Talk:Cold fusion

Archives

November 2003 – November 2003 December 2003 – July 2004 July 2004 – January 2005 February 2005 – December 2005 January 2006 – January 2006 January 2006 – April 2006 (E. Storms article, ObsidianOrder article, Powerpedia, Atomic temperature, F&P Press Conference, Jones and Rafelski) April 2006 (POV issues) April - May 2006 (POV issues) June 2006 (Lead section) August 2006 (Nuclear Transmutation and length of article) October 2006 (revert to FA version) December 2006

Disambiguation hatnote

Hi, folks. A little disambiguation question: there's a Doctor Who novel called Cold Fusion (page at Cold Fusion (Doctor Who)). It's pretty insignificant, but there should be some pointer here towards it, for general disambiguation purposes. Do you think it's better to add it to the existing hatnote, like this: Template:Two other uses Or should we create a disambiguation page and just have a standard {{otheruses}} or {{otheruses1}} hatnote? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone here have a preference about this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to add it to the "Cold fusion in fiction" section of the article. My second choice would be to use the "two other uses" tag. I would certainly not go for a disambiguation page.Pcarbonn 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I put the "two other uses" tag on, since the novel isn't really about the scientific concept of cold fusion: although there are "fusion bombs" in the story, the title is really more of a play on words with the story's themes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

DOE Panel conclusions

Note: this discussion is summarized at the top of the talk:Cold fusion page.

ScienceApologist, after your edits, the summary of the DOE Panel's conclusions does not correlate with the description at 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion. Only the negative aspects are reported. For instance, there is no mention of positive evidence of excess heat, production of ⁴He, transmutation and other unexplained effects. I'm going to reword to bring this in line with the detailed article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronnotel (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

The so-called "positive evidence" spin on the DOE report is not well-considered and definitely does not belong in the WP:LEAD. If you read the DOE's own summary of the report they are highly negative. Revising the sense of this negative report into a positive spin is definitely a violation of WP:NPOV as well as WP:OR. --15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just bringing it into line with 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion. If you disagree with that page, then you should correct it first. Ronnotel 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And I question the need to 'caution' me. Is that a threat? Ronnotel 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The page itself describes the summary of the report well. It's highly negative of the prospsects for Cold Fusion. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The report concluded that cold fusion is as it was when the original report came out. While sympathetic to continuing efforts to figure out what's being measured, it's by no means an endorsement. Hasn't changed in over 10 years is the key finding. –M^T 07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please choose your words more carefully. You have been reminded more than once about WP:CIV. I have done nothing that requires being 'caution'ed. I believe the first paragraph of the 'Main conclusions' section is not addressed in your summary of the DOE Panel and is highly relevant to the debate. Is there some compromise that can be found? Ronnotel 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist says "the positive evidence spin on the DOE report is not well-considered". I'm not sure where the spin is. The DOE report contains both positive and negative comments. Why would it be NPOV or OR to report them both ? The conclusion recommends further careful scientific study : why would it recommend that if it was negative on CF? In any case, trying to decide if the report is "negative" or not is too vague to help us write the lead section correctly.

We had a long discussion on how best to report on the DOE panel with user "M": see here. For example, we agreed that the evidences of excess heat was a key question to address in the Lead and that the position of the DOE needed to be reported on this question. ScienceApologist, please let us know if you disagree on that.

We decided with M that the DOE report was fairly represented by saying "The sophistication of calorimeters had made significant progress, a DOE panel observed in 2004, and evidence of power that cannot be attributed to ordinary sources was more compelling than in 1989. " Do you consider this presentation OK ? Please read paragraph 3 on page 3 of the report before replying. Pcarbonn 16:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the review of the report provided by the DOE is negative. Choosing to summarize it differently from the way the DOE summarized it is an example of original research. You may not like how negative the DOE's own review of its report was, but that's not a reason to change the description. The "evidence of excessive heat" is really a question of energy generation. A neutral summary of the review of the DOE report is that they did not see evidence for energy generation from nuclear processes. The fairness of the presentation is not the issue. It is the fact that the lead is supposed to summarize the ideas quickly and with general strokes. Including the gloss related to the few panel members who were more accomodating is really a violation of undue weight. The lead summarizes rather than promotes. --ScienceApologist 16:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As half the panel was in favor of excess heat, I believe a fairer description is that the panel "was split on the issue of excess heat" or "did not reject evidence of excess heat". Ronnotel 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Excess heat has nothing to do with "cold fusion" itself. That's not a good summary for the lead. --ScienceApologist 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it mentioned as the panel's first conclusion? Ronnotel 16:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it's relevant to the panel (not to this article, per se). --ScienceApologist 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I find your logic argumentative. The panel's sole purpose was to investigate Cold fusion, the exact topic of this article. Please see WP:AN/I, you may wish to respond to my complaint. Ronnotel 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that while it is important to report on the existence of the DOE report, the summary of the report clearly is negative towards prospects of cold fusion. The "excess energy" points are iteratively argumentative and are only included to further the POV of cold fusion supporters rather than give a balanced summary of what the report was about. Such a summary can be taken directly from the DOE's own summary of the report. Since they themselves describe the report as being negative toward cold fusion, describing it otherwise is misleading. --ScienceApologist 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My only interest is in aligning this page with 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion. You state that the DoE Panel's report was 'negative'. However, I can't find the word 'negative' on that page. Quite the opposite, not having read the original report, 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion seems neutral at worst and slightly positive. You are now claiming that descriptions of 'excess energy' in 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion is due to POV. Yet just a couple of hours ago you seemed satisified with that page's content. Which is it? I think you should be a little more careful throwing around claims of WP:OR. Ronnotel 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the conclusion of the report:

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.

The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

As such, it is fairly clear that the conclusion is negative towards cold fusion (which was the finding of the 1989 report). To try to spin it any other way is original research. --ScienceApologist 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That very well may be, however this material must integrated into 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion first. It's unhelpful and unencyclopedic to reinterpret orginal documents in summary form in a way that is different from that document's main WP article. Ronnotel 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is not requirement to edit the daughter article before the parent. We can fix problems wherever we find them (this being a wiki and all). --ScienceApologist 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, among the many reasons to avoid what you propose is your apparent assumption of bad faith on the part of the authors of what you term the 'daughter' article. I think it distinctly non-WP to unilaterally assume that your interpretation of a document supercedes the collective contribution that resulted in the detail page. Ronnotel 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Ron on this one SA. After reading the article here on the wiki, I agree with Ron's statement that the article is "neutral at worst and slightly positive". The quote you posted above doesn't seem to change that conclusion, and appears to be a call for further research. That doesn't strike me as very "negative".

Now it's entirely possible that the article about the 2004 review here on the wiki is misleading, and that the report in question really is much more "negative" that the article suggests. But if that is the case, Ron is absolutely right in suggesting that THAT article needs to be edited first, not this one. Maury 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what you miss is the major conclusion that the 1989 report was correct. That's the report which made the negative assessment of cold fusion a reality. --ScienceApologist 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist says "they themselves describe the report as being negative toward cold fusion". I could not find this in the summary of the 2004 report. Using "negative" is inappropriate unless we can find it quoted in the report. Saying that the 1989 report was negative is also inappropriate, as this is not sourced.

