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) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What most mainstream scientists believe

This article in physorg states:

• Is this possible? Researchers from Stanford and Purdue University believe it is. But their explanation of how it happens opens the door to yet another mystery.
• "It's an effect that no one yet understands," agreed Sturrock. "Theorists are starting to say, 'What's going on?' But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists..."
• "...It would have to be something we don't know about...and that would be even more remarkable"
• But there's one rather large question left unanswered.
• "Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe ..."

Read that article and then explain what you think "most mainstream scientists believe" about the topic of the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an internet forum for discussion of the topic, talk pages are for discussing changes to the articles.... That article is not even about cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I know. First of all thanks for taking the time to read it. I think it is relevant to our cold fusion WP-article. Not from a technical point of view, but from an article / reporting point of view. What strikes me is the resemblance of this article with some cold fusion articles. The only thing that is missing is an introduction stating "in 1989 Fleischmann-Pons ..." and a closing sentence stating "most scientists don't believe it". I don't want to discuss this article, because it has nothing to do with cold fusion (or has it?). I offer it as an example how an unproven, theoretically not possible, experimental finding can get reported in a perfect NPOV way as long as it doesn't have the stigma of being controversial stuck to it. All the journalists that write a piece on CF findings attach the "most scientists ..." line BECAUSE it is cold fusion. I have said before that the "most scientists ..." is a weak line, it's a standard "cover my ass" disclaimer. And in our WP-article that line gets a prominent well defended role to prove how cold fusion is controversial and not true BECAUSE most scientists don't believe it. To understand why most authors add the line "most scientists don't believe it" line to a CF-article one should ask the question: why DIDN'T the author attach the "most scientists don't believe it" line to the linked article. There is nothing I can (or should) do about this situation, because that is how WP works and those WP-rules are generally right and useful. I just want to raise awareness by offering the linked article as comparison. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

your link doesn't point to the article. you need to find a permalink for it. Kevin Baas^talk 14:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.physorg.com/news201795438.html is the permalink --POVbrigand (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

so solar flares, i thought you were refering to a c.f. related article. my bad. Kevin Baas^talk 17:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

i see the similiarities to cold fusion. this phenomena would be a relationship that we haven't investigated. to my knowledge nobody has ever examined second-order (e.g. "enzyme"-like) relationships in particle or quantum physics. i don't think we have anywhere the technology to investigate something like that, so it would make sense that any knowledge of that would come to us through astrophysical observations; the universe can afford much more expensive scientific equipment and do experiments on scales that would never make it through congressional review. Kevin Baas^talk 17:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence on what most scientists think about cold fusion, it's all hearsay:" [*CORRECTION 29/05/08: It has been brought to my attention that part of this last sentence appears to be unsubstantiated. After searching through past articles I have to admit that, despite it being written frequently, I can find no factual basis that “most scientists” think cold fusion is bad science (although public scepticism is evidently rife). However, there have been surveys to suggest that scientific opinion is more likely divided. According to a 2004 report by the DOE, which you can read here, ten out of 18 scientists thought that the hitherto results of cold-fusion experiments warranted further investigation.] - John Cartwright - Physics world [1] --84.56.82.178 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Gary Taubes

Hi Enric, you rely heavily on Taubes for providing references. Are you aware that he might have painted a tainted picture in his publications ? See for instance Bockris' note and letters to Taubes for the other side of the story. I think his 2007 book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is not an indication that Taubes has detailed knowledge of calorimetry of cold fusion :-)

See also the wired article (Issue 6.11 Nov 1998) What If Cold Fusion Is Real?. And please note that Bockris was cleared from charges against him

My perception of Taubes' credibility as journalist convinces me to better not by his books on how to lose weight.

And my message also goes out to User:Olorinish for both of you edited the WP-article on Taubes' book without mentioning these rebuttals. Is it POV or ignorance ? --POVbrigand (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

About the author, please read Gary Taubes carefully.

