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.

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

objections

Enric Naval didn't agree with any of my contributions, the edit summary reads: "undo all the POV pushing by 84.xxx still considered pathological, still pursued only by small groups, Jones' experiment is was not "similar", *they* said that it could only be explained by nuclear reactions"

He also warned me on my talk page.[1] It seems a bit premature but he did disagree with all of them so I suppose it was appropriate from his perspective. I would much rather just debate the suggested changes. I did try to make sepperate changes in order to make it easier to revert those that require more discussion.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I welcome your enthusiasm, but I also think that some of your changes are a bit too pushy. Take it a bit slower and stay within the consensus.

Thank you for taking the time to present each change here so we can comment them one by one.

Why don't you get an account ? POVbrigand (talk)

Should we name the several entrepreneurs or just say they exist

[2] "Several entrepreneurs have claimed in the past that a working cold fusion energy generator is near to commercialization, yet so far no working machine is available on the market."

I added the "who" part. I claim this is perfectly appropriate because the text only talks about the E-Cat. Reverting this requires a better excuse than to call it POV pushing.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What we write should be verifiable. It is not a must to write down each verification. Surely you won't argue that several entrepreneurs have indeed claimed that they had a working machine. Adding them into the article (maybe somewhere else) is something that we can discuss. POVbrigand (talk)

The tag is arguibly correct. Tags like {{who}} and {{clarify}} are just requests to clarify confusing stuff. Physics world (free registration) explains the case of Petterson cells. Park explains it too in Voodoo Science. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues section violates scope

[3] I changed the section title from:

"issues"

into:

"Issues with the Pons and Fleischmann experiment"

While not a very elegant solution it appeared to me that all those sections apply to the Pons and Fleischman experiment. This is not the whole scope of the article.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this (even if not very elegant) will solve some of the problems of discussing old and new stuff. It adds clarity. POVbrigand (talk)

The issues apply to the whole field, not just the first experiment: why the fusion shouldn't be happening in the lattice, what byproducts should be observed according to theory, etc.

I will amend that somewhat. Because one of the issues is whether or not any CF experiment can actually produce so much anomalous energy that it cannot be explained without invoking a nuclear reaction. If that issue happens to one day get resolved positively --as far as I can tell, it is the most important issue that CF researchers should be focusing on-- then the theorists can argue the other issues regarding overcoming nuclear Coulomb repulsion, reaction pathways, and byproducts. V (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose we go through the Issues section and explicitly state when the issues were raised and when the "issues" were debunked. I don't know how, but we need to add clarity for the casual WP-reader. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

DOE decided to leave research to undefined small group

[4] This should probably have been split over more divs.

I reduce this:

"In 1989, the majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive enough to start a special program, but was "sympathetic toward modest support" for experiments "within the present funding system." A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first."

Down to this:

"In 1989, and in 2004, the US Department of Energy (DOE) considered a special cold fusion program."

This is all they did. They considered researching it. It isn't even note worthy to be honest. I'm sure you wonder why, let me explain: The US DOE has an enormous budget. Cold fusion was not even significant enough to build one cell. To then jump to the conclusion they investigated the topic is nonsense.

DOE dismissal is non significant. While the sources may not be used many researchers attempted to contact the DOE in a fruitless effort to inform them. I will try find good sources but I think my motivation is clear? While I understand it might appear that way, it has nothing to do with my POV, I'm only interested in accuracy. Feel free to add 100 skeptics who actually tried to build a cell and transcribe exactly what they concluded. It wouldn't bother me at all. No actual work was done by the DOE. They chose not to.84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Symantics: "they considered" might be read as "they proposed". I don't support your change here. POVbrigand (talk)

removing the negative parts of the DOE review. Then you added the work of a group of scientists that happen to work in SPAWAR, as if it had been promoted by SPAWAR. And implying that the SPAWAR experiment revokes the DOE conclusions (and using a press release a go against the DOE report). And again trying to imply that the new experiments are wholly unrelated to F&P's experiment. I think that people in the talk page are asking you for sources for that change. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In the same edit I changed this: "A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion" into this "Researchers continue to investigate cold fusion."

We have no credible source for "small". What does small mean in this context anyway? Illustration: http://www.iccf11.org/index2.htm they might look small on your monitor, they are big names in science and they are many. You want to source "small" on this:[5] and this:[6] It looks to me like the sources only confirm there is actual research. The word "small" isn't on any of the pages. Small also suggests there is some appropriate size for such research effort? If the effect is that small we shouldn't expect large numbers of investigations? Are you suggesting there is a big effect?

It should be obvious removing it was not based on my POV. I actually bothered to open all those pages. What is actually going on is that the negative side of the argument has no sources (the small part) while the positive side (the research exists) is completely stuffed with them. If there is any unjust POV that would be it. I removed the unsourced part. If this means cold fusion now looks like something real then that would be something you will have to get used to. I'm very obviously just trying to write things as they are reported. No harm was done.

I do understand it might look that way. Just so that you know ;) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The "ongoing scientific work" section is hopelessly underdeveloped. But the community is small and we should state that. POVbrigand (talk)

Implying that it continues to be researched by a non-small group, against sources. [sources] don't say the word "small", because "a small community" is an attempt at summarizing them. It's not a word-by-word copy of one of the sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

heat after death

[7] here I change this:

"By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,<ref name="Browne_1989" /><ref name="most scientists">{{harvnb|Taubes|1993|pp=262, 265–266, 269–270, 273, 285, 289, 293, 313, 326, 340–344, 364, 366, 404–406}}, {{harvnb|Goodstein|1994}}, {{harvnb|Van Noorden|2007}}, {{harvnb|Kean|2010}}</ref> and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as [[pathological science]].<ref name="nytdoe">"

into this:

"By late 1989, many scientists considered cold fusion research [[pathological science]].<ref name="Browne_1989" /><ref name="most scientists">{{harvnb|Taubes|1993|pp=262, 265–266, 269–270, 273, 285, 289, 293, 313, 326, 340–344, 364, 366, 404–406}}, {{harvnb|Goodstein|1994}}, {{harvnb|Van Noorden|2007}}, {{harvnb|Kean|2010}}</ref><ref name="nytdoe">"

I wouldn't know why but if those should really be 2 separate statements the pathology should come before death. Maybe it is a bad idea to describe a controversial topic with a controversial term without attribution? May 3, 1989 Dr. Douglas R. O. Morrison said it was an example of pathological science[8]. The "subsequently" chronology doesn't work. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, after late 1989 cold fusion was considered dead, what happened after that until today was perceived as "dragging on" pathological science. I like the original way better. POVbrigand (talk)

Implying that CF was only considered pathological science by late 1989, against the sources in the paragraph (which are more recent than 1989). And implying by extension that it no longer is considered pathological. Also weakening the sentence by changing "most" to "many", against what sources say.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to explain what pathological refers to in this context. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, it's no use. Pathological science as a label was already discredited. It's a useless label. BUT, it is attached to cold fusion and that's a fact. So we report it here in the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Jones faxed the paper to Nature

[9] I inserted: "In 1980, Dr. Steven E. Jones used a similar device, he did not claim excess energy was produced. But more neutrons were detected than could be expected from normal sources."

"Realizing their work was very similar, Jones and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day, March 24, 1989. However, P&F announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature." - Ludwik Kowalski (3/5/04)Department of Mathematical Sciences Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043[10]

Removing that bit was clearly vandalism Enric. :) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The "truth" is somewhere in the middle and we should be careful with the wording POVbrigand (talk)

under Cold_fusion#Repulsion_forces you can see an explanation of why Muon-catalyzed fusion is not relevant. This makes it look as if F&P's experiment was replicated by Jones. Jones' experiment is accepted by mainstream science as a correctly performed experiment with results that can be explained by current theory, as is accepted as replicated successfully. The NYT calls them similar, but more reliable sources that give more in-depth explanations. And, yes, as POVbringand says, there are a lot of caveats there. -unsigned by enric

It's a poor argument:

• Muon-catalyzed fusion is a LENR.

• This article is about LENR.

• This article is not about Pons and Fleishmann, they have their own articles.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

uninteresting

[11] here I change: "and Stanley Pons in 1989 that they had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium."

into: "and Stanley Pons in 1989 that they had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") that would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes and that they measured small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium."

I thought that was an improvement.

In the original paper Fleischman says: "...the bulk of the energy released is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes"[12]

It is a matter of taste, I liked my own version better. I don't think it really makes enough difference to justify a debate. If you see something wrong with it I don't really want to hear about it. Just revert it. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the original version better. We should keep it POVbrigand (talk)

F&P said that it could only be explained by nuclear processes. Other said that it could be explained by flawed measurements, contamination, overlooked chemical reactions, unaccounted inputs, etc. Other cell exploded in other lab[13], and a investigation concluded that it was a chemical reaction (I think this appears in Huizenga). I think our article doesn't say it, but F&P thought that it could only be nuclear because of the explosion of a cell during one night. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - but I like the original version better too. It makes it crystal clear that Pons claims that this result can only be the result of nuclear processes - where the second version can easily be read as if it is an established fact that the result that Pons obtained can only be nuclear in nature. Since that is absolutely not the case, we need to keep that clarification from the first version. SteveBaker (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear technology in the wild?

Many countries keep reactor research under strict government control and classification. The denial around cold fusion seems to allow for it to freely exist in the wild. The way I see it the excess heat may or may not be a nuclear reaction. That seems a reasonable position to take? Even if you want to argue the excess heat to most likely be a measurement error you can not fully disprove all probability for it to be a nuclear effect. If that happens one day, how will they put the jinn back into the bottle?