Furthermore, let's not be manichean nor see the story as black or white. Both DOE reports were not "black or white". Here are 2 sources to back this statement.

• The 1989 report says: "The panel is sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system". The 2004 report reaches the same conclusion, as you quote, and takes great pain to suggest some areas of research. If they were "negative", I would expect them to say: no funding for further research.
• The 2004 report suggests, as you correctly quote above, "basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field". Their use of "resolving some controversies" clearly implies that the panel accepts the existence of controversies, something that they would not do if they were "black or white".

If the DOE reports were not "black or white", why should we be ? Or did I miss something ?

So, SA, please rephrase your argument without using the word "negative": what exactly in the previous version of the lead section do you want to change, and why? Please provide appropriate sources for your argument, so that we can move forward. Pcarbonn 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's silly, "negative" is a summary point I am using to point out that the panel did not find evidence for cold fusion. To avoid this point is to unduly push the POV of yourself and other cold fusion sympathizers that the DOE report somehow mitigated the criticism of cold fusion. --ScienceApologist 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You say: "the panel did not find evidence for cold fusion". Please quote your source for saying that. As said earlier, the summary report actually says the contrary (see page 3 of the report): you cannot say the contrary is POV or OR. So, until you source your statement, we have to consider that your statement is wrong, POV and OR. This applies also to your "that's silly" statement. Pcarbonn 07:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ScienceApologist, but you are mistaken. The report summary clearly states in the final, concluding paragraph of the summary of "Charge Element 2: Determine whether the evidence is sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that such nuclear reactions occur." that: "The preponderance of the reviewers’ evaluations indicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented. One reviewer believed that the occurrence was demonstrated, and several reviewers did not address the question." The statement "the panel did not find evidence for cold fusion" is an honest, NPoV summary of that part of the report. --Noren 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Noren. Now we can make progress: your arguments are well sourced, and we have a basis for discussion. However, I still disagree with what you said, so let's try to resolve it.

Here is the problem we face: the last paragraphs of Charge 1 and of Charge 2 seem to say different things. The concluding remark of "Charge Element 1" says: "2/3 of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was convincing for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced." Clearly, this is not the same as "the panel did not find evidence for cold fusion", and so is a direct challenge to your argument. So, either the 2 concluding paragraphs are contradicting each other, or there is subtle difference between the 2. We need to resolve this to be able to agree on the lead section.

I'm open to your suggestion to resolve this contradiction. Here is my proposal. When I read the description of the charges again, I see the following difference: the first charge asks "are the evidences convincing ?", the second one asks "are the evidences convincing beyond doubt". Please tell me if you agree, or if you see another difference between the two that can resolve the apparent contradiction.

If we agree that this is the difference, then we would conclude that this is what the panel said about the evidences: 12 reviewers did not feel the evidence was convincing, 5 reviewers found the evidences somewhat convincing, and one reviewer found them convincing beyond doubt. The preponderence was not convinced beyond doubt; several reviewers did not say whether they were convinced beyond doubt. The 2 concluding paragraphs would then make sense again, without contradiction.

Can we agree that this is what the report says about the evidences ? Or do you have an other proposal to make ? Thanks in advance for your reply. Pcarbonn 21:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, believe this is good path for progress. I'd like to request that we defer efforts to summarize the panel conclusions until there is a consensus on what they actually are. Otherwise we are putting the cart before the horse. Ronnotel 22:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the two statements as being in conflict- and the 'beyond doubt' phrase seems an unnecessary editorial addition. A two-thirds majority finding in part 1 that the evidence of low-energy nuclear reactions was not convincing is consistent with the statement in part 2 that a preponderance of the panel found the the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions not to have been demonstrated. Both parts mention that one of the 18 panelists did find the evidence full convincing. Where is the contradiction? "Beyond doubt" and "fully convincing" seem to allude to the same thing... and only one panelist was convinced to that level of confidence. The statement did not and should not claim the panel made a unanimous finding, but with 2/3 not at all convinced (a preponderance of the panel) and all but one of the rest only somewhat convinced it is fair to summarize this as a negative result. Going into detailed voting counts might be apropos for the body of the article but is excessive detail for the lead. In fact, I'm unconvinced that this review belongs in the lead at all. --Noren 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'm glad that the tone of the conversation has changed. I'm also glad that you say that the 2 statements do not conflict: both are thus true. As a consequence, it is neutral POV to say that a not-insignificant number of reputable scientists (6 out of 18 find) find the evidence of cold fusion somewhat convincing, although not beyond doubt. So, there is still a scientific controversy (otherwise only 1, maximum 2, would be somewhat convinced): hence the recommendation of the DOE panel to continue scientific research under strict scientific methodology, including peer-reviewed journals, to resolve the matter. Hence the prominent place given to this point in the final conclusion of the report. The DOE panel does not support the view that such research is misguided, or that there is no controversy. It actually says the contrary. At the same time, the evidences are not beyond doubt: hence, the DOE recommendation to not fund a major federally-funding program.

The purpose of the 2004 DOE panel was to review the state of the LENR field in order to decide funding level. In 1989, the recommendations were to not set-up a major program, but to tolerate further scientific studies. If you look carefully at them, the 2 charges of the 2004 panel are defined precisely to assess those 2 previous funding decisions. As the 2004 concludes, the panel reached similar conclusions to those of 1989 (but not identical). This seems to me the most logical and neutral way to read the 2004 report. Pcarbonn 12:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Did we reach a consensus ? Here is the summary of the discussion. Feel free to adapt to reflect what was said. We'll adapt the lead section afterwards. Pcarbonn 09:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary now moved to the top of this page. Pcarbonn 12:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary was wrong. I changed it to reflect reality. --ScienceApologist 20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that there was enough time to react to the summary I posted. I updated your update to bring the facts without POV (eg. no "but", which would imply a judgement). Pcarbonn 20:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New Energy Times

Scienceapologist wrote: "New Energy times is not a reliable source for who is and isn't working on Cold Fusion. Sorry.)"

That's an unsubstantiated, libelous and POV statement. You should be informed of a few facts.

It's editor, Steven Krivit, has attended and reported from the last three international conferences in Cambridge, Marseilles and Yokohama, respectively. From what I read in the New Energy Times magazine, Krivit and the other reporters who have written for New Energy Times, Lietz and Daviss, seem to know just about everybody involved in the field. Krivit's book explains, on page 162, how he collected the data for that chart. His book also provides additional evidence that he knows who's who in cold fusion, through the many personal communications he has had with these researchers.

In addition, New Energy Times has copies of the most recent abstracts from most of the major conferences. If you look through them, you will see the names and affiliations of the researchers who are contributing papers. So you really needn't even rely on New Energy Times if you would care to take the time and the diligence to go through the abstracts yourself.

Krivit has participated in the scientific process - he has presented in multiple science conferences and will be speaking at the APS conference in March. So go ahead and demonstrate the foundation for your assertion that New Energy Times is not a reliable source.