About the book, Bad science had glowing reviews, for example the review in Science magazine. There were other reviews in Physics Today [2] and in Nature[3], but they are behind paywalls and I'm not paying $$$ to read a book review. Taube's book is cited as one of the significant books about cold fusion by Bart Simon in Undead Science and by Gyerin in Cultural boundaries of science --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Science praised the book ? How surprising knowing that Science had previously published Taubes' false allegations of fraud of Bockris' work. You're putting your money too much on Taubes' credibility. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

P.D.: Hum, the point is that the allegations destroyed the credibility of his replication, not that he had actually committed fraud or not. I'll tweak that now. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

P.D.: Anyways, I always try to source stuff from more than one source. Taubes, Close and Huizenga are the most complete books and are mentioned by all books that mention lists of CF books. Other books get mentioned along them, but they are different books every time. I will go back to those books when I am finished with these three ones. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, Gary Taubes is not a scientists, he is a science writer. He falsely accused Bockris of fraud, got a juicy piece published in Science and wrote a book about it. In our article the book is currently quoted over 20 times ! And only today we added the (hidden) comment that Taubes got it all wrong. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I started the wikipedia article on the book "Bad Science" by Taubes and linked this article to it because it describes the general cold fusion field; the Bockris episode is only a small part of that book. I am aware of the rebuttals and the result of the university investigation. If I had been emphasizing the Bockris episode I would have mentioned them, but since I wasn't I didn't think it was important enough to describe them. On the topic of whether Taubes got it wrong, I haven't noticed any recent reports of tritium in cold fusion experiments. Can anybody identify any? Olorinish (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the book, so I can't tell how small the Bockris part is. What I do know is that the book was based on the Science article. On the topic whether Taubes got it wrong, it's quite simple and we don't need recent tritium reports for that. Taubes accused Bockris of spiking tritium in his results, Bockris was cleared of the charges, thus Taubes got it wrong. Does emphasizing some parts but purposefully not emphasizing others contribute to POV ? --POVbrigand (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(this comittee was in 1994 for a different allegation. Cold fusion had a review panel in 1990, it was not a committee and they explicitly said that it was not a fraud investigation. In my earlier edit I was writing from memory, and, apparently, I was thinking of Rusi_Taleyarkhan when I wrote "fraud investigation". My mistake.)

The book is in chronological order, meaning that Bockris only appears in the last half of the book. Discounting the footnotes and index there are about 440 pages of hard text, and less than 20 pages dedicated to Bockris' role. What makes you think that the book was based on the Science article? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I only read the Wired 6.11 article it paints negative picture on Taubes:

"We thought Taubes was genuine at first," Bockris told me recently, speaking in a clipped, precise British accent that he acquired before he moved to the United States in 1953. "We exposed our lab books to him, and told him our results. But then he said to Packham, my grad student, 'I've turned off the tape, now you can tell me - it's a fraud, isn't it? If you confess to me now, I won't be hard on you, you'll be able to pursue your career.'"

(Taubes has been shown Bockris's statement. He prefers not to comment.)

According to Bockris, "A postdoctoral student named Kainthla, and a technician named Velev, both detected tritium and heat after we took Packham off the work because of the controversy. Since then, numerous people have obtained comparable results. In 1994, I counted 140 papers reporting tritium in low-temperature fusion experiments. One of them was by Fritz Will, the president of The Electrochemical Society, who has an impeccable reputation."

Still, Taubes's report in the June 1990 Science magazine clearly suggested that Packham might have added tritium to fake his results. This reassured many people that cold fusion had been bogus all along. Packham received his PhD, but only on condition that all references to cold fusion be removed from the body of his thesis. Today he works for NASA, developing astronaut life-support systems. "I don't know why Gary Taubes wrote what he did," he says. "Certainly I did not add any tritium in my experiment."

John Bockris sighs as he remembers the impact on his own career. He was investigated by his university, which found no evidence of incompetence or fraud. He was investigated again in 1992, and exonerated again; but his ordeal still wasn't over. As he recalls: "The people in the chemistry department created their own ad hoc committee for the investigation of professor Bockris. For 11 months I was under investigation by them, without ever knowing what the investigation was." He had to appeal to the American Association of University Professors before the harassment stopped.