Is there anything to be said about this in the article? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

no, the personal OR from editors is no good for wikipedia --POVbrigand (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There has to be something written on the topic. It is fine to ask for this. WHAT the say and WHO they are determines if it is worth including. You can read about this in the edit guidelines. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI about why cold fusion can't possibly work

By way of background, I have 13 patents in fuel cells. I haven’t even read Wikipedia’s “Fuel cell” article because it would be so frustrating to find total garbage written by 16-year-old I.P.s who read in Popular Mechanics that by the year 2014, 20% of American automobiles will be powered by fuel cells. After all—the 16-year-old would argue—Popular Mechanics is an RS and it was obvious from the article that they got their information from Ballard back in 1997. Well… none of that changes the fact that this kind of misinformation has been promulgated by fuel cell companies looking for their next government grant and your average *science* magazine that is suitable for placement next to Turbo Hondas on the magazine rack has editors who just regurgitate claims with abandon. Now…

Platinum and palladium both absorb huge amounts of hydrogen. But first, they atomize and then ionize the hydrogen; which is to say, they break the diatomic hydrogen molecule into individual hydrogen atoms, and then they ionize (strip off the electron), which now becomes a mobile conduction electron in the metal. The proton is now imbedded in the atomic interstitials of the metal. This phenomenon is central not only to fuel cells (their catalyst works that way) and hydrogen storage, but also to membrane separators used in reformers; hydrogen goes across a thin foil of platinum and the carbon dioxide remains behind. It is also the phenomenon underlying hydrogen embrittlement.

There is no way in the world you could get two protons to crowd together into the same interstitial where they would allow themselves to be squeezed together; they are repelling each other and too quickly escape. It would be *pretty* indeed to hope that an interstitial might act like a hammer-forging machine and let in entire hydrogen atoms (complete with their electrons) and the interstitial mauls away at the atoms by ionizing them (allowing the electrons to become mobile conduction electrons) and that this phenomenon would now leave behind the electrically opposing protons, which could be crushed together. After all, cracks and lattice defects would provide sufficient room for a gigantic complete hydrogen atom (that is something like 99.999% empty space) to squeeze into defects. But once you finally ionized the atoms, the protons would “see” each other and repel each other far, far faster than 300 kelvin metal can do anything about it.

Just judging from the picture of the experiment, 20 kelvins extra temperature in that apparatus had to have been the result of something like 2–8 extra watts (guessing). Indeed, the neutron flux—if that heat had been the result of fusion—would have killed Fleischmann and Pons before they could tell anyone about their discovery. So now proponents of cold fusion are advancing unknown nuclear phenomenon as permitting cold fusion to still be responsible for the excess heat. Wishing fervently for something because it is *pretty to think so* is not science; it is faith: a belief that is not based on proof. And faith is not science. In the late 1700s, scientists were called “naturalists”. The equivalent of France’s Einstein at the time was called “the great French naturalist…”. The moniker was used because naturalists endeavored to explain the world around us in terms of natural phenomenon, without invoking supernatural phenomenon.

And so it is with cold fusion; its believers would have the world believe that several watts of excess heat can be the product of fusion—only it is a *new* kind of fusion unfamiliar with nuclear physicists that doesn’t kill people with neutrons and darn near turn them into a pillar of salt by looking at it. If you have to hold hands, close your eyes, and fervently wish for pleasant outcomes that flout known science, then it doesn’t even rise to the level of Carl Sagan’s saying: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; it is just plain non-science. Something was responsible for the excess heat. But jumping to the conclusion that it is cold fusion is akin to saying “I saw unfamiliar lights in the night sky; it must be interstellar aliens.”

I very much hope that the *believers* (POV-pushers in wiki-parlance) are kept at arms length from this article. Greg L (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This is all your OR, we don't need any of that on WP even on talk pages. Go publish a book and be happy. Cheers --POVbrigand (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's marvelous, Greg L, well-written and plain as day. I'm glad you wrote it, even though it does not conform to talk page guidelines and cannot be used in the article. I agree wholeheartedly that this article cannot be an unlimited playground for cold fusion promoters. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Greg will just have to write down his genious theory in a peer reviewed paper and publish it in Nature or Science. ENEA and NASA and SPAWAR will surely notice and it will be a complete eye opener to them. My goodness, how could those renowned institutions ever have thought that cold fusion could be real, when Greg here knew all along that it _just can't possibly work_. Greg, joking aside, in your thoughts here, did you differentiate between "cold fusion" and LENR or is it all the same to you ? --POVbrigand (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Binksternet for your kind response. You saw my post as I intended it. Allow me to explain what stimulated my sudden interest here. I saw an improper edit to this article made by an I.P. who could find his or her way to a Starbucks in Hartford. I thought I’d post a reality-check to flesh out who “had religion” on this voodoo and was active here… interesting.

  In response to your first post here, POVbrigand: I know full well what I wrote is O.R. and isn’t suitable for putting into the article; I hadn’t intended any of it for inclusion in the article and I don’t think any reasonable-minded editor interpreted it that way. It was a call for keeping *those with great faith* at bay so the article is grounded in science. As I wrote, plain as day there at the end, I very much hope that the *believers* (POV-pushers in wiki-parlance) are kept at arms length from this article. Now…

  If anyone needs help here (Binksternet?) with the POV-pushers intent on spreading the *religion* of cold fusion, let me know. I can help establish a consensus that is properly grounded in Wikipedia’s Five Pillars and its requirements for RSs so we cut to the chase and less time is wasted trying to argue with those who push voodoo science. One of the tricks these POV-pushers resort to is to write the equivalent of Cold fusion was shown to have been consistent with the findings and *cite* some peer-reviewed journal but when one actually reads the monograph, it says no such thing; which amounts to lies (or exceedingly poor understanding of science) masquerading as truth. I can help sleuth-out suspected instances of this stunt.

  I want to make sure that Wikipedia best serves our readership. Thanks for the interesting responses and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg L, there is a way that I think you can help here: read the whole article with a fresh eye, and determine if the article properly conveys the extreme skepticism and/or dismissal that fusion experts and virtually all other physicists have for cold fusion. I have been trying to keep that aspect of the article accurate for years now, but I worry that I have been too close to this article for too long to really answer that question. Olorinish (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Olorinish. The article is painful to read. I’ve looked at all parts of it up to the pain threshold and intently focused on some areas. It looks clearly like the wikiproduct of a battleground subject, like our “Race and intelligence” article. It reminds me of Irving Berlin’s “Anything You Can Do” song (♬♩“Yes I caaaan!” “No you can’t!” “Yes I caaaan!” ♬♩). It has a Flesch reading ease of only 16.7% and at 8500 words in the body text, is too lengthy. Over and over it has been amply demonstrated that Fleischmann and Pons made numerous errors in their assumptions and measurements. It’s a very simple experiment and after 22 years, people would be making thousands of watts if there was any merit to it. The article is in sore need of a total rewrite to make it worth a crap as an encyclopedic bit of technical writing. Greg L (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg, you didn't answer my question, do you differentiate between "cold fusion" and LENR. Other question: Do you know who Robert Duncan is ? --POVbrigand (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

POVbrigand (I like that screen name), cold fusion adherents *have religion*. There are 3000 religions in this world. All, to one extent or another, think their’s is the most correct one and the others are in error to one extent or another. Whole classes of some religions are wildly at odds with other classes of religions, where they are convinced that the others’ prophet(s) were false ones. That’s quite a difference, don’t you think? Logically, these mutually exclusive differences mean that at least 2999 religions are in error. As a naturalist, I’ve found that religion doesn’t even offer up clear guidance on morality issues. For instance, I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Strangely, the police won’t stop by to kill him. (*sigh*)

If religion stopped at matters of morality and philosophy, that might be OK in my book, but religion also treads into science and there are well-meaning religious adherents who think the earth, having been created October 23, 4004 B.C., is precisely Template:Delimitnum days old (← that number updates daily if you want to bookmark this page). I’ve found it is pointless trying to point any of this out to believers with faith; it’s like trying to teach a pig to sing: one only wastes their time and annoys the pig. Why? Because their positions are non‑falsifiable, which is frustrating from a *scientist’s* (naturalists) point of view. Cold fusion might as well be lumped into religion because their arguments too are non‑falsifiable; thus making that 3001 religions on this pale blue dot. Now that I’m done with soap‑boxing about pathological science (as the song goes: a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest), allow me to address your *challenge* to me…

You asked me if I know who Robert Duncan©™® is (honestly, a mental image of a dog with its tail wagging came to mind with that). I am exceedingly pleased to respond, “F--k no, and proud of it.” So I just now googled his name and stopped at the first site that wasn’t Wikipedia (*queue “eye rolling” clip from B‑roll*) or (literally) Cold Fusion Now-dot-com, and looked at this blog about the fellow, where there were individuals who seemed to be less-than-impressed with His Highness Of Cold Fusion. As for what “LENR” means, it’s just one of the many—as Sarah Palin might say—*sciency*-sounding pseudonyms to avoid saying “cold fusion”; an effort to put lipstick on a pig and pass it off as a prom date.

