User talk:Phil153

Welcome!

Hello, Phil153, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Dr.K. (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

CF discussion

Hi Phil 153. I noticed you self-reverted a comment on the CF talk page about some of Jed Rothwell's claims. To whit, you wrote:

Jed, the study you linked does not support the claim that cold fusion boiled water. It suggests that boiling may have continued longer than it should have in an already boiling cell. As for the rest, I'm confused. You said:

No chemical reaction has ever been found in a successful cold fusion experiment., yet this article on Arata's demonstration clearly says: This generates heat, which Arata says is due to a chemical reaction, and the temperature of the sample, Tin (green line), rises to 61 °C. Are you saying that Arata's demonstration was not a successful cold fusion experiment? Phil153 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on beginning to see Jed's tactics. He does this all the time. That's why I learned not to bother with him. He just wastes inordinate amounts of time.

I moved you comment here so that people could see what you found out. If this was spf, everyone would be yawning, because Jed did this for years there, but Wikipedia is new territory for him, so the word needs to get out. Hope you don't mind, if you do please delete this unceremoniously. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I reverted cause I didn't see the point in continuing and it wasn't helping the article.

As for Jed, I started off giving CF maybe a 5% chance of being real (there's a lot of smoke for no fire), and revised down with every cold fusion paper I read. Phil153 (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In 1989 when CF was announced I wasn't 'in the field'. I and a lot of people I knew guessed that there was something going on, but not what F&P claimed because that was too far out. Unfortunately, the field polarized and cemented and they basically stopped looking for any other explanation of the effect. My thesis is that they are seeing real effects, just not nuclear ones. Basically, you have my mechanism for how to get apparent excess heat, and the rest is just various forms of contamination. 192.33.240.30 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Oops, forgot to login Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean "they're faithfully recording what their instruments are telling them", then I'd agree in most cases. Phil153 (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I noticed that, above, you said that your opinion that there might be something to cold fusion went down with every paper you read. I've been finding the reverse effect, but, then again, I started with the SPAWAR findings with their usage of CR-39 for radiation detection, which has been confirmed and which seems to be reliable. The consensus in the field now seems to be that what is happening isn't simple fusion, though that was pretty obvious from the beginning. I.e., the environment in the lattice isn't smashing two deuterons together to form a helium nucleus. Even if helium is being produced. But LENR does indeed seem to be taking place. As one researcher pointed out, the problem isn't that they don't have any theory as to what is happening, the problem is that they have too many. But the excess heat is pretty well established, it's not just experimental error, and there is ample report of tritium that just shouldn't be there. But the SPAWAR results with CR-39 shows radiation that also shouldn't be there; and it's been confirmed with mylar-shielded CR-39, ruling out the chemical possibilities. There are a number of indications of nuclear transformations, transmutation of elements, taking place in the palladium; again, something very strange is going on. It's fairly obvious to me that the original flap has suppressed publication, or we'd be seeing more RS on this. Refuting it, if nothing else. Regardless, there is vigorous ongoing research in the area, all over the world. Fringe, this is not. Fusion? Who knows? But where is the radiation coming from? Tritium, maybe some contamination? Neutrons? Calibration problems. But CR-39? It's just a piece of plastic! There is apparently work in process to more accurately characterize whatever it is that's causing the tracks in CR-39. But, since you seem to be both knowledgeable and skeptical, what have you seen, recently, that makes you that way?

"They stopped looking for any other explanation of the effect." Who? The mainstream doesn't seem to believe that there is any effect, so this would have to refer to the LENR researchers. I'd say, from this, that you don't seem to be familiar with the recent work; they aren't calling it "fusion." They are just detecting excess heat and radiation coming from the cathode. They are detecting elements that shouldn't be there. They "hypothesize," sometimes, certain nuclear processes, such as palladium fission for certain results. For palladium to fission, not supposed to happen, except that a mechanism has been proposed. But we just don't know enough.

By the way, I was very aware of the work in 1989; when I read about it, I immediately went to Credit Suisse and put $10,000 in a palladium account. Which was all the money I could put together. Fortunately, I didn't put it into palladium futures! I think I lost a little money, not much. It was a long shot, in fact. Still might be. If nuclear reactions are taking place in that lattice, it may turn physics upside down, but it doesn't necessarily mean cheap nonpolluting energy, it might turn out to be impossible to scale it up. On the other hand, it appears that it's fairly well known now how to get excess heat. Using palladium rods, very difficult. Using codeposition of palladium and deuterium so that the palladium is 100% loaded with deuterium from the start, much easier, it seems. And I can say practically none of this in a Wikipedia article, because the major publications aren't looking at it. Actually, there have been reports and reviews, but scattered.... --Abd (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

---

That Palladium investment was pretty clever, even with a small chance of CF being true. :)

As for me, I'm far from knowledgable about CF compared to someone like Jed. My skepticism is basically the following plugged into Baye's theorem:

• The magnitudes of the effects are miniscule and close to the typical levels of error. This is the biggest death blow to the field. Very scattered claims of much larger magnitudes can be comfortably dismissed as nonsense. Some come from known frauds (mentioned previously), none have been published in good sources. In short, don't let the language of science fool you - they're no better than Joe down the street telling you he's made a water car.

• The evidence presented is full of contradictions. Some detect helium with heat, others detect no helium and just heat. Some detect tritium and no helium. F&P found much larger effects than later researchers with higher loadings and a more refined technique for loading. Claims of required high D2O loadings required to explain lack of reproducibility conflict with reports of heat measurements from experiments that couldn't produce adequate loadings given their design. Some claim to be able to produce heat with light water, while light water is used as a control in other experiments. Gamma rays have been reported, and not reported; no gamma rays were found in other experiments, but alpha particles were found instead. It was neutrons in another experiment. Nope, no neutrons, but transmutations were reported. All of these are taken by proponents as evidence as evidence of nuclear activity, instead of evidence of serious problems with low level measurements.

• There has been virtually no progress in improving the magnitude of the alleged effect after 60 million dollars and 20 years. It's not rocket science. If you're getting a fraction of a degree, that could plausibly be due to error, the first thing you do is scale it up. If fusion is happening on the surface of palladium, increase the surface area 10 fold by putting in 10 electrodes or plated nanodes in the same calorimeter, and note if you get several degrees heating instead of half a degree. If you get the same level of heating, you've very likely got error in measurement and little else. Use several detection methods instead of one; there are multiple available for alpha particles and neutrons. Report them all simultaneously. These procedures are so obvious that it makes me wonder if they've been done, and not published but merely discounted as not working for unknown reasons, because the experimenters believe that cold fusion is real.

• The findings conflict in multiple extremely unlikely ways with a broad range of observations under many different conditions. These are called "theoretical issues" but in reality what they are is direct conflict with multiple, highly reliable, highly reproducible observations. As the DOE reviewers said, you really need three *independent* miracles to make this work. The fact that nothing of this kind has been observed under the vast array of conditions in which we've observed nuclear and sub nuclear goings on, doesn't look good. There is probably a theory that could explain cold fusion, but a theory which could explain cold fusion *AND* everything else we've observed in the 60 odd years of looking at nuclei is unlikely.

• The cold fusion community is full of credulous people with little integrity or sense. The cold fusion papers themselves bear this out, and many of the DOE reviewers noted the very poor experimental designs and lack of self criticism in the field. The field has all the hallmarks of crackpot central - the promise of free, clean wonderful energy that could potentially save the world , and would have if only the establishment, the bureaucrats and the cynics hadn't tried to brutally suppress them from giving free boundless energy to the planet (sound familiar?). These kind of fields attract loons, frauds, dissatisfied researchers and wishful thinkers by the dozens, substantially lowering the probability that the claims made by researchers in these fields are reliable. Many of the credentialed researchers are ancient, well past their prime (two examples: Aruta, and the Nobel Prize winner who was outraged at not getting published). And if you've ever been in a physics lab, you'll realize that quite a few of the people work there, while technically competent, don't always have their marbles. Claims are just that, claims.