@Olorinish, regarding your question of tritium. The Wired article mentions Fritz Will, the president of The Electrochemical Society, who has an impeccable reputation. Will published several peer reviewed papers on tritium see this publication and the references mentioned there.

@ Enric, regarding what makes me think the book was based on the article. In Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion it states "The book was based on the initial account of the controversy that Taubes wrote for Science." You were editing that article !?

@ Enric, regarding 1994 investigation. I thought it was connected to Taubes' allegations. I will check. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked. It is only somehow connected, but indeed a different allegation. I found this gem: Aggie Alchemy by Brian Wallstin in the Houston Press (April 7th, 1994) tells the whole story. So Bockris was "under attack" twice (or more?) for his work on cold fusion and for all cases the allegations were proven false. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note a) wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and you should take them with a grain of salt, you need to read the sources to verify their content before you can believe it b) just because I added some stuff to an article it doesn't mean that I checked 100% of its content for full accuracy c) that sentence is probably based on the Am. J Phys. review [4], which costs $30 to read d) the book obviously doesn't revolve around Bockris and it's the first time I hear this, I suspect that some meaning from from the review was "lost in translation" when Pncap wrote that sentence. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

a) I am already aware of that. b) I accept. c)d) I think I also read somewhere regarding the Science article something like: "that Taubes later wrote a book about it", so that confirmed what was in the WP-article for me. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Taubes writes: "As Bigeleisen told Science, the absence of neutrons suggested to him that the tritium had not been created in the cell but had entered through some type of contamination." and "He had four data points," says Bigeleisen, "to which they drew this hysteresis curve. I said, 'Well, your data do not uniquely define that curve. I could equally well draw the following kind of graph through your data--go flat across at zero, until a point around 6 hours, go straight up with a step function and go flat across again.' At that point Kevin Wolf said, 'Jake, are you implying that someone spiked that sample?' And I said, 'Kevin, you said that. I would never say such a thing.'". Bigeleisen, who also served on the DOE 1989 panel, cannot accept tritium creation, because no neutrons were observed. So he (as we have seen many times) also rejects measurement results because of perceived theoretical impossibilities and searches for other explanations, even if it means fraud allegations. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer is Cold Fusion?

This article says "In January 2011 researchers from the University of Bologna, Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi, claimed to have successfully demonstrated commercially viable cold fusion. The apparatus, built by themselves, is called an Energy Catalyzer."

However, Energy Catalyzer says "Although the patent cites previous works on cold fusion, one statement by Rossi asserted that it is not cold fusion, but rather LENR, Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction."

Although this may seem to be splitting hairs, ideally it would be good if the articles were made more consistent in this respect. If Rossi actually says it's not cold fusion, then it seems this article shouldn't say that they "claimed to have successfully demonstrated commercially viable cold fusion". 86.183.129.83 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Very good point. What is Cold Fusion ?

Depending on who you ask, you might get very different answers:

* The "greater" cold fusion including Pyroelectric fusion, muon catalyzed fusion, bubble fusion (sonofusion)

* Any table top - generally cold - fusion experiment

* The field that opponents label pathological science

* The field that most scientists don't believe in

* The Fleischmann-Pons experiments

* The actual nuclear process of D-D fusion at table top temperatures

* Any nuclear process - not necessarily fusion but maybe beta decay or neutron capture - at table top temperatures

* The sociological phenomenon

* The claimed functioning energy generating apparatuses announced by several entrepreneurs over many years

--POVbrigand (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiley publication

About this addition:

In the "Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia" (August 2011) from publishing company Wiley, LENR is presented along with conventional nuclear fission and fusion technologies.

This book is authored by Steven Krivit, the webmaster of CF website www.newenergytimes.com. He is in charge of writing that book since last year or so, and he has included a chapter on CF. Extrapolating that "It is a clear indication that perception of LENR is changing" seems to be original research (OR).

The dangers of OR can be seen when you read the first paragraphs of the actual chapter [5], which talk about the perception of CF. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I added only the fact:

In the "Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia" (August 2011) from publishing company Wiley, LENR is presented along with conventional nuclear fission and fusion technologies.

