Talk:Cold fusion

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

"Topic of current interest"

I believe most of them tagged by 5.15.183.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are not "topics of current interest", and should be archived, manually, if necessary. If consensus can be obtained, I have an extension installed which allows me to click the "Archive" button on a thread, and it usually gets archived. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support out of date and/or forum discussions. Jim1138 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that those threads are concerned with aspects that should be mentioned in article and they have not been objected to inclusion, however they seem undecided and thus of current interest.--86.120.172.55 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support non-active discussions and the talk page is huge. Second Quantization (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose These aspects are not relevant and here votes are not counted. Supposedly non-active discussions can activate very quickly if some user decides to cites some sources in the article to address the mentioned aspects.--5.15.3.82 (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support re-archival without prejudice per the Wikipedia:TALKCOND Guideline. I understand that some threads may not have been fully addressed, but the practice of re-opening large numbers of old threads at one time with a sprinkling of generic tags is not conducive to drawing individual attention to specific threads. I think a re-archive of 5.15.183.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s mass un-archive is needed, but this should be done without prejudice - it should be acceptable if 5.15 or others were to selectively reopen an older thread or two while adding a comment detailing specifics of what it was in that thread that they think could be acted on to improve the article. (However, if the consensus of this discussion is to re-archive, another mass de-archiving or a reversion of a closer's re-archiving would be disruptive.)--Noren (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've archived the threads considering the support for it. None had been active for about two weeks. Second Quantization (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

How have you assessed the support? By counting votes (3.5 Support to 2 Oppose)?--5.15.32.35 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you make a change for the benefit of themselves and the poor science inventor. With the changes and can make wikipedia, monetary thank for these research Mount inventor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.127.155.170 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ill mention some of the topics of current interest to be discussed.--5.15.35.32 (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It's not for posting personal opinions on primary papers. I hope that your next suggestions are backed by sources that are usable in wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course these topics to be discussed for inclusion backed by usable sources. (BTW, are primary sources forbidden on w'pedia?) I'll ad some additional topics that need to be clarified and added to the article.--5.15.37.240 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to have understood what was being asked. You need to provide a specific proposal to change the article. Please make sure that your next edit here contains specific wording to update the article. This should be listed in the form: "I'd like to change X to Y. Here are the sources used to backup the change". Thanks.--McSly (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned some sources to be cited on some of the proposed topics. The specific excerpts to be cited can be established by reading the sources and selecting excerpts. I'll propose some specific citations from the sources. Feedback on specific excerpts from other editors who read the indicated sources would be useful.--5.15.53.167 (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Huizenga denial by Nernst equation

I found a RS that quotes Huizenga's assessment of Nernst equation in the context of analysing electrolysis. It doesn't find any problem with Huizenga's assessment: "The general message [of Huizenga's assessment] is clear: in using our pre-equilibrium arguments to establish Eq. (2.43), we must ensure that the pre-equilibrium is actually operative if the equation is to be meaningful. If large currents are being drawn, this may not be the case. Accordingly, the reader might note the need for caution in applying the analysis derived in Section 2.8. He/she might also wish to review the discussion of the Nernst equation in Chapter 1 of this book." Understanding Voltammetry pp. 56-57

The only other RS I can find is in German: Ebert K; Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 470 (in German). "Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium" (Electrochemically induced fusion of deuterium). [1]. Dieter's summary is "(...) The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV)"

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Cited excerpt

What exactly is the excerpt from the Huot reference cited by Huizenga in his book?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

text from archive by Brian Josephson which refers to the Hout reference in Huizenga's book:

I've now looked up the paper by Huot that Huizenga cites, and there seems to be a big gap between what he says and any assertion in the paper itself. If Huizenga thought there was some implication from the paper such as he asserts, he didn't go to any trouble to spell out his reasoning. The conclusion from all this would appear to be that Huizenga's assertion is overblown, and I suggest that instead of trying to summarise what people think about it as EN suggests that assertion simply be deleted from the article as having insufficient support.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

end of text from archive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The excerpt is very important for enabling the understanding whether Huizenga's criticism is valid or not.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Incompatibility to conventional fusion

This topic is closely connected to that of Types of models. A source for this can be the paper by Baim and Legget Phys Rev.--5.15.37.240 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is Baym, by the way, not Baim, and also it is Leggett, not Legget. I've commented on that paper on my talk page. Summary: it is inconclusive in the current context.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I consider seeing this discussion that although inconclusive, a proposed citation phrasing from the source could be:

Possible intrinsic sources of enhancement of the fusion rate include {3 possibilities listed there}. The source analyzes the first possibility and asserts the unlikeliness of solid state enhancement of the fusion rate.--86.125.167.74 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to include the reason given for them thinking it unlikely (more than 1000 atoms needed), so users can have the complete picture. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, good idea!--86.125.167.74 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The analysis by BL could be right tangentially in excluding the solid state enhancements of fusion rate.--86.125.186.149 (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't actually exclude it. In the absence of proof, what they said they thought very unlikely might actually be so. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've had a reply from BL now, which I'll quote:

... we agree with your implied position that one should keep an open mind about phenomena (including at least some of those usually regarded as "para-normal") which while not clearly violating the basic laws of physics as we know them do not have any obvious explanation within these laws. In such cases the ultimate arbiter is experiment.