• Basic research in science is a huge mess. I've always said it's little better than alchemy. Instruments screw up all the time, often without the researcher knowing; assumptions are made that aren't reflected by real world conditions; errors get fudged; missing results get approximated; contradictory evidence gets ignored or downplayed. It's a combination of the complexity of the work and basic human nature, and it's why we invented the scientific method in the first place and placed such a high premium on reliable replication. As an anecdote...when I was in my final year of college, a group of my professors received a large grant to do some research which I was involved with (I'm not going to say what it was). They purchased expensive equipment and spent a month organizing the time sensitive experiment. During the experiemnt, a drift in one of the key machine's components developed, and we had to correct it periodically. The machine was performing a time dependent measurement of something, and the correction involved resetting the gain to where it "ought" to be, then quickly noting its position before it dropped again. Despite this hilarity, the final analysis summed up hudreds of these crude corrections in order to do the analysis (which had to have zero drift). Needless to say, this introduced large amounts of error in the sensitive final result. Any bias during noting the position on reset (say, a bit late, a bit early, or a machine that fluctuated during a reset), a cumulative bias would be introduced that would make the conclusions worthless. When the paper was written up and published in a national journal, only brief mention was made of the gain problem, and it was downplayed, because the results "looked" like we thought they should. Most groundbreaking research is riddled by this kind of crap, even in the best labs. N-rays and polywater are classic examples of multiple laboratories being fooled by totally non existent phenomenon for long periods of time.

• I don't know see what you do with the CR39. I disagree that the chemical possibilities have been ruled out. One group has *claimed* that the chemical possibilities have been ruled out, while others dispute that and have found that the CR39 pits are likely chemical in origin. I don't find it even close to convincing given the fact that these are non typical pits in an unusual environment subject to potential chemical attack. I would want to see textbook alpha tracks to even be interested, and probably other forms of detection as well.

Phil153 (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some relevant points. First, it is my understanding that while "polywater" was originally claimed to be some new form of ultra-pure water, it actually turned out to be an odd mix (perhaps "solution") of water and silicon dioxide from the glass used in the experiments. Therefore something was there ; it is an error to claim that polywater was a totally non existent phenomenon. It was in reality a misinterpreted phenomenon.

Next, "Abd" has indicated (somewhere that I recently read, perhaps his own talk page) that some of the CR-39 experiments have been done with mylar protecting the CR-39 from chemical attack --but the plastic got pitted, anyway. Finally, many years ago when I first started studying nuclear phenomena I encountered a description about how a sheet of paper could block alpha radiation. If true, then remember that paper is less dense than water, and HOW CLOSE is the CR-39 to the electrodes??? It seems to me an unreasonable demand on your part, to expect alpha particle tracks in electrolysis experiments (unlike experiments with CR-39 performed in air or vacuum). V (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One claims that. Another has done similar experiments and found that pits don't appear when protected from attack. What you have is a big pile of horse do, until it's replicated by good labs. Don't forget this field has had plenty of such breakthroughs, new promising methods, new detections of all kinds of products, which have tragically failed to turn into anything in 20 years.

As for alpha particles, you are correct about their short range in liquid. I know nothing about the field, however, there is more than one liquid detector available, as would be obvious from the nature of alpha particles. Here are some google links for your perusal about other methods [1] [2]. Wouldn't the most obvious thing to do be to use a different kind of detection method if the original one could possibly be flawed, especially where the claims are extraordinary? Phil153 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right about polywater. However, it's relevant to the difficulties in detecting and preventing contamination and sources of error, how things are frequently assumed to be free of contamination when in fact they aren't, and people's propensity to read more into things than exist (and continue to after the mainstream rejects it). Phil153 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And it also begs the question - have they done the CR39 measurements in the cells that use gas instead of electrolysis? That would be the most obvious thing to do, removing potential for attack on the CR39. Given that this CR39 stuff goes back a decade, I'd be interested to hear if this has been. Phil153 (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Cry (film)

I have spent the last 90 minutes bringing the article up to code and feel I have shown definite notability since its DVD release of last May. Might you suggest anything else I might add? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're more familiar with this topic than I am. I commented on the AfD. I think any film with reasonable distribution is clear keep, but the guidelines disagree completely according to my reading. Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#General_principles. Perhaps the guidelines need to be reviewed? Phil153 (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have answered your concern at the AfD and have included those beefier sources in the article itself. I had almost given up in the first few minutes of my search because as a theatrical release it did not make much money nor was well received. But it was after discovering that it had a well received release on DVd last May that I was able to find a few quite nice reviews. So it now meets the guidelines. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My response to your message at Cold Fusion talk

I uploaded this but it got deleted a few times. Perhaps a robot or person is erasing my comments there. They told me they would do this.

It is not important, but I thought you might want to see it.

. . . Ah. They have deleted the entire discussion. As Bob Dylan put it:

"Well, they'll stone ya when you're trying to be so good

They'll stone ya just a-like they said they would"

- Jed

Phil153 wrote:

I understand that you have a BA in Japanese. While commendable, I fail to see how this gives you expertise in either chemistry or physics.

Again I suggest that you read the papers and books I have written about cold fusion, and judge whether I understand the subject -- and whether I know my own limitations. I have edited over 200 papers in this field. Do you think the authors would trust me to do that if I accidentally changed their meaning or messed up the documents? Please, use your common sense and your judgment to evaluate my work.

As for the issues surrounding your site, your point on checking the sources doesn't really cut it. It is simply too time consuming to check every one against paper sources for evidence of changes.

As I said, you can easily establish that the authors trust LENR-CANR.org. They would not give me their papers or add links to the site in their papers and books otherwise. They always check my version for errors -- I tell them to.

Wikipedia points to millions of documents. You do not go around checking every one of them. Once it is established that a site has credibility, you assume that all documents there are legitimate. It is much easier for you to check the bona fides and establish credibility for LENR-CANR than for other sites, because every one of our documents lists the original source at the top.

Are you categorically denying having ever added a lead or other commentary to a source paper?

Oh for crying out loud! This is ridiculous. Read the document and see for yourself. It is here: lenr-canr.org PLUS /acrobat/ERABreportofth.pdf

As you see, I wrote a two-page introduction, in a different font, signed by me. No, I do not "categorically deny" writing something and signing it. The document begins:

"ERAB, Report of the Cold Fusion Panel to the Energy Research Advisory Board. 1989: Washington, DC.

A copy of the ERAB report has been prepared by the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) organization (www.ncas.org). It is available here in HTML format: http://www.ncas.org/erab/. It is converted to Acrobat format in this document, below.

This organization has not posted any other papers about cold fusion.

Cold fusion researchers consider the ERAB report highly prejudiced for many reasons. It was concluded in a rush long before there was time to perform and publish serious replications. . ."

The LENR-CANR index for the document says:

"A copy of the ERAB report has been prepared by the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) organization (www.ncas.org). It is available here:

http://www.ncas.org/erab/

This library contains a brief introduction to the report and a copy of the NCAS version of the ERAB report."

We have similar short introductions to many other documents, listing -- for example -- where the document came from, who translated it, or noting that different versions have been published.

Now let us look at the statement by Guy:

"In one case I found that a purported link to a major paper started with an editorial by the site's "librarian", (JedRothwell), spinning the content . . ."

A purported link? You can click on the link and see in an instant whether this is a good copy or not. What is "purported" about that?

An editorial? I told the reader where the document came from, where to get the original, and what the researchers think of it. Is the reader so vulnerable and suggestible he cannot survive reading my introduction and still judge the ERAB document?

"In one case" Guy found a document with an introduction? He did not look very hard. There are dozens of others, as I said. In all cases the introduction is clearly marked and signed.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.50 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

POSTSCRIPT. What was that you were telling me about how there is no oppression at Wikipedia? You must think it is okay for those people to shred my reputation, and publish nonsensical insinuations about how I secretly slid a two-page signed introduction into a document, hoping no one would notice my signature. I am not allowed to protest or set the record straight. If you see nothing unethical or even unreasonable about this, you and I have different standards.

