Talk:Cold fusion

Essay by Huw Price

Science philosopher Huw Price has an interesting essay in Aeon magazine on the politics and sociology of cold fusion, in which he claims research is hindered by a reputation trap that can also have negative results in other fields: "People outside the trap won't go near it, for fear of falling in.... People inside the trap are already regarded as disreputable, an attitude that trumps any efforts that they might make to argue their way out, by reason and evidence." His views may be an important perspective worth including, to contextualize and clarify broader issues (please read the whole article, I'm not necessarily advocating the particular quote be included). See additional journalistic context on Price's view and the state of cold fusion studies by science writer Clive Cookson. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the old excuse pseudoscientists always used: "we do not have any evidence because scientists will not look for it to avoid damaging their reputations". Not very relevant here becuase it is universally applicable wherever there is no evidence for something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you think Huw Price is a pseudoscientist, or otherwise unqualified to comment on this topic? --Animalparty! (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a paraphrase of David Goodstein, who we already cover in the article. See the quote referring to a 'pariah field'. There's no need to rehash this concept every time someone new repeats it.--Noren (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a scientist and unqualified. Philosophers of science ususally don't have meaningful contributions to specific scientific questions because their technical understanding is too shallow - they literally can't look beyond who has what position, into the actual reasoning that goes into it, because it is all gibberish to them. Instead, they look for reasons they can understand, i.e. sociological ones. Many of them can't even name any properties of science that would distinguish it from bullshit, or even care about the difference. Price seems to be one of those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Credible justification for this, please! Anyway, I'll put the question to him and see what he comes up with. But let's have your credible justification first. And while we're about it, what are your own qualifications? Brian Josephson (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at https://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Huw-Price-Times-Arrow1997.pdf, and see if you still want to claim that Price doesn't understand physics. Brian Josephson (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not claiming that Price doesn't understand physics, I am saying that he has no formal qualification. But that is not relevant for my reasoning, it was just a response to a question luring me onto a tangent. His essay appeared in Aeon (magazine), which is not an RS for scientific questions. If he had anything interesting to say, one could overlook that in a pinch. But, as I said, it's just the usual I-am-being-suppressed cliché and not worth including. Otherwise, every article about something that does not work could quote people saying, esentially, "no wonder that we have not yet found out that it does work, because scientists avoid researching it!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Such a biased perspective! I warn people to take care regarding Wikipedia articles because of the way they get taken over by genuinely unqualified people (which Price is not). --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you can ask him whether he still is a Rossi fan seven years after penning the paen? How long till he admits he was wrong?

Reader: They split the bill.

jps (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for not understanding what I presume was intended to be a joke (re splitting the bill, that is). But, anyway, in response Price suggests you look at his updated article, entitled 'Risk and Scientific Reputation: Lessons from Cold Fusion', in a forthcoming book entitled Managing Extreme Technological Risk, ed. C. Rhodes. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"About Rossi, I am happy to concede that he hasn’t made it to the finishing line, even at a modest 50% credence. I think there is still some reason to think that he may have something, based in part on claimed replications by far less colourful figures. But there is also evidence of dishonesty, especially in his dealings with his US backer, Industrial Heat.... My bets were settled in mid-2019. Our three judges, all physicists, agreed with my opponents that neither Brillouin nor Rossi had demonstrated evidence of LENR above 50% probability." Lol. jps (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Rename page as LENR?

I think ColdFusion is now outdated and low energy nuclear reactions is preferred Lawrence18uk (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

1. People invent thing that does not work, give it name.
2. Thing becomes known by that name. People know thing does not work.
3. People who believe in thing use new name for thing to avoid association with name that stands for something that does not work.
4. Thing still does not work.

We should use the common name, not the camouflage name. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Not quite correct. It does work, but only under difficult to establish conditions. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

And ghosts do exist, but every time a skeptic looks for them, they make sure not to show themselves. jps (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha! --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation methodology

I happened to look at this article today and noticed that it uses a mixture of footnoted citations and inline citations in a style similar to parenthetical referencing. I note also, relying on this, that parenthetical referencing is deprecated in Wikipedia. Unless there is objection here, I will probably edit this article to convert instances of those inline references to shortened footnotes. If you have objections to this or thoughts about it, please comment here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 Not done -- I was in the middle of other things when I left the earlier comment and, on a second look today, I didn't see anything I thought needed changing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent updates

Would anyone care to write about the recent ARPA-E announcement for up to $10M "... to establish clear practices to determine whether low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) could be the basis for a potentially transformative carbon-free energy source."