How is my comment original research, how ?

It is an observation that in an book titled "Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia" published by a global publishing company (that "specializing in academic publishing and markets its products to professionals and consumers, students and instructors in higher education, and researchers and practitioners in scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly fields.") all current forms of nuclear energy technologies are presented alongside the "pathological science" field on LENR. And you ask me why that is noteworthy ?

Here is the Table of contents(PDF) and here is the index(PDF)

Steve Krivit is a science writer similar to Gary Taubes.

I call for a neutral referee to judge whether my edit is WP:OR. Enric , please arrange that.

Enric and Olorinish combined you violated the WP:3RR !

--POVbrigand (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

POVbrigand, in Wikipedia we are allowed hardly any leeway in interpreting source material. Just about everything has to be traceable to a previously published source. So, you can mention that CF stuff is included in that Wiley book, but you can't interpret that inclusion. Now, if some other publication interprets that inclusion the way you did, then you could copy that to Wikipedia, using that other publication as a reference. OK? V (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no interpretation is the edit I made:

In the "Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia" (August 2011) from publishing company Wiley, LENR is presented along with conventional nuclear fission and fusion technologies.

I did not edit "It is a clear indication that perception of LENR is changing" into the article, that was just a comment. That would have been WP:OR, I fully agree, but I did not edit that. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is asserting that the perception of CF by mainstream has improved. You even say it yourself in one of the edit summaries. You need a source that actually says that the perception has changed. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that is your interpretation, because I wrote that in the edit summary. You should not judge my edit on what I write in the edit summary. Maybe it is your interpretation, because Krivit is an editor for the book. Look, we have been discussing a lot on how the mainstream scientists perceive cold fusion. We noticed that we do not have surveys that clearly show one way or the other and that "most scientists" is a weasel word. In the introduction we clearly state in that cold fusion is pathological science and that most scientists ignore it. Why are you so paranoid that this little fact that a book was published that talks about LENR together with regular fission and fusion will have a massive impact of the article ? Maybe the publishers just thought it is hilarious that an obviously misguided science writer adds a few chapters about his crackpot theory in an otherwise completely sane encyclopedia. Maybe the publishers thought it would be just as funny as the cold fusion sessions on the ACS and APS "we give them a chance to say there stuff, so it makes them happy".

My edit is not WP:OR nor WP:POV. It is a simple fact that this book was published. I did not insinuate anything with my edit. If you perceive an assertion because of this fact then that is your POV. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's a simple fact with no further significance, then it's just cruft and doesn't belong in the article. If it has significance, then you should show a source that says so. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about cruft, therefore I found your comment a bit disrespectful.--POVbrigand (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To me that sounds like circular reasoning and a carte blanche to refuse any fact from being edited into the article. The WP rules were not meant for that. We must have a WP:third opinion on this. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Enric, I did not examine the actual article edits before writing my previous post above. If POVbrigand didn't edit the article to include an interpretation of what the edited text meant, then you have no business using his description of the edit against the edit. Now, if the LOCATION of the edit was inappropriate (perhaps it belongs in a different place in the article), that could be a valid reason to take it out. But you are saying things to the effect that there is no place in the article for the relevant fact that a Major Reliable Source Book Publisher has indeed very recently published a book that includes CF stuff alongside hot-fusion stuff. (I might interpret that as meaning that POVbrigand's edit belongs at the tail end of a section of the article devoted to the history of the overall controversy, but what if there is no such section?) I formally ask you to explain your reasoning! (And, by the way, isn't Krivit on record as saying he thinks something OTHER than fusion is happening in those experiments? IS he especially biased in favor of CF-involving-fusion? But even if not, he is stuck with the label "cold fusion" because that's what everyone on both sides of the controversy calls this category of experimentation!) V (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In order to insert an idea into the article you don't need to explicitly mention it in the text, you can simply add unwarranted sources at certain points in the article in order to imply stuff. Which was exactly what POVbrigand was doing.

The burden of proof is in the editor adding information, the only reason provided by POVbrigand was that "the perception of CF by mainstream has improved", and the source doesn't support it.

