Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 30 November 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cold fusion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48Auto-archiving period: 21 days

	Cold fusion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted January 6, 2006 Featured article review Demoted June 3, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 7, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 19, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted December 26, 2006 ] Not listed May 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed November 23, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Former featured article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

An editor has been banned from editing the Cold fusion article, for a period of one year.
	Pcarbonn has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the Cold fusion article. The user is additionally prohibited from discussing or proposing changes to the article, on this talk page. Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details.
This notice was posted by Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

An editor is banned from editing the Cold fusion article for a period of 1 year.
	Abd has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the Cold fusion article. This ban also extends to participation on this talk page, as well as articles or talk pages about any content related to cold fusion. Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details.
This notice was posted by Hersfold 22:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Energy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Stephen Foley (Tuesday, 3 February 2009). "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?". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Probability of Reaction

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

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

The added material:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I quote what look like the relevant parts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a similar vein, the 1999 references 77 and 108 - 115 are not refereed papers and therefore should be deleted from the article. If these early papers are deleted, all of the section and much of the Wiki article must be rewritten.

Should I begin this process?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote an old proverb: "Be ware the fury of the patient man." What I mean is that if one seeks to reach one's ends quickly and accurately, one must carefully consider the means, for no end is reached means. A hasteful speaker may need to utter few words to speak their mind, but that will certainly not be the last time they speak before their task is complete. A careful and eloquent speaker, on the other hand, may take longer to speak, but need only speak once, and thus will finish first. Tortoise and the hare. Castles made of sand. I'm sure there are many more parables and what not with the same idea. Kevin Baas 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Aqm2241,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have reintroduced my refs and comments to the article. I think that there is sufficient evidence described above to prove that the refs pertain to CF and that these comments are not synthesis .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rules Reminder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stresses

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

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

Branching ratio

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

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

   D + D → 4He*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synthesis, again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency document

A November 13, 2009 report on cold fusion: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone show the Provenance of that document? Hipocrite (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have popped up in a number of places. I'm still looking, but.... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22defense+intelligence+agency%22+%22cold+fusion%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= V (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All of those cite the document to a single, unreliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because you CLAIM a source is unreliable, that doesn't mean it actually is (and vice-versa, of course, but I'm not making that claim). What evidence have you got, to support your claim? The document itself claims to have been prepared by the "Defense Warning Office". It doesn't seem to have an ordinary Web presense, but I did find this: "by visiting the DIA homepage on INTELINK and selecting the Defense Warning Office site", at this link: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=22190 --I would tend to conclude from that reference on a .mil page that the DWO actually exists. This of course does not mean that the DWO actually did (or did not) originate the document; it just means someone with greater authority/access than myself would be needed to verify it. V (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me to mention the "WikiLeaks" site. They post a lot of documents that arrive by less-than-open means. Some of those posted documents may be forgeries --the only way I know that proves a document to be a non-forgery is for the originator to raise a fuss!. Does this mean that if the originators get wise and stop raising a fuss, whenever a new document is posted, the whole "WikiLeaks" site must therefore be declared to be an unreliable source? V (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks is an unreliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course the office exists. The issue is that NET is not a reliable source by WP standards. If this is news, let a reliable source document it. Phil153 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the WikiSource site? They shouldn't have any objection to hosting a copy of the .pdf, which is an unclassified government-released document. V (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiSource would probably accept it as an upload, however, WikiSource is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's stupid; WikiSource is closely associated with Misplaced Pages, and therefore cannot be considered less reliable than Misplaced Pages. Are you going to insist that all the links to other Misplaced Pages articles, from the CF article, must be eliminated on such ridiculous grounds? V (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. See WP:CIRCULAR. Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Circularity does not apply in this case; the origin of the .pdf has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages or WikiSource. What definition of "source" are you using, anyway? Do note that even Misplaced Pages Policies acknowledge that not everything that qualifies an acceptable source is available on the Web (old back issues of magazines, for example, like "Electronics", a tech reference that last I heard went belly-up because of the Web). Not to mention that while government sources as a whole might not be reliable, it is the job of government intelligence sources to be reliable. So, what other stupidly specious and unsupported arguments can you raise, against referencing this article? V (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent)There's no evidence that document is from a government agency. If it is, it's a primary source. Primary sources are not notable unless they are adressed by secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

