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.

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)

Defining the low temperature fusion reaction as a discovery instead of an invention is both biased and paradoxical. The paradox is that if this is a natural process, then cold fusion is a reality. The bias is to define this as a natural process so as to diminish the achievement and deny the invention. There is no requirement in patent law to define or describe the theory. The only requirement is to show best practice to cause the reaction, for example the reactants, concentrations, temperatures, choice of catalyst, etc. A proper analog in conventional catalytic chemistry is Ziegler-Natta production of polyethylene using TiCl4 as a catalyst. [1]. Even though the mechanism is not well understood, it is an invention and a Nobel Prize was won.

IT is not at all obvious from any example in nature how to effect cold-fusion. The fact that so many could not reproduce the results early on is a testament to the fact. However, competent experimentalist did reproduce the results. Examining the literature, there were 90 reproduction from individual scientists in 1989, and the number are in the thousands now. The references are just to many to name.

On the other hand, hot fusion is not an invention, since high temperature fusion attempts to mimic the sun. Also, a theory is not an invention and can not be patented.Minofd (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not read too much into the word "discovery". It is certain that P&F claimed they discovered some unusual experimental results. The interpretation of those results, provided the results were real and not illusory, does not automatically need to be associated with the word "discovery". (Not to mention that the fusion interpretation preceded P&F by decades.) On the other hand, there is the fact that the word "discover" is related to the word "uncover". When uranium fission was discovered, what exactly was uncovered? Uraniums have been naturally fissioning, every now and then, for billions of years. It was merely never noticed before 1936 or so. Ah, well. V (talk) 21:57, 11 August 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: [2] Navy Physics Geek (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Because, unlike the neutron detection, the charged particle detection wasn't reported by lots of mainstream new news 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)(sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, I meant "news". You should know that one paper in a journal is nice, but it's not nice if there is no reply from other scientists, and if other sources say that the field is fringe. The reason is that, like the neutron detection paper, this is a primary source, and we can't really know what impact it has had in the field until it get replies or it starts being cited, or some scientific magazine comments on its impact. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The SPAWAR charged particle detection paper is discussed in Kalman P, Keszthelyi T, Kis D (Dec. 2008) "Solid state modified nuclear processes" EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL-APPLIED PHYSICS, vol. 44(3) pp. 297-302. This is the abstract:

It is theoretically shown that an attractive effective potential is generated via optical phonon exchange between two quasi-free, different particles in deuterated Pd which, in turn, enhances the probability of their nuclear fusion reaction. Mechanisms that may be responsible for extra heat production and nuclear isomer formation are also discussed. Creation of 4 He pairs due to the significantly increased probability of the p + Li-7 -> 2(4)He + 17.35 MeV and d + Li-6 -> 2 4 He + 22.37 MeV nuclear reactions is predicted. Some of the basic questions of fusion reactions in solids seem to be successfully explained.

The theory paper cited in SPAWAR's erratum (Widom A, Larsen L (Apr. 2006) "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C, vol. 46(1) pp. 107-111) is cited in Hagelstein PL, Chaudhary IU (2008) "Electron mass shift in nonthermal systems" JOURNAL OF PHYSICS B-ATOMIC MOLECULAR AND OPTICAL PHYSICS, vol. 41(12) and the April 10, 2008 Current Science by Krivit. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Hum, can someone familiar with these journals comment on this? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the term 'ultra-low momentum' is applied to the neutrons postulated by Widom and Larsen (W-L). This means they are extremely reactive, very very high cross section for reaction in the solid state. That means that essentially none will escape at all, and this fact is noted in the W-L article cited above. That means that the 'neutrons' supposedly observed by the SPAWAR group _disprove_ the W-L theory. Further, the W-L theory does not say anything specific about charged particle generation, it predicts transmutations in the solid state which may lead to tritium and He formation in some cases. However, they point out they are not excluding anything by making that prediction. In other words if someone can come up with a nuclear decay chain initiated by a neutron capture event that would emit charged particles, they would love it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the source allegedly claiming that SPAWAR results disprove Widom-Larsen theory. The SPAWAR group is clearly under the impression that W-L is the most congruent theory to their experiments. There are still transitions which are not yet clear, but those exist in standard physics as well, which is why we are always building bigger accelerators, so that we can fill in those blanks.