There are plenty of books saying negative things about CF that I have not included in neither the text or the bibliography, because they weren't needed to explain the field and its history. Listing positive sources as if they prove wider acceptance is original research and it gives an unrealistic view of the field. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the burden of proof is upon the editor. However, you seem to be confusing "proof that the Source supports what an edit actually states" and "proof that the Source supports the reason for including the edit. They are two different things, and I am not aware of any Rule in Wikipedia that requires the second sort of proof! V (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, in light of the WP:BB policy, I'd say there cannot be any requirement for that second sort of proof! V (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Enric, can you point me to the WP rule that explains "In order to insert an idea into the article you don't need to explicitly mention it in the text, you can simply add unwarranted sources at certain points in the article in order to imply stuff.". I read some rules about adding facts and primary source and secondary source, but I found nothing that compares to your circular reasoning. Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting: [6] CBSnews TV "Online With Terry Jeffrey: Editor of Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia Discusses Japan Events". talks to Dr. Jay Lehr (the series editor). I do not know if LENR also gets mentioned. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC) misleading title, it has nothing to do with the book. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason for including the text was "It is a clear indication that perception of LENR is changing. You can use less weight if you like." [7], but this is his original research, unsupported by the Wiley book and unsupported by any secondary source. That this is done by implication instead of explicitly doesn't make it less wrong. That section is not an exhaustive listing of sources, and POVbrigand still has to state a reason for citing Wiley's book, apart from pushing that view.

If POVbrigand wants to use that book as a significant indication of a new perception of the field, then he needs to provide a source that supports that it is indeed a significant indication. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What you think of my edit comment is completely irrelevant. The edit comment itself is completely irrelevant. The edit as such was not WP:OR. What is the WP-rule ? Give me a rule ! You know one that goes [[WP:xxx]]. Not one you had to make up yourself to save the day. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see secondary sources, wp:SYNTH and wp:UNDUE. The characterization "is presented along with" would need a secondary source to not be wp:UNDUE and thus wp:SYNTH. Is this a PITA? Yes. Is it necessary? Also yes. It's the only way we know to square "anyone can edit" with "verifiable". LeadSongDog come howl! 20:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LeadSongDog, maybe I am beginning to see the light. If I just write: "LENR is mentioned in the the Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia" or "5 chapters in the Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia are about LENR" would your reservations still count ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If anything, I would simply say that Krivit & Lehr have entitled Part VI of their book "Low Enery Nuclear Reactions". But it is hardly a revelation that Krivit edits on the topic, so one wonders just why or how one more publication brings additional credence or is more worthy of note. Certainly the tone of the sample (chapter 1) does not inspire me with great confidence in the rest of the book. Are there any independent reviewers that tell us the book is reliable? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

From reading Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not i get this: "If there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim." and "It's part of a policy: no original research. If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH. The section points out that synthesis can and often does constitute original research. It does not follow that all synthesis constitutes original research." (is there a contradiction in that last line. I am a bit confused now)

So wp:synth cannot follow out of wp:undue. It can only be wp:synth if it is wp:or, which the edit is not. So only wp:undue itself stays as a usable rule for this case. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

LENR vs cold fusion

In section "Ongoing scientific work", after the line "...one of the reasons being to avoid the negative connotations associated with the original name.[64][66]", I want to add something like this line: "However some in the field don't regard it as just an alternative naming of the same field, but make a clear distinction between cold fusion and low energy nuclear reactions to such extend that they believe the reported effects cannot be explained by cold fusion but can be explained with lenr"

Any suggestions ? Help me with the references ? --POVbrigand (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

More like, "(...) they believe the reported effects cannot be explained by nuclear fusion but can be explained other types of nuclear reactions happening at lower energies." Simon 2002 might have covered this. Maaaybe Labinger 2005. There should be a mainstream magazine article explaining this. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

News articles are not always a reliable source

Randy, Alfred (2009-03-23), "March 23, 1989: Cold Fusion Gets Cold Shoulder", Wired.

What is that news article telling us ? Nothing new ! It is a 20 years "anniversary" piece. It is fully editorial and it is definitely not reporting anything new ! It is just cruft.

