Talk:Cold fusion

IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss your personal opinions of the merits of cold fusion research. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about cold fusion and the associated scientific controversy surrounding it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you wish to discuss or debate the status of cold fusion please do so at the VORTEX-L mailing list.

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

Disambig

Now the artist is said to be only about the Fleischmann–Pons set-up. Although the start of the history section is somewhat more general. Perhaps we should spin of the Fleischmann–Pons part to it's own article an keep this as a page about cold fusion in general. // Liftarn (talk)

Dilbert

Dilbert's take on cold fusion. Enjoy :-) Guy (Help!) 19:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Process, explanation or claim

The lede sentence contains an ambiguous phrase, which may even mislead some leaders. (It certainly misled me.)

• a proposed nuclear fusion process of unknown mechanism offered to explain . . .

What in heck is a proposed process? How can there be a "process of unknown mechanism"? And just what exactly is being explained?

More importantly, is there really a process being "explained" any where in the article? If so, it's so buried in detail that I couldn't find it. (I didn't read every sentence, so if it's there, please indicate the section or better yet post the paragraph I'm supposed to read.)

Editorially, it looks like this article is more about the cold fusion controversy than about any supposedly discovered "process". I daresay the controversy is over whether anyone has ever been able to achieve cold fusion in the laboratory.

So I would like to rename and rewrite this article accordingly. I'd like a long main section about reports by researchers who claimed to have produced cold fusion: what they did, what measurements they took, etc. Followed by efforts of other researchers to reproduce these results.

A shorter section could be about pronouncements from DOE or the patent office along with how the scientific community in general regards the supposed phenomenon. (Note: I came here from Menstrual synchrony, another "supposed phenomenon", thinking about the best way to word the intro to a topic about a phenomenon that the original researcher reported in a scientific journal, although scientists generally are unable to confirm that the phenomenon occurs.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

i don't think any researcher has claimed decisively that they have created cold fusion in a lab. that, from my understanding, remains a hypothesis. what numerous researchers have separately claimed in numerous reports on experimental results are a number of measurements that seem extraordinary given our current understanding of physics. while some ppl have separately put forth theories to explain these measurements, nobody (save perhaps our old friend kirk s.) has claimed that any of these have been undisputably demonstrated by experiment to be the proper explanation for the reported extraordinary results. in short, "cold fusion" is a misnomer. but "unusual results on electrolytic cells of particular metals and deuterides, gas-loading, co-deposition, and other methods involving deutrium in low energy solid state confinement, reported as outside error margins and semi-repeatable and as-yet-unexplained, though some would argue that it is explained and is categorically not fusion, though they won't tell anyone what that supposed explanation is." would be a rather awkward title for an article. Kevin Baas^talk 20:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It would appear you are unaware of the article published by Fleischmann and Pons, "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium" Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 1989, 261 (2A): 301–308 that made precisely this claim in its own title, and not a few similar articles afterward including "Measurements of gamma-rays from cold fusion" published later that year in Nature. These are not obscure papers, they are rather central to the history of the alleged phenomenon. The degree of certainty expressed by those who claim to have observed this alleged phenomenon seems to have decreased over the years. In short, "cold fusion" was precisely the terminology used by the early (and most notable) proponents.--Noren (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I am aware of it. I didn't feel that exception to be notable. It's certainly had its press, but this article is not about them. Kevin Baas^talk 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor, I don't understand what you are proposing. All of the topics you say are important are already discussed in the article. Also, why is "cold fusion controversy" a better title than "cold fusion," which I would say better describes the topic and has the advantage of being concise. Is there a precedent on wikipedia to add the word "controversy" to the titles of controversial articles? Olorinish (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pathological science?