And the stated criteria that all three of the works in question (neutron detection, charged particle detection, and congruent theory) have been discussed in other peer-reviewed literature has been met for half a year now. I should point out that EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C and JOURNAL OF PHYSICS B are two of the most reputable physics journals. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

So NPG, let me understand this. Theroists X propose Theory Y which states that the occurrence of Z is a "rare event", i.e. has a nearly zero probability of occurring. Then Researchers A report that Z was observed multiple times and in strength enough that a "5% of Z" observation is used to prove Z has occurred. Of course, both X's and A's results are published in peer reviewed journals. So just to summarize: X says Y proves Z doesn't happen, buy A says they have proof Z occurs easily and with significant strength. Then I say that A's results disprove Y, and you need someone else to tell you it is true? I think we are looking at a case of 'pathological skepticism'. I seem to run into that a lot whenever I point out the internal inconsitencies of the cold fusioneers position. I'm not going to argue basic logic with you NPG. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the figures "nearly zero" or 5% being used. The theory was selected to match empirical results. Do you think that the SPAWAR claim that charged particles come from the same source of neutrons should be included in the article? Navy Physics Geek (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Hmmm…what do you consider to be the numerical equivalent of “These will rarely be experimentally detected.” (Widom, Larsen, Eur. Phys. J C , 46(1), (2006) 107)? Typically a ‘rare’ event will occur at less than 1 in 1 million probability, i.e. “nearly zero”. But, I suppose you could wiki-lawyer that, so let’s discuss the other big problem on top of the fact that there should be nearly zero neutrons detected. I already mentioned this, but to explain further… The W-L neutrons are ‘ultra-low momentum’. Since momentum is mass times velocity, and the mass is not changing much, if at all, this means the velocity is ultra low. That translates to ”very, very slow”. However, the claim by Szpak, Mossier-Boss, et al, in Naturwissenschaften 96(1) (2009) 135, that the ‘neutrons’ are of >= 9.6MeV marks these ‘neutrons’ as fast neutrons (look up ‘fast neutrons' in Wikipedia). Thus there is a fundamental disagreement between the W-L theory and reported observations. The data in fact offer no support for W-L theory, and point to another as-yet-to-be-determined mechanism for ‘neutron’ production.

You are correct that “The theory was selected to match empirical results.”, but the empirical results matched were ‘no neutrons (or other radiation), only He atoms produced’. This points out again the problems with most CF theories, they ‘cherry-pick’ the data they use to base the theory on.

Regarding the “5%” number, I admit I was grossly overgenerous there. The actual number should be about 0.1%. Using Fig. 2 of Phillips, G.W, et al, Rad. Prot. Dos. 120(1-4) (2006) 457, we can round up to see that it takes about 10e4 neutrons to produce one recoil track (average, energy dependent), and using Al-Najjar, S.A.R., Nuc. Tracks 12 (1986) 611, Fig. 5 and 6, we can likewise see that one gets about 10 triple tracks per 10e8 neutrons (on average, energy dependent). Thus the ratio is 1e-7/1e-4 = .001 or 0.1%. By the way, this is still over-generous, because that does NOT fold in the 1 in 1 million probability of actually ejecting a neutron from the solid state that can be potentially detected by the CR39. When I used the phrase “5% effect” I was using chemical jargon that points out the size of the effect is consistent with Langmuir’s Pathological Science criteria, as 5% is where most chemists start getting nervous about reliability, i.e ‘working in the noise’. Less than that of course is progressively worse. Both references cited above were cited by Szapk, et al in their ‘triple-tracks’ article.

