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.

Decision

Polls are boring and inconclusive, especially when people start arguing over which is valid. The solution which will please no-one is: User:Hipocrite and User:Abd are both banned from editing cold fusion, and its talk page, for an arbitrary time of approximately one month, during which time we'll see if a stable version developes. Complain on my talk page if you wish to. Oh, and I'll unprotect William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Harsh in some respects, but lets see where it takes us. Some decisive action was needed, and you have provided it. I hope that the remaining editors will show some restraint with the revert tool, and adhere to WP:BRD - perhaps without the Bold bit first? This is only a suggestion. Verbal chat 19:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[Deleted. Do this again and I block you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)] --Abd (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that the ban remains in force on the talk page, otherwise it would seem pointless. Verbal chat 20:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Such discussion should probably be moved to WMCs talk page, in deference to the ban. Verbal chat 20:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, finally, thank you very much. Let's see if I can put some stuff into the article without being drowned in wikilawyering and POV defending from both "sides". (also, I also ask that the talk page ban is kept) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I'll edit the article now. I haven't had the patience to keep up with the megabytes and megabytes of argumentation, pontification and such, so if I break any of the rules please slap me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion in this ANI thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• At the risk of sounding like a wikilawyer, is there some sort of "authority" (like WP:PSCI) or precedent for unilateral topic bans like this? II | (t - c) 07:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Since this is not related to editing the article itself, I have replied in User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed#topic_banning_by_a_single_admin. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: the ban on H is conditionally lifted. Details [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How to get patent story NPOV?

U.S. Patents 6,248,221, 6,764,561, and several others were in fact issued on cold fusion processes. Yet the text, as it stands after those who would edit differently have been disposed of by administrative action, says that no cold fusion patents have been issued by the USPTO. Why does this article quote a minor patent office functionary contradicting the standing administrative record of her own agency? Could anything be further from NPOV? When will the persecution of those who want this article to tell both sides of the story end? Why are so many editors willing to betray foundational issues such as NPOV in pursuit of an absolutist stance on the question of whether the phenomena are real? Have the editors here made a full financial disclosure of the extent to which their and their peers' funding depends on the continued funding of traditional fusion research? Splargo (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't see it as a POV issue - at the moment it describes the situation with the US patents, and while you may argue that the description is incorrect, this doesn't then presuppose that this is a good or a bad thing. But be that as it may, it seems to me that neither of the two patents you refer to contradict the claims in the article: if I'm reading it correctly, the first describes a device for the testing of cold fusion, rather than for the production of energy, while the second describes the creation of an alloy that can be used in cold fusion experiments. Both therefore meet the utility requirements, as they don't claim to produce electricity in and of themselves. - Bilby (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's like the Yellow article saying that the assistant commissioner of trademarks once said that the trademark office doesn't issue registrations of blue trademarks. Not only is it repeating a lie, in this case it's doing so in a very biased manner because some otherwise decent editor(s) with dog(s) in the fight to various extents started throwing hissyfits about accurately conveying the state of scientific uncertainty on the subject of this article. Since when are reports on the off-hand comments of individual government employees more reliable sources than the actual government documents which the comments are about? Splargo (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are more than 250 patents at present in Dr. Britz's bibliography. Do the editors here want to be known for their familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature on the subject, or for their oratorical skill at causing and defending the bans and blacklists that characterize the administrative interventions here? Splargo (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Dr Britz's list is of patent applications, covers multiple countries, and is not limited to patents for cold fusion, but includes inventions which are used in cold fusion experimentation. The discussion here is in regard to US patents granted for cold fusion itself, and the sources supporting the reluctance of the USPTO to grant applications are pretty good. I would have thought that this is not an issue in terms of cold fusion's viability - the issue is that the patent office is unwilling to accept that cold fusion works, which doesn't speak to whether or not it does function. Indeed, I note online a degree of anger from cold fusion researchers that the patents aren't being granted. - Bilby (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Will you grant that there is a difference between a patent official being quoted in a newspaper as saying that the office is unwilling to grant such patents, and the office actually being so unwilling? I would have no objection to merely stating a reluctance on the part of an individual official, if that official's name, title, or both are included. Splargo (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

While I'm happy in principle, there's a slight issue with the source: the Washington Post only ascribes to the (then) deputy commissioner the reason for not granting patents.

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to grant a patent on any invention claiming cold fusion. According to Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents, this is for the same reason it wouldn't give one for a perpetual motion machine: It doesn't work."