(DE-FOA-0002784 and 2785: Exploratory Topics SBIR/STTR) https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/press-releases/us-department-energy-announces-10-million-study-low-energy-nuclear

Based on claims of transmutation and new processes for it (via LENR) much more money could be devoted to this application. Up to an additional funding of $50M has been set aside for "... Converting UNF Radioisotopes into Energy (CURIE) ...to enable commercially viable reprocessing of used nuclear fuel (UNF) ..." (DE-FOA-0002691and DE-FOA-0002692).

https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId1adbff8d-435f-4644-a570-282d3e67116c .... Aqm2241 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I would gladly do it, except I don't want to get involved with a battle with the guerilla skeptics. However, I am planning to report a particular individual for disruptive editing when I have the time to do that! --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping that one of the skeptics would try to address it. I don't think that they can block its insertion, so it would be interesting to see how they can introduce it and try to reverse its impact. .... Aqm2241 (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Aqm2241 The real question is if anyone ELSE has written about it. This source is a primary source and press release, and utterly unsuitable for inclusion in this article. We need reliable, independent third party sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 09:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

To quote from WP on primary sources: "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." There's a real shortage of common sense in the way the rule is being used in the above. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

My common sense tells me that we won't know if this will have any sort of impact on the world at large if we don't see sources like newspapers and the like picking up on it. We can afford to wait for that to happen, there are no deadlines here. MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

In view of your comment I've removed that edit. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

please Google DE-FOA-0002785 or DE-FOA-0002784 for public coverage of the FOA. .... Aqm2241 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Well done! So there is a secondary source. Is 'or here' happy now that his objection has been dealt with? Can https://www.instrumentl.com/grants/funding-opportunity-announcement-de-foa-0002784-exploratory-topics be given as a reference, or is there some other problem? --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Indiscriminate content scrapers are not secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Ollie, your POV is showing.

Georgia Tech chose to communicate the announcements by combining information from two FOAs and adding comments.

13. ARPA-E Exploratory Topics - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

Deadline for Questions: 11/4/2022, 5 PM ET

Full Application Due: 11/15/2022, 9:30 AM ET

Approximately $10 million is to be shared between two FOAs, DE-FOA-0002784 and DE-FOA-0002785. DE-FOA-0002785 is intended for SBIR and STTR eligible applicants. This announcement is purposely broad in scope, and will encourage the submission of the most innovative and unconventional ideas in energy technology. The objective of this solicitation is to support high-risk R&D leading to the development of potentially disruptive new technologies across the full spectrum of energy applications. Topics under this FOA will explore new areas of technology development that, if successful, could establish new program areas for ARPA-E, or complement the current portfolio of ARPA-E programs. The topic under consideration for these two FOA’s is low energy nuclear reactions. Aqm2241 (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A grant announcement doesn't mean anything to the development of LENR, why would it fit into this article? We don't even know who would be doing the research, much less what the outcome would be. If it were covered widely in third-party sources then we might cover it here as a 'future research' angle, but as it is we don't even know if this grant will get picked up. This isn't news, it's just hopeful and wishful thinking. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 22:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Tangent on sourcing in general
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Research on cold fusion has to be done by press release. It's a tradition, or an old charter, or something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC) The work of the sceptics on wikipedia is done by reflex action, combined with closing the eyes. It's a tradition, or an old charter, or something. People who have their eyes open and their mind switched on, on the other hand, will go to the press release and see at the bottom 'click for more information', which takes you to the official page (not a press release), giving more details plus an application form. We can't expect the sceptics to do that of course, as it might destroy their case. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Yawn. The point was that cold fusers tend to shout a lot in public about stuff that later turns out to be wrong or overblown. See science by press release. For Wikipedia, it is not interesting to check a primary source when there are no secondary sources that would allow us to mention it. Also, it is not to everybody's taste to dig into every dunghill in the hope to find a diamond. Can we stop this? The source is insufficient according to WP:RS, case closed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Another instructive instance of sceptics working away hard at their business! If the rules say an official announcement by a US govt. source is not a good source, then there's something seriously wrong with the rules. It is a plain fact that the DoE is funding investigations into LENR, and an encyclopedia is supposed to be a source of facts. Or am I wrong to state that? --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Yes, you're wrong. The encyclopedia is based more on settled knowledge than undigested fact(oid)s. Bon courage (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC) If the rules say an official announcement by a US govt. source is not a good source, then there's something seriously wrong with the rules If someone had said that before a horror clown became president in 2016, a lengthy explanation of why the rules are fine in that regard would have had to follow. Now, it should be clear to everybody that being part of the US government and being a reliable source are completely unrelated. If you want to change the rules, Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources is thataway. This page is for improving the article. I am hatting this tangent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)