Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:51, 15 April 2006

Template:FormerFA Template:Mainpage date Template:Todo priority

see Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 1

see Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 2

see Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 3

see Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 4

New version of this article by E. Storms is available

Happy New Year everyone.

At the top of this article there is a notice: "This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject."

I think this is true. Fortunately, I was able to persuade Edmund Storms (Los Alamos, ret.) to write a revised version of this article. Storms is widely regarded as one of the world's leading experts in this field, and he has written a number of reviews including two peer-reviewed journal articles. Storms prepared a draft incorporating most of the statements and issues raised in the current article, except for the early history. It is shorter than the present article (4,300 words versus 7,800) and it is written in the style of a formal scientific paper or encyclopedia entry, much like the Misplaced Pages article on plasma fusion.

The draft is written in Microsoft Word, and the footnotes are in EndNote format. Before I upload it, I will have to convert these formats to the Misplaced Pages format. (Is this basically HTML?) This will take some time. I also have to insert some last-minute changes from the main article that people made after Storms began editing.

The skeptics may or may not be happy with this draft. I would not want to do all this work only to have them undo it. So before I upload, let me post it here. I am not sure how to proceed and I would appreciate advice, especially from the skeptics. I would also appreciate advice on how to deal with the footnotes. If the article is changed in the future we will have to manually renumber them. Is there some way to make them automatically numbered? Some of them can be hyperlinked to online papers, but most of these references are not on line.

If the skeptics object to this version, I suggest we split the article down the middle. The skeptics can write the first 3,200 words, then we insert Storms' 3,200 words, and then 1,100 in common, starting with "Cold fusion in fiction." I realize this is not how Misplaced Pages articles are formatted, but I see no reason why they all have to be formatted the same way. What harm would there be in making an exception for this subject?

In the first section, the skeptics would be welcome to delete all references to the literature, all of the rebuttals to their claims, quotes from Schwinger and so on, and they can say that the "vast majority of scientists" think that cold fusion is pseudoscience. They can even quote Robert Park, who says it is fraud.

Anyway, the unformatted draft is here.

--JedRothwell 16:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Jed - first let me say this is very cool, I'd love to get this contribution in. It needs minimal formatting (headers etc), wikification, and a merge with some parts of the current text (especially web links). I think a few areas could be expanded a bit, and it needs some copyediting, but we can do that later. Do you happen to know which exact version of this page it was based on? (so we can merge later changes?) Some docs on Misplaced Pages formatting (which is not at all like HTML) are at Misplaced Pages:How_to_edit_a_page#Wiki_markup, and for formatting footnotes WP:CITET and Template:Ref/examples. I will be quite happy to handle those parts, if you don't mind. ObsidianOrder 10:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. regarding the "split it down the middle" idea, I don't think that's necessary (or usual practice). If there's anything notable that is missing, people can simply add it. I don't see this as an "us vs them", "supporters vs skeptics" kind of thing, and I sincerely hope other people don't either. We are all simply trying to make this a better article, and I think most editors will agree the Storms draft is hands down better than the current version. ObsidianOrder 11:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be unusual to split the article. Perhaps unprecedented. But I see no harm in doing it. If I were a skeptic, and I believed that the vast majority of scientists think that cold fusion is pathological science, and that cold fusion has never been replicated, I would not be satisfied by Storms' draft. I would want my views represented. It is difficult to integrate both views in the same stream of text, so why not separate them? Also, the skeptics may wish to preserve statements about the early history of cold fusion. Storms felt these were irrelevant. Perhaps they should be moved to a new encyclopedia article, "History of Cold Fusion"?

I sincerely wish to avoid squelching the skeptical point of view, or riling the skeptics, so I favor letting them have their say, but I cannot see how their views can be added to the Storms draft and still have the document make any sense. It would sound schizophrenic. I would like see Noren or some other skeptic here take the present article and delete everything he disagrees with. We can place that version first. I, for one, would promise not to touch it. --JedRothwell 16:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see a first try at a formatted version at User:ObsidianOrder/Cold_fusion. Comments? I'm trying to decide whether it would be better to use Harvard style references in the text eg. (Bockris 1990) instead of . ObsidianOrder 11:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That looks great, except that the footnotes are out of synch. There was a problem with the EndNote records and I think one of the DoE footnotes is missing. It is supposed to list the DoE summary + the DoE review panel members comments.

Ed has sent me some minor changes and patches. This version is based on a copy of the existing article made Dec. 30, 2005, so it is mostly up to date.

I can change the footnote formats to Harvard style by changing a parameter in EndNote. Either way is fine with me. After this is uploaded I will insert the hyperlinks to the footnoted documents that are available on line, such as the DoE document (at the DoE website). I have a master list of these.

--JedRothwell 16:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jed - you probably don't need to re-export from EndNote, I think just change {{ref|Bockris1990}} to {{ref_harvard|Bockris1990|Bockris 1990|}} should work. I can run a script to do that en-masse. I changed the first footnote on User:ObsidianOrder/Cold_fusion to that style as a test, see if it works for you. ObsidianOrder 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is better than the current state of the article and does represent a great starting point to move forward. There are some problems, but overall I believe they're all reasonably easily fixable. Some are simple style problems such as the first paragraph of a Misplaced Pages article shouldn't give a historically derived explanation for a term, but an overview or definition of what it is currently considered to be. That's not an insurmountable problem. Overall it too many times states opinions of the writer as facts, even those that are later discussed to be disputed. An egregious example is "Most disagreement over the validity of the results, that continue to the present day, ignores the fact that all of the demands by skeptics have been met." Obviously they are not met to the satisfaction of many very prominent scientists or there wouldn't be a controversy. Instead of being stated as a fact, the debate must be characterized. That could more neutrally be written as "Cold fusion researchers believe that all the demands...". There are similar examples, but I believe they are all fixable. Another problem that is carried over from the previous article is it is not made clear what we are talking about with cold fusion. Are we only accepting processes that involve excess heat or is muon catalyzed that doesn't involve excess heat counted? It still suffers from the obvious problem of being written from the perspective of a cold fusion proponent, but it's closer. Again this is an improvement and a better starting point. I suggest improving it in a temp page such as cold fusion/temp until there is a consensus that the version is better than what is in the current article. - Taxman 18:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman writes:

"Another problem that is carried over from the previous article is it is not made clear what we are talking about with cold fusion. Are we only accepting processes that involve excess heat or is muon catalyzed . . ."

In the interests of clarity, I think this article should be devoted to metal-deuteride cold fusion. Other Misplaced Pages articles (or "stubs") can be established to cover muon catalyzed fusion, sono-fusion and so on. Naturally these articles should include links to one-another.

"Overall it too many times states opinions of the writer as facts, even those that are later discussed to be disputed."

I figured you would feel that way. You can amend or delete these sections to make minor adjustments, but if you wish to make major changes, I urge you add a section to the beginning instead. (Call it a sort of "mini-split"). I have in mind something along these lines:

Skeptical Assertions

Many skeptics do not believe that cold fusion exists. They make the following assertions:

The vast majority of scientists believe it does not exist.

The effect has never been replicated.

While the output power is higher than the input power during the power burst, the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalances. . . . A "power store" discovery would yield only a new, and very expensive, kind of storage battery, not a source of abundant cheap fusion power.

etc., etc. Make it as long as you feel necessary to express the views not covered by Storms, plus the views that you feel are his opinions. (You can be sure, however, that all cold researchers agree with him. He only included consensus views.) I am not recommending this in order to "segregate" views or invent a new Misplaced Pages standard, but only because the article is very difficult to follow when polar opposite views are mixed together in the same paragraph.

If Taxman agrees this is a good start, I think we should move it into the main article soon, so that we do not accidentally erase or overwrite recent changes.

--JedRothwell 19:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman - I agree with your comments, I think there are quite a few places that could use editing precisely as you describe. I would like to see if I can come up with something which is both substantial and fair, but as you say I think we should start trying to get there from the Storms draft which is quite good in some respects. ObsidianOrder 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The draft has serious problems with POV. I really wish there were someone competent and willing to evenhandedly revise it. The sentence

Most disagreement over the validity of the results, that continue to the present day, ignores the fact that all of the demands by skeptics have been met.

is, as noted above, about as POV as you can get. If you look at the references, the work of Pons and Fleischmann occurred in 1989. If you look at the references, after 1991 the only peer reviewed papers referenced are and , published in 1993 and 1994 in the Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry, and , published in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, in 2002. Where are publications in top flight journals, like the Physical Review, Nuclear Physics, Nature or Science? Or any of the fusion journals? Peer review is the scientific gold standard and it is outside the competence of Misplaced Pages to judge the status of cold fusion research outside of the publication record. Storms writes:

The issue has left the realm of trivial skepticism and has now entered the process described by the historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn in his seminal work on scientific revolutions. The stakes are now too high for trivial skepticism to operate. All of the world needs the energy and the country that finds the secret first will dominate for a long time.

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Any historian, Kuhn amongst them, would agree that you cannot identify the stages in a historical event as they are happening. –Joke 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Joke writes:

Most disagreement over the validity of the results, that continue to the present day, ignores the fact that all of the demands by skeptics have been met. is, as noted above, about as POV as you can get.

It is the point of view of the researchers. If you assert that the demands of the skeptics have not been met, that would be the point of view of a skeptic. Your view is also "as POV as you can get" because you are saying all the experiments are ignored, and they should be ignored (presumably because they are all wrong). You are saying, for example, the autoradiograph from BARC and hundreds of others like it prove nothing because they are mistakes.

There is simply no reconciling these two views. The only thing we can do is clearly spell out both.

If you look at the references, after 1991 the only peer reviewed papers referenced are and , published in 1993 and 1994 in the Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry, and , published in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, in 2002.

Those are only examples. There are hundreds of others. See the indexes at LENR-CANR.org.

Or any of the fusion journals?

See: Li, X.Z., et al., A Chinese View on Summary of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. J. Fusion Energy, 2004. 23(3): p. 217-221.

This paper confirms that cold fusion produces tritium, and it calls for additional funding for cold fusion research. I gather J. Fusion Energy is a major fusion journal, because it is edited by the plasma fusion lobbying group in Washington, DC, Fusion Power Associates . They send experts to testify before Congress every year so I assume they represent the consensus views of plasma fusion researchers. I am delighted to see they now endorse cold fusion.

--JedRothwell 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

An article is not meant to be written from the point of view of proponents or skeptics. It is meant to be written from a neutral point of view, so that it represents the point of view of the majority and any significant minority points of view. Anyways, I tool a look at lenr-canr.org, and found that some papers were published in Phys. Lett. A in the 90's, one in Phys. Rev. C, one in J. Fusion Energy since 1990, one in JETP since 1993, three in Europhys. Lett., nothing in J. Appl. Phys. or Appl. Phys. Lett. or Rev. Sci. Inst. or Nucl. Phys. or Nucl. Fusion or Rev. Mod. Phys. nothing in Nature since 1990, nothing in Phys. Plasmas, Physics of Plasma (not that that's surprising) etc... In short, the recent publication record in prestigious, mainstream journals that physicists and (hot) fusion researchers publish in amounts to almost nothing. That is clear evidence to me that the majority scientific view is one of doubt and that this should clearly be presented as the majority point of view in the article. Storms' draft is cheerleading. –Joke 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Joke writes:

It is meant to be written from a neutral point of view, so that it represents the point of view of the majority and any significant minority points of view.

Well, as I pointed about previously, there has been no poll so we do not know what the majority view might be. The DoE review panel was split evenly, 7 No, 5 Yes, 7 maybe. However, if you are convinced this is the majority view, you should write a section or sections explaining this point of view. Put it in the front, as I said. You can make it as long as Storms, or longer.

This is your POV, and there is not a single cold fusion researcher who would agree with you. Just because you do not agree with them, that does not make your POV magically neutral. You have a bias just as strong as Storms and I do. Storms and I believe that hundreds of replicated, high sigma autoradiographs, calorimeters and mass spectrometer results are correct, and you think they are all mistakes. That is really all there is to it. Both are points of view and both should be represented.

NOTE: The article has been reverted to the previous, mainly skeptical point of view, so all you have to do is delete a few sentences that support cold fusion, delete all references to the experimental literature, and your version will be ready. Then we will slip in the Storms version and write a few paragraphs tying them together, as it were. Why is this such a problem? I will do it if you feel it is too much work, but I think a skeptic who agrees with the present, reverted, version can do a better job eliminating all traces of "pathological science." It is sometimes difficult for me to judge what it is that bothers the skeptics so much, and what exactly their point of view is. They seem to be on a campaign to eliminate the conservation of energy.

--JedRothwell 21:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your characterization of the DoE responses is unusual to say the least. Calling people that find some aspects to be convincing, but do not believe there is valid evidence for fusion to be yeses is outright bias. It does appear the DoE summary was a bit more negative than I would characterize the responses, but the DoE's summary is closer than your even split. Given that the DoE review did consider the most important and what proponents considered the best evidence for cold fusion, and found it wanting, that establishes where the NPOV policy has to emphasize and not. - Taxman 22:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman wrote:

Your characterization of the DoE responses is unusual to say the least.

Not that unusual. Most of the reviewers themselves agreed with me. That is why they leaked their reviews, and why the DoE tried to cover them up. Anyway, you are welcome to read through the reviews, make your own tally, and come to your own conclusions.

Given that the DoE review did consider the most important and what proponents considered the best evidence for cold fusion, and found it wanting. . .

The review found it wanting; the reviewers themselves were split 7 No, 5 Yes, 7 undecided. That's my tally, but the fellow who wrote the DoE summary tallied it differently. You can decide for yourself who is right. --JedRothwell 22:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert to FA version

Over at Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Cold fusion there seems a fair number of people (including me) who want to revert this to its featured state. So I have. If you think thats a good idea, you know what to do when the inevitable happens... William M. Connolley 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

That looks fine. Now let us delete any remaining statements from this version that lend support to cold fusion, and then insert the Storms draft after this. That will clearly delineate the two points of view. This version is particularly good because it contains no references to the experimental literature, journal articles or books. It is based entirely on opinions and rumors. --JedRothwell 21:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Wiki isn't here to give equal space, nor is it acceptable to attempt balance by merely juxtaposing opposing views. Wiki is here (in the science articles) to represent, first and foremost, the current scientific opinion. Which (as Joke points out) is clear from the state of the literature. The Storms draft is unacceptable. William M. Connolley 21:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

William - wow, that was an incredibly counterproductive thing to do. You're simply tossing out a lot of good material, for example two whole pages of references. I can understand if you don't like the writing in the body of the article, the latest version is messy and I don't like it either. But I really don't understand why you want to delete stuff which is sourced (or heck, which is sources). What is your objection? Yes, I read your comment on the vote page (so, am I one of the "loonies" according to you?). It still doesn't explain why you want to do this. If there is a specific problem, point it out or fix it. ObsidianOrder 22:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Like it or lump it, the FARC discussion does represent a clear consensus and needs to be followed until another one is established. - Taxman 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think there's a clear consensus for a "revert to FA version"? Based on the current voting I think the FA removal will probably win, but I don't see the consensus for a revert. Let me do a quick count. ObsidianOrder 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as of right now the voting is 18 remove, 11 keep (not counting revert-and-keep votes), and 8 revert (including revert-and-keep). Consensus for a revert? Hardly, I'd say that's a consensus for don't-revert ;) There is also (barely) a consensus for a FA removal. (the last vote I counted was the Pjacobi vote btw). ObsidianOrder 22:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is many of the "votes" there are not in good faith and a simple count won't suffice. You don't know me and probably assume I'm biased, but if the result was against my own POV, I'd still have to defer to my integrity and conclude many of those comments are not legitimate, and it only occured on one side of the debate. In any case we've already esablished a way forward, so there's no reason for major fuss. - Taxman 22:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman - I don't assume you're biased, you certainly haven't said anything to make me think so. On the contrary, your comments on Storms pretty much matched what I thought about it. Why do you think many of the votes are not in good faith? I agree that we should move forward, but I fear it will be much more dificult to do from the reverted state. ObsidianOrder 22:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was officially about removing FA status and nothing more. But if you think about it for a minute, you can see that almost all the remove votes essentially felt that the article has degraded recently and all the votes specifically on the issue were for reverting to the FA version except Jed's. But lets not spend any more time on this since the way forward is discussed below. Edit a temp page combining the draft version with the current FA version. If consensus decides that's better, then we go with that. It works for everyone as long as NPOV is followed. See below. - Taxman 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

ObsidianOrder wrote:

". . . but I fear it will be much more dificult to do from the reverted state."

Why? What's the big deal? It look like a piece of cake to me. There are no footnotes or references in the present version, so it should be no trouble to put the two together. There are no sources at all. Just have one of the skeptics chop out everything they disagree with and boom, you have the "Skeptical Point Of View" intro. Taxman wants to make it longer than the Storms portion, because he feels that the number of words should more or less reflect the number of people on each side. Why not? It could be 100 megabytes for all I care, as long as our side is also represented in a clear, undistorted, unbiased presentation somewhere in the article. I could not care less what percent of the whole it is. --JedRothwell 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

William M. Connolley writes:

The Storms draft is unacceptable.

Storms and I find it acceptable. Who put you in charge of this article? Ours is a "significant view" per the NPOV policy:

"If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

Storms is an expert, by the commonly accepted standards of science: he has a PhD, he worked for decades at LANL, and he has published peer-reviewed papers on the subject in mainstream journals. Who are you tell us he will not be allowed to contribute to this article?

Wiki is here (in the science articles) to represent, first and foremost, the current scientific opinion.

The current scientific opinion is evenly divided, judging by the DoE review panel. There have been no polls or other objective measurments.

. . . nor is it acceptable to attempt balance by merely juxtaposing opposing views.

Well, if you can find a way to integrate the two points of view, be my guest. For example, you might want to explain why hundreds of autoradiographs from places like the NRL and BARC are all, without exception, wrong. Have the laws of physics changed? Does film no longer reliably record x-rays? What is your hypothesis? I doubt you can address these issues, so I think it would be easier to keep these points of view seperate, since they appear to be mirror opposites in every important respect.

While we are on the subject of acceptability, it certainly is not acceptable to revert an article and then not allow any opposing point of view! It is hard to imagine anything less acceptable by the standards of this forum.

--JedRothwell 22:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to the revert to the FA version, until there is consensus to move to something derived from the above draft version, editing the article to include more pro CF POV is against consensus, is disruptive, and can be reverted. Misplaced Pages is ruled by consensus and the NPOV policy above all. - Taxman 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, for now, the FA version seems handy. As far as I can tell, it concisely and accurately expresses the views of the skeptics. So let's leave it for now. The Storms version will be ready tomorrow (or as soon as I can figure out how to make the footnotes work). Why don't you figure out a simple way to combine them, with the skeptical version first? What is the big deal?

Just delete the redundant parts and the few sections which are in agreement.

I think this will be easier than you seem to think, and it will satisfy everyone. It may be a little unconventional by the standards of Misplaced Pages, but why should every article be formatted and presented the same way? Why not allow some variation to fit the circumstances, which are unusual.

It seems to me that a "consensus" view is not the same as everyone agreeing on everything. It means we agree that both sides are fully and fairly represented and expressed. There is obviously no middle ground between these views, so why not make that explicit? I have no objection whatever to the skeptical viewpoint being expressed here in the strongest version. I would like it if you would quote Robert Park, who says that cold fusion results are caused by lunacy and fraud. The more extreme, the better, since it makes the skeptics look unreasonable. (I have not quoted Park because I would not want to overstate or misrepresent the skeptical point of view, but if most of you agree with him, and you think cold fusion is fraud, please say so!)

--JedRothwell 22:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's my point. You can do a merged version or whatever in the temp page. But you have to reallize that NPOV is to give smaller space in the main article to the non mainstream viewpoint. It's not deciding who's right, just characterizing the debate. There is adequate evidence that CF is not the mainstream viewpoint yet and there's nothing wrong with that. Then it can be discussed if the merged version is better. If there is consensus that it is, then all the better. If not, we still have a version of the article that is considered by consensus to be better than it was yesterday. - Taxman 22:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman writes:

"But you have to reallize that NPOV is to give smaller space in the main article to the non mainstream viewpoint."

Look, for crying loud, make the skeptical portion as long as you like! Make it ten times longer than Storms. Frankly, I do not know what you have to say that will fill up all that space, but make it as long as you feel necessary to fully express your views. Some of the articles here in Misplaced Pages are far longer than this, such as the one on Japanese (which I recommend, by the way).

For that matter, why do you think the number of words should be proportional to the number of people on one side or the other? That seems like a crude metric.

What is the big deal? You write your side, Storms writes our side. A few adjustments to blend them together and voila, problem solved. It seems like the present reverted version is close to what you support, so why don't you just tweak it a little?

I honestly do not see a problem here. This is working out well for everyone.

--JedRothwell 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is the article for FA standards needs to stay around 40kb or below, so the space covering the arguments of your POV is limited, and still needs to conform to NPOV. So yes, as has been established, see what you can do in a temp page to merge an article that everyone can agree on. The below points are spot on too. - Taxman 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman writes: "The point is the article for FA standards needs to stay around 40kb or below . . ." I have seen articles here on television shows and rock groups that were longer than that! But OKAY aready, if you insist, you go ahead and write 35 KB of skeptical blather, I will reduce Storms from 17 KB down to 15 KB. Would that be acceptable?

Why are you so obsessed with word counts, anyway? It seems to me that if you are truly convinced you are right, you could express your point of view in a short, elegant segment no longer than Storms, and convince everyone. Why does the number of words have to be so much larger? Do you think a mass of verbiage will be more impressive to the reader?

For that matter, what can you possibly say that will take up 35 KB? You cannot point to a single experimental paper. You have no body of literature to point to. Your only real statement is that you do not believe any of the experiments are correct. What more is there to say? How many ways can you say that? The present reverted article seems to cover all skeptical arguments, as far as I can tell, and it is 17 KB. (About 5 KB is non-skeptical, so it can be cut.) Huizenga sums up his arguments in a few paragraphs at the end of his book. His argument boils down to this: 'theory overrules experiments.' If you agree, say so and have done with it. --JedRothwell 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on general policy

Having had an edit conflict, but finding the same thing come up again and again, I'll make some general points here:

Jed/OO seem to be suggesting: "its referenced, therefore it should be in the article" - this is one of the standard arguments of minority view pushing, and its wrong. Its backwards. Anything in the article should be referenceable/supportable. But just because it can be ref'd doesn't mean it belongs. The problem is balance - minority views should be represented in rough proportion to their acceptance by science. In this case, from the publication record, its clear that CF is very fringe indeed. Jed seems to be suggesting that the two "sides" simply write competing versions. This is not acceptable.

Experts and balance: Storms is very clearly pushing a fringe viewpoint. If he has any PR papers on CF, I don't see any evidence for them: http://www.nde.lanl.gov/cf/iccf6ab.htm for example is not from a journal. Nor does User:ObsidianOrder/Cold_fusion list any. The balance in the NPOV policy refers to the balance of papers in the literature, not to you finding one pet expert.

The primary decider of scientific content (as far as wiki is concerned) is presence in the literature. CF just isn't there.

William M. Connolley 22:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Don't get rid of the external links section. It is very useful to anyone wanting to learn about this subject. I don't know why the current external links section was removed? Rock_nj

William M. Connolley writes:

Jed/OO seem to be suggesting: "its referenced, therefore it should be in the article"

Actually, I am saying these are references published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. I believe that is the usual standard of excellence and credibility, but perhaps Connolley has some other standard in mind.

The problem is balance - minority views should be represented in rough proportion to their acceptance by science.

FINE! Good. Great. Storms has 31 references, so Connolley should please go find 310 references to support his point of view. Or 3,100. However many he wants would be okay with me. As far as I know only two skeptical papers have appeared in peer-reviewed journals in the last 16 years, but maybe Connolley knows of many others. (It is not for me to judge what is "skeptical" and what supports his point of view.)

As I said the word count or number of references seems like an odd metric, but if that is what you want, please be my guest and add all the references you like.

By the way, Storms published in Fusion Technology and J. Alloys and Compounds. I do not know why they are not listed at the LANL site. As for "experts and balance" everyone on our side considers Storms an expert. ("Everyone" includes several hundred researchers and the people who have downloaded 450,000 papers from LENR-CANR.org. Storms is a clear favorite with both.)

We will pick our experts and you pick yours. Don't quibble with our choices, or we will insist you quote Huizenga and Taubes -- and you don't want to go there.

--JedRothwell 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Its a bit unclear to me whether you're being deliberately silly here, or just genuinely don't understand. Firstly, Storms has 31 refs - oh yes - but #4 is the retraction of a claim made in #3, and a pile of others are from "Infinite Energy" which is not a reputable journal, several are www.LENR-CANR.org, one is to Kuhn! (a reputable book, but hardly to be counted as pro-CF). Storms wouldn't be citing things like that, and conference papers, if there was a solid body of real peer-reviewed literature. Why not, as an exercise, hack out all the goo and the dribble from that ref list and leave only peer-reviewed journal articles from the last 5 years and see what you're left with. William M. Connolley 23:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Storms can reference anything he wants, and you can reference anything you want, and the readers will decide which is more credible. Okay? Do you have a problem with that? Probably the reason he referenced the stuff at Infinite Energy is because it is available on line whereas most of the journals papers are not. (Because of copyright issues). --JedRothwell 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A journal does not have to be online to be referenced. - FrancisTyers 23:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I think Ed selected mainly on-line resources to make it easier for the reader to find out more. --JedRothwell 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Why do you skeptics keep deleting the Resource Links section? There is nothing controversial about providing links to relevant webpages that discuss the cold fusion controversy to some extant or another. The Resource Links are not related to the ongoing controversy surrounding the content of the Cold Fusion article, so please leave the links along. Please stop deleting this useful resource. Rock nj 03:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are issues with that section: various pro-CF websites are described as journals, for example. There's probably more. It needs a cleanup. William M. Connolley 09:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

William - if it needs a cleanup, by all means clean it up! How does "needs a cleanup" translate into "delete it all"? You deleted among other things a link to the original P&F paper, for crying out loud! I started out assuming good faith, but this is just completely unreasonable. It's really beginning to look like an attempt to sweep under the rug inconvenient references (like for example the complete 2004 DoE reviewers' comments). I don't think that will work, though. ObsidianOrder 11:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

ObsidianOrder - Right on. There are issues regarding the content of the article that need to be addressed. But to just erase two years worth of External Links, many of them extremely relevent to the topic of cold fusion and anyone looking for more information about this topic and the saga behind it, seems to be going well beyond the bounds of editorial housecleaning, more like a wholesale purge. There is no need to withhold informational links in a public forum like Misplaced Pages, as long as they are relevant to the article. Rock nj 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Was interwoven, will be top-bottom

Before this article was revised, it included pro and con points of view mixed together in each section, and sometimes in one paragraph. It was actually a rather civil and balanced article. Most of the time, both sides were careful not to whack the other. The only problem was, the article was awkward, repetitive, too long, and hard to read. So I asked Ed Storms to write a better version of our side. He actually reduced the overall text devoted to the supporter’s point of view.

Now I have a simple suggestion: we present the same material, only rearranged to make it easier to read. Skeptics first, supporters next. Instead of interweaving we present them top to bottom. Of course it would be fine if the skeptics make minor changes or corrections to the Storms text, but in general, we should respect our turf just as we did before. It is divided up a little differently, that's all.

This is the same proposal above, and I've pointed out there why it isn't acceptable. Do you really think that just repeating the same thing again and again will work? William M. Connolley 09:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Seriously Jed, repeating the same thing over and over and trying to win your argument solely by volume isn't going to be effective anymore. Please learn to be concise and don't repeat the same things that have been shown to be spurious. Learn how Misplaced Pages works before you keep proposing things that have been shown over and over not to meet Misplaced Pages policies. - Taxman 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand: I was just kidding. I am surprised you did not pick up on comments such as "he is our pet." Does that sound serious to you? I know perfectly well that you will not allow any cold fusion researchers to contribute to this article, and I will not waste any more time trying. --JedRothwell 14:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The skeptics feel that they in the majority and they should have a larger share of the article.