I removed the following sentence because it is not sufficiently supported and because it is, at least partially, original research: "However, the ongoing significant number of publications in the field, including some in regular journals, is inconsistent with such categorisations." The article already has sourced statements supporting the reality of cold fusion, so readers can investigate them and form their own conclusions. Does anyone disagree? Olorinish (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My statement is verifiable

(@Noren particularly, who did a second deletion after I'd added an appropriate ref.) I presumed a certain degree of diligence and intelligence in readers, enough for them (a) to realise that by going to the bibliography I quoted (see earlier version) they could get the statistics for LENR, and then that (b) by studying the literature on pathological science they'd be able to see whether or not the LENR statistics fit. Verifiability is the issue here; there is no need to fill in full details. -- Brian Josephson (talk) FRS, FInstP —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC). It is a pity when editors can't figure out this sort of thing for themselves. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The list you refer to has a lot of things on it that are not publications. It would require a lot of original research to sort out peer-reviewed publications from other things, looking at the first page I see patent applications, a "Check List for LENR Validation Experiments", several powerpoint presentations, several things listing 'LENR-CANR.org' as the location they are published in, etcetera. This is an indiscriminate list, which may have its uses but it is not a scientometric study. For a actual bibliography of the field I would recommend Dieter Britz' work, which is already linked on the page. Note in particular the graph of publications per year on the last page of his statistics summary. While there was a modest uptick in 2008, it was followed by continued decline and the volume of papers is still profoundly below what it was in the early 1990s. The recent trends do not overturn the academic secondary source as published in the journal Scientometrics, and to argue that a minor uptick for a few years as seen in raw data refutes the (far larger) overall downward trend would be original research.--Noren (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You draw erroneous conclusions from the statistics provided by Britz. When there is an exciting new discovery in science it attracts a lot of people to work on it, but after a time things generally settle down, so the steep decline is normal and does not indicate pathology. Your Scientometrics reference could have confirmed your point, were it not for the fact that is is out of date, and in consequence does not take account the recent very significant increase in publication rate (a sustained increase involving a factor of more than 3, with on the order of 20 publications per year the last 3 years for which statistics are available). Because of this recent increase the appropriate comparison is probably with phenomena which were at one time disbelieved, but subsequently came to be accepted as real. While of course I can't speak for Ackermann, I suspect that if asked he would agree with this analysis. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the edit is original research because it [[1]] combines "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." When cold fusion's reputation improves that respected authorities in nuclear reactions believe it, then this article should definitely be changed to reflect that. Until then, we should be careful to give appropriate weight to claims of cold fusion. Olorinish (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that what I've said above can reasonably be counted as 'original research', but will rewrite the addition appropriately when I have the time -- it is just a question of making clear something that evidently was not quite so clear to the editors concerned. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's more a question of finding a reliable source that explicitly supports your edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Brian, the simple fact is, the CF "detractors" who edit this article do every single thing they can think of to prevent it from becoming up-to-date. I've been waiting more than 2 years for a secondary reference to appear, regarding the publication in major/Wikipedia-acceptable journals of the pressurized-deuterium experiments, every single one of which, so far as I know, has produced more energy than can be associated with the natural exothermic absorption of hydrogen by palladium. And I have to keep waiting, until such a reference appears, before I can edit this article to mention it. V (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have taken advantage of my university's site licence to see the full paper and, in the cause of informed discussion, it is appropriate to summarise the relevant points. Ackermann begins with the criteria that have been proposed in the literature for pathological science, i.e. science that did not work out. He also assumes that cold fusion and polywater fit this category, and looks at the data to see if they fit. Indeed, publication levels do fall to a low level in both cases over the interval considered, which is 1989-2001 for cold fusion. That is fine as far as it goes, but as I have already noted recent data shows a significant rise. The author's aim was not to prove from the data that CF was pathological (he states explicitly that he is not 'concerned with examining the existence and nature of pathological science, or its applicability to either the Polywater or Cold Nuclear Fusion phenomena', and were he to reconsider that paper today, in the light of current data, he would be forced to conclude that either there are cases where an unaccountable rise occurs (beyond what might be expected by chance, as any statisticians watching will no doubt agree) or, more plausibly, that CF is not a case of pathological science. Indeed, that rise provides a certain degree of support for the alternative of 'knowledge growth'.