Anyway, Wikipedia is a disgrace, as I said. Quoting Lore Sjöberg:

The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.50 (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just in case Jed reads this - the above does not address the relevant copyright question. Having the permission of the authors is not sufficient (in fact, in many cases it is legally irrelevant.) For example, authors submitting to Elsevier journals are required to transfer their copyright to Elsevier. The legally relevant question is whether you have permission from the copyright holder to reproduce the papers that they own the copyright to. Do you have permission from, for example, Elsevier to publish their copyrighted material? --Noren (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Noren, Jed has answered this question many times and in many places, as he does it, again, below. For some reason it keeps being asserted that he only has author permissions. He's stated, categorically, he always gets the permission of the author and the publisher. I asked admin DGG, who is a librarian professionally, his opinion, and he considered the site to not be in violation of copyright, on the face. Obviously, unless we check the documentation on every paper, we couldn't be certain, and even then ... were the signatures notarized? And I've even encountered a forged signature that was notarized, it's doesn't take much to fool some poor notary. It is extraordinary for us to require the kind of proof that User:JzG has, in the blacklisting discussions, asserted that we must require. Jed, in the Talk page post, laid out the reasons why it would be preposterous to consider that lenr-canr.org is involved in massive copyright violation, and occasional minor violations, even if they existed, don't negate external linking or the like. --Abd (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Noren asked:

Do you have permission from, for example, Elsevier to publish their copyrighted material?

Yes, but only for a few papers. There are several outstanding cold fusion papers published by them which I do not have permission to reprint, so they are missing from the library. Publishers did not grant me permission to upload most of the recent papers by Szpak and Mosier-Boss, so I have only their older papers, conference papers, and public domain U.S. Navy publications. You can see a list of their papers here, and you can see that I cannot upload several of them, regrettably: lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSspawarsyst.pdf As you see, papers 15 through 21 are not uploaded. I am negotiating for one of them.

Most of the papers at LENR-CANR.org are from conference proceedings, rather than journals because there are fewer copyright restrictions. I would prefer to reprint the journal versions, which are often similar in content but better.

In some cases I have permission to reprint some number of selected pages, but not the whole document. See, for example: lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf In some cases the publisher gives permission to upload a manuscript version, not the final version. See, for example: lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LiXZachinesevi.pdf I think this manuscript version was presented at conferences and before publication, but I do not know if it appeared in any conference proceedings.

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.50 (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the copyright thing is ok. But after having read your comments, I agree with the blacklisting. Having sources that contain editorial spin, even if clearly marked, is not an appropriate source to link to, especially when all can be linked via DOI references. You may not think you are introducing spin, but you are. For example, if I owned a website containing CF sources, I'd be very clear to mark Energetics Technology's work as originating from a investment seeking company headed by a doctor (and not a physicist) found guilty of defrauding his patients. This is highly relevant information, and I'm guessing (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't mention it in the lead of those papers or papers that rely on that work. Yet you feel free to editorialize some other papers which are critical of CF results. So I don't think it's appropriate to use your site for sources. Phil153 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

For example, if I owned a website containing CF sources, I'd be very clear to mark Energetics Technology's work as originating from a investment seeking company headed by a doctor (and not a physicist) found guilty of defrauding his patients.

I wasn't aware of that, but I do not see how it can affect the calorimetry. I think that the technical content of papers should be judged on its own, without regard to the fact that the money to do the experiment came from an investment company run by a sketchy person. Also, this experiment was replicated at SRI and the ENEA with money from DARPA and the Italian Gov't, which are not run by sketchy people as far as I know. (I can't vouch for the Italian gov't.)

If I am going to start digging up all kinds of facts & dirt about the authors, the people paying for the work, the people behind the people paying for the work, and the people who supply coffee to the people behind the people paying for the work . . . do you think it would also be appropriate for me to mention that several of the researchers such as Fleischmann, Bockris, Will and Oriani are the world's leading electrochemists, former president of the Electrochem. Soc., Distinguished Prof of this and that? Or should I let the reader judge the work on its own merits?

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.101.157 (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Or should I let the reader judge the work on its own merits? Exactly. So why /acrobat/ERABreportofth.pdf? There is no defense. Either let the reader judge the work on its own merits, or admit that you are not "letting them judge the work on its own merits". You seem to want it both ways.

I wasn't aware of that, but I do not see how it can affect the calorimetry. I think that the technical content of papers should be judged on its own, without regard to the fact that the money to do the experiment came from an investment company run by a sketchy person

Seriously? The only thing scientific papers contain is *claims* of having observed particular phenomenon, *claims* that the instrumentation was properly set up, that possible sources of error were properly excluded, that the results were reported and analyzed with due care. They do not have an objective truth of their own except as something written by someone. Reputation and replication is *extremely* important before we start taking extraordinary claims seriously. Certainly someone like Hagelstein has far more credibility than Energetics Technologies (which you must have known about - there were 6 paragraphs in the Washington Post, for crying out loud) or a wanker like Fleischmann. Phil153 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

The only thing scientific papers contain is *claims* of having observed particular phenomenon, *claims* that the instrumentation was properly set up, that possible sources of error were properly excluded . . .

We have much more than mere written claims. The experiment at Energetics Technology has been visited by outside experts, extensively reviewed, and independently replicated.

Reputation and replication is *extremely* important before we start taking extraordinary claims seriously.

No one has questioned the reputation of the researchers, as far as I know. You mentioned something about the funder. Since you think replication is *extremely* important, why do you not accept this and other replicated experiments? The cold fusion effect has been replicated at high s/n ratios in over 200 major institutions. Any other effect of this nature would have been accepted after 5 or 10 independent replications. Why do you make an exception for cold fusion, move the goalposts, and ignore your own standards?

. . . or a wanker like Fleischmann.

I suggest you learn something about him. He is ex-president of the electrochemical soc., holder of the Palladium Medal, Fellow of the Royal Society, etc. He and Bockris literally wrote the book on modern electrochemistry. It is possible that he knows more about this subject than you do.

- Jed

Jed, Fleischmann published claims of gamma rays without a corresponding Compton edge, something you learn in freshman physics. With extraodinary claims like that he didn't even run it by a single physicist before putting his name to it and glowingly announcing it to the world. You can say what you like about him, his actions when the chips were down speak louder than any of your glowing testimony. The man is a wanker, and if your field is in fact true, he did tremendous damage to its development.

Claiming what you are about replication doesn't make it true. You're left with the rather uneviable position of having to deal with the fact that the best physicists in the world near unanimously think your "replicated" result are nothing but nonsense and error, and I am not. Good luck with that. Anyway, I wrote out a long reply to Adb covering this which I'll post tomorrow. Phil153 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

Claiming what you are about replication doesn't make it true.

Yes, but peer-reviewed journal papers describing these replications does make them true. Again, that is the standard of science. Waving your hands and pretending these papers do not exist does not count.

You're left with the rather uneviable position of having to deal with the fact that the best physicists in the world near unanimously think your "replicated" result are nothing but nonsense and error, and I am not.

Ah, that would be the "popularity contest model" of science. Let me set you straight:

1. You are factually incorrect. There is no unanimity of opinion among scientists. Many leading scientists believe in cold fusion. Most of the world's leading experts in electrochemistry have, in fact, replicated cold fusion, and published papers describing their work. Other scientist are sharply divided according to reliable polls and opinion surveys.

2. Even if you were right, it would not matter what these people think. Opinions do not count. The scientists you speak of would have to publish peer-reviewed papers showing experimental errors in hundreds of leading experiments. They have not done this. Nobody has. Only a handful of papers that attempt to find errors have been published. You can read most of them at LENR-CANR.org, and you will see that they have no merit

A negative view does not get a free pass. It must be held to the same standard of rigor as a positive view. If you cannot show errors in the 150-year-old methods of measuring heat used in these experiments, then you have no case.

More to the point, if the skeptical objections to cold fusion were correct, they would also overthrow the laws of thermodynamics. The skeptics would have to prove that calorimeters do not work, and heat can flow from a cooler body to a hotter body. There is no chance you will do this. To put it ungently, you people are a bunch of perpetual motion machines crackpots, and like all such crackpots, you are wrong. It is ironic that you accuse us of being perpetual motion machine crackpots!

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.153.157 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Ah, I see that you reference the Washington Post article, Weinberger 2004, and you are talking about Dardik, not the funder. Regarding that subject, I agree with the comments by McKubre, quoted in this article. In any case, the results have been independently checked and replicated, so even if Dardik turned out to be the world's worst con man and a serial killer to boot, this particular claim is correct, and his background and reputation are perfectly irrelevant. Reputation should only be considered in the initial stages before independent replication, when no objective scientific method of evaluation is available. After replication it wouldn't matter if a claim was originated by the Birdman of Alcatraz or Heinrich Himmler. Replication proves it is true and NOTHING can ever prove it is not true. Replication at high s/n ratio is the one and only standard of truth in experimental science. You and other skeptics want to replace it with reputation, or a popularity contest, or whether the effect seems to fit theory or not, but these methods are invalid.