No. As explained above (are you really this bad at reading?) most of us feel that CF lacks any real support in the scientific literature and that this should be reflected in the balance of the article. William M. Connolley 09:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

I doubt they really are a majority, but okay, they can write up to 35 KB of their arguments, and they can have the top spot. They can preserve every single sentence in the present reverted version. Better yet, they can strip away all remaining arguments in favor of cold fusion in the current version. They can add back in several arguments that were cut. They can add more undocumented history from 1989.

Why is this such a big deal? Why are there such loud objections? Why is it "unacceptable"? Everyone agreed we need an expert, so I persuaded Ed Storms, one of the leading experts, to write a draft. Now OBVIOUSLY the skeptics, who do not believe one word about cold fusion, will consider Storms to be misguided, incompetent, crazy or what-have-you. They think everyone who is in any way associated with the field must be incompetent. They think that all papers about cold fusion are "goo and dribble."

Sigh. You're moving off into aggressive-defensive. I didn't say *all* such are goo and dribble - I pointed out that your proud count of 31 refs in Storms draft included a lot of stuff that were not proper peer-reviewed papers. I challenged you Why not, as an exercise, hack out all the goo and the dribble from that ref list and leave only peer-reviewed journal articles from the last 5 years and see what you're left with - so... why don't you? William M. Connolley 09:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Nope. Not aggressive defensive. I find you funny & pathetic but nothing to be upset about. I am miffed only with myself, for wasting so much time. Although I must say, the next time you go to the trouble to add 40 footnotes to an article, please let me know and I will go delete them for you. I should have known that one of you people would do this. You can tolerate only your own point of view, and you are allergic to facts. You will not allow dissent, dialog or views that are not strictlly according to what Nature or Sci. Am. dictate. --JedRothwell 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? If I were a skeptic, I would want the supporters to present "goo and dribble." They claim that Storms is a "pet expert." So what if he is? He is our pet, not yours. Just about everyone on our side agrees with him. If you think he is incompetent, you should be glad we cannot find anyone better. Why do you care who we select to write our side of the argument? If this were a debate between, let us say, Creationists and biologists, why would the biologists feel upset if the Creationists managed to persuade the person they considered their top expert to write the article?

If you want an expert skeptic, go ask Huizenga, Taubes or Robert Park to write your part, or simply use the material that is already there in the reverted article. It just needs a little brushing up and it will be a clear statement of your beliefs. Or I can send you the last page of Huizenga's book and you can quote it. Or keep every word as is -- you decide.

I cannot understand why anyone would complain about this arrangement. Frankly, I think that the skeptics want to eliminate all material written by supporters. If Storms is not satisfactory to them, no one will be. They want to have this entire article supporting their point of view only. That, I gather, is against the rules in this forum.

--JedRothwell 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No. The NPOV rules of wiki clearly state that the balance of the article should reflect, roughly, the weight of scientific opinion (in those bits which are describing disputed bits). That isn't done by presenting two competing versions and letting the reader decide which they prefer. William M. Connolley 09:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

And you have no idea what the weight of scientific opinion might be. You claim you know, but only two objective measurments have been made: 1. A poll of Japanese researchers a few years ago; and 2. The DoE panel review. Both showed that scientific opinion is sharply divided, and about even on both sides.

Let us drop this discussion. I will let you take over the article and upload any nonsense that crosses your mind. --JedRothwell 14:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

totallydisputed - Problems with the FA version

1. FIXED "most scientists believe that there is no proof of cold fusion in these experiments" - source?
2. FIXED "A majority of scientists consider this research to be pseudoscience" - source? (this is actually repeated twice)
3. FIXED "Unfortunately, no "cold" fusion experiments that gave an otherwise unexplainable net release of energy have so far been reproducible." - factually incorrect, see McKubre 1994 etc.
4. "claimed that there was a "secret" to the experiment" - source?
5. "electrical heater to generate pulses of heat and calibrate the heat loss due to the gas outlet" - this statement displays simply astonishing ignorance of how indirect isoperibolic calorimetry works; it is wrong in about six different ways.
6. FIXED "The level of neutrons, tritium and 3He actually observed in Fleischmann-Pons experiment have been well below the level expected in view of the heat generated" - factually incorrect, see Miles 1993 etc. (update: or rather, correct by omission - the level is below that expected for D+D->T+p or D+D->3He+n, but consistent with a primarily D+D->4He reaction)
7. FIXED "the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalances" - absolutely factually incorrect, see Storms 2001 or any report on successful reproduction of P&F-type experiments.

and that's just a quick read-through, and I'm not even including what is missing (any info on the reported transmutation products by Iwamura et al, just to pick a random example). For those reasons, I'm tagging this totallydisputed. ObsidianOrder 11:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll start with your points 1 & 2. And return to the challenge I set Jed: how many of the papers from Storms list-of-31 are valid journal papers from the past 5 years? The answer turns out to be one, Iwamura, Y., M. Sakano, and T. Itoh, Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41: p. 4642. And of course the significant thing about that paper is... that it isn't about cold fusion. So really the answer is zero. So, cold fusion as a topic is simply absent from valid research journals.

The article clearly needs to say something about how mainstream science views CF. Perhaps psuedo-science is a bit harsh. It would be fairer to say that most simply ignore it as being of no interest. So we could replace A majority of scientists consider this research to be pseudoscience with something more specific: how about: Mainstream science ignores cold fusion; there are no recent peer-reviewed journal publications on the subject?

William M. Connolley 21:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

William M. Connolley writes: "So, cold fusion as a topic is simply absent from valid research journals." Is there a statute of limitations for physics and chemistry? After 5 years, scientific papers are no longer valid? That would mean Einstein's theories, for example, are defunct. There are two very good reasons why few papers on cold fusion have not been published lately. The first is exactly the same as the reason Einstein has not published lately: most cold fusion researchers are dead or incapacitated. They were old men in 1989 and they are older now -- or dead. The second reason Mr. Connolley can discover by looking in a mirror. Many of the editors and opinion makers are just like him. They know nothing about the subject, they have read nothing, but they condemn it out of hand, and they invent outrageous reasons for doing so, such as claiming that papers over 5 years old no longer matter. The editor of the Scientific American is a prime example. You can see from the letters he wrote to me, here: He brags that he knows nothing and he will not look at the data! In a sane world he would be ashamed. The times are out of joint. --JedRothwell 00:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a pretty good proposal. I have no problem with that (although I would say "few" rather than "no" - would you like a list? also, to nitpick, the Iwamura paper is very much about cold fusion of D in Pd, just in a non-electrochemical type experiment). However, a more complete statement would be something along the lines of "After a number of prominent individuals and organizations (list: Nature, Sci Am, Parks, Huizenga ...) made comments (cite) describing cold fusion as a pseudoscience, it has become a taboo subject in physics, and it is very hard, or in some publications forbidden by policy (cite) to publish cold fusion papers. Nonetheless, there are a number of prominent scientists (list: Brian Josephson, Julian Schwinger, ...) who are outspoken proponents of cold fusion, and work in the field continues with support from a number of institutions (list) in different countries. Most current work on cold fusion is now presented at regular cold fusion conferences (ICCF)." ObsidianOrder 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well a list of prominent people/orgs who have said CF is psuedoscience would be a good idea. Taboo is wrong... it would seem more natural to say that it becaome unpopular. If some journals have policies against publishing CF (a bit like the US patent offie won't allow perp motion machines, perhaps) that would be worth recording too. Not happy with the Nonetheless onwards. William M. Connolley 22:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I think it's worth recording too. This is just the kind of thing the article needs (meticulously supported by cites, of course). I think "taboo" is accurate, but if you want to rephrase that, go ahead. I'm thinking for example of the treatment that Bockris was subjected to and similar events elsewhere. Regarding the second part - what about it are you not happy about? Ok, using "nonetheless" to contrast it to the first part is a bit of editorializing, but it is all factual, is it not? ObsidianOrder 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question about papers in mainstream peer-reviewed publications in the last 5 years, I made a list for you: User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion biblio. From one point of view, considering the potential significance of the field, that is not much. From another point of view, it is a hell of a lot for a "pseudoscience". Considering the effective ban on publishing cold fusion papers, it is somewhat absurd to judge the field by their relatively small number. You have to also consider tech reports like this Szpak et al, SPAWAR/US Navy, 2002 (highly recommended, by the way - and it's another reference that was deleted by your revert), and the ICCF proceedings. Ok, so they're not "peer-reviewed journal articles" but they do carry some weight. ObsidianOrder 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The recent edits by Maury and William have been an improvement, in that they have adressed #1 and one of the instances of #2 on my list. The rest of the problems are still there, however. I am putting back the totallydisputed tag. I am hopeful that the rest of these problems can and will be addressed without a huge ruckus, it will just take us some time and work to get there. However the current version of the article is not ok. Please leave the tag for now, and let the "other side" judge when it should be removed. (although actually I prefer not to think of myself as being on the other side, we're all in this together, right? ;) ObsidianOrder 22:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, quite a lot of stuff was fixed (but not all). I note those in the list above. However Lumidex and WMC just introduced a bunch of other problematic statements:

• FIXED "the panel is convinced that the experiment is flawed while it admits a very hypothetical chance..." - POV. they have never said the experimental results were all in error.
• FIXED "why "chemical labs" cannot help us to achieve fusion" - POV.

I tried to write a compromise section but it was reverted. I think this is gonna have a totallydisputed tag forever, at this rate :( ObsidianOrder 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I went and fixed a couple of these. I think what remains now is mostly technical issues, hence we probably don't need the tag. I removed it. (Unless anyone disagrees?) ObsidianOrder 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

One: I strongly object to the FA version but I will not revert it. Let's work on making a better article instead. However, while this version is up, it's gonna have the totallydisputed tag (because it is - see above, also see this entire discussion).

Nope. Its not totally disputed, and you don't get to add the tag just cos you're presistent. William M. Connolley 18:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

William - yes, it is disputed. I have described specific serious problems with this version. You have not even tried to respond to the issues I brought up about this version, and neither has anyone else. Other editors are disputing it as well, as should be extremely obvious from this talk page. Heck, well-known experts in the field are disputing it. Your original revert to the old FA version was counterproductive and heavy-handed, and it does not in any way represent consensus, since (1) the FA removal vote was not about a revert and (2) the votes for a revert just aren't there if you count them anyway. In any event, I have refrained from reverting the page as a whole in the hopes of avoiding an edit war and moving forward. However, removing a npov/disputed tag when there is an active ongoing dispute is just not done (see WP:AD and WP:NPOVD). What you're doing is wrong. Please stop. ObsidianOrder 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's recap: I added the totallydisputed flag for reasons which I explained right here, at Talk:Cold fusion#Problems with the FA version, exactly as I'm supposed to as per WP:AD. Those include both factual and POV problems, therefore totallydisputed is the correct tag. They are also very serious, since some of the key claims in this version of the article are not sourced at all (and perhaps cannot be sourced). There are other editors which I beleieve would agree with the tag. William M. Connolley has reverted it three times, with the following explanations: "Its not totally disputed, and you don't get to add the tag just cos you're presistent.", "rm'ing unjustified totallydisputed tag", "Nope, its not justified by the talk." and "you haven't justified it, and this is an FA"; and FrancisTyers reverted it once with "removing tag per WMC". Whether an article was FA has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should have a disputed tag (unless you can point to a policy that says otherwise? no?). I've made a substantive criticism; you haven't responded to my criticism at all, or done anything else to attempt to reach a consensus; obviously as it stands now there is no consensus; but you think it's appropriate for you to remove the tag? What makes you think that? Just saying "not justified" is not good enough. If the problems I point to above are not enough justification for you, what would be? In case you guys need a refresher on Misplaced Pages policy and customs, you may want to read Misplaced Pages talk:NPOV dispute which discusses when it is appropriate to remove a tag. ObsidianOrder 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Two: A version based on the Storms draft is at User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion. This includes a verbatim copy of the references from before the FA revert, the Storms writeup and references with some possibly POV parts removed or changed, the "Other kinds of fusion" from the FA, and a rewritten intro based on the FA intro which I hope should get no objections from either side. You are all invited to look it over. Please point out anything you think is a NPOV or other problem here. You may edit it constructively, but no reverts please - this is my user space, and I don't have time for edit warring. I will try to take edits into account and build a reasonable consensus version. I would like this to become the active version of the article in the relatively near term, unless anyone can point out unfixable problems with it.

Three: An outline of a completely new version is at User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion redux. This would, I hope, cover all sides of the subject considerably better than what exists now. (and please, don't try to pidgeonhole me as a "cold fusion advocate" or whatever. I am genuinely interested in the truth, and I think none of the versions we have at the moment does justice to either side, even aside from being pretty muddled writing). Again, feel free to edit, but no reverts. I intend to write this up referencing every single detail as I go along. For now, think just about the outline, and possibly brief bullet points about what would go in. This is a somewhat longer term project, but I think it can result in a radical improvement all around.

ObsidianOrder 18:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to create a version in your userspace for you (and perhaps your friends) to edit. But since you control it, you can't really expect others to want to edit it too; or to watch it; nor can you take other peoples silence on it as endorsement. The other way is to create a sub-page here called "tmp" or somesuch. But then you don't get to control it. William M. Connolley 19:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

That is a valid concern. You're jumping a bit ahead though, considering I haven't actually undone any edits yet ;) It was my intention to move the page out of userspace once I felt it is ready. If you prefer I do so now, I'd be happy to, but I am sincerely hoping to avoid the back-and-forth edits of the type you and I are currently engaged in over the totallydisputed tag. As much as possible, I will not revert, I will leave alone or rewrite instead. Fair? Anyway, the version incorporating the Storms draft is now at Cold fusion/tmp. Edit away. ObsidianOrder 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Message sent to HelpDesk

This is probably a total waste of time, but I sent the following message to helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org. People who know a lot about Misplaced Pages might wish to forward it to other addresses. --JedRothwell 15:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

As you probably know, cold fusion is a very controversial subject. Until this week, the Misplaced Pages article on this subject contained a balance of statements from people who do not believe that cold fusion exists, and statements by cold fusion researchers who think that it does exist. The researchers and I added 40 references to experimental literature, mainly papers in peer-reviewed, mainstream journals (not those devoted only to cold fusion.)

Unfortunately, this week one of the opponents deleted all of this work, and he will not even allow us to add a tag saying this article is disputed. We consider it technically inaccurate and biased, but we are not even allowed to post a single sentence to this effect. We have never deleted or distorted the claims of opponents, but only clarified why we consider them technically incorrect. (See example below.)

Please note that the researchers include many of the world's top electrochemists, two Nobel Laureates, a Fellow of the Royal Society and so on. I added some relevant, uncontroversial quotes from a deceased Nobel Laureate regarding theory and reproducibility, but the opponents deleted these along with everything else. I believe that comment by someone like this represents a "significant viewpoint" but opponents will not allow it.

If you allow this to go unchallenged, I think it shows the Misplaced Pages cannot support an honest, fair debate about a truly controversial subject.

Sincerely,

Jed Rothwell

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WAS DELETED. This discussion about energy storage versus production is vital. It is one of the most important aspects of cold fusion.

PRESENT VERSION:

Energy source vs power store

While the output power is higher than the input power during the power burst, the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalances. Since the mechanism under the power burst is not known, one cannot say whether energy is really produced, or simply stored during the early stages of the experiment (loading of deuterium in the Palladium cathode) for later release during the power burst.

A "power store" discovery would have much less value than an "energy source" one, especially if the stored power can only be released in the form of heat.

VERSION INCLUDING COMMENTS BY RESEARCHERS, AND REFERENCES TO LITERATURE:

Energy source vs. power store

Some skeptics hypothesize that while the output power is higher than the input power during the power burst, the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalances. (In other words, each positive exothermic power burst is balanced by a previous period of negative power, or endothermic storage.) Since the mechanism under the power burst is not known, one cannot say whether energy is really produced, or simply stored during the early stages of the experiment (during the loading of deuterium in the palladium cathode) for later release during the power burst. A "power store" discovery would yield only a new, and very expensive, kind of storage battery, not a source of abundant cheap fusion power.

However, this cannot be the case, because large endothermic storage is not observed. When the experiment begins, there are a few hours of endothermic storage as the palladium is loaded, and this is readily detected. (A calorimeter measures a heat deficit as accurately as it measures excess heat.) In most bulk palladium electrochemical experiments, this is followed by an incubation period of 10 to 20 days, during which there is neither excess heat nor storage. Following that, there is continuous excess heat production, which often continues longer than the incubation period, and produces far more energy than the initial endothermic storage. "Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of the D/Pd System" shows typical examples. Since the excess heat is easily detected, at a high signal to noise ratio, if there were an initial endothermic storage phase to balance it, this would be even easier to detect, because it would have to be larger.

Furthermore, this energy storage hypothesis would violate the laws of physics, because most cells produce far more energy than any known chemical storage mechanism would permit. Chemical processes store (or produce) at most 12 eV per atom of reactant, whereas many cold fusion experiments have produced hundreds of eV per atom of cathode material, and some have produced ~100,000 eV per atom.

Finally, many researchers, notably Kainthla et al. and McKubre et al. have conducted careful inventories of chemical fuel and potential storage mechanisms in cold fusion cells, and they have found neither fuel nor spent ash that could account for more than a tiny fraction of the excess heat. Since many cells have released large amounts of energy, a megajoule or more, this chemical fuel would have to be present in macroscopic amounts. In fact, in many cases the volume of ash would greatly exceed the entire cell volume. These issues of energy storage and chemical fuel hypotheses have been discussed in the literature exhaustively. See, for example, "A Response to the Review of Cold Fusion by the DoE", section II.1.2.

Jed - unfortunately there are just two ways to do something here: (a) talk (and try to reach common ground) or (b) edit things you think are wrong. Appeal to higher authority doesn't usually work ;) The current reversion to an article from over a year ago is wrong, don't take it as the "word of god". It was done by just a couple of people (William M. Connolley, FrancisTyers and Taxman - who has indicated he could possibly support a version based on the Storms draft). There are about the same number of people who support a different version: me, you, Rock_nj, and judging from the past talk history quite a number of other people who just don't happen to be editing the article actively right now. This doesn't have to stand. You don't like it, change it ;) I think I would wait a decent period (a few days) for comments on the Storms draft, then change over to that. If people simply revert it without talking, well, I recommend to revert them right back :( ObsidianOrder 16:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

ObsidianOrder writes:

"Jed - unfortunately there are just two ways to do something here: (a) talk (and try to reach common ground) . . ."

There is no common ground. Our side believes in the scientific method and the primacy of experiments over theory; their side believes in voodoo and mob rule.

". . . or (b) edit things you think are wrong."

The whole article is wrong -- it is a travesty. I will not waste another moment editing things that are wrong. It is obvious that opponents will simply erase my work. I will not get into a mud fight with pigs.

"Appeal to higher authority doesn't usually work ;)"

Well, who knows, it might work in this case. Cold fusion is widely known to be controversial. It is worth a letter. There is no point to dicussing this issue with ignorant barbarians who will not even bother read the literature they attack.

--JedRothwell 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jed, please don't make personal attacks. I remember warning you about this before. Personal attacks are against Misplaced Pages policy. Please try to be civil. - FrancisTyers 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Francis - technically that is not a personal attack, since it is not directed at a specific person. I seem to recall fairly similar comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Cold fusion. I might point out that removing a dispute tag when there is a very active ongoing dispute is also against Misplaced Pages policy. ObsidianOrder 17:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to point out that I reverted once and have not reverted since. I would also like to point out that it is a personal attack and I have warned him about them before, as I have warned many other people about making personal attacks. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 17:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

FrancisTyers writes, "please don't make personal attacks." That wasn't a personal attack. I do not know what person deleted all of the content and swept away my 40 footnotes, so I cannot attack him. My comment about "voodoo and mob rule" applies to all opponents, with strict impartiality. I do not insult any one them personally, but rather all of them, en mass. That appears to be perfectly okay judging by what they write about cold fusion researchers. (Or is it only okay for them to insult us?) My comment about mud wrestling with pigs is a folk expression, not an attack, and in any case I am fond of pigs and would not attack them. They are sweet animals, but you do not want to wrestle with one. --JedRothwell 23:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And the Help Desk mailing list (or at least, myself) responded with a suggestion that the emailer review the process. User:Zoe| 19:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did, and promptly too. Thanks! The people at "Dispute Resolution" redirected me to some other section of Misplaced Pages. I feel somewhat lost in the bureaucracy, and I do not understand the section where the fellow at "Dispute Resolution" wants me to go to, so I asked him to please forward the message to whom it may concern. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:SCZenz#Arbitration_request_Re:_Cold_Fusion

You have a daunting thicket of procedures & departments here at Misplaced Pages, I must say. --JedRothwell 23:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You wanted a request for comment, which ObsidianOrder has done below. Now we talk. There's no higher authority than talking for content disputes. -- SCZenz 02:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I posted this as an RfC . Please comment here. It is also posted on WikiProject Physics . There is quite a bit of discussion at the featured article removal vote . ObsidianOrder 02:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary of the dispute

• 1. JedRothwell posted a draft of a version written by Edmund Storms, a retired Los Alamos scientist and well-known researcher in the field. The latest draft is at Cold fusion/tmp.
• 2. Article was listed as Featured Article Removal Candidate by Noren. The vote so far indicates the article will probably lose its featured status.
• 3. William M. Connolley reverted the article to a version dating back to 2004-08-20, claiming consensus for a revert from the FA removal discussion.

Discussion

The main point I'm interested is how to move forward. Obviously, I'd like to see the Storms draft Cold fusion/tmp adopted, since in my opinion it is much better all around than either the current reverted version or the pre-revert version. For one thing, it is very meticulously sourced. Yes, it still has a few lingering NPOV problems, we can fix those. I have solicited comments and edits to the draft, but have so far received absolutely none (aside from links to online papers contributed by Jed). If you see specific problems with the draft, or have a reason why it is bad in general, please list it here. ObsidianOrder 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction of this temporary article grossly understates the degree to which the majority of the scientific community disbelieves, and therefore ignores, cold fusion. "It's a subject of controversey" just isn't accurate. That's as far as I've got, but I think that's enough to make the discussion lively. -- SCZenz 03:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

AGAIN let me ask: How do you know what the majority of the scientific community believes? Do you have any data from a poll, or any other objective data? You are making an assertion here without a shred of evidence to back it up. The only poll I know of regarding cold fusion was taken by a Japanese science magazine years ago, and it showed that professional scientists were split evenly on the subject. The only thing resembling a poll taken in the U.S. lately is the DoE panel review, and it too was split evenly, although the DoE misrepresented that fact in its summary. If you want to say the majority of journal editors appear to be hostile toward cold fusion, that is true and I have plenty of evidence for it. If you want to say that a noisy and assertive group of skeptics at Misplaced Pages and elsewhere oppose cold fusion even though they know nothing about it, that is also self evident. But these facts tell us nothing about the larger scientific community. I have spoken to hundreds of scientists about cold fusion. People have visited LENR-CANR 780,000 times in the last few years and downloaded 450,000 papers. Visitors have contacted me from hundreds of universities and national laboratories in ~30 different countries. They have set up a "mirror site" at Tsinghua U., one of the world's most oustanding technical universities. Never, in all this time, has a single one of these people expressed any hostility or disbelief toward the subject. On the contrary, they are supportive and the only thing they ask for is more information.

Let me add that this imaginary assertion of yours, about what scientists believe, has nothing to do with cold fusion itself. If you going to discuss this, you should put it in another article about social problems and the dysfunctional behavior of scientists. Including it here is like discussing paranoid fear of airplanes in an engineering article an aircraft.

Furthermore, if you insist on describing the hostility of the journal and magazine editors, then you should cite the letters from the editor of Sci. Am. to me, in which he boasts that he has read nothing about cold fusion. Robert Park also brags about the fact that he has never bothered to read a paper, and Taubes wrote a whole book that does list a single reference, even though thousands of papers had been published when he wrote it. These are major scientific leaders and some of the loudest voices attacking cold fusion, and they themselves brag that they know nothing about the subject! By the conventional, traditional standards of science, these people are crazy. --JedRothwell 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jed - keep your cool ;) I for one would really like some sources on journals that have an explicit policy of not publishing CF papers (or whose editors have said so off the record, or expressed hostility otherwise). Ok, the SciAm editor is one data point, are there more? ObsidianOrder 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Miles and others have sent me letters from time to time from various journals saying their policy is to reject cold fusion papers without peer review. I could probably dig up copies, but it does not seem important. You can contact most journals and they will confirm that is their policy. They will also repeat verbatim the nonsense the skeptics spout here, such as "cold fusion was never replicated" and "no peer-reviewed papers were every published." The latest editorial attacks by Nature and Sci Am. are listed here: . Two things are obvious from these attacks: 1. They are unalterably opposed and they will not publish a paper about cold fusion, or even a letter -- even one from a Nobel laureate; 2. They know nothing about cold fusion. Regarding the early history of cold fusion rejections, someone gave me an interesting memo from the Patent Office dated June 5, 1989, describing how they will intercept (and deny) all applications relating to cold fusion in the "preexamination screening process." --JedRothwell 21:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is actually very important. If you can dig up copies of some of those letters and make them available on lenr-canr.org that would be great, I'll make sure they're mentioned. Also if you could make available the patent office memo? Thanks! ObsidianOrder 22:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's assume you're right. How would you write it? There are no polls conducted on what the scientific community thinks about this, as far as I know. The fact that it is a subject of controversy is trivially easy to source; "majority disbelieves" is impossible to source. Anyway, I'm open to suggestions. ObsidianOrder 03:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How about the major peer-reviewed journals that don't publish anything on cold fusion? There are facts there that can be cited. -- SCZenz 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This should be documented. There are two sides to that: on the one hand, there are a number of journals that generally do publish such papers , with Japanese Journal of Applied Physics and Journal of Electroanalythical Chemistry being perhaps the most influential of those; on the other hand many journals have an implied or stated policy to reject such papers without reviewing them (unfortunately I don't have a reference for that handy, but it shouldn't be too hard to find). The latter category includes many of the top journals such as Nature. For a more pessimistic assessment: "According to an estimate by David Nagel at the Naval Research Laboratory, only four of approximately 5,000 academic journals worldwide will consider papers that mention low-temperature fusion." (but also presumably most of the 5000 are not in fields relevant to this topic) ObsidianOrder 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I followed that link; its just a list of journals, not papers: we have to take that list on faith, and I'm not about to. The first two I tried aren't even on the ISI index. Storms cited 31 papers; not one was from a P-R journal of the last 5 years; I find that rather telling. JJAP has an impact factor of 1.142; JEAC manages somewhat better at 2.228. These are not high-ranking journals. William M. Connolley 21:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

William - you said there were literally no publications in p-r journals in the past 5 years;

No. I said that the Storms paper didn't refer to any. I presume that means that none of them are terribly important?

No, you said "how about: Mainstream science ignores cold fusion; there are no recent peer-reviewed journal publications on the subject?". I think I have successfuly demonstrated that is inaccurate; the fair statement would be "few". I can't presume to guess why Storms picked what he picked. ObsidianOrder 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't assert it; I threw it out as a suggested text. Its clear that "no" is wrong, though I don't think you're doing a good job because you keep bulking out your lists with dubious stuff. William M. Connolley 22:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Ok, I think we're mostly in agreement then. ObsidianOrder 01:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I gave you a list User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion biblio.