Getting back to the point of the original discussion here, I also need to clearly correct a prior statement of mine (correction was noted above already). The Szapk et al results do not ‘disprove’ the W-L theory, they simply offer no support for it for the reason noted above _and_ point out that it is incomplete since it does not predict the formation of fast neutrons. However, the erratum to the 2007 Natur. paper does clearly attribute the mechanism proposed in that paper to W-L. Thus Szpak, et al have actually proposed this mechanism in slightly diffrerent terms in their 2007 paper. However, as noted above, the energetics are completely off for this to be true. So, we are left with several reports of ‘neutrons’ and ‘charged particles’ that seem inconsistent with the W-L theory, and we have no alternative mechanism to consider except ‘mundane’ D-D and D-T fusion, which most people agree is not happening for the usual reasons. In other words, there is no mechanism for the formation of these supposed particles extant. _And_ we have Szpak, et al apparently not realizing what their results mean (otherwise one would expect some comment on this in their 2009 article that presents the energies determined from the tracks). Unfortunately this is an all-too-common situation in the CF field. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I quite understand that Szpak, et al may not have selected the likeliest explanation for the origin of the neutrons they seem to have detected. But It Looks To Me As If You Are Trying To "Spin" This, to somehow indicate they could not have detected any neutrons whatsoever. Tsk, tsk. The data they gathered, indicating they detected Something More Than Nothing, does not disappear just because they might have picked a bad explanation for it. The data simply needs a better explanation. Also, note Some Logic: If They Had Faked The Data, Would It Not Have Matched Their Chosen Theory More Precisely??? All who think the true explanation for the data is Fraud ---take note!!!! V (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you've forgotten most of what I've been saying for the last few months again. Well, I'm not going over it again, but I do note your attempt to somehow associate my comment with 'fraud' and 'spinning' (I especially like the use of caps). Back to the personal attacks again V? To be clear Szpak et al (and others) have detected pits in CR39. They then assume these come from charged particles or neutrons, because that's what CR39 has been used for before, and that's what they want to see. However, we are dealing with a new experimental apparatus here, where the production of nuclear particles is postulated and not proven. There are simple conventional explanations for the pits in this new environment, which Szpak, et al fail to consider, even though their evidence proves such potential causes are present. So, I'm not ignoring anything, but Szpak, et al are. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It did indeed look like an ATTEMPTED "spin" on your part, when the information you provided was incomplete, and did not even mention past discussions. I can agree that the observed pits may have more than one explanation, although details matter. After all, it is my understanding the pits are not DIRECTLY produced by interactions between the experimental environment and the plastic; they appear only after the plastic is removed from the experiment and subjected to some processing that is designed to reveal weaknesses that have appeared in the polymer. It is certainly known that neutrons shoving hydrogen atoms around can cause such weaknesses; what are the CHEMICAL alternatives to which you refer? In other words, for neutrons to not be the cause of the pits, some chemical thing must penetrate the plastic and cause equivalent damage, such that the later processing can reveal it as pits. Please specify those so-called "simple conventional explanations" that can cause internal damage almost indistinguishable from what neutrons can do.

Regarding claims of fraud, that was generic and not specific. It certainly is the view of some of the editors here that all the CF data which is not the result of incompetence is fraudlent. I was simply taking advantage of the topic to point out that their logic can be faulty in this case. V (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, I would take that sage advice from Carcharot here, you don't have to reply to every comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

arbcom case on banning from this page

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#William_M._Connolley_.282nd.29 --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the case which has been renamed to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A Uranium-Platinum Key to CF?

The August 2009 issue of Scientific American has a very interesting article in it on superconductivity. I haven't looked yet to see if the article is on-line; I'm looking at a paper copy as I write this. The title of the article is "An Iron Key to High-Temperature Superconductivity?"; it starts on page 62. On page 66 is a small "side-bar" titled "Material Progress", with the blurb "In the 98-year history of superconductivity, researchers have discovered a diverse assortment of materials that superconduct." Then there is a list of dates and types of materials, the first being elemental mercury in 1911. The most interesting one, because of possible relevance to Cold Fusion, is this:

1979 Heavy fermions -- Heavy-fermion superconductors such as uranium-platinum (UPt3) are remarkable by also having electrons that effectively (my emphasis) have hundreds of times their usual mass. Conventional theory cannot explain these materials' superconductivity.