Thus I'm a tad uncomfortable ascribing to Kepplinger the additional claim that the patents are refused. It does give us:

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejects any patent claiming cold fusion. Esther Kepplinger, who was the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, argued that this was a result of the same concern that prevented patents being granted for perpetual motion machines: they do not work."

which is better, I think, in that it doesn't ascribe the "they don't work" claim to the patent office. I suppose you could date the Washington Post claim - "As of 2004, the ..." or something similar, but that's getting a tad unwieldy, especially for something that wasn't that long ago; or perhaps "traditionally refused" rather than just "refused" would help (if it isn't too weaselly). - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I made a change based in your suggestion. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The reliable source criteria consider officials quoted in The Washington Post as less reliable sources about patents than the government-issued patents themselves. Splargo (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

"U.S. Patents 6,248,221, 6,764,561, and several others were in fact issued on cold fusion processes." These are patents on cold-fusion-related processes, not the combination of nuclei to form larger nuclei. The fact they have been issued does not indicate that the patent office is convinced they describe how to produce cold fusion. (Incidentally, I have no research funding and no financial stake in these issues except as a taxpayer.) Olorinish (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if what you write were pertinent or true or both, it would not change the fact that the article contains a newspaper source of an individual official contradicting the state of her agency's work product. That lie is not only in contravention of the reliable source criteria, it serves no other purpose than to advance the biased position of those who are convinced that the scientific question is settled instead of still open. If there were any secondary sources anywhere near to supporting such a resolution of the field, they would have been added a long time ago, but there can be none, because the academic literature, like the DOE panels, has remained split for two decades now. Splargo (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

So far I've yet to see any evidence that the US patent office has approved a patent on cold fusion. The claim isn't that patents related to cold fusion are denied, just that patents of cold fusion processes that produce energy are denied. That said, until there is a reliable source showing that a patent for cold fusion was granted, that claimed to be cold fusion, (as per the article) we're stuck with the basic principle of wikipedia - verifiability, not truth. The claim that the patent office refused patents on cold fusion until 2004 is verifiable. Right now, a claim showing otherwise is not. - Bilby (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that first sentence. Splargo (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I'd be fine w/just striking any mention of patents out of the article. I don't think it's very pertinent. There are probably TONS of patents for hot fusion reactors but not a single mention in the article - or any of the literature for that matter, either. Point is, this is a scientific article, not an engineering article, and certainly not a legal one. (not to say it's a crime) I don't think we need to mention anything at all about patents. Kevin Baas^talk 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article would be far superior with no mention of any patents than the blatantly false and biased swill which it now contains, but our goal is to be comprehensive, is it not? What's wrong with good, old-fashioned balance? Splargo (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Wow, hyperbole much? I don't even understand what you're saying! You seem to be contradicting yourself - do you want mention of patents removed or do you want balance? which one is it? if i couldn't understand due to sarcasm, keep in mind that sarcasm doesn't transfer well in writing. And also I believe someone just spoke strongly against using sarcasm here, when it wasn't even being used - and i believe that person was you, just now. So I hope you can see how I find this all very confusing. Kevin Baas^talk 14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your opinion now. Sorry, the hyperbole was really fogging up your message for me. Your opinion is that as it stands, the content in question is too one-sided and as such the article would be better without it, but the article could be made even better if the content was remedied to present both sides in due proportion. Now my argument is that if we did present both sides in due proportion we'd get exactly what i'm suggesting: nothing. So some guy made a very opinionated comment that really has no authoritative weight - he's not the patent arbitrator (there is none, and for good reason) - not the first time that's happened and certainly not the last. i don't see how it's really any more significant than any other squabble. As to the patents, well, they're not patents about methods of creating cold fusion, so it's really doesn't rise to that level of significance. patents on setups to test and all that, while certainly relevant, are by no means surprising. (or at least not for the reasons we are concerned w/ - that someone thinks they could make money off of it, i find surprising.) it really doesn't say anything important or interesting, IMO. Neither side seems to have anything truly interesting to say. Kevin Baas^talk 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And on a side note i'm working on a perpetual motion machine that uses wikipedia debates as a fuel source... (j/k) Kevin Baas^talk 20:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that people try to focus on improving the article instead of making sarcastic off-topic comments? Splargo (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes it is. I don't see how that was sarcastic, or to what the sarcasm would be directed at. But I do know that it was a joke. The purpose of jokes is to add levity. And it is considered good practice to joke or otherwise add levity once in a while to allay tensions in a group discussion. If you've ever been to a couple of business meetings you may have noticed this. I'm sure if one studied communication academically they'd come across it. However, when someone responds with an acerbic comment such as you did, it very much ruins it - per chance even makes things more tendentious as they were before. If this was a business meeting, that comment alone would have made everyone there very uncomfortable, and essentially turned it into a failure. Kevin Baas^talk 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you really not see how your statement could be seen as ridiculing the non-absolutist position, those of us who believe that it is the natural and proper course that debate should continue until the scientific questions are closed? What part of the definition of sarcasm do you think your statement was not? Splargo (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I am one of "[those] who believe that it is the natural and proper course that debate should continue until the scientific questions are closed". And no, I do not see how my statement could be construed that. Would i, I would certainly not write it, for i am not a fan of ridiculing myself. As to "What part of the definition of sarcasm do you think your statement was not?" - ALL parts. wikipedia defines sarcasm as "Sarcasm is the use of sharp, cutting remarks or language intended to mock, wound, or subject to contempt or ridicule." were my remarks sharp? no? cutting? no. intended to mock? no. wound? no. subject to contempt or ridicule? no. Kevin Baas^talk 18:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