Ah. So many comments, Some get missed. Sorry. William M. Connolley 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Case closed? Those two journals are not top-ranking, but they are high-ranking for their fields, in particular JJAP is easily the top physics journal in Japan afaik. By the way, add a couple more: Naturwissenschaften and Europhysics Letters. Nobody is trying to argue that it is easy to publish CF papers in most journals. It is, however, quite possible to publish them in some journals with good reputations, and quality papers do get published. That is all i was trying to say. ObsidianOrder 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, case not at all closed. Its a list of... what? "Clarke, W. B. (2001) Search for 3He and 4He in Arata-Style Palladium Cathodes I: A Negative Result. Fusion Sci. & Technol. 40:" - is this supposed to support your case? Can JJAP be the top phys journal in Japan with an IF of 1.142? All that says is that Japan doesn't really have a native top-ranked phys journal, and there's nothing odd about that. William M. Connolley 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Your perception of what is a high impact factor for physics is a bit off, see . Europhysics Letters is probably somewhere in the top 10, with an impact factor around 2, and they do publish at least some CF papers. Again, I'm not saying that it is very easy to get published, but you have to acknowledge it is possible. ObsidianOrder 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You're out of date. #10 is now 7.739; #20 is phys rev d at 5.156; Euro phys is #60. JJAP is #143. This is on the basis is searching all physics journals. William M. Connolley 22:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Regarding taking the list on faith - I guarantee you that every one of those has published a cold fusion paper at least once ;) If you look you will easily find those papers, e.g. on lenr-canr.org. Granted, many of them probably haven't published anything in the past few years, but many were still publishing stuff ca 1994. For what it's worth ;) ObsidianOrder 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Errr, you're missing at least one point: as I said, the first two I checked weren't even proper journals, so the list has at the very least been bulked out. William M. Connolley 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Yes, it's probably bulked out, hence my quote of David Nagel which presents an alternate view of the situation. ObsidianOrder 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it must be: cos if Nagel is right only 4 journals accept CF papers! Which of your claims (your list is useful, or that Nagel is correct) do you retract? William M. Connolley 22:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

I didn't claim anything aside from that there exist some reputable p-r journals which have published some CF papers in recent years. I pointed to Nagel and the newenergytimes list as possibly interesting, but hardly definitive, sources on the subject. I don't have to retract anything, they're not my claims ;) I would have to say that Nagel is closer to being right, although in my estimate (and as you can see from my list) it is probably something like 8-10 out of a few hundred, rather than 4 out of 5000 (for one, there simply aren't 5000 physics journals). I think we don't need to debate this further, we're basically in agreement; anything beyond this is just splitting hairs. ObsidianOrder 01:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

THIS REFERS TO ITEM 1. This is not part of the dispute as far as I am concerned. Storms & I do not care whether you use his draft or not. Someone posted a "tag" here saying they wanted a professional version of this article, so Storms wrote one as a favor, in the approved academic style. The content was pretty much the same as the version on Dec. 30, except it was shorter and better written. However, if the people do not want it, that is fine with us. The only dispute I have is that someone deleted everything that supports cold fusion and all of actual scientific content, leaving only imaginary skeptical dreck. --JedRothwell 15:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Jed - I think it is part of the dispute, from my point of view at least. Let's keep it there for now, it's informative at least. ObsidianOrder 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

See Jed, this is the real problem. You have this us against the world thing going on and instead of stepping away from your view and just characterizing the debate, you are stuck on taking sides. It's not helping the article. Cue the standard voluminous reply. - Taxman 20:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am characterizing the debate! The Storms draft has nothing to do with it. (ObsidianOrder thinks it does, but I do not see why . . .) Speaking for myself and Storms, we do not care whether you use it here or not. If the people here prefer the Dec. 30 version or the one ObsidianOrder is working on, that's fine. Also, I also would not care if 80% of the article is unsourced skeptical nonsense. My only objection is to unilaterally erasing statements made by supporters. As long as we get a word in edgewise I do not care what you say, or how much you say, or how badly it is written. --JedRothwell 21:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

At least we've established you don't care about improving the article or having it be well written as long as it promotes your POV. - Taxman 18:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman writes: "At least we've established you don't care about improving the article . . ." Of course I would like to improve the parts about the science of cold fusion. But why would I care about improving your portion of the article?!? On the contrary, I hope you stick to your present dismal standards. The article now contains only sloppy, half-baked hot air, rumors and nonsense that violates the laws of physics and chemistry, such as the claim that a chemical reaction can produce gigjoules per mole. It does not contain a single reference to the experimental literature. This is your "skeptical" POV. The only good thing about the article as it now stands is that anyone who knows some elementary physics can see that the skeptics are wrong. --JedRothwell 18:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, let's be nice to each other, ok? I'm pretty sure that Jed does care about improving the article, what he said was just a rhetorical device to indicate he didn't think it was possible to do so. Obviously he is rather frustrated with the fact that a lot of useful information was deleted. Describing the Storms version as something that "promotes a POV" is hardly fair either. ObsidianOrder 19:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Since the skeptics will not allow us to publish anything I hope they will add more of their own nonsense. The next best thing to improving the article would be to make it even worse than it is now. I was thinking about adding in some comments by Taubes and Park vilifying and ridiculing cold fusion. I doubt the skeptics will delete that. --JedRothwell 18:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A few more general comments: The reason for the RfC is primarily because I feel the article could use more impartial editors who are involved in working towards a reasonable and more complete version. The listing at FARC drew in several new editors and has resulted in some fairly drastic changes, by editors who do not appear to be especially familiar with the subject (but maybe if they stick around they'll become more familiar ;) I may not like the specific changes but I do think we need more people looking at this and involved in improving it. Some issues to consider: What claims can be made, especially far-reaching claims like "the scientific community considers cold fusion to be ..." or "cold fusion is a ..."? What are acceptable sources? How much space to allocate to different parts of the article, for example history of the field/Pons&Fleischman vs current work vs theoretical objections? Should some of those go in their own sub-articles? ObsidianOrder 03:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is quite the trouble because citing lack of acceptance of an idea is quite difficult. Just the logical difficulty of proving nonexistence of an effect. It's always possble the effect exists, but it takes indisputable evidence to show that it is accepted, not the other way around. That's just how the scientific method works. The DoE review of what the proponents considered their best evidence and the fact that very few actually peer reviewed journals with any appreciable impact factor even take papers on the topic, pretty much lock it up I'd say. Pretty much everyone do not accept the effect as real fusion except the cold fusion proponents (that what number a couple hundred maybe). If cold fusion were accepted to the satisfaction of the scientific community the reaction to papers on the topic would be different. It's not and that's how we know it's not accepted, but the only citable things are the DoE review and the lack of influential publications on it and the lack of citations of CF papers in other influential papers other than for noting what claims are made. Add that to the fact that the theoretical models for cold fusion are not accepted and it's the combination that provide the backing for CF not being accepted yet. - Taxman 20:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a meta-analysis. You base your opinion on a faulty summary of a sloppy analysis of a general review of selected papers. An opinion of an opinion of an opinion of an opinion of the literature. No, this is not “how we know it's not accepted” and what you are doing is not science. In science, you look at original sources and actual data. You consider the basic laws of physics and chemistry, and you think for yourself. Consider the autoradiograph I posted, which is one of hundreds. That evidence proves beyond a shadow of doubt that cold fusion is real, and that it is a nuclear effect. It outweighs the opinions of ten-thousand DoE officials and journal editors tied together. Widely replicated, high-sigma experimental data is the only standard of truth in science. It overrules everything else: all theory, all authority, all precedent. You have turned your back on the data, so what you are doing is not science. It is more akin to religion. --JedRothwell 04:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, let me solicit comments on an outline for a complete rewrite of the whole article: User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion redux. I've tried to be reasonably impartial, but also to cover everything I felt was not covered in any version of this article, and to do so in a more organized and readable way. It's a long way from done, but I'd like to get some input on it now. ObsidianOrder 03:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• All that said the outline fits with the general position that cold fusion is not accepted, but still covers the fact that research is ongoing anyway and proponents claim success. As it should be, less space is given in the outline to the claims of proponents. The crux is going to be in how the outline is filled out. One specific comment is that an intro section is now deprecated because a proper lead section should give the overview and each section after that should simply cover an important point. Whatever is in the introduction should be refactored as needed to fit in other sections. - Taxman 20:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman - thank you. Yes, the intro heading is just a placeholder, it will go above the table of contents. On to the other comment - i prefer not to think of it as a pro-vs-con debate. I really want the objections to be explained as clearly and completely as possible, since that's important for anyone trying to evaluate the controversy for themselves. So I've tried to do that in the outline. I will try to continue doing that as it is filled out, but of course I hope you and others will help ;) So, in summary, do you think something based on that outline has potential? If it was just a straightforward expansion (each bullet point expanding to maybe a couple of sentences in the final version, and with cited sources as indicated), would you support that? ObsidianOrder 01:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the intro to Cold fusion is the name for a postulated nuclear fusion reaction that is supposed to occur well below the temperature required for thermonuclear reactions adding the bits in bold. Without those, it asserts that CF works, which is the entire dispute. Per OO, I added some stuff about journal policy. William M. Connolley 21:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

journal policy - ok. intro - i think that's a bit of an example of bias in attribution. How about simply "Cold fusion is the name for a nuclear fusion reaction that is reported to occur ..."? That is literally correct, and does not imply anything. I don't think there was any assertion that CF works even before the modifications, simply that if it does work that's what it would be called. ObsidianOrder 23:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why "is reported to occur"? Thats hardly neutral. Why are we selecting the reports of it occuring, as against the many more reporting that it doesn't occur? The reaction is postulated; this is literally correct, and doesn't imply that it does occur. William M. Connolley 22:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

"against the many more reporting that it doesn't occur" - whether it was "many more" is debatable. I would like to put together a full list of anyone who has tried to reproduce the effect, what exactly experiments they ran, what they have reported seeing, and whether anyone else has a done an independent analysis of their results. Then we can talk about this with some degree of confidence. For now I would set that issue aside. "postulate" means "1. To make claim for; demand. 2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument. 3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted.". Meaning 1 is correct, meanings 2 and 3 are wrong, and the connotation of the word (which is primarily based on #3) is very wrong. Even "claimed" would be more neutral. "supposed to" is as clear an example of bias in attribution as you can ask for; it basically says the writer doesn't believe the claim. Anyway, regarding "why are we selecting the reports of it occuring" - because we are describing what it is, obviously; it may or may not exist, but if it exists, this is what it is. Even articles on Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster or UFOs don't have the kind of language you're proposing (they use "described as", "said to", and "defined as", respectively). ObsidianOrder 01:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Postulated: I meant sense 1. If I were pro-CF, I'd prefer postulated to claimed; but I don't mind. I've changed it to claimed. Supposed to: I've tried "would" instead. I really don't care too much about the exact langauge. But I disagree with you (and argue that LNM is wrong too) about what the language should be. Things that are in doubt should not be described with langauge that asserts their undoubted existence. I'm not going to go off to LNM though. I'm going to raise this point at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Language_style_question - I have my own opinion, but its a valid question and worth considering. William M. Connolley 19:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

The article is fine

After reading over the majority of the comments here on this page, I have to state that in my opinion the article in its current form is informative, interesting and balanced. I feel it does not require major surgery, although certainly cleanps and more information will definitely help it. I further agree that the version from Storms is biased, and versions suggesting CF to be total pseudoscience equally so.

As to the Storms version, I certainly think the ISSUES IN THE DEBATE section could be included, largely in its current form. As some have rightly pointed out, the "header" section under "Continuing efforts" seems highly arguable, and Storms has embedded a large number of emotional-based arguments in the text itself -- for instance "The stakes are now too high for trivial skepticism". But these can be easily removed without effecting the overall flow of the article, and the content within strikes me as an excellent overview of the topic in its current state of the art.

I argue for its inclusion.

Some have suggested (even in the block header on this page) that the history of the P&F experiment be condensed. As the primary author of that section, I have to argue against this. For one thing it runs to about one written page, which is hardly excessive for such a topic. But much more importantly, I think the Jones/P&F "argument" is absolutely vital to the understanding of the topic's cold reception in the scientific community. This is not the only concern, of course, but the "rush to publish" or "science by press release" that occured certainly taints the topic for many.

Does anyone disagree with this comment? I'm certainly open to the possibility that its not as important as I think it is.

Finally, I would argue that the Other kinds of fusion section could easily be reduced to a "see other" point form. This is an article on cold fusion, not other "coldish fusion" topics. Those are already listed in their proper place, the general fusion power article.

Maury 13:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I must strongly disagree with your characterization of the need for that much material on PF. First nearly the whole 'Pons and Fleischmann's experiment' (10 paragraphs) and the 'Experimental set-up and observations' (3 more) are about that one experiment. Yes, some about it and the reaction to it are needed, but currently that's half the article, and is way to much for proper balance. - Taxman 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Maury - what do you think we need to change in the "issues" section in Storms before we can include it? I had gotten rid of the "stakes are too high" bit and other similar problems already (the latest version is at Cold fusion/tmp, I hope that's the one you're reading). Also, would the "issues" secion replace the "issues in the controversy" in the present article? Let's see if we can polish this and get it in. ObsidianOrder 23:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely see your point about the importance of history, I'm just not sure how well it can be covered in an article that also covers everything else it should. It will be pretty long... then again, I'm not that concerned with length, as long as it's good ;) Anyway, that was the main reason for the suggestion to move it into a sub-article. If it was split, the history can be covered in more detail, listing all of the reproductions (successful or not), and a mini timeline, while the summary on the main page talks about why it was important, and the fallout from it. ObsidianOrder 23:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Maury - unfortunately I have to disagree with the "it's fine" view... a lot of good information was simply tossed out in the revert. Please have a look at the old version, , for example the "Continuing efforts" section (a prime example of the kind of thing that was deleted: ). The old version badly needed a rewrite - ok; but deleting key information like that is not ok and will not stand long term. The current version amounts to misinformation by omission (even aside from the few wild unsourced statements for which it has a disputed tag). I haven't engaged in a revert war over this only because I think we can come up with something even better and I'd prefer to work on that. The Storms version is also not perfect but should provide the basis for a short-term solution. Anyway, I hope you can understand why I don't think that it's fine as it is. Now, let's actually come up with something better ;) We have our work cut out for us. ObsidianOrder 01:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, an addendum. I finally read ObsidianOrder's outline. It's superb. I have only one suggestion, and that is the addition of another section in the History about the release to the press. As I argue above, I think this is vital to the story.

I'll volunteer for much of the actual work. Obsidian, I need details on "Palmer", mentioned in the Early Work section. Maury 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! It started out as just a list of what was missing, but then I kept working on it and it turned into... this, whatever it is ;) You are absolutely welcome to work on it. We can also probably reuse quite a bit of specific wording from various existing versions. One suggestion, let's nail it down in outline form, then flesh it out? I am somewhat concerned with overall length and verbosity, do you think this will cover too much or in too much detail in any area? I have most of the references needed, after that it is just a matter of going through and picking the best ones. Oh, and writing a bit of stuff (grin) ObsidianOrder 23:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

btw "Palmer" is just Dr Paul Palmer who was working on geofusion. Not very important, brief mention since he probably used the term first. ObsidianOrder 23:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the things that should be added is that H2 dissociates to H atoms on palladium surfaces which goes into the bulk as protons ie you don't observe any hydrogen atoms as such in the palladium matrix.

josh halpern

josh - you are quite correct. There are no D atoms or D2 molecules, what is actually in there is a form of d+. We should also mention the anomalous conductivity of the D/Pd system, it is very important since it is precisely what led P&F to the experiments they did. This is in my outline User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion redux, as "rationale for the experiment: combination of monoatomic absorption and high conductivity in deuterated palladium" and "setup: D2O electrolysis to load up palladium cathode with monoatomic deuterium produced in situ". Perhaps you can help write a paragraph describing this? ObsidianOrder 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Describing them as protons is not very accurate, though it's useful to make it clear that they dissociate. They're usually referred to in the inorganic chemistry literature as hydrides(H), a convention that makes sense as hydrogen is more electronegative than palladium. (Transition metal-H bonds often have considerable covalent character so H isn't the complete story, but is a zero-order approximation reflected in the nomenclature.) η-H₂ coordination is possible on transition metals, but usually only as a short lifetime intermediate, but modeling shows that the η-coordinated H-H bond distance is greater than in molecular H₂(as would be expected with the loss of H-H bonding character.) If a site in palladium did have a H₂ unit (I don't know if this happens or not) the H-H distance would be longer than in molecular H₂. This isn't in the article as there's no chemical theory to properly explain "cold fusion", in much the same way that there is no physical theory. --Noren 02:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Noren - this is an interesting subject. The electronegativity of hydrogen is pretty much exactly the same as that of palladium, so an assignment of H or H on those grounds is arbitrary. What is present in Pd/D is most certainly not D ions, and is it probably not anything involving covalent bonds. You're quite right in that a lot of the complexes Pd forms when acting as a chemical catalyst do have substantial covalent character, but that is on a Pd surface, not in bulk Pd/D. Any explanation of what Pd/D actually is has to account for the anomalous conductivity, which strongly suggests that it is something in between an ionic conductor and a metal alloy, rather than a covalent hydride or even typical ionic hydride. Also, there are at least two known phases of Pd/D (alpha and beta), and they have very interesting transitions that can be observed with Xray spectroscopy and neutron scattering. Some evidence suggests that fusion occurs in a third phase, possibly one involving D₂

You're right about the (Pauling) electronegativities of Pd and H; I should have said that the hydride nomenclature is for all transition metals, many of which are much less electronegative than H. In ternary (alkali/alkaline earth)(second-row transition metal, including palladium) hydrides, metal-H bonds are often well described as covalent bonds or as 3-center, 4-electron (H-Pd-H) interactions analogous to the bonding found in hypervalent main group compounds. These compounds that I'm more familiar with didn't have Pd-Pd bonding, but were better described as salts. I can imagine and would expect that this binary Pd/H combination would be different. I would expect that the hydrogen would still be tightly bound to Pd rather than ionic... but I haven't worked much at all with metallic palladium, so we move out of areas in which I have direct expertise. I can certainly believe that there is interesting and inadequately explained chemistry in a Pd/H (or Pd/D, though I would expect any difference to be results of kinetic isotope effects) --Noren 19:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"the hydrogen would still be tightly bound to Pd" - ah, you see, this is the crux of the anomalous properties of Pd/D right there. You are correct to expect that the hydrogen would be tightly bound, that is the conventional prediction. However, both the high speed of hydrogen diffusion, and the fact that Pd/H has greater electrical (and thermal) conductivity than bulk Pd metal, suggst that it isn't tightly bound. Some of that conductivity pretty much has to be carried by electrons from the hydrogen and some by migration of the hydrogen itself (diffision is accelerated by electic fields). On the other hand, if the hydrogen isn't tightly bound, then why the heck does it spontaneously dissociate and form a hydride? That would seem to imply that the Pd/H state is more energetically favorable, wich suggests tight binding. The combination of these two contradictory properties is precisely what led P&F to look for other oddities in Pd/D; they pretty much expected to find some kind of multi-D-nucleus cooperative phenomenon, if not specifically fusion. ObsidianOrder 19:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"in much the same way that there is no physical theory" - I would politely disagree with the implication that (a) such a theory could not ever be developed and (b) since it is theoretically impossible, the observations must be wrong. I certainly wouldn't claim that there was a physical theory which offers a full explanation, but there are several proposed theories which do point the direction to a possible explanation. The typical approach deals with things like Bose condensates, many-body wave functions, coherence, non-local momentum transfer, etc. If you'd like to read up on it: Chubb&Chubb, Fusion Technol 20:93; Hagelstein, ICCF8; Kim&Zubarev, J Phys B 33:1; Preparata, Trans Fusion Technol 26:397; Schwinger, Progr Theor Phys 85:711 (and by the way I'm shamelessly cribbing these from the much lengthier list of references at the end of ch. 5, pg 91-110, of ). ObsidianOrder 11:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim a), note my use of present tense. b) seems to be a commonly used strawman by the pro-cold fusion crowd, I never said anything of the sort. Competent scientists who were not attempting to bilk the credulous for "research" money did experiments and saw no energy/neutrons/etc. For that matter, I haven't read any reports of electrodes melting since the original paper... so if we believe all the pro-cold fusion papers it would imply that the wattage produced has drastically decreased since 1989. Modern "cold fusion researchers" associate themselves with "science" of similar merit- energy from zero point energy and from perpetual motion machines. --Noren 19:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I took your statement to imply something it didn't. Yes, there still are occasional reports of random high energy release events, e.g from Mizuno's lab (a single electrode which released ~500GJ/kg over a couple of days). However, the occasional report of that is far less interesting than the fact that reproducibility is vastly improved (see e.g. the Navy labs' work on Pd-B alloys and electrodeposited Pd). You are quite wrong to dismiss cold fusion researchers, many of whom are extremely competent scientists working in major research institutions. "Competent scientists did experiments and saw no energy/neutrons/etc" - true, sort of (since some of them did see energy, e.g. at MIT), but the factors required for reproduction were not well understood back then. It may be time to revisit these experiments. ObsidianOrder 19:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

New images

I just added a couple of diagrams: and . Steven Krivit added this photo: . I think the first diagram could replace the one there now, and the picture be used in addition to the Charles Bennet pic which is used now. Comments? ObsidianOrder 11:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of thermonuclear fusion

ObsidianOrder told me to join the discussion. So let me join and confirm that I agree with the comments by William M. Connolley.

I also assume that he agrees that it is essential for this page to explain clearly why cold fusion cannot work. The article IS about cold fusion and the most important fact about cold fusion is that it cannot work.

This is why I also find it necessary to explain the main reason: the nuclei can't be pushed closer together just by some silly 1-electronvolt games with the electrons because the energy we need to squeeze the nuclei, in order to overcome the Coulomb barrier, is of order many megaelectronvolts.

It seems clear that the current version is deliberately murky because it does not want this explanation to be clear.

I have again corrected the completely wrong statement that the DOE does not say that the experiments are flawed. Of course that DOE does say it. What we see here is the price that we often pay for diplomatic formulations. Do you want to be nice? Yes, you can, but be ready that whoeever will want, will try to misinterpret your statement.

Please, ObsidianOrder, do not revert this page unless there is a consensus on this talk page.

Best wishes, --Lumidek 21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think we can work this out. First, I didn't delete the explanation of the Coulomb barrier; there was an older section on distance which did not clearly explan the energy required, and I merged what you wrote with that, while preserving most of it, and expanding on some. Second: please review my outline for an article rewrite here: User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion redux. I would like to get some feedback on that. On this particular point I had written: "Insufficient energy to bring nuclei together - in hot fusion, D nuclei require ?? MeV to overcome the electrostatic repulsion and bring them together. that corresponds to an effective temperature of ? degrees K. it is unclear how any process can concentrate that much energy in a single deuterium atom in an electochemical cell, or inside the palladium metal lattice, at room temperature.". Is that deliberately murky? I think it is very close to your explanation. However (and this is where we get into a serious POV dispute) you also say "the most important fact about cold fusion is that it cannot work" - no, the most imoprtant fact about it is the experimental observation that it does work; the fact that conventional theory cannot explain why it works is purely incidental. Even so, people have done good work on the theory angle as well, see my discussion with Noren above. ObsidianOrder 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear ObsidianOrder, thanks for your friendly and constructive approach. Your statements, when analyzed properly, of course do contain enough information - and from some perspective, more than mine. But after 10 paragraphs explaining the hypothetical achievements of cold fusion and details of its experiments, your technically sounding comments about the possible problems may be lost for the reader. Although this article is "cold fusion", it is still about fusion, the process in which two nuclei should be merged. That's why the setup and its technical difficulties should be explained first, and only afterwards, the particular revolutionary proposals of "cold fusion" should be discussed. In other words, I feel that the general physical discussion should be first. Then you may have your uncritical discussions of these experiments you believe, and then criticisms.

But it looks pretty illogical to describe successes in merging the nuclei - and the details of the apparata with palladium batteries and tomato soup or whatever you exactly think can ignite the fusion - without actually saying what it means to merge them. The previous form of the article was even more extreme because physics - such as the Coulomb repulsion - was at the end of the last relevant section, which is just too late. Best wishes, Lubos --Lumidek 21:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Lumidek - You may be interested to read chapter 5, pg 91-111 of . The major theoretical ideas are described in Chubb&Chubb, Fusion Technol 20:93; Hagelstein, ICCF8; Kim&Zubarev, J Phys B 33:1; Preparata, Trans Fusion Technol 26:397; Schwinger, Progr Theor Phys 85:711. In short, the explanation is that while you cannot actually push two nuclei together against electrostatic repulsion, in a quantum-mechanical many-body system with cooprative features (such as D in Pd), the operator for the distance between nuclei produces a non-negligible probability of very short distances. That would not be any more weird than superconductivity, for example. And yes, this is not a widely accepted theory at this time, but it provides a direction in which one may look for a reasonable explanation. Your comments about "tomato soup" are uncalled for. ObsidianOrder 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the order of sections - I mostly agree, the explanation of why this seems impossible within conventional theory is important. That's why I have in my outline: History - Theoretical objections - Practical difficulties - Proposed mechanisms - Current research. How would you reorder these? ObsidianOrder 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

One minor note - the electrostatic repulsion problem may not be the most serious theoretical objection either. I would say the differing branch probabilities for nuclear reactions are the "most inexplicable" feature, the lack of energetic particles (a.k.a. "non-localized momentum transfer") comes after that, and electrostatic repulsion is actually last ;) However, the fact that branch probabilities are different in condensed matter has been very conclusively established by bombardment of deuterated films (and this observation btw is not at all controversial like "excess heat" is). So, clearly the theory is incomplete ;) ObsidianOrder 22:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Lubos for his additions to the article, which I agree with. He's got me slightly wrong above (I also assume that he agrees that it is essential for this page to explain clearly why cold fusion cannot work). Of my own knowledge, I don't know that, since I lack sufficient expertise. I know where it stands in the literature, though, which is compatible with Lubos's version but not the pro-CF sides. I strongly disagree with OO's the most important fact about it is the experimental observation that it does work. William M. Connolley 21:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Ok, that's my opinion ;) A NPOV way to state that would be "the fact that a number of reputable scientists have experimentally observed that it does work". (namely: Fleischman, Bockris, McKubre, Miley, Storms, ...) (And yes, before you say anything, ok, a number of reputable scientists have also observed that it doesn't work - but then we get into a technical discussion of factors affecting reproducibility, on which we may reasonably have disagreeing opinions). ObsidianOrder 21:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry, William, I said it incorrectly. It was not meant to argue that William is a leading expert in cold fusion - maybe warm globalization. OO's general sketch of a new version is relatively plausible, but whether or not it is better than the current version will depend on the details how the sections are completed. Generally, it looks OK to me to describe the history - including the relevant people first, and then the section with theoretical problems could follow as long as it is clear enough. After that, you can have more details about the other setups, I would say. OO, unless you get financial interest in cold fusion, please be aware that it is easy to fool yourself. These discoveries usually start with the assumption of the physicist that he was selected by divine forces, and it must work - and then it is measured until something is "seen". But of course, there was not a single MeV ever obtained in these experiments. One does not need to know physics to know that this is probably the case. If it were possible to get energy this easy, the discoverers - who often get a lot of money from sponsors - would have already build power plants that would feed whole cities.

