Talk:Cold fusion

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

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

This article was the subject of mediation during 2009 at User_talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion.

Probability of Reaction

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

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

The added material:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I quote what look like the relevant parts:

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

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

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

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

"4 Discussion and conclusions. (...) The determined screening energy Ue = 319 ± 3 eV is close to the value of 297 ± 8 eV obtained previously under poorer vacuum conditions [1]. Thus, our UHV experiment confirms the large Ue for the Zr target and does not support the result achieved by the LUNA collaboration of Ue < 40 eV. The same group has recently determined a higher value of the screening energy for Zr of 209 eV (...) measured, however, at an increased target temperature of 200 deg C and with a relatively small target-deuteron density.(...)."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"anomalous deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in metals at low energies" not the same as "cold fusion", I suppose, because it's not electrolysis, but cold-fusion supporters consider it a related effect that helps to demonstrate the possibility of CF?. Page 13 of McKubre's report to DOE 2004 had half a page describing similar experiments [1](page 14). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

These sentences were recently added: "However, more recent measurements with lower-energy deuterons indicate that extrapolation from high energies is inappropriate (extrapolated rates are much too low). [112] Sufficient low-energy data does not yet exist to allow reliable extrapolation much below the keV range." "The greatly-enhanced reaction rate is attributed to electron screening."

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

Recently this was the status of the newly added material in the Probability of Reaction section: "One measurement with beams of low-energy deuterons in metal foils found anomalous results where high fusion rates can be achieved with lower energies. The greatly-enhanced reaction rate is attributed to electron screening.[112][verification needed] There is still not enough data to allow reliable extrapolation much below the keV range. Supporters of cold fusion already mentioned similar experiments in the report that was submited to the DOE commission in 2004, as an effect that could explain the results found in cold fusion.Hagelstein et al. 2004:14-15"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a similar vein, the 1999 references 77 and 108 - 115 are not refereed papers and therefore should be deleted from the article. [Scaramuzzi, F. (2000), "Ten years of cold fusion: an eye-witness account", Accountability in Research 8 (1&2) might be in a refereed book; however, since I cannot access it, I cannot confirm any of its claims. Should it be deleted? Based on "O's" logic for removing my references, it should be!] If these early papers are deleted, all of the section and much of the Wiki article must be rewritten.

Should I begin this process?

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

Aqm2241 is correct that I had not read the Huke paper when I made my deletions, although I had tried to open the file and had asked for help in reading that paper before doing so [2]. Now that I have read it (at least parts of it), I see that it does mention fusion. As I have mentioned before, I think the wikipedia cold fusion article would be improved if it had some discussion of deuterium behavior inside a metal [3], which is the field of this article. However, its applicability is limited because it describes beam implantation experiments, and because the authors do not (as far as I can see) assert that their results are relevant for low temperature interactions. Perhaps we should mention it briefly by adding a sentence at the end of the "Probability of reaction" paragraph: "However, electron screening has been reported to increase deuterium fusion reactions in metals initiated by deuterium beams. <Huke ref>"

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, in response to the claim that I am "obstructionist," I want to point out that I recently proposed expanding the section on possible explanations [4] [5] and have occasionally made pro-CF edits [6]. Olorinish (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I mean is that if one seeks to reach one's ends quickly and accurately, one must carefully consider the means, for no end is reached without means. A hasteful speaker may need to utter few words to speak their mind, but that will certainly not be the last time they speak before their task is complete. A careful and eloquent speaker, on the other hand, may take longer to speak, but need speak only once, and thus will finish first. Tortoise and the hare. Castles made of sand. I'm sure there are many more parables and what not with the same idea. Really just a tangent, though. I didn't need to reply and probably shouldn't have. Kevin Baas^talk 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phil, maybe a compromise similar to what I discuss here would be good. [7] What do you think? Olorinish (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Aqm2241,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have reintroduced my refs and comments to the article. I think that there is sufficient evidence described above to prove that the refs pertain to CF and that these comments are not synthesis [e.g., Screening is described in "Storms." Association with energetic d-d experiments is referred to in "Scaramuzzi" and prior sentence in the Topic (which I have expanded to clarify the use of extrapolation)].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Showing the relation of screening with LENR and the observed functional dependence for the "correction." From Czerski et. al.: "1. Introduction The enhanced electron screening effect was observed for the first time in the 2H(d,n)3He and 2H(d,p)3H reactions preceding in metallic environments [1 - 1997]. An exponential-like increase of experimental reaction cross sections for decreasing projectile energies could be explained as a result of shielding nuclear charges by surrounding electrons leading to a reduction of the Coulomb barrier in terms of a so-called screening energy Ue."Aqm2241 (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I question why the current text isn't sufficient, and further, why Aqm wants to insert this new text where he does. Surely it belongs in "Proposed Explanations"? The article currently has: Supporters of cold fusion suggested to the DOE commission in 2004 that electron screening could be one explanation for an enhanced reaction rate. and Cold fusion researchers have described possible cold fusion mechanisms (e.g., electron shielding of the nuclear Coulomb barrier), but they have not received mainstream acceptance.[116]. This is more than sufficient per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue, especially considering that Aqm's own source (1) calls the data into question, (2) is not directly about cold fusion and (3) shows effects (at best!) 40 odd orders of magnitude too small to account for cold fusion. I oppose its addition to the "Probability of reaction" section, but you could probably put a well qualified sentence into the proposed explanations section. Phil153 (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency document