And, speaking of “His Highness Of Cold Fusion,” how about Irving Dardik? Have you heard of him? He literally wrote the book with his “Irving Dardik and His Superwave Principle,” which is a system of treating diseases using wave form technology, which he called "supersonant waveenergy" His system basically involved exercise techniques that were designed to modulate the cardiac rhythms in order to amplify the bodies natural wave frequencies to fight disease. He lost his medical license in 1995 after the medical board found he was engaged in “quackery.” Now he is *into* cold fusion. As the Church Lady on SNL might say: “Well, isn’t that just *extra* special.” Greg L (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard about Irving Dardik. Ask Robert Duncan what he thinks about Irving Dardik's work. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Does it amount to “Irving equals ‘poopy’; me smart smart smart”? Inquiring minds want to know. Greg L (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost like that, read the sources, it's great fun --POVbrigand (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg, I appreciate your intent in noting for future editors that the original claims regarding cold fusion, if true, would have falsified a substantial amount of established science, and would thus have required very substantial evidence in support. It's also appropriate that you have noted that your views, whilst in line with mainstream scientific thought, are not directly usable on the article without reliable sources, etc, and thus that you were not proposing any direct change. Unfortunately, I suggest that some of your posts since then, and also comments from POVbrigand, have wandered away from anything which would typically be considered allowed talk page discussion. This topic is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which provide broad discretion for an admin to take unilateral action, and on this topic over-zealous action is not unknown. Thus, I strongly suggest to you both that if you want to continue a robust and frank discussion of cold fusion and LENRs, etc, that you move it to one of your own talk pages, where the potential for an abrupt termination of the discussion is much reduced. And No, I am not an admin and this is not a threat, merely some advice from a fellow editor. Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for the heads-up on how chronic misbehavior and BATTLEGROUND mentality lead to ArbCom babysitting of this article to ride herd on POV-pushers. Sometimes candid discussion is required to fix screwed up articles like this one and that’s why I weighed in as I did: to better serve the interests of our readership.

  Olorinish reached out to my overtures here (as an outsider with a WTF? reaction) and invited me to take a fresh read of this article and weigh in and state my opinion. He recognized the opportunity here to better serve the interests of our readership via the infusion of new blood to this article. And what about my opinion(?)…

  It’s clear to me that because of the persistent tug of war between enthusiasts and realists, the article has a palpable But this appeared like positive evidence (no it didn’t)‑look to it. That eroded this article and makes it appear substandard; it looks nothing at all like proper, encyclopedic technical writing crafted in a linear and coherent manner. Moreover, with a Flesch reading ease of only 16.7%, it is far too abstruse for a general-interest encyclopedia. There are terrible examples of launching straight into specialists symbology and terminology without proper introduction, such as Considerable attention has been given to measuring ⁴He production. A proper introduction to such concepts would introduce these things and explain that Helium‑4 is an isotope (a variety of an element with a different number of neutrons) before launching straight into symbols of chemical elements with a superscripted prefix. And with 8500 words in the body text, it is too lengthy. Moreover, entries in the citations and the bibliography have expired and much of it doesn’t really appear to be true RSs. The article, in short, needs a major redo.

  Given the difficulties of trying to revise this article from scratch, on‑line in real time, I’d suggest that the shepherding authors start a sandbox version (perhaps Talk:Cold fusion/New version) and work on it there for a few weeks and then post it to “Cold fusion”. Greg L (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

  
  P.S. FYI, my above post has a Flesch reading ease of 43.3%. If I delete that xt-text sentence with the ⁴He production in it, then my above post has a Flesch reading ease of 45.2%. That’s as low as a Flesch score should go, IMHO, for Wikipedia. A score of 16.7% is ridiculous. Greg L (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Looking at improving article

Greg, I was around when the case happened, and ArbCom intervention has certainly calmed things down, certainly once Abd was banned. I'm a scientist and well aware that the article is in dire need of improvement, I just became disillusioned long ago and would hate to see more santions here. Your points about Flesch reading ease are, in my view, entirely appropriate for talk page discussion - perhaps you might start a thread on that point? As for the back-and-forth in the article, unfortunately most scientists long ago gave up on this field so there is not any comprehensive and credible review article that would allow alot of the individual papers to be bypassed and a summary included. Without such a review to trump the inclusion of every claim I fear the battleground will continue as polite POV pushing remains an insoluble wiki-problem. EdChem (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's right. There are exhaustive reviews from 1989 to 199~ explaining why CF won't work, but proponents claim that they are outdated. Individual experiments get propped up as conclusive breakthroughs, then they are never heard of again, and a new claim gets propped up. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also "Famous scientist X said in an interview that CF research is promising", which I can only describe as a celebrity endorsement. CF is already endorsed by two Nobel laurate (Julian Schwinger) and Brian Josephson). As shown by Schwinger's example, getting endorsements from famous scientists doesn't mean that CF experiments are suddenly more replicable, the theories more correct, or the field more accepted by scientists. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is you're telling Nature what it can or can't do. Check your ego, bud. Nature doesn't give 2 s**t's what the entire universe has to say about it, nonetheless the tiny speck we call man. Tell it all you want, it doesn't take orders from ANYBODY! Which, BTW, is why these tiny specs invented what they call "science". Kevin Baas^talk 20:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And want to know what else can't possibly work? Electrons orbiting around protons! It's a complete violation of Newtonian physics. According to everything we know about Newtonian physics, they should just run right into the protons and neutralize in a matter of femtoseconds, annihilating all of electromagnetic force as we know it before the light from nearest atom skims the lens of our eye. Strangely, that hasn't happened yet. Kevin Baas^talk

This is going south quickly. Time to stop the thread as it is not helping the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Binksternet, the discussion hasn’t quite risen to the level of disruption; it just needs to be steered on track.

  Quoting Enric Naval [EdChem]: …unfortunately most scientists long ago gave up on this field so there is not any comprehensive and credible review article that would allow alot of the individual papers to be bypassed and a summary included. Enric [EdChem] speaks of how there are “not any comprehensive and credible review article(s).” This state of affairs—if true—puts mere wikipedians in the position of practicing their hand at being a science journal editor, where wikipedians are chasing our tails arguing about the meaning of science papers; that’s not properly within the purview of mere wikipedians on issues this complex and controversial.

  I suspect there are some high-level review articles by well-accepted, most-reliable, secondary RSs to which Wikipedia can look. I don’t have time to dig it up at the moment, but I seem to recall yesterday reading an article in The New York Times (or something like that) where they were writing of an Energy Department official who sort of <blinked> and said “I didn’t know anyone credible was pursuing that stuff anymore.”

  I suggest we consider scaling back the scope of this article (atomic-level details of “ ⁴He production” and what it purportedly means) and limit the scope of this article to the confines of the overviews of the secondary RSs in this subject. We have to agree that “dueling Jr. Einsteins” doesn’t work; we end up with the standard Wikipedia flaw endemic to some of our science-related articles, where editors plop abstruse lingo on pages partly to impress his or her wiki‑peers (“See, I’m fluent with parsing the lingo in science papers and am not some mook of a wikipedian but am *special and smart*.”) We take our desires to push a POV and subordinate ourselves to the secondary RSs; they must be out there.

  I suggest we re-visit the question as to whether there really aren’t any proper summary materials by most-reliable secondary RSs upon which we can build a better (streamlined and far less abstruse) article that reads like proper, encyclopedic technical writing crafted in a linear and coherent manner (without the “dueling banjos”-effect). That will, IMHO, better serve the interests of our readership. Greg L (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg, I think you are actually quoting me, at least in part. Also, I'd be pleased to see a reliable recent review published in a reputable journal by an objective scientist, but I've not seen any evidence of such existing. The only recent reviews I've seen discussed here are comparatively uncritical summaries by cold fusion / LENR researchers and appear written for the insular CF/LENR community. EdChem (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I’m sorry for attributing that to someone else. I struck and revised. Awwe… shucks. I must say that after a bit of searching myself, I am rather surprised at the dearth of comprehensive summaries of cold fusion by highly respected secondary RSs. I found “When Scientists Sin” by Scientific American, which quotes a colleague of Richard Feynman at Caltech, David Goodstein. They wrote Other cases are not so clear. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons’s “discovery” of cold fusion, Goodstein concludes, was most likely a case of scientists who “convince themselves that they are in the possession of knowledge that does not in fact exist.” This self-deception is distinctly different from deliberate deception. But there is no scientific detail in the article. I can see why this article has become a battleground for wikipedians out to promote their favorite author and source. Greg L (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits to lede

[14]

Explanation:

• LENR is not a common term for cold fusion. We keep it out of the lede, but mention it in the article as a proponent acronym.
• Over-focus on experiments/hypothesis in the first paragraph was unneeded. Cold fusion is claimed fusion at room temperatures and FP were the famous example (and, essentially, the reason the article exists).
• Calling Fleishmann a "leading" electrochemist is a violation of WP:PEACOCK.
• Claiming "They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium." is a violation of WP:WEIGHT as well as unnecessarily technical. They were made famous for their claims of excess heat. "Further reports" were interesting wrinkles on the story but not lede-worthy.
• Claims that cold fusion papers do not receive as much "scrutiny" as other papers is an opinion that was inappropriately stated as a fact.
• Claims that "many scientists aren't even aware that there is new research" need to be corroborated by saying WHICH scientists aren't aware if that's something we want to say. Even so, it's not lede-worthy.
• Listing institutional funding of research is misleading. The funding characteristics of these places are not public knowledge nor are they found in the sources cited. We don't know whether the researchers there are receiving grants to research cold fusion specifically or other ideas more generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That all seems reasonable to me. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP 128.59.169.46 was blocked for being a SOCK of banned user VanishedUser314159. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