OO, I don't quite understand what you mean by "reputable scientists". It does not seem to be a scientist who has at least some publications with at least some citations. For example look at Compare with average scientists like All the best, Lubos --Lumidek 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Lumidek wrote: look at //scholar.google.com/scholar . . . "martin+fleischman" Try spelling the name right. You could also look here: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/view_fellow.cfm?FID=495&N=f Before you dismiss a scientist and his research, you should learn spell his name and look up and read some of his papers. --JedRothwell 23:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a grammatical error, "learn spell his name", but that's ok, because it has no effect on what you're saying, which is "it seems that you've spelt his name wrong - it's 'mann' at the end, and not 'man' :) The correct spelling returns 153 results." Try to not be so hostile in your replies. –M 23:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

M writes: "You have a grammatical error, 'learn spell his name' . . ." That's a voice input error, actually, but an error is an error. This is what happens when you let a computer act as your secretary. Martin Fleischmann is an internationally famous scientist, a Fellow of the Royal Society one of the most important electrochemists who ever lived. Why is it hostile for me to suggest that Lumidek familiarize himself with Fleischmann's work before dismissing him? It seems to me this is a quiet, modest suggestion and it is in line with academic traditions. --JedRothwell 17:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear JedRothwell, I apologize for the incorrect spelling. The page with the correct spelling is here and it is not too different as it only differs essentially by one paper - the original paper that we consider incorrect these days. Despite the false attention the paper attracted, it does not seem to be a terribly famous one. And the adjective "reputable" could still be a bit of exaggeration. It is not a good idea to use the words like "reputable" because it makes it harder for most polite people to object. Still, some of us will still say that the adjective "reputable" is simply not justifiable. Incidentally, among the 153 papers, at most 10 have MF as a co-author (CM Fleischmann is not the same person, is he?). If you want to compare MF to a truly reputable fusion expert, try W.A. Fowler, for example Best, Lubos --Lumidek 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you consult some references outside of the Internet. You will find that Fleischmann is, as I noted above, one of the most famous electrochemists who ever lived. His contributions to the field have been wide-ranging and vitally important. It is a safe bet that he knows much more about calorimetry and electrochemistry than you do. I suggest you read his work carefully before criticizing him. --JedRothwell 17:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lubos - Martin Fleischmann has well over 200 published papers (try , all of the electrochem papers are his; also, most of what he published is pre-1990 and would not be in there). He is widely considered one of the top electrochemists in the world. So is Bockris, by the way. Scwinger was not an experimentalist but he did quite a bit of work on the theoretical basis, and he's a Nobel prize winner in physics. Your idea of "reputable" may vary ;) What happened in the whole CF debate is interesting: most electrochemists who knew how to do the experiments right and didn't insist on having a theoretical explanation from physics, tended to reproduce the findings; while most of the physicists couldn't reproduce for a variety of practical reasons, and tended to be strongly opposed, largely on the grounds that it is theoretically impossible... just like you ;) ObsidianOrder 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear ObsidianOrder, your error is that you count Roy M. Fleischmann who is a cancer biologist with hundreds of papers and thousands of citations to be the same person as a fusion researcher Martin Fleischmann who has written nine unknown papers and one well-known wrong paper . Please think twice before you dispute my data again. Thanks! ;-) The power of science is that we can actually make conclusions without trying every single awkward experiment that as someone invents should be done. --Lumidek 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lubos - no, I have not made that error ;) Go through the papers, and you will see a large number of papers on electrochemistry by "M Fleischmann" e.g. "Dispersion in electrochemical cells with radial flow between parallel electrodes. ... M Fleischmann, REW Jansson - Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, 1979" - and there's literally hundreds of those. That's our guy ;) The total number of papers I cited is from his biography in Mallove's "Fire from Ice", but I have independently confirmed that by checking ISI, and I recommend that you do the same (since Google is not a reputable bibliographic citation database ;) Again, as I said, Martin Fleischmann is widely considered one of the top electrochemists in the world. Please do some research before you make prposterous claims. ObsidianOrder 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can easily verify that you have made this error, and all the well-cited papers in your original list are by R M Fleischmann whose first name is Roy and whose field is biology. The only cited paper by Martin Fleischmann is the single original "bombastic" paper about cold fusion. Your other statements about MF are equally unjustifiable. What you say is certainly not true at Harvard, in the U.S., or in the rest of the civilized world. --Lumidek 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Error? Huh. You're moving the goalposts: your original claim was that he didn't have any papers (quote: "does not seem to be a scientist who has at least some publications with at least some citations"), then that he had nine papers total (quote: "fusion researcher Martin Fleischmann who has written nine unknown papers and one well-known wrong paper"). Now that you realize there are hundreds of papers, they're just not sufficiently well cited for you? LOL. The most cited paper by MF is not the CF paper, it is actually "Raman spectra of pyridine adsorbed at a silver electrode - M Fleischmann, PJ Hendra, AJ McQuillan - Chem. Phys. Lett, 1974" with 181 cites (at least if you trust google, which does not have good coverage of pre-1980 stuff - I think you'll find even more esp. on surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy). Let's get this straight (again): MF has 200+ papers (and a book, and so forth), he is a fellow of the Royal Society, and a top-flight electrochemist. You, on the other hand, suggested that he had only published one paper, namely the infamous CF paper, after checking only google (and misspelling his name). I sincerely hope you have more familiarity with other aspects of CF. P.S. a few more cold fusion researchers you may want to look up: Bockris, Miley, Oriani and McKubre. ObsidianOrder 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lumidek, you failed to justify why you reverted my edit. To repeat the justification of my edit: 1) Connelley's refs are not books, they are papers. If you, or someone feels so strong that these papers should be listed, then they should be listed in the "Papers" section. Second, I see no justification for the 4 Jan shuffle by WMC which appears to randomly place the last, pro-cf book at the bottom of the list.

STemplar 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The main reason why I think it is inappropriate to justify why people revert your edits is that you are quite obviously a sockpuppet who was created today and whose only role is to create problems on this page. --Lumidek 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lubos - "OO's general sketch of a new version is relatively plausible, but whether or not it is better than the current version will depend on the details how the sections are completed." - of course, and I'd like your help in completing that. I have tried very hard to both not omit anything important, and to make a fair presentation of the different sides. I'd appreciate it if you could do the same. In the interest of peace and harmony, I have pointedly not engaged in an edit war to try to restore the pre-WMC-revert version . Let's try to work together on the new version? ObsidianOrder 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

New and improved: Storms draft partial merge

Hello, a quick explanation of the changes I just made: I copied the list of papers cited in the Storms draft, and merged the "Issues in the debate" section of that with the "Continuing work" section of this article (thus leaving the "Arguments in the controversy" section intact). The "Continuing work" section was also moved down after the "Arguments", in order to give the "Arguments" more prominence. All of the new information is well sourced (much better than the rest of the article anyway), and has been looked over for NPOV by several people; any other changes are relatively minor and should not affect the balance of the article. I believe based on prior discussion that this set of changes would in principle be supported by a majority of the editors here (although possibly not the exact way I did them). I think this is a reasonable compromise state. If you object to it, please point out what exactly you object to, and I will try to fix it. ObsidianOrder 09:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What would make you think that would be supported by many users here? Multiple people have pointed out that Storms draft is unnaceptable. At best I said it was better than Jed's version , but since many problems with it have been pointed out. Not only does it violate NPOV by making way too many opinions stated as facts, but giving that much space in the article to a view clearly shown to be the minority also violates NPOV by giving it undue weight. Just for specifics "The source of tritium is still unknown although it clearly result from a nuclear reaction that is initiated within the apparatus.", "Clearly, unusual nuclear processes are occurring in material where none should occur.", "In spite of these well documented and replicated observations..." (POV), "In contrast, other prestigious journals such the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics continue to publish well done studies on the subject." It has already been discussed that the peer reviewed status of the citations in Sotrms draft is very weak compared to other areas of science. So yes this is just another example of trying to tilt the POV towards pro CF. - Taxman 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

(I took the liberty of correcting the above text to avoid confusion. It said: "At best I said it was better than Jed's version . . ." I uploaded Storms' original version. I have not written or uploaded any version of my own, and I would not want to take credit for Storms' work. To answer Taxman's rhetorical question: "What would make you think . . ." It would take a miracle to make me think that. The "skeptics" would have to suddenly reverse course, reject the party line, and allow references to the literature and statements based on actual science rather than their opinions. Taxman and others have already demonstrated that will reject all facts and squash or delete any POV but their own.) --JedRothwell 21:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jed - you're not supposed to edit other people's comments, this is considered really bad around here. I restored it. Obviously you werent trying to do anything underhanded, but most people who would edit other ppls' comments are, hence the reason for the policy. ObsidianOrder 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ObsidianOrder wrote: ". . . you're not supposed to edit other people's comments, this is considered really bad around here." I realize that, but you exaggerate a little. Other people here, including Taxman, have changed my statements to avoid confusion. I see nothing wrong with that. Anyway, let me insert a comment in brackets, and perhaps Taxman will edit the paragraph himself. While he is at it, he should delete this paragraph and the two above it. --JedRothwell 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure when Taxman says "Jed's" he means the pre-revert version, up until Jan 2 or so . ObsidianOrder 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman - you had said "This is better than the current state of the article and does represent a great starting point to move forward. There are some problems, but overall I believe they're all reasonably easily fixable." (talking about Storms' original version). That's what made me think you would support it; I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Maury also said earlier that he is in favor of including only the "Issues" section from Storms. That's what made me think it would have a fair amount of support. I did go through and remove a lot of POV language that was pointed out by you and others. Thank you for pointing out more things that need to be changed, I will go and change them now. ObsidianOrder 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I did say that, but remember what version I was referring to. It wasn't the FA version that you inserted this material into. I also thought you would take into account the problems that were discussed in the material since then. - Taxman 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I cleaned up all of the specifics you mentioned (and I do think the new state is an improvement, btw). Regarding citations - you may be correct, however I must point out that before this the article had essentially no citations (peer reviewed or otherwise) to specific sources for any of the important points (except the original P&F paper, of course). How would you propose to address the citation problem? ObsidianOrder 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It simply wasn't custom in the past to extensively use inline citations--for various stange reasons. That's not a good thing, but neither is citing low quality sources just because they are there. The section is about twice as long as it should be and should be accompanied by a more detailed discussion of the lack of acceptance of CF papers by mainstream journals. I'm not saying we shouldn't report cold fusion research. We just can't report it's results as fact, it can't have undue space in the article, and it can't be reported as if they are accepted science. And changing is to appears to be isn't helpful either. It only appears to be to CF proponents, so why not just state CF proponents believe x because of y. By the way, the above were just what I happened to point out first. There's many more problems in there. Honestly going through it I see more and more that are simply Storms asserting his opinion. In the spirit of there being no support for the added material I think it would be better if it were taken out. Why not instead of shoving material like this in, just work on fleshing out the outline you're working on? - Taxman 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Why not ... just work on fleshing out the outline you're working on?" - Indeed, I wonder about that myself ;) That's what I probably would have done if not for the revert. Arguably that's what I should have done anyway. I guess I wanted to get the article to some kind of reasonable short-term state before starting to work on the outline. Also, I wasn't sure how much traction the outline would get - still not sure actually, even if it was completed today it would probably face a pretty steep opposition to replacing the whole article with it en masse. "undue space" - ok, but the new material is less than one page out of six (in the body of the article), and a lot of the references are actually for the other sections (cites for Paneth, Huzeinga, etc). "There's many more problems in there." - I do see problems with it, but I don't think it is that terrible. Let's leave it this way for now? I am happy to leave it alone at this point (aside from fixing any problems that people point out, of course). ObsidianOrder 23:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear OO, I found a couple of minutes in the evening to look what happened with the page today, and I am moderately pleasantly surprised. It's not perfect but it's not a disaster. If you can keep the standards, instead of converging to some shallow promotion, you could actually gain a long-term support of people like me in your maintanance of this page. --Lumidek 03:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Lubos - thank you. I sincerely hope to be able to come up with something that presents all of the important information in a reasonably neutral way. Let me also apologize if I have been too argumentative here on the talk page - arguments are much easier to get into than out of ;) ObsidianOrder 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No polls?

I have started summarizing this issue in the new DoE panels on cold fusion article. Feel free to complete it. The idea is to later link to it from the cold fusion article, and to archive this discussion. Pcarbonn 21:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jed keeps misrepresenting the result of the DoE panel. Two-thirds believed that cold fusion did not exist. That's a clear majority that don't believe it exists. The only "split" is over whether or not excess power was produced, not whether or not it's cold fusion. Among the one-third remaining, all but one only found it somewhat convincing. There's no way you can reasonable interpret that to mean anything other than the majority of scientists disbelieving it and the vast majority not finding it fully convincing.

Also, where are the theories of how to overcome the electrostatic forces in the article? If we are to include pro-cold fusion views, they should at least include their theory.

Nathan J. Yoder 10:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nathan J. Yoder writes: "Jed keeps misrepresenting the result of the DoE panel." I am not misrepresenting it. I am disagreeing with the DoE's own summary of the panel members' remarks. The panel members themselves also disagreed with this summary. I have clearly and repeatedly stated that this is my view and my tally, so you should stop claiming that I am "misrepresenting." (How can I misrepresent my own opinion?) The DoE summary does say "two-thirds" but my count is: 7 No, 5 Yes, and 6 Maybe. I suggest you read the reviews here and post your own tally. Your tally would probably be different from mine. --JedRothwell 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nathan - ignore for a moment what the official DoE panel report says, and read the comments by the individual panel members: . I am curious how you'd tally them up. Excess heat at the GJ/kg level is cold fusion, or some other equally extreme physical anomaly (any suggestions?).

On the second point: yes, indeed. Please read chapter 5, pg 91-111 of for a summary; you will find a lot of pointers there, for example and . That's probably too much matterial to include in the article, especially since there are a number of competing theories neither of which is completely developed (and neither of which is broadly accepted, obviosuly). The short answer is cooperative behaviour; the exact nature of which is debatable, but you can see some parallels with Bose condensates and with the Mossbauer effect. The question is not how to overcome the electrostatic force per se; the question is how the chemical environment of an atom can in any way affect its nuclear reactions, considering that the two occur at completely different distance and energy scales (six orders of magnitude apart, as Lubos pointed out). However, there are plenty of non-controversial experiments that demonstrate that the chemical environment does affect nuclear reactions: namely in the case of bombardment of deuterium/hydrogen in a thin metal foil, different nuclear reaction branch probabilities and a different capture cross-section is seen than in free space. So clearly the conventional theory is incomplete. I would not claim that there is another theory which completely explains this kind of effect, but there are the beginnings of one. ObsidianOrder 11:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed over the first 8 reviews and only found one stating that he thought cold fusion was real. Some were a bit leanient in suggesting that there should be some minimal funding, but that was only to investigate the cause of excess heat, not an acknowledgement that the cause was a result of fusion reactions. If you're going to make the claim that the DoE misrepresented its own panel, then please list how each reviewer stands and not just an anonymous tally of them. Nathan J. Yoder 06:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I went through them again:

• Review 1. NO ("The evidence does not demonstrate that a new phenomenon is occurring.")
• Review 2. MAYBE/YES ("... there appears to be rather convincing evidence for the production of excess heat and for the production of 4He in metal deuterides. ... There is no convincing evidence for the occurrence of nuclear reactions in condensed matter associated with the reports of excess heat production.") I am completely perplexed by the juxtaposition of these two statements, but that is what they guy wrote - OO
• Review 3. YES ("... the evidence strongly suggests a nuclear origin for the excess heat observed in palladium rods highly loaded with deuterium.")
• Review 4. YES ("This set of articles make a significant case for phenomena in the deuterium/palladium system that is (I) markedly different from that of the hydrogen/palladium system, (ii) supportive of the claim that excess energy is generated in the deuterium/palladium system, and (iii) without a coherent theoretical explanation.")
• Review 5. MAYBE ("My feeling is that there should be no funds set aside for support of CF research but, if the DOE receives a proposal in this area which suggests some definitive research which settle some of the issues, it should consider it for support as it would any other proposal.")
• Review 6. NO ("I find nothing in the articles that I've read that convinces me that the new anomalies reported are not experimental artifacts.")
• Review 7. NO ("I find in summary that, even after all of the work that has been done, the case is spotty for the existence of the cold fusion phenomenon. I am not convinced by the evidence that I have seen ...")
• Review 8. MAYBE ("If the bottom line is that experiments in which x > 0.95 in PdDx (at room temperature) give anomalous effects reliably (even if achieving that high x is very difficult and very dependent on the materials science of the Pd), while heat balance is attained for x < 0.9 in PdDx (or when using PdHx at all x), we've got the start of science.")
• Review 9. YES ("Evidence for excess heat in LENR experiments is compelling and well established. ... The body of work that has resulted from LENR investigations is formidable and worthy of attention of the broader scientific community. It is unfortunate that a few vocal individuals have manage to stigmatize this field and those working in it.")
• Review 10. MAYBE/YES ("In a general summary of the calorimetric results, the observation of sudden and prolonged temperature excursions ..., has been made a sufficient number of times that, even if not totally reproducible, still have not been explained in terms of conventional chemistry or electrochemistry ... At this stage, I think the evidence suggests the possibility of such events, cannot be considered conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, for reasons alluded to above.")
• Review 11. YES ("the care in which the measurements are done for experiments that do show excess heat are convincing evidence of low energy nuclear reactions. ... There is strong evidence of nuclear reactions in palladium, and suggestions of reactions in the titanium foil experiments.")
• Review 12. MAYBE/YES ("There seem to be increasing evidence for the production of excess heat, even though the reason is totally unknown. ... Yes, it is likely that an unknown process (in materials physics or in nuclear physics) is responsible. However, the link to nuclear reaction is still not strong enough at the present time. ... The current evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that nuclear reactions occur in metal deuterides yet.")
• Review 13. YES ("... there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that very low energy nuclear reactions can occur in condensed matter at rates that are totally unexpected")
• Review 14. NO ("I am not persuaded that such energy has been produced.")
• Review 15. NO ("As one of the reviewers stated, one can never disprove something and this is my feeling about "cold fusion".")
• Review 16. MAYBE ("My opinion is that none of the experimental evidence directly presented to us is conclusive that nuclear reactions are occurring in these environments, but some of the evidence is certainly suggestive that they are.")
• Review 17. NO ("Most "nuclear" measurements (particle emission) are not convincing in comparison with the state of the art in low energy nuclear physics.")
• Review 18. NO ("Although experiments have become more sophisticated there is no new convincing or even tantalizing evidence for LENR.")

The final tally is: 5 YES, 7 NO, 6 MAYBE (and 3 of the MAYBEs are leaning towards a YES). This turns out to be the same as Jed's tally, although I have no idea whether he assigned them the same way. I am still curious how you would count them, and why. Note: I would obviously not argue to include this analysis in the article, since it is original reseach. I can only suggest that people read the whole thing and decide for themselves (especially since many of the reviewers make very interesting points). However, this does provide compelling evidence in my mind that the scientific opinion is not nearly as uniformly against CF as others here have suggested, and of course that the DoE report substantially misrepresented the findings of the panelists. ObsidianOrder 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is my tally, from Talk Archive 4:

• 7 unequivocally No: #1, 2, 6, 14, 15, 17, 18
• 5 conclusively Yes: 4, 8, 9, 13
• 7 maybe: 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16

I got my arithmetic wrong, which I often do. It should say: "7 No, 4 Yes, 7 maybe." In my first tally I must have moved one of the "iffy maybe's" to Yes. This is pretty close to ObsidianOrder. It is surprisingly difficult to categorize these reviews. --JedRothwell 16:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A number of the yes's both of you have categorized say that they believe there is excess heat, but fusion is not proven. You can't count that as a yes for Cold fusion in general. They're just agreeing that something is going on, but it's not yet known what. Again that's fine to report too, but it's not fine to say they are a "conclusive yes" because that implies they are agreeing fusion is going on. At best it should be split out whether the reviewer felt evidence for excess heat was compelling, and separately if they felt that meant fusion was. Further, any of our counts are decidedly OR and are not acceptable in the article precisely for the difficulty of deciding whether they are positive or negative at all. It's too easy to take them out of context. For example I would count many of the above characterizations as quite generous-especially #12. That's a clear no on fusion, but a maybe/yes on excess heat. In any case it's interesting because it represents an overall more positive result than the review summary does. One the whole though, mixed, mainly negative is still the result, and that's fine. We just need to report the facts, not some rose colored view of them. The facts are enough to support that some believe something is going on and a few believe it is fusion. - Taxman 18:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman writes: "A number of the yes's both of you have categorized say that they believe there is excess heat, but fusion is not proven." The heat itself proves that the reaction is nuclear (or something even more exotic, such as ZPE). If you believe the heat is real -- as these reviewers apparently do -- then the only logical conclusion is that it must be nuclear. The amount of heat is often 100 and sometimes 100,000 times greater than any chemical reaction can produce, and there are no chemical changes, chemical fuel, or ashes in the cell. Since the heat is accompanied by neutrons, tritium and helium I believe this must be fusion, but the reviewers may think otherwise. In any case, a chemical reaction is ruled out. So are calorimetric errors, by the way. To put it another way, as Fleischmann said, 'heat is the principal signature of the reaction.' A strictly descriptive definition of cold fusion would be: massive heat in the absence of any heat generating chemical reaction. --JedRothwell 19:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The last sentence written by reviewer number two says "there is no evidence for this being a nuclear physics phenomenon." Yet he is listed as MAYBE/YES. Likewise, reviewer three says "Have the authors provided evidence that LENR exists? Maybe!" However, rather than being listed as maybe, he was listed as yes. I haven't read the rest, but if this holds true for the others, this seems like a highly biased interpretation. In fact, an absurd interpretation. –Joke 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Joke writes: "The last sentence written by reviewer number two says 'there is no evidence for this being a nuclear physics phenomenon.' Yet he is listed as MAYBE/YES." Yup. Because, as OO notes: Reviewer #2 also says: "... there appears to be rather convincing evidence for the production of excess heat and for the production of 4He in metal deuterides." Excess heat and helium-4 are cold fusion. That is the definition. What would you call heat and helium production in a cell with no chemical fuel? In other words, the reviewer is saying he agrees there is evidence and he also emphatically denies it. I pegged him as "Emphatically No," but schizophrenic might be a better description.

Here is the take-home lesson for you skeptics: you must deny everything, every time. As the Japanese say, "mizaru, kikazaru, iwazaru" (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil). You cannot admit there is heat anywhere even though hundreds of researchers have observed it using the most expensive and precise calorimeters ever made, and it is sometimes so intense it has melted ceramics with no energy input. You cannot admit there has been a single observation of tritium, x-rays, or gamma rays even though hundreds of autoradiographs and spectra have been published by world-class laboratories. Do not let yourself be trapped like reviewer #2 into admitting that anything is "rather convincing." It will only make you look silly. Reviewer #7 fell into the same trap. See: It is best to refuse to look at any evidence. Do not read a paper. Only look at information which is at least four times removed from original sources: an opinion of an opinion of an opinion . . . By the time the account has been filtered by four different people all the information content will be distorted or deleted. If you catch yourself looking at anything, make it quick -- skim; don't read, and do not finish the document. Grasp at straws and jump to conclusions; do not analyze. N. Yoder demonstrates the technique above where he writes he "skimmed over the first 8 reviews . . ." and then he promptly jumped to the conclusion he imagines the report came to, which happens to be diametrically opposite of what it actually says. Above all: never think for yourself. Obey Authority. You will only maintain your opinion by blind obedience to the party line, and by rigid robotlike rejection of reality and the scientific method. --JedRothwell 23:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Two comments: first, perhaps I should explain what I mean by "yes" and "no". To my mind, the controversy is on one hand between those who consider claims of cold fusion are somewhere between outright fraudulent and due to incompetence (experimental artifacts/errors/etc). Those are the NO votes. On the other hand are those who believe that there is some real phenomenon which is observed which cannot be explained by accepted theories (but which is not necessarily well understood). Those are the YES votes. In other words the split is between those who think it is pseudo/pathological science and those who think it is legitimate research dealing with what is probably a new phenomenon. For the yes votes, fusion does not have to be the only explanation, it is merely the least extraordinary hypothesis (and again, does anyone care to propose a different one?); and if it is fusion, then a particular mechanism or pathway (such as d+d->4He) does not have to be the correct explanation (and in any case evidence strongly suggests there is more than one pathway). If you go through my list you will find that it is entirely consistent with those ground rules.

Second, both Taxman and Joke questioned my assignemnt of particular items when a reviewer stated that there is evidence for one thing (e.g. excess heat, particles, isotopic products) but not another. If you read the actual comments, you will see that many of the revewers specifically state they will only evaluate the aspects which lie within their field of expertise (e.g. an electrochemist may only look at calorimetry but not detection of particles). If one of those guys says "I will only evaluate calorimetry... I see strong evidence for excess heat... I am not convinced it is a nuclear reaction" - that is a YES, because by their own statement they are not even trying to evaluate the evidence which may directly point to a nuclear reaction. And so on.

Let me again invite anyone who is interested to come up with their own tally, supported with citations just as mine is. ObsidianOrder 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source for these alleged reviews other than JedRothwell's personal web site? That 2/3 were unconvinced that low energy reactions occur is a fact taken from the official DoE site. --Noren 16:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Earth to Noren: Come in please! Two Questions: 1. Do you seriously think I am capable of inventing these comments? I am flattered that you think I could master so many different fields and impersonate so many cranky, biased experts. 2. If I did invent them, why would I make so many of them hostile toward cold fusion? The source of the document is shown at the top, and the original source was, obviously, the DoE. No other institution would conduct such a sloppy review or issue such a document. When the Italian Government conducted a similar review last year under the auspices of the Italian Senate, they concluded that cold fusion is real and that it should be funded at the national level. This is how a sane government does a real review. --JedRothwell 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

> My understanding of the discussion boils down to this. According to the reviewers' written comments and the summary by DOE, the reviewers have mixed feelings about the evidence of excess power, but, at the same time, they are generally convinced that nuclear fusion has not been observed. In other words, several reviewers said that something strange is going on, but it is not nuclear reactions. If we recognize this distinction, the summary report by DoE did represent the comments of the reviewers fairly. Depending on your definition of cold fusion, you could say that the panel did not see convincing evidences of cold fusion (defined as nuclear reaction), or that one half of the reviewers were somewhat convinced of it (if defined as excess heat). So, it's all about a question of definition. Pcarbonn 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn writes: "In other words, several reviewers said that something strange is going on, but it is not nuclear reactions."

Yeeesss, but. The reviewers (and the DoE) fail to own up to the facts. If you accept that the excess heat is real, you are compelled to conclude that it must be nuclear in origin (or something totally unknown to science). To conclude that it might be chemical is simply absurd. You would have to redefine "chemistry" and throw away everything we have learned about chemistry since the mid 18th century. You have to accept that chemical reactions can produce megajoules per mole without a trace of chemical ash.

"If we recognize this distinction, the summary report by DoE did represent the comments of the reviewers fairly."

Agreed. The reviewers and the DoE were on the same page, which was orchestrated by Steve Jones, in case you are wondering. They are both frantically denying reality, and trying to reinvent the terms "chemistry" and "nuclear." Half of the reviewers are trying to have their cake and eat it; they are forced to admit the heat is real, but they are pretending it does not mean what it inescapabably must mean. The other half -- the hard liners -- are trying to pretend that calorimetry does not work. That is, at least, consistent. Both are absurd, but the hard-liners are smart enough to see that they should not give an inch. If the reality of cold fusion ever penetrates into the public consiousness, both views will be seen as about equally ridiculous and deluded, with little practical difference between them. Whether you deny everything discovered in the last 250 years, or 99% of everything, you are still a flake. --JedRothwell 21:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jed, you can look at it like you say. But you can also look at it in a positive way: the panel did say that 1/2 the reviewers were somewhat convinced that excess power was observed. This is a significant recognition by a reputable source, and a big change compared to the original panel in 1989. I don't think anybody could argue with that. Why not take advantage of it, and communicate this statement widely ? Pcarbonn 11:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Incoherent rant...

No, I'm not talking about CF, but you may like to view http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia2/. Its not as funny as the first one, sadly.

William M. Connolley 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

If you are not talking about cold fusion, why did you post the message here? --JedRothwell 17:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read section 5? I thought you might be interested... http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia2/Section_V.html William M. Connolley 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Haha, nice to have some light relief! :) Jed, read down, it relates to Cold Fusion. Their use of etc is second to none. - FrancisTyers 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there he goes again . . . Correa is one a strange dude. You are right, this does connect with cold fusion in a nutty way. Well, I am relieved that he is still on my case. I would worry if he praised me. --JedRothwell 22:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, is this ever a blast from the past!

My friend Séamus (now Professor of Bio and Electro Sensing at Cranfield) was at Southampton in the early 90s and actually ran some experiments for Martin Fleishmann. I think his conclusion was that there was something going on, but not fusion. There was a heck of a lot of energy released, though. All controlled by a BBC Model B computer, as I recall :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / RfA! 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Connolley applying for adminship

In other but related news, you-all might be interested in knowing that Connolley is applying for Misplaced Pages adminship. You can vote here: 64.48.73.126 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Term Cold Fusion

This paragraph:

"It should be pointed out that the term "cold fusion" has also been used to describe generally unrelated research. The term was first coined by Dr Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University in 1986 in an investigation of what is today referred to as muon-catalyzed fusion. "Cold fusion" was also used by Steven Jones, also of BYU at the same time, to describe potential high-pressure events now referred to as piezonuclear fusion."

seems to contradict several established references:

1. The first paper to list the term "cold nuclear fusion" is credited to "Rafelski, Johann and Steven E. Jones," Palmer is not listed.

2. Several historical texts on this subject say nothing about Palmer. Even if Palmer did have a role in the BYU cold nuclear fusion work, to fail to primarily attribute the term to Jones appears to be contradictory to the established texts. As well, such failure to note Jones's role diminishes a very key aspect of the historical controversy; that of the conflict between Jones and Fleischamann/Pons.

Huizenga's "Fiasco" pp. 8 "Fifty miles from the University of Utah, a group of physicists, headed by Professor Steven E. Jones, at Brigham Young University (BYU), also claimed cold nuclear fusion."