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emails and a suggested edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sent it a few days ago when I saw Kevin's comment that we should mail directly to the agency[8]. I didn't ask if this was classified or not, or if it had been released publically, since these topics had not still been mentioned here. As far as I know, this is a legit DIA document that has been leaked out of the agency before it reached the publication phase, and the author/s was/were still trying to navigate the bureaucracy and the pre-publication controls. I saw the please-retract-the-document letter before it disappeared from the NET site, which had a comment about "someone has emailed a link to the document to my boss", and I'm sorry for the problems that I unadvertingly caused to the author. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You ARE attempting to confuse the issue when you say nonsense like "this article should probably not be discussed in an article on cold fusion since the authors do not appear to be claiming that fusion is taking place" --and the reason I say that is simple: We have plenty of references in the article to things that don't talk about fusion taking place. Just look in the region of the very first paragraph in the main article and you will see links to heavy water, pathological science, calorimeter, electrolysis, neutrons, tritium, and US Department of Energy. It is not vital that something specifically mention "fusion" (or "cold fusion") to be relevant to the CF article! --and the proof is in that (easily extended) list I just presented. Next, the CF situation breaks down into two main parts. First, there are the reports of anomalous energy production in experiments that use deuterium instead of ordinary hydrogen. Second, there is the interpretation that fusion is responsible for the anomalous energy. This RS article in Physics Letters A is certainly about the first part of the CF situation. And the fact that it references the work of Arata, who has forthrightly connected pressurized-deuterium experiments to fusion, gives us an indirect link to the second part of the CF situation. That should be more than sufficient to any neutral Wikipedia editor. Arata's work is not "too recent to be mentionable"; this Phys Letters A article is appropriate secondary-RS for it, and that's the main reason for including it. V (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Facts can be supportive of a claim without the messenger having a bias either way. They can also be relevant, pertinent, significant, what have you, irrespective. Furthermore, references in wikipedia are used for the verification of pieces of information in the article, sentence by sentence. Unless the sentence is specifically about the opinion of the author referenced, the author's opinion -- or lack thereof -- does not determine -- or speak to -- whether said reference verifies the sentence. (Or, for that matter, whether it meets the WP:RS criteria for that usage.) That is what matters. Looking for opinions is not supported by WP policies and seems to me like it would unnecessarily introduce risk of bias to otherwise objective reasoning. In sum, I believe that V has made his point clear and is correct. Kevin Baas^talk 21:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Given that there have been no other comments in this section for more than a week, the changes suggested here will likely be posted to the main article in the near future. V (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The changes described above would give undue weight to the Kitamura link, considering that the link does not assert that fusion is taking place. Maybe if that line of research is on the increase, it would make sense ("At least 3 groups are currently investigating fusion induced without electrochemical implantation..."), but I don't see evidence of that happening. Keep in mind that we can afford to wait; if that method produces clear evidence of nuclear reactions, someone will report on it and at that time this article can link to it. Olorinish (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you claim "undue weight" does not mean the claim is true. Prove it --and please get over your silly notion that every reference of this article must mention "fusion". Please DO remember that the purpose of the link is to provide evidence that Arata's experiment actually took place. The text I proposed talks about others imitating Arata's experiment; even if Kitamura's group had not found anomalous energy, their experiment would still have been an imitation of Arata's! V (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason I said that it would be undue weight is that this article is titled "Cold fusion" and the Kitamura link does not provide any real information about cold fusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts; the goal is to help readers. You imply that it is important to inform readers about the Arata experiment, but I don't see why that is the case. He had a demonstration in front of some reporters, but didn't give any evidence that nuclear reactions were happening. As far as I can tell, he did not show an article with evidence for nuclear reactions yet. Has he done so? Olorinish (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The "evidence" you claim didn't exist was the production of anomalous energy. Arata claimed the logical source was fusion, and whether or not he is correct in that interpretation, it suffices to be relevant to this article (which mostly is about claims of production of anomalous energy and fusion-as-explanation), especially since the anomalous energy production was replicated by Kitamura's team. I see you haven't got over the silly notion that somehow everything relevant to cold fusion must actually talk about cold fusion. WRONG. According to you, then, we need to delete from the article references to such things as electrolysis and calorimeter. Wrong again. Background information is almost always about something other than the topic that needs the background information, and the two Wikipedia references just mentioned are appropriate background information for ordinary cold fusion experiments. But Arata has specified something altogether different, and therefore different background information becomes exactly as relevant, for his experiment. It would be Original Research or Synthesis for an editor here to come up with some alternate CF experiment and describe it, but Arata has already done that OR/S, and therefore we are free to report that. However, we are also limited with regard to Reliable Sources, and the only RS currently available, that Arata did his experiment, is this Kitamura article. (I find it humorous/ironic that the reference inside the excellently-RS Kitamura article, to Arata's experiment, is not considered RS by Wikipedia!) Regardless of whether or not Kitamura mentions fusion, he does describe the general kind of experiment that Arata performed (background information!) Finally, of the edits I proposed at the start of this section, only one sentence is about Arata's experiment. If that qualifies as "undue weight" in an article considered over-long by some editors, then you have a strange way of measuring "weight". V (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