My conclusion is that the text as it stands is misleading and in due course I will add an appropriate clarification. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, you need to find reliable sources that directly support your edit. You might want to check Betterncourt 2009 (already present in the article). It goes up to 2005 and it was published in 2009. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this relevant, and if so in what way? And if it only goes up to 2005 then it misses the recent surge. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I about to add the comment, citing an existing and I believe more appropriate reference for the relevant information. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I might add that some earlier text, The publication in mainstream journals has continued to decline but has not entirely stopped; this has been interpreted variously as the work of aging proponents who refuse to abandon a dying field, or as the normal publication rate in a small field that has found its natural niche is in need of amendment also in view of this recent rise. But I've done enough for today. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

People who can't understand my recent edit ... (rest of comment deleted, in response to request, by poster) --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm shivering in my boots. I understand your reasoning quite well. It violates WP:OR, though. It also is very questionable - you should know how hard it is to make any statistically significant statement with such a small number of datapoints. Not to mention that Britz work, while looking good enough, is self-published. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the plot, may I ask? I'll post it here when I have a moment, so people can decide for themselves whether my comment is really OR or in fact blindingly obvious to anyone who looks. And I'll also ask an expert statistician what she thinks of your assertion regarding the statistics in this case. A single point can be significant unless it is an error, but is it credible that Britz counted 20 odd papers when the number was really only say 10?

And it's a bit of a joke, if I may be permitted to say so, that you are now casting doubt on Britz as a reliable source, as the source you quote to support the 'pathological science' theme actually used Britz's data in his analysis.

For this study then ... the Cold Nuclear Fusion field is defined by the Cold Nuclear Fusion Bibliography (BRITZ, 2004). ... an ongoing work compiled by the German chemist BRITZ (2004).

Interesting, is it not, that Britz is OK when he supports your POV, but when his update suddenly does not you try to discredit it with talk of self-publication. If Ackermann thinks Britz is reliable (and his paper is not self-published), that should be good enough for w'pedia. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

But we are citing Ackerman's conclusions from a secondary source. We are not citing directly the primary data that he used, and we are not making our own interpretations. Even if the primary data indicates that the publications have augmented, you need a secondary source to indicate the significance of the raise. Does it indicate a change of tendency, or is it a statistical bump? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's Britz's plot [2] -- which option does that suggest to you? Do you still think it might be a 'statistical bump'? I've done a quick calculation assuming the Poisson Distribution applies, and this indicates that the probability of that increase over the last 3 years is something like 0.01%. Significant enough for you? A statistician might suggest something more refined but I can't see even a refined calculation getting rid of the significance.

By the way, if you don't like 'interpretation', I can always quote what Britz says directly:

Added in October 2010: a final plot of total number of publications per year. This shows a decay after 1989/90 down to a minimum in 2004-5, and a subsequent rise since then. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, we've moved on from the interesting physics question of whether or not cold fusion results are verifiable to whether or not the number of publications about cold fusion has increased significantly enough to still merit this field to be regarded as "pathological science". Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! IMHO the best thing now would be simply to remove the sentence:

The decline of publications in cold fusion has been described as a characteristic of pathological science[68][66] and of "failed information epidemics".[69]

Maybe someone did describe it thus once, on the basis of out of date statistics, but that fact is (given the circumstances) really not very interesting! Let's get rid of that rogue sentence; will you do it? --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't have a published secondary source of similar quality to the sources used for that sentence. Your statement that the situation had changed is based on a) your own research b) a self-published source. You have already been presented links to the relevant policy (WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, and I'll add WP:SELFPUBLISH for self-published sources) and you had the issues explained several times to you by several editors, in varying degrees of elaboration.

