 10:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Of course "all the recent publications have been favorable" (or at least most). The majority of scientists have satisfied themselves that cold fusion does not exist, and so they have no incentive to publish their views. Hence the only people publishing on the subject are the minority who think it does exist, and they inevitably provide positive coverage. (The only exception are historical works analysing the 1989 controversy, but the publications of this type you have listed above are negative.) Misplaced Pages policy (]) says that we should not give undue weight to minority views, and we've established that cold fusion is a minority view (otherwise "most scientists" would not reject it). '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 13:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Our core policies does not mention the logic you propose at all. You have not demonstrated that cold fusion is the minority view in reliable, published sources. Please note the quality of the publishers in the list above. ] (]) 13:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Why aren't you following the same general lines as ]: meta-reviews > papers > media articles. It's not our job to interpret the trends on publications when there are already meta-reviews doing so. --] (]) 21:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Good idea. Does it say that Misplaced Pages article should represent the view of "most physicians" ? That would be scary. ] (]) 08:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::It ''sort of'' says that. Translate "the view of most physicians" to "the view of authoritative mainstream physics publications", and shorten it to "scientific consensus", and you get something similar. I quoth: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::"''] and ] policies demand that we present '''the prevailing ] or ], which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs'''. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Misplaced Pages, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See ].)''" (emphasis added) ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::In short, wikipedia is a bad vehicle for challenging mainstream scientific views, as it's supposed to give a report of the current mainstream view (and then report on only the significant (=notable?) non-mainstream views, but always on the context of mainstream (=if mainstream rejects them, then we say that they are rejected (and we explain why))). |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::(change of topic) Another good thing of WP:MEDRS is that it says that all clinical trials are ''primary'' sources, while reviews are secondary ones. Translated to cold fusion research, it means that all experiments are primary sources, and reviews, like DOE's review are secondary sources. This allow to apply ] directly when inevitabily someone appears with ] (]), without having to argue for a month on "are clinical trials secondary sources?". Also, even if you only work with reviews you can't list every review, you need to pick the best ones, or you can get ]. Also, it leaves clear that media reports tend to cherry-pick clinical trials (primary sources). The list compiled above by IwRnHaA had all of those problems. --] (]) 16:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Here is what ] says : "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted '''reference''' texts". Why don't you do just that to defend the skeptical view ? ] (]) 08:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Are you asking for documentation that the existence of cold fusion is a minority view?! How about determining the top 10 textbooks and review articles on fusion. If they don't mention cold fusion, then we can say based on reliable sources that cold fusion is not considered fusion by the mainstream. --] (]) 09:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::No, he is not "asking for documentation that the existence of cold fusion is a minority view". He is asking you to "substantiate with references to commonly accepted reference texts". Nobody is arguing that the viewpoint that cold fusion phenomena have not been satisfactorily explained is in the majority, so there's no need to consult the top 10 textbooks. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Sorry, but I don't understand your comment any better than Pcarbonn's. Does somebody still have a problem with the article or a suggestion for improvement here, or have we moved on? --] (]) 07:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::As Dr. Shanahan points out above, Dr. Hubler's paper was not peer-reviewed. I've moved it to a new category 7, as it is fairly easy to get un-reviewed conference proceedings published. I've also renamed empty category 4 because that seems to me where the DOE panel surveys go. |
|
|
::Now, what do you think I added with ] in it? ] (]) 13:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Hubler is with Navy, so I moved it to category 4. Concerning OR, it's just a belief. Please check that you did not come up with new synthesis. ] (]) 08:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Being with the Navy does not make a conference paper into a government report. Moved back. --] (]) 10:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Comparison to the ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to hear your view about how the ] compares with ]. Is the pioneer anomaly a possible challenge to the mainstream view ? Is the view that it is a possible challenge a minority view ? How do you determine that ? What can be inferred from the fact that the pioneer anomaly is not discussed in book or reviews about relativity or gravitation ? How does all this differ from cold fusion ? ] (]) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== WP:ANI == |
|
|
|
|