Beaudette's "Excess Heat" pp.41 "Jones and a physicist at the University of Arizon had co-authored an article just the year before in "Scientific American" (July 1987) entitled, 'Cold Nuclear Fusion.' Jones's work offered two sources for the use of the term cold fusion."

Can anybody show qualified references for Palmer's role in this? If not, I suggest the following may be more accurate:

"The term "cold nuclear fusion" was first used in the scientific literature by Johann Rafelski and Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University in 1986 in an investigation of what is today referred to as muon-catalyzed fusion.. This research was generally unrelated, however, the distinction was not immediately understood by the press in 1989. Consequently, the term "cold fusion" became associated with the Fleischmann-Pons experiment."

STemplar 19:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. —James S. 07:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

FIX THIS .I added the original form of the comments because they appear in that form in Jones' own history of the topic: . Look for section II.A1 - " Dr. Paul Palmer used the term "cold fusion" beginning in early 1986.". Note that the next few sections always have him using the term "cold", and Jones using different terms. We have to revert this, although rewording might be in order. In fact it appears that many of the links to geothermal processes were his idea. Maury 13:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that "first used in the scientific literature" is more encyclopedic than relating recollections of private communication. James S. 14:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely, you jest. The "recollections of private communication" are by the very person in question! The article states Jones invented the term, but Jones himself specifically credits Palmer. Are you seriously suggesting we should not consider this to be authoritative?? Maury 18:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thing is, there have been two dominant historical perspectives of cold fusion; those accepting it and those rejecting it. Funny thing is, none of the authors I've read seem to attribute this to Palmer, but to Jones.

Huizenga's "Fiasco" pp. 8 , Beaudette's "Excess Heat" pp.41, Krivit/Winocur's "Rebirth" pp. 206, Taubes' "Bad Science" pp. 31, Mallove, "Fire from Ice" pp. 50, Peat's "Cold Fusion" pp. 67

Authors and publishers go to great lengths to get their facts right. The costs and legal risks in publishing are significant. It would seem unlikely to me that all these authors -- on both sides of the controversy -- in the span of 16 years, have made an error. I would propose that a Web reference, published on somebody's blog, that is autobiographical in nature, does not carry the same authority as the above-mentioned references.

STemplar 21:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. New contributors are always welcome. --James S. 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha. A newbie page. Thanks for sharing the wikilove James!

STemplar 09:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you expect when you complain about the way things should be on a wiki without changing them? That {{sofixit}} template is designed to be especially civil and polite. Why would you waste energy complaining about the way you think things should be when you could more easily be changing them that way? Be bold. --James S. 21:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Continuing efforts

several hundred researchers:

ICCF12 abstracts: http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/ICCF12/ICCF12-Abstracts.pdf

JCF6 abstracts: http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/JCF6/JCF6Abstracts.pdf

ICCF11 abstracts: http://newenergytimes.com/ICCF11/ICCF11Abstracts.pdf

ICCF10 abstracts: http://newenergytimes.com/ICCF10/ICCF10Abstracts.pdf

STemplar 06:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Jabs at Nature

I will encourage this recent addition to be removed or justified: "(Nature has published papers regarding other types of "non-traditional" fusion, such as pyroelectric fusion)"

1. I don't see how it helps explain cold fusion 2. Attacking Nature may be counterproductive.

STemplar 19:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that one if you incorporate your Palmer concerns per above. --James S. 21:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi James. Looks like someone beat me to it. STemplar 09:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I added that to point out that they aren't trying to suppress anything - they have published some things, and they reject a lot of papers (including most of the ones they get from mainstream scientists). I believe there may be something behind cold fusion (it seems implausible that all the researchers in the field are making up data). What that something is of course needs more research (and for various reasons I have doubts the world will ever run on cold fusion, even if it is a real effect - for example, if they're getting 3 units of extra heat out for one unit of electricity in, they'll need a pretty good heat engine to even break even). I wasn't trying to diss Nature. I was trying to imply that they aren't unthinkingly rejecting everything. As my user page indicates, I'm a computer science grad student. I don't know enough about physics to say what's possible or impossible; I know enough to realize that cold fusion isn't explained by current theory, which is an argument against it. Just a few talking points, sorry this was so long. -- Pakaran 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pakaran. Oh. I get your point. No worries. I had the chance to meet some of the APS editors last year and understand the challenges they go through with "too many papers to review and not enough volunteers to review them." It seems quite clear to me that if there's an easy excuse to drop a paper from the proces, it's gonna happen, considering the capacity of at least some of the scientific publications. STemplar 09:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Pakaran writes: ". . . if they're getting 3 units of extra heat out for one unit of electricity in, they'll need a pretty good heat engine to even break even." That is not the situation, for several reasons:

Techniques such as gas loading and proton conductors have virtually no input energy. Input is in microwatts and output (if there is any) is sometimes in watts or hundreds of watts.

With electrolysis, the energy input has no direct correlation with output energy. Sometimes output continues after input is cut off; at other times input continues for weeks with no output. It seems unlikely that this will become a practical method of producing energy.

The electrolysis itself is extremely inefficient. It is not intended to be efficient, but to make the experiment easy. Anyone can think of ways to improve it, but they will interfere with, for example, loading measurements or particle detection.

Cells are suboptimal for various good reasons. They are run below boiling so that they do not have to be pressurized, for safety and convenience. They are not insulated. Reference electrodes, x-ray and neutron detectors and other gadgets are crammed into and around the cells. An aux heater is sometimes used to hold the cell temperature at the starting point (usually 30 deg C), to keep the calorimetry simple and accurate.

CF researchers are trying to understand the reaction. If they succeed, it will be easy to make cells with gigantic input to output ratios. Such cells have been made from time to time already, usually by accident, and sometimes with disastrous results: melted cathodes, explosions and so on.

--JedRothwell 22:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Commercial viability and faint effect

I'd like to discuss these two deleted edits:

Palladium is quite expensive as the world's supply is limited and the demand for the catalyst is great, so this transmutation process poses additional problems. If cathodes of inexpensive metal cannot be made to produce considerably greater power densities than have yet been replicated, the commercial viability of cold fusion will remain very poor. (deleted because "talking about commercial viability is premature; in any case Pd is not the only suitable material;" reverted back in.)

and:

Those who have claimed to reproduce cold fusion uniformly report that doing so was exceedingly difficult, often taking years to accomplish, and that the observed signal is so faint as to be difficult to separate from background noise. (I read the Beaudette letter but could not find any such statement; removed.)

I replaced the first because there is already a "Commercial developments" section in the article. The idea that pragmatic concerns aren't important should be troublesome to any reader or editor. Perhaps the text should be moved to that section?

Are there any materals which are claimed to have a better price/performance ratio than Szpak/Boss-style Pd/Pt electrolysis?

For the other passage, I really want to cite from what I believe is the leading commercial firm, showing a maximum power gain of less than 2.0. I recall that the essential facts are in the Beaudette analysis, too. The time to reach that level is hours, if I remember correctly, and note that it will decay after surface properties in the Pd change. (in a matter of days to weeks) Update: the electrolysis method begins without delay. --James S. 02:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think both of those points are crucial to the importance of the topic, which I have considered rather low since early 2002. Does anyone have some better sources on these topics? --James S. 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If cold fusion only works with palladium, this probably will limit its usefulness. I think Martin Fleischmann was the first person to point this out. As I recall he did a back of the envelope estimate that about half of the world energy could be generated with present supplies of palladium, and these supplies are not likely to increase. I discussed this issue in my book, pages 36 and 37. See: Fortunately, it seems likely that titanium also produces the cold fusion effect.

This statement is incorrect: "Those who have claimed to reproduce cold fusion uniformly report that . . . the observed signal is so faint as to be difficult to separate from background noise." This may be true for some experiments performed by some researchers, but it is not what is generally reported. On the contrary, McKubre and others have said the effect is "neither small nor fleeting." See: McKubre, M. C. H., et al., Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear Processes in Deuterated Metals, EPRI TR-104195, Research Project 3170-01, August 1994

--JedRothwell 20:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I got the idea from (and should probably cite) your book. One particular issue I noticed is that you assume that cells will be recycled and the unused heavy water reclaimed. This is fine, and could be encouraged with deposits on cells, etc (much as some inkjet manufacturers give a discount to large customers who return their old cartridge) but when the world initially moves to cold fusion, there will be a need for enough heavy water to fill up all the cells at once (not that needing more than 8 factories would be so much worse than entire regions of the world focusing their economy on oil production!). Just thought I'd comment, and I have to say that I love your ebook overall. -- Pakaran 01:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have spoken with the people at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (formerly Ontario Hydro). They produce most of the heavy water in the world for their CANDU reactors. They say it would be easy to ramp up production enough to supply all of the energy in the world with fusion (hot fusion or cold fusion). The only reason to recycle heavy water would be to reduce the cost. Actually, I expect virgin heavy water would soon become so cheap it would not be worth recycling the stuff.

They have an interesting problem at Atomic Energy of Canada, which was discovered by F. Celani and described in some of his papers. Bacteria grows in their heavy water supplies. It contaminates even the laboratory grade heavy water they sell. This bacteria must have evolved after 1940 because pure heavy water did not exist on earth before then, and it kills all other types of bacteria. See:

Thanks about the book! It is a manifesto, so please encourage others to read it.

--JedRothwell 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Commerce vs Science

James S wrote: "I really want to cite from what I believe is the leading commercial firm,"

James, take care with your assumptions. The Web is a Wild Wild World. STemplar 02:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to say? It's been years since I've looked at the companies involved. --James S. 04:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Turn-on" Time vs. duration of over-unity gain

James, does this help?

Over the last 5 years, turn-on time, the onset of excess heat, has decreased dramatically. Dennis Letts, along with Dennis Cravens pioneered a laser-triggering method which brought turn-on down to seconds.

Stan Szpak et al at SPAWAR San Diego use a co-deposition method. This electrolytic process facilitates the proper D/Pd ratio immediately, consequently excess heat is reported to start instantly. STemplar 02:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Szpak's method but the problem with it is, as I mentioned above, the duration of the effect after surface imperfections start to appear. --James S. 04:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi James, I've had a little trouble following the thread; Maybe I shouldn't drink and type at the same time. But I think you've got a point. From what I've heard, the reactions do stop after the cathodes either get crudded up or damaged.

STemplar 06:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Commerce vs Science, The Sequel

<opinion> I fail to see the relevance of any commercial references to this subject, at this time. To my knowledge, none of these companies are shipping cold fusion products at this time. That being the case, to include references to them in Wiki seems tantamount to promoting vapourware and providing free advertising to select companies in the midst of their pre-commercial R&D.

Even if some were shipping products, to feature any seems to cross, and blur the line between reference and promotion.

Do any Wikis feel that there are substantial advantages to listing, or using as "references," so-called commercial entitites, that outweigh the aforementioned concerns? </opinion>

STemplar 05:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just say that various startups have claimed to be working on CF devices? -- Pakaran 07:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree for the most part with STemplar's comments. There are some companies working on commercial applications, but they are not very forthcoming with information. Any talk about commercial applications, or about factors which may affect commerical applications, just strikes me as extremely premature, especially considering that we really have no idea what the observed phenomenon is or what affects its parameters (I happen to believe that the observed phenomenon is real and that it is some form of nuclear reaction, by the way). We should just mention that such companies exist (as Pakaran suggests) and leave it at that. That is also why I removed the reference to the scarcity of palladium: it's just too early to be considering such issues, given that we don't know (a) what other materials might work or (b) whether some palladium-boron-niobium alloy (for example) might produce a 1MW/cm^3 power output... it's sort of like worrying about the scarcity of radium back in the days of Curie. ObsidianOrder 08:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Per Pakaran, per Obsidian Order -- so edited.

STemplar 05:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved the commercial discussion to the commercial section, and restored the links to the companies which claim to be working on commercialization. Saying discussion of commercialization of a new technology is premature may be appropriate for a short article, but it's not encyclopedic. --James S. 16:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi James/Nrcprm2026: Why did you add back the list of companies? I realized you commented "this list is very informative" but this fails to take into account a good part of the above discussion. STemplar 21:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis added in answer above. --22:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

STemplar - I am in favor of keeping the list, for what it's worth. Yes, it is informative, and anyone interested can go and look these guys up. I was mostly talking about calculating (and speculating about) power density, electrode life, materials, etc etc. Just too early for that. ObsidianOrder 22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi ObsidianOrder and James; Thanks for the responses. Okay then, I'm not in favor of the list but I shall defer and accept for now. (Feel free to change your minds at any time ;)

STemplar 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Attacking the Attackers

Come on Jed, this invective is not neccesary. IMO, It doesn't accomplish anything except to further animosity between the two sides of the debate. Would you kindly look back at the "Jabs at Nature" discussion and consider what was said just recently on this matter? I think you should provide justification for what you just re-inserted. STemplar 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What invective? Seriously, I do not think I added any invective of my own. I am reporting other people's renewed invective, which is a recent and important event in the field. Cold fusion has not received this much press coverage in years. There have been about a dozen articles in major newspapers -- all negative, unfortunately. Every major newspaper and magazine and most journals say that cold fusion was debunked, and it was fraud. A few years ago, Time magazine published a photo of Fleischmann next to Joseph Mengele, in a page showing some of the most notorious people of the 20th century. Fleischmann was listed as a "crank." See: (I remember this because Gene Mallove went ballistic when it happened.) This is an important aspect of the human-interest side of the story. If you do not know about this overt hostility, you will not understand why journals reject papers without peer review.

On the other hand, this has nothing to do with the technical story, so if you think it is taking up too much space, go ahead and delete it. To me, it seems more important than, say, the dispute over who invented the term "cold fusion" or the bun-fight with Jones about priority. That stuff is trivial. --JedRothwell 15:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Time incident is far more deserving of space than the discretionary editorial decisions. I would feel differently if Fusion Technology was still refusing articles. For now, I think it's best to concentrate of the popular press like Time and Scientific American. Because, Nature is very exclusive to begin with; complaining about their discretion hurts more than helps. The popular press is fair game, and the fact about newspaper articles should certainly be mentioned in contrast to the publication rate in the peer-reviewed literature. --James S. 20:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the new editor of Fusion Technology does not accept papers on cold fusion. On the other hand, the new co-editor of J. Fusion Energy is a good friend of mine who does CF research and runs a mirror copy of LENR-CANR, and he does publish CF articles. This is ironic because J. Fusion Energy is edited and published by the hot fusion lobby in Washington DC. The September 2004 issue featured an attack on cold fusion on page 161 and paper in favor of it on p. 217.

I am not complaining about the discretion exercised by Nature. I am complaining about their bald-faced lies and ad hominem attacks. They do not publish similar attacks against other fields of scientific research as far as I know, so this is noteworthy. --JedRothwell 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jed, well, let's suppose you could back up your assertion that "Nature" lied. I'm not sure there's any purpose in it, at least here. First of all, it's sheer Machiavellian. They control the presses, and they have the political influence and effective authority. Let's say I agree with you that "Nature" lied. Certainly its valid and important for you to vent your feelings about it. But do you honestly think they'll acknowledge the matter and respond to it? If you honestly do, and if you think you have clear and hard evidence of such, and you think it's worth your time, then I encourage you to post a "Nature Lies" page on LENR-CANR and take the issue up there.

Otherwise, I encourage you to drop your attack on them and keep showing the reality of cold fusion as you do so magnificently, and so selflessly.

In general, I think making the assertion that journals have a formal policy to reject cold fusion papers would be hard to prove.

<venting> OTOH, TIME magazine, with their "Cranks of the Century," has placed thier a**es out in the wind and deserves whatever reality check and wake up call is appropriate. That was just plain lazy and ignorant of them to not bother to check for new updates on the field. I can't think of a more prominent and more negatively influential media representation of F&P in the last 10 years. I feel sorry for Lemonick. He probably knows more than he says about CF. He's got to learn -something- while hanging out at JSE conferences. But his managment's going to think he's a crank too if he suggests that maybe there's a shred of reality to cold fusion.I hope F&P live long enough to see Corey's prediction realized:

"An overdue revolution in science will arrive, and the reputations of cold fusion scientists and those who revile them may be reversed." James Corey, Senior Member of the Technical Staff,Sandia National Laboratories, Energetic Materials Intelligence Symposium, September 10, 2003 </venting>

STemplar 01:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

STemplar writes:

Jed, well, let's suppose you could back up your assertion that Nature lied.

I do not need to back up anything. The things I accuse them of doing, they brag about! They trumpet their lies to the world. They said cold fusion is "notorious" and "largely discredited" and in the past they have claimed it was never replicated. Who discredited it? When? What about all those published replications?

Not only have they lied, they have made outrageous statements contrary to academic ethics. In 1989 Nature demanded "more ridicule" to kill cold fusion quickly. In 1991, Maddox declared "broadly speaking its dead, and it will remain dead for a long, long time."

But do you honestly think they'll acknowledge the matter and respond to it?

I am sure they will repeat these lies every time the subject comes up.

I encourage you to post a "Nature Lies" page on LENR-CANR and take the issue up there.

I did. See:

In general, I think making the assertion that journals have a formal policy to reject cold fusion papers would be hard to prove.

That is not a bit difficult to prove. It is their overt, publicly-stated editorial policy. Ask any one of them, and they will tell you they reject cold fusion papers without peer review. They do not consider this unreasonable any more than they think it unreasonable to reject a paper about creationism or flat Earth theory. Every cold fusion researcher I know has a pile of rejection letters saying they will not review or consider any paper on this subject. Kowalski published some examples here:

It is also the official policy of the DoE to reject any and all funding for cold fusion, despite the 2004 panel recommendation. Again, they make no bones about this. See:

Regarding Time magazine, the print edition was much worse. It showed Fleischmann on the same page as Mengele. Yesterday, an editor from Time wrote to me: " . . . The correct year is 1989. We apologize for the error and appreciate your writing to us about it. . . . As for the ongoing controversy about cold fusion, we feel that our article correctly described the situation." Here is part of my response:

". . . in his correspondence with me, Mr. Lemonick retracted many of the statements he made in your magazine. For example, he conceded that the other researchers have made similar claims, although he said: "It may be that others have produced cold fusion since, but that's not the same thing."

Since your own author has backed down and refuted what he wrote, I think it is odd that you still claim you "correctly described" the situation. . . .

. . . While we are on the subject, I think Time magazine should also apologize for comparing Martin Fleischmann to Josef Mengele. Perhaps even you will agree that was exaggerated, and they do not belong in the same class of people. Fleischmann is a Fellow of the Royal Society, after all. This was also somewhat insensitive. Fleischmann's father died a few days after he was tortured and then (inexplicably) released by the Gestapo, and Fleischmann barely managed to escape to England, so he did not appreciate your comparison. . ."

Some of Lemonick's comments to me are at . I can send you the whole exchange if you would like a good laugh. It is apparent that he does not know anything about cold fusion, or electrochemistry, or experiments. In fact, taken all in all, his letters give me the distinct impression that he is several tacos short of a platter.

--JedRothwell 15:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let this go. Thanks for writing. Hopefully somebody will someday have a "Kitty Hawk" demonstration (and have it reported on the front page of The Times) and this whole chapter will finally close.

STemplar 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, if you feel strongly about it go right ahead and delete those comments. I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I noticed that a skeptic wrote statements about how the press disagrees with cold fusion. The skeptic was quite right, for once. It is something both sides fully agree about. So I thought I would substantiate that claim with some recent data: the press attacks published in January 2006. I suppose this matters, because some people take the viewpoint of the press quite seriously, and they rely upon it when judging cold fusion. --JedRothwell 22:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Mallove

I removed this because it was in "continuing efforts":

On May 14, 2004, a foremost cold fusion champion, Dr. Eugene Mallove, was brutally murdered in a yet unresolved case. His death has both saddened and inspired the cold fusion and free energy community in general and has drawn international attention to the status of cold fusion today.

I'm ambivalent about whether it should be in a different section. I don't think it adds much if anything to the subject matter. Mallove has his own article. The case is unresolved, but there are two suspects in custody. The motive was apparently drug-related robbery. Finally, I don't think free energy is the right link for the use of the term. --James S. 09:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Good move. Even though Gene was a close friend, I was going to delete that myself, or move it somewhere else. I could not find an appropriate spot. It has nothing to do with continuing efforts in research. If we are going to talk about anyone's death, I suppose it should be Andrew Riley's. (He was killed doing a cold fusion experiment in a horrible accident, caused by a billion-to-one event, when a whole set of fail-safe devices all failed.)

There are several other paragraphs in this article which have nothing to do with cold fusion per se, such as the disputes about priority with Jones. They are part of the "human interest" story. I am not sure where they should go, or whether they should be in an encyclopedia in the first place. They seem unimportant or irrelevant. --JedRothwell 21:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"They are part of the "human interest" story." I wouldn't move so fast to remove aspects of the human interest story. Can one truly say that the subject and story of cold fusion is not inextricably tied to the human interest aspect as well as the science aspect?

STemplar 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Many other technical & scientific subjects have equally compelling human interest stories behind them, but these stories are not included in the Misplaced Pages articles. For example, there is nothing in evolution about Darwin's adventures, or his conflicts with FitzRoy, or his atheism. These are covered in biographical articles. So I would say the human interest stories should be removed from this article and placed in other articles about the people involved. --JedRothwell 00:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Are there any anti-CF web sites?

I made a minor change to the link to LENR-CANR. Someone had it:

". . . information and links from pro-cold fusion research, and an online library of over 450 full-text papers from the peer-reviewed literature and conference proceedings."

That's fine, except that strictly speaking, we do have some anti-cold fusion papers by Jones, Morrison, Shanahan and others. We have links to other anti-CF papers, including the 1989 ERAB paper, the recent DoE review, and so on. We would have more negative stuff but the skeptics have not published much, and I doubt that many of them would want to give us papers. (Everything at LENR-CANR.org comes from the authors, with their permission.) This is nitpicking, but I changed that to:

". . . information and links on cold fusion research (mainly pro-cold fusion) . . ."

Does anyone know of an anti-cold fusion website that includes technical papers? I will link to it.

Hundreds of web sites mention cold fusion, either for it or against it, but only a few include research papers. I have links to all the ones I know about.

--JedRothwell 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OO's outline for rewrite

I find OO's outline for rewrite very good. For example, I like the "proposed mechanism" section. (I would replace the "Other kinds of cold fusion" section with a link to the fusion article).

I'm in favor of a full rewrite. Rewriting the article would make it shorter while more informative: a big plus. Also, the new article should avoid arguing with itself. I believe this is easier to do by starting a new article rather than editing the current one. Pcarbonn 22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources will help in the rewrite, but a big issue is "which sources should we trust?". I suggest to have a discussion on this, i.e. to define the minimum criteria we set for source citation in cold fusion. Pcarbonn 22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article should reflect the world view, not the American one. (see Anglo-American focus policy). The skeptical view is very strong in America, but much less so elsewhere (at least that's what I perceive from here in Belgium). This is something to keep in mind when rewriting the article. Maybe we need more international contributors on this page. Pcarbonn 22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn - thank you ;) The draft is on hold for a month or so since I am extremely busy. I hope to pick it up afterwards, depending on what people have done in the meantime. My notion for how to write something based on the draft was basically to expand each bullet point to one or two sentences, without changin its meaning and for the most part keeping the wording as well - a direct translation, in other words ;)

I agree the article shouldn't argue with itself, and yes, that would be easier in a rewrite.

Sources to trust (or at least include, if not "trust"): I would say published work by anyone who is a scientist with some work outside the field of cold fusion. "Published" here does not mean necessarily in a peer-reviewed journal, it could be a tech report or something presented at a conference - most of the really interesting stuff only exists in that form anyway - but not stuff that wikipedia usually regards as self-publishing. The rationale is that if there is a bias in editorial boards against CF, then requiring journal articles would be unfair. On the other hand, if a scientist with a reputation to worry about is willing to go on the record (in print) saying that X, then, regardless of any concerns about technique, experimental errors, data analysis etc (which are all the reasons why per review exists), it is a fair bet they believe that X, which is in this context noteworthy. ObsidianOrder 14:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Adopt a summary style ?

Why don't we adopt the Misplaced Pages:Summary style, and create spin-off articles on Cold fusion controversy and Continuing efforts on cold fusion ? The controversy could be discussed in full (eg. discuss each criteria of pathological science), and other chemically assisted nuclear reactions could be discussed in more details in "continuing work". Pcarbonn 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved Sound waves induce nuclear fusion

I moved Sound waves induce nuclear fusion Physorg.com (January 2006) to the bubble fusion page because that is where it belongs. Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but there is an established page for bubble fusion and there is no reason to post an off-topic article like this one on the cold fusion page. Rock nj 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevent news section additions

We seem to be getting a lot of links added in the news section regarding work on bubble fusion and pyroelectric fusion — both of which have their own articles, but are often referred to as cold fusion by the media (perhaps due to the emotional impact of saying things like "X University Team makes Cold Fusion Work". Should we add a comment to the effect that these two phenomena have their own articles at the beginning or end of the news section? -- Pakaran 18:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea. --JedRothwell 22:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, since these are identified in the press so often as cold fusion (and, literally, the claims meet the definition of a process that is both cold and fusion) links ought to go in the article's leader, as well. –Joke 22:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ed Storms and others think the Taleyarkhan effect is plasma fusion (hot fusion) that occurs on a microscopic scale. The Taleyarkhan cell walls are cold, but for that matter so are the walls of a tokamak reactor. You might say that with the Taleyarkhan effect the bubble is the containment vessel. We listed some other differences between the two at http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm:

The Taleyarkhan effect produces a neutron/tritium ratio of ~1.2, which is close to conventional plasma fusion (n/t = 1), whereas cold fusion produces a ratio of roughly 10E-9. There are other important differences:

• Cold fusion produces far more concentrated excess heat, so it seems more likely to become a practical source of useful energy.
• Cold fusion appears to be a more radical departure from textbook expectations about fusion.
• Cold fusion has been replicated hundreds of times; the Taleyarkhan effect has only been replicated once so far, by Xu and Butt (Perdue). This is no reflection on the quality of Taleyarkhan’s work; only a few people have undertaken replications.

We conclude: "Despite these differences, Taleyarkhan’s research is important and it bears watching, so even though it is somewhat off-topic, we may add material about it soon."

--JedRothwell 20:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The other difference, for better or worse, is that the Taleyarkhan effect is accepted science. Cold fusion is not. Whether it *should be* is not something for Misplaced Pages to decide, but I honestly think the article needs to say more about critical views. The problem is finding critics who make actual arguments, rather than dismissing it out of hand (we can't have every other sentence be "again, it should be emphasized that most physicists disagree with this and believe cold fusion is utter crap"). Just a thought, I'm very concerned that this article is swinging to pro-cold-fusion bias (which I happen to share, but that's beside the point). I also believe that the role of theory is to reflect reality. The fact that there's no theory for CF does not, by itself, mean CF does not exist. Before Einstein there was no theory to explain anomalies in the orbit of mercury; this was not reason to conclude that all observations of Mercury were made up by pseudoscientific cranks. -- Pakaran 19:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nonetheless, I don't think adding a link would do any harm. –Joke 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. A link is called for. And actually, McKubre and some others suspect that Taleyarkhan could be seeing a cold fusion effect after all. They think he should look more closely at the ratio of heat to neutrons, and "he may be surprised by the results." So perhaps the discussion belongs here after all. Maybe we should mention that a few cold fusion researchers feel this way? McKubre calls this a "hunch," but he usually has good reasons for his hunches. --JedRothwell 20:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Plasma, liquid or solid: what phase is better?

With all due respect, and interest in your expertise on the subject matter, I must point out several problems with your contribution.

1. Your post seems to be more of a "chat" type discussion rather than something to be considered as part of an encyclopedic reference.

2. Your post is highly technical, somewhat speculative, and your point is not clear. These aspectcs too, are not a good fit of your post for this article as it is written.

3. This is a minor point, and I respect that English is probably not your first language, but the English that you used here is unnacceptable for Wiki. Don't let this be a barrier for you however.

My suggestions:

1. Make use of the TALK page to engage in a dialogue with others to help develop your contribution so it is more appropriate to Wiki.

2. Refine your content on the TALK page and ask for help to improve the English - I'm sure there are numerous people who would be glad to help you out.

STemplar 17:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"thousands" of articles published???