--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This leads to the question how can various posited mechanisms (solid state enhancement vs exotic mechanisms) of CF be experimentally discriminated/discerned?--5.15.181.68 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As has been noted by people in the field, the regular route to gaining understanding is funding → experiments → data → understanding. The flow along this route is slow at the present time. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting to know what are factors that contribute to this low flow along the mentioned route. Perhaps some of them could be the low reproducibility and the tendency to theoretical denial of actual experiments due to difference of mechanisms from conventional fusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.53.36 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Quality (and design) of experiments and statistical analysis

Considering the aspects from the previous section regarding the discrimination of mechanisms by experiments which are the ultimate arbiter the question of how experiments should be designed to allow gathering of useful data for understanding and discerning the mechanisms appears stringent.--5.15.53.36 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The designed experiments must be (due to the issue of reproducibility) statistically analyzed. An example of (citable) statistical analysis is given by AIP source.--5.15.53.36 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Types of models

An appropiate source for this topic would the paper by Chechin and Tsarev from International Journal of Theoretical Physics.--5.15.37.240 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2014

New Publication on the website of the Board of Education and Science http://snto.ru/feedbacks?cid=8&item=56 New publication "Results " http://www.itogi.ru/paradox/2013/35/193536.html Hello could you mene help promote technology and can my film about cold fusion technology will help in prodvezhenii . Are you concerned about Rasulov Alexey, for what reason . I spoke at an international congress in 2010 http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/2 ... on the issue of cold fusion . Now published an article about cold fusion is in the WAC in the journal "Energetic" publication in May 2013 http://www.energetik.energy-journals.ru/content/2013/5-2013/. Could you assist me in advancing technology , to show interest in this technology , it's the same technology as nuclear fusion , ie project " ITER " , please give a note that a competitor tokamaks. here's another article in the papers on this topic for each other Kursk http://www.dddkursk.ru/number/895/pla ..., and red star http://www.redstar.ru/2012/01/21_01/ 3 .... As there is a publication in the Journal of the inventor and innovator in May article called lightning to nuclear power plants. Recycled paper for analysis attached. Also have a group on the website of the Russian nuclear community http://www.atomic-energy.ru/papers/24062. Waiting for a reply by email. My phone 89508760167 . Address Kursk, Kursk region , village Vorontsov , 68 305 501 Index . Sincerely Rasulov AV

109.127.181.110 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

To the IP editor from Kursk

Edits appear above from IP addresses 109.127.181.110 and 109.127.155.170 both with the same ADSL provider in Kursk. If they are for one person, would you please consider registering an account? Registration is free and actually improves your privacy. It is quite difficult to hold a real discussion with someone whose name and address keeps changing. Details are at wp:WHYREGISTER. If you prefer, you can register on the Russian-language Wikipedia, as accounts carry across between languages. Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Nehotela you Zalata fee izibretatelyu grief, and then here in Russia small fees or none at all, you can publish material after talks addressed alexras.82 @ mail.ru Rasulov A.V. In this article, you can take anything you publish yourself, http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/download/cong10% 2803% 29.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexras82 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is any of the preceding contribution by Alexras82, or the content of the previous section, anything to do with 'improving the cold fusion article', the purpose of the talk page? Just wondering. And did the editor's cat type a few extra characters while the editor wasn't looking? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's likely that Alexras is the IP. Alexras also seems to think that Wikipedia can promote the existence of a fringe journal by reference to a link to the fringe journal, which is of course not correct. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Publications

JzG - - I assume that you will be here in person rather than in 'bot', since you have been forewarned on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ‎ (→‎Cold Fusion: new section)

   "There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and 
   our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)"

You (JzG) eliminated a sentence "In 2007 they established their own peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. " based on its link to a "not reliable secondary source" (your claim). If there were a link to a commercial advertisement in the NYT about the JCMNS, instead of the ISCMNS link, would that be acceptable to you?

You are wrong on several counts that betray both your POV or carelessness. Assuming that cold fusion is "fringe" today (with over 4,000,000 hits on Google) and stating that a peer-reviewed journal (JCMNS) is "not reliable" is purely POV (yours or that of those you are supporting). Stating that the link is to the journal rather than to an organization's website (ISCMNS, a reliable secondary source for this purpose) is carelessness. Deleting important material, which had been discussed previously, with only a cryptic and invalid comment is not appropriate: 4 April 2014‎ JzG ... (they created a journal, source: link to the journal. Which is not a reliable secondary source.)