STemplar 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Who the editor is of the magazine is irrelevant. What abstracts the magazine contains is irrelevant. New Energy Times is not a reliable source for reporting how many cold fusion researchers there are. Read the linked policy to see why. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For the clarity of the argument, please state which section of the WP:RS policy you believe is not satisfied by New Energy Times. Another good way to count how many researchers are working in a field is to look at the associations representing them. This is the rule that would be applied in any other field than CF, I believe. If you think otherwise, let me know what is a reliable source for counting researchers, whatever the field. The International Society of Low Energy cold fusion has 175 members. You can see the list here. Yet another alternative would be to say "Many researchers are contributing..."; however, this is not very informative to the reader, so I would recommend to be more precise. Pcarbonn 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Enumerating researchers is highly problematic and has been discussed in other articles on controversial subjects. In particular, it is impossible to determine the status of the researchers and most lists/membership roles are self-reporting. This is not reliable. --ScienceApologist 18:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To wit I cannot think of any reliable source for this kind of information. It would be ridiculous to estimate the number of biologists, for example. Jefffire 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. --ScienceApologist 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept the arguments. After all, it is not the number of researchers that matters. It is the fact that replications have been reported in peer-reviewed journals, in accordance with the scientific method recommended by the 2004 DOE panel. I'll be happy when the lead section presents that point. Pcarbonn 09:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Distinction between 1989 and current research

I think this article should be either split up or reordered. Every paragraph seems to contain a mix of "FP 89 experiment" "Whats wrong with FP 89" "New navy research" "Whats wrong with the critics of 89". There seems that in every paragraph, both critisism of the FP 89 experiment and the new Navy experiment seem to "slip" in. This whole article need a new structure:

• Original FP89 experiment
• Critisism of FP89
• Critisism of the FP89 cirtisism
• New research by the navy

The current state of this article leaves me in a state of cold confusion. 213.39.136.91 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. It's not clear to me whether your "cold confusion" comes from the article itself, or from the scientific controversy. If you hope to want a definite Yes or No answer on the Cold Fusion subject, I would suggest you come back in a few years when the controversy is settled. Pcarbonn 11:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC) As for the Navy research, I do not think it deserves a full section until it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. See also the related discussion at Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_12#Promote_CR-39_image.3F Pcarbonn 11:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is the wikipedia article that I find confusing.

I came to this article to find out what the current state of the controversy is, but the article makes it hard to find this out, as points by both sides are dispensed across the article. (It seems that the article resembles the battle between those two fractions :-) I don't expect a simple Yes/No answer, but a clear presentation of

• The original FP experiment
• The point of the critics (The "No" fraction)
• The point of those who think it has scientific merit / Possible Explanations (The "Yes" fraction)
• Current research
• And of course: Other kinds of cold fusion, Cold fusion in fiction, References, See also, Further information, etc.

Maybe there should even be a section about the cold fusion controversy. It is highly interesting (at least for me) how such a controversial scientific topic is handled by both sides. It tells a lot about scientific progress, whether cold fusion is real or not.

The main problem of the current article for me is, that it is too "mashed" for my taste.84.144.24.183 12:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. This is valuable feedback (and a lot of work...). Pcarbonn 18:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I searched for examples in other contentious articles. I found that some other contentious articles follow a similar approach to ours, ie. one section covers both pro and con arguments:

• European constitution
• UFO

Some others do have a criticism section:

• IraqWar
• Global warming controversy

The last one has the arguments as bullet points: this makes for easy reading. Maybe that's the way to go. Pcarbonn 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed structured is very much based on FP89, and I'm not sure how to incorporate the larger body of experimental evidences in it.

Here is the structure I propose, taking the Global warming controversy article as a model. It would only add 2 new sections (in bold), so that it would be fairly easy to do:

• Overview
• Arguments in the controversy
  • Assertions by opponents
  • Assertions by proponents
  • Measurement of excess heat
  • Measurement of nuclear products
  • Reproducibility and repeatability
  • Theory
• Possible commercial development
• History

Would that help you find the information you are looking for ? Pcarbonn 11:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

An issue I have, though, is that this would increase the repetition of the same arguments. A secondary article on "cold fusion controversy" may be best, as you suggested. We used to have one, but it was deleted some time ago. It is probably possible to get it back. You can find a copy of it here. Pcarbonn 13:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

I dispute the following lines: "A 1989 panel organized by the U.S. Department of Energy concluded there was no convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion, but was sympathetic to careful funding of additional research to resolve the controversy. A second DOE panel, convened in 2004, reached similar conclusions to the prior panel."

Because the 2004 DOE panel is cited quasi-verbatim in a different context, these sentences imply that the 2004 DOE panel concluded that there was no convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion. This cannot be true, because the question was not asked to the panelists, and that the summary report does not mention this issue anywhere. In my view, the "reached similar conclusions to the prior panel" sentence in the 2004 report must be understood as refering to the 3 questions asked only. Pcarbonn 11:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't look at me. I prefer: In 2004, a specially convened DOE panel reported that "the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review." When asked about low energy nuclear reactions, only one member of the panel felt that the evidence was conclusive. --ScienceApologist 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this would solve the problem I raised: please explain. The problem is that we say "similar conclusions to those found in the 1989 review" right after saying "no useful sources of energy from CF". One option I see would be to remove that last phrase from 1989. Another option would be to not say "similar conclusions to those found in the 1989 review", but to clearly state what those conclusions are. Pcarbonn 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I find that reasoning way too nitpicky to be able to evaluate it. --ScienceApologist 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This statement in Overview seems to clarify (correct) what the initial statement implies. "Some researchers believe that the experimental evidences are sufficient to establish the scientific validity of the effect, but others reject those evidences, and the 2004 DOE review left the panel evenly split on the issue (a significant change compared to the 1989 panel which rejected all evidences)." -- Guest, 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.175.145.66 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Removed debatable text

'By 1991, 92 groups of researchers from 10 different countries had reported excess heat, tritium, neutrons or other nuclear effects. Over 3,000 cold fusion papers have been published including about 1,000 in peer-reviewed journals. In March 1995, Dr. Edmund Storms compiled a list of 21 published papers reporting excess heat. Articles have been published in peer reviewed journals such as Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of Fusion Energy.

Now, I find this text not adequately verified by independent sources. Simply enumerating "92 research groups" is meaningless. If I set up a cold fusion lab in my basement, I could make that number higher. Likewise the 3000/1000 papers reference doesn't evaluate the type and style of cold fusion papers. A great many of them may be reporting negative results, so the snowjob implications are not very well-handled by simply stating a raw number. Why should a compilation of 21 published papers be notable for inclusion in this article? Does Storms hold some sort of weight above the normal evaluative scientist? Likewise, why likst the names of the journals that have published articles on cold fusion (positive or negative). This paragraph serves no purpose other than to pull the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting readers. It is not illustrative of the field or the science or even the papers/research it claims to be discussing. --ScienceApologist 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To ScienceApologist:

WRT to your sentence #1 and #2: The enumeration of 92 groups is not a simple, baseless enumeration. If you follow the reference, you will see that it is the sum of groups reporting cold fusion evidence. This data is from a table published by Fritz Will, of the National Cold Fusion Institute in 1990. It was re-published by Eugene F. Mallove in the book Fire From Ice (1991, NY: John Wiley, pp. 246-248). The laboratories reporting this evidence include approximately 35 universities, approximately 23 government laboratories and corporate laboratories. No basement laboratories appear to be included in the list.

WRT to your sentence #3 and #4: Rather than obliterate an important fact that pertains to the subject, your concerns can be addressed by the inclusion of the following, "Many of the earlier papers reported negative results." It is my opinion that this would be useful and objective information for the reader.