I would like to see a specific source or otherwise some validation for the claim that "thousands of peer-reviewed cold fusion papers have been published." The link in the article does not provide any information for this claim. MrDarwin 15:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That should be "hundreds" or "about a thousand." The LENR-CANR database lists 3,300 papers. Roughly a third are in peer-reviewed journals. See: http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm There are probably several hundred more we have not heard about, especially in Chinese, Japanese and Italian. --JedRothwell 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Powerpedia

I'm a bit concerned about the link to PowerPedia, which seems to have content regarding, for example, companies claiming to have systems which violate the laws of thermodynamics (permanent magnet motors, etc). For better or worse, it seems very likely that such systems are scams. Should we put a disclaimer on the link that material at that wiki (and particularly non-CF material) should be taken with a large pile of salt? -- Pakaran 19:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

All of those things are very similar- the same people claiming cold electrolytic fusion works are claiming methods to obtain energy from ether, perpetual motion, etcetera work. It is unfortunate that this article doesn't reflect this, but it all should be taken with large piles of salt, no need to qualify it with particularly non-CF. --Noren 20:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"the same people claiming cold electrolytic fusion works are claiming methods to obtain energy from ether..." - and your source for this is? (e.g. please quote any such statement by Fleischmann, Bockris, Oriani, Miley, McCubre, Szpak, Iwamura, Mizuno, Mallove, Storms, ... or in fact any other prominent CF researcher). If you cannot back up your statement, please kindly retract it. ObsidianOrder 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. a letter written by Eugene Mallove proclaiming immenent 'breakthroughs' in the fields of 1. Cold Fusion, 2. "Vacuum energy, Zero Point Energy or "ZPE" for short, aether energy, or space energy." and 3. "Environmental energy, i.e. energy from sensible thermal energy (in particular, energy of molecular motion), through significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics." --Noren 07:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, touche. However Mallove can only very loosely be described as a researcher - he was fairly well known, but more on the popular-science side of things. Also, to nitpick, he didn't actually say you can do those right now as you imply. What anyone thinks may be discovered in the future is necessarily extremely speculative. ObsidianOrder 14:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is inconsistent for you to argue the legitimacy of Mallove as a CF researcher immediately after you listed 10 "prominent CF researcher"s including his name. If your position is so poorly thought out yet so firmly held that you must retract your own description of people on your own list, I wonder if any argument or evidence would suffice to sway your position or if any conflicting fact would be dismissed similarly. Also, your nitpick is factually incorrect. In the letter under 2. Mallove claimed of a ZPE experiment "In its several embodiments, it already produces kilowatt-level electrical, thermal, and mechanical output power." To use your phrasing, if you cannot back up your statement, please kindly retract it. --Noren 00:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As ObsidianOrder said, Touche. You have listed one person, and you might be able to find a few others. For that matter, if you look closely at plasma fusion researchers, or people working on wind power, or Members of Congress, you might find a few. You can also find some plasma fusion researchers who believe in magic, faith healing and creationism. (I have met one or two like that.) However, that would not justify the statement: "the same people claiming plasma fusion works are claiming that creationism works." That would be an unfair generalization. You should say: "some of the same people" or "at least one or two of the same people" That does not have much impact, does it? --JedRothwell 15:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Atomic temperatures

Last thing I remember is that temperature is related to the average energy of a large number of particles -- thus talking about the "atomic temperature" doesn't make sense -- it does make sense to talk about atomic energies, and one can even use K, but it's still energy. I've thuse removed references to "atomic" temperature from the first paragraph.

Keithdunwoody 18:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A single atom can indeed have an equivalent temperature, which is simply the would-be temperature of a bunch of identical atoms with the same kinetic energy. Assuming classical Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, a single atom with velocity v has a temperature T = (8*m*v^2)/(pi*k). In some of the "macroscopically" cold fusion (e.g. pyroelectric) there are certainly small numbers of atoms with an very high equivalent temperature. However, there is pretty much no basis for the claim that there must be atoms at near-thermonuclear-fusion temperatures in CF (e.g. compare with muon-catalyzed fusion), so that's a different reason to remove those references. ObsidianOrder 00:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using conditional grammar incorrectly!

Natalinasmpf & SCZenz should please stop using hypothetical and conditional statements inappropriately. This is bad grammar.

I understand what you want to convey. You are saying that many skeptics believe cold fusion is theoretically impossible, and they believe that all experiments are mistakes or fraud. You can say the results are "disputed." Go ahead and say those things, but do not try to express these notions by making sentences conditional or hypothetical. You make it sound as if the experiments may or may not have occurred, and claims may or may not have been published, and researchers may or may not be using metal hydrides and electrolytic cells.

Whatever the cold fusion effect may be -- nuclear, chemical, or experimental error -- it definitely does occur in metal hydrides (and deuterides). Let us say that without qualification, and then, if you insist, you can go on to explain that this apparently violates theory. (Many theorists disagree, but that is another story.)

You should reserve conditional grammar for that which is conditional, and hypothetical grammar for that which is hypothesized. It is not a hypothesis that devices fit on the desktop and that they involve hydrides. These are facts. The implications of the facts are disputed, not the facts themselves.

Also, Natalinasmpf wrote: "A variety of experimental methods would be used in such a reaction; initial concepts used electrolytic cells. . . ." These are not "concepts." Electrolytic cells are objects. Let us not confuse "concepts" with equipment or with methods. It is not a concept or hypothesis that electrolytic cells are used. It is a fact. The implications of the results are disputed, not the existence of the results.

--JedRothwell 16:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is, you cannot start the article by stating as fact things that the majority of scientific community does not believe exist. To state that cold fusion exists is precisely such a fact, because most scientists do not believe that any fusion whatsoever is occuring in these experiments. The problem is that the article is not about the experiments; it's about the alleged process in the experiments—and many do not believe that any such thing exists. I was trying precisely to convey this, but if you don't like how I did it find a better way. In the meantime, this article needs an NPOV tag until the first paragraph is clear. -- SCZenz 16:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right that this is NPOV. The skeptical opinions have no scientific backing and they should be removed, but the skeptics will only put them back.

You are wrong about what the "majority of the scientific community" believes. The majority has no opinion. But even if you were right, this is irrelevant. Truth in science is defined by experiments. When an experiment has been replicated hundreds of times at high signal to noise ratios, that makes it true. That is the only standard, and beliefs, opinions and majorities have nothing to do with it.

However, as I said, I understand you want to stuff these beliefs and mythical majorities into the article, even though they are inappropriate, unfounded, totally POV, and would not be included in any other article about scientific experiments. You want to express doubts about the results. Well, go ahead! Add all the POV nonsense and pseudoscience you want. However, please do not mix in your POV stuff with actual statements about experiments. The experiments are not hypothetical. Electrochemical cells are real objects in the real world, not "concepts." You are not winning anyone over to your point of view; you are merely confusing the issue.

I am disputing your grammar, not your POV. I don't care how much skeptical nonsense you add, just stop making the article hard to read and ungrammatical. --JedRothwell 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not saying the experiments did not happen. I am saying that whether cold fusion exists is disputed—unless you're saying that "cold fusion" is the name for the experimental results, and not for a process that neccessarily involves actual fusion. -- SCZenz 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You can make it quite clear that cold fusion is disputed without using hypotheticals in the wrong parts of the wrong sentences. You can add as many disclaimers about the majority of scientists as you want. No one reading the introduction as it is presently written will be misled into thinking that cold fusion is accepted by the majority of scientists, but if you would like to emphasize that fact even more, please go right ahead and do it. Put it in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS if you like.

As for the cold fusion reaction, it does, in fact, neccessarily involve actual fusion, and it is absurd for anyone to dispute that. (But go ahead and dispute it! You are in good company!) It is a fact that the reaction produces thousands of times more energy than any chemical reaction could with no chemical ash, and it is a fact that it produces copious nuclear ash including helium & tritium, and also x-rays and gamma rays. By definition, that makes it nuclear fusion. These are facts proved by replicated experiment and there is no other criteria and no other standard by which anything is ever proved in science. Anyone who disputes these facts proves only that he is not a scientist, at least with regard to this subject. --JedRothwell 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there an actual source stating that the "majority of scientific community does not believe" cold fusion exists, or is that just a personal opinion? --James S. 17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a myth. All of the actual public opinion polls and surveys conducted in the U.S. and Japan show the majority of scientists have no opinion about cold fusion, and those who do have an opinion are about evenly divided. --JedRothwell 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jed, if you could substantiate this statement with sources, it would certainly clarify the debate. This statement should then be added to the article. Pcarbonn 09:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are not many realistic estimates of public opinion. I would list:

1. A poll taken by the Japanese magazine "Trigger," June 1993, Vol. 12, No. 6. which I translated. To summarize, 300 "decision makers" in the Japanese scientific establishment were polled. The response rate was 63% which is phenomenal even for Japan. 97% of them favored continued research in cold fusion. (It was a long questionnaire. I can e-mail you details if you are interested.)--JedRothwell 16:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! Is this available on the net in Japanese somewhere ? If not, Jed, could you publish your Japanese copy somewhere ? Then, we could ask someone on the talk page of the Japanese article on cold fusion to summarize it in English (hoping that he would do it without bias. If the summary is published as a wikipedia article, several Japanese contributors could attest to its neutrality). After all, let's avoid having an American bias ! Pcarbonn 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Trigger" magazine is defunct, so I doubt the text is on the net. I can dig up my translation. But it seems unimportant. Worse, it is a distraction, and a bad idea to discuss the matter. The skeptics make the bogus claim that the "majority" agrees with them. All you have to do is glance at the recent claims made by Sci. Am., for example, or at any paper by a skeptic, and you see this "majority" consists of people who know nothing about the subject. Their views have no merit and should be ignored. A majority of the U.S. population does not believe in Darwinian evolution, but no serious discussion of evolution takes their opinions into account. It is is beneath our dignity to answer nonsensical claims about "majorities" just as it would be for us to address accusations of fraud. --JedRothwell 19:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

2. The 2004 DoE review. By my count that was split 7 No, 5 Yes, 7 maybe. My gut feeling is that professional scientists split roughly the same way, but I have no hard proof of that.

3. The response of the students attending lectures on cold fusion by Krivit (Princeton University this month) and Nagel (Johns Hopkins University last year). Large turnouts; highly positive, but no direct poll the audience as far as I know. (I did not attend.) These were both self-selected audiences, but the Princeton group probably tends toward skepticism, because the course is titled "Crank Science" and the guy teaching it has published rabid attacks against cold fusion in national magazines.

4. The ratio of serious scientific papers presenting positive experimental evidence to papers in which the authors attempt to find experimental errors. (The latter are all incorrect in my opinion.) This ratio is roughly 3,000 to 5. If skeptics were capable of finding an experimental error in cold fusion, surely one of them would have found something and published it by now! There have been many editorial attacks claims made by skeptics, but they all lack scientific merit. They fall in three categories: 1. Factually incorrect claims such as those published by Sci. Am. (http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam); 2. Violations of the scientific method; i.e., claims that theory overrules replicated high Sigma experiments; 3. Ad hominem; i.e., Nature's demand in March 1990 that cold fusion be repressed with "unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation" (D. Lindley), and claims published by the Washington Post, the APS and Time magazine that all cold fusion results are fraudulent, criminal or insane.

5. The response of readers at LENR-CANR.org. This is a self-selected audience, and I cannot tell how many are "return visitors" (repeat visitors), but there have been 844,000 visits and 514,000 downloads as of April 2006. They are mainly from academic institutions such as universities and national research laboratories. I suppose 844,000 represents a statistically significant fraction of the total number of researchers at such places. I seldom hear opinions directly from this audience although I have received a few hundred messages, mainly asking for more information. The papers are excruciatingly boring, so I cannot imagine many people download them only in order to poke fun at them. No skeptic has written a critique of the papers as far as I know. Anyway, the long and the short of it is that in four years I have received hundreds of positive messages and not a single complaint from a skeptic. Perhaps the skeptics seldom read papers, or they do not bother to write to me, but in any case they seem to be the minority of serious readers. --JedRothwell 16:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The initial conception for implementation started with electrolytic cells. The initial concept for Darth Vader was originally a normal man in a space suit, to use an analogy. The concept then evolved appropriately. The concept is being used in the sense of "design concept". The conditional tense was not being used. If cold fusion is a possibility, then cold fusion would occur in tabletop apparatus. It is only logical. What else then? "The possibility of cold fusion is disputed, but it occurs in equipment the size of a tabletop"? Now that's logically unsound. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf writes:

If cold fusion is a possibility, then cold fusion would occur in tabletop apparatus. It is only logical.

That is logical, but confusing. The same thought can be expressed more elegantly by breaking it into two parts:

"Cold fusion experiments are performed with desktop apparatus. Whether the results are nuclear fusion or not is disputed."

"The possibility of cold fusion is disputed, but it occurs in equipment the size of a tabletop"? Now that's logically unsound.

Agreed, but it is better to fix the problem by separating the two thoughts into two sentences, as we have done. SCZenz would like to put the "disputed" part into the first sentence, but that makes it difficult to follow. He is upset that we have 43 words in front of the statement that skeptics do not believe the results, but I think he is being petulant.

The nonsensical POV stuff about "majority of scientists" has drifted down to the third paragraph. You are welcome to move it back to the top. I wouldn't care if you made that the first paragraph in the article. Just as long as the writing does not confuse people I do not care how bigoted or innacurate it is. --JedRothwell 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed

Science and Nature are pretty much as reputable as reputable sources get, but their objections to the existence Cold Fusion are being completely ignored in this article. Instead, our primary source is: a website devoted to promoting cold fusion. I am tired of bandying about uncited rumors and being told not to trust the editors of major scientific journals. I dispute the tone of this article and many of its facts, but I do not have time to fix it—and especially not to fight for every word along the way. So I am putting a {{totallydisputed}} tag on this article; I find it most unlikely that it will be reasonably removed anytime soon. -- SCZenz 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You apparently didn't even read the third paragraph, where the critisism in Science, Scientific American, and Nature is discussed in detail. --James S. 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They're not discussed in detail. They're mentioned in passing. If major journals have reviewed the subject and found it implausible, they should be the primary sources for this article. -- SCZenz 20:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So, why should editorial comments in general science journals have more weight than the fact that, these days, several peer-reviewed journals specializing in fusion and electrochemistry regularly publish cold fusion articles? In retrospect, the controversy was because the signal was faint, and the effect hard to reproduce. That just isn't the case anymore. Do you have any actual sources to the contrary, other than unsupported slights in major jornals? --James S. 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please leave the tag for the time being? I most definitely assert this article has POV issues, merely from the order of presentation and wording used in the first paragraph if nothing else. -- SCZenz 20:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you think represents bias in the order of presentation or first paragraph's wording? --James S. 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

For two entire sentences, it states that cold fusion exists as though this is a fact. Then it refers to "some skeptics" not agreeing with cold fusion results, which greviously understates the numbers and prestige of those in opposition. It must be made immediately clear that the subject is not mainstream science. -- SCZenz 21:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Two entire sentences?!? Two whole, endless sentences ... 43 words! Arghhhh! How awful. How can you even read this stuff?!? Except that you told us you agree with sentence #2. (Or do you now argue that cold fusion -- whatever it is -- does not occur in hydrides and deuterides?) So actually that's one sentence of 23 words, but that's bad enough, by gum. We should let the skeptics dominate the discussion from the first sentence. After all, they represent the majority -- or so they say, without a vote, a poll or any other evidence. Anyway they are loud and sure of everything and they say they are a majority, and that must count for something. Right? The imaginary majority must rule! So let's start with Robert Park's comments instead. Cold fusion is "error delusion and fraud caused by easy corruption, gullible politicians, greedy administrators, foolishness and mendacity." "What began as wishful interpretations of sloppy and incomplete experiments ended with altered data, suppression of contradictory evidence and deliberate obfuscations." If that's what you want to say, be my guest. Source: Washington Post, 1996. Look it up. Its authoritative as all get-out. --JedRothwell 23:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz complains that official skeptical views published in Science and Nature are underrepresented here. I agree! I have been trying to insert these views for years. Please, go ahead and add the objections in as much detail as you like. Especially you should quote the Scientific American in detail, and the exchange of letters between the present and previous editors of the Scientific American and me. See: http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf. You should emphasize the part where the editors brag that they know nothing about the subject, they have read no literature, and they think it is their job to report the "majority opinion" only, without questioning it or consulting with the minority, even when they are completely ingnorant of the subject.

That may sound bizarre, and of course it violates all traditional scientific norms, but these people make no bones about their views and their standard operating procedure. On the contrary, they brag about it. I wish everyone knew this is what they base their editorial stance on. But if I were to add this to this article, people would think I am exaggerating or inserting agitprop. So you should do it, since you are a skeptic and you seem to agree with them.

I have spoken with editors and writers at Science and Nature and many other mainstream journals, and they also brag about their ignorance. Unfortunately they have not put this in writing, but if you communicate with them they may tell you this. They are often forthcoming and open. The other day a top science writer at Time magazine wrote a blistering attack against cold fusion. Then he sent me a mind-boggling series of messages which revealed that not only does he know nothing about cold fusion -- zip, zero, nada -- he knows nothing about science and research in general. He asked questions so naïve, confused and misguided, I would not expect them from a high school kid. See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm --JedRothwell 21:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a secondary source. It is not in a position to evaluate the quality of primary sources (or reviews), but rather to report what they say. In essence, Misplaced Pages reports the mainstream viewpoint; if you think the mainstream viewpoint is wrong, convince the physicists and the journal writers—WP:NOT a vehicle for advocacy. -- SCZenz 21:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, Misplaced Pages reports the mainstream viewpoint primarily, and then minority views secondarily. The fundamental objection to this article is that it does exactly the opposite. -- SCZenz 21:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you claim that the editorial comments of a few major publications are more "mainstream" than the peer-reviewed publications of specialized fusion and electrochemistry journals which frequently publish cold fusion articles these days? --James S. 22:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, do you intend to answer this question? --James S. 18:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Misplaced Pages:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because this article is being edited heavily and forcefully by cold fusion advocates, with frequent POV and factual disputes. The content needs to be settled and NPOV (by consensus, not by declaration) for this to be considered a good article. -- SCZenz 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say just the opposite. The article has been heavily edited by people who have not read the literature and who clearly know nothing about electrochemistry, calorimetry or fusion. They forcefully add irrelivant insert POV statements and absurd mythology about magical majorities of scientists, while they ignore peer-reviewed, replicated experimental proof. This article should be held to the same standards that any other scientific article would be, but the skeptics insist on dragging in these wierd distractions and comical distortions. That has been the story of cold fusion ever since 1990. By every proper, traditional, accepted, rigorous standard of science cold fusion was proved beyond any doubt in hundreds of experiments performed in world-class laboratories, but fringe "skeptics" keep shouting that it is not true!

We agree that the quality has suffered because some people cannot distinguish between scientifically proven facts and their own opinions & fantasies. --JedRothwell 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the very essence of a POV dispute; each side thinks the other is going too far. Now's the point when, in principle, we could start working out neutral wording based on closely following reputable sources, but I don't think we agree on which sources are reputable. But we can always check; give me a moment and I'll make a list. -- SCZenz 20:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have already made a list; see below. It did not take me a minute, however. It took me about 10 years. To make it, I read a few hundred papers, attended a dozen conferences, visited laboratories around the world and observed the experiments, and I wrote, edited and translated a dozen papers and three books.

Are you sure you can do this in a moment? How quickly can you read and evaluate papers, anyway? Fleischmann is one of the world's top electrochemists and a Fellow of the Royal Society, yet he pondered the subject for 30 years and then did intensive research for five years before he drew a conclusions. Richard Oriani is also one of the top 10 electrochemists, and he told me that in his 50-year career this is the most difficult experiment he has ever done. You must have an awesome intellect if you can draw up a list of authoritative journals and articles in a few minutes. By the way, have you read the 35 peer-reviewed journal articles already listed in the Misplaced Pages article? That's a good place to start. --JedRothwell 21:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources

Here are the sources I would consider the most reputable, and thus the ones that should be the primary sources for our Misplaced Pages article, on the subject of the current state of cold fusion research:

1. Peer-reviewed journals, like Science and Nature, the vast majority of which have concluded that Cold Fusion research isn't worth publishing—we should read their explanations for why not.
2. The recent DOE review, in which half the 18-member panel thought that some of the experiments had produced power in the form of heat, the other half did not, and all "agreed there is not enough evidence to prove that cold fusion can occur" .

If your position is that the major reputable sources are wrong, Misplaced Pages can't help; reputable sources are what we use. -- SCZenz 20:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that the DoE review is discussed in detail here, and there are hyperlinks to the DoE site as well as the secret review panel comments (which we have made un-secret, much to the chagrin of the DoE), and ~90 or so of the papers they reviewed. I think we have that topic covered. If we say any more it will merit a separate Misplaced Pages article. --JedRothwell 22:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree! Peer-reviewed journals like Science and Nature would be good, however they have not published any papers on cold fusion, either pro or con, so they are out. Fortunately, several hundred other equally prestigious peer-reviewed journals have published papers. These include, for example, the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, which is the second most widely read and most cited journal in the world, and of course they include all of the major electrochemistry journals, and things like J. Fusion Energy. Even though this is edited by the plasma fusion lobbying organization -- which makes it somewhat biased -- it is still a peer-reviewed journal and it has experimental papers about cold fusion.

Those are your sources. Get to work. Do your homework and report back. Here is a list of 3,398 papers:

http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm

Have fun!

(By the way, approximately how many of these papers have you read already? I am just curious. Since you are not the editor of the Scientific American, I presume you have not been posting messages and pontificating even though you have read nothing and you know nothing about the subject. Right?) --JedRothwell 21:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't patronize me, please. You know full well I'm no expert on the subject; I am trusting the journal editors who won't publish papers on the subject without proof. Why is that? Because of what I wrote above, about how Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for advocacy. If there is a vast conspiracy against your research, to which most journals and funding agencies are a party, there is nothing that Misplaced Pages can do to help you. -- SCZenz 21:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am patronizing the editor of the Scientific American, not you. For all I know you have read several papers. You have not said anything yet which reveals how much (or how little) you know about the subject. I sincerely trust that you will do your homework, because most people do. Approximately 680,000 people have visited LENR-CANR and they have downloaded just over 500,000 papers. These are boring technical papers, and difficult to read, yet people worldwide continue to download 4,000 or so every week. Most of the readers who have contacted me have been from universities and laboratories so I know they are serious and unbiased and willing to do the hard work it takes to understand this subject.

My only complaint about your previous editing to the article are about your grammar, not your POV. Actually, I welcome your POV, and I sincerely -- not sarcastically -- wish that you would add more from Nature, Sci. Am. and these other sources. I consider them outrageous and I would like the world to see that. In the past I have added quotes from them but skeptics removed what I wrote.

You wrote: "I am trusting the journal editors who won't publish papers on the subject without proof. Why is that?" Why is what? I do not follow your question. If you are asking why these journal editors will not publish, I tell you it is because they are ignorant and biased. If you do not believe me, ask them yourself, or read their letters to me. If you are asking why you trust them, I suppose it is because you do not realize that these people are appallingly ignorant. You have not read their letters and articles carefully, and compared them to the experimental literature.

You wrote: "If there is a vast conspiracy against your research . . ." There is no such thing. That is absurd. First, it is not vast. There are no more than a hundred noisy pipsqueaks and fools. The vast majority of scientists have no opinion -- because they have not read the literature, obviously. Most scientists know better than to try and judge the technical merits of a subject they have not studied carefully. Unfortunately, some of the noisy fools are in high places such as the APS, the DoE and the Sci. Am., so their opinions are amplified. Plus they control funding.

Second, there is no conspiracy or organization or plan. Opposition began spontaneously in 1989. The same people who opposed it then oppose it now, especially Robert Park of the APS. It is obvious why he has not changed his mind. Ask him yourself. He will tell you; he is not shy. He wrote in the Washington Post and elsewhere that cold fusion is nothing but lunacy and fraud, and he has told me and many others in person that he remains dead certain of that, he has never read a single paper, and he never will. So obviously he has no reason to change his mind. (The editors you so admire say the same thing but they have not put it in writing, alas.)

(By the way, when Park tells me he has not read a paper, I believe him. When I offered him a paper by McKubre, he literally would not touch it. McKubre reported the same thing. I cannot imagine that Park and the Sci. Am. editors have secretly read papers but they brag in public that they have not!)

Third, if you study history you will find that nearly all astounding breakthroughs faced fierce opposition, sometimes for decades, even when there was copious experimental proof that the breakthrough was real. There are a few exceptions such as the x-ray, but most discoveries were attacked just the way cold fusion has been. It seems to be human nature.

The sources of support and opposition to cold fusion are clear. Support comes from researchers who have performed experiments, observed the effect, and published papers in peer-reviewed journals. Opposition comes from people like Robert Park who bitterly oppose the research, and who have staked their reputations on its demise. For more information on the opposition tactics, see the Misplaced Pages article on Julian Schwinger. --JedRothwell 21:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jed, I wish you would replace your excerpts from Sci. Am. and Nature editors -- they may help SCZenz see just what he is arguing in favor of. At least please link here in talk to the diffs where you added those comments, if you can find them easily. Thanks. --James S. 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can see their letters to me, and I could quote them again, but the skeptics say the same things here. Especially about the "majority." I frankly do not know why the skeptics erased the comments, but they did. The technical merits of the latest Sci. Am. attack are discussed here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam. Actually, their claims are about the same as the ones the skeptics keep inserting into this article. Claims such as "all cold fusion experiments have measured only milliwatt levels of power." I deleted that again today for maybe the 10th time, but I am sure some skeptic will put it back. You might say their views are already well represented here.

If we want to add mainstream attacks against cold fusion, Robert Park's article from the Washington Post would be the best choice. It is widely known and quoted with approval by many skeptics. I think it would be a good idea to add this material, and to quote from Park at length. I can e-mail you a copy if you like. Add as much as you please. Park would appreciate it and so would I. You are also welcome to quote the letters from Sci. Am to me (both sides -- as much as you want). A quick search with Google will reveal hundreds of intemperate attacks from mainstream journals and newspapers. The skeptics are right about one majority: they do represent the majority of editors and journalists. But the vast majority of newspaper editors opposed FDR in 1936, so you never can tell about these things. You should not confuse the Washington Post and Sci. Am. with the majority or for that matter with God almighty, although they themselves often do. --JedRothwell 22:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When I said "Why is that?" I meant "Why am I trusting the journal editors who don't publish cold fusion articles?" and I immediately answered myself: Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for advocacy. That's what you're doing here; you're advocating we use your website as our major source, rather than reputable mainstream sources, because (in your view) the reputable mainstream sources disagree with you for the wrong reasons or no reason at all. And I am insisting that Misplaced Pages presents mainstream viewpoints first, and minority viewpoints with lesser emphasis, and that as a secondary source we do not judge the quality of the specific views. In this particular case, obviously we will quote both sides of the debate; but my big issue is the introduction, which reflects the minority view first and the mainstream view second. -- SCZenz 01:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think you are making a serious error in judgement when you claim that the unsupported editorial comments of a few popular, general science journals represent the "mainstream" more than the peer-reviewed publications of cold fusion articles which regularly appear in scientific journals specializing in fusion and electrochemistry -- and those peer-reviewed articles are exactly the articles linked to on lenr-canr.org. Whether you are a doubter or convinced, there is no denying that a huge disconnect between the general editorializing in the popular science press and the peer-reviewed publications of the specialized journals exists. Plus, none of the critics (including yourself, apparently) care to address the data, methodology, and conclusions drawn by the scientists working in the field. So what claim do you have to the scientific mainstream? Until you can at least offer an explanation of why you think these authors publishing in peer-reviewed journals are frauds, then you are certainly not performing anything remotely similar to source-supported research, and your dispute is based only on your personal opinion of some kind of a popularity contest, and is certainly not encyclopedic. --James S. 01:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz writes: "That's what you're doing here; you're advocating we use your website as our major source, rather than reputable mainstream sources . . ." LENR-CANR is a repository, not a source. All of the papers in it are reprinted from reputable mainstream sources. To say we should not cite the papers there is like saying we should not cite any paper in the Georgia Tech Library, or any book or conference proceedings at Amazon.com.

Most of the papers are not easily available, so it is convenient to get them from LENR-CANR, but you can always find them elsewhere, such as from the Italian Physical Society or the Georgia Tech library. You can buy the ICCF-10 and ICCF-11 proceedings from Amazon.com. Our bibliography includes full source information, so you can always get the papers directly yourself, at a good library.

