|Search user languages|
I am not a native english speaker. I am not a native speaker of German either. I am not very versed in using wikipedia's tools. To give you an idea of how I work: I still code static HTML with an editor.
with my username "POVbrigand" I express my intent to adhere to NPOV and fight POV.
I had an old account that I barely used. I made only a handful of edits with it in 2009 and only 3 edits since then. It has been retired. I abandoned it because I use the same handle on many different internet stuff.
I have never used it parallel to my current account. It was abandoned before I started editing with my current account. The old account was a harmless, wikignome account. It had accumulated merely 1 page of edit history since mid 2004.
I have disclosed that account to Arbcom. "The older account was disclosed to ArbCom last year. There's no time overlap (ie the older account was abandoned several weeks before POVbrigand started editing); there are no overlapping article edits; and the previous account's block log is clean." User_talk:POVbrigand#Other_account
As mentioned above I have no intent to push POV on Cold Fusion. I am experienced enough with wikipedia that I fully understand that: 1) pushing POV won't work , 2) there is a world outside WP , 3) as soon as I turn my back, my precious work will be re-edited into oblivion. That is WP, I know that from experience and it doesn't bother me.
But while I am here I want to get some work done. I noticed that the article is in pretty bad form.
- it doesn't have a good structure
- it doesn't read well
- there are some flaws like references from 1989 to support a comment on events from 2010. That doesn't make sense, does it ?
- it could improve here and there on NPOV
- there is a reference nightmare (WP:CITEKILL)
That is no wonder, because cold fusion polarizes. And the result is a minced meat of an article.
What is fascinating for me is the sociological part of the Cold Fusion situation. Why is it so polarizing ?
- 1 List of LENR researchers
- 2 User:POVbrigand/Noticeboards
- 3 Subpages
- 4 Cold fusion primer
- 5 Krivit RS? Peer-Reviewed articles?
- 6 Krivit Media References
- 7 MIT
- 8 Detecting gamers
- 9 WP:FRINGE
- 10 detecting WP:OR is simple
- 11 Differentiate
- 12 Admitting failures are unneeded distractions
- 13 Hatred is all aroud us
- 14 SPAWAR
- 15 NASA
- 16 Light in the dark
- 17 User:Equazcion/Editing controversial subjects
- 18 Wikipedia:Steamroll_minority_opinions
- 19 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Request_for_Admin_Review_at_talk:cold_fusion
- 20 Category:Wikipedia_essays
- 21 Yeong E. Kim
- 22 Institute for Solid-State Nuclear Physics, Berlin, Germany
- 23 Current Science
- 24 ISCMNS
- 25 CERN colloquium
- 26 University of Missouri
- 27 Laser experiments
- 28 Undue Weight
- 29 NETS 2012
- 30 BARC
- 31 Books
- 32 Humor
List of cold fusion researchers, or LENR researchers, or whatever you call it
My noticeboard discussions
Cold fusion primer
On the experimental results
- The minority view: ""The success rate is about 20 percent, so we know the conditions must be very specific. It's a hit-or-miss reaction, ..." Physorg ?
- The majority view: "The experimental observations are mere mistakes" (Labinger 2005) ?
"Many scientists were not able to replicate the experimental results and it is generally concluded that the reported observations are caused by mistakes. Other scientist think that it is a "hit-or-miss" reaction and repeatability is indeed problematic, but that many positive replications cannot be attributed to mistakes."
On the lack of scientific discourse
- The minority view: Mainstream science stopped listening, scientific journals refused to publish papers.
- The majority view: Pathological science; after many years there is still no conclusive evidence.
On the theory
- The minority view: Theory should match the observations, not the other way around. Many theory proposals have been made.
- The majority view: Accepted theory does not allow for these observations, they must be attributable to mistakes. There is a multitude of fringe theory proposals and none of them is regarded as a candidate to explain all claims.