MIT

In this edit a new user has claimed (without a reference) that MIT is now teaching a course on cold fusion. Evidence offered was basically "contact MIT". I have reverted, I consider that any such claim (even if article-worthy) would need to be supported by an included reliable source. I am posting here as I accidentally hit the enter key while typing my rationale in the edit summary and I wanted the reason for my revert to be recorded. Anyone have any comment / criticism? EdChem (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. The red-letter editor who made that edit left an edit summary reading “Contact MIT for the full details.” (∆ edit, here), which is not a proper citation to an RS. MIT’s courses listed under Nuclear Science and Engineering, Spring 2012 doesn’t mention anything related to cold fusion that I can see. It would be difficult indeed for MIT to fill classes if they don’t make it easier for students to know it exists. Greg L (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought you would just contact MIT for confirmation. Here you go: Start 2012 with Cold Fusion 101 - A new short course on cold fusion science and technology sponsored by the Engineering and Computer Science departments at Massachusetts Institute of Technology will be held in January 2012. Designed for MIT students, Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments addresses the early history of cold fusion science. Please do some research and contact MIT, ask them why it isn't listed in web based course curriculum. Perhaps they are rushing to catch up with others who are publishing papers on the (MIT recognized) science of cold fusion and low energy nuclear reactions. Perhaps it is offered in an interdepartmental newsletter. This red-letter editor now edits his confirmation request: Contact the Engineering and Computer Science Departments at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (talk to them) ask if the editor of this Wikipedia Article could attend the class in preparation for a re-write of this article. "Cold Fusion: Is it a Science or a Pseudo-Science". MIT seems to stand on both side of the fence and has for a long time. Now with their first class offered on the "history of cold fusion science" (they charge money for the class) they are making money on the science of cold fusion. Therefore Wikipedia statements of cold fusion as a pseudo-science referenced to MIT, or MIT reports influencing the Department of Energy in this matter, should be moved to Historical footnotes titled "Immature Initial Analysis Falsely Classifies Cold Fusion a Pseudo-Science" Ask the professors teaching the course at MIT if they would object my suggestion. This Science has hundreds of peer reviewed articles published, hundreds of replicated experiments, accepted theories that explain and predict the occurrence of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions taking place in laboratories, nature, and other observed phenomenon which have not been understood. This article should reflect that this is now an accepted science in, its infancy, understanding developing at a rapid rate, with a hypothetical potential for rapid commercialization. Leave the hypothetical out of it till it happens, let's stick with that Wikipedia Rule, but please bring this article up to date. The idea to attend the MIT class and than rewrite the article is a sound one. I bet my reputation they would allow you to attend it for free... energy! Ha ha.... just trying a bit of humor there... sorry this is meant to be a serious academic discussion forum. Is it?

I am a self taught person 53 years old, left high school after my first year, went to community college for an early childhood development certificate and a certificate for elder care in the activities departments of nursing homes. I began studying this in July and am appalled at how out of date, or better expressed, is the POV of this article that this is a pseudo-science. Frankly it has that "flavor" all over it. This articles flavor should reflect our knowledge to date. Cold Fusion/LENR is an interdisciplinary Science with significant contribution from branches of nano physics, quantum physics, harmonic cavitation, wave mechanics of light and electro-magnetic frequencies, and magnetic field effects on micro particles. The folks at MIT will help clarify this much better than I. Of that I'm sure.

–Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A friend just sent me the MIT link: http://student.mit.edu/iap/nc9.html

Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments

Peter Hagelstein

Mon-Fri, Jan 23-27, 30-31, 11am-12:30pm, 4-145, 1/30 class meets in 4-149

No enrollment limit, no advance sign up

Excess power production in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment; lack of confirmation in early negative experiments; theoretical problems and Huizenga's three miracles; physical chemistry of PdD; electrochemistry of PdD; loading requirements on excess power production; the nuclear ash problem and He-4 observations; approaches to theory; screening in PdD; PdD as an energetic particle detector; constraints on the alpha energy from experiment; overview of theoretical approaches; coherent energy exchange between mismatched quantum systems; coherent x-rays in the Karabut experiment and interpretation; excess power in the NiH system; Piantelli experiment; prospects for a new small scale clean nuclear energy technology.

On 1/30 and 1/31 M. Swartz will discuss results he has obtained from a variety of cold fusion experiments he has done over the years. He has observed excess power in PdD and in NiH experiments; typical energy gains in the range of 2-3 are seen, with a few experiments giving higher energy gain; he has carried out a demonstration of his experiment previously at MIT; and energy produced from cold fusion reactions has been used to drive a Stirling engine.

Contact: Peter Hagelstein, plh@mit.edu

Our correspondence on this edit suggestion is being forwarded to the Cold Fusion/LENR Scientific community through various mediums. It will also be released to news organizations through my press agent.

Gregory Byron Goble Monday Dec. 19th 2011 (415) 724-6702 Sponsor: Electrical Engineering and Computer Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• This would be an excellent example of the WP:NOTBYASS (notability by association) that is pushed on these articles. In this case MIT is made out as a cold fusion supporter via the "non-credit activity" Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments offered during MIT's Independent Activities Period. The "activity" is being presented by Peter L. Hagelstein, an associate professor of electrical engineering at MIT and the principal investigator for the Energy Production and Conversion Group and yes; the group web-site www.rle.mit.edu/energy does actually redirect to The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.

Apparently Prof. Hagelstein has had a little trouble getting his research published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal...

The skeptics have been wildly successful in persuading others scientists (who depend on experimental observations for their own work) that experimental observations of any anomalies in PdD can and should be ignored. The willful disregard of experimental observations in this area is now a part of modern science; this, if nothing else, should cause people to think about what is happening.

Despite all details provided in the manuscript and the apparently rigorous procedure, I cannot recommend publication of the manuscript. The main reason is that the manuscript and the associated documentation target the rehabilitation of the cold fusion concept; unfortunately cold fusion has largely been disproved among the scientific community. (anonymous reviewer, 2010)

Our paper on the two-laser experiment was submitted to many journals over the course of a year prior to publication. It was returned from J Phys C without review. Another journal had tentatively accepted it, and when we submitted the paper in final form for publication, we received notice from the editor that they had received a late set of reviewer's comments and that the paper was now rejected. This criticism is from the associated review. No response to this criticism was allowed.

—source: Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT, Progress Report No. 152: Fleischmann-Pons Effect Studies, 2010. • Sponsors: "Nuclear Energy Release from Metal Deuterides", SRI International under subagreement #33-000075, Period: 3/23/09-9/27/11

So there you have it. More pseudoscience than you can shake a marmoset at. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling it pseudoscience will not make it go away. The course at MIT is still there. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course it's a "course". Regardless, it is still a pathological activity by the sources. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is an opinion with a slant... Apparently Prof. Hagelstein has had a little trouble getting his research published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal... Fact? or Opinion? The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is not a legitimate peer journal. Fact? or Slant? ...had a little trouble getting his research published... Why the slant. How many papers has he submitted during his career? To which Journals? How many were denied publication? Slanderous Slant please give me facts. Often when science attempts to explain newly observed phenomenon they get the theory wrong. Here we have science observing a phenomenon, learning how to better replicate it, improving scientists ability to observe it, and creating the arena for improved theories that will most likely lead our to ability to control and capitalize (profit from) our understanding of this phenomenon. This is science. Simply put are these folks pseudoscientists? Is this something Wikipedia finds to be based on fact? I'll tone down my edit request for you a bit...

Edit for introduction: Cold Fusion/LENR is a slowly developing Interdisciplinary Science in its' infancy with significant contributions being made to it from both new and old branches of Science. Chemical Science, Nano Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Harmonic Cavitation, Wave Mechanics of Optical and Electromagnetic Frequencies, and the Science of Magnetic Field Effects on Micro Particles are participating in the observation, creation, and understanding of these phenomenon. Initial advances, from scientists working together, have been made in understanding and creating the materials and conditions that result in longer and better replicable experiments yielding this phenomenon. This is creating new areas of peer review, a new area of established (not theoretical) Science as the experiments increase in, variety and quality of duration. Observation has led to understanding which increases the opportunities for increased understanding. Until theoretical models which accurately predict the effects measured in these experiments much controversy will exist concerning this new Interdisciplinary Science.

Cold Fusion/LENR or whatever handle the theorists give this phenomenon when they really figure out the physics of what's going on, Science or Pseudoscience? Are the groups of people in labs around the world duplicating and improving and reviewing the measuring of these phenomenon... are they scientists or pseudoscientists? Explain that to me. Is the slant on this article accurate for today? Pseudoscience is referenced 9 times in the article as reason to dicredit cold fusion Science, its' scientists, and the research papers presented to peers in the field as you have just done. Why? It is significant that MIT is offering a class in the "pseudoscience" of observable, replicatable, unexplainable phenomenon presently touted as cold fusion or low energy nuclear reactions. Or is it Science? What is the consensus opinion of the facts of this anyway, Wikipedia moderator? Please consider explaining the facts of this stigma. Don't give me continued pathological reosoning to support this stance. They are scientists doing this work, in top notch labs, being reviewed by peers. This is Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs) 14:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A friendly reminder that we're already put the matter to rest: Cold Fusion/LENR is pathological science but it is categorically NOT pseudoscience. However, there is quite a bit of pseudoskepticism with regard to it, hence you hear all sorts of arguments in which you can say, e.g., "hmmm.... that's true of biology too. I wonder if biology is pseudoscience." and of course it's not. Anyways, a friendly reminder, the topic has already been discussed ad nasuem, and the conclusion was this is pathological science, not pseudoscience. Kevin Baas^talk 15:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My take is that it would be misleading to say “MIT is now offering a 101-level course on cold fusion”; that alone would lend a notability and credibility undeserving given the details of who is presenting the material, why he is presenting the material, and what MIT’s involvement in this is. It would also be far too misleading to have what G. Goble wrote (“MIT now views Cold Fusion/LENR as a Science”). Ian Waitz himself might make an edit as an I.P., all red-faced, to discreetly fix that stretch of the imagination. Prof. Hagelstein wants to spread the word about his work and it is not correct to suggest that his being allowed to make it a non-credit course with no enrollment limit equates to an endorsement of the science by MIT. All it says about MIT is they are giving one of their own professors access to a room, which MIT also does for prayer groups and certain other clubs. Everyone from other Ph.D.s to the crazy guy picking up aluminum cans behind Steinbrenner Stadium can audit Hagelstein’s lectures as he speaks about his accomplishments. To properly give background on the totality of the meaning and context of this tidbit would require ponderous elaboration that would result in even more of the effect this article already has too much of: the “Anything You Can Do” song (♬♩“Yes I caaaan!” “No you can’t!” “Yes I caaaan!” ♬♩). This is best left alone since it is a minor issue that becomes yet more tempest in a teapot. Greg L (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"MIT now views Cold Fusion/LENR as a Science" is kinda like "MIT is not beating their wife". Cold Fusion/LENR is and has always been regarded as science. Pathological science, yes, even fringe science, but science nonetheless. the fact that some institution regards it as such is rather unremarkable. To say that some institution "now" regards it as science is to imply that they at one point did not. This is in a sense, "pulling a Fox News". Kevin Baas^talk 17:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The MIT non-credit activity has no place in this article. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It’s just that simple. Pathological science is where people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. Kevin’s argument of Pathological science, yes, even fringe science, but science nonetheless is akin to a “Well… a half-truth is still a truth” and reveals how easy it is to provide a disservice to our readership. What Prof. Hagelstein does at MIT to discuss and promote his personal interests does not mean that his views are endorsed in any shape, form, or fashion by MIT. Latching onto the *But it’s at MIT*-angle is misleading; there is too much “Robin’s best friend’s cousin = Batman” with this. It would be effectively misleading at many levels given its actual importance and the totality of circumstances and has no place in the article. Greg L (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