right, "no evidence" except a document id number, official seal, names of authors, and names of offices coordinated by. All of which faking is highly illegal. Kevin Baas 18:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If Joe Shmoe posts a scientific paper by Richard Feymann that doesn't automagically make said paper bullsh*t. New Energy Times is not the source. They did not write the document. That's what source means. That's why it's called "source". Look at the end of the document for the source(s). You want to verify its authenticity? Send an email to the DIA. Document id DIA-08-911-003. Presumably they authored and published it (made it an official record). THEY are the source. You can contact the authors individually if you like, their names and offices are on the report. Kevin Baas 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You presumed wrong, which is why our WP:RS rules exist, and why we don't pay attention to sites like New Energy Times. It may become official but is not yet. Phil153 (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You say that they did not author or publish it, yet their names are on the document. Thus you are saying that the document is a forgery. That is an extraordinary claim. When you make such claims, you have to provide proportional evidence. You did not provide any evidence. In my post I gave the means to acquire such evidence. Did you check with the offices? The authors? Please provide. If you cannot provide such evidence, then your unsupported claim means nothing to me; then you leave me entirely unconvinced. I hope you understand. I am simply being rational. Kevin Baas 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I suppose you're right about the publishing part. I didn't say "I presume" I said "presumably", though both are true. (true or not, it is a reasonable supposition, which is why i used the word as a qualifier) In any case it is still they that are the original source and the first question is to get some handle on the document's authenticity (or lack thereof), then it's status as a primary source. I don't see any reason why we'd have to use it in any way that requires a secondary source (by WP:RS, but if that comes up, we can deal with that then. Kevin Baas 20:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose that people put off discussing this further unless someone proposes an edit to the article. Olorinish (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing at at time, Olorinish; if we can't have the document as a reference, then we can't edit the CF article to reference it. Hipocrite's argument still doesn't hold water; we have the N.E.T. and all those other places identified by that Google search linked above, as secondary references to this document. All that matters is evidence that the document is genuine. AND Hipocrite has now kindly eliminated himself from objecting to a completely different edit to the article, one that would describe Arata's 2008 pressurization CF experiment, since it was secondary-sourced in a recent high-quality RS article. (discussion of that now archived off this page) V (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why we only use WP:RS as sources for articles. The email also makes it clear this is merely an employee who's been convinced of the likelihood of cold fusion and wants to "get the word out", not the official position (yet) of the DIA. Phil153 (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's now been removed from the New Energy Times site. The link above had a letter from the paper's author at the DIA asking for the report to be taken down. The article had not been approved for public release by her bosses...i.e. it's not yet official. The author said: "I would like to not antagonize anyone in my food chain who could insert negative input into the dissemination process since the info needs to get out". Phil153 (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The document is still there as I write this. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/ The requesting letter is there, also, but it's existence doesn't matter (except in one way), because copyright law does not apply to government (public) documents; there is no such thing as a DMCA takedown notice for govt docs. The way in which the letter does matter is: It is evidence that the document is genuine. You have a point regarding the appearance of the document outside any traditional process of publication. On another hand, the document is not actually a "primary source" of CF data; it is a secondary compilation of CF data, like Storm's book, and the RS standards are not quite so strict for secondary compilations; Misplaced Pages needs such compilations per the "recent items" rule that was invoked when the anti-CFers were arguing about that just-published report concerning a modifed version of Arata's 2008 experiment (hey, why can't I find that rule on the "list of policies" page???). So, let's take a quick look at the references in this document; those are about things that we might be able to mention in this CF article. I see quite a number of them are from standard pro-CF sources like the annual "Conference" they hold, and I won't argue that this document gives them any more weight than they ever had. But what about #7? (Dechiaro, Louis, "Recent Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions", briefing prepared by NAVSEA, Dahlgren, for DDR&E, 28 August 2009) ---the heavy-duty acronyms imply a military facility like SPAWAR, and of course the Defense Intelligence Agency could be expected to have access to such briefings. Then there are some other references to "Thermochimica Acta" and "Naturwissenschaften" articles that we already use in the CF article; it only makes sense for the DIA document to reference them if its purpose is to show increased international interest in CF research. Hey, Phil, even if that document does get released formally by the DIA, it would still be outside the normal publication process, so my question is, "How does Misplaced Pages treat Government releases, per the RS rules?" V (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear and curious about that, too. Perhaps something to be brought up on the WP:RS talk page or wherever the proper venue for that kind of thing is. (I forget.) Kevin Baas 21:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that the document represents an "official position" of any agency. And I don't think WP:RS has anything in it pertaining to speculations about authors (or compilers) feelings and motivations. I certainly hope not. Kevin Baas 17:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. Propose a change to the article or don't. Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Emails and a suggested edit