- Jed

Phil, that's an abuse of the blacklist. What you would do if you owned a website isn't necessarily what Jed or another would do. There are a number of complex issues here, and the decision to use a source or not is an editorial one that depends on the exact context, there is no generic prohibition that applies to lenr-canr.org. If you were a library, you might very well not mark ET's papers as you describe. Most papers hosted on lenr-canr.org have no header whatever, as far as I've seen, and the comment you just made would be ... controversial. I think no library would put that in their index. Do you? But if someone wants to cite that paper here, all that could become part of the discussion. That a paper is hosted by lenr-canr.org doesn't *in the least* establish it as a reliable source, only that it's been noticed and included. Lenr-canr.org isn't a "reliable source." But many of the papers that it hosts are. And the bibliography is worthy of an external link, I'd say, I've found it invaluable in coming up to speed on the topic. In any case, the blacklist is to be used to prevent linkspamming when it has become so massive that ordinary procedures like removing links and blocking offenders doesn't work. That was the vision; it's considered a last resort, and was definitely not to be used as a means of preventing editors from citing a source on the basis that it's allegedly biased. To my knowledge, the only "editorialized" paper I've seen was a DOE review, where a moderate introduction was prepended. (I now see that above, Rothwell acknowledges providing more introductory comments.) Given that this is public domain, he had the right to do that, but he should remove that, actually, and just host the document itself. Editorial comment shouldn't be mixed with the library function. But that's moot. It didn't establish unreliability.

If a paper which lenr-canr.org hosts is found to be useful, it should be cited to the original, not to lenr-canr.org. If a copy isn't readily available elsewhere, though, we serve our readers -- isn't that what this is about? -- by providing the link. But it is now impossibly cumbersome to do it. It's worth it for the bibliography, but I'm certainly not going to go through the process for the simple convenience of readers for one paper. And whitelisting would have to be done for each and every one that falls into the category of appropriate copy. --Abd (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that if you're going to editorialize, it shouldn't be one sided. He chooses to "introduce" papers that are highly critical with his own commentary, but doesn't introduce papers where similarly relevant information makes cold fusion look bad. The guy is spinning what should be plain original sources. I don't know of any library or librarian that would modify original sources with their own comments. I don't agree that /acrobat/ERABreportofth.pdf is "moderate" - I consider it highly prejudicial to the paper that follows. Some of it is just plain nitpicking (i.e. the throwaway use of "simple") designed to make the authors look biased where there is no credible claim of bias from that particular passage.

For these reasons I do not think it's appropriate to use lenr-canr to link the source of any paper. In my opinion it's far better to not have the full source online than to have altered sources introduced with prejudice. It's just a bad idea; it allows anyone to upload some source paper, add their own commentary to the lead and potentially tamper with other things, and use it as a source on Wikipedia instead of the typical and totally unbiased DOI links.

Whether this justifies a blacklisting based on policy is another matter; it may not. I'll take your word for the scope and purpose of the blacklist, in which I agree that blacklisting lenr-canr.org is extreme. I'd agree that it certainly deserves a place in the external links section. I've also found it invaluable for getting up to speed on various papers. However, if blacklisting is the only way to stop this terribly biased source from being used as a reference, then I support it. Phil153 (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Another point to make is that many of the sources are not the final versions that appeared in journals (Jed says this above). Should we be linking to these items as if they were the final peer reviewed product? To give an example, F&P's original manuscript included claims and measurements of gamma radiation. In the final printed version put forward by F&P, these claims were not made, as they were known to be either the result of fraud or incompetence due to the lack of a Compton edge. Phil153 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Abd wrote:

That a paper is hosted by lenr-canr.org doesn't *in the least* establish it as a reliable source, only that it's been noticed and included. Lenr-canr.org isn't a "reliable source."

This is 100% true!!! I have made this point again and again. LENR-CANR.org is not only the largest collection of cold fusion papers, it is also the world's largest collection of anti-cold fusion papers by harsh skeptics such as Morrison and Jones. As far as I am concerned, these people do not have a shred of credibility.

There are also many papers in the collection that I think have no scientific merit. I have only included these because the authors asked me to. The papers were published elsewhere, and they are about cold fusion, so it would not be fair to turn them down, but I did not actively seek them.

It would also not be fair for me to say which papers I think have no scientific merit. I felt it was appropriate to point out some problems with the ERAB document, because that is a political attack, not a scientific paper. It was never intended to be anything other than political hatchet job: the authors declared on day 1 that their assignment was to discredit cold fusion and "bury it"; they said that anyone can see Fleischmann and Pons are idiots just by looking at them on television; and they ignored Miles when he told them he was seeing excess heat, and included only his original null results. I included only that last fact in the introduction I wrote; I could write a book describing all of the machinations and unethical behavior behind the report, but I do not need to. The guy in charge of the panel, Huizenga, wrote it for me. I have never seen such a damning indictment of the skeptics as his book.

I would love to reprint Huizenga's book and his papers on LENR-CANR but alas he never gave me permission, and he is ill and no longer able to communicate. I would also love to include more from Robert Park, Sci. Am. and Nature but they have not granted permission.

- Jed

Let me point out one other aspect of this copyright discussion. As I noted on the U.S. Navy introduction page, (lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm) I copied 13 of their papers from the Navy's own web site. With permission, of course. Several of these papers are from copyrighted journals. I copied several other papers from websites run by the authors or their institutions, such as the University of Utah. I met with the head of the U. Utah library and with the people in charge of their extensive cold fusion archives when I visited there. They are well aware of my activities. They do not think I am violating any copyright laws. They are experts in copyright law.

I should add that those people have been very helpful. They gave me thousands of pages of material which, unfortunately, I cannot upload. We are negotiating with some of the authors but these things take time.

I doubt that the Navy or U. Utah has violated any copyright laws.

Let me note that I also consulted with a top copyright lawyer in Atlanta (who is one of the best in the country). Fortunately, he consulted pro bono, or it would have cost me a bundle! He assured me that I am not violating copyright, because, for example, I am not selling the papers; they have little or no intrinsic commercial value; and LENR-CANR is obviously an academic website, so this falls under the fair use category. I consulted with him because, for the most part, I depend upon the authors to negotiate with publishers, as I did with the Navy collection. I have contacted publishers directly, and in joint letters with authors, and in several cases they denied permission. You can see the gaps in the library. There are many missing papers by leading authors. You can be sure that I personally have copies of all of them.

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.101.157 (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And here is another interesting point! As I noted, I copied the ERAB document from the NCAS site: http://www.ncas.org/erab/

Have a look. You will see that they wrote their own introduction to the document. I assume you will now condemn them as strongly as you condemned me, for adding their opinions.

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.153.157 (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your mistake of citing the reputation of a researcher, instead of discussing the content of the research itself, I mentioned the Birdman of Alcatraz, Robert Stroud. That is a highly relevant example. Stroud was a crazed murderer and psychopath who attacked and tried to kill several prison guards and others. He had to be held in solitary for years. He caused constant dissension and chaos. He was personally loathsome and filthy. He was also a leading authority on bird disease, and he wrote a textbook which is still in print, and highly recommended:

"Stroud's Digest on the Diseases of Birds"

The fact that he was a lunatic and completely untrustworthy about everything other than birds has no bearing on the scientific validity of his claims. Once his methods were confirmed by others, they were valid and all considerations about the man himself became irrelevant. Any discussion of his criminal record or personality or personal reputation becomes an ad hominem logical fallacy, once he passes the replication stage. (Reputation is, as I said, a very weak standard that might be applied at first before replications can be made.)

The same is true of Fleischmann. Even if he were a "wanker" as you claim, and even if you could prove beyond doubt that some of his claims were "fraud . . . due to the lack of a Compton edge" that would have no bearing on his other claims of excess heat beyond the limits of chemistry. These other claims have now been replicated. That makes them right -- case closed, debate over, no other standard allowed. If you don't buy that standard you are engaged in some form or religion, or a popularity contest, not science.

- Jed

Phil, you lost me with "wanker." Sorry. Jed, I highly recommend not debating with editors who have their minds made up, unless it is brief, and even then, it can simply irritate them and you give fuel to those who might accuse you of tendentious and disruptive argument. Save your time and energy for more productive pursuits. Phil, sorry for troubling you on this page. See you around. --Abd (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wanker" is British slang for "jerk-off." You wrote:

Jed, I highly recommend not debating with editors who have their minds made up, unless it is brief,

I know that! I am not debating anyone. Just sharpening my arguments. Thinking out loud. If it irritates a skeptic that's a side benefit. Robert Stroud has been at the back of my mind for a long time, and I thought I should write it out.