Well, now! I never heard about THAT before! The superconductivity article in Wikipedia doesn't mention it (of course, 1979 was before the Internet). I'd most certainly like to know more about the circumstances in which electrons can "effectively" have hundreds of times their usual mass, and I don't care a whit about the superconducting aspects of the phenomenon (at this time!). Obviously if muons of 206 electron-masses can catalyze fusion, then so can electrons that "effectively" have hundreds of times their usual mass. In fact, an electron only need to "effectively" have about 50 times its usual mass, to be able to do it. YES, I'm fully aware that this is 100% pure O.R. and cannot go in the CF article at this time. That doesn't mean the editors here shouldn't be aware of it. And, of course, others will see the Scientific American article, and some of those may make this logical connection between HFSC and CF, too, and then it will get published.... V (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A Google search brings up a lot of references to heavy fermion superconductivity. Here's the first result: http://yclept.ucdavis.edu/course/242/HanOh_242.pdf The basic heavy-fermion phenomenon in those heavy elements seems to be this: "These are metallic materials with very large electronic effective mass, 100 or more times larger than the bare electron mass, arising from an antiferromagnetic interaction between conduction electrons and the local magnetic moments (Kondo effect) residing on a sub-lattice of atoms in the metal." Hmmmm....hydrogen with its lone proton has a magnetic moment, and a sub-lattice of bare hydrogen nuclei will be interacting with conduction-band electrons in palladium....  :) V (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Upon further study, it appears that the Kondo Effect, the cause of this unusual behavior of electrons, "only" operates at very low temperatures, within a few degrees of Absolute Zero. Are there any exceptions? Note there are speculations that metallic hydrogen would be a high-temperature superconductor. The article on metallic hydrogen indicates that an alloy such as highly compressed silane (SiH4, 80% hydrogen), can be a superconductor. Palladium normally does not become a superconductor, but when saturated to levels associated with cold fusion (perhaps 45% hydrogen), hmmmmmm.... V (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To-do list

The first item on the to-do list is, "Expand the Cold Fusion Research section to describe all types of experiments that reliable sources claim demonstrate cold fusion." But there is no "Cold Fusion Research section" so I propose the following:

1. 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. should go in "Further developments" (just before the paragraph on India, 2008 or after the "Triple tracks" in CR-39 image) and "Reports of nuclear products in association with excess heat" in a new paragraph at the beginning, referring also to the neutron production described further in the article
2. Widom A, Larsen L (Apr. 2006) "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" European Physical Journal C, vol. 46(1) pp. 107–111. should go in "Proposed explanations" along with criticisms at the end of the second paragraph, and maybe "Further developments" after the discussion of the 2004 DoE report
3. Kalman P, Keszthelyi T, Kis D (Dec. 2008) "Solid state modified nuclear processes" European Physical Journal – Applied Physics, vol. 44(3) pp. 297–302. should go in "Further Developments" (before or after the "Triple tracks" in CR-39 image) and "Proposed explanations" at the end of the second paragraph
4. Hagelstein PL, Chaudhary IU (2008) "Electron mass shift in nonthermal systems" Journal of Physics B – Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 41(12) should go in "Proposed explanations" with a mention of the four contexts of the phrase "orders of magnitude" in that paper along with their parenthetical estimate in the third paragraph of Section 7 (on preprint page 18.)
5. Krivit, SB (Apr. 10, 2008) "Low energy nuclear reaction research – Global scenario" Current Science pp. 854–857. should go in "Further developments" (before or after the "Triple tracks" in CR-39 image)
6. "Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat" should be moved from "Experimental details" to "Proposed explanations" Navy Physics Geek (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for doing this work. I don't have time to look at this in detail at the moment. Maybe if you do it as an edit or show proposed text here on the talk page it will be easier to get an idea of what you're proposing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget my to-do list too, which was never acted upon. I mean, if you're really seeking consensus...