The DOE 1989 conclusions
Dr. Seaborg: "I was called to Washington on April 14, 1989, to brief George Bush on cold fusion. I don't know whether you know what cold fusion is, but it was the idea that you could fuse nuclei very easily and get a lot of energy just by passing electric current through heavy water, whereas, of course, physicists had built huge machines and worked for decades trying to do this, spending billions of dollars. The chemists thought they'd really stolen a march on them. The idea swept the country and I was called to Washington to brief President Bush on it. It was a real dilemma. What should I do? I decided to take my background as a nuclear scientist and really come to the sensible conclusion that this work was not right, that it was really cold. You couldn't do it. So that's what I told him at that time. I said, "You can't just go out and say this is not valid. You're going to have to create a high-level panel that will study it for six months, and then they'll come out and tell you it's not valid," and that's what he did."
John Dash: "In March 1989, Pons and Fleischmann claimed that they were able to produce nuclear fusion by electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium cathode. Their main evidence for this claim was the production of excess heat which could not be explained by any known chemical process. In may 1989, the American Physical Society after examining evidence from major laboratories, concluded that no excess heat is produced in the Pons and Fleischmann experiment. however, in 1994, after careful evaluation of the 1989 data used for the Physical Society conclusions, it was discovered that serious errors were made. these error invalidated the conclusions reached by the American Physical Society in 1989. [see J. Phys. Chem , 1994, 98: 1948-1952. ]"
"Our own research on the Pons and Fleischmann experiment has been fruitful. For example, surface crater were observed on the palladium cathode after a 12 minute experiment. During longer experiments, excess heat, localized melting, and localized concentrations of unexpected elements were observed."
"Our studies are continuing. We currently are studying glow discharge, in which others have reported excess heat and evidence of nuclear ash. " 
Krivit RS? Peer-Reviewed articles?
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/about/presentations-publications.shtml John Wiley & Sons American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press Elsevier Journal of Environmental Monitoring Current Science
Krivit Media References
that's all folks
- "Fighting fringe" 
editors are unable to differentiate cold fusion scientific work from "Amateur inventors claiming "new science" " 
Admitting failures are unneeded distractions
Hatred is all aroud us
Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight - At the University of Missouri, on May 29, 2009 - youtube video available
"Reviving Cold Fusion" by Stephen K. Ritter in C&EN from May 14, 2012
Xing Z. Li - 2006 
Washington Post "Helium-3, an isotope that in the future may support cold fusion when earthlings finally figure out how to make it happen, is another potential treasure." - I thought the Washington Post knew for a certainty that cold fusion was debunked and crackpot ?
Light in the dark
 Teemu on December 09, 2011 1:41 PM:
Generally civilian science establishment has rejected it, they focus too heavily on theory and initially low rate of success in repeating the test. First transistors worked pretty randomly also.
Whereas NASA, military/intelligence science establishment is pretty interested and still doing some research on low energy nuclear reactions, since they have more common sense approach: "Ok, seems that there has been some success, and considering how huge the potential is, and how low the costs of research are compared to other energy research, it would be foolish not to look in further."