Incidentally, the Wikipedia article on Stroud does not even mention that he was an expert on birds who authored a textbook still in print 40 years after he died. That's a remarkable accomplishment!

- Jed

Jed, it's interesting discussing with you, I'd never heard of Stroud. But the analogy doesn't hold - a history of fraud is important to the credibility of someone's research. Vitally important. I had thought that Energetics had had results greater than reported elsewhere, which is why McKubre has mentioned them frequently despite their shadiness. You claim (I think) that all their results have been replicated by many other independent researchers, in which case, fair enough, they don't matter.

I find it interesting that you think the case is closed on the heat. Just how many times were the results of polywater or N-rays replicated? Some of them took years to die, held on to ardently by hardcore advocates who'd seen the "proof" and "replication" for themselves. Clearly, there is a mechanism in science or human nature - even among careful researchers - for error to creep in and be repeated, especially near the broad limits of measurement error. And if cold fusion has truly been reliably replicated as much as you say, I'm curious as to why you think it's shunned. I could write a list of a hundred novel behavior - unexpected by theory or experience - that have been quickly accepted. Including some in nuclear physics, like the Mossbauer effect, muon catalyzed fusion, and so on. You have to postulate some pretty implausible things to explain why CF hasn't been accepted.

As for wanker, where I come from it means "idiot" or "incompetent", a bit of a tool. Phil153 (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

I find it interesting that you think the case is closed on the heat. Just how many times were the results of polywater or N-rays replicated?

Good question! No one ever reported an N-ray replication. See the Sci. Am. paper on that. There were hundreds of attempts to replicate polywater. One or two groups reported partial success but soon retracted. No others did. See the book by Felix Franks, "Polywater," (MIT Press, 1981). Quoting my review: "Before the subject faded, 227 peer reviewed papers about polywater were published in the U.S. Seventy-five were published in the USSR, and 210 papers in other countries. (Fig. 9, p. 120)" The original group finally retracted after 8 years. There were many other differences between polywater and cold fusion, and if you would like to know more but you don't want to read the book, I can send you my review.

Some of them took years to die, held on to ardently by hardcore advocates who'd seen the "proof" and "replication" for themselves.

That is incorrect. Both died completely within a year. The scientific method works. Peer-review and replication work. These are reliable ways of determining what is real. They succeeded decisively in the case of cold fusion. By 1991 the evidence for cold fusion was overwhelming. The only people not convinced are those who have not read this evidence, and those who would not know tritium if it bit them on the butt.

You really should have more faith in the scientific method.

Clearly, there is a mechanism in science or human nature - even among careful researchers - for error to creep in and be repeated, especially near the broad limits of measurement error.

That is true, but cold fusion is far about the limits of measurement errors. Millions of times above, in the case of tritium. (10E12 times, actually.) Hundreds of times for excess heat especially with cells that produce ~100 W with zero input power. You will appreciate that it is easy to tell the difference between an object the size of an incandescent light bulb at room temperature and one that is as hot as a 100 W bulb. There is really no possibility of error in that measurement. The heat is palpable! (Of course most results are not that dramatic, but a few hundred runs at Toyota were.)

And if cold fusion has truly been reliably replicated as much as you say, I'm curious as to why you think it's shunned.

The reasons are obvious to me: academic politics. Politics have held back dozens of other major discoveries, such as the laser, the airplane, and the MRI. I have written many essays on this and I have dozens of books such as Townes' autobiography describing these events. Breakthroughs have also been held back by people who have not read the literature and who know nothing about the subject, and yet who insist the experiments must be wrong. They often publish bogus objections, such as the notion that it would be impossible to land an airplane without smashing it, or that cold fusion has never been replicated. See, for example: lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.50 (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"One or two groups" for polywater? Died within a year? Are saying our Wikipedia article is completely wrong? It presents an entirely different picture, as has my admittedly scattered reading on the topic. I always thought it was quite a controversy and hung around for years among the fringe after it was dismissed by the mainstream. Of course, both polywater and N-rays are far less complex and more easily debunked phenomenon than 100-day electrolysis and caliorimetry sporadically detecting ultra low level heating and nuclear products in the same order of magnitude as background.

Academic politics doesn't seem like a good explanation to me. I'm well aware of things like the Aether, but times have changed since 1900 or even 1960 with widespread deconstruction. There are a lot of very conscientious, open minded and careful people who work in nuclear physics - in fact I've found it to be one of the most competent and intelligent professions around, and they near universally dismiss it. I consider Goodstein [3] representative of the view of nuclear physicists. Anyway it's an interesting topic and I would appreciate a link to your writing on this, a link to a bookseller is ok. Phil153 (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

Died within a year? Are saying our Wikipedia article is completely wrong?

Well, it doesn't jibe with Felix Franks' book. He is one of the world's leading experts on water, and he seems to know a great deal about polywater. His book is fascinating and extensively sourced, so you can look up the original papers.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. I know two subjects well: cold fusion and Japanese grammar. The Wikipedia articles on both are full of amateur mistakes.

- Jed

I missed this:

Millions of times above, in the case of tritium. (10E12 times, actually.) Hundreds of times for excess heat especially with cells that produce ~100 W with zero input power. You will appreciate that it is easy to tell the difference between an object the size of an incandescent light bulb at room temperature and one that is as hot as a 100 W bulb. There is really no possibility of error in that measurement. The heat is palpable! (Of course most results are not that dramatic, but a few hundred runs at Toyota were.)

Frankly, if any of those were true, I would be a believer too. Could you kindly supply instructions for how to build one of these 100W cells? If they do exist, why did Arata publish a barely-above-background measurement? Why are they fucking around with CR39? Just build a 100W cell, supply the smoking gun, and get a Nobel prize. Dead easy. Why piddle around with 0.2C over a long period when you can build a 100W cell? Frankly, none of it passing the bullshit test. Phil153 (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

. . . if any of those were true, I would be a believer too.

Of course it is true. See lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf

Seriously, I do not make stuff up.

Could you kindly supply instructions for how to build one of these 100W cells?

Start with $50 to $100 million of Toyota money (no one knows how much) and an agreement with Johnson Matthey, who are the top experts in surface catalysis and platinum group metals. Hire a few dozen of the world's experts in various fields of material science and electrochem. Put Martin Fleischmann in charge, but don't let him touch the instruments. Wait two years.

You can see Johnson Matthey work their magic in the results published Miles at China Lake. See Table 10. Their Pd, developed for hydrogen filters, always works. Other kinds of Pd hardly ever work. That part is not rocket science. If you have seen what happens to a Pd cathode in a cold fusion experiment, you will know why. The other alloys sometimes disintegrate. No one in history had ever loaded Pd with as much deuterium as Martin Fleischmann and Stan Pons did in 1989. No one else even thought it was possible, and certainly no one other than Mizuno ever tried. (He was doing it for entirely different reasons. Long before 1989, Mizuno's cell boiled away all of the electrolyte one night, and he never had an inkling why.)

You ask for instructions. You want a more serious answer? Start by getting a PhD in electrochem. Fleischmann and Pons spent 5 years or so trying to make this work. They learned how, gradually, for the same reason the people at Intel know how to convert silicon into a microprocessor and you don't: because what they know about palladium and electrochemistry fills several large, thick textbooks. I mean that literally: the job is roughly as difficult as making a microprocessor, or perhaps a better example would be, making a single transistor, starting with sand, in 1948 when no one else has done it and there is no theory to guide you. Bockris, McKubre, Oriani, Miles and about 100 others soon learned, because they are also incredibly knowledgeable and they have been doing electrochemistry for decades. The control parameters and so on are spelled out in the literature and they are not difficult to grasp or summarize, but achieving them is VERY difficult. Oriani told me this was the most difficult experiment he ever did. The Storms paper "How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect" (lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf) outlines the process in considerable detail for such a short paper. I have seen him and others perform some of the steps he describes. Read the paper and you will see that to do all of the steps takes 6 months to a year of painstaking skilled labor. You start with 100 pieces of Pd and a year later you may have a strong reaction, if you get lucky and find a good sample, and treat it just so. It reminds me of how Madam Curie reducing a pile of pitchblende into a small sample of polonium. Do that with J-M Type A Pd and lots of their inside knowledge, and you will get a sample that goes into heat after death, producing a hundred watts or more, for hours, or days.