I emailed Pamela Mosier-Boss, one of the contributors to the report, today, to inquire about the status of the document. In her reply she states that she contacted Bev and that it is an unclassified document.

I haven't seen the email mentioned by some other editors above. Perhaps the email was itself retracted from the New Energy Times website?

I was one who saw the letter, but now also cannot find it. Perhaps the please-retract letter has been retracted! V (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure other changes will be proposed, bur for now I simply suggest that this document be added as a citation in a footnote in the lead at the end of the sentence "...some have reported positive results in peer-reviewed journals", a statement for which this document is a secondary source. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cmon...it hasn't even been reported in RS and we don't yet know if it is an official DIA position, or the work of one employee. Why the enthusiasm to go against WP:NOTNEWS, which says While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information? I really don't understand why anyone would include an as yet uncertain document apart from pushing a POV on cold fusion. I mean that comment in good faith - I don't get it. If a new skeptical report came out I wouldn't push to put it in immediately before it was reported or verified. Phil153 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil, while this document may be new, I don't see that it contains anything that can be called "news". There is a "meta" thing about it, though, which could be called news, but only if the document becomes "Official". In other words, a the moment (time of this writing) we know someone in an obscure corner of the DIA thinks that CF is something that should not be allowed to take the US economy by surprise. If the document becomes "Official", then that would be "news" ---a governmental agency would at that time be recommending to the rest of the government that CF research be taken more seriously. At the moment, though, the document is no more official --and no less! --than Storm's book. Which fact might be useful to some part of the CF article here (I'd like to know what was in that "Dechiaro, Louis, 'Recent Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions' briefing"). V (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides which an editor's private email correspondence is exactly the sort of OR that can't be used to verify the provenance of a source for an article. Get a copy of the paper directly from the DIA or find a copy in a technical library (a real one). --71.174.168.21 (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? Then if I want to find out who wrote, say, an article in the new york times, who do I contact for that information? Kevin Baas 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, what link do you propose placing in the article? Olorinish (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps you should tell that to CBS, NBC, etc. They've been doing it that way for years. Kevin Baas 14:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

When a reader wishes to verify something in the article, how exactly would they know what is in that email?LeadSongDog come howl 15:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ask the same question to CBS, NBC, Wall Street Journal, etc. What do you think they would say? "We asked them if the documents were geniune and/or if the information in it was accurate, and they said "yes"". What more does the reader need to know? "Yes. Oh, and btw, it's a little chilly here over in Florida, and the kids are doing fine." I mean, really, c'mon! Does the reader really need to know everything we discussed regarding the reliability of a particular source? Do we really need to put the whole talk page discussion in the article every time we vet a source? The reader needs to know that we vetted it. They know that by seeing it in the biblio. And you know what, sometimes it's wrong. Sometimes sources in the biblio aren't vetted. But you know how we fix that? By vetting them or removing them. Not by giving the reader every detail about the author's day or exactly how he chose to phrase the word "yes" one particular evening. If they want to know what the WSJ thinking when they published a particular article that we use as a source on one of wp's articles, well, they can ask them - WP is not the place for that kind of info. Kevin Baas 16:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"We"? "C'mon" indeed. Are you suggesting that:

1. we should rely on an email, seen by just one pseudonymous editor, to confirm that Dr Boss said that Bev said that the "DIA" document is unclassified (like my grocery list);
2. we take that hearsay to imply that the "DIA" document is not just unclassified but published, authentic, unaltered, credible, and correct (oh, I'd better add magic beans to the grocery list); or
3. we take the further step to infer that the document is significant (better take the family's cow to market to pay for those magic beans, wouldn't want to miss out on those great beans).

Really, even if we could trust it, it doesn't say anything new. Fusion involves much more energy than chemical process - we know that. Some researchers say they think CF is for real - we know that. DOD should keep an eye on the contingency that they might be right - haven't they've been funding Boss' work for years? What's new? LeadSongDog come howl 20:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, you ought to know that the government is big enough for sections of it to be doing things unknown to most of its other sections. It's probably because the SPAWAR team was outside the control of DOE funding that they managed to do their research. So, the news here would be, if formally released, that the US govt should ramp up research in this field --a direct hint to the Department Of Energy --and who cares if the hot-fusion people get in a snit about it! V (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

yikes! I seemed to suggest all that?! wow. definitely not my intention. To answer you question: none of the above. I am not suggesting anything. I am stating - or have stated, rather - what I stated. Please don't read so much out of what I write -- if i don't say it i don't mean to. Kevin Baas 16:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And you asked me "...would they know what is in that email?", and I responded to that. Now you respond to that as if I was trying to answer a different question altogether. Please read what I wrote as a response to that question and that question alone. That's the way it was meant and it will make more sense that way. Kevin Baas 18:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I take that as a "no" to my questions 1, 2, and 3? LeadSongDog come howl 20:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. Though though you did get a little bit right.

1. "...to confirm that Dr Boss said that Bev said that the "DIA" document is unclassified (like my grocery list);" -- I didn't realize we were "confirming" anything, nonehteless the lack of being classified, which it says right on the document. Which means that if it is classified, then the document is a fake, in which case it's status as classified or not isn't even applicable. Hence, authenticity takes precedence. Kevin Baas 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
2. "we take that hearsay to imply that the "DIA" document is not just unclassified but published, authentic, unaltered, credible, and correct (oh, I'd better add magic beans to the grocery list);" -- authentic is the only thing implied. I don't know where the others came from. but ya, that's kind of my point: That's how one confirms authenticity, generally speaking: they ask the source if they wrote it. "authentic" means that the presumed source actually did write it, and who would know the answer to that better than the presumed source? So then how do you find out other than asking them? (I suppose if it was a physical document, you could take fingerprints and DNA samples. But in the information age that's kind of out of the question. Not that anyone ever went to those lengths, anyways; that's undue burden.) Kevin Baas 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
3. "we take the further step to infer that the document is significant (better take the family's cow to market to pay for those magic beans, wouldn't want to miss out on those great beans)." -- nothing at all of what i said there speaks of future courses of action and empirical observations are by their very nature mute on that topic. Regarding magic beans - I have no idea where you were going with that, or how it relates. Kevin Baas 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So in sum, you were right that there is a certain implied authenticity in a member of the DIA explicitly speaking of a document which purports to be a DIA document as matter-of-factly a "DIA" document. But that much should be obvious. Everything else, however, was pure speculation - at best.