WRT to your sentence #5: This question can be addressed by the inclusion of the following text. "When Fleischmann and Pons made their claim of excess heat in 1989, their claim stood alone, without any independent replications to back them up. It took several years for other researchers to develop the required skills and understanding to properly replicate the excess heat effect. When Edmund Storms performed this survey, it marked a turning point in cold fusion's history; a strong collection of excess heat replications had now been recognized."

WRT to your sentence #6: Yes, I would say so. Edmund Storms worked for several decades at Los Alamos NL, one of the world's most advanced laboratories for tritium research. Storms is a radiochemist, and this background makes him an excellent person to study this field. Storms has been the most prolific writer of survey papers of this field, his personal library of cold fusion papers numbers over 3,000. There may be very few other people in the world who know more depth and breadth of the subject than Storms. Storms was invited to talk at the August 23, 2004 Department of Energy cold fusion review in Rockville, Maryland, though he declined the invitation. He was invited, and he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives in a hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy, of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology on May 5, 1993. He is the author of a forthcoming book on cold fusion to be published by a prominent scientific publisher. He is the Chair of one of the APS cold fusion sessions to take place on March 5, 2007 in Denver, CO.

WRT to your sentence #7: Numerous myths exist regarding the subject of cold fusion. One of these myths is that no papers have published in peer-reviewed journals. Another myth was that no papers have published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. Providing this list of papers, (all positive, by the way) helps to dispel the myth propagated by people who would otherwise pull the wool over the public's eyes to allege that no published papers exists and consequently impinge upon readers' ability to know the facts.

WRT to your sentence #8: I disagree. It is my opinion that published papers are, in fact, illustrative of the field, nothing is more so.

STemplar 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that STemplar has pointed out that the neutrality and the reliability of this paragraph is very much in question. I will remove the paragraph until he can find independent verification (not from New Energy or the Cold Fusion Society) of its claims. --ScienceApologist 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the neutrality is a valid reason to drop this paragraph. If the issue is only one of neutrality, we can fix it by saying "New Energy reports that...". Also, the DOE recognized that cold fusion is a valid area of scientific research: as a consequence, scientists studying the field should be considered a valid source of information unless proven otherwise. If you have a valid source challenging the views stated in the paragraph, we would report it. Pcarbonn 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If we say "New Energy reports that" we need to explain who New Energy is and why their opinion belongs in this article. Otherwise, I'm with you on this one. I think that the problem is that the views in this paragraph are so skewed towards one side that the mainstream will not rise to refute them. The mainstream is closed shop, and that marginalization needs to be accounted for in our articles. Neutrality does not mean bending over backwards to accomdoate the paens of the disenfranchised, and more than that WP:NPO#Undue weight forbids us from pandering. Propose some new text that attributes if you like, but right now I don't see it as likely to rise to the level of encyclopedic. I'm willing to change my mind given the right prose. --ScienceApologist 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you could say that this statement is POV: "Articles have been published in peer reviewed journals such as Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of Fusion Energy". This is a plain fact. Some of these articles were presented to the DOE review. If you don't believe it, just go and have a look at them. Please find a better argument than "the mainstream will not rise to refute (those statements)": the 'silent mainstream' has no right to voice in wikipedia, and never will. (If you prefer, we could give the source for each article)

You seem to accept that "cold fusion is a valid area of scientific research", as you should. Therefore, it is not "bending over backwards to accomdoate the paens of the disenfranchised" (a very POV statement of the field, by the way) to state that Ed. Storms, a scientist in the field as STemplar rightly explained, has compiled a list of 21 articles. Since when does wikipedia prevent to quote a relevant statement from a scientist working on the subject of the article? Or are you arguing that the statement is not relevant to the history section, ie. that the history section should not give information on how many times excess heat has been reported ? While I would agree that it does not belong in the "experimental evidence" section, it seems pretty clear to me that it should be in the history part. Pcarbonn 20:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I qualified who Edmund Storms is. His advocacy is questionable because he tries to get people to give him money to support Energy K systems. Not exactly a reliable source, but anyway. What I find terrible is that a random assortment of journals culled from a citation list in New Energy Times is claimed to be a "plain fact" that cold fusion research was published. However, it isn't qualified as to how positive this research was in these journals and whether cold fusion rallier has been successful in, say, the last 15 years for some of these journals. See why it is misleading? --ScienceApologist 12:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's hilarious. A new low! Just for laughs, tell us:

1. Do you have any evidence for this assertion about Storms? Can you tell us the name of a person or organization which Storms has contacted asking for money? Or did you just make this up and hope that no one would notice?

2. Has it occurred to you that the people in the hot fusion program and elsewhere in the DoE who attack cold fusion might also have a financial incentive? To say that their "advocacy" is "questionable" is a gross understatement. Their assertions -- like yours -- have absolutely no basis in any scientific peer-reviewed papers.

- Jed Rothwell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

ScienceApologist: YOU qualified Storms? You make me laugh. Of course Storms asks for money for science research. What scientist doesn't? Does the $12B for ITER mean that hot fusion researchers are unqualified experts on hot fusion? You use this to attempt to discredit Storms' reliability as a source? Perhaps you are not aware of this, but most scientists are not independently wealthy. I am rolling on the floor laughing at this illogical lunacy and fallacious argument. Is that the best you've got? What in the world are you doing here? Contributing or defacing?

ScienceApologist: "since the content of the article is unevaluated." Excuse me, but these are articles that are published in peer-reviewed journals.

ScienceApologist: "removing the publications bit since they are obviously opinionated lists." No sir. That is not obvious to me. To me they are obviously papers published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

ScienceApologist: "This paragraph only contains information from "one side" -- the minority -- and presents it as fact." Well, the funny thing is, these are facts. Reminds me of the line, "never let the facts stand in the way of a good story." I challenge you to consider: maybe there ARE NO current negative papers? Hmmm... wonder why? Actually it's not true. Shanahan published a recent paper in Thermochemica Acta. So if you want to provide balance, go ahead and list that one.

ScienceApologist: "Random assortment of journals culled from a citation list in New Energy Times." With the exception of the Shanahan TA article, I challenge you to defend this statement or retract it.

ScienceApologist: "However, it isn't qualified as to how positive this research was in these journals" Again your logic here defies, uh, logic. First of all, the text states, "Articles have been published in..." But it doesn't purport that they are positive or negative, it just guides an interested reader where to find current published papers on the subject. Your actions could be perceived as censorship. Second, what does the degree of positivity of "this research" have to do with the price of tea in China? Is that a Wiki parameter? "Degree of positivity?"

ScienceApologist: "the last 15 years for some of these journals. See why it is misleading?" So you propose to weight the Wikipedia page with out-of-date research? I challenge you to defend this logic or retreat.

This issue of published papers is rather entertaining to observe. Once upon a time, this Wiki page stated, in the introductory paragraph, something to the effect that "no papers have been published in respectable peer-reviewed journals such as Sciecne and Nature," which was somewhat of an odd statement, you know. Then some of the recent published papers were added to the list to provide balance. Then, when the paper from Naturwissenschaften published, Germany's equivalent of Nature, the weasel-word "respectable" had to be removed to keep the article honest. Now we have someone who claims that listing papers which are positive are POV.

Who is really doing the misleading here? Science is a cuumulative process, each step builds and learns from the ones before it. To disregard this fact is pathological skepticsm.