{unindent}Ok – suggestions:

A.) Include:

1.) that the CCs potentially increase ‘excess heat’ error bars tremendously,

a.) implying all known reports may be explained by it

b.) requires CF reearchers address the issue directly, which hasn’t happened

2.) that Clarke, et al 4He results, coupled with DOE report(s), and Paneth and Peters experience

a.) suggests all 4He results are potentially false

b.) requires CF researchers disclose all methods, calibrations, etc. for He measurements, which hasn’t happened

3.) that ‘contamination’ concerns extend to heavy metal transmutation claims

a.) note such in S. Little’s RIFEX report (single specific use, meets RS)

b.) note Mizuno replicated Iwamura, but identified S contaminant insetead of Mo

c.) note BHARC replicated Bockris carbon-arc results but showed they came primarily from dust

d.) note that SIMS, XPS, etc are being misused by CF researchers

4.) that light water cold fusion has been observed and is of the same magnitude as heavy water CF

a.) note that this negates the whole “D + D -> He + 23.8 MeV” limitation to CF theories (which should be obvious from D. below)

B.) Drop

1.) CR39 stuff, esp triplet stuff, as too recent, too suspect

2.) hydrino theory mention (hydrino theory is even wilder than CF)

3.) calling muon catalyzed fusion “cold fusion”

4.) legitimizing the name change to ‘LENR’, point out this is strictly to avoid ‘associations’ with CF

C.) Add section “Is it psuedoscience or not?”

1.) point out Storms omission of final Shanahan pub in his book

2.) point out Hagelstein, et al’s omission of Clarke et al 4He work on SRI samples

3.) point out conformances to Langmuir’s criteria

D.) Move stuff on conventional theory (the ‘miracles’) to a side article, noting that all sides agree CF is not constent with conventional theory Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

E.) explain why, at the current output levels, it's useless as a power source.

I add more points. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Over in the Mediation discussion I mentioned that I would prefer the collection of proposed explanations to be placed in a separate article. It should be plain that there is a lot of material (just looking at the listings above), and the CF article would become significantly bloated by it. Certainly there should be mention in the CF article that there are a number of proposed explanations, with a link. I see Coppertwig suggested a brief description of each, also to be placed in the CF article. I'm not sure how to keep such brief statements from creeping longer and longer as other editors become involved, though.... V (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer essentially the exact opposite. I believe we (the editors of the CF article) have lost sight of what a Wiki reader would be coming to the CF page for – an explanation of what CF is and why it is either not being used everywhere today to solve the world’s energy problem or why it is still considered bad science, given the neutral to positive press coverage it has gotten recently. The history and ‘miracles required’ section are old news and could be summarized in a separate article for those interested, while the main article would address the current issues – what is cold fusion, what is the suppposed evidence for it, what is the supposed evidence against it, and why isn’t the issue gettting resolved after 20 years. To that end, I go back to my original proposal to have a 3-part article: a _brief_ history (with side article), presentation of the case ‘for’, presentation of the case ‘against’ with a comment on the psuedoscientific nature of the field included in the latter part or presented separately. The article we curently have is extremely POV, and the only person who has significantly tried to balance it (me) is routinely Wiki-lawyered to prevent any significant contribution. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a third alternative, that the article should explain why the effect is useless for the production of power. 99.27.133.58 (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's true, the article lacks that. I recall at least one source making an explanation, so this can be sourced. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see that explanation, because anything that produces thousands of percent excess energy that can be scaled up would certainly seem to me to be a viable power source. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You have pointed out the essence of the POV problems with the article. "an explanation of what CF is" --is what all the arguing is about. What it is PRESUMED to be is one thing; what actually is going on might be something else entirely. Any reformatting of the article should always start off by describing the initial P&F announcement. There is lots of RS about claims made at that time, both pro and con. The article can then state that many people formed opinions regarding the subject that they maintain to this day, with "con" outweighing the "pro". The result is its "pariah field" status.

This paragragh describes stuff that we as editors here may know about, without being able to say anything about it in the article. If the Washington Post counts as RS for claims, then there is the claim by Michael McKubre that the "con" people will be "scientifically dead" if CF ever proves to be as real as its presumed description. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54964-2004Nov16?language=printer --which is a potential explanation for the vehemence of the "con" group, such as was described by Robert Duncan in this video, at a presentation hosted by the University of Missouri: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nNRB0K_dw0 (verifiable CLAIMS, of course).