To go back to the content problem, I guess that a footnote could be crammed in the paragraph, if it can be inserted in a way that doesn't imply a disproving of the sourced conclusions. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's take an extreme case. Suppose a referenced paper contains a clear error (e.g. in arithmetic or algebra), rendering its conclusion invalid. Would it be necessary to find some published statement that there is an error to justify removal of the reference? Would it not be enough just to say as 'reason for edit', when deleting the bit of text citing the erroneous paper, 'eqn. n contains an error'? --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Talking about hypothetical situations is not productive, and hypothetical questions about the finest point of policies need to be made in the talk page of the relevant policy, on in the talk page of an interested editor. (Seriously, talk pages are for discussing changes to the articles. If we start arguing about the correctness of wikipedia policies, then, we'll get embroiled in a long-winded discussion that will cause no changes to the article. This page is for arguing cold fusion material, not for discussing if wikipedia works correctly.)

So, if you find a specific error in a cold fusion source then post it here. But I refuse to discuss here generic stuff about application of policies. Again, if you want a reply then you need to post in the talk page of the policy.

P.D.: As WP:PRIMARY currently stands, you should find a secondary source that says that the source is wrong. Doing otherwise would open the floodgates of cranks trying to invalidate sources in quantum mechanics, vaccination, homeopathy, etc. It would have to be an extremely blatant error to get away with removing the source. If you think otherwise, then feel free to go to the talk page of the policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me get these rules straight then. Are editors of this page not allowed to mention the primary, indeed the sole source of cold fusion data used in Ackermann's analysis of publication rates (referenced in the article in connection with pathological science)? That sounds to me absurd, if it is indeed the case. I should say however that I have no problem with putting the comment in a footnote instead if that works better for you. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY "(...) primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.". And then you have WP:SYNTH, by placing the primary data in certain places, using certain wordings, you are introducing your own conclusions about what the primary data means.

Yes, the data can be crammed in a footnote, but not in a way that makes original research conclusions, or that changes sourced conclusions. I'm going to give a a last try, and see if it some other editor can salvage it, or if it finally gets removed until a secondary paper is released. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Then possibly something that is directly quoted from the primary source could be acceptable. In that vein, here is the Abstract from the Physics Letters A article that I mentioned earlier in this talk-page section: "A twin system for hydrogen absorption experiments has been constructed to replicate the phenomenon of heat and 4He generation by D2 gas absorption in nano-sized Pd powders reported by Arata and Zhang, and to investigate the underlying physics. For Pd.Zr oxide nano-powders, anomalously large energies of hydrogen isotope absorption, 2.4±0.2 eV/D-atom and 1.8±0.4 eV/H-atom, as well as large loading ratio of D/Pd=1.1±0.0 and H/Pd=1.1±0.3, respectively, were observed in the phase of deuteride/hydride formation. The sample charged with D2 also showed significantly positive output energy in the second phase after the deuteride formation." I need to say that I slightly edited the above phrase "Pd.Zr", because when copying pasting the period came through as "dot operator". If there is an actual "dot operator" symbol that should be used in a Wikipedia page, then the period needs to be edited again. Next, the link reference I used to obtain that Abstract is: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109007877 Finally, I might also mention that while searching for that link, another page was found that might be a useful primary reference for the electrolysis CF experiments ( http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ) V (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Does everyone agree that none of the cited references asserts that decline in publications can be used as a diagnostic for pathological science? (if you don't agree, please specify precise details. As always, OR is ruled out in making your claim; it needs to be specifically stated in the cited reference). --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good catch there. According to Ball 2001, the 6th criteria in Langmuir's pathological science is "The ratio of supporters to crtics rises to about fifty-fifty and then declines to virtually zero.", not the number of publications. Bettencourt talks ratio of new authors per year, and also about the creation of a "dense" network of collaboration authors "nuclear cold fusion is a field that never found a solid experimental or conceptual proof of principle, and as such has never become a field