|
For your information, ScienceApologist has again suggested that I be banned from contributing to this article, ]. ] (]) 10:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The cold fusion case has now been escalated ], which accepted it. ] (]) 06:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Case opened at ]. Evidence can be added at ] --] (]) 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Where would I post a comment on the case for the arbitrators to see? ]<sup>]</sup> 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::On ]. Your comment should be based on evidence. ] (]) 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I added a statement. I don't have the time/motivation for the evidence subpage. I just want to make a comment, FWIW. Thanks, though. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Storms on energetic radiation == |
|
|
|
|
|
ScienceApologist has removed well-source statements (see this ), with the following edit summary "some fixes of POV-pandering to cold fusion believers." This is ignoring that cold fusion is an ongoing scientific controversy, as reported by the 2004 DOE (whose conclusion included specific suggestions "to resolve some of the controversies in the field"). Significant views in this controversy deserve a fair representation, according to ]. Any comments ? ] (]) 12:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's definitely undue weight to rely so much on a single source by what seems to be an author with little impact in the field (Google Scholar finds a total of 4 publications, one self-published, two meeting contributions, and the book, and with none cited more than 3 times). --] (]) 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Storms 2007 is one of the most reliable sources on cold fusion, according to Misplaced Pages policy. If you know of any better one, please tell us ]. Thanks. ] (]) 12:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm not (currently) dealing with reliability, but with weight. It's a book by a barely published author and with very few citations. It has had nearly no impact (so far). As such, it might be mentioned, but it should not form the backbone of an argument. --] (]) 14:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The same logic applies for notability: do you know of a more notable source ? Please let us know. ] (]) 08:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That's a surprising comment. First, I'm not talking about notability, either, but about weight. Secondly, why do you think the same logic applies to notability as for reliability? And thirdly, why do you think that "being the least non-notable source" is sufficient to use it for sweeping statements? --] (]) 10:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Interesting read and neutrality == |
|
::::::You use Google Scholar to assess the impact of Ed Storms papers. Yet, Google Scholar lists only a couple of Ed papers, while he has written ]. I don't believe Google Scholar can be used reliably to assess his impact. That World Scientific is publishing a book from him, and that this book has had a favorable review published in J. of Scientific Exploration is evidence enough that he is a recognized authority in the field. ] (]) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::This is RIDICULOUS. Publishing a book that has a favorable review in JSE? That's supposed to take precedence over a Google Scholar search? Transparent promotionalism is what this is. Let's think about the possibilities: one) Google scholar is unfairly characterizing a cold fusion proponents or two) Google scholar is showing how marginalized cold fusion proponents are. I don't think it's that difficult to figure out. ] (]) 05:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I personally don't believe cold fusion would work, I like that this article tries to be neutral on the subject instead of just being predatory like most other controversial articles. Its still not perfect but reading this article made me very angry at the mainstream scientific establishment for their behavior. I'm happy the article didn't accuse the field of being pseudoscience. I want more articles that try to be neutral like this one instead of editors vandalizing articles on here with their own political biases as a coping mechanism for their own personal life issues. Seriously, the fact that the rest of this site isn't as good as this article is proof that most of the top contributors to this site should've been permabanned years ago. And I have the right to say this as someone who's not an editor but has read thousands of articles on here. |
|
:::::::::The question is whether or not Google Scholar is a reliable source for assessing the impact of the person in question. Pcarbonn generalized that into two possibilities: 1) Google Scholar can be used reliably to assess the impact of all scientists. 2) Google Scholar cannot be used reliably to assess the impact of all scientists. Then, by comparing google scholar to authoritative publications, he provided an example where google scholar failed in that respect. That example happened to be of the person in question. So the argument is valid. He is arguing two things: Firstly, he is arguing that 1) (above) is the case. The way to post a valid rebuttle to this argument would be to show that a few out of 50 is a decent sample size for making a reliable assessment of a scientist's impact. Secondly, he is arguing "That World Scientific is publishing a book from him, and that this book has had a favorable review published in J. of Scientific Exploration is evidence enough that he is a recognized authority in the field." The way to construct a valid rebuttle to this argument would be to show this statement is in some way false. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One other point I should bring up: anything groundbreaking related to energy storage or generation would always be an issue of national security. Geopolitical instability, the formation of market bubbles and economic instability, and other side effects would make it logical to keep such technology secret and wait for intermediate technologies to soften the blow. For instance, you don't want the energy cells of science fiction to be dropped on society since every thief around would be sapping power from power lines using drones and wars would eventually start. So keep this in mind when you think about advanced technology. If something like cold fusion could work, it would be revealed after hot fusion became successful and more established. ] (]) 03:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::No wonder that your Google Scholar search returned only 4 references: it was limited to 2007 ! If you , you'll find 63 references, the most popular one being cited 43 times. Is that a better evidence of his impact ? ] (]) 21:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Good catch. I was looking for the new book specifically, and forgot to broaden the search afterwards. Still, 43 citations is not much for a review article on hot topic. Most of his scholarly articles are 30 years old and on different topics. Newer ones are in obvious quack publications like ] and LaRouche crap like ]. This is not something that bolsters reliability, nor impact. --] (]) 22:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::A hot topic ? I thought it was a fringe science ! ] (]) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
:You fell for snake oil and you don't even realize it, shame! ] (]) 14:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::::Sure. But 17 years ago it was a hot topic. Then the approach failed to deliver... --] (]) 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
:]. --] (]) 06:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== I take a leave == |
|
== Topic of Article == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel like this article is less about cold fusion and more about the Pons and Fleischmann Experiment. I know that experiment is essentially the most widely reported event relating to cold fusion, but shouldn't it get its own article that could focus on government involvement and backlash and important history stuff. However, the cold fusion article should probably be more about the science behind how cold fusion could work, maybe bringing up other possible ways to do cold fusions. You could even combine it with the muon-catalyzed fusion which I just realize has its own separate article. You could discuss why all the theoretical methods don't work or report on the state of research, which is mostly just people repeating the fact that the Fleischmann Pons Experiment doesn't work. |
|
There is another proposal to topic-ban me from cold fusion ]. Feel free to comment on it, as it will give me valuable feedback. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the term cold-fusion, which I thought was just any fusion at temperatures significantly lower than how it happens now. The fact that there is a separate article for muon-catalyzed fusion indicates I could be wrong, but that might just be because this article, again, mostly just describes the events, reports, and criticisms of the Fleischmann-Pons Experiment. |
|
Based on the feedback I have received recently, I finally accept that I have developped some <s>bad</s> questionable editing habits. For my comfort, I use the excuse that I had to deal with many editors who wanted to present cold fusion as pseudoscience, despite evidence to the contrary. I apologize for having spent your precious editors' time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would attempt this stuff myself, but it would involve making a new article, combining others, and completely changing this one, that I don't have the Misplaced Pages skills for. I would also need to do a ton of research into other methods of cold-fusion, which are heavily diluted in the sea of Fleischmann-Pons reports. ] (]) 20:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
It is thus a good idea for me to stop editing for some time. If someone can respond to my question about "pioneer anomaly vs cold fusion" ], it would help me understand how cold fusion should be presented on wikipedia, and how I can contribute. I suggest that this be conducted on my talk page. I'll also be happy to send info to editors who ask me about CF, a subject that I believe I know pretty well. |
|
|
|
:Is there any {{tq|science behind how cold fusion could work}}? With ]? If you want speculation, Misplaced Pages is the wrong place. --] (]) 06:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::This article is about "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". That's a self-contained topic, and it's notable. So it's perfectly appropriate for there to be a Misplaced Pages article about "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". And that's what this article is. |
|
I repeat that my only goals are to make a better wikipedia based on the most reliable sources '''on the subject''', and to make a better world for my children. This is something close to my heart. It is of course contrary to maintaining the status quo. Other than that, I deny any conflict of interest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Separately, you can say that the title of this article (i.e., "cold fusion") does not reflect the content (i.e., "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work"). Now, my own opinion is that the current title is fine, but if you have other suggestions you can offer them! You can even propose to re-title this article literally "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work", although I would vote against that one, it's a bit clunky! |
|