I went through the anti-fringe argument 1.5 years ago in this talk area and no one could come up with a valid reason for maintaining CF as a fringe topic. The topic could be considered "WP:controversial"; but, despite the major effort of the anti-CF group to keep documentation of mainstream research and publication out of the article, considering it to be fringe is untenable. It is only the unwillingness of that group to allow sufficient post-2000 publications to remain in the article that they can convince themselves (and certain administrators) to maintain the charade of their fringe argument. Aqm2241 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion is considered fringe "today" for reasons that should be obvious once one reads over WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and, of course, WP:FRINGE. As such, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is as reliable as any "journal" published from within the walled garden of astrology, homeopathy, etc. I.e., Regardless of the number of Google hits produced by the endless number of blogs and websites devoted to the topic, or the number of self-published papers its devotees can produce, without mainstream support, fringe is still fringe. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem - do you consider the CF article to be anti-CF (and therefore mainstream) or neutral, but specific to the topic? If the former, then it should be clearly identified as such. In that case, only a few exceptional articles could be allowed to support the minority view. Since there are mainstream anti-CF views, this would be a legitimate position. However, there are few mainstream descriptions of, or experiments on, the topic (perhaps none since 1991). If this article is a specific article on CF, not 'views on CF', then the balance shifts the other way. The anti-CF references are then the minority and must be held to the higher standard.

If the anti-CF crowd is treating the CF article as a minority and fringe position relative to a mainstream "view," then it needs to be retitled. Are you, or is anyone, authorized to speak for the anti-CF club, to decide what the article is. I would be happy to retitle it, if the decision is that it is a view of, rather than an article on, CF. Too much time and energy has been expended on trying to create an article that must meet different standards from the editors' viewpoints. Aqm2241 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Still considered fringe in 2013.

I recall that the journal is published by the organizer of the annual CF conference? It should be given preferential treatment among proponent sources. I find it natural to mention the most influential journal in a fringe field, when speaking about publications. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's still considered fringe science. See for example page 176 of the recent book "Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem", where cold fusion is cited as an "example of institutionalized fringe science" and where the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is specifically mentioned as part of this institutionalization. --Noren (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are the authors of this recent mentioned book? This labeling "example of institutionalized fringe science" is just rant.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Noren, your reference is very interesting. Note that the author described CF as "institutionalized fringe science." The book is a collection of 24 essays by various experts seeking to identify the distinctions between science and pseudoscience. The essay you referenced is titled "Belief buddies versus critical communities." I find it very interesting that her description of "belief buddies" (p 169, many with "little relevant scholarly training," p. 177, and as a marker for pseudo science, p 179) seems to fit the anti-CF crowd very well. Her description of CF as institutionalized and composed of self-critical, communicating, credentialed, individuals (characteristics of science) gave it "borderline legitimacy" (p 176). Since the anti-CF crowd often takes quotes from pro-CF author's introductions to identify problems with CF research or data, you may as well also. Please put it into the article text, so that we can add a legitimate CF reference (see my comments below). Aqm2241 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not a Wikilawyer and sometimes am somewhat slow (naive?). I just realized that the reason that the anti-CF club must remove legitimate sources that are pro-CF is that they have to maintain the fiction that CF is fringe. Then, to show that they are 'neutral', they can allow as many pro-CF as anti-CF references. Thus, they play the game.

We can help them play their game, and still improve the article, by finding as many anti-CF comments as possible. Since the anti-CF crowd would allow (and claim) even blogs as strong tertiary sources (if they fit the proper POV), the pro-CF group could play along just to permit additional legitimate CF-documentation to be referenced in the article. Of course, the discerning reader would see the difference in quality of the references, but the anti-CF crowd is not trying to convince a discerning reader. Since it cannot 'kill' CF, it only wants to preserve the fiction that CF is fringe-science. Furthermore, some of the anti-CF group are less than honest and know that periodically, they can bring in a 'big gun' and just arbitrarily 'erase' many of the pro-CF references to maintain the appearance that CF is still only "fringe" and no real work or progress is happening. For example, I note that all of the Forbes references are now gone. Some sources that are 'legitimate' when publishing anti-CF articles would be labeled as fringe and/or worthless and not be allowed, if publishing non-anti-CF articles (e.g., http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.4.2409). However, the anti-CF articles from these same journals must still be retained to keep the WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe charade intact.

Speaking of WP:Fringe, within their own definition, they violate the Wiki tenets: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." Clearly the anti-CF group will not allow "more extensive treatment" under any circumstances. (They may even deny the notability of CF, since they apparently believe it is fringe. Apparently, they consider the article to be about the failure of CF - a majority viewpoint? - thus they can claim that they are only suppressing "undue weight.")

I also note that there is no section in the CF article on why people should be interested in the success of CF (cheap energy, little or no radioactive waste, reduction in green-house gases, no concern about strip-mining or fracking, off-grid living) and no figures indicating demonstrated levels of power and energy generation (e.g., last figure in http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/). Aqm2241 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Closure of some subsections

I notice this very interesting feature of closure of some subsection by JzG (see above at topic of current interest). He has no right of closure for unsettled topics just based on his personal opinion. His abusive closure will be undone.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)