of collaboration and exchange. It shows α =1, manifesting the fact that it is mostly the product of small, disparate, and often incommensurate efforts. Thus densification (α>1) in the aftermath of new conceptual or technical practices seems to be a necessary, but possibly not a sufficient condition (see below) for a successful field to form and progress into the stage of normal science. " implying out of pathological science and into normal science. "All fields with conceptual or experimental frameworks grow and densify (i.e, show α>1), whereas fields in search of breakthroughs do not (α ~ 1), such as cold fusion. (...) Densification of collaboration graphs (increasing number of edges per node) for six fields. All fields with a robust set of shared concepts and techniques show a scaling exponent (α>1). Fields motivated by common goals (cold fusion) or driven primarily by societal needs (H5N1 influenza) do not show significant increase of the number of edges per node as the field grows. (...) The idea is that new fields nucleate around unifying concepts and techniques that allow them to both grow and exist as a community of shared concepts and practices. Because of these shared concepts and practices, collaboration becomes more widespread and leads to the emergence of a giant component in a graph of co-authorship." (this is the stuff that doesn't happen in cold fusion because it lacks those unifying concepts and techniques). Huizenga does talk about positive results. Close talks about positive replications. Simon only mentions supporters. Not sure if other authors relate number of publications with number of supporters in order to call Langmuir's 6th criteria. After all, the more supporters you have the more positive publications you can roll out.

I went again over some sources, and I rewrote that paragraph. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope you realize that some of what you quoted describes a chicken-and-egg situation. Because there are so many folks claiming that CF experiments are invalid, not enough folks are thinking about HOW they might be valid. (That is, if at least one experiment is undeniably replicable, then how does that anomalous energy get produced?) So, without a lot of thinkers tackling that problem, it logically follows that there is a shortage of concepts for the community of CF researchers to share, inviting others to join them at the task of winnowing out the concepts with more experiments. The preceding is a major reason why I've been waiting about two years for some non-primary sources to describe the pressurized-deuterium experiments. Because to the best of my knowledge, those are the experiments that are easily-enough replicable to start the "standard science" (definitely not "pathological"!) snowball growing, of concepts and experiments. V (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

wiki quality and update

This article is very biased, and assumes (even mocks) the viablity of cold-fusion. Recently there have been MANY significant advancments and experimental results, even quantum modeling of WHY the results are as they are.

This article is disappointedly neglecting all of that. --Namaste@^? 14:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The current article has many mentions of continuing research, including recent ACS-related activity, the 60 Minutes report, the Bushell comments, the Arata demonstration, the Storms book, the Biberian article, a picture about the Mosier-Boss work, and an entire paragraph on the Rossi work. What significant advancements do you think need to be included? Olorinish (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Without sources, the claim is unhelpful. If there have been recent advances in cold fusion technology, you have to demonstrate it through reliable sources. Given cold fusion is considered so improbable, and the field so disreputable, they should be very, very good ones. But ultimately it comes down to demonstrating, not asserting, the page is flawed, by citing reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for demonstration. It seems like this guy has quite a story. [3]. Even If all his testimony is "hearsay", his theoretical revelation are quite amazing. peer reviewed and all.--Namaste@^? 02:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, please provide those peer reviewed articles and the secondary sources discussing it in a positive manner. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Unlikelihood of hot fusion"