eh, that's not what i was saying. i'm saying that it's not pseudoscience. they actual use the scientific method and all. so no, it's not "half-science" as you seem to imply, whatever that means. it's 100% science. and i'm sorry to disappoint you but scientific hypothesis don't always turn out to be correct. hell, even theories turn out to be wrong. if that weren't the case it wouldn't BE science. so yes, one day someone could discover the mechanism behind the anomolous results people are getting some time, and it may turn out to be something trivial and uninteresting. but the very fact that that COULD happen SUPPORTS the proposition that what they are doing IS science. it boggles me how some people who consider themselves "scientific" are actually expecting out of science what one would from a religion, and thus ipso-facto NOT being scientific. if they would lower their expectations about what they expect to get out of science and shed a little of their faith-based goggles, well they might be able to see the world a little clearer. and maybe they might rediscover - or perhaps discover for the first time - the eternal virtue of the socratic dictum "I know not; yet, I know that I know not." -- a bedrock principle of science. Kevin Baas^talk 21:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. Cold fusion is “100% science” in your book. That is indeed a splendid belief but I don’t share it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Getting back on track (“MIT”, the subject of this thread), and their endorsement—or lack thereof—of cold fusion: the edit claimed that “MIT” now offers a course in cold fusion because MIT now recognizes it as a legitimate science. The exact edit was MIT now views Cold Fusion/LENR as a Science. MIT offers its' first course in "Cold Fusion 101" this summer. Thus, it was Uppercase “Science”, no less. That is a false claim that—again—is tantamount to putting lipstick on a pig and trying to pass it off as a prom date. “MIT” is doing nothing but giving one of their profs a room in which the curious and faithful may gather. MIT would also allow one of their theology profs to have a lecture room to discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster (literally). That doesn’t mean MIT considers Pastafarianism to be a religion or a science or atheism-by-proxy. There is clearly no consensus here for the edit that started this thread. That’s all I’m going to say on this thread since I am loath to be dragged down into the depths of arguing against non‑falsiable claims. Greg L (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That would of course be quite futile. I'm not aware of any cold fusion-related claims that aren't falsifiable, but were i to encounter them i'd certainly share your pain. In any case i think we agree, if for different reasons, that "MIT now considers cf a science" is synthesis, at best, and thus inappropriate for the article. As to whether MIT having a course on it is notable for the article, i'm on the fence. Would MIT giving a lecture on pastafarianism be notable enough to be in the pastafarianism article? I actually wouldn't be surprised if that were already in that article, but i'd still be on the fence just the same. Kevin Baas^talk 00:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(and as to uppercase or lowercase "s", you realize it's the title of a course and in titles you capitalize important words, right? besides, i really couldn't care less, if i could roll my eyes at that over the internet i would.) Kevin Baas^talk 15:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In this edit a new user has claimed (without a reference) that MIT is now teaching a course on cold fusion. Evidence offered was basically "contact MIT". I have reverted, I consider that any such claim (even if article-worthy) would need to be supported by an included reliable source. I am posting here as I accidentally hit the enter key while typing my rationale in the edit summary and I wanted the reason for my revert to be recorded. Anyone have any comment / criticism? EdChem (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MIT (more)

(COMMENT COPY/PASTED FROM THE TOP OF THE THREAD ABOVE) In this edit a new user has claimed (without a reference) that MIT is now teaching a course on cold fusion. Evidence offered was basically "contact MIT". I have reverted, I consider that any such claim (even if article-worthy) would need to be supported by an included reliable source. I am posting here as I accidentally hit the enter key while typing my rationale in the edit summary and I wanted the reason for my revert to be recorded. Anyone have any comment / criticism? EdChem (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

?show published papers to date establishing the rigourous testing that is replicable that shows beyond a doubt that you are observing the phenomenom of pathological science. What is the "science" that determines pathological science? Opinions? 1) Many prominent scientists are involved. 2} Large rather than small measurable effects. 3) Finer calibrated instruments thru each stage of development of experiments. 4) Improved theoretical models that lead to an increase of improved successful replicable experiments. LENR-Dense Matter- Cold Fusion... whatever the theorists finally figure out... the study of these phenomenon,,, is advancing and clearly a science. Time for you to show me the "science" that shows it isn't. From: ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science Henry H. Bauer, an emeritus professor of chemistry and science studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, has criticised the term saying that " 'pathological science' is not scientific misconduct (nor is it pathological)", that "it lacks justification in contemporary understanding of science studies (history, philosophy, and sociology of science)", and that "it is time to abandon the phrase".[5] Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation (see the Observer-expectancy effect, and cognitive bias). Some characteristics of pathological science are:[5]

• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
• The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
• There are claims of great accuracy.
• Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
• The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I will look into this over the next few days. I think the first cold fusion coliquium was held at MIT and than disallowed by MIT and went off-site for a few years. Now cold fusion is part of their listed curriculum,,, Welcome back with open arms... and endorsment. I could be wrong. I will find out if there was a recent change in policy, or not, and why two departments endorse this class.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gregory, you might also want to check this discussion [15]. I also think that the fact that MIT offers a course is very interesting and one more step in cold fusion regaining acceptance as science, or at least proto-science. However, I think that for now we should not mention it in the article. And as you have noticed the place here is crowded with editors (some while evading a ban) who just hate cold fusion and will argue anything, any tiny detail to delete. And controversial topics like cold fusion are avoided by middle of the road editors who would have common sense. Oh, and editors like us, who think this article could contain some more positive content about the topic are immediately brandmarked as fringe pov pushers. Even if most of the additions are perfectly reliably sourced. Wikipedia policy doesn't work around here, it is a battlefield. Welcome --POVbrigand (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

NASA

I removed the following text here because of a failed verification:

NASA Langley Research Center has implemented an experimental

project consisting of researchers from inside and outside NASA preparing for feasibility tests to begin by summer

2011.

The reference is pointing to an announcement of a lunch talk for the AIAA (http://www.aiaa.org/) which struck me as odd when I was looking into this. Wouldn't the appropriate link be to NASA-Langley?

So I looked into this more carefully. The claim is that Robert W. Moses is being funded through a Creativity and Innovation Grant through Langley. And, indeed, he is being so-funded as can be seen [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_innovationmetric.html here].

However, he is not being funded to study cold fusion. He is being funded to study through the Atmospheric Flight & Entry Systems Branch, Sys. Engineering Directorate, "How Fast to Mars is Fast Enough?" If he is using his funds to conduct "LENR" experiments, he is probably in violation of his grant terms.

I have put in inquiries to the project director, Marty Waszak, to see if he can shed some light on the matter. In the meantime, I think it highly irresponsible for us to claim that NASA funded a cold fusion experiment until we can find a statement from NASA that such is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.48 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Good call - and thanks for the excellent detective work! Fact-checking is an oft-overlooked function of good Wikipedia editors. SteveBaker (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd bet the Langley guy is using the "we'll have LENR-powered spaceships in X years" excuse, like someone at the Glenn Research Center [16]. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• It’s rare that I have an opportunity to thank an I.P. editor for thorough and rigorous research and homework. Well done. Why don’t you register? Greg L (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Above here is OR. The IP might well be a banned user, that's why he won't register. NASA has performed and is performing LENR research, and they have spoken to Rossi. But no mention of NASA is in the Cold Fusion article. Congratulations for your joint censorship. Keep it up. You will surely find reasons to delete ENEA and SPAWAR from the article too if you all join hands.

Read this: [17] Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR. Presentation attached.

You all are just pushing YOUR ANTI CF POINT OF VIEW.

--POVbrigand (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And that is an opinion from an individual researcher, not an statement from an official research body, not a review of the field from a mainstream source with good reputation. And available evidence was considered insufficient by DOE in 1989 and 2004, which would include the 1989 GRC results. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is your wishful thinking that it's only an opinion from an idividual researchers. It is on the website of an official research body. the DOE has nothing to do with it. "which would include" please provide evidence instead of pushing POV. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's text summarized from a presentation on a workshop. The presentation claims a 2009 "NASA IPP-sponsored effort" (IPP = Innovative Partnerships Program). I can't find a list of 2009 IPP partnerships to confirm this. How can we verify that this is not the same situation as the Langley guy above? (Being funded for something else, and then performing LENR research using part of those funds).