No apologies here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.152.143 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Scientist link

I found this which I thought might be interesting to use: [1], scroll down to no. 13. --Guinnog 17:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

History

A spin-off article Cold fusion history was created back in August but it seems to be less developed than the history section of this article. So it might make sense to merge it back in. The alternative would be to really exploit the spin-off article. (note also that History of cold fusion would be a more appropriate title) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pascal.Tesson (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Is cold fusion a "fringe" theory

ScienceApologist, you say that "According to Wikipedia, however, it is definitely under the purview of WP:FRINGE." as a justification of your deletion of "Articles on cold fusion have been published in peer reviewed journals such as Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of Fusion Energy.". Please provide a clear justification to this. Which criteria for fringe do you think cold fusion meets ? And, assuming that cold fusion meets the criteria, please explain why this sentence would have to be removed according to WP:FRINGE Pcarbonn 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

list of good sources

• http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0303057 ( http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:1koUR-YFdUMJ:arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0303057+%22Mossbauer+effect%22+%22cold+fusion%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us&client=firefox-a) Kevin Baas^talk 20:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/305protoscience.html Kevin Baas^talk 20:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf Kevin Baas^talk 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

why no mention of ion band state theory?

it seems to be a prominent cold fusion theory.: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAtheionband.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Baas (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

peer review checklist

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cold_fusion

• The whole first paragraph is awkward and leaves out a basic definition of cold fusion.
• Per WP:LEAD, please cut down the introduction a tiny bit (to 3 paragraphs would be nice).
• "The special ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized in the nineteenth century." By who? Maybe a reference or footnote.
• "This was due not only to the competing results and counterclaims, but also to the limited attention span of modern media." Is this sentence necessary? It seems like a cheap shot.
• "and was held out as a prime example of pseudoscience." Really? I'll believe it, but it seems to me like there is a difference between pseudoscience and fraud/error. Is there a cite for this?
• It's nice to see all these details on the topic. I only really had negative impressions of the first sentence. I have the strong impression that it is misleading to a nonscientific reader. It makes the categorical statement that "Cold fusion IS a nuclear fusion reaction that takes place at or near room temperature..." (my emphasis) This give the implicit but strong impression that it is real, confirmed, and uderstood to actually be nuclear fusion. Not just an interesting topic to investigate. It's like writing "Planet X is a planet beyond Pluto", "UFOs are alien spacecraft", "Tachyons are particles that travel faster than light", "Fortune telling is predicting the future", etc. After the first two paragraphs, it becomes clear what the deal is, but first impresions last.... Deuar 21:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The first sentence is really a definition only. Cold fusion has been achieved in muon-catalyzed fusion, so the definition holds. I think the problem comes later when we present condensed matter nuclear science as (real) cold fusion. How to rewrite this is debated on Talk:cold fusion Pcarbonn 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• [I also inserted this in the talk page earlier today, before realizing that peer review comments belong here] I have reviewed this article, and, I agree with Deuar: the introduction to this article fails badly. It does not spell out the reason why the hypothesis that fusion reactions explain the reported measurements of excess heat generations remains unaccepted as an explanation by most physicists. According to our theoretical understanding of fusion, release of excess heat should be accompanied by release of well-determined quantities of energetic particles including fast neutrons and gamma rays. None of the experiments reported to release excess heat have also released energetic particles in the quantities predicted. In the absence of a convincing theoretical argument why the purported fusion reactions should not behave like all others that we have measured, the clear conclusion is that something else, most likely measurement error or poor experimental design, yields the reported results. (These opinions concur with the DOE review panel 2004 that is extensively discussed in the article; as well as the Physics Today article covering that report, both of which represent the mainstream of physics opinion). Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 22:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

link to FA version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=33756791 Kevin Baas^talk 22:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the comments above refer to an old version of the article. More recent comments can be found at: Talk:Cold_fusion/Comments Pcarbonn 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

APS March meetings

The American Physical Society's March 13–17, 2006, Baltimore, MD session on cold fusion had 13 presentations.[2] Does anyone know how many this year? James S. 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I counted 19 of them in 2007. See [3] and [4]. Pcarbonn 10:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All right! I hope we're under the cusp now. Let me know when someone demonstrates something which might be commercially viable. It's good to see some real robust theory and replications being advanced. I hope that helps them tune. James S. 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I also found 6 presentations at the American Chemical Society meeting end of March: [5] Pcarbonn 11:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable statement

"A 1989 panel organized by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) comprised of scientists with no specific expertise in stochastic chemistry and a vested monetary interest in protecting their own billion dollar research budgets allocated to hot fusion experiments, concluded that there was no convincing evidence that a low energy nuclear reaction had occurred. Ground breaking advances in science in one field often grow out of experimental results in another field, and the breakthrough in cold fusion was no different. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann were world class experts in the field of electrochemistry, and their experimental results in 1989 had wide ranging implications, reaching into even the field of Physics. Billions of dollars have been been utilized in hot fusion research deployed in experiments with substances in heated states such as plasma. The direct threat to the Physics community that the Fleishmann Pons experiment posed resulted in the swift and total repudiation of the scientific reputations of Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons."

Seriously, what in the world is this? I'm pretty sure stating the only reason cold fusion doesn't work is because that there is some sort of hot fusion funding cartel is a bit biased. (added 17:40, 7 March 2007 by 198.214.186.128)

I agree this is POV speculation and needs cleanup. --Wfaxon 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I second, will revert to the previous description. Ronnotel 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, my attempt to revert this text was reverted back, possibly by the same anonymous user who wrote the original text. That user then replaced this talk page with the text from the article, but that could have been a mistake. I also note that the talk pages for both anonymous users have warnings for vandalism. Left a message for the user, let's see if they want to talk. Ronnotel 19:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and reverted. However, I must say, after a few years of watching responsible sympathetic editors improve this article only to be shot down by those who are still convinced that it was all a big sham, it is somewhat refreshing to see an actual strident proponent try to scrub the critiques and advance an unlikely persecutory conspiracy theory. James S. 22:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who keeps re-editing the Cold Fusion post but please note this:

~The physics community has more to lose by continually escalating this battle over online posts. If you had simply ignored this post, the post would have remained, and far less people would have heard and learned the truth about the original Fleishmann Pons experiment.

~I'm assuming the opposition here are uninformed scientists(most physicists) because more institutionalized opposition such as major energy and state actors would likely not care too much about Wikipedia.

~The accuracy of this post will become very public very quickly, if Wikipedia does not rule on the side of reality and the thousands of experiments around the world that have verified the existence of low energy nuclear reactions. Wide ranging litigation will be a direct result of this continued dispute.

~An acceptable compromise could be to include a link in the Cold Fusion poste to all the cold fusion bashing by uninformed physicists on an actual physics entry within Wikipedia

~For all who think that the initial tests to verfity the Fleishmann Pons experiment done by Physicists at MIT and CalTech proves the veracity of the non-existence of Cold Fusion should consider, would you ask a world class fisherman to drive in NASCAR? Or would you expect an excellent golfer to win an Olympic butterfly style swim race? Why would you then expect world renowned physicists to know the first thing about extremely complex electrochemistry experiments?