An anonymous editor thinks that the section title "Unlikelihood of fusion" should be changed to "Unlikelihood of hot fusion." This is not an improvement because the section discusses all fusion, not just hot fusion. If you think otherwise, please discuss it here. Olorinish (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's laughable. There is no "unlikelihood" of hot fusion, at all; just about every star in the sky, including the Sun, is proof that hot fusion is very likely. Now, if the text associated with that heading has something to do with the likelihood of human-controlled hot fusion, even that would be faulty; the Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor is proof that hot fusion is easy to do and control (and has been controlled by high-school students). Of course, that's not all that people want; we want controlled fusion that generates more energy than it takes to make happen, so that we end up with a useful source of energy -- and there, so far, even hot fusion has failed to meet the desire. Still, given the amounts of money still being invested in hot-fusion research, such as ITER or the National Ignition Facility, there is associated with that a firm conviction that our ability to achieve the goal is much more likely than unlikely. Which basically means that the section heading under discussion should focus on cold fusion, since lots of people have considered it to be unlikely-even-in-theory ever since the notion was publicized by Pons and Fleischmann. It remains possible that all those people could be wrong, since the experiments refuse to stop offering evidence that could be interpreted as involving fusion. Only time will tell. V (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the title change is meant to focus on the fact that hot fusion is unlikely to occur in a cold fusion cell. And in that respect I agree w/Olorinish. Kevin Baas^talk 14:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Might be worth retitling that section; if it's supposed to be an explanation, it kinda fails since it's more about why researchers didn't think cold fusion was happening. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What does the section want to tell us ? That the whole effect is unlikely, ie probably not possible ? Or that the effect is difficult to explain with the "normal" understanding of fusion processes ? I would like to mention that it is a fact that the environment plays a very big role in the fusion mechanism and that so far only the fusion mechanisms for plasma environments are thought to be well understood. The institute for solid-state nuclear physics in Berlin, Germany write on their webpage:So far, nuclear reactions have been regarded as isolated processes. Impact from the environment has been seen as negligible or as a trifling disturbance. However, several measurements show that the environmental influence can be significant on radioactive decays as well as on nuclear reactions. The investigations of the members of this institute yield that solid matter can modify the order, scale, and products of nuclear reactions in a massive manner.

So maybe the title of the section already is a bit POV and we should look for an alternative. "unlikelihood of hot fusion" is not the right one though.

Assumed the effect is real, is it fusion or some other nuclear mechanism. Just from the experiments that claim to have seen transmutations or tritium or helium one might say some kind of fusion was happening. Whatever it is, it is not identical with what is know about hot fusion. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

According to classical physics, there is no fusion in the sun. Our best and most accurate understanding of fusion comes from quantum physics, which by its very nature considers the entire environment. It is simply because the equations for isolated fusion events in a hot plasma are much simpler and the apparatuses have much fewer variables that it became the dominant avenue of investigation. Also noone ever presumed the effect of the environment in such a localized reaction could be all that significant. but the local quantum environment of solid state matter gives us marvelous things that are unheard of in a gas or plasma, such as ion band states, semiconduction, bloch waves, etc. and quantum physics tells you that environment does effect, for instance, radioactive decays. in the quantum view a process and its environment are inseparable - only together do they define a probability distribution of positions and momentums - and for the entire system at once. Kevin Baas^talk 11:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So is there merit in comparing known fusion processes in a hot plasma to anything that happens in another environment that is not a hot plasma. We could turn the meaning of the section around so that it will state: "obviously it is not comparable to fusion in a hot plasma". --POVbrigand (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah, some times some arguments are so logically flawed that i can't event tell what people are _trying_ to argue. "it can't be hot fusion." "well duh, we said that already. oh, you were trying to make an argument. i'll wait while you make it. oh, you did? sorry, i must've missed it." in any case i've never been all that satisfied with the section titles. they do not accurately reflect the content of the sections. Kevin Baas^talk 13:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

do you have a reference for your line: in the quantum view a process and its environment are inseparable - only together do they define a probability distribution of positions and momentums - and for the entire system at once.. maybe we could add that in connection with why hot fusion is not a valid benchmark for the reported effects. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

eh no, that was ad-lib. might be in a source somewhere but i don't recall ever reading anything that put that aspect that succinctly and explicitly. it's intrinisic in the equations. and where it not the case, metals wouldn't conduct. Kevin Baas^talk 01:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

explanation section rework

what is the goal for the Explanation section, what explanations should be discussed ?