Partly because of the controversy it seems to me that the best way to present much of the data in the article is to present it as "claims made". It is a purely neutral POV to say things that way, regardless if the claims made by one side outnumber the claims made by the other side. After all, your own claims are such that the CCS could invalidate a huge number of other claims.... V (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of presenting claims as claims, but I also feel it is imperative to present the conventional counterexplanations to the unjustified claims of nuclear solid-state reactions. That's where the current article falls completely flat. The current format is not even conducive to doing this IMO. The format of Sept. 2008 was much better.

Perhaps we can seek a consensus toward that approach to the article.

Re. the McKubre claims that 'the "con" people will be "scientifically dead" if CF ever proves to be as real'. In my case, my published position is that a) cold fusion can never be proven to not exist and b) evidence presented to date does not compel one to accept a nuclear explanation for the observed effects. Thus, if tomorrow someone produces clear evidence that CF 'exists' by showing full control over the effect and the presence of excess energy, I say 'bravo', because we can use an alternative to fossil fuels. And my comments to date will still stand, since, to date, there is no good evidence that cold fusion exists. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you will be quite mistaken in claiming that cold fusion can never be proven to not exist. It will take some tech we don't have YET, but can expect to eventually have, as most technology improves with time. We simply need to start with a full assay of the content of a palladium electrode shortly before a significant CF event begins to happen (if it happens in that electrode, and remember, we want one of those rare megajoule events). Then we need appropriate control of the environmental sources of helium, and finally another full assay after the CF event is over. An increase in the quantity of helium present should be associable with the heat produced by the CF event (and even not considering heat any excess helium 3 will be notable, since it is so rare naturally). If the helium isn't there, then fusions were not the cause of the heat. Simple. V (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

B.4 In the body of the article, under Further Developments, it already said "A number of researchers keep researching and publishing in the field, working under the name of low-energy nuclear reactions, or LENR, in order to avoid the negative connotations of the "cold fusion" label.". I just put it also in the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see that sentence was there on May 28 when I posted my list intitally. I agree with the change Enric made today. So, we can call Item B4 handled. Now on to the rest... Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

B.2 aka Hydrino theory, is under mediation at here. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to drop it entirely from the article. The hydrino theory proposes fractional quantum levels for H. Integer quantum levels come out of the solution to the particle-in-a-box problem, where the boundary condition is that the wavefuncion be zero outside the box (the box 'holds' the particle). It was discovered by examining H atomic spectra that the discrete line structure observed could be explained via a 'particle-in-a-box' type formulation, and all H atom wavefunctions were the solution to the p-in-a-b problem. Subsequently, it was found that within approximation, this also applied to all atoms, molecules, etc. To allow frational quantum levels is to allow nonzero wavefunction amplitude outside the box, which destroys the whole 'particle-in-a-box' problem (it isn't in the box anymore!), and necessitates a completely different way to describe interactions at the atomic level. The hydrino theory, to be able to do that, needs a whole lot more confirmation than it curently has (and I doubt we will ever get it), and so it is purely speculative at this time, and as such should not be advanced as an 'explanation' for an effect we don't even have control over yet. It is a humongous example of 'getting the cart before the horse', and Wiki shouldn't be in the business of promoting wild, unproven ideas. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources supporting any of those proposed changes other than A.3.a? Navy Physics Geek (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Goodness, James Salsman? James P. Salsman? He was posting to sci.physics.fusion in 2001 on the same subject (as was I). people didn't think much of his arguments there. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, the Wiki-lawyer strikes. I have decided that I am _not_ going to go through it once again. Go back and check the archives for all the recent discussion over the last year or so for details. The answer is that yes there is direct RS for some of the proposed changes, other parts (like dropping stuff) require no RS, and other parts are just standard knowledge in the science field. What your comment says to me is a) you didn’t understand what I wrote, and b) you haven’t done any research to see what has been going on for the last year on this page. As I said, I’m not going through it again, because it’s an infinite time sink. Every time a new guy who thinks he can ‘fix’ the article shows up, I always have to start over. And for some reason, most of the time the new guys end up as ‘pro’ fanatics like Pcarbonn, Abd, and V. No more, done with that. Time for somebody else to tilt at the windmills. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for name change (B.4)