New Peer-Reviewed Journal Paper Published

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Energy Times article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable Sources

Quoting Phil:

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

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

The Guardian

Wired Magazine

New Scientist

Houston Chronicle

Philosophy of Science: Alexander Bird

CBS Evening News

New York Times

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

GroundReport

Scientific American

Physics Today

Discover Magazine

IEEE Spectrum

Boston Herald

Chemistry World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Krivit, the lead author of the peer-reviewed review article, has been referred to as a "leading authority" on the topic in an article released by the American Chemical Society. ("'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source", Salt Lake City, 2009-March-23, Contact: Michael Bernstein, American Chemcial Society [9])

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

Hi Wikipeople. Every once in a while I check in here and see how you are all doing. I noticed you had missed my review paper (wasn't someone searching for a recent review?) so I've informed you of it. Use it if you like. Of course I don't touch the main article and it is unreasonable for you (especially K.S.) to expect me to watch, reply to or comment on this page on a regular basis. And for full disclosure, I am involved in two other (print) encyclopedia projects so it would be somewhat of a conflict of interest for me to make any substantial contributions here.

I'd like to mention one thing to you - to try to help you keep your facts straight. I came into the field 10 years ago relatively ignorant of nuclear physics. In my ignorance, I was easily "impressed" by MIT's Peter Hagelstein, and Los Alamos' Ed Storms and SRI's Mike McKubre. And so I easily accepted what Gene Mallove critically called the "Mainstream Cold Fusion Hypothesis." http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/iccf10.html

But as many of you know, it does't add up - that is, "cold fusion" doesn't look like fusion. Never did. Gene knew it didn't add up, and along with his interests in fringe/esoteric physics, he saw the holes in the "Mainstream Cold Fusion Hypothesis," clearly and objectively. It took me a few years to figure out the holes for myself. Bottom line, I think there is something real, no doubt. Nuclear, yes, absolutely. Potential for energy, yes. But fusion? I can't know for sure, but at this point in time, I highly doubt it.

References:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET26.shtml#wl

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#FROMED

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2008/2008-Krivit-ACS.pdf

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.shtml#FROMED

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.shtml#24hagel

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.shtml#24xr

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.shtml#looklike

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/TheDecouplingOfColdFusionFromLENR.shtml

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2009/2009Krivit-ACS-1w.pdf

StevenBKrivit (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bose–Einstein condensation

What do editors here think of the Bose–Einstein condensate theory?

Recently, there have been many reports of experimental results which indicate occurrences of anomalous deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in metals at low energies. A consistent conventional theoretical description is presented for anomalous low-energy deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in metal. The theory is based on the Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) state occupied by deuterons trapped in a micro/nano-scale metal grain or particle. The theory is capable of explaining most of the experimentally observed results and also provides theoretical predictions, which can be tested experimentally. Scalabilities of the observed effects are discussed based on theoretical predictions.

-- Kim, Y.E. (2009) "Theory of Bose–Einstein condensation mechanism for deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in micro/nano-scale metal grains and particles," Naturwissenschaften 96(7):803-11. Dual Use (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning this one paper provides undue weight to a fringe theory. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Any one tree provides insufficient evidence for the forest. There are three possible positions a tertiary source can hold about a phenomenon: (1) the secondary sources say the phenomenon is not real; (2) the secondary sources say that opinion is divided on the matter; (3) the secondary sources say the phenomenon is real. If you were to plot actual secondary sources over time, you would see support for (1) peaked around 1991, support for (2) took off shortly thereafter and has dominated since, and support for (3) was losing out to (1) in the 1990s but is now completely trouncing it. The point is, there are three camps: those who want the article to take a stand pro-or-con, and those who want the article to reflect the actual uncertainty in the secondary sources. The best way to do that would be to continue the "proposed explanations" section at the end of the article where it leaves off in the 1990s. And the best way to do that would be to add experimental and theory papers like the experimental report of charged particles from the U.S. Navy SPAWAR center (how's their reputation in the physics community?) and a selection of theory papers such as these. Otherwise you're just trying to impose an absolutist pro-or-con point of view against the secondary sources which, in total, clearly indicate that opinion is divided. That's clear from the introduction; why isn't it clear from the end of the article? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Provide sources for any changes you would like to make. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it not clear that I did just that in the text above you replied to? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. Provide sources by referencing specific sources. Propose changes by stating what you would like to change in the article, and what you'd like to change it to. Provide sources for proposed changes. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

When I said "the best way to do that would be to add experimental and theory papers like the experimental report of charged particles from the U.S. Navy SPAWAR center" I was referring to Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Gordon FE (2007) "Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd–D lattice: emission of charged particles" Naturwissenschaften, vol. 94 pp. 511–514. When I said "and a selection of theory papers such as these" I was referring to Kim, Y.E. (2009) "Theory of Bose–Einstein condensation mechanism for deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in micro/nano-scale metal grains and particles," Naturwissenschaften 96(7):803-11 and others such as the paper immediately below this section, Collins, G.S., et al (1990) "Deuteron tunneling at electron-volt energies," Journal of Fusion Energy -- however, in theory papers I have to say I prefer the more recent, as they have had the time to build on the results of emperical studies. And as for reports of empirical studies, I strongly prefer academic journals to the popular science press, for what should be quite obvious reasons. It is disappointing so many editors prefer to turn their backs on peer-reviewed empirical reports. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Propose changes by stating what you would like to change in the article, and what you'd like to change it to. Please note that referencing those specific papers is likley providing undue weight to fringe sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I did that, when I wrote, "to reflect the actual uncertainty in the secondary sources. The best way to do that would be to continue the 'proposed explanations' section at the end of the article where it leaves off in the 1990s. And the best way to do that would be to add experimental and theory papers," above, didn't I? What would it take to convince you that the U.S. Navy SPAWAR center and Naturwissenschaften are not on the fringe? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're communicating. Why not submit the text you would like added or subtracted to or from the article now. Notation by multiple reliable secondary sources would convince me that something is not fringe. Could you list your prior accounts? Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I believe it would probably be removed by bullies who refuse to familiarize themselves with the peer reviewed literature, relying only on the popular press for their opinions which they express in the form of quick, undiscussed reverts. Are you willing to say, straight out, that the U.S. Navy SPAWAR center and Naturwissenschaften are or are not on the fringe, and give your reasons for saying so? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that this article has had a SPAWAR-generated image of pits for over a year, which shows that it is possible for well-documented and notable pro-CF information to be retained. Olorinish (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I certainly am not going to ask you to make the changes that would seem to be deserved by a source which has garnered such longstanding respect from the editors of this article, because I am sure someone would then accuse you of meatpuppetry-by-proxy or something similar. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out how sad it is that one actually has to "show that it is possible for well-documented and notable pro-CF information to be retained." Kevin Baas^talk 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I note with disgust that instead of responding in response to the question of whether the U.S. Navy SPAWAR center and Naturwissenschaften are fringe sources, Hipocrite has instead decided to file a checkuser investigation. Is that the sort of mindset you want from someone performing rapid reverts on this article without discussing them first? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026#Evidence submitted by Hipocrite explicitly states that Hipocrite thinks the sources I've been "pushing" from this IP are "fringe". 99.27.202.101 (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Deuteron tunnelling at electron-volt energies