And IPP are partnerships started by some company that has requested research in order to get a patent. It's not a full-blown NASA program. NASA has decided to start on its own to start a program because of seeing merit in cold fusion.

These are low-quality sources, with no confirmation on other sources, being used by some supporters to make misrepresentations, with no review sources making interpretation of its significance for the field, written by people inside the field and with a conflict of interest, going against conclusions in better quality secondary sources, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a summary of the presentation, that is your SYNTH. The text was there a long time before the presentation was added recently. You are analyzing the content of the presentation and comparing that with the limited resources you have access to to make your own SYNTH and to support your predefined biased conclusions.

The content of WP-articles is governed by content policies and not by your made up "low-quality" wishful thinking. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's check archive.org. The last entry is for July 2010, but it's currently down(we'll have to re-check later) [18]. The before-last entry is October 2009, where neither the text or the presentation are present[19]. It's been for 2 years at most.

From other sources I see that it's been only since the workshop was made in September 2011.. ecat-news.com says that the text was caused by the workshop [20], in Vortex-l they were expecting for the presentation to be uploaded right below the text[21]. That text is an introduction to that presentation, its only reason for existing is to introduce that presentation. It's not an independent summary prompted by the state of the research changing. The placement of the text makes it very clear. In 30th October the text had a warning saying

"Relevant Presentation:

+ Download presentation given at a LENR Workshop at NASA GRC in 2011 [available soon]."[22]

Try to find proof of that text existing before September 2001. Or proof of the text being other than an introduction to that specific presentation. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That links fails to prove NASA is behind LENR. It is too weak and unverifiable. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Unverifiable ? Where did you get that from ? Please explain how this: "Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR." is "unverifiable". It IS on their website you know ? That bloody well satisfies verifiability, Stop filibustering. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Unverifiable in the sense that no proof is demonstrated that NASA is endorsing LENR. Tests were conducted "at" NASA GRC, not by NASA GRC. The only interest NASA has in the project is in the improvement of its instrumentation, and such instrumentation is needed by the LENR guys. The NASA webpage GRC Sensors and Electronics Physical Sensors Instrumentation Research points us to the terribly unscientific powerpoint-y promotional presentation linked here: "Development of techniques to investigate sonoluminescence as a source of energy harvesting". LOL, "A Galaxy of 'Nano-Stars' in a Jar". That's rich. The PDF concludes by telling us that "NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) is developing instrumentation technologies for the support of the mission to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research." That's the whole of their interest. The next sentence is expressed in promotional corporate-ese: "GRC is leveraging expertise in optical and physical instrumentation research to determine if the potential exists for energy harvesting from sonoluminescence." By "leveraging", the researchers intend to tie GRC to their results. The closest connection is, however, that NASA will suddenly be interested if the researchers actually get something worthwhile from one of their many experiments. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And there is no mention of the NASA Glenn tests in any of the comprehensive reviews by Huizenga, Close, Simon, Seife, Mallove, Beaudette and Storms. I can only find a passing mention of NASA experiments in Biberian's "An update on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science", and it's for the Lewis center, not the Glenn center. Apparently only a technical memorandum was ever published:

• G. C. Fralick, A. J. Decker, and J. W. Blue, Results of an attempt to measure increased rates of the reaction D-2 + D-2 yields He-3 + n in a nonelectrochemical cold fusion experiment NASA Technical Memorandum 102430, 1989.

Were Glenn's tests ever published anywhere? Are there sources saying that they are significant?

(And this text is still clearly an introduction written for a workshop presentation, not an official endorsement from SPAWAR.). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Enric, already forgot this [23] ? They have LENR on their freaking roadmap. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

NASA has filed a patent on a LENR system. [24]. --POVbrigand (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

September 22 GRC conference

Can someone authenticate [25], [26], and [27]? If they're authentic they show that LENR work is taking place at multiple NASA Centers, and Langley's Chief Scientist has made some pretty extreme claims ("No other single technology even comes close to the potential impacts of LENR upon Agency Missions.") Selery (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source that NASA performs LENR research

evidence of reliability:

"RBC is one of Russia's largest and dynamic media companies. It operates in the Internet, television and print media segments. RBC occupies a leading position on the business information market in Russia and the CIS, and is expanding its presence in the area of general interest Internet."

"RBC’s Internet-based line of business goes back to 1995, when the business news portal www.rbc.ru was established. Currently, the portal is the leader among other Russian business Internet resources. As of the end of 2010, the Rbc.ru audience topped 15 million users. Apart from the main portal, such web resources as Rbcdaily.ru (a business daily), Cnews.ru (a hi-tech news website), Autonews.ru (an automotive news website), Quote.ru (a financial information portal), and Realty.rbc.ru (a real estate website) also enjoy a high degree of demand and popularity among the business audience."

The sources:

CNEWS.ru - "NASA promises an era of low-energy fusion" [28]

That article was relayed in Gazeta.ru - "NASA once again promises a breakthrough in cold fusion" [29]

The fact that NASA actively performs LENR research should be in the article. Stop defending the deletion by banned VanishedUser314159.

--POVbrigand (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but in no sense does a Russian news website serve as a reliable source for what NASA is funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.171.184 (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Some weak references

Since there seem to be more skeptical people around, I suggest that you check out one of POVbrigand's successes. At his insistence the cold fusion article currently references a couple of articles that are only weakly related to cold fusion [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_40#Laser_experiments ]. Olorinish (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the short paragraph because it was based on primary source research papers by Huke, Czerski, Sinha and Meulenberg which did not merit wider notice. If the papers were important they would have been described by secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

These are all primary sources. No secondary sources pointing them out as significant. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Misleading info about reactors being 'available on the market'

"Several entrepreneurs and scientists have claimed in the past to have a working cold fusion energy generator. Despite some claims of being ready for commercialization, no working machine is yet available on the market." taken from "claims of working devices". This fails to take into account that Rossi actually has 1Mw plants for sale, (purportedly already having sold 13 of them). They are however "on the market" at least in the sense that you could order one if you had 2 Million to spend. Although there has been a decent amount of documentation about these sales the buyer remains anonymous so the proof is somewhat shaky. In any case, however, the second sentence is at the very least misleading and should probably be deleted or changed. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.230.190 (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It all amounts to:

a) - - - - > verifiable proof of independent customers having bought working devices. < - - - -

b) WP:REDFLAG "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

--Enric Naval (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That line should stay as it is, ie. Rossi's device is not yet on the market. There is only the appearance that it is on the market. Maybe in a few months we will have evidence that the situation has changed, but for now the line perfectly describes the situation. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Surprisingly I agree completely with POVbrigand. Paying $2M for a 1 MW plant is cost-per-power of only $2/W. That beats photovoltaic’s $8–10/W big time… if there was truth to the claim. Only a modicum of scientific WP:COMMONSENSE is required to understand that if megawatt-class commercial plants were really available at $2/W, they ought to be selling like hotcakes. Given that the scientists from the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (see thread, below) are proud about how they seem to have some evidence that there might actually be some reasonable scientific basis to believe that the CF phenomenon is real (in experiments that could fit in your hand), to think that megawatt-class commercial plants costing $2/W are commercially available is better explained as being claims from charlatans who failed at Nigerian letters and moved on to greener pastures. If someone has a 2 MW plant, they should show one to the world so everyone can hear the humming transformers feeding the grid. Greg L (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"From the number of sales I can derive the technology doesn't work"; No you cant. 09:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC) [Preceding post by I.P. 84.106.26.81]

Shear nonsense. Five megawatts??? I can’t *prove* space aliens aren’t traveling interstellar distances to visit earth and fly around over sparsely inhabited areas populated by highly unreliable witnesses. Fortunately, there is nothing about the collaborative writing environment that requires that burdens of proof be lowered to the lowest common denominator; the onus is on the believers to prove interstellar travelers exist. And arguments that amount to “The government knows aliens landed and their denials prove a conspiracy and they know otherwise” don’t fly. The same goes if someone claims to have a terawatt‑class cold fusion generator commercially available to power your starship. Given that the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (real scientists) are trying to demonstrate that CF is a real phenomenon at the single-digit-wattage level, attempts to place the burden of proof on skeptics that 5 MW plants don’t exist is a stunt that doesn’t even amount to wikilawyering; it’s just hocus pocus and such nonsense will not be allowed to foul this article. Whoever claims that they have a commercially available megawatt-class CF generating station (technology that would be lightyears ahead of legitimate researchers) are almost certainly liars and charlatans hoping to dupe uber-gullible investors. Such allegations would be better added to our “List of confidence tricks”. Ultra-extraordinary claims requires, at the very least, a burden of proof of “Really? Will you show me one?” Greg L (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

SPAWAR video

Is this video any good for an external link? Selery (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think so. As skeptical as I have been—or perhaps still am—that presentation is very interesting and is presented by scientists from the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, which I would call a most‑reliable primary source. It is certainly *interesting* and I think would properly serve the interests of our readership. If I wanted to know if there was any merit to CF, I would appreciate that Wikipedia provided this link. The speaker here, who presents well, addresses the history of the original Fleischmann‑Pons experiments and their non‑reproducibility. Greg L (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Move all pathological references to historical footnotes