As to why they are not doing this now, that is a long story, but like the rest it boils down to politics and happenstance, or an unfortunate series of events: the death of Mr. Toyoda, the scion of the Toyota corporation (Toyoda is another way to pronounce the name); some Japanese professors and skeptics who claimed that the results are criminal fraud. (More folks who would not know tritium if it bit them on the butt -- whose main executive skill is playing golf -- and yes I have met them.)

It is a long story. Fiction would not dare rival it.

The people piddling around with CR39 also achieved high sigma excess heat, years ago. Not $100 million style results, because they are working on a shoestring, but solid results. I know them quite well. Pam Boss is the best of the best. One of the finest scientists I have met, and I have met hundreds, including three Nobel laureates. It took them months of effort just like everyone else. (Not 5 years the way F&P did, but months.) They do not wish to devote the rest of their professional careers to repeating that experiment a few more times. No one believed them back in the 90s when they did it, and no one will believe them now. They are using CR39 to try to discover the mechanism, so that they can learn how to make the material custom designed, and have it turn on right away.

As for my friends in India who produced massive amounts of tritium, they retired or died years ago. Most cold fusion researchers are retired or dead. They were all senior scientists back in 1989. They all had clout and independent funding. There are no young people in this field. If a junior scientist, low on the totem poll, were to apply for a grant to do cold fusion, or even talk about the subject, he would be fired in a month, and his career would be over.

- Jed

Thanks for your candor. It's a fascinating topic from the philosophy of science perspective. If cold fusion is correct, I have a feeling it will pop up elsewhere in our lifetime, even if the research dies. There's too much new physics involved for the causal phenomenon to disappear. If it's not correct, I guess you'll never know. Phil153 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to the possibility that this might have some relevance here, I'd like to point out that when the "Cold Fusion Hypothesis" article was posted at WikiSource ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cold_Fusion_Hypothesis ), there was a lengthy period in which copyvio was an issue. The author expressed some concern about how WikiSource wants everything posted there to be freely editable outside of Wikisource; who, upon reading such an edited version of the original, would know what parts were intact and what parts had been distorted? In the end WikiSource added to its collection of "acceptable licenses" the FAL (Free Art License http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ ), so that that article could be licensed under it. This license is different from most others in that it requires an edited copy to provide information about how to access the original. Then anyone reading a distorted copy would be able to discover what the distortions were ... the relevance here is that as long as lenr-canr.org provides information about accessing originals, when some sort of "spin" has been prepended to a hosted document, the reader is free to ignore the spin and access the original. We may not like the fact that the spin is there, but as long as the integrity of access to the DATA is not compromised, what does it matter, really? V (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To see why lenr-canr sucks as a source, imagine instead of lenr-canr.org we linked to lenrskeptics.com, where some of the articles had a lead in actual paper explaining why the research is probably nonsense and how some of the researchers are known frauds. I have a feeling you, Jed, and Abd wouldn't be quite so fervent in defending the site. I on the other would be arguing just as strongly against its use as a source. Phil153 (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil you are NOT LISTENING. LENR-CANR.org has more papers attacking cold fusion than any other web site. Yes, we have papers claiming that the research is nonsense, and fraud, and criminal. We have nearly every peer-reviewed paper ever published that attempts to show an error in cold fusion. If you know of any papers I have not uploaded, give me the title and I will try to get permission to upload it. LENR-CANR.org is the go-to source for attacks on cold fusion, starting with the ERAB political hatchet-job.

Furthermore, I compiled a list of attacks on cold fusion by all of the most famous opponents at the DoE and the APS and elsewhere, and I tried to upload it to Wikipedia. I listed all of the major books and papers. You skeptics deleted it within days! You are the ones who will not allow any discussion of the skeptical papers and books. My article is preserved here:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

Read it and weep. This is best you skeptics can come up with. Yes, these are the best arguments. You have not read the skeptical books and papers, but I have, and I know all that your side has written. You have bupkis; n-o-t-h-i-n-g. Not a leg to stand on.

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.50 (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware that you host papers critical of cold fusion. I don't see what that has to do with you inserting strongly prejudicial leads into what should be neutral sources, which is all I have a problem with. I'm confused by your response...it appears to have nothing to do with what I said. Phil153 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd like to inquire about your definition of "neutral". Isn't a paper containing data in favor of cold fusion automatically a pro-CF paper, no matter how deadpan its presentation? Isn't a paper containing flaws about cold fusion automatically an anti-CF paper, no matter how deadpan its presentation? Now add in the well-known fact that authors and editors and anthologists all have opinions, and frequently find ways to express those opinions. So long as the data can speak for itself, authors and editors and anthologists can be ignored. Therefore I will not object to links to papers at the lenrskeptics.com site, provided any linked papers do not interfere with getting at the original data. V (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh come now. The paper I inserted into the introduction into is the ERAB report. That is not "neutral!" It is not even a scientific paper. It is a political hatchet job. I don't mind uploading inaccurate and biased science papers, such as the ones by Morrison and Jones, but I reserve the right to warn the readers when I upload DoE politics.

This report was written by a committee of people who announced up front that their purpose was to kill cold fusion. As I said above, a leading committee member told reporters: "Just by looking at Fleischmann and Pons on television you could tell they were incompetent boobs." They published the null data from Miles and ignored the excess heat results he sent them. They pulled every academic dirty trick you can think of. They did not hide their contempt; they advertised it! They bragged before, during and after the "investigation" that they would destroy cold fusion, and Huizenga, the head of the committee, wrote a book about how they did it.

The 2004 DoE panel was little better. Read the comments of the anti-cold fusion panel members (half the group). I wrote a document 44 pages long compiling their errors, and I could find still more. Anyone could. If you cannot find a dozens of glaring errors in their assertions, you are not trying.

Anyway, I don't see you complaining about Skeptics Association introduction to the same document. You want me to be "neutral" but would you blacklist them for promoting the document? They know nothing about cold fusion. Their introduction is without foundation, whereas mine is footnoted so you can look it up and see if I am right or wrong.

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.50 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And if all of this seems unbelievable . . .

One more note about the history of cold fusion, and the role of Toyota (the Toyoda family) and so on. I realize this seems unbelievable. The fact that people would develop heat after death cells that produce over 100 W and so on, and then cancel the research in response to political pressure is mind-boggling. Very upsetting, too. But it should not seem unbelievable. Think about recent history, and you will see that people are capable of astounding behavior. Look at the 9/11 attack, the de facto bankruptcy of General Motors, the collapse of many leading banks because of sub-prime loans. People can be irrational and self-destructive.

If you are interested in the history of cold fusion, and the reaction of the scientific community, I suggest you read Charles Beaudette's book, which is featured at LENR-CANR.org.

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.198.240 (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is this going?

I know what "wanker" means, folks. It's like calling someone a "jerk-off" in American English. I strongly suspect that the usage as "idiot" or "incompetent" is derivative. When I said "you lost me" I meant that you were demonstrating your approach, and I don't care to continue discussion with someone taking that approach. Fleischmann was/is a highly competent electrochemist. He apparently made an error in physics, but that wasn't central to what he did. It's not my intention here to debate cold fusion, I was asking you to point me to negative evidence. I was certainly aware of Kowalski's work; it's an example of internal criticism in the lenr community, a self-criticism that you seem to claim is lacking. His "refutation" is certainly interesting, but doesn't address the confirmation of radiation found by another, more established researcher. It's complicated, but the CR-39 findings are clear enough and simple enough, and the SPAWAR experimental technique simple enough, that we should be seeing confirmation or refutation fairly soon. Kowalski has been answered in peer-reviewed publication. The jury is out, Phil.

And thanks for what you wrote. I just skimmed it, I will read it in more detail later.