I recommend the Georgia Tech library, by the way. It is open to the public. You have to show your driver's license and fill in a form.

(Actually, a few of the papers at LENR-CANR are unique, such as the review guides to the material there, but as a general rule we accept papers from the authors after they have been published elsewhere.) --JedRothwell 13:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me add that LENR-CANR includes nearly all of the peer-reviewed journal papers that oppose cold fusion, and attempt to show that it is an experimental error. As far as I know there are only four or five such papers, and we have three of them, by Jones, Morrison and Shanahan. (Of course there may be others I have not read or heard about. I would welcome copies from the authors.) So if you would like to "quote both sides of the debate" please feel free to read the anti-cold fusion papers and quote them. At least in the formal peer-reviewed literature, the skeptics are not a majority. They are outnumbered 3,400 to 5. The majority you speak of is in the newspapers, Time magazine, Sci. Am. and places like that, not in scientific journals. Nature opposes cold fusion but they have not published any papers showing errors or reasons to disbelieve it. They have only published editorials accusing the researchers of fraud, and advocating "unrestrained mockery" and "vituperation" (their words, not mine). Vituperation does not constitute a scientific argument in the traditional sense. --JedRothwell 15:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

JedRothwell's description of the papers in that archive has been shown to be inconsistent with the actual text of these papers. For example, on this edit last December, he claimed that "A short time after the announcement, researchers at many labs such as NASA , ... selected a similar palladium alloy and lithium salt and conducted successful experiments, measuring excess heat, tritium and neutrons. " Taking a look at that first article he cited, here's a complete quote of the conclusions section of that first reference:

"This experiment to look for evidence of the second deuterium fusion reaction

D + D → He + n

in Pd showed a negative result even at the rather low level of significance of 3 standard deviations. Differences of 1 or 2 standard deviations were observed in the background count as well as when deuterium or hydrogen was present in the hydrogen purifier. One can only speculate about the source of the heating which occurs when D₂ and not H₂ is removed from the Pd. The lack of neutrons during the heating (indeed during any of the experiments) would seem to rule out the second reaction as an explanation."

He didn't reply when I pointed this out at the time. The first paper on his list says exactly the opposite of what he claimed- it's very clearly a negative result. JedRothwell's claim that other papers he has read support a cold fusion result should be considered in light of the fact that he has demonstrated that he will interpret a very clear negative result as one of several "successful experiments, measuring excess heat, tritium and neutrons." --Noren 05:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It it a positive result. It generated anomalous heat beyond the limits of chemistry without any chemical changes. Obviously it did not generate a hot fusion DD reaction. Cold fusion never does. If you define that as the only acceptable form of "success" then you will classify all cold fusion papers as failures. --JedRothwell 13:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Would a shorter quote be more clear? "This experiment ... showed a negative result". To further clarify, what they measured was not distinguishable from the statistical error of their method at a "rather low" significance level of 3 standard deviations- in other words it was not large enough for them to even rule out that the true value was zero and the tiny positive measurement was merely a result of the random distribution of the known noise. They recorded this very small (within experimental error) deviation when deuterium or hydrogen was present. --Noren 16:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"One can only speculate about the source of the heating" unless one reads Cold fusion#Current understanding of nuclear processes and learns that deuteron angular momentum is thought to influence the branching ratios interior to a solid metal, so

D + D → He + γ (to Bremsstrahlung)

would be more likely. In any case, the heating was observed, which must have been what Jed was referring to as "success." --James S. 11:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Heating was not observed. A positive deviation within experimental error was observed, "when deuterium or hydrogen was present". What is your explanation for this measurement generating the same (within experimental error) result when hydrogen (clearly referring to H in context) was used? JedRothwell's claim was that this paper was one that was "measuring excess heat, tritium and neutrons." Where are the tritium and neutrons generated in your proposed mechanism? --Noren 16:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The deviation within experimental error you refer to is the neutron count, not the heat. The experimental error for heat is not described, but the excess heat is obviously far above it. That's my reading, anyway. Let the readers here decide. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FralickGCresultsofa.pdf. Quotes:

". . . and the temperature rise was much more rapid than was possible using the electric heater. Neither neutron detector registered any counts during the time heating occurred.

After proceeding with the background count, the purifier was refilled with D2 at 374°C (705°F) and 1,380 kPa (200 psia).

Another neutron count was taken for 10 days, and the purifier was again evacuated, but this time the heater control temperature was reduced to 24°C (75°F). This was done to preclude any possibility that a temperature rise might be due to unintended operation of the electrical heating element. . .

This time the temperature dropped from 374°C (705°F) to 370°C (698°F) and then slowly increased back up to 375°C (707°F), again indicating heating as the deuterium was removed from the palladium. As before, no neutrons were registered by either detector during the time the heating occurred.

The above cycle of background count, neutron monitoring with the purifier at 374°C (705°F) and 1,380 kPa (200 psia), and evacuation was then repeated using ordinary H2 as a control. In the case of hydrogen, there was no evidence of self heating as the hydrogen was withdrawn from the purifier; the temperature dropped quickly as the valve was opened, and continued to drop when the valve was fully opened. . . ."

There is a pronounced, irrefutable difference between D and H which has been observed in hundreds of other similar experiments. There is no chemical fuel. D and H are chemically nearly the same (except for minor differences which cannot explain heat production). Since other cold fusion experiments produce transmutations and helium commensurate with fusion, I am sure this is a nuclear reaction and it probably is deuterium fusion. This experiment probably produced helium but they were not able to measure it and they did not try.

If you are saying there were no significant neutrons, everyone agrees. Cold fusion is not plasma fusion. It produces no neutrons or neutrons at a rate about 11 orders of magnitude lower than plasma fusion. No one has ever claimed otherwise, and the NASA experiments certainly bears this out. If you are saying that self-heating "more rapid than was possible using the electric heater" is not significant, or it was "not observed" despite what the sentence says, you are wrong.

Noren also wrote: "JedRothwell's claim was that this paper was one that was 'measuring excess heat, tritium and neutrons.'" I do not recall saying this paper covers tritium, but if I did I was mistaken or confused. There is no mention of tritium here. The neutron results in this paper are in line with the rest of the literature, and what you would expect. There were two other studies with this kind of hydrogen purifier, in France and India, and they both produced the same results: large excess heat with deuterium, no heat with hydrogen. --JedRothwell 16:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote: "There were two other studies with this kind of hydrogen purifier, in France and India, and they both produced the same results: large excess heat with deuterium, no heat with hydrogen." Actually, the Indian study produced significant neutrons, but of course not at the levels you would see with plasma fusion. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrishnanMScoldfusion.pdf

These experiments also produced a 20,000 times increase in tritium (over the initial concentration). --JedRothwell 14:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZens: let me just quote what I said about sources earlier: "Sources to trust (or at least include, if not "trust"): I would say published work by anyone who is a scientist with some work outside the field of cold fusion. "Published" here does not mean necessarily in a peer-reviewed journal, it could be a tech report or something presented at a conference - most of the really interesting stuff only exists in that form anyway - but not stuff that wikipedia usually regards as self-publishing. The rationale is that if there is a bias in editorial boards against CF, then requiring journal articles would be unfair. On the other hand, if a scientist with a reputation to worry about is willing to go on the record (in print) saying that X, then, regardless of any concerns about technique, experimental errors, data analysis etc (which are all the reasons why per review exists), it is a fair bet they believe that X, which is in this context noteworthy." A prime example of the kind of thing I am talking about is . Please review also Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication? and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Science_and_medicine, both of which I believe support the specific criteria for inclusion that I proposed. ObsidianOrder 10:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Blaming F&P for the Press Conference

It seems as though many people would like to put the entirety, or even a majority of the blame on F&P for holding the press conference. This seems to be more of a biased viewpoint than a factual one.

Look carefully at Gary Taubes' book, pages 96 and 97:

"Initially it was Peterson who suggested the public announcement, but the three lawyers apparently embraced its wisdom . ... 'The three lawyers were arguing that there is no second place in this kind of business."

Dehlinger's reccolection of the meeting also had Fleischmann "almost in tears" as the consensus finally emerged that they would call a press conference."

STemplar 16:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot imagine Martin Fleischmann crying about something like this! He is a tough and cynical guy. He survived horrible experiences in WWII. However, he has told me many times that he tried to prevent the press conference, and he wanted to keep the research secret for a few more years. Frankly, I am glad it was forced out into the open. (I have told him this, and I assure you he does not appreciate my sentiments!)

Fleischmann knew full well what the press conference would bring. He has studied history. He knew that he and Pons would be booted out of the establishment. Perhaps he did not anticipate the death threats and so on, or that Pons would be driven into exile, but he knew his career would end abruptly, and even being a Fellow of the Royal Society would be no protection. See the letter from him quoted in Beaudette's book, page 147:

After the press conference, Dr. Caldwell came up to us and said, "Well, when my grandfather proposed electrolytic disassociation he was dismissed from the University. At least that won't happen to you." I said to her, "But you are entirely mistaken. We shall be dismissed as well."

I cannot imagine why anyone thinks Fleischmann would welcome a press conference, and deliberately bring down a ton of bricks on his head!

Given what happened to most cold fusion researchers, it is astounding that anyone has the guts to publish positive results. It goes to show that some people do have academic integrity, and they are willing to sacrifice their careers and their personal lives in pursuit of the truth. I would say it renews one's faith in humanity, except for those hordes of opposition scientists who have destroyed people's careers and suppressed the truth to satisfy their own venal ambitions. --JedRothwell 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In defense of the new introduction

I removed the POV statement that SCZenz added, for the following reasons:

• according to past conversation, SCZenz wanted the POV tag because the intro understated the extent that reputable scientists rejected the nuclear origin of the effect. This is now clearly stated in the intro.
• SCZenz did not reject the possibility of the effect, and he should not because the DoE panels on cold fusion, a reputable source that did a thorough study, did not. Again, the intro clearly states that. Please read the report again if you have any doubt, avoiding any of the spin that many people have put on it.

Concerning the flow of the intro, I do propose to stick to the following structure:

• start with the definition. It is important that everybody agrees on a common definition, otherwise we'll get nowhere. This definition covers both muon-catalyzed fusion and F&P research. The first one is proven, so the definition can use present tense. The point that there are 2 lines of research is clearly made. In the rest of the into, I'm careful to say which type of cold fusion I'm talking about.
• the following paragraph on the benefit of cold fusion explains why cold fusion could be important, however you achieve it.
• the 3d paragraph neutrally states what the DoE said about the F&P effect. This is the most reputable study you can get today.

Pcarbonn 06:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It must be absolutely clear from the very beginning that the second is controversial; if this isn't said, the current structure implies that both lines of research are equally valid until one reaches paragraph 3. For a subject with this much controversy, that aspect of things should be clearer than that; I've moved one of your sentences to the intro, and so things seem (marginally) adequate to me for now.

However, I also continue to be dismayed that the major source for this entry is rather than reputable mainstream sources. A key point about WP:NPOV is the ability to write for the opposing view, so I challange all the cold fusion proponents editing this article to summarize the key points of the opposition in neutral language and cite sources that do so. -- SCZenz 07:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, and thanks for your collaboration. If we can make the intro NPOV and accepted by all, hopefully we'll be able to progressively improve the rest of the article...

A question: aren't you puzzled by what the DoE panel said: some acceptance of the possibility of excess heat, but rejection of nuclear fusion claims ? What is your reading on it ? Where could the excess heat come from, if confirmed ? Understanding your point of view will help everybody bring consensus on how to write the article NPOV. Pcarbonn 10:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My reading on the discrepancy between half the reviewers being somewhat convinced that there's excess energy, and a sound majority rejecting the hypothesis that fusion has occured is as follows—hopefully I've understood your question correctly. In order to claim that a new form of an old process has occured, it must have some similarities with the old process. Nuclear fusion (as traditionally known) produces other products 10 million times more than Helium-4, when helium-4 is the only possible product that's been detected (and not abundantly or reliably, as I understand it). Nuclear fusion (as traditionally known) is a particle interaction, and therefore produces high-energy photons which could be detected—and aren't. Yes, one can argue low-energy nuclear fusion is different, but that doesn't mean much without a theoretical model explaining such changes, and the existing theoretical models say that the fusion product ratios should still be vastly against He-4 at low energies. If there's an excess of energy, but nobody knows the source, and efforts to connect it to nuclear fusion have failed in many ways, why not call it a new/unknown process rather than assuming it's the same thing? -- SCZenz 16:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to accept the possibility of an excess of energy. Presumably, you would then respect scientists studying it (if in turn they are respectful to you, which I agree is unfortunately not always the case :-) ). Things would be much simpler if we could call that source of energy differently, eg. X-energy. Unfortunately, the LENR literature seems to use the word "nuclear reaction", even if it is abusively. It is not uncommon for a word to have different meanings in different lines of scientific research. You said that Misplaced Pages should not judge what respectable scientists are saying, only report it. So should it be different for the use of the "nuclear reaction" words ? Should we have a disambiguation page, saying that cold fusion refers to nuclear fusion in some disciplines, and "an unknown process" in other disciplines, and write 2 separate articles ? Or start a separate article on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, explaining that "nuclear reaction" is only a tentative explanation at this stage ? I'm trying to find a solution here, so any idea is welcome. Pcarbonn 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz writes: "However, I also continue to be dismayed that the major source for this entry is rather than reputable mainstream sources." Yo: SCZenz! Do you speak language? Do you know the difference between a library and a journal? LENR-CANR is not the "source" of anything. ALL -- I repeat -- ALL of the papers in this article come from mainstream sources. Nearly all of the papers in LENR-CANR are reprinted from mainstream sources. For you to claim otherwise is, as I already pointed out, like claiming that the Georgia Tech library published all of the books in its stacks.

It is incredible that you are still making this claim. Who are you trying to kid, anyway? Do you really think people do not notice that every paper referenced in this article comes from a mainstream journal? Did you not notice the titles? Or do you think that LENR-CANR runs the China Lake Naval Weapons Laboratory, and we publish Japanese Journal of Applied Physics? I suggest you look up the The Japan Society of Applied Physics.

Is this really the best argument you can come with? How pathetic! --JedRothwell 14:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn wrote, " is the most reputable study you can get today." Emphatically not!!! The DoE panel was a joke & and an outrage. First of all, it was not a "study" it was a one-day flying-hot review of the field. The review was designed by Steve Jones and others to ensure a biased outcome, and then summarized in an abstract by some of the worst enemies of cold fusion. Despite this bias, a few actual facts survived the process.

The most reputable studies you can get today are published by Mitsubishi, the U.S. Navy, Los Alamos, BARC, and a few hundred other world class laboratories in the open, peer-reviewed literature in mainstream journals, not by secret DoE cabals. Equating the two is ridiculous. The DoE study pretends that this body of research does not exist. --JedRothwell 14:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the DoE is not a good study (I'm puzzled by its inconsistency), but it's generally recognized as the best one to represent what the community of scientists think. That's why it generated so much press articles. Instead of "reputable study", I should have said: "a report that is generally recognized to represent the community of scientists", or "to represent mainstream scientists" (which usually do no know as much as you do about excess energy). Jed, you actually listed it in second place in the above discussion titled "Please stop using conditional grammar incorrectly!". Pcarbonn 15:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn wrote: "Jed, you actually listed it in second place in the above discussion titled 'Please stop using conditional grammar incorrectly!'" Sure, I agree the DoE study is a reasonable substitute for a public opinion poll -- or a Rorschach test. My gut feeling is that it accurately reflects the opinions of mainstream scientists. When you take a group of mainstream scientists, and you expose them for one day to a set of biased, unfair presentations arranged by the worst enemies of cold fusion, despite the biased nature of the presentations, roughly a third of your audience will conclude that cold fusion is real, a third will stick to their guns and insist it is not, and a third will remain muddled. That has been my experience dealing with scientists over the years. That is interesting from the sociological point of view, but it tells you nothing about cold fusion. A one-day review of cold fusion is like a parlor game. A genuine scientific review would take weeks or months. It would be conducted in the open with published, signed papers. It would involve visits to laboratories and intense discussions with researchers. It would be critiqued by both sides, and published in detail. The DoE reviewers comments were supposed to be kept secret! What kind of review is that? --JedRothwell 16:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz writes: ". . . so I challange all the cold fusion proponents editing this article to summarize the key points of the opposition in neutral language and cite sources that do so." That's easy. All we have to do is quote the opposition verbatim. Cold fusion is, according to the leading member of the opposition:

". . . error delusion and fraud caused by easy corruption, gullible politicians, greedy administrators . . . foolishness and mendacity.

What began as wishful interpretations of sloppy and incomplete experiments ended with altered data, suppression of contradictory evidence and deliberate obfuscations." - Robert Park, in the Washington Post

What is so challenging about that?

I can also summarize the scientifically valid, rational arguments presented by the opposition: there are none. Not one. You might as well ask what "key points" and "valid arguments" have been presented by the Flat Earth Society or Creationists. If you do not believe me, read the pathetic "reasons" presented by Morrison (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf). This is best the opposition has ever come up with. --JedRothwell 15:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem with both your treatment of the opposition in this article, and your treatment of the opposition at lenr-canr.org—you attempt to deride the opposition by selective quotations that make them look like thoughtless assholes. For example, in the introduction there are several links to a page on lenr-canr.org selectively quoting what various journals have said; why not instead cite the journals as sources, and maybe cite their serious comments also? Yes, people have said some harsh things, but they have also made some very sensible review comments. You can do whatever you like for propoganda purposes on your website (which is an advocacy site in addition to a repository of articles), but on Misplaced Pages we put the best face forward for both sides of an argument. -- SCZenz 15:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz writes: ". . . make them look like thoughtless assholes." I think Robert Park would enjoy that description! Ask him, and he will tell you that I am not "deriding" him or quoting him out of context unfairly. He stands by those comments. He has repeated them many times at conferences, in the newspapers, and to me in person.

"For example, in the introduction there are several links to a page on lenr-canr.org selectively quoting what various journals have said; why not instead cite the journals as sources, and maybe cite their serious comments also?"

The introduction to this article? Not sure what you are referring to. This article says that Sci. Am., Nature and the Washington Post have attacked cold fusion. Do you want me to add footnotes with the article titles and dates? I can do that -- no problem. I would not say these are "serious comments." The Sci. Am. statements are factually incorrect, and the others are ad hominem. But you can judge for yourself. Click on footnote 3 to see the article titles, links to original sources, detailed quotes, etc.

Yes, people have said some harsh things, but they have also made some very sensible review comments.

Have they? Who has made these comments? Where were they published? I have read 500+ papers and 6 books about cold fusion, in English and Japanese. I am not aware of any sensible review comments in opposition to cold fusion. As far as I know there have only been 5 papers published that attempted to find experimental errors. Morrison is the best of them, and I think it has no merit. Read it yourself, and judge for yourself. It is, as I said, at LENR-CANR (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf) If you know of any other papers, please tell me the titles and I will ask the authors for copies and permission to upload.

You can do whatever you like for propoganda purposes on your website (which is an advocacy site in addition to a repository of articles), but on Misplaced Pages we put the best face forward for both sides of an argument.

There is only one side to this argument. It is like the debate between Creationists and biologists. The arguments of the Creationists do not have a shred of scientific merit.

Not every debate has two valid sides. People who claim the earth is flat are wrong. People who claim that evolution did not occur are wrong. People who claim that cold fusion may be an experimental error are wrong.

If you seriously believe there is a "best face" to the opposition, tell me where I can find it in the peer-reviewed or proceedings literature. If you do not know of any such paper, I invite you to write one yourself. I will upload it to LENR-CANR if you like, even though our usual policy is to reprint papers published elsewhere. I will make an exception for you, or any other skeptic. After 17 years, you skeptics have written only 5 papers, all of them worthless, and we already have 3 of them at LENR-CANR.org. We have bent over backwards to include your views, and we will continue to do so. --JedRothwell 17:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz says "I challange all the cold fusion proponents editing this article to summarize the key points of the opposition in neutral language and cite sources that do so." - I wouldn't say I am a "proponent" of anything, but you and I would probably disagree about this article. Anyway, I have done what you ask already: see User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion redux, particularly the "Theoretical objections" and "Practical difficulties" sections. I haven't gone digging for sources yet since that was just an outline, I've just noted what would need to be sourced. However, Jed is correct in saying that quality sources for the anti-fusion side are quite hard to find (considering, for example, that the three most famous failed reproductions - Caltech, MIT and Harwell - all turned out to be fatally flawed on subsequent analysis). Would you like to try the same challenge in reverse? ObsidianOrder 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

ObsidianOrder wrote: "considering, for example, that the three most famous failed reproductions - Caltech, MIT and Harwell - all turned out to be fatally flawed on subsequent analysis." Actually, they are all three positive. Caltech is particularly clear. In 1989 these three were the best proof that cold fusion is real. Even skeptics who opposed the research got excess heat. --JedRothwell 21:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, precisely, that is what I meant by "flawed" ;) They're still not very good experiments, and the way the data was analyzed by the original teams was particularly atrocious, but insofar as the raw data supports anything it is a positive reproduction (not so sure about Harwell, but MIT and Caltech definitely). ObsidianOrder 22:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Harwell especially. Actually, the researchers at Harwell were fully open and happy to share their data, unlike the people at Caltech and MIT. Their data showed clear evidence of excess heat, as clear as Caltech's. See:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HansenWNpddcalorim.pdf

http://www.lenr-canr.org//acrobat/MelichMEbacktothef.pdf

--JedRothwell 00:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe add Jones and Rafelski to muon article

The introduction to this article is linked to muon-catalyzed fusion. This article began by saying that Jones and Rafelski "initiated" muon-catalyzed fusion, but as you see from the link, they did not. Sakharov, Frank and Alvarez initiated it. (See the article here and Mallove, p. 108). So I removed Jones and Rafelski from the first paragraph. They did contribute to muon research, however. Perhaps someone should patch up the muon-catalyzed fusion article to include them. I am not familiar with their work, so I cannot do this. --JedRothwell 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We need a new article, like "Creation-evolution controversy"

I just noticed something about Misplaced Pages. The article about evolution does not include Creationist garbage, except for a few paragraphs at the end. The rest has been been moved to Creation-evolution controversy. The article on evolution is about science only, based on legitimate, mainstream scientific documents and principles.

I suggest we do the same thing for cold fusion. We should create a separate article called "Cold fusion controversy." All of the pseudo-science should go there: the violations of thermodynamics and elementary chemistry; the notion that theory overrules facts; the mythical majorities and science-by-vote; the fake history, the accusations of fraud -- all of the unfounded skeptical POV nonsense. We include one short paragraph at the end of this article noting that some people think there is a controversy, and we direct the reader to the new article.

An article on cold fusion controversy ? Funnily enough, I have started one back on Feb 5 ! I announced it in the "Adopt a summary style ?" discussion above, but it did not seem to catch up then. I'm glad someone sees an interest in it ! And I'm willing to move some of the discussion there ! It should still be based on NPOV, though. Pcarbonn 21:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should be swept clean and devoted to actual experimentally proven facts, reported in journals. Some people would say this is against Misplaced Pages policy because it is a "fork" but that is only defensible if you equate skeptical faith-based handwaving to science. You might as well equate Creationism to evolution, or witch doctoring to medical science.

A clean separation of fact and fiction is called for. --JedRothwell 19:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And by "fact" you mean what you believe, and not what the DoE Reviewers said or what the editors or various prestigious journals that don't publish cold fusion results think. Controversy is an inescapable aspect of the subject, as thoughtful and intelligent people (a significant number) have looked at the evidence and found it wanting; obviously other intelligent people have found it compelling. This rhetoric of "the other side is just plain wrong" is as pointless coming from you as you must find it to be coming from the other side. -- SCZenz 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, by "fact" I mean what has proved true by replicated, high-sigma experiments. That is the standard of truth in science. Not opinions, not the majority, not "intelligent people." Experiments, and experiments alone are the gold standard of truth. Sometimes they are difficult to interpret, but not in this case. Megajoules of heat per mole at sigma 90, tritium at 20,000 times background, helium commensurate with a DD reaction -- it all adds up to one inescapable conclusion: This is a nuclear fusion reaction.

You want to overthrow the scientific method and substitute a popularity contest or so-called "intelligent opinions." Why kind of intelligence rejects a result that has been replicated hundreds of times, in dozens of laboratories, anyway? Once you throw away the experimental method, you throw away all standards. You invite chaos. There is no basis for reaching a conclusion or establishing a fact. No question will be settled, no theory ever tested or rejected, and no progress will occur. In science, experiment and observation are THE ONLY STANDARD OF TRUTH. The instruments dictate reality, and you must accept what they tell you, or you are not a scientist. --JedRothwell 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jed, I respect your high intellectual standard and knowledge on LENR, and I sincerely hope that your opinion on cold fusion will eventually prevail. However, you have high expectations on what Misplaced Pages can achieve: I'm afraid Misplaced Pages cannot meet them. Because of the forces that acts on Misplaced Pages, the mainstream argument most frequently wins, eventually. I would suggest that you try to convince the scientific community of your views that the source of excess energy is nuclear (if that is important for you): eventually, Misplaced Pages will reflect it. In the mean time, Misplaced Pages should only say that the source of excess power is unknown. Pcarbonn 22:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn writes: "However, you have high expectations on what Misplaced Pages can achieve . . ." Not really. I was kidding. I know perfectly well that the skeptics will never allow this article to be objective or scientific. They will insist that it reflect their fantasies, rather than experimentally proven facts.

"Misplaced Pages should only say that the source of excess power is unknown." Because you say so, naturally. No reason given, no proof or evidence presented, and several thousand experiments pushed aside. Whatever you say is true because you say it. And you are, of course, in the majority, again because you say so, even though 97% of Japanese scientists disagree with you. I'll say one thing: Your logic is wonderfully circular and unfalsifiable. It is tough to argue with: "Whatever I say is true by definition." Perhaps you should found a religion. "I am what I am."

I notice also that you are not content with disputing thousands of replications, and overthrowing the laws of thermodynamics. You now want to prove that cold fusion devices are not actually small, despite appearances. They are smaller and hotter than the Pu used in fission-powered pacemakers, but you insist they are not. Not only can you change the laws of physics by fiat, you can miraculously make a 0.5 g device into a 10 kg device, or even a tokamak. As I said, this has all the makings of a religon. --JedRothwell 00:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, I'm not a scientist. I'm an editor who writes based on reputable sources, not an independant evaluator of scientific research. Thus if prominent scientists say the wrong things in reputable sources there's nothing I can do about it. It's not for me to decide whether they're right or not. Your complaints may apply to the journals who are rejecting LENR papers; they don't apply to Misplaced Pages. -- SCZenz 23:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz writes: "On Misplaced Pages, I'm not a scientist." Indeed. Anyone who would dispute an experiment that has been replicated hundreds of times at high sigma is not a scientist anywhere. You are a true believer, and no scientist, at least with regard to cold fusion.