There is another recent theory paper published in the reputable Journal of Fusion Energy : http://www.springerlink.com/content/q82817562k6n0185/ 80.201.49.54 (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1990 is not particularly recent; that's at the other end of this article's bibliography. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning this one paper provides undue weight to a fringe theory. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Hipocrite, if ALL the proposed explanations for cold fusion are mentioned, then none of them is given any more weight than any of the others. On the other hand, I suspect you are using "fringe theory" to describe the basic idea of CF, instead of any one particular proposed explanation for it. I take issue with that, on the grounds that it leaves you with a dilemma; how do you explain all the reports of anomalous energy production? There are too many for "fraud" to be true, since fraud requires secrecy and there are too many people involved for such a fraud to be kept a secret across 20+ years. There also appear to be enough careful researchers and different experiments that "experimental error" is becoming increasingly unlikely as the explanation (example, if Arata (one person) had committed experimental error, then Kitamura's team should have had more difficulty in also producing anomalous energy). In recent years reports of successful anomalous energy production far outweigh the failures and the experimental-hole-poking. So if we take this as evidence that something unusual has indeed been happening, that experimental error is not an adequate explanation, then it needs a different explanation. At the moment of this writing I don't care one whit if fusion is the explanation or not; I simply care that this production-of-anomalous-energy appears to be a real and not a fringe thing (it got reported in Physics Letters A, remember!). Which takes me back to the beginning of this paragraph; real anomalous energy production needs an explanation, and we agree that there is no scientific consensus regarding that. Which means that as many theories as possible need to be presented to scientists (they have journals for that), so that further experiments can sort them out to find the truth. Wikipedia need not report all those published theories as "news", but it can report them for historical purposes, kind of like reporting the history of the development of flight; a lot of blind paths were taken.... V (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The above phrase "committed experimental error" seems to misunderstand the usual meaning of "experimental error". While it could be interpreted by a casual reader as meaning the experimenter did something wrong in executing the experiment, it is normally read by scientists as a recognition that every measurement has an inescapable, characteristic amount of "imprecision" or "uncertainty" (part random and part systemic) contributing to an error in the result. LeadSongDog come howl 16:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If experimental error is at the root of a claim of detection of anomalous energy production, then the details of how the claim was reached, and the exact type of error, matter little. Not to mention, per Quantum Mechanics, the experimenter and the experiment are intertwined.... :) V (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy regarding that is (or if there is one), but as far as rational thinking is concerned, I beg to differ on this point: i could say of anything that their conclusion is the result of "experimental error" and dismiss it out of hand. but unless i provide some specific falsifiable empirical claim, such as "the temperature variation was net positive, but w/in the margin of error" or "the solution was contaminated with xx which when exposed to xx produces an exothermic reaction that accounts fro the discrepancy" or something like that, the claim is worth about as much as the breath used to make it, and arguably less. though that's not to say that saying something like "it is possible that there was experimental error." or even that it was likely, is objectionable -- statistical arguments for that are ready-at-hand. but to claim outright that there was without any knowledge or evidence to support the claim is just plain retarded. And I certainly won't consider some random unsupported assertion to be equal in value or weight to empirical evidence. They have places for people like that: they're called mental institutions. Kevin Baas^talk 18:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpreted what I wrote; see that "if/then" in there (OK I just added the "then" for clarity)? The "then" is simply a logical consequence of the "if". I could say, "If the moon is made of green cheese, then NASA should have been able to prove it." The "if" doesn't make any claim about the truth or falsity of the thing it precedes; it is merely a way of allowing us to say that such-and-such 'conclusion --the "then" clause--- depends on a certain thing being true. V (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see now. Thanks. I thought you meant that if error is claimed then the experiment is of little significance, whereas in fact you meant that if error is the true cause then the conclusion is of little consequence. I.e. the conclusion of an invalid argument is worth little. Subtle, but crucial difference. My bad. Kevin Baas^talk