Clarification: Pathological science or not? Pseudo-science or science? It seems to me that one must show, in a scholarly manner, that hundreds of researchers take off their scientists 'hat' and don another; reckless abandon departing from all scientific methods... I just do not buy it! Pathological science opinions deserve to be (perhaps temporarily or perhaps permanently) placed as a footnote. Wiki is otherwise purporting that everyone of these scientists are QUACKS! AS requested (and not addressed) is publishable evidence of pathological science. Since science is a present state of affairs quoting past (20 year old) DOE reports and disallowing present DIA reports is ludicrous. This is a controversy site subject. It should not have the flavor of a 'pre-judgment' site or a 'we decide what gets shown' (censorship) site. The DIA report is worthy of Wiki readership. Moving the 'pathological science or not' debate forward will simpify and clarify this article, I predict a 50% improvement in the readability level of the article. As stated, I will collect the opinions of department heads of physics departments of every major university. I invite everyone to join me in 1) The phrasing of the question. 2) The grunt work. In this effort we will be subjecting this question to Peer Review Peer_review procedures found in Wiki: "Procedure: In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), nowadays normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article." I hope to pose the question to hundreds of physics department heads. Does anyone care to comment on this?--Gregory Goble (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Collecting the opinions of mainstream scientists on cold fusion would be interesting and I hope you are able to do that and publish it in a reputable journal. However, until then this article should continue to cite published, verifiable sources rather than original research [30]. Olorinish (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC) No I will not publish it in a reputable journal... I will copy their correspondance for review with the proper contact info for verification.--Gregory Goble (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: Doublebind... there are no Wiki recognized "mainstream scientists of cold fusion". I wasn't clear if you understood. I am seeking the opinion of physics department heads. As a secondary question I am considering, "Do you offer or are you developing a curriculum on this subject?"--Gregory Goble (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Simply put... JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol1.pdf The study of phenomenon being described as cold fusion, low energy nuclear reaction, or condensed matter nuclear reaction is an interdiscipinary science. Keep the thread of thought open on this since the reference to it as pathological or pseudo science is controversial given the number of scientists, universities, and governmental agencies applying scientific methods in this area of research. Oh, by the way it seems we may have something here. Please study it and tell me where it should be placed in this article. U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Report on LENR Science http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf Clearly they state it is a Science. Please include it in this article. Science or pathological pseudo science? Over the next month I will be contacting the heads of Physics Departments asking that question and posting their response (positive or negative). This thread is to improve the artical by moving the nine references of it being a pathological science to the historic footnotes with an explanation that as our understanding grew this developed into a recognized Interdiscipinary Science. --Gregory Goble (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to be successful in your goal. Mainstream science pooh-poohs cold fusion, and this article is not going to Right The Great Wrong you perceive. Rather, this article is going to reflect the best scholarship on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Care to join me in asking the heads of physics departments if they pooh pooh cold fusion - low energy nuclear -condensed matter reaction science?--Gregory Goble (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Classifies LENR "Related research also suffered from the negative publicity of cold fusion for the past 20 years, but many scientists believed something important was occurring and continued their research with little or no visibility. For years, scientists were intrigued by the possibility of producing large amounts of clean energy through LENR, and now this research has begun to be accepted in the scientific community as reproducible and legitimate." Is Wiki a place for negative publicity for an established science?--Gregory Goble (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the scientific community in general does not accept cold fusion as "reproducible and legitimate." That's malarkey. If they did, we would all be heating our houses with gallon jars filled with tiny spheres of layered metals sunk in salt water. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Care to join me in asking the heads of physics departments if they pooh pooh cold fusion - low energy nuclear -condensed matter reaction science?--Gregory Goble (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you both. First, I agree with Binksternet: this article is best fixed in small baby steps. Since ArbCom had to weigh in earlier here to restore order, WP:BOLD would be likely to met with 40 man-hours of editor time at ANIs—the Wikipedia-equivalent of Turkish butt-stabbings in the prison yard. Besides, as skeptical as I was that there was any substance to CF, the latest work by scientists at the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (see above thread and the YouTube video) is making me rethink my initial position. Perhaps there is a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution-effect underlying the observations and the phenomenon is there in small quantities at only 300 kelvin. Having said that, what we certainly can do is ensure that outlandish claims, such as how 5 MW CF power plants are commercially available for $2 per watt, are not mentioned in a way that runs afoul with WP:UNDO and WP:RS and WP:COMMONSENSE.

  Because of the initial sloppy work of Fleischmann and Pons, and because of some of the faithful who followed in their steps, there is indeed an element of pathological science enter-twined with the whole CF world; after all, a notable MD who was stripped of his license for quackery ran off to make his fortune in CF. Then they toot their horn on a 60 Minutes segment and the reporters give the talking heads minute upon minute to tell the world that investors should shovel them money to solve the energy crisis. But, as with the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, there are good people working to understand CF and see if it is a real phenomenon. As Binksternet wrote, this article should reflect the best scholarship on the topic. We should try to slowly strip out the more outlandish claims so the article is increasingly buttressed by the higher-quality sources. Greg L (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org

It seems fair to link the Defense Intelligence Report to the article. They do good scholarship. Who disagrees? Agrees?--Gregory Goble (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Gregory Goble: I took the liberty of moving your 02:56 post, above, to its current position. Where you curiously placed it, and with its indenting, made it appear as if Binksternet’s and my posts were after yours and that Binksternet was replying “no” to your suggestion. As to your question, I think it is entirely fair to link to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report. I think the proper title for this thread would be DIA not lenr- canr.org for obvious reasons. Please change it for me. Call DIA office of information and verify as I did--Gregory Goble (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)They are a most-reliable, RS. In fact, I would hope we can start improving this article by deleting one item cited to a least-reliable RS for each good one we add. By the time we’re done, there should only be high quality sourcing in this article. Greg L (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  P.S. But first, I just now noted that the “UNCLASSIFIED” “report” by U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (titled “Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance”) is hosted by LENR-CANR.org. I suggest that it would be wise to validate the document as really the product of the Defense Intelligence Agency. I just googled “DIA-08-0911-003” and didn’t immediately see the original at a dot-mil site. Does anyone know how to validate that “DIA-08-0911-003” is a real document? I hope we don’t find ourselves in a situation where the people at LENR‑CANR point out that their document is an “unclassified” extract of something classified and the original is hush-hush and all that. Greg L (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  P.P.S. Something is smelling a little fishy; maybe my Skept‑O‑Meter®™© is set a bit high, but I see this YouTube video setting “DIA-08-0911-003” off to some hip music with slick promo-style graphics. Moreover, when I read through the document, many of its citations are sloppy and incomplete and don’t adhere to standard scientific conventions, which seems exceedingly unusual for such a document and its purported source. The totality of the whole document and all those oversized, boldface “UNCLASSIFIED”s on both the headers and footers (we could tell you, but then we’d have to kill you) just doesn’t seem right. Someone please show me an original hosted at a dot‑mil or dot‑gov site. It will be interesting to see how this one proves out. If the document is a forgery, it would seem to impeach the website at which it is being hosted. Greg L (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  P.P.P.S. I might add that I just chased down a “citation” in that purported “Defense Intelligence Agency” report and the citation went full-circle back to LENR-CANR.org, where they included a little footer in the document attempting to explain that away. Greg L (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: LENR-CANR.org is a website where the registrant and admin is Jed Rothwell of Atlanta, GA. He appears to like to self-publish documents on a diverse range of subjects, such as “Cold Fusion and the Future”, in which he touches upon “Robot Chickens and Other Prodigies”. [Excuse me; my Skept‑O‑Meter is squealing and I’ve got to adjust the range knob upwards one decade to 100 rads per hour.] I also note that the contributions history of Gregory Goble shows him to be a single-purpose editor. I might add that I can’t *prove* that the “Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance” by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is a clumsy, amateurish forgery; not any more than I can *prove* aliens from other star systems aren’t buzzing earth. But that’s my take. I look forward to someone locating an original “unclassified” report on a dot‑mil or dot‑gov site and proving that my healthy skepticism was misplaced. Greg L (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg L, just FYI... here is a search that shows just some of the debates that have gone on about the blacklisting and unblacklisting of lenr-canr.org. Abd (now indefinitely blocked) alone posted about 2000 gigabytes (just a guess, likely an underestimate) of "debate" on this subject. Suffice it to say there are those who doubt that the site is a good place for sourcing anything. Jed Rothwell is also not a new name in relation to this article. I sense that some admin action under the existing ArbCom cases is in the nearish future. Perhaps you can understand how I (and others) became disillusioned about getting this article into a high-quality state. EdChem (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What’s the major malfunction over getting anything done here without judicial intervention by ArbCom???. If I really thought there was any chance of being embroiled in ArbCom anything, I’d butt-out now ‘cause ArbCom in the past has shown that in their effort to seem even-handed, they like to cut out the tongues of parties on both sides of disputes (I think they think it makes them look fatherly, or something like that). All it should take is a consensus here on this article that LENR-CANR.org is not an RS; we just don’t let anyone put us in the position of proving their stuff is forged bunk and instead require proof that the above-mentioned document is real (and I seriously doubt anyone can do that). Did I just write something that makes you laugh at my galactic naïveté? Greg L (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg L, my apologies, I was unclear. I don't mean that ArbCom themselves will intervene, nor that you have done anything wrong. I suspect that newly-appeared editors will get warned under the existing cases that they may face discretionary sanctions, because I fear that what is happening is the begining of the upslope of another campaign over The Truth^TM. Previous campaigns have involved some exceptionally talented manouvering to ensure that any "adverse" local consensus formation is frustrated and any that may slip through is challenged at as many boards as possible. I'm not suggesting that you are naive, just that you may be unaware of some of the past rounds. Wiki-policy is not well set up to deal with topics like this for reasons including:

• unless I am mistaken, there is no independent reliable review which leaves us having to deal only with summaries written by CF researchers and published in non-mainstream journals
• debates on the reliability of sources like the JCMNS can be made endless
• the fact that many explanations suggested for CF phenomena contradict established science is hard to cover because it is usually dismissed as original research, yet few scientists bother to write papers saying "suggestion X published somewhere obscure contradicts well-established science without good evidence" so we have no sources to use to note what is obvious to scientists (for example, a while back there was an edit war over including in the potassium dichromate article its alleged homeopathic "therapeutic" use despite the compound being a well-known carcinogen... but saying that it isn't safe for medical use is claimed to be synthesis unless we find a source saying that ingesting this carcinogen is unsafe but fortunately the homeopathic solution is so dilute that there isn't any dichromate in it anyway... but I digress)
• when claims like "MIT teaches CF" are deconstructed we end up with arguments about original research and what is "fact" and what is "opinion" / "interpretation"
• the civility policy is a potent weapon if editors can be frustrated into saying something plausibly claimably uncivil
• arguments are recycled and keep re-appearing, like the upcoming one about how relaible lenr-canr.org is
• truly scientifically literate admins are not common... scientifically literate admins willing to put up with the games that go on about articles like this are rarer, and if they do take any action they can look forward to claims of involvement to chase them away - if you want a perspective on this point, just ask WMC

Looking back at these comments, I recognise I am still disillusioned. Please don't just take my word, have a look at the talk page archives, or ask around. I truly would like to see this article improved and I applaud efforts towards this end. Form your own views on suggestions made, keep to your principles, and I wish you well. Regards, EdChem (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, that DIA document has been discussed on this page before: [31] Olorinish (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(not the first time it was discussed, mind you. The striken comments are from someone who pushed any bad-quality source, as soon as it was useful to promote his personal views on CF, global warning and hybrid cars.)

---

Easy to check. The report was accessed through a freedom of information suit. Follow the lead. Do not discredit without proper investigation... To falsify a DIA Report is a felony. To suggest it as such without clear evidence is obsfuscation and extremely offensive... please back up your ponderings or disappear it (delete).--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC) In it for the long run... Quote "consensus was never truly a matter of pure logic or pure facts"... Time tells! Controversy by definition is never a "closed" subject. [[32]]There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time. Because the history of scientific change is extremely complicated, and because there is a tendency to project "winners" and "losers" onto the past in relation to our current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to come up with accurate and rigorous models for scientific change. This is made exceedingly difficult also in part because each of the various branches of science functions in somewhat different ways with different forms of evidence and experimental approaches. Most models of scientific change rely on new data produced by scientific experiment. The philosopher Karl Popper proposed that since no amount of experiments could ever prove a scientific theory, but a single experiment could disprove one, all scientific progress should be based on a process of falsification, where experiments are designed with the hope of finding empirical data that the current theory could not account for, indicating its falseness and the requirement for a new theory. Among the most influential challengers of this approach was the historian Thomas Kuhn, who argued instead that experimental data always provide some data which cannot fit completely into a theory, and that falsification alone did not result in scientific change or an undermining of scientific consensus. He proposed that scientific consensus worked in the form of "paradigms", which were interconnected theories and underlying assumptions about the nature of the theory itself which connected various researchers in a given field. Kuhn argued that only after the accumulation of many "significant" anomalies would scientific consensus enter a period of "crisis". At this point, new theories would be sought out, and eventually one paradigm would triumph over the old one — a cycle of paradigm shifts rather than a linear progression towards truth. Kuhn's model also emphasized more clearly the social and personal aspects of theory change, demonstrating through historical examples that scientific consensus was never truly a matter of pure logic or pure facts. However, these periods of 'normal' and 'crisis' science are not mutually exclusive. Research shows that these are different modes of practice, more than different historical periods.

---

To Gregory Goble: Please learn how to post on these talk pages. You persist at inserting mis-indented, out-of-place posts in the middle of threads where they break up others’ posts, change the apparent meaning of others’ responses when they write about disagreeing with you (what are they disagreeing about now?) and make a total mess of things. I took the liberty of moving your posts to the proper place in the sequence and set them off with horizontal rules since you don’t even properly sign your posts. Greg L (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It was never officially published. It was apparently written by some individual researchers inside DIA who decided to write a paper on CF, then followed some internal channel to make it an internal report. We have no idea if it was ever reviewed for accuracy, quality, etc. Never mind that technology forecasts are just speculations about future developments, and authors can get away with very wild speculations. We think that the authors sent it to people outside DIA (thus leaking it). Copies started being circulated. Someone posted the leaked report in their website, causing a lot of buzz. Then some people jumped to the unwarranted conclusion that DIA officially supports CF. Then they complained that wikipedia didn't reflect DIA's official position. Show solid evidence supporting this thread.--Gregory Goble (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Rinse and repeat for a few more reports, and suddenly half the research institutions in the US give official support to CF. It is left unexplained why none of the institutions has granted a single cent for CF research in the last few years. Or started any sort of official research program.Care to join me in asking the heads of physics departments if they pooh pooh cold fusion - low energy nuclear -condensed matter reaction science?--Gregory Goble (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

CF would gain a lot of reputation as science if a) one federal institution started an official federally-funded research program, or b) one center like MIT launched an official course teaching CF as an established science. That's why you have these bitter fights over Langley's supposed official program, and MIT's supposed official course. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Care to join me in asking the heads of physics departments if they pooh pooh cold fusion - low energy nuclear -condensed matter reaction science?--Gregory Goble (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Gregory Goble: It was never officially published. It was apparently written by some individual researchers inside DIA who decided to write a paper on CF, then followed some internal channel to make it an internal report. Why do you say it was “apparently written” by anyone in the DIA? I suspect you have zero evidence for this. Further quoting you: suddenly half the research institutions in the US give official support to CF. Why do you say that? That is an extraordinary claim. Do you have any extraordinary evidence for this?

As I detailed above, the totality and details of this “document” as well as the exceedingly poorly written “citations” it contains, at least some of which just resolve full-circle back to LENR-CANR.org, make it appear to be a clumsy, amateurish forgery. Furthermore, the individual behind that website writes about odd things like robot chickens. Thus, there is nothing about LENR-CANR.org that looks to be an RS and there is reasonable evidence suggesting the whole thing is forgery site by a lone individual with odd ideas. Until proven otherwise, LENR-CANR.org must be presumed to not be an RS.

To spare future waste of time, I motion that a hat box (division) be placed at the top of this discussion page memorializing a number of consensus decisions to guide editors. Among the top ten findings should be that LENR-CANR.org is in no way an RS and appears to be a quack site salted with ham‑fisted forgeries.

To EdChem, do you think it wise to post a divbox at the top of this talk page enumerating consensus findings of fact regarding such things as what sites are not RSs and others rules of the road to guide editors here? Greg L (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I.P. 84.106.26.81’s edits

I note that I.P. 84.106.26.81 is doing POV-pushing tricks like changing titles of threads to change their overall thrust and meaning after editors have engaged in discussion on the thread. That I.P.’s talk page and contribution history suggests it is a single-purpose account dedicated to flouting rules of conduct. The I.P. traces to an ISP, Ziggo B.v, in the Netherlands. Does anyone have an idea if this is a banned editor? Greg L (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Peacock

Please, let's avoid the puffery:

[33].

I have removed some of the special-pleading and spoonfeeding that was going on in the article.

1. Ongoing "scientific" work is using the adjective "scientific" to assume facts not in evidence: that all subsequent work is scientific or that only the work being cited here is scientific. Let's not worry about the status of the work, we know it's work and we can leave it at that.
2. "Numerous peer-reviewed articles" is another example of WP:PEACOCK at work. Yes, they published peer-reviewed articles. We don't need to hit the reader over the head with it.
3. The claim that the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science linked here is peer-reviewed is a strong claim. There needs to be third-party independent verification that the peer-review process outlined on that website is up to the standards expected of peer-reviewed journals. I am dubious of its claims. Do the editors routinely send papers to physicists and researchers who have been critical of cold fusion in the past? If not, this is a truncated peer-review process, sorry to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.171.184 (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As to your first two points, I agree 100 percent. AS to your last point, I don’t know. Greg L (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is one of phrasing, I guess. Including this particular journal in the text of this article seems a bit special pleading to me anyway. Other peer review journals have published and indeed continue to publish cold fusion research (generally not the flagship journals, but more out-of-the-way ones), why focus on this one with all the trumpeting that it is peer reviewed? I just don't think that this claim of a singularly peer-reviewed journal belongs in this article sourced only to the website itself. 128.59.171.184 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Japan's cf acolytes as a parallel to India's

Under "ongoing work" was a claim that the Japan C-F Research Society somehow represents an ongoing work or sponsored program. However, that is not at all clear from their website which claims rather broadly that "The CF society is an unofficial organization, without legal standing." It is undoubtable that a core community of Japanese researchers remain committed to keeping that society alive, but there is no indication that the society is sponsoring research. Other than acting as a professional society and coordinating body, there doesn't seem to be more to it than that. It seems to mirror the situation in India rather closely, actually, but there may be some arguments to be had for listing all the national bodies underneath the "conferences" section (indeed, that's the main role of this group).

The following sentence, sourced only to a Conference Proceedings that likely had no independent verification was removed:

Some researchers have been funded by grants of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and private groups like the Thermal and Electric Energy Technology Foundation (TEET)

banned user VanishedUser314159 --POVbrigand (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggest reverting

[34] I suggest reverting this edit by User:POVbrigand who is clearly a sockpuppet of User:LossIsNotMore. 128.59.171.184 (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)