~In the 1600s Galileo advocated the theory of heliocentrism and was placed under house arrest by the Catholic Church. The period from 1989-whenever the scientific community finally accepts cold fusion reactions as reality will be viewed as the same sort of fantasy period as when the majority of people believed the earth was flat and the universe revolved around the earth. Prepare to have your text book enshrined dogma completely shredded to pieces. User:frostrex

Frostfex, thanks for your input and your interest in improving this article. Please be aware that just because not everyone shares your opinion on how the text of the article should read that we are all skeptics on the subject of cold fusion. If you read the complete article, I think you'll find that considerable effort has gone into to describing the research you refer to in a fair way. The text in the header was debated at some length to reach what all parties felt was largely free from WP:POV. I encourage you to become familiar with WP policies such as using reliable sources, maintaining a neutral voice, and seeking consensus on major changes. Also, it's helpful if you sign your comments with four ~'s so we can more easily read and understand your arguments. Thanks! Ronnotel 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronnotel, as scientists, you all may not be reading into to the subtleties that result from even the pure factual content being displayed in the introduction to the Cold Fusion post. In the media not only does the bias on any particular news story gives a slant, but the actual news that is chosen to be reported, or placed on front page news, reveals the true beliefs and agenda of the organization behind the news. In the same manner the content of the summary for the Cold Fusion post reveals the underlying bias and assumptions about the parties involved to reach a so called "consensus."

Just because a greater majority of scientists on Wikipedia support the view that cold fusion is far from proven and is more likely pseudoscience does not mean that majority should dictate what is in the post. The summary is crucial in establishing the existence of cold fusion to the rest of the world. Including only the Department of Energy's panels on cold fusion as the most relevant development in the past 18 years is highly misleading and biased. The thousands of verifying experiments and the dozens of labs that have verfied cold fusion absolutely must be included in the summary.

Ronnotel, I don't know what your personal agenda is in this post, but this dispute will not be dictated by the beliefs of the physics community.User:frostrex

Frostrex: First, I'm not a scientist, just an interested editor with some undergraduate physics as are most of the contributors here. Second, to be an effective contributor, it's important to assume good faith on the part of the other editors. Also, please note that the third paragraph of the lead states

In 2007, Mosier-Boss and Szpak, researchers in the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego, reported unambiguous and repeatable evidence of nuclear reactions

which hardly seems like an attempt to minimize the validity of cold fusion. Ronnotel 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronnotel, if you had read any cold fusion book, specifically Charles Beaudette's Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed you would know that there have been thousands of experiments verifying the initial Fleishmann Pons experiment from 1989-2007. Not only has cold fusion been repeated multiple times, but at laboratories around the world.

"Its important to assume good faith." Right. That's why life in a state of anarchy is comprised of puppies and flowers, not nasty, brutish, and short. Considering that there are billions of dollars of science funding at stake, and the incumbent energy industry is a hundreds of billions of dollar business, this post, about the forefront of alternative energy research is critical to get accurate.User:frostrex

Promote CR-39 image?

A few months back, I suggested that the image of the CR-39 be promoted to the top of the article given it's significance. The consensus was to wait until the research had been formally published in a reviewed source. That has now happened. Any objections? Ronnotel 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Research has indeed been published, and it is good news. I'm not convinced that the image should be promoted though: I'm not sure how the occasional reader will understand it, and the fusion cell picture seems more illustrative to me. Furthermore, I heard that CR-39 detectors have never been used in a liquid before, and some wonders what is the impact of this on the interpretation of the traces.Pcarbonn 08:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See also here for further discussions on CR-39 analysis. Shouldn't the scientific debate fully take place before we promote the image ? Pcarbonn 11:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a huge deal for me either way, I just think the existing picture is rather boring - something you'd see in any chem lab. In my mind, the lead picture should help a reader understand what's unique about the article. I'm not wedded to the CR-39 picture, but surely there's a better way to compel the reader further into the article - perhaps a (not overly complicated) diagram illustrating the effect? Ronnotel 13:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Would the infrared picture be a good choice ? It makes it pretty clear to everyone that heat is generated. Pcarbonn 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. I'll make the change. Ronnotel 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article and the powerpoint file related to this image, and found no assertion by the authors that the image showed cold fusion in action. Therefore, I propose replacing this image with the previous image of a device, or with an image and caption that is more definitively related to cold fusion. Any objections? 209.253.120.205 14:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The caption of this picture in the cold fusion article is "An infrared picture of hot spots on the cathode of a cold fusion cell". Do you have a problem with this caption, or with an image with such a caption in the article ? It should be clear that this picture is in a cold fusion cell, i.e. a cell to study "effects which could be nuclear fusion reactions occurring near room temperature and pressure using relatively simple and low-input energy devices". The very first sentence of the Szpack article talks about excess heat in Pd/D-D20, the central focus of research in "low energy nuclear reactions". Furthermore, Szpak is a cold fusion researcher, and he presented this picture at an international Cold Fusion conference. Pcarbonn 08:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The authors do claim that the picture shows hot spots in a cold fusion cell, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it shows cold fusion. If the authors were confident that nuclear reactions were taking place, they could have easily stated that. The image of the device is more directly linked to cold fusion, and more informative for the casual reader. 209.253.120.205 14:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We agree on many things: indeed, the authors do not say that nuclear reactions are taking place; and the image on top of the article should be linked to cold fusion and should be informative. As explained above, the image is strongly linked to cold fusion. It is also informative : it shows evidence of excess heat, ie. of the effect that started this field of scientific inquiry. On the other hand, an image of an electrolytic cell would be "rather boring - something you'd see in any chem lab", as Ronnotel said above. He also suggested that "the lead picture should help a reader understand what's unique about the article". I agree with him. Excess heat certainly is unique about cold fusion, and the current picture clearly illustrates it. An electrolytic cell could just as well illustrate the article on electrolysis. Pcarbonn 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The infrared image is strongly linked to excess heat, but the authors do not claim that it shows cold fusion. It is also significant that the article does not identify any proposed nuclear reaction and does not include any discussion of detecting either helium or radiation that the cell may be producing. Placing this image so prominently in a "cold fusion" article implies that there is consensus that the image does show cold fusion in action, which is not supported by the present documentation. Therefore, the current article violates wikipedia's NPOV policy and should be changed. The best option would be to replace the image of an experimental cold fusion device. It may be boring, but it would make this a more useful encyclopedia article. 209.253.120.205 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A CR-39 detector showing traces of nuclear activity in cold fusion experiments at SSC San Diego.

OK, now I understand where you see an issue. You say: the referenced article does not talk about nuclear reactions, therefore it is not about cold fusion. So, you take "cold fusion" literally. However, look at the definition of the first sentence of the article: "cold fusion is the name for effects which could be nuclear fusion reactions occuring near room temperature and pressure using relatively simple and low-input energy devices." One major manifestation of this effect is the excess heat, as has been recognized by the 2004 DOE review. Your position would hold if 2004 DOE panel did not review excess heat effects, but they have. With the definition of cold fusion as per the article, there is a consensus that the image does show "cold fusion" in action. However, there is no consensus that it has nuclear origin, as you rightly point out. The caption does not say that either. Pcarbonn 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please explain how the image of a cold fusion device would be better than the current image. As far as I know, the image you propose would not be more illustrative of any nuclear reaction than the current one. Pcarbonn 09:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the way out of this would be to replace the infrared picture by the CR-39 one on the right, as Ronnotel suggested. Pcarbonn 10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After following the suggestion to look at the first sentence of the article, I noticed that it was illogical, so I reverted it to an older definition added 04:58 22 November 2006. Regarding the comment about taking the title "cold fusion" literally, I plead guilty. This is an encyclopedia, so we should be taking the titles of the articles literally unless there is a very good reason not to. Regarding the comment about the 2004 DOE review, this article is not about the 2004 DOE review, it is about cold fusion. What they reviewed is irrelevant to the definition of cold fusion, and how the primary image on this page should be chosen. Regarding the comment that an electrochemical cell image would not illustrate a nuclear reaction, I answer that the purpose of this article, especially the introduction, is to help a wide variety of readers quickly find out about the issue of cold fusion. Regarding the blue&green CR-39 detector image, it is completely inappropriate to use such an image for the primary image unless it has more documentation than the linked New Energy Times article.