"Thus if prominent scientists say the wrong things in reputable sources . . ." Prominent scientists do not say wrong things. This is not a technical argument at any level. The editors of Sci. Am. and Nature, who tell me they are not scientists, say that cold fusion researchers are liars, frauds and lunatics. They do not address the technical issues, so their opinions and ad hominem attacks should not be discussed in an article on a technical subject. (Sci. Am. offered some "reasons" last year but they are imaginary; they have no connection to actual experiments or claims.) There are only 5 papers by skeptics that attempt to grapple with the technical issues, and attempt to disprove cold fusion. You can read them and evaluate them yourself. You will see that they fail miserably. I can list them in this article. All other skeptical attacks are ad hominem or just plain crackput crazy. None are part of science any more than Creationism is. --JedRothwell 00:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned that the editors of Sci. Am. and Nature have both denied they are scientists. Here is what they said:

"The second misconception concerns Scientific American's function. We're journalists here at the magazine, even those of us with scientific credentials. We don't claim to be authorities on physics or any other discipline . . ." Sci. Am. editor, in letter to me. (http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf)

"Nature does not employ an editorial board of senior scientists, nor is it affiliated to a scientific society or institution, thus its decisions are independent, unbiased by scientific or national prejudices of particular individuals." (http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/index.html)

--JedRothwell 13:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

totallydisputed tag

I added this tag, because this article is awful. It is not an article for JedRothwell to air his personal views. His weird interpretation of the DOE panel's results, his ad hominem attacks on the scientists who dispute cold fusion, his officious treatment of the other editors. He is trying to act as the final arbiter of what is science and what is not which, as SCZenz points out, is not the role of Misplaced Pages. I see no possibility of this article ever conforming to anything remotely similar to neutral POV as long as JedRothwell continues to control it. Do not remove the totallydisputed tag. –Joke 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I, likewise, am tired of explaining what the role of Misplaced Pages is. At first I was under the impression that JedRothwell thought we weren't reporting the available information about peoples' views directly, but it is now increasingly clear that he wants us to critically evaluate them. We cannot do this—but it is precisely what this article presently does. Jed's responses to me on this subject now seem to have crossed the line from POV essays into personal attacks against me, and I do not feel terribly inclined to participate further. As Joke says, do not remove the {{totallydisputed}} tag. -- SCZenz 14:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We've been over this many times before. - Taxman 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Joke writes: "I added this tag, because this article is awful. It is not an article for JedRothwell to air his personal views." Please do not give me credit for the 'personal views' of Julan Schwinger, Martin Fleischmann, and hundreds of other scientists. I am merely reporting what they say, and what they have discovered. I do not have a Nobel prize and I am not a Fellow of the Royal Society. If you want to say that their views are discredited, go ahead, but don't confuse me with them.

I agree 100% that this article is Totally Disputed. I dispute it! The "skeptical" statements in it are unfounded, without a scrap of supporting evidence, and pure POV. There is not a single footnote to justify these absurd assertions. They violate physics and common sense. But what do you expect from "skeptics"?

By the way, Mr. Joke, my offer to SCZenz is open to you as well, and to any skeptic. If you have the guts to write a paper, I promise to upload it untouched. Only ~5 skeptical papers have been published. We need more, to show the public how ignorant you people really are. The Taubes book was a masterpiece in that department (see my brief review here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf) But we could always use more. --JedRothwell 17:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz wrote:

"Jed's responses to me on this subject now seem to have crossed the line from POV essays into personal attacks against me . . ."

You mean when I invited you to contribute a paper to LENR-CANR.org, and I promised that I would not censor it or change it in any way? Yes, that was too cruel. It isn't fair to ask a skeptic to do his homework and write a paper. You should not be held to the same standards you demand of us.

". . . and I do not feel terribly inclined to participate further."

参ったか？ざまあみろ！ --JedRothwell 18:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It was the part where you ranted about how I'm a true believer and not a scientist. Right when I was explaining how Misplaced Pages editors do not critically evaluate the scientific merit of sources. -- SCZenz 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz sez: Misplaced Pages editors do not critically evaluate the scientific merit of sources. Is that so!?! Why then, is this article crammed full of critical evaluations of the scientific merit of papers by Fleischmann, Storms, Schwinger and others? Every second sentence in this article evaluates these papers, and describes some bogus reason to doubt them. These bogus reasons do not come from the literature. I am sure of that; I have read the literature extensively. The people editing this article added these skeptical evaluations themselves. They invented them. For example, they claimed that all excess heat is in the milliwatt range, and they asserted that a "majority of scientists" do not believe that cold fusion is real. This is a fabrication; the only poll in existence (from Japan, 1993) shows that 85% of scientists think cold fusion probably is real and 95% support research.

I have no objection to these "critical evaluations" even though they are bunk. But as far as I know, they are all on your side, so I do not understand why they upset you. All the claims from our side come straight out of the experimental literature, without evaluation. --JedRothwell 21:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask again: Given that there are dozens of papers on cold fusion published in established, peer-reviewed journals specialising in fusion and electrochemistry each year these days, are there any reputable sources claiming that research is mistaken, other than unreviewed editorial commentary in a few general science journals, and a few outspoken critics like Park?

It seems to me that the critics need to review the bibliographies and not just go with their gut instinct -- that is not source-supported research, and it has no place in Misplaced Pages. There are already plenty of caveats and attempts at balance here in this article. Until other editors can provide sources of the same or greater reputability than the peer-reviewed journals which frequently publish cold fusion work these days, I will be removing the dispute tag(s) without further duscussion. --James S. 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The DoE review is the big one; the way I read it, a majority of the reviewers did not believe the research supported that a form of fusion was occuring. Of course, that interpretation is disputed. In fact, many things here are disputed; that's why the article is tagged as disputed. I am tagging it and giving up because I am effectively shut out of editing by others' constant revisions. So here's what I suggest: admit the article is disputed and do what you please with it. But we are disputing it, and edit warring over the tag is lame. Please don't do it. -- SCZenz 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Before "giving up," would you mind explaining why you think that the article's description of the DoE review is biased or factually incorrect? As far as I can tell, it is presented in an unbiased fashion; there simply hasn't been much controversy over what the reviewers said. There is nothing in your arguments which justifies either a POV or disputed tag, let alone totallydisputed. --James S. 19:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The article uses minority sources to too great an extent. It uses weasel words to discredit the views of skeptics. And edits made to fix these things are invariably corrected and re-corrected until whatever was intended was gone. We've been through this before, and this instant-tag-removal because you don't agree with my arguments is kind of rude. If you think my explanation is wrong, discuss it and maybe we can clarify. I don't have to write an essay immediately to justify a dispute tag, since I have other work to do too. -- SCZenz 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, are you saying that the intro is POV ? or just the remainder of the article ? If it is the intro, could you expand on "uses minority sources", and "weasel words". If it is the remainder, I propose we address it once we agree on the intro (and keep the POV tag in the article in the mean time). Thanks. Pcarbonn 20:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The last big paragraph of the intro portrays "skeptics" as making attacks rather than raising reasonable objections, and selectively quotes statements various magazines have made, and then cites a page on lenr-canr.org which likewise selectively quotes those magazines. We should be citing the magazines' statements directly, along with the articles/editorials written by scientists who disagree with cold fusion research, along with the explanations given by the DOE review for why the experimental results are generally believed to be inconsistent with fusion.

There are also problems with the emhpasis in the article, but I agree that getting the intro into agreed-upon good shape would be a good start. I agree 100% with your plan of leaving the tag up while this is worked on, which isn't a bad thing in any way. I admit that I fear that not all the editors working on this page are committed to WP:NPOV, which is why it's so easy to give up and just place the tag indefinitely—but if we can work together, I won't do that. -- SCZenz 20:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz writes: "The last big paragraph of the intro portrays 'skeptics' as making attacks rather than raising reasonable objections . . ." I added the stuff in the last paragraph about the Washington Post etc. It is unimportant. If it bothers you, please chop it.

I do not know of any reasonable objections to cold fusion. But you should please add any objections you find, reasonable or unreasonable. The more the merrier. I encourage you to add objections to this article, and I also encourage you to write a paper enumerating these objections. In my opinion, the five papers and the three books written by skeptics devastate the skeptical position. They make mincemeat of the skeptics more adroitly than I ever could. So I encourage skeptics to write more.

. . . .and selectively quotes statements various magazines have made . . .

Do you know of any other statements from national U.S. magazines? I subscribe to the Google alerts feature. Any on-line news article that mentions cold fusion is delivered to me automatically. As far as I know, all of the articles published in U.S. national newspapers and magazines in 2006 have been virulent attacks against cold fusion. I toned these attacks down; I quoted the kindest things they said. If you can find some kind, balanced words, I would be pleased to hear them. --JedRothwell 20:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into a tedious discussion of the nitty gritty of the DOE review and why this article needs a POV tag. Even if I did have the time and inclination, I would invariably be browbeaten by the usual editors above. Suffice it to say that cold fusion is scientific specialty practised by a small number of people against the general skepticism of the field as a whole. I don't know what the current state of cold fusion research is, and I don't intend to take a year learning about electrochemistry and nuclear physics. Perhaps cold fusion researchers' results have been refuted; perhaps they haven't because serious scientists don't think it is worth their time; perhaps cold fusion research is being suppressed; perhaps it's just bad science; perhaps it is right. I am not interested in arguing about it. What is clear is that the editors on this page are not by any stretch neutral nor do they make any effort to be, with comments such as: "we need more , to show the public how ignorant you people really are." The operator of the major cold fusion webpage and, apparently, editor of Infinite Energy magazine is not a neutral author, and I have seen no evidence that there is any way to effectively counterbalance his imperious behavior. Do not remove the totallydisputed tag. If you go the RFC route, fine. Otherwise I will continue to reinstate the tag until it seems possible to create a more balanced page. I won't have access to a computer over the weekend, but I do hope you won't remove the tag over my objections. –Joke 20:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that every editors of this article need to accept the NPOV rule. Without such an agreement, the tag has to stay. At the same time, you say "I am not interested in arguing about (DoE review, ...)": if this is the case, I would say that you do not qualify as an editor for this article. Pcarbonn 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. If the article improves to the point where the active editors agree it is NPOV, then Joke doesn't get to object—and I doubt he will. At the same time, I understand where Joke is coming from; working with editors who aren't committed to the NPOV principle in the first place is very tough (and, in this case, intimidating). It's hard to imagine, with the perspectives and approaches present, that there will be agreement on NPOV wording for the article. But of course, if there is, the tag comes off. -- SCZenz 20:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm working hard on changing the editing behavior of Jed. Hopefully, we'll get there soon. Pcarbonn 20:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

無用だ -- as a samurai would say.　I am in a Japanese mood, since I just uploaded our first document in Japanese -- a 107 pape e-book! (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTjyouonkaku.pdf) --JedRothwell 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, and likewise your support of leaving the tag up for the time being. I do not think the problems in the article are insurmountable if we work together for neutral wording rather than warring over which point of view is right. -- SCZenz 20:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It would help a great deal if we could first establish where exactly the people adding the dispute tag claim that the problems with the article are. Since SCZenz left me a message about this on my talk page, I've replied in detail expressing this concern on User talk:SCZenz#Totallydisputed tag in Cold fusion --James S. 22:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Joke writes: "What is clear is that the editors on this page are not by any stretch 'neutral' nor do they make any effort to be . . .

What? Are you pretending that you are neutral? Don't be absurd. The comments you make here and the changes you make the article reveal you to be a rabid partisan. You feel as strongly as I do. Don't pretend otherwise -- you are not fooling anyone.

There are no neutral views of cold fusion. It is polarized, like the Creationism versus evolution debate. The two sides are light years apart and always will be.

"... with comments such as: 'we need more , to show the public how ignorant you people really are.'"

We do. That's 100% sincere. Not a bit flippant. Please write a paper, and I hope you make it as misinformed and mistaken as the book by Taubes or the paper by Morrison.

You "skeptics" should not complain that LENR-CANR is one-sided or biased. YOU are the ones who have not written and published papers. We have uploaded every skeptical paper I can get my hands on, and we would be happy to upload more. It is your fault that your views are not on file at LENR-CANR. I never censor papers. You can say exactly what you want, in as much detail as you like. Go ahead and write a 200-page book showing why cold fusion is not real. I promise I will upload it. (I will also write a separate critique of it, and tear it to shreds.)

"The operator of the major cold fusion webpage and, apparently, editor of Infinite Energy magazine is not a neutral author . . .

I am not the editor. I have had no connection to Infinite Energy since before Gene Mallove died, although I remained on friendly terms with him. Check the index: I have not published there for years. --JedRothwell 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to James S's note on my talk page

The following note was left by James S on my talk page. I reply below. -- SCZenz 22:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I think your addidtion of the totallydisputed tag to Cold fusion is wrong for a number of reasons:

• You claim that there are POV issues, but have not articulated what you think they are;
• You claim that there is a factual dispute, and point to the DoE review, but that review proves there is no scientific consensus on the issue, on a 2-to-1 split;

2-to-1. It was actually "even split" on the question of excess heat, a remarkable statement. Pcarbonn 06:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Both sides of the controversy are represented in the article -- you have not claimed that they are not; and
• You have refused to say why you think that the unreviewed editorial comments of a few general science journals are more "mainstream" than the peer-reviewed publications in specialized fusion and electrochemistry journals which have been frequently publishing cold fusion articles for the past several years.

I don't see how you can expect to be treated in good faith when you do not respond to these points. It is frustrating and confusing to see someone add a tag, let alone the totallydisputed tag, to an article which has been balanced by continual back-and-forth editing by supporters and detractors alike. If someone had come in and deleted all the comments on one side of the issue immediately prior to your adding the tag, then it would make sense, but it seems to me that you are only showing that you have not actually read the article. If you have read the article, and you believe the tag that you are adding, then why aren't you able to respond to the above points? I will, as a courtesy, leave that tag up on the article until at least this evening, but if you haven't justifed it by then, I will remove it again. Please reply to this on Talk:Cold fusion, and not here or on my userpage. --James S. 20:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Someone who I know from a completely unrelated controversy asked me what this was all about, and here is how I explained it to him. I hope this helps you understand my perspective:

The problem with the Cold fusion article is that there is a controversy, and people on both sides of it have been editing it fairly carefully, and I think it's balanced, and then someone comes along and objects to the idea, because it was controversial back in the early '90s, then faded away, then made a quiet comeback in the science journals. It's hard to deal with the situation because the editors of Nature and Scientific American frequently trash-talk the subject, while about 10-30 papers get published in peer-reviewed electrochemistry and fusion journals each year. It seems like Misplaced Pages is in a great position to solve the problem, but when someone slaps a {{totallydisputed}} on top of the article, it really can't help. --James S. 21:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you on a number of points. First of all, I just compared this article to the August 24, 2004 featured version: it is very different, and is much more based on the views of the Cold Fusion advocates. I would say that those advocates have been the majority of editors for a long time. The article was removed from the featured articles list, by consensus, for this very reason. I do not get the impression that most interested authors have found this page to be NPOV, or carefully edited, at any point. I, for example, have believed there were problems here for a while, and only stepped in to try to do something about them recently. The response to any editor who is not a cold fusion advocate, or even one who is an NPOV advocate, is invariably a torrent of words so vehement as to be intimidating—so most interested authors arrive one at a time, and leave in frustration. This does not mean that you are right and they are wrong.

I disagree that I have not explained why I see POV issues with the page; the fact that you disagree with my assesment is why the tag says that the NPOV status is disputed. I dispute it, I am an active editor, and it is no courtesy to wait a few hours before declaring that my opinions don't count because you don't agree with them. Leave the tag up for long enough that I have some free time to make some detailed points or edit the page. That means days, because I have a job and things to do. Your insistence on rapid tag removal is part of the intimidating environment on the page; please stop!

No fewer than three editors in the past week or so have put POV tags on this page; please respect us even if you don't agree. I want to work on this article, but it will take time and discussion to work out a consensus version, and as PCarbon said above the tag should stay in the meantime. Also I will need to hear a response from somebody other than "you don't know what you're talking about, so shut up." -- SCZenz 22:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz and the others who dispute this article are making good-faith assertions. I am sure they honestly believe the article is unbalanced and unfair to their point of view. For that reason I think the tag should stay.

I think the article is somewhat unbalanced against cold fusion, but for my part, I could not care less whether it is tagged or not. If it upsets SCZenz to see the tag removed, it should stay, and I say that with all sincerity.

Also, by the way, I hope that no cold fusion advocate erases skeptical arguments from the article. That isn’t fair, and besides, their arguments probably win more people over to our side than our own arguments do. Every time the Sci. Am. or the Washington Post blasts cold fusion, we see a spike at LENR-CANR. Thousands of new readers come to download papers and find out what all the fuss is about.

One thing I have learned in this debate is that the skeptics believe what they say as firmly as I believe what I say. Robert Park truly, honestly does think that I am a lunatic, and he is convinced that Fleischmann and all the scientists in this field are frauds. He told me so in person and by e-mail, and he has told that to many of the researchers. He and Zimmerman stood in front a cheering crowd at the APS and vowed they would find and fire "every single cold fusion researcher and supporter" in the government. "We will not stop until this nonsense is eradicated!" they promised. The crowed cheered and Zimmerman and the others at the DoE followed through. They are not posturing.

(I do not think he is crazy or anything like that. He is closed-minded and unscientific, at least when it comes to cold fusion. Perhaps in other subjects he is more objective and fair.) --JedRothwell 01:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Specific NPOV problems

I'll put specific NPOV problems here, one at a time, as I have time. Just because you feel you've argued them all away at any given moment doesn't mean it's time to remove the dispute tag. Let's discuss. -- SCZenz 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Citing lenr-canr.org as a source for what Scientific American says. Perhaps we can find quotes that are a bit less selective, and maybe explain their position, yes? As it is, the treatment in the introduction is a straw man argument designed to discredit the magazine's view. -- SCZenz 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a direct link to the sciam.com article. --James S. 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• "In the history of science, there has never before been a claim that was replicated hundreds of times at high signal to noise ratios, published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, yet still rejected by large numbers of scientists. Despite this, skeptics still claim these results may be experimental error." Totally uncited, and completely leaves out the critical fact that reproduction is still unreliable. This is therefore a highly misleading, POV statement. -- SCZenz 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that paragraph. Even if the authors Mallove and Baudette had been cited as the source for it, I agree it sounds hyperbolic, even if it isn't. The article is better without it. The surrounding paragraphs say everything that needs to be said on the subject, and they say it better and in a more convincing fashion. --James S. 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I claim that Scientific American and other popular science journals are reliable sources for what the scientific mainstream believes. Several editors of this article do not; we need to sort this out. -- SCZenz 22:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bias problem or a factual dispute, is it? Even if it were true, does Misplaced Pages have a greater responsibility to reflect the contents of the mainstream popular science press, or the peer-reviewed literature, when the two disagree? --James S. 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• The confrontational situation on this talk page, the language of "our side" and "your side" is unacceptable and counterproductive, and must end. -- SCZenz 22:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but again, that's not a bias or accuracy problem. --James S. 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• "However, most scientists in the panel also believed that the excess generation of power did not have a nuclear origin, and were thus unable to explain it." Makes them sound like naysayers who are just being stubborn—actually there are very clear and concrete reasons why the observed excess heat is not consistent with nuclear fusion, which are cited in the DoE report. The language in the intro needs to be clear that such reasons exist, and perhaps cite them briefly. The article itself must cover them much more clearly. -- SCZenz 22:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I took out the word "thus" because I think it makes a connection which should not be made. --James S. 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and add the direct quotes from Sci. Am! Good idea. What's stopping you? (Perhaps they do not have their article on line, so you may have trouble adding a hyperlink.) The title and everything else you need is right here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam

SCZenz writes:

"However, most scientists in the panel also believed that the excess generation of power did not have a nuclear origin, and were thus unable to explain it." Makes them sound like naysayers

Well? Did they explain it? Yes or no? You think it makes them sound like naysayers. I think it makes them sound confused and bewildered.

The language in the intro needs to be clear that such reasons exist, and perhaps cite them briefly.

There are no such reasons, but you are free to invent a bunch of them and cite them in as much length as you please. Or you can quote the bogus reasons the Sci. Am. editors came up with. Do not accuse me of erasing this stuff, either. I welcome your imaginary reasons. I encourage you to add them. I have never erased a single skeptical assertion here.

"In the history of science, there has never before been a claim that was replicated hundreds of times at high signal to noise ratios. . .

Actually, there is a source for that: Mallove and Beaudette. But the ball is in your court. Can you think of an example in the history of science in which this has happened? If you cannot, what is misleading about it? It is not POV, it is a statement of fact. If you know of a counter-example, please list it in the article. Change it to, "in the history of science . . . this happened with X Y and Z." --JedRothwell 23:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If two authors said it, we could say that "According to Mallove and Beaudette, ...". Just stating their view as fact is probably not ok, because I doubt very much everyone agrees it's true. As for your proposal that I do my own historical analysis, that violates Misplaced Pages:No original research.

As for the claim that "no such reasons exist" there are clear reasons—the characteristics of the excess heat in many ways do not resemble known fusion processes, and the presence of any fusion products at all is disputed. More to the point, if a reliable source believe such reasons exist, Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy requires us to cite that whether any of us personally agree with it or not.

Your approach to this article, Mr. Rothwell, is not consistent with Misplaced Pages's core policies. That's why things like NPOV tags end up on the article. -- SCZenz 23:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That "the characteristics of the excess heat in many ways do not resemble known fusion processes" isn't a reason why the observed excess heat is not consistent with nuclear fusion; it is only a reason why the observed excess heat is not consistent with known fusion processes.

The statement that "the presence of any fusion products at all is disputed" may be true, but there are perhaps five examples of such published in the peer-reviewed literature, which has hundreds of replicated examples confirming helium, for example.

The controversy is an example of a disconnect between what is published in the reputable peer-reviewed literature, and what is published in the popular press. Which does Misplaced Pages have a responsibility to reflect? --James S. 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

James S. writes: ". . . which has hundreds of replicated examples confirming helium." Tritum. Bockris tallied hundreds of examples of that. For helium . . . I recall ~15 or so, at the Navy, SRI, several Japanese labs, and three Italian National Labs. (Hundreds of individual runs I guess, but ~15 studies.) Helium is WAY more difficult to confirm, because it is not radioactive. Tritium announces itself. There was so much at Los Alamos and BARC, they had trouble getting rid of it, and the safety officers became concerned. One of the SRI experiments produced so much, the detector was swamped, and it had to be overhauled at considerable expense. --JedRothwell 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz writes:

"If two authors said it, we could say that 'According to Mallove and Beaudette, ...'. Just stating their view as fact is probably not ok, because I doubt very much everyone agrees it's true."

You doubt it, so we should not include it? I suggest you read any book or textbook about the scientific method. You will find the author asserts that when an experiment is widely replicated at a high signal to noise ratio, that proves it is true and debate is supposed to end. For all of modern history, that has happened in every case -- except for cold fusion. There are no other examples. This is a very important aspect of cold fusion.

I did not add any disputed history or "original opinions," but you did. You skeptics claim that cold fusion is an example of pathological science. Look at Langmuir's definition of "pathological science" and you will see that cold fusion does not fit a any of the criteria he listed. You invented that claim, you insist on saying it despite all evidence to the contrary. And now you complain when I add a matter of fact that anyone can confirm in a half hour. Read any history of science. If you can find one example of a widely replicated experiment that was rejected, list it here and I will concede the point. If you cannot, you should admit you are wrong. --JedRothwell 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz writes:

. . . the characteristics of the excess heat in many ways do not resemble known fusion processes

Incorrect. They resemble cold fusion, which was discovered 17 years ago. The pattern is consistent, and proved by experiment, which is the only way anything is ever proved.

. . . and the presence of any fusion products at all is disputed. More to the point, if a reliable source believe such reasons exist, Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy requires us to cite that whether any of us personally agree with it or not.

GOOD! Do it. Go for it. Tell us what reliable source believes such reasons exist. Who disputes these things? Where did they publish? Give us an example. I have read hundred of papers and I have seen only 5 by minor authors, but if you find one, tell us about it.

Don't tell us that Sci. Am. or Nature has found a reason. They have never addressed the technical issues. They have never mentioned fusion products. They say only that no papers have been published, and that all researchers are liars, frauds and lunatics. That is exactly what they say, and if you doubt me, go read them yourself. If you want to quote them saying that in this article, please do. I wish you would. --JedRothwell 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

DOE Review

To those of you who are defending your position to reject or dismiss cold fusion behind the shield of the DOE review; be forewarned, the ground beneath you is unstable and receding.

In 1989, the DOE review was predetermined to a negative outcome. This evidence comes directly from the man who came up with the idea of the review and advised the president of the United States how to settle the matter according to this scientists' personal belief that cold fusion was impossible. Do your homework, you'll find it. It also comes from John Huizenga who stated that he thought a review was a waste of time.

This is not science, people, this is politics.

In 2003, some cold fusion researchers thought they were all hot to trot with new strong evidence and they thought they could finally get DOE to reverse their opinion on the matter. What a joke! So what they did was to use political leverage to go to the top of DOE, Spencer Abraham and lobby him to do another review.

Abraham said, yes, and then he went to James Decker of the Office of Science and said, "Hey, you gotta look at cold fusion again." Decker and company said, "Aw, for cryin' out loud, we really don't want to do this. Cold fusion is a freakin' political nightmare. We'd rather shove hot coals up our behinds."

You'll notice that DOE made no effort to publicize either the initiation of the review or the completion of the review.

Bennnett Daviss of New Scientist and Tony Feder of Physics Today got the scoop on it from inside sources, there was never a press release.

Get it done and over with as quickly and as quietly as possible and shut these guys up. Will Happer nailed it, “I think a review is a waste of time, but if you put together a credible committee, you can try to put the issue to bed for some time."

So Decker says to Abraham, "Fine, you can shove this thing down our throat but you can't tell us how to do it." So wouldn't you know it, they set up the review so that reviewers spend one whole day talking to half a dozen cold fusion scientists about 17 years worth of research. Then the reviewers visit a whopping zero cold fusion laboratories and lo and behold, a majority are not convinced! Imagine that!

Despite all the things against it that you describe so well, the DoE panel stated that 1/2 the reviewers were somewhat convinced by the evidence of excess heat. Because the DoE is used by the opponents of cold fusion, this statement from the DoE is the best ammunition that the pro cold fusion can use ! They can't challenge it ! Please recognize that. Pcarbonn 06:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is politics people, not science. And if you think you are thinking independently and scientifically by standing behind the DOE report, I have a bridge to sell you in New York.

Ask yourself this: What if some of the negative things you've been told about cold fusion have not been true? Is it possible? What if some prominent scientists have lied to you? Is that possible? Or is that too disturbing a question?

STemplar 04:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream Western peer-reviewed papers through the years

I think these should be added to the references, for no other reason than to show that the subject has been accepted in the Western scientific mainstream through the years:

• McKubre, M.C.H. et al. (1994) "Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd Systems." J. Electroanal. Chem., 368, 55.
• Szpak, S. et al. (1995) "Cyclic voltammetry of Pd + D codeposition." J. Electroanal. Chem., 380, 1.
• Celani, F. et al. (1996) "Reproducible D/Pd ratio > 1 and excess heat correlation by 1-microsec-pulse, high-current electrolysis." Fusion Technol., 29, 398.
• Storms, E. (1996) "How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect." Fusion Technol., 29, 261.
• Yuki, H. et al. (1997) "D + D reaction in metal at bombarding energies below 5 keV." J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 23, 1459
• Aoki, T. et al. (1998) "Search for nuclear products of the D + D nuclear fusion." Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources, 6, 22.
• Szpak, S. et al., (1998) "On the behavior of the Pd/D system: Evidence for tritium production." Fusion Technol., 33, 38.
• Gozzi, D. et al., (1998) "X-ray, heat excess and 4He in the D/Pd system." J. Electroanal. Chem., 452, 251.
• Zhang, W.-S. et al., (1999) "Numerical simulation of hydrogen (deuterium) absorption into ß-phase hydride (deuteride) palladium electrodes under galvanostatic conditions." J. Electroanal. Chem., 474.
• Zhang, W.-S. et al. (2000) "Effects of self-induced stress on the steady concentration distribution of hydrogen in fcc metallic membranes during hydrogen diffusion." Phys. Rev. B: Mater. Phys., 62, 8884.
• Cisbani, E. et al., (2001) "Neutron Detector for CF Experiments." Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 459, 247.
• Zhang, W.-S. et al. (2002) "Some problems on the resistance method in the in situ measurement of hydrogen content in palladium electrode." J. Electroanal. Chem., 528, 1.
• Li, X.Z. et al. (2003) "Correlation between abnormal deuterium flux and heat flow in a D/Pd system." J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 36, 3095.
• Zhang, W.-S. et al., (2004) "Effects of reaction heat and self-stress on the transport of hydrogen through metallic tubes under conditions far from equilibrium." Acta Mater., 52, 5805.
• Szpak, S. et al. (2004) "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition. Thermochim. Acta, 410, 101.
• Szpak, S. et al. (2005) "The effect of an external electric field on surface morphology of co-deposited Pd/D films." J. Electroanal. Chem., 580, 284.
• Szpak, S. et al. (2005) "Evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd lattice." Naturwiss., 92, 394.
• Storms, E. (2006) "Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion." Thermochim. Acta, 441, 207.

Does that selection show a convincing cross-section of pertinent work in reputable journals through the years? I avoided the more voluminous Japanese literature because understanding of the subject is apparently clearer in Japan for some reason. (Why is it?) --James S. 05:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)