my issue is much simpler: how do you write an article on a "fringe" topic if you can't include any papers that give weight to a "fringe" topic? E.g. how do you write a referenced article on cold fusion if you can't use any references about cold fusion. That seems very one-sided. Or no-sided, actually. Can't get any more specious than that. D.O.A. Kevin Baas^talk 15:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. To get material included in this article you will need to find reliable secondary sources for information. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

firstly, that's not the argument you made. which means it's not a rebuttle to my counterargument to it. secondly, whether or not you need a secondary source depends on the context and usage. Kevin Baas^talk 18:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. If the secondary sources say one thing, and a very small number of unremarkable primary sources say something else, Wikipedia disregards the primary sources until they are adressed by reliable secondary sources, to avoide providing undue weight to minority of fringe opinions, like I said the first and second time. If you gained a broader editing experience on the encyclopedia, this would not be surprising. Hipocrite (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Woa, now you are insulting my competence! Out of line. Per precisely what you cited: "Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources" primary sources are in certain cases acceptable. What I was saying was that you were creating a false dichotomy and I stand by my statement, and offer as evidence -- ironically -- the very same passage you offered as evidence. (It appears one of us should be reading more carefully!) In addition, I also refer you to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Sourcing_and_attribution.

And furthermore, regarding "Wikipedia disregards the primary sources until they are adressed by reliable secondary sources, to avoide providing undue weight to minority of fringe opinions, like I said the first and second time": you never said that; this is not the third time you said it, but the first. that's a matter of record. since the record on what you said in this section is pretty short, i'll save the unneccessary step of copying it for you. Now please remember the guideline that we discuss the article, not the editors. Kevin Baas^talk 18:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OR by SYNTH and undue weight

In this revert of two edits, is the charged particle report from 2007 OR by SYNTH or undue weight? It is unclear from the edit summary. That 2007 paper has been cited several times in peer-reviewed papers, so I don't think it's fallen out of favor. That would seem to put it beyond the bounds of OR by SYNTH. And what possible argument could there be in favor of saying that the detection of charged particle radiation is undue weight?

Is the attribution of the late 1990s sources to the late 1990s OR by SYNTH or undue weight? Again, I think it is neither. As the introduction indicates, the number of scientists involved with the DOE review who are in favor of more investigation has been growing. Therefore, it is an important fact about the sources cited. Omitting it implies, or at least strongly suggests, that most scientists still feel the same way. If we assume that most scientists will agree with the peer-reviewed secondary literature, then I don't think there are any sources supporting the idea that "most scientists" still hold a consensus viewpoint. On the other hand, I think almost everything published in the peer-reviewed literature since 2000 supports the opposite, that "most scientists" no longer hold any consensus viewpoint on the subject. Is there any reason to believe otherwise? Dual Use (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Feder, Kruglinksi, Hutchinson, and Anderson articles are strong post-2000 evidence that the cold fusion field is not respected. Also, the lack of pro-cold fusion results in the top journals (Science, Nature, Physical Review) is good evidence that the field is not respected by mainstream scientists. Olorinish (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have to say I think your edits over the past month have been really good. I took a closer look at those sources, and it appears that none of them are peer reviewed. Am I correct that they are all articles from the unreviewed popular science press? When was the last negative peer-reviewed report? Dual Use (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know when the last negative peer-reviewed report was. I do ask people to keep in mind this line from reliable sources: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." Olorinish (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, surely "60 minutes" would qualify. Here is what it said last April : "When first presented in 1989 cold fusion was quickly dismissed as junk science. But, as Scott Pelley reports, there's renewed buzz among scientists that cold fusion could lead to monumental breakthroughs in energy production." "Well, a funny thing happened on the way to oblivion - for many scientists today, cold fusion is hot again. " etc... 130.104.236.154 (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The charged particle report provides undue weight to a primary fringe source. The implication behind the 1990's statement is OR by SYNTH, and was rejected on this talk page recently. If you have reliable secondary sources that show there is a change in mainstream scientific opinion, feel free to provide them. Primary sources published by a few true-believer researchers will not result in changes in this article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone else has proposed attributing the 1990s sources to the 1990s belief? Not me. I have not seen that discussion. Dual Use (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This was adressed at Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_34#Synthesis.2C_again. Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, but am not at all convinced. As for the 2007 source on charged particles, how many years do you believe it should stand referenced without challenge by other peer-reviewed sources before you would consider it non-fringe? Dual Use (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