In any case, it seems (below) like someone else has contacted the source to verify the document's authenticity. If you would like to add your name to the list, go ahead. But let us be wary lest we pester those who have done us no harm. Kevin Baas 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pentagon Report Warns of 'Technological Surprise' http://www.sphere.com/2009/11/17/cold-fusion-bomb-next-weapon-of-mass-destruction/ StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent an email to the department, to the public affairs email address (DIA-PAO_at_dia.mil), and they told me that this is a DIA document. I quote their reply:

from	DIA-PAO <DIA-PAO_at_dia.mil>
to	enric naval <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx>
date	Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:39 PM
subject	RE: request about report
hide details 9:39 PM (12 hours ago)
Sir:
This is a DIA document.  Thank you.
DIA Public Affairs
- Hide quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: enric naval 
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:45 PM
To: DIA-PAO
Subject: request about report
Please could you confirm if unclassified report #DIA-08-0911-003 exists, and
if it's called "Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear
Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance"
Additionally, could you confirm if it's the same document as the one in this
internet address:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf
I'm sending this email because this document is discussed in[REDACTED] as a
possible source for one of its articles, and we don't know if it's a real DIA
document, or if someone has faked it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Cold_fusion#U.S._Defense_Intelligence_Agency_document

I sent it a few days ago when I saw Kevin's comment that we should mail directly to the agency. I didn't ask if this was classified or not, or if it had been released publically, since these topics had not still been mentioned here. As far as I know, this is a legit DIA document that has been leaked out of the agency before it reached the publication phase, and the author/s was/were still trying to navigate the bureaucracy and the pre-publication controls. I saw the please-retract-the-document letter before it disappeared from the NET site, which had a comment about "someone has emailed a link to the document to my boss", and I'm sorry for the problems that I unadvertingly caused to the author. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A Proposal

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

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

Another Proposal

In the "Further Developments" section of the main article is this: "The interest in cold fusion in India had been rekindled earlier that year by a demonstration in Bangalore by Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata." What I propose is that at the end of the "Experimental Details" section we add a couple of sentences.

First, we should add something to this existing paragraph: "The most basic setup of a cold fusion cell consists of two electrodes submerged in a solution of palladium and heavy water. The electrodes are then connected to a power source to transmit electricity from one electrode to the other through the solution." We should note that it can take weeks for anomalous heat to begin to appear, and this is known as the loading time, for the palladium to become saturated with deuterium released via electrolysis.

Second, we could mention the SPAWAR co-deposition technique for reducing the loading time; palladium is electroplated out of solution at the same time deuterium gas is being released, allowing the gas to merge with the metal without having to permeate the metal's volume.