People saying that the USPTO accepts cold fusion patents should read the multiple sources for that statement, including a chapter from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure the 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections (R-5) - 2100 Patentability under "II. WHOLLY INOPERATIVE INVENTIONS; "INCREDIBLE" UTILITY" which mentions both cold fusion and the Swartz case, and 2164.07 Relationship of Enablement Requirement to Utility Requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 - 2100 Patentability under "Examiner Has Initial Burden To Show That One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Reasonably Doubt the Asserted Utility" which cites the Swartz case. I also cited three books, two that deal with patents in general and one that deals with cold fusion in general, Simon's book.

Also notice that the article already says that researchers can get cold fusion patents by obfuscating references to cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that several such patents have in fact been issued by the USPTO. I am willing to compromise by removing the word "any" in your new first sentence. Is that acceptable? Splargo (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it is. Bilby has already tweaked it well. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Talking about patents is fine, but it shouldn't be used to imply that cold fusion is real. See also: patents on perpetual motion machines. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Invention Reaction

The title of this section is a bit of a play on words, because of the previous section, and because of what I actually want to talk about here, which is in the second-to-last paragraph of the "Reaction to the Announcement" section of the article. This particular sentence seems to me to have a one-word flaw in it (stressed): Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.

The flaw that I perceive has to do with the fact that if CF is happening, then the way it happens is a Natural thing, not something that Man actually causes, and therefore not an "invention". Properly, all we can do is figure out or discover the details of a Natural event. I remind you that even though we discovered nuclear fission and thought ourselves mighty clever to build reactors that used that discovery, Nature was first: Natural nuclear fission reactor. So I submit that the word "invention" should be replaced with "discovery", in that sentence. V (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the intent of the sentence is to say that it would require the invention of a new theory describing this as of yet misunderstood nuclear process. I agree that some wordsmithing is in order. (For what that's worth.) --GoRight (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I see there haven't been any other comments for a while about this. Taking into account what GoRight wrote, I propose this version of the questioned sentence: Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and, if verified, would require theory to be extended in an unexpected way. I'm choosing this phrasing because it is exactly descriptive of what happened when muon-catalysed fusion was discovered/verified. Also, it seems to me a bit rash to assume that "an entirely new nuclear process" is required to explain Cold Fusion, simply because we do not know. While I understand that at least one such has been proposed (involving a Bose-Einstein Condensate of deuterium inside palladium), in one sense even that is still an extension of existing knowledge (merely extended to encompass nuclear events) --and other proposals (such as electron catalyzed fusion) are indeed merely quite straightforward extenstions of existing knowledge. If someone could point out a CF hypothesis that is not some sort of extension of some branch of existing knowledge, I'd like to know! V (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've applied the change to the article. V (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Britz bibliography

Why is Dr. Britz's bibliography not cited or listed as an external link? Is there any reason it does not qualify as the best possible external link per WP:EL criteria? Splargo (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree, and have added it. At one time the article did have a link to Dieter Britz's bibliography. Cardamon (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Contents proximity

Why is the "Excess heat observations" section four sections away from "Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat"? Shouldn't the latter be a subsection of the former, or at least adjacent? Splargo (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