About the reasons for the name change, Shamoo in pages 132-133 says "[CF researchers] purposely tried to bypass the stigma (...) In many instances the labels can be more accurate descriptors for the phenomen, but there is no doubt that they may be also safer labels", and then he goes on to detail cases where researchers avoided to use the CF name not because it was less accurate but to avoid its stigma. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

They also avoid more critical peer review by doing this. Most mainline scientists know that 'cold fusion'='bad science', and are therefore more alert to publications promoting it when they are asked to review it. On the other hand, not all recognize 'heavy water electrolysis', 'emmission of charged particles', 'excess enthalpy', etc. as manifestations of the 'cold fusion' field. Then, when they (CFers) send their papers to journals who haven't been involved in the long running dispute, they have a much better chance of getting 2 of 3 reviewers to allow publication, simply because those reviewers are pulled from a pool of uninformed scientists. Most of my Internet comments back on spf were on published papers that really shouldn't have made it through review. The triplet thing is a prime example. Peer review is certainly no guarantee of correctness. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Shamoo ref

There's something wrong with the Shamoo ref. OK, I changed the ref in the lead from "shamoo132" to "shamoo13" because it was a red cite error; but there's another problem. The listing of the book Shamoo et al 2003 in the Bibliography section has a link to a Google Books page which goes to a different book: Undead Science by Bart Simon. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry, I keep mixing Simon with Shamoo. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem: I'm always mixing up people whose names start with the same letter. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources?

Where are the reviews? I can't believe there are so many papers and no reviews. Is Kalman et al (2008) a secondary source? 208.54.4.70 (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of two peer-reviewed review articles: Biberian (2007) [3] International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, and Hubler 2007 [4] (Surface and Coatings Technology). (I believe these are peer-reviewed papers in regular journals not devoted to cold fusion.) I think these are already listed as references in this article. There are also books, and the 2004 DOE report, among other secondary sources. (See Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 30#NPOV - Undue.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I collected a list of post-1990 sources when trying to prove some point about CF to other editor, you can check it here.

Personally, I prefer to look at the topic from the historic point of view, which marks it as a theory that fell in disgrace shortly appearing. So I will recommend that you look at this 2005 analysis of how and why the field is currently considered pahtological science[5], or Simon's "Undead Science" 2001 book for a description of the social aspects [6]. Both sources are in the context of Philosophy of science.

From the purely scientific POV, to see hard analyis of hard scientific data, which seems to be what you want. I'm afraid that there is almost nothing to choose from (apart from maybe Biberian and Hubler, which Coppertwig suggested above). As many of the sources from my list point out, the field was abandoned by mainstream around 1990 and since then there have been no mainstream responses to the research put forward by CF researchers. As that 2005 analysis explains in long detail, this prevents the research or its replies from appearing in high-quality physics/chemistry journals, and that's probably why Biberian and Hubler appeared in those journals and not in high-quality physics journal. (If you send me an email, I'll send you a copy of the text so you can read it, in User:Enric Naval, the "email this user" link in the left menu of the page, make sure to specify your own email address in the body of the message) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: Aaaaaand, if you want to read the viewpoint of the CF researchers, even if it's not all that accurate or reliable, then you want to read Beaudette for the social side http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf and Storms for the hard-science review-papers-one-by-one side (in http://www.lenr-canr.org/Introduction.html, search for "The Science Of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"), with the caveat that if takes as good some ideas that the mainstream considers outrageously unprobable or unproven, or simply ideas that lack confirmation. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the removal from this page of a comment by Abd. Abd and the two editors who removed the comment (one of them Enric Naval) are all parties to an arbitration case. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would remove it if it was added, as it would be proxying for an editor banned from this page by a member of the arbitration comity, and has a long standing ban from these pages. The removals are proper and justified. If you have a problem, I suggest you appeal to the AC for the ban to be lifted. Further discussion shouldn't take place here on this topic (Abd's edits), per WP:TALK. Verbal chat 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we allowed to discuss [7], [8], and the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook (2008)? Are those secondary reviews? 99.27.133.58 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is the nearest thing we have to a guide in scientific sources. If we take WP:MEDRS#Definitions as a guide, Kalman is a primary source. For the links you give the first one is some sort of summary of the field (so it's sort of secondary) and the second one is definitely a review and secondary.