Wikipedia:NEWSORG#News_organizations "News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact"

Furthermore, because the media themselves plays an important role in cold fusion history, it is the editors responsibility to extra carefully review if the news article is reliable and adds anything new to the article. A mere repetition of old stuff at newer date does not make it new facts, but that is what is implied in our article again and again.

There is a strong indication that the editing of this article is biased towards being very, very careful on excepting supporting CF facts and being totally uncritical with adding anything that somehow advances the anti CF notion.

for clarity: I am not complaning that the article is too biased. I am not worried about being careful when adding CF supporting facts, but I am worried about the almost carte blanche to propagate the other side.

--POVbrigand (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Laser experiments

A cold fusion experiment usually includes:

• a metal, such as palladium or nickel, in bulk, thin films or powder;
• deuterium and/or hydrogen, in the form of water, gas or plasma; and
• an excitation in the form of electricity, magnetism, temperature, pressure, laser beam(s), or of acoustic waves.[105]

In other experiments where laser beams or deuteron beams were used as excitation the reaction rates of D-D fusion were shown to increase. [127] In a paper from similar experiments the researchers conclude that their "findings also provide a first independent support for the claim in cold fusion ..." [128]

There didn't seem to be a problem with including these experiments in earlier versions: "Supporters of cold fusion point, for example, to astrophysics experiments where bombarding metals with multi-keV deuteron beams greatly increases reaction rates via electron screening.[139]"

But I guess that wording matched your POV so perfectly that you didn't notice what it was about. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil; I am attempting to bring this article closer to NPOV, not my POV. I don't like being accused of damaging wikipedia.

As I hinted in my edit summary, the objection I have to these sentences is the amount of weight they give to experiments which are not attempting to produce cold fusion. However, it is a close call. Maybe we can figure out a single sentence which can point to both 127 and 128. Olorinish (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Olorinish, if my guess in the last line of my comment above is wrong then let us discuss, I am civil. I am currently thinking very much about the WEIGHT policy and how it is used here for cold fusion. The article cold fusion is about a controversial topic. In light of the article the proponents of cold fusion are not a tiny minority they are a signification minority. The opinion of this significant minority as opposed to the opinion of "most scientists" is the sole reason why this article exists. If we apply the WEIGHT policy again and again in order to delete content ([8] [9] [10]) it will eventually very effectively mute the signification minority. You don't correct weight by deleting content, you correct weight by adding the opposite view. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that even after my recent minor deletions, the majority of the article text is about activities of cold fusion supporters, even though they are a small minority of working scientists. A very large amount of deletion would be required to mute that minority in this article. To keep the length of the article short enough that it is easy to read, we should emphasize the main points of the different sides, and not load the article up with minor topics, such as the high energy experiments. If, in the future, information gained in those experiments is described as guiding cold fusion experiments toward success, then they would be more relevant for this article. If they don't, that is an indication that maybe they don't belong in the wikipedia article. Keep in mind also that wikipedia is intended as an encylopedia for general users; it is not intended as a collection of information to help the progress of people working in a certain field. Olorinish (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is relevant text from NPOV [11]:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

we discussed the laser experiments before [12]. I AGF, but we are a bit dragging the discussion. If the scientists say it is relevant to cold fusion, if they say it is "the first independent support", then you cannot judge otherwise. Trying to find reasons like "maybe they made a mistake" or "that's not relevant for cold fusion" or "that's not cold fusion" or "that's adding WEIGHT" or "that's a minor topic" is not ok. I agree that the article should not become a list or collection of the multitude of experiments. I agree that some of your recent deletions (for WEIGHT) were minor, but if they are minor how come they were too much WEIGHT to keep :-) ? --POVbrigand (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are deleting for WP:WEIGHT you should not rephrase that to WP:SIZE when being held accountable for your deletion. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia policy above, we as editors are instructed to ensure articles do not give undue weight to any aspects of a subject. Therefore we are required to judge what is relevant and what is not. We are also warned to guard against disproportionate discussion of isolated events, criticisms, and news reports. I am simply saying that the high energy experiments are isolated and should not be given much weight in an article about cold fusion. Olorinish (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You have a high confidence on your ability to judge. Why do you believe they are isolated and not an integral part of research in the field of LENR ? --POVbrigand (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

They seem different from most cold fusion reports, and I can't think of anyone commenting on the importance of those articles or continuing that research. Does anyone know of any? Olorinish (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am curious, what do other people think? Olorinish (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Haarv errors, etc.