Jed, there is something you need to know, if you don't already. There is nothing more irritating than a know-it-all who insists he's right, except for such a person who actually is right. Want to lead people astray? Attack them with the truth. It isn't the truth that offends them, it's the attack. You know a great deal about the field of LENR, that's obvious to me, you can write circles around those you are arguing with. But you know very little about Wikipedia, Wikipedia process, and how to properly and effectively influence it. You are doing almost the exact opposite. Yes, you could do worse, and I also recognize your degree of restraint. But so far you have managed to make it possible for an admin to get lenr-canr.org globally blacklisted. If not for your "exercise of your rights," the blacklisting probably wouldn't have happened or it would have been fairly easy to reverse it. I think we can still reverse it, but it's now much more difficult and will take quite a bit more time, unless an angel drops down with some fiat lux. I'm trying to be your friend. To support what's good about what you are doing. And you are making it quite difficult. I have the attention of a number of administrators and some support on this, but the appearance of IP socking and linkspamming makes it far more difficult to get this reversed. You know how to post to my IP Talk page, you've done it. You can also send me email, it's a bit more reliable. Please get your user account working and use it. If you are going to be blocked, let it be explicit. It's very difficult to contest a diffuse and undefined block, and generally, admins aren't going to waste time debating IP blocks. The user can just reset his modem, why bother, either way?

And please drop your idea that Wikipedia is against you. It isn't. "It" isn't a person, it's a very complex social phenomenon, which isn't likely to be understood by those who only casually or with personal interest bump up against it. You use "you" without specific reference, something that I was taught years ago in dispute resolution to avoid. Phil didn't blacklist you, an admin did, and then another accepted his request on meta. That's two people. Not "Wikipedia," and not "you." Politically, though, given your behavior, it's difficult to reverse, and if we try too soon, we could seal it. There are steps to be taken, which start with trying to whitelist certain pages. Until we have a better and recent example before us of how bias is operating here, going up the dispute resolution ladder would be premature and quite possibly could backfire. Please cooperate; basically, at this point, it would mean firing up your account, using it, and treating yourself as an expert with a Conflict of Interest, which means being *very* laid back. Let us consult you, let us ask you for advice, but, please, don't argue with us any more than a professional would argue with a client. Be professional. And thanks for all the tremendous work you've done putting together lenr-canr.org. --Abd (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Abd: I sincerely appreciate your advice. I really do. But I stopped caring about Wikipedia years ago. I am only writing here for practice -- to sharpen my arguments. I do not care if they blacklist LENR-CANR or me. As I told Pierre Carbonnelle, being banned along with him is an honor.

Not sure what "globally banished" means. Some people in Italy told me the links to LENR-CANR in the Italian site are not working. I guess that's what it means.

The idea that "Wikipedia is against you" is interesting. Wikipeida is an institution, a community, and a sort of emergent phenomenon, like an insect society which acts as a single organism in some ways. I believe that an institution can be for or against a person or a set of ideas. I think that the structure of Wikipedia mitigates against cold fusion because of anonymity and an anti-expert bias. I agree with the introductory statements about these topics over at citizendium.org:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium

- Jed

Well, you've done harm to public access to your library. I've heard a rumor that the Wikipedia blacklist is used to derank pages in Google, there could be an effect there, I don't know. Pcarbonn isn't "banned," just from the topic of cold fusion, and just for a year, and we could possibly do something about that.

It isn't exactly that there is an anti-expert bias on Wikipedia, it is that Wikipedia has developed its own culture which acts to make the environment somewhat toxic for experts, for a number of reasons. You should, of course, understand that the claim of Wikipedia bias is coming or has come from both proponents and critics of cold fusion. Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That's both the good news and the bad news. There are factions on Wikipedia, and one of them is strongly anti-fringe, to the extent of actively imbalancing articles against anything they consider fringe. However, there are others who -- in my view properly -- see that the same principles of NPOV, the same technique of determining what is "encyclopedic" by requiring "reliable sources," should apply to alleged fringe topics as to anything else.

I put some considerable effort into trying to get the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org lifted, as well as the blacklisting of newenergytimes.com. I have administrative support, but I also understand, at least to a degree, the politics (as do my admin contacts, of course). If we try prematurely and fail, the blacklisting could become permanent. I was warned you'd be intransigent. Well, perhaps I'll spend my time doing something else.

Wikipedia is a disaster when it comes to objective truth and appreciating the value of expert knowledge and insight. I would much rather it didn't exist. But since it does, and it has such prominence, you can either despair and give up or do what you can to make it better. Phil153 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi Abd,

Fleischmann made a shocking error in an area where he should have taken extreme care. It beggars belief. And compounded it by calling a press conference to get the glory and shut out Jones. "Highly competent" scientists simply don't do that. Or perhaps we just have different standards of professional conduct, which is ok too.

I was certainly aware of Kowalski's work; it's an example of internal criticism in the lenr community, a self-criticism that you seem to claim is lacking.

I'm not the one who claims it. Nearly everyone who's reviewed the field says there's "very little self criticism. Don't pretend like Kowalski debunks that, in fact he has been called the lone dissenter by these same reviewers.

As for Jed, he knows very well what's going on. He's had an account before and frequently edited, one which was blocked by uninvolved editors several times. Instead of logging in, so people can talk to him and enjoy the other benefits of an accout, he edits by shifting IP and signs his site name on all his comments, which is pure spam. He's not an idiot. His goals are entirely bad faith as far as WP goes: raise the profile of cold fusion and his site using any means possible, and his self stated goal of "annoying the skeptics", which is amusing but also direct evidence of bad faith. I also think he has much insight to contribute, but he appears not to want to do so in a collaborative manner. Maybe you can reach him.

As for "running rings" around me or other skeptics, of course he does. He knows the topic backward and I do not. He can claim scores of things that I don't have the expertise to refute. But homeopathists, remote viewers, psychic surgeons and astrologists could run rings around me too, even though their fields are pure baloney, to a sympathetic ear. Jed is like a homeopathist who says "I've worked in the field for 20 years, visited all the best homeopathists, who are very competent and kind people. I've seen hundreds of patients cured after medical science gave up on them. I know it's real. Your attacks on homeopathy are unfounded"? Of course that sounds convincing, just like Jed saying [paraphrasing] "I've visited all of the best researchers, and they're highly competent and nice people; I've seen the cathodes melted by fusion, seen 100W coming out of cells, been friends with the guys who detected 10^12 above background. I know it's real". Of course that sounds good...and our propensity to believe a claimant using good rhetoric is the reason people spend billions buying remedies which are nothing but water.

And Jed has been caught exaggerating beyond belief on this page. He doesn't see it as exaggeration because he's a true believer. For a balanced treatment of some of his claims, see for example [4]. That's the nature of these fringe fields - the "experts" are those who believe that something real is going on, and hence spend half their life on it. It has no bearing on whether they're right.

See you round. Phil153 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil wrote:

And Jed has been caught exaggerating beyond belief on this page.

You are wrong. I do not exaggerate. On the contrary, the facts are so astounding that I sometimes understate them. Since you do not believe me, I strongly recommend you read original sources and see for yourself.

Of course that sounds convincing, just like Jed saying [paraphrasing] "I've visited all of the best researchers, and they're highly competent and nice people; I've seen the cathodes melted by fusion, seen 100W coming out of cells, been friends with the guys who detected 10^12 above background. I know it's real". Of course that sounds good...

Actually, I have not seen a 100 W cell in action, but only the data from it. The autoradiograph from BARC, India showing the effect of tritium in Ti is posted at LENR-CANR.org, so you can see it too.

You are overlooking some gigantic differences between homeopathy and cold fusion:

1. Cold fusion is based on conventional instruments and techniques and the laws of thermodynamics. To disprove it, you must show errors in techniques that have been used millions of times over the last 150 years.

2. Homeopathy is said to produce a small, hard to measure effect. The cold fusion effect is large, as you see in the BARC autoradiograph, for example. It is easily detected.

3. Cold fusion researchers are distinguished professors and leading scientists. They have to be, or they will not be funded. The BARC autoradiograph, for example, was produced in a study headed up by Iyengar, the director of BARC and later Chairman of The Atomic Energy Commission, Gov't of India. (BARC is India's preeminent nuclear physics institute.) As I mentioned, others doing cold fusion include Nobel laureates, a Distinguished Fellow of China Lake and so on. These people are not often wrong. You seem to believe that a group of roughly 2,000 distinguished professional scientists are COMPLETELY wrong. You should consider the possibility that they know more about this subject than you do, and you may be mistaken. I think you should be careful not to jump to conclusions, or to assume that you know more than, say, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin.

4. Cold fusion research is published in some of the most rigorous and important peer-reviewed journals. It is also rejected by some, but that is true of many controversial subjects.