] (]) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Separately, you can say that there ought to be a Misplaced Pages article on "approaches to nuclear fusion power that don't involve heating something up very much", I guess including scientifically-valid ideas like ] and ], and also things that don't actually exist like "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". My opinion is that the current setup—where we have separate dedicated articles for those three things, but no overarching one—is the right setup. I think they don't just don't have much to do with each other in any detail. Let people interested in muon-catalyzed fusion read an article about muon-catalyzed fusion, without having to wade through a ton of other stuff thrown in that has nothing to do with muon-catalyzed fusion. There's plenty to say about muon-catalyzed fusion by itself—it's not a short article. And they're all findable as is—the legitimate approaches all have links from ] already. So I don't think merging them makes sense, nor making a new overarching article. See what I mean? --] (]) 21:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
May I humbly suggest that the community takes a look at the (in my opinion) questionable editing behavior of some other editors ? And that, in addition to WP:POV, we stick to the core policy of WP:V and WP:RS ? ] (]) 05:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Rename article to LENR (Low-energy Nuclear Reactions) == |
|
== The ] of cold fusion in the pathological science article is rather unbalanced == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has become the accepted name in the field of research , with ICCF as its conference name. The present article is about the historic Ponds-fleischmann experiment which is now a tiny subset of modern investigations. So a new umbrella article is needed, which over time would be expanded by users to encompass a categorized list of sub areas] (]) 05:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
(n/t) -- ] 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The people who still believe in this can change the in-universe name to "Squirrel manticore foomp" for all we care. Cold fusion is the common name. --] (]) 10:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
While I personally don't believe cold fusion would work, I like that this article tries to be neutral on the subject instead of just being predatory like most other controversial articles. Its still not perfect but reading this article made me very angry at the mainstream scientific establishment for their behavior. I'm happy the article didn't accuse the field of being pseudoscience. I want more articles that try to be neutral like this one instead of editors vandalizing articles on here with their own political biases as a coping mechanism for their own personal life issues. Seriously, the fact that the rest of this site isn't as good as this article is proof that most of the top contributors to this site should've been permabanned years ago. And I have the right to say this as someone who's not an editor but has read thousands of articles on here.
One other point I should bring up: anything groundbreaking related to energy storage or generation would always be an issue of national security. Geopolitical instability, the formation of market bubbles and economic instability, and other side effects would make it logical to keep such technology secret and wait for intermediate technologies to soften the blow. For instance, you don't want the energy cells of science fiction to be dropped on society since every thief around would be sapping power from power lines using drones and wars would eventually start. So keep this in mind when you think about advanced technology. If something like cold fusion could work, it would be revealed after hot fusion became successful and more established. 50.81.18.120 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I feel like this article is less about cold fusion and more about the Pons and Fleischmann Experiment. I know that experiment is essentially the most widely reported event relating to cold fusion, but shouldn't it get its own article that could focus on government involvement and backlash and important history stuff. However, the cold fusion article should probably be more about the science behind how cold fusion could work, maybe bringing up other possible ways to do cold fusions. You could even combine it with the muon-catalyzed fusion which I just realize has its own separate article. You could discuss why all the theoretical methods don't work or report on the state of research, which is mostly just people repeating the fact that the Fleischmann Pons Experiment doesn't work.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the term cold-fusion, which I thought was just any fusion at temperatures significantly lower than how it happens now. The fact that there is a separate article for muon-catalyzed fusion indicates I could be wrong, but that might just be because this article, again, mostly just describes the events, reports, and criticisms of the Fleischmann-Pons Experiment.
I would attempt this stuff myself, but it would involve making a new article, combining others, and completely changing this one, that I don't have the Misplaced Pages skills for. I would also need to do a ton of research into other methods of cold-fusion, which are heavily diluted in the sea of Fleischmann-Pons reports. MrMasterGamer0 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
This has become the accepted name in the field of research , with ICCF as its conference name. The present article is about the historic Ponds-fleischmann experiment which is now a tiny subset of modern investigations. So a new umbrella article is needed, which over time would be expanded by users to encompass a categorized list of sub areasLawrence18uk (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..jpg){kind=small}