• a) the proposed explanations from cold fusion scientists / supporters
• b) the proposed explanations why Fleischmann-Pons were presumed to be wrong.

I think a) and therefore suggest the paragraph below can be deleted or should be shifted way up:

Other research groups initially reporting that they had replicated the Fleischmann and Pons results later reported alternative explanations for their original positive results. A group at Georgia Tech found problems with their neutron detector, and Texas A&M discovered bad wiring in their thermometers.[114] These retractions, combined with negative results from some famous laboratories,[9] led most scientists to conclude that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion

The Unlikelihood of Fusion section is more or less what was once in 2009 [4] a discussion section, just with a new title.

If I look at the whole article, it isn't well structured, it's quite messy. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

flaws

I will go into great lenghts to show how this whole article is full of flaws.

in section conferences it says:

On 22–25 March 2009, the American Chemical Society meeting included a four-day symposium in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. Researchers working at the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons using a heavy water electrolysis set-up and a CR-39 detector,[13][75] a result previously published in Die Naturwissenschaften.[76] The authors claim that these neutrons are indicative of nuclear reactions;[77] without quantitative analysis of the number, energy, and timing of the neutrons and exclusion of other potential sources, this interpretation is unlikely to be accepted by the wider scientific community.[76][78]

my observation:

• 1) this should not be under conferences, this is not about conferences it is about a report of experiments.
• 2) spawar published much more before and after this single publication
• 3) the last line is referenced: one article from "new scientist" and one from the "houston chronicle".
• 3.1) The new scientists article has nothing to support the last line.
• 3.2) The houston chronicle contains a quotation from some physicist saying:

But that does not mean the results indicate cold fusion, said Paul Padley, a physicist at Rice University who reviewed Mosier-Boss’ published work. “Fusion could produce the effect they see, but there’s no plausible explanation of how fusion could occur in these conditions,” Padley said. “The whole point of fusion is, you’re bringing things of like charge together. As we all know, like things repel, and you have to overcome that repulsion somehow.” The problem with Mosier-Boss’ work, he said, is that it fails to provide a theoretical rationale to explain how fusion could occur at room temperatures. And in its analysis, the research paper fails to exclude other sources for the production of neutrons. “Nobody in the physics community would believe a discovery without such a quantitative analysis,” he said.

So one single physicist is quoted complaining about that the authors did not provide a theory explaining how the coulomb barrier can be overcome to support the observations.

His complaint is flawed:

• 1) There is no necessity to provide a theory when reporting results from experiments. Experimental physicists are not theoretical physicists.
• 2) The coulomb barrier issue is surely an issue in hot plasma fusion. In a metal lattice the coulomb barrier might be overcome somehow or not play a big role, we don't know, there is no proof one way or the other.
• 3) The statement is outdated, it does not take into account subsequent publications by Spawar scientists.

my proposal:

• 1) the paragraph should move to another place
• 2) the last line without quantitative analysis of the number, energy, and timing of the neutrons and exclusion of other potential sources, this interpretation is unlikely to be accepted by the wider scientific community. should be deleted.

I found this kind of flaws throughout the whole article, it is a pretty bad piece. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

here, New Scientist article explaining that most scientists won't believe Mossier-Boss' experiments at all. It says that some agencies seemed to be more open to funding these experiments, no idea if the increase of funding ever happened. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree somewhat with POVbrigand. Paul Padley's (and others'!) failures of imagination is no excuse for ignoring actual evidence. And while POVbrigand is concentrating on the electrolysis-cell experiments, which have had a bad reputation regarding reliably replicable results, Arata's (and others') deuterium-gas compression experiments have, so far as I know, very reliably produced anomalous energy. Which needs to be explained, whether it is fusion or not. (Anyone for "total conversion of mass into energy"? --I didn't think so; Cold Fusion is MUCH more likely than that!) V (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)