The primary image of this page should show something important about the consensus of the field, and one of the most indisputable facts of this field is that electrochemical cells are key to most of the experiments. That is why an electrochemical cell is the best candidate.209.253.120.205 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The image of CR-39 detector has been presented by Mosier-Boss et al. at the APS meeting in March. I have updated the reference accordingly. Let's hear what others think of this issue. Pcarbonn 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see 209.253.120.205's point. However, I agree with Pcarbonn that the CR-39 image is more illustrative and, IMHO, more aesthetic. It literally shows the unique product of a cold fusion reaction - i.e. what makes cold fusion interesting as a topic - while the electrochemical cell could be any experiment in any chem lab. And regarding consensus - I haven't heard much from the skeptical POV lately regarding Mosier-Boss, et. al. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but are things turning a corner since the announcements at the March meeting and the Naturwissenschaften article? Ronnotel 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the electrochemical cell as the primary image to bring the article closer to NPOV. Placing the CR-39 image at the top of the article seriously misrepresents the consensus in the field. To demonstrate that there is consensus that the CR-39 image shows cold fusion, much more documentation is needed than New Energy Times articles and APS March meeting abstracts. 209.253.120.205 18:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Pcarbonn 11:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Page maintainers?

I see that a few people are working hard to improve this page, and noted the following infobox at the top of the page for talk:vitamin C, which is a form you guys might want to emulate:

---Wfaxon 15:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I don't find it useful though: questions should be addressed to everyone, in my view. Pcarbonn 16:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey! That's mine! Lol, could you replace me with someone else? As I care little for fusion unless it's hot — Jack · talk · 03:43, Wednesday, 4 April 2007

Ok - two guys on opposite sides of the issue...:-) --Wfaxon 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Did Carl Sagan consider Cold Fusion as pseudoscience ?

The following line seems dubious: "Sagan sued Apple over the association of his name with what he considered pseudoscience." Could you provide a source ?

This page here reports on what Carl Sagan thought of cold fusion. It does not mention pseudoscience. Pcarbonn 15:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That was Sagan in November 1989. Here is Sagan's view in 1994: "If it were up to me, there’s nothing in the way of compelling evidence for cold fusion, but if there were such a thing as cold fusion—you know, desktop conversion into enormous energy—we need that. So I can understand why there are companies, especially abroad, that are devoting small resources to it. I don’t think that’s cause for apoplexy. It’ll probably come to nothing, but if there are scientists who want to spend their time on that, let them do it. Maybe they’ll find something else that’s interesting."

The original source of the Apple story -- which also took place in 1994 -- is William Poundstone's Carl Sagan: A Life in the Cosmos, which is echoed in a paragraph here in the Wikipedia article on Sagan, and elsewhere on the web. From the above I think it's clear that by 1994, Sagan didn't believe in the possibility of cold fusion. He wasn't upset by scientific research into it so it's reasonable to argue that he didn't consider it "pseudoscience", but he didn't want his name associated with it (and one unquestioned scientific fraud, the "Piltdown Man") in any way, even in some internal corporate project naming scheme. After all, these names aren't so "internal" that they don't get published worldwide. --Wfaxon 23:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

The page has changed substantially over the last few months, but so has the status of cold fusion in the research community. With the APS announcement and the upcoming ACS panel, there is renewed interest in cold fusion. However, skepticism within the commnunity still remains and it needs to be reported. The main goal of cold fusion advocates is to attempt to convince the scientific community that this line of research is still worth studying -- even after the problems that it had in the past. The article as it is writtent right now is a bit bullish and written from the perspective of a cold fusion advocate rather than a dispassionate reporter on the current state of the subject. As such, I have placed the POV tag on the article and encourage editors to go through and try to identify and fix the problems that exist with the text.

In particular, we need to be clear that cold fusion is still very much fringe science, even though there are more signs of acceptance today than there were even six months ago.

--ScienceApologist 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you say "The main goal of cold fusion advocates is to attempt to convince the scientific community that this line of research is still worth studying". They don't have to anymore: the 2004 DOE clearly recommended further research in the field. This point has already been discussed at length: please refer to the "conversation conclusion" box at the top of the page, and to the full discussion at DOE Panel conclusion".

About current skepticism: why don't you propose a sentence to add in the lead section ? Pcarbonn 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading through some sources currently. This one may have an attributable point worth including. I'll also note that the article directly contradicts your statement: "Acceptance by the scientific community is still the main target for cold fusion advocates - hence the importance of replication, appearing at major conferences, and publishing in peer reviewed journals." --ScienceApologist 13:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how this article contradicts my statement. My statement was about the worthiness of the line of research, which is confirmed by the 2004 DOE, not about the acceptance of the cold fusion effect by the community, which I agree is not there yet. The article you mention talks about acceptance, not worthiness. So how could it contradict what I said if it's about something else ?

If you have said in your initial comment: "The main goal of cold fusion advocates is to attempt to convince the scientific community that the effect is real", I would have agreed. Pcarbonn 14:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, it's a distinction without a difference. In any case, it seems to me that this article does not adequately discuss the facts that a) the scientific community has not yet been convinced of their claims and b) the cold fusion advocates are trying to convince them. --ScienceApologist 14:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It may make no difference to you, but it does for those who are seeking funding for cold fusion research. I think that the article makes your 2 last points quite clearly, but if you want to clarify it further, go for it: I don't have any objection. Pcarbonn 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) completed by Pcarbonn 07:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't be one of those seeking funding for cold fusion research, would you? --ScienceApologist 11:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, but this is not relevant. You wouldn't be one blocking funding, would you ? Pcarbonn 12:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really aware of any conspiracy to block funding, so no, I'd have to say that I'm not blocking funding. I'm also not in any position to grant funds for research either, so I'm not even doing it passively. This question is very relevant because there is a conflict of interest guideline at Wikipedia which encourages people to be up-front about their potential self-interest biases. Now that we've cleared the air, we can continue to edit the article. --ScienceApologist 13:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. I was just saying this to show that it's a distinction with a difference. Pcarbonn 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Multi-body interactions: No gammas?

The following postulated reaction has been posted as fact that it doesn't emmit any EM-radiation: d+d+d+d -> 8Be -> 2 4He.[33]

Is there any credible proof that such a reaction could even in theory not emmit any Gammas? I find that extremely hard to believe, since all nuclear reactions emmit EM-Radiation of one or the other form and energy level. And [33] is no credible source. It's just painting in the sky of what might be happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dio1982 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Proof of Helium...