Then we add something like this: "Yoshiaki Arata greatly reduced the loading time by demonstrating a new class of CF experiments involving direct pressurization of powdered palladium with deuterium gas, and others have tried this approach also." --and we use this as the reference for it: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 (This is an RS document which verifies that others have tried Arata's approach, and anyone who accesses that journal article should be able to find a reference to Arata's experiments; so far as I know there are no direct RS-good-enough-for-Misplaced Pages references for Arata's work, although another reference regarding this approach appears to be http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.surfcoat.2006.03.062 --#77 on the long list.) It appears that Arata had been doing it for a while, but didn't get widely noticed until 2008. V (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point I've only pulled up the abstract, but it seems clear that Arata is talking about excess energies of 2.4 vs 1.8 eV/atom for D2 vice H2 loading. This difference is plain electrochemistry. If it was any kind of fusion, we'd be looking for MeV, not eV. It is perhaps of interest to people making expensive batteries and fuel cells, e.g. for satellite applications. LeadSongDog come howl 17:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm...how is he calculating that? (Better question; how can it be "electrochemistry" when there is no electricity going through the palladium powder in a direct-pressurization experiment?) Could perhaps he be figuring total number of deuterium atoms pressurized into the metal compared to total anomalous-energy? The obvious simple interpretation of that would be, IF fusion is happening, that only a fraction of all the deuteriums were actually involved in releasing the energy detected. Also, what is the time-frame for deciding what "total" of anomalous energy has been released? If it can happen for weeks or months, then the total would grow.... V (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the word "fusion" even appear in the paper? It's not in the abstract. Electrochemistry involves processes that happen one electron at a time, including the simple ionization and recombination of H2. See doi:10.1021/j100155a010 for example.LeadSongDog come howl 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts to confuse the issue will get you nowhere. There is no water involved in the gas pressurization experiments. And the abstract does have this as its last sentence: "The sample charged with D2 also showed significantly positive output energy in the second phase after the deuteride formation." (my emphasis). Do remember that the title of the article mentions "anomalous effects", and that last abstract-sentence is precisely about an anomalous effect (energy production). That word "after" that I emphasized means that the chemistry is done. So, if not fusion (and of course the authors could not use that word; the article wouldn't have been published in that RS journal with that word in it, and you know it!), what other sources of energy would you care to propose, to explain energy that appears when deuterium is pressured into palladium powder, and not when ordinary hydrogen is used? 17:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This article should probably not be discussed in an article on cold fusion since the authors do not appear to be claiming that fusion is taking place. In other words, the word "after" does not clearly indicate that chemical reactions are done. In any event, Arata is not an author, so this article does not do much to document the Arata work. Olorinish (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Olorinish, your own feeble attempts to confuse the issue will also get you nowhere. I said nothing about Arata being an author of this article; I said Arata's work is REFERENCED by that article. Why do you suppose the authors of this article did that? Simply because Arata was first to find anomalous energy in that sort of experiment! This article's reference is the RS that Arata actually did earlier experiments along these lines. I don't care in the slightest that this article doesn't talk about fusion; Arata talked about it plenty, even if all such talk has been restricted to sources that Misplaced Pages calls "non-RS". How about we allow one of those references to Arata's work, if you don't like this one? (No? Fine; this one is still RS enough!) V (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not "attempting" to confuse the issue. In fact, I think it was impolite of Objectivist to suggest I was acting in bad faith. In any event, I don't see how my comments made anything more confusing. Authors hinting that they have produced fusion (by mentioning Arata's work) is far different from authors asserting that they have produced fusion. Since we are building an encyclopedia, we should be very careful about representing sources accurately. If a document link is inserted in a way that supports claims of cold fusion, whether the article "doesn't talk about fusion" is a big deal, at least in my view. Olorinish (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New Peer-Reviewed Journal Paper Published

"A New Look at Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research," Journal of Environmental Monitoring, (Accepted for publication: 26 August) Vol. 11, p. 1731-1746, 2009, DOI:10.1039/B915458M

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EM/article.asp?doi=B915458M

StevenBKrivit (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Environmental Monitoring? For a controversial physics/chemistry topic? Our WP:RS guidelines say: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I'm sure the good folks at the Journal of Environmental monitoring are authoritative in environmental monitoring...fringe nuclear physics/chemistry might be a of a stretch though. :) Phil153 (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil, the environmentalists are interested in alternate non-polluting energy sources. Why shouldn't they be interested in finding out if CF has any validity? V (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in many things. That doesn't necessarily make me a reliable source on all of them. No doubt there exist a few people who are qualified to publish on both environmental and hypothetical non-polluting energy sources. But being A and interested in B doesn't make you B.LeadSongDog come howl 20:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We went through that idiotic argument over Naturwissenschaften. A journal that is RS for its normal subject matter does not suddenly become non-RS just because it publishes something a little off the beaten path. Peer-reviewed is peer-reviewed, period. Also, to the extent the particular article at issue in this journal is a review of the field more than it is an in-depth description of a single experiment, that is the extent to which we can treat the article the same as if it had appeared in, for example, Scientific American. V (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll not respond to that insult. If you think that nuclear physics is just "a little" off of the Journal of Environmental Monitoring's "beaten path", you are of course welcome to raise the suggestion at WP:RS/N. LeadSongDog come howl 05:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, you are insulting, too; environmentalists have been aware of at least some things about nuclear physics for decades; they made their objections quite well known after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl events. SOME of them are most certainly aware of hot-fusion research, if for no other reason that that research has been ongoing for the last 60 years or so, and promises to be more environmentally benign than fission. How dare you imply that there are no environmentally responsible nuclear physicists out there, who might publish an article such as the one under discussion here! Not to mention, who says the CF effect must be related to nuclear physics? Only those who observe more energy than they can explain by other means. Like the few who had their electrolysis experiments boil; not even Kirk Shanahan's CCS hypothesis can explain that away. Or the guys who published this, that we've discussed before: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 Now, I don't know what published-references-of-observations were chosen for the "Environmental Monitoring" article because I haven't seen the article yet, but to the extent it matches references accepted as RS in the main CF article here (as do some of the references in that DIA analysis discussed elsewhere on this page), you cannot use that as a basis to object to the publication of that article, no matter where it got published! V (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone has a proposed edit to the article I suggest we stop responding to users who are not interested in editing the article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. I'll take it.LeadSongDog come howl 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