I noticed the following harv errors in this article -- shortened footnotes with the broken links which should point to a full citation:

• Goodstein 2004
• Park 2000
• Close 1993
• Storms 1993

(all fixed except Storms 1993, because I can't find the relevant paper. The year is probably wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

Also, the following entries in the bibliography section don't have any shortened footnotes pointing to them; perhaps these should be in a Further reading section:

• Anderson, Mark (August 2007),
• Bockris, John (2000)
• Brooks, Michael (2008)
• Britz, Dieter (2008)
• Cartwright, Jon (2009-03-23)
• Charles, Dan (1992)
• Fleischmann, Martin; Pons, Stanley (1992)
• Fleischmann, Martin (2003)
• Iwamura, Yasuhiro; Sakano, Mitsuru; Itoh, Takehiko (2002)
• Kozima, Hideo (2006)
• Krivit, Steven B. (10 April 2008)
• Lewenstein, Bruce V. (1992)
• McKubre, M.C.H; Crouch-baker, S.; Rocha-filho, R.C.; Smedley, S.I.; Tanzella, F.L.; Passell, T.O.; Santucci, J. (1994),
• Park, Robert L (2000) -- that one seems to match one of the harv errors
• Seife, Charles (10 December 2004)
• Shkedi, Zvi (1996-10-26)
• Szpak, S.; Mossier-Boss, P.A. (1996)
• Storms, Edmund (2006)
• Storms, Edmund (October 2010)

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

NASA research deleted with WP:WEIGHT

An approved quotation of Dennis Bushnell from evworld was reverted for WEIGHT.[13]

NASA's research in 1996 verifiable by a Technical Memorandum was deleted for WEIGHT.[14]

The edit comments:

"This edit gives far too much weight to the opinion of one person who has little expertise in nuclear reactions." (emphasis mine)

"This sentence gives too much weight to a minor event, an internal NASA report that is 15 years old."

I object to these reverts: NASA has done research evident by a technical memorandum and a chief scientist states in an interview that it is "THE most interesting and promising..."

The mere fact that NASA states something positive does not mean it can be "censored" (for whatever convenient reason). Had NASA concluded that "we did some tests, but they didn't work so we think it is not worth it" That would surely have been used extensively to put WEIGHT to the notion that "it doesn't work".

I still don't understand where the hordes of "most scientists" are hiding, but certainly not at NASA, or MIT, or SPAWAR, or numerous other research centers.

I am really sorry for the skeptics that "most scientists" have not produced recent evidence that "it doesn't work" and that scientists at renown research center provide evidence that it does. Why can't they stop with producing evidence, it makes the work for skeptical WP-editor so hard.

The opinion that we get force fed is that the "most scientists" have their fingers in their ears while shouting "we're not listening, we're not listening". Based on 18+ year old books from John R. Huizenga, Frank Close and Gary Taubes.

Let's look at experimental evidence from reliable sources which is perfectly verifiable and then discuss were the WEIGHT currently is in this article ! --POVbrigand (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

NASA has not endorsed cold fusion. Those are all statements and reports made by individual scientists who work at NASA. I don't see secondary sources saying that they have had a significant effect. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What policy are you refering to ? --POVbrigand (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It could be noted that there is another NASA memorandum (its link was archived perhaps a year or even longer ago) which describes the equivalent of a pressurized-deuterium-gas experiment (if I recall correctly, the date on that memorandum was even before Arata began making claims about this variety of CF experiment). AND that experiment ALSO detected excess heat production. If I recall right, the reason that memorandum was rejected was because NASA memorandums don't qualify as a "reliable source" publication. Tsk, tsk. As if that somehow made the data invalid! V (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)