There are other differences. My point is that you are comparing apples to hand grenades. Cold fusion does not begin to resemble homeopathy, and I do not resemble homeopathy advocates. Your assertion that X resembles Y does not actually make it so.

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.198.240 (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not suggest that you are make anything up. I know these claims of 100W cells and whatnot have been made. But you exaggerate their veracity to the point of them being "objective truth" when they are very reasonably in dispute. Your presentation has an extreme lack of balance.

I am not comparing cold fusion with homeopathy, at all. I'm not sure where you got the idea. What I wrote is a general commentary about the persuasivenes of testimony that Abd seems to be swayed by in his comments.

You seem to believe that a group of roughly 2,000 distinguished professional scientists are COMPLETELY wrong

"2000 distinguished professional scientists" is ROFL, and another example of your reckless exaggeration. Maybe we have different ideas of what distinguished means. Certainly, a handful of CF advocates are what I'd call distinguished - maybe 20 or so. Hagelstein for example, is very distinguished, or was.

You also seem to forget that many, many, many times more "distinguished professional scientists" think cold fusion is nonsense. I could quote far more impressive figures back at you, with the same question. For the proportion of scientists who think CF is rubbish, see for example the Washington Post and the NYT. Where are the unbiased sources to support your claims of "2000 distinguished" professional scientists?

Anyway, I have no wish to discuss this further...I think it's all been said. You are welcome to reply to anything I've said or anyone else, but if threads with others become long, I'll move them to their respective talk pages or onto your IP talk page. Phil153 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

"2000 distinguished professional scientists" is ROFL, and another example of your reckless exaggeration.

On the contrary, it is another example of a deliberate understatement. The number of authors in the database of papers at LENR-CANR.org is 4,754. They are all professional scientists at established universities and corporations. If they were not, I would not include them in the database. However, not all are distinguished. I have various lists from the conference proceedings and mailing lists from which I estimate about 2,000 of them are full professor distinguished types.

Maybe we have different ideas of what distinguished means.

You are not familiar with the people in the database, so you cannot judge. You are presumptuous.

You also seem to forget that many, many, many times more "distinguished professional scientists" think cold fusion is nonsense.

I have not forgotten that. The people you refer to have not written papers with technical arguments backing up their opinions. They do not get a free pass, as I said before. They would have to demonstrate that that flow calorimeters do not work, and that hundreds of x-ray films showing the same pattern of radiation are not actually detecting radiation. Until they do that, they and their opinions count for nothing. Science is not based on opinion, but rather on rigorous facts and laws.

I could quote far more impressive figures back at you, with the same question.

No, you could not, for the reasons I just gave. The only people who count are those who have written and published papers -- preferably peer-reviewed papers. If your group has not met that test they are not acting as scientists. I probably know the names of every skeptical scientist who has written a paper attempting to disprove cold fusion. I may be the only person alive who has read all their books! They are very few in number, and their papers have no merit. If 10,000 others standing on the sidelines imagine that these people are right, that just means 10,000 scientists are spouting off on a subject they know nothing about, and have not done their homework on. That is not unusual, but it means about as much as a professional actor endorsing a stock brokerage firm.

For the proportion of scientists who think CF is rubbish . . .

You need to look at the proportion of solid papers reporting replications versus serious papers that attempt to find an error in cold fusion experiments. That is roughly 1000 to 1. The raw numbers of people who happen to have unfounded opinions do not matter, and such numbers have NO ROLE in science. Science is not a popularity contest, for crying out loud. You should get serious. I presume you understand as well as I do that science is not a game, and that all claims must be backed up by valid technical arguments. If your 10,000 scientists cannot disprove the second law of thermodynamics, they are wrong.

Where are the unbiased sources to support your claims of "2000 distinguished" professional scientists?

You can compile the names from the on-line LENR-CANR indexes if you like, or you can take my word for what the EndNote database is telling me.

Anyway, I have no wish to discuss this further...I think it's all been said.

You are wrong about that, too. You have hardly begun to learn about who supports cold fusion, who they are, and who opposes them. Read the books by Beaudette, Storms, Huizenga and Taubes, and then you will have some expertise on this subject and you will be in a position to agree or disagree with me. At this point you are merely guessing -- and guessing wrong. The history and sociology of cold fusion is not a simple subject, and your assertion that thousands of scientists oppose cold fusion is close to meaningless.

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.198.240 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jed, a final comment about the "expertise" of deniers vs advocates. The fact is that you can say EXACTLY the same about medical doctors/researchers and homeopathy, or many other fringe fields. Your denial of their viewpoint as invalid uses EXACTLY the same argument homeopathists and other fringers use in the denial of the consensus of professional medical doctors, researchers, and organizations. Can you see how your arguments lack the weight you think they have? FYI, 6% of doctors prescribe homeopathy in the UK.  :) Phil153 (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

Jed, a final comment about the "expertise" of deniers vs advocates. The fact is that you can say EXACTLY the same about medical doctors/researchers and homeopathy, or many other fringe fields.

You are missing my point. Calorimetry is not a fringe field; the laws of thermodynamics are accepted by all mainstream scientists; J. Electroanal. Chem. and the Jap. J. of Applied Physics are not a "fringe" publications. They are first-rate, mainstream publications. Nearly all cold fusion researchers are conventional scientists working in accredited institutions. You are saying, in effect, that the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission is a fringe scientist with no reputation or credibility. That is incorrect. Apart from their work in cold fusion, everything else these people did in their careers -- which in most cases spanned 30 to 50 years -- was fully accepted by their colleagues and by mainstream science. In most cases their previous work achieved high honors from the Royal Society, the AAS and other prestigious organizations.

These people did not suddenly lose their marbles en mass, or forget how to do calorimetry and electrochemistry. They were not swindled by Fleischmann. They followed the rules and did cold fusion experiments with as much rigor and care as they did all of their previous work. They published in the same journals they had published dozens of papers in previously. You say they are "fringe" researchers, but you would never have said that about their previous work. The only reason you say this now is because you disagree with their results. This is hubris on your part. As I said before, these people know way more about this subject than you do -- or I do, for that matter.

In no sense does cold fusion resemble "fringe" science, but the denial of cold fusion -- which necessarily denies the laws of thermodynamics and most chemistry and physics going back to 1840 -- is the epitome of fringe science. Do you seriously believe that calorimetry, x-ray film, mass spectrometers, tritium detectors and all of the other tools of cold fusion do not work, or that thousands of professionals who have used these instruments for decades are suddenly making huge errors? Do you imagine they are all lying about their results?! If you believe such things, you are a fringe scientist, true believer and conspiracy theorist.

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.50 (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

God, you are unable to consider issues separately, and subtle points get conflated with other issues. You've taken pointed criticism as broad. I am responding to your claim that the opinion of the "deniers" has no weight, since, in your opinion, they don't know as much about the experiments and the experience of working with CF as the advocates. Your passage also has more straw men than I've seen seen in a single paragraph, even if used to make a point, and points to your inability to consider and respond intelligently to the views of critics. No wonder the field is an outcast. Anyway, let's list the straw men:

*Calorimetry is not a fringe field

No one ever suggested it was. They suggested that potential sources errors in caliometry are many, and that magnitude of results obtained are in the same range as that obtained is good to great caliometry experiments. They also claim that publishing bias magnifies this potential for error.

• J. Electroanal. Chem. and the Jap. J. of Applied Physics are not a "fringe" publications.

No one ever suggested they were. Indeed, evidence FOR homeopathy has been published in top journals as well, as well as water memory AND a successful replication (published in the BMJ). You win no points here. And exactly how many of your "thousands" of papers have been published in these journals? 20? 50? Let's face it, the vast majority of your papers are published only in crap journals, because, frankly, they're crap. Yet you take the fact that a handful have been published in top mainstream journals as indications that all the claims of the field are valid. Each experiment is an isolated event.

• You are saying, in effect, that the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission is a fringe scientist with no reputation or credibility.

No, I am saying he could be mistaken. I find it very interesting that you rubbish the opinion of those who don't have an advocate's knowledge of the field, but welcome with open arms positive reviews from people who also lack said knowledge. You can't have it both ways. Pick one and stick with it. And I have previously stated, in the conversation above this one, that some cold fusion researchers are distinguished. So your straw man is just plain dishonesty.

• These people did not suddenly lose their marbles en mass

No one suggested