New Energy Times article

Unless there is a way to prevent prejudiced fools (almost by definition prejudice is foolish) from deleting edits as fast as they are made, why bother? I see there is no Misplaced Pages article about the magazine called "New Energy Times", but there is an article about the "National Enquirer". Regardless of whether or not either or neither qualifies as a Reliable Source for information for other Misplaced Pages articles, it is a simple fact that both publications exist, and Misplaced Pages has no policy restricting the existence of articles about things that are known to exist. I find it difficult to believe that nobody has ever tried to create a Misplaced Pages article about the New Energy Times, which has been publishing issues for more than five years, so why doesn't the article exist? Are the anti-CF prejudiced fools even more fanatic than Kirk Shanahan claims are the pro-CF prejudiced fools? V (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There was an article on NET, PRODed in September per this. See WP:Deletion review if you think the deleting admin was in error. LeadSongDog come howl 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the so-called "rationale" given for the request for deletion. What does "establishing notability" have to do with the fact that something exists? What of the distinction between "notable" and "notorious" --I'm sure there are quite a few WP articles about things or people that are far more notorious (anti-notable!) than notable...the National Enquirer comes to mind as a specific example. Off-hand I'd say the NET qualifies as both, depending on the perspective: Notable because dares to publish things contrary to Orthodox Nuclear Science; notorious to anyone wedded to that particular orthodoxy. Was it deleted because the two cancel out, leaving a notability-level of zero? Stupid rationale, that would indeed have been! V (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see there currently exists an article about another pro-CF source, Infinite Energy (magazine), which includes a warning that it might be subject to deletion for "notability" reasons. Hmmm...do I sense a potential conspiracy-of-silence? Obviously if no Official RS Journal ever mentions the existence of this magazine (or NET), then the pretense that it doesn't exist can, per the "notability" rules, be converted into a rationale to prevent Misplaced Pages articles from existing. On the other hand, deliberate snubbing any sort can only occur after something has been noticed (achived a kind of notability)! Censors never win in the end, so why do they bother? (short-sighted selfish personal gain, usually....) V (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

New Energy Times has plenty of reliable citations establishing its notability. See their press room. 91.180.173.49 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, in the earlier page section here, regarding the DIA CF analysis, I mentioned the magazine "Electronics", which also seems not to have a Misplaced Pages article about it. I sort-of dare anyone to read this http://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Articles-Press_Releases/Gordon_Moore_1965_Article.pdf and claim that now-defunct magazine was not notable. V (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for Electronics (magazine)? LeadSongDog come howl 02:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, somehow I missed it in my looking. V (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If the article was deleted by PROD, there's no need for deletion review; if someone disagrees with the deletion they can ask any administrator to restore the page. See proposed deletion for details. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Quoting Phil:

Journal of Environmental Monitoring? For a controversial physics/chemistry topic? Our WP:RS guidelines say: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I'm sure the good folks at the Journal of Environmental monitoring are authoritative in environmental monitoring...fringe nuclear physics/chemistry might be a of a stretch though.