When it's referenced by reliable secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is that stance preferable to allowing material referenced by peer-reviewed primary sources? If the citations pass peer review, doesn't that make the references to them secondary? Concerning statements about the opinions of "most scientists," how evenly would opinion need to be split, and by what margin of error, before you would agree that "most scientists" no longer hold a consensus view? Dual Use (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources - papers by primary researchers in the cold-fusion field should only be referenced if they are mentioned by reliable secondary sources, lest they are provided undue weight. I don't have opinions on anything except that this article must be policy compliant. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I do have to correct this again, lest the error be indefinitely promulgated: While we should try to use secondary sources wherever possible, the above statement is not completely accurate. refer to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements, and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Sourcing_and_attribution. Kevin Baas^talk 19:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of primary sources from the popular press in the article, but they are almost all biased towards the 1990s consensus viewpoint. Why are current opposing primary peer-reviewed sources excluded? Have there been any peer-reviewed publications in agreement with the '90s consensus viewpoint since Shanahan's early '00s work? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper reports are secondary sources. Providing the viewpoint of any fringe primary source provides it undue weight. If a view expressed by a primary source were notable, it would be adressed by secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider newspapers more or less fringe than the academic journals? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the span of time between when it's published in a primary source and when it's published in a secondary source? Does it go from not notable to notable, without actually changing what it is? And in that respect, there are many things in secondary source that are not in the article because do not consider them notable. Are they wrong? what besides being published in a secondary source do they have to be to be notable? Kevin Baas^talk 14:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Why are current opposing primary peer-reviewed sources excluded?" This is not quite correct. The current article has pro-CF articles from Di Giulio, Biberian, Szpak, Mosier-Boss, and Iwamura, which are all published after 2000. Olorinish (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that trend continues to follow publications in the peer-reviewed press. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess the problem comes down to whether to ascribe a viewpoint to a lot of people who don't agree. How about if we follow the last sentence in the article "These reports, combined with negative results from some famous laboratories,[119] led most scientists to conclude that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion, at least not on a significant scale.[120][121]" with the sentence "However, peer-reviewed publicatinons on the subject since ____ (2000?) have been consistent with a positive result, and the number of Department of Energy reviewers in favor of more study has increased" -- is that a reasonable compromise? Dual Use (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No. That's OR by synth. No source says "peer-reviewed publications on the subject since xxxx have been consistent with a positive result." What you need to do is find sources that say what you want them to say, not cobble together disparate sources to imply what you believe to be true. Hipocrite (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Some RS and Non-RS news

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/update-from-latest-cold-fusion.html Just in case anyone around here wants to keep up on the latest claims made in the field, heh. I see on that linked page a comment by Jed Rothwell that permission has been obtained for the Kitamura paper discussed elsewhere on this page, originally published in Physics Letters A, to become available at his lenr/canr site. http://l...-c....org/acrobat/KitamuraAanomalouse.pdf (you will have to replace some of the dots in the link to get around the blacklist imposed by the anti-CFers.) I'm pretty sure that an article that is RS when published in Physics Letters A does not become less RS when legally posted elsewhere; perhaps a hole in the blacklist can be made to allow general Wikipedia access to this article? Anyway, I took the opportunity to look into it to see exactly how it references Arata's work (where did he publish his claims?) There appears to be a Japanese "Journal of [the] High Temperature Society" --does anyone know anything about the extent to which it qualifies as RS? V (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)