No, that's supposed to be under "nuclear products for excess heat" because that's where we are talking about the excess having a nuclear origin. And, yeah, it needs to be reorganized a bit. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref Consolidation

The references section has grown out of control, and it's nearly impossible to manage. I'm trying to consolidate the references - as of yet, I've only taken nearly sequential or nearly identical refs and compressed them (losing page numbers and the like). As a longer-term project, I'd like to discuss splitting refs - specifically, we have refs like 5, which reads "Browne 1989,Close 1992, Huizenga 1993,Taubes 1993" This could instead be split into 4 different refs, which would mean the body text would say "something"[5][6][7][8], with 5 being Browne, 6 being Close and so on. The advantage to this is that we would shrink the references count substantially (there's real overlap). The disadvantage is that the text would have a lot more references, and often the same number over and over. I find the second way easier to follow. Others? Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: If you prefer the old refs to the versions I have changed, please revert me - I won't touch them again. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I would rather they were separated out, and lower quality refs could be dropped or commented for over-referenced statements, such as Hipocrite suggests. Verbal chat 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As soon as you don't remove the page numbers from book refs.... it's not fun trying to find a fact buried in a 400 page book without a page number. If I use the same book for page 212 and for page 438 then they should be kept as separate refs somehow. For the DOE paragraph here we could use this technique that I saw at one article:

Blah blah blah blah blah.^{[7](page 115)} Blah blah.^{[7](page 212)} Blah blah blah blah blah.^{[7](page 438)[8]}

As a compromise between cleanliness and usability. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Can do. Hipocrite (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How about pp. rather than page? Less intrusive and more common in real life. Verbal chat 12:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivia question: Why is "pp" such a common abbreviation when "pg" is also common, and makes more sense? V (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I googled pp, pg, and page, and found a page saying that "p." is for a single page, while "pp." is for multiple pages. "pg." would then just be a clearer alternative to "p.". (and i suppose its plural equivalent would be "pgs."?) Kevin Baas^talk 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always seen "p." and "pp." in English. In Spanish it's always "pg." and "pgs.".

I assumed Wikipedia's MOS would specify usage for that, but to my surprise there doesn't seem to be any guidance for style in reference sections. At any rate, in the style manuals I'm familiar with, the standard usage is "p." and "pp." Woonpton (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's from the Latin paginae (pagina (n.) The surface of a leaf or of a flattened thallus.), p. singular, pp. plural. So know we know! Verbal chat 16:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Logically, therefore, "pg" should be used in the article, since most of the page references will be to a single page (even if it is only the first of several). That is, "pg 108" vs "pp 108-112" --if the overall idea is to save some space, then "pg" it must be. V (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Or p. or pp., as appropriate. I'd prefer this, but it's not a big deal.Verbal chat 17:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree; not a big deal (esp. if goal is to abbreviate stuff; "p" is better than "pg"). On another hand, the above research reveals that "p" and "pp" are Latin, and this is not the Latin-language version of Wikipedia, heh! (just kidding around. I vote we use "p" exclusively, and never worry about how many pages a particular reference may involve; just specify the first of the bunch. That is, "p 108" and never "pp 108-112" ) V (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"p" and "pp" are pretty much standard, as is defining the range of pages being used. Given that the citation templates take care of this, (as per LeadSongDog) I don't see why we should use just "p". It isn't significantly more difficult to use the standard approach, and there's no pressing reason to do otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The cite and citation templates all generate the form: William Shakespeare, Compleate Workes, pp. 1012–13, 1015 which complies with WP:MOS.LeadSongDog come howl 18:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I used the {{rp}} template, as suggest in my talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

need help with sources

Can someone with a subscription to these magazines open them and send me a copy of the text by email? (I'm trying to get better sources for the patent section in the article, and I would like to use these) Nature[2] Science[3][4][5]. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, although I couldn't access one Science article, as it was outside of the database's range. - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

SPAWAR neutrons but not charged particles?

Why does this article discuss SPAWAR's detection of neutrons but not their detection of charged particles? Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Gordon FE (2007) Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd–D lattice: emission of charged particles. Naturwissenschaften 94:511–514 ?

I found its erratum amusing: [6] Navy Physics Geek (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Because, unlike the neutron detection, the charged particle detection wasn't reported by lots of mainstream new sources including popular science magazines, and didn't appear in an ACS press release. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to mainstream "new" sources or mainstream "news" sources? I was under the impression that peer reviewed literature was considered more reliable than news stories or press releases. If that is not the case, please let me know where it's documented. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)