Note that reliable sources thus far deemed acceptable for the "cold fusion" article include:

The Guardian

Wired Magazine

New Scientist

Houston Chronicle

Philosophy of Science: Alexander Bird

CBS Evening News

New York Times

13 things that don't make sense,Brooks, Michael

GroundReport

Scientific American

Physics Today

Discover Magazine

IEEE Spectrum

Boston Herald

Chemistry World

StevenBKrivit (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd like to see some statistics regarding those sources, the extent to which each is used as a "pro" source and/or as a "con" source. Because I do wonder...if that article in "Environmental Monitoring" had been con-CF, how many anti-CF people would be objecting to it on RS grounds? V (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would. I objected to the use of some of Shanahan's work, which is as con as you get. A Journal of Environmental Monitoring is not capable of vetting controversial claims in nuclear physics or chemistry. This happens often in fringe fields and has been discussed before on the RS noticeboard: respectable on topic journals will not publish, so authors journal shop the thousands of off topic journals to find someone that will print it. Phil153 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two sides to that coin. We know full well that ONE reason many CF articles are not published in high-level RS journals is because of editorial prejudice --the editors have pre-judged CF to be garbage, and therefore won't publish even high-quality research (and yes, I'm aware that the field has its share of low-quality research). So, where should the researcher who actually did high-quality work get that work published?

Then there is a different coin altogether, as pointed out below: generic descriptions of experiments and experimenters don't need quite as high level of peer-review as specific descriptions of experiments and experimental techniques. Are you claiming that the article in "Environmental Monitoring" requires high-level peer-review? If so, why? V (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What is and isn't reliable depends on the context and what it's used for. It's not a binary thing. The New York Times is reliable for reporting on the attitudes of the scientific community toward cold fusion. The Houston Chronicle is reliable for reporting on the buzz prior to the DOE report.

It's not a difficult concept. A Journal of Environment Monitoring is not a reliable source for vetting claims related to fringe nuclear science/chemistry, especially when journals such as Nature, one of the highest impact journals in the world, won't even publish them (the same as they won't publish perpetual motion theories). The same would happen if disputed claims about fossil hominids being published in the Journal of Environment Monitoring - our paleontology article would pay it little mind. There is no conspiracy or double standard, although fringe promoters of all types believe there is (i.e. MSG,homeopathy, etc). WP:RS is worth reading, if you care. Also, please read WP:COI. You've brought your writings to our attention (it seems as if one of the authors of the article isn't even a scientist...), which is fine, but continually arguing for the inclusion of your own work is not good form. Phil153 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If the New York Times can be used to show the attitudes of scientists, then so can the Journal of Environmental Monitoring. While we may not necessarily use the article to establish facts about physics, it can nevertheless show, for example, notability of the various theories etc. (as theories and speculation). For example, it's interesting that certain secondary sources mention transmutation but not biological transmutation. This sort of thing can guide us as to what is worth mentioning in the article. It's not about "vetting claims" as if this were an article about a well-established topic in science, or as if it were up to us to determine whether claims were true or not: it's "verifiability, not truth". For example, we can verify that the article mentioned certain theories: that contributes to the notability of the theories. If we required that things be established as accepted physical facts before mentioning them at all, we would have no article on Flat Earth, no article on Cold fusion, and no article on any religious topic. That's not how Misplaced Pages works.

Steven Krivit, the lead author of the peer-reviewed review article, has been referred to as a "leading authority" on the topic in an article released by the American Chemical Society. ("'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source", Salt Lake City, 2009-March-23, Contact: Michael Bernstein, American Chemcial Society )

I may have missed something, but it seems to me that in recent years we now have three peer-reviewed review articles on the topic, all three taking a decidedly nuclear POV. (By nuclear POV I mean the point of view that there's good evidence that there's something not merely chemical happening in these experiments; as opposed to the non-nuclear POV, that there is no convincing evidence of such.) Other major categories of sources are books, government reports, and media; in each of these three categories both the nuclear and non-nuclear POVs are expressed: for example, in the 2004 DOE report, the reviewers were divided as to whether there was convincing evidence. It has become more difficult, though perhaps still tenable, to argue that the non-nuclear POV is to be presented by Misplaced Pages as the majority POV, but I think it's not currently tenable to argue that the nuclear POV is a "tiny-minority" POV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Czerski 2008, greatly enhanced reaction rate is attributed to electron screening

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Articles on probation
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of High-importance
• B-Class energy articles
• Mid-importance energy articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press