As for reliability of those sources, it's very low, for reasons spelled at those discussions. (And we don't discuss the sources themselves, we discuss how to use them in making changes to the article, there is a talk page guideline about how these talk pages are for discussing changes to the articles, and if they are not reliable then it's problematic to use them in the article). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Would [9] be more appropriate for this article, which is really not about medicine? "The secondary literature includes review articles, monographs, chemical encyclopedias and specialist textbooks." Since when is a monograph secondary? A peer-reviewed survey like Kalman, sure, but not a monograph. 99.27.134.237 (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That would certainly be more applicable than some medical reference. But I must be missing something here. Why are we even looking for some other reference? What, exactly, is unclear about Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources? Why is that insufficient for our purposes here?

I might point out that the notion of primary vs. secondary is not at all related to where something is actually published. It is related to the author's relationship to the subject matter at hand. If the author is describing something that they, themselves, were involved in then they are acting as a primary source. If they are summarizing the work of others and/or commenting on the work of others then they are acting as a secondary source. None of that has anything to do with where the content in question was published. --GoRight (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the publication type has relevance to the reliability - or are you suggesting that an (imagined) CF assessment in "UFOlogy today" is worth much - even if its written by a well-known expert? The reliability of the journal is of course an aspect, as is the impact factor, and finally so is the amount of citations that an article got. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

@99.27.134.237. Wow, I had never seen that guideline, thank you very much for pointing it out. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In the specific case of Kalman 2008, and just for the "is this primary or secondary" question. I don't understand how this is supposed to be a survey. It makes two hypothesis (phonon exchange and effects of deuteron content) and it makes equations and calculations to try to prove it theorically, and it cites previous research to support its statements, just like research papers do. But I don't know how it's making a summary of what other sources say: it's making a new theory that is based on old ones, not summing up the old ones. They make their own new calculations and hypothesis that don't appear in other papers. The only part that could be considered a summary is the introduction where they make an overview of what lead them to their research. I see that as a normal primary source similar to other research papers that are also primary sources.

About monographs, the article already has one by Goodstein[10] and other by Platt[11], and Bart Simon made another with the same topic and title as the book that is already listed at the bibliography, it was some 10 or 20 pages talking about the matter (I'll have to find that link and put it there). GoRight's explanation applies to why this is a secondary source. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we are considering non-peer reviewed monographs as potentially more reliable here than peer reviewed survey material (such as the introduction in Kalman et al 2008). Is that the case or am I misunderstanding something? 99.25.114.234 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Kalman is a review, it looks to me like a primary source proposing new research of its own. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is a review or not, is there ever any situation in chemistry or physics where an unreviewed monograph should be considered more reliable than a peer-reviewed survey of the field published in a reputable, on-topic, high-impact journal, even if that survey is merely an introduction to primary source material in an academic journal article? 75.55.199.80 (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a survey. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you were reviewing physics papers, would you consider space too precious to waste on a survey of the previous work in the introduction? What would you propose for the bulk of an introduction in such papers? 99.60.1.164 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

From my perspective I agree with the following comments which were removed from this talk page (see [12]):

[removed comment by editor banned from this page]

I have verified these points and I have my own independent reasons for raising them here (i.e. I believe they are an on-topic and pertinent response to the question raised above which is presumably focused on improving the article). --GoRight (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Indexing bot

I set up the indexing bot, per a suggestion here. When the bot runs for the first time it will create an index at Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_index. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: on hydrinos

While this is not hugely relevant to the CF article, we editors here know that hydrinos are proposed as an explanation for the CF phenomenon. We also know that the topic is generally considered to be as "fringe" as CF, if not more so (I'm somewhat skeptical about it, too). Anyway, there appears to be a Recent Development in that field. Here: http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/rowan-university-publishes-further.html V (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The "recent development" is yet another carefully spun press release from BLP. They've been playing this game for a long time.[13].LeadSongDog come howl 21:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)