praos on December 10, 2011 12:37 AM:
The whole LENR is based on the idea that you could influence nuclear reactions by chemical means. On elementary-school level, that's nonsense, but as early as forty-some years ago, when I studied chemistry, at least two exceptions were mentioned in my textbooks. The effects were minute (about 1%) but even such small discrepancy could bring down an absolute rule. So the question – even in scientific mainstream in 1970's -- was not if, but when, how and how much. As for "reproducibility" and "replication", first attempts to replicate Pons and Fleichman experiments were made in bad faith and with zero chances of success. The idea that you can simply mix ingredients and duplicate results is very naive. Even classroom demonstrations could go wrong, and who ever had any experience even with a well established and understood analytic or preparative procedures will easily understand that "replication" in chemistry is more exemption than rule. "Replications" is by no means a "ready replication", but more of the "it happens" kind. In the Pons-Fleichman story the chances of replication were pure lottery. To successfully replicate, you have to control all the vital parameters, by no means an easy task even when you know them. But to know them, you must have a useful theory, and in the shifting sands of LENR, the convincing theoretical explanation was not reached to this day. So the research remained highly empirical, with all the blind man bluff which this entails, and results following Rorschach patterns. However, up to present more than few (in fact about 3500) papers on LENR were published, including many very convincing replication by serious scientist with immaculate credentials. Results vary, but some were more than impressive. In such a new field, with so many unknowns and with no theory to talk of, the proof is a single replication, and not hundreds of failed experiments. It is serious science, if I know one. You see, the metallic substance is not some rigid structure, as pictured in textbooks, but in fact compressed plasma contained by crystal lattice, and in this plasma things happen. Just Google Rossi, eCat, cold fusion, LENR, and you are in for a big surprise!
WP needs more editors like this one
And this one User:Filll/Controversial_Article_Project
Yeong E. Kim
Peer reviewed papers - secondary sources: "Storms, E., Status of cold fusion (2010). Naturwiss., 2010. 97(10): p. 861-881." ""Krivit, S. and J. Marwan, A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research. J. Environ. Monit., 2009. 11: p. 1731-1746."
Mentioned in peer reviewed papers "Advances in proposed D-Cluster inertial confiment fusion target" - George H Miley et al. Journal of Physics: Conference Series Volume 244 Part 3 Create an alert RSS this journal George H Miley et al 2010 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 244 032036 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/244/3/032036
NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN Volume 97, Number 7, 655-662, DOI: 10.1007/s00114-010-0681-z A possible in situ 3H and 3He source in Earth’s interior: an alternative explanation of origin of 3He in deep Earth Songsheng Jiang, Jing Liu and Ming He
Kim talk on few bodies problems conference 12MB 
Institute for Solid-State Nuclear Physics, Berlin, Germany
Ruhr University 
Electron Screening: A Review
AIP Conf. Proc. 831, pp. 296-303; doi:10.1063/1.2200942 (8 pages) FRONTIERS IN NUCLEAR STRUCTURE, ASTROPHYSICS, AND REACTIONS - FINUSTAR Date: 12-17 September 2005
University of Missouri
Vice Chancellor for Research Seminar Series: "Excess Heat and Particle Tracks from Deuterium-loaded Palladium"
In their 2004 DOE paper "NEW PHYSICAL EFFECTS IN METAL DEUTERIDES"  Hagelstein et al. pointed to beam experiments.
- nov 2009 - edit by Aqm2241 
- nov 2009 - edit by Aqm2241 
- edit by Aqm2241 
- edit by Aqm2241 
- edit by POVbrigand 
- deleted by Olorinish 
- reverted by POVbrigand 
- started talk page Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_40#Laser_experiments
- dormant period -
- Olorinish reinitiated talk showing possible signs of revenge and hounding Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_41#Some_weak_references
- deleted by Binksternet 
The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia 
George Miley and Yeong E. Kim speaking on LENR
- Mallove, Eugene (1991), Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor, London: Wiley, ISBN 0-471-53139-1
- Beaudette, Charles G. (2002), Excess Heat & Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, South Bristol, Maine: Oak Grove Press, ISBN 0967-854-83-0
- Mizuno, Tadahiko (1998), Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion, Infinite energy Press, ISBN 1892-925-00-1
- Storms, Edmund (2007), The science of low energy nuclear reaction: a comprehensive compilation of evidence and explanations about cold fusion, World Scientific, ISBN 9812-706-20-8
- Kozima, Hideo (2006), The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon, Elsevier, ISBN 0080-451-10-1
- Brooks, Michael (2009), 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, Profile Books, ISBN 978-1-86197-647-5
- Simon, Bart (2002), Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion, Rutgers University Press, ISBN 0813-531-53-5