Critics note that great care must be used to prevent contamination by helium naturally present in atmospheric air.[19]

Actually this is blatently false. If heat is generated in measurable quantities (a few kJ), the produced Helium via a mystic D+D->He-4 reaction would be available in quantities which are above air concentration by at least a factor of a hundred. Air has a concentration of only ~2.2*10^-8 mole He/l. This would be like a punch to the face. Dio1982 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Doi1982 wrote: "Actually this is blatently false." If heat is generated in measurable quantities (a few kJ) . . . it would be available in quantities which are above air concentration by at least a factor of a hundred." That depends upon the method used to collect the helium. When the cell is closed during the run and the helium collects inside it, the concentration does indeed rise well above atmospheric concentration. (See McKubre's Case-style experiment.) However, when the cell is open and the helium is collected from the effluent gas, it is below atmospheric concentration. (See Miles.) Both methods have been used successfully, but the latter is more common. Even though the concentration is much lower, this method has other advantages.

Doi1982 should read the literature more carefully before jumping to conclusions and commenting on the results.

- Jed Rothwell

Sorry, but the "great care" part is still wrong. If the proof of Helium-production would be taken seriously, you'd of course design the experiment in such way as to make measuring it easy. This means a closed system. From my own calculations it is imposible to measure helium buildup via an open system. The few watts of postulated fusion energy is too little. It's simply a problem of scales.

The main problem still remains: A few scientists started with the conclusion first, that fusion has to happen here, and now they are grasping every tiny straw trying to prove it as a second. After a decade of experiments people still can't get their facts straight of what experimental results are actually happening here. And that is very worrying for any outside scientist and reduces credibilty close to nill.

Face it. If some kind of fusion reaction were to occur here, MANY, MANY exotic and easy to prove things would occur here. For example the mentioned helium production. This is TRIVIAL to prove, if you set up an experiment correctly.

But instead, people are concentrating on tangentials which all hover around measurement accuracy and have multiple other causes.Dio1982 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dio1982 wrote: "If the proof of Helium-production would be taken seriously, you'd of course design the experiment in such way as to make measuring it easy. This means a closed system." As noted, this has been done, and the helium exceeded the atmospheric background. In a sense, all systems are closed because some helium is trapped in the cathode and can only be driven out after the run.

However, as I mentioned, there are compelling reasons to use other methods as well, including on-line measurements of effluent gas. A variety of different methods and instrument types have been used, which bolsters the results.

Dio1982 wrote: "After a decade of experiments people still can't get their facts straight of what experimental results are actually happening here." That is two decades, and the only people are confused about what is actually happening are those who have not carefully read the literature. Again, I suggest you review the literature more carefully before commenting on this subject. There is no point to making assertions which are not in evidence, or trying to discuss papers you have not read. You cannot do science by ESP; you have to read something before you can tell what it says. You will find over 500 full-text papers on this subject at LENR-CANR.org.

- Jed Rothwell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.247.224.24 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

It should also be noted that researchers are not sure that it is "traditional fusion" anymore. Instead they are trying to make sense of the hard evidence that is available. Pcarbonn 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are trying to make out that is the opposite of natural decay... like the opposite of a halflife for radioactice elements, in that they have a half life till they likly fuse. Basically the idea they are putting forth is like just how water can evaporite without reaching 100 degrees, its possible for fussion to occur at a low temperature on a very small scale.--Dacium 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reorganisation/split?

Hi. I think the current version of the page is getting very large and difficult to follow. The Mosier-Boss/Spzak experiment is now starting to rack up a significant number of references, and it's (IMO) a significantly different experiment to Pons-Fleischmann, with different experimental specifics and some different "issues", so "Cold fusion" is no longer synonymous with "the Pons-Fleischmann experiment".

In light of this, several sections that are specific to PF now need to be reorganised or subcategorised. We also need a separate section on MB/S. I think that given the size of the article (which will increase with the new MB/S material), it's probably time for [we might want to consider] all the very specific technical stuff about Pons-Fleischmann to be moved back out to a separate article. At some point, when the MB/S material also achieves critical mass (and gets an agreed name), that should probably [might] be exported to a separate page too, with "cold fusion" becoming the generic parent page.

I'll be doing some editing on the page today (05 May 2007). ErkDemon 14:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, finished. In the end I chickened out of reorganising the whole article, I just modified the intro, added the section on the Mosier-Boss/Szpak experiment(s)' (using info from a New Scientist, article, 5-May-2007, pp32-34 "Cold Fusion Rides Again"), created a same-level section for the Pons-Fleishmann experiment, and moved a few things about. I think that it makes sense to have all the specifics of the PF experiment corralled in one place, regardless of whether we later split it off as another page or not. I still think that the rest of the article could do with wrangled into a more disciplined shape, but I'm pooped, so I'm stopping here. ErkDemon 16:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Retitled a few sections, too, with names that seemed to be more descriptive of their contents. Didn't change the contents or order of those sections. Finished now, honest! ErkDemon 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. Here are some more suggestions for further improvements:

• The very first sentence of the article should be the definition of cold fusion. This is the case in most wikipedia articles.
• The introduction should present the conclusions of the 2004 DOE review, so that readers have an immediate sense of the scientific view on the subject. With your intro, he would not immediately know what to think of it. Reviews have more value to readers than primary sources.
• Because the article is very long, it should start with an overview section. The section title should reflect it. In past discussions, it was decided to deemphasize the controversy side of the story, because it is old history by now.
• I would not place the attempted explanations so early in the article, for different reasons. The scientific method starts with the evidence, then search for a theory: the article should reflect that, especially in a subject like cold fusion. The reader will wonder "an explanation for what" when reading it, because he would not have yet read about the evidences. Also, the content of this section is actually very poor, because today there is no satisfactory explanation for cold fusion yet; so this section is not particularly instructive for the reader. If you look at superconductivity, it starts with the experimental evidences, then the theory, then the history: why not follow the same structure ?
• The experimental evidences are so far down in the article: who would read that far ? Yet, this is what is most interesting to present, to understand what we are talking about.
• The positionning of "Measurement of excess heat", "Nuclear products", and "reproducibility" seem to imply that they relate to the F&P setup. This is not correct, as a variety of setups have been used to arrive at these conclusions (as explained in "Moving beyond the initial controversy"). It is wrong to think or imply that the F&P setup has been used for 18 years, then came the MB/S setup in 2006.
• I do favour the creation of a section on the MB/S setup and Galileo Project. It should come in the experimental section.

I won't have the time to discuss or implement these changes, so do as you see best. Pcarbonn 16:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now implemented most of these suggested changes. Pcarbonn 21:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! This isn't my field, so I'll now happily butt out and leave any further changes to people who know rather more about this stuff than I do. It's nice to see the page being updated. ErkDemon 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, first paragraph says that in hot fusion, ascending nucleosynthesis releases energy. That's obviously only true for the lighter target elements. Some rewording required. ErkDemon 02:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. thanks. Now fixed. Pcarbonn 16:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating!

That is all I have to say! Excellent read! Bill Sapperton

Codeposition

Maybe we should have an article on Szpak and Mosier-Boss's codeposition technique, since it was really the turning point for reliability and replicability. They've produced a ton of stuff at SPAWAR/SSC, and it's all on lenr-canr.org. 75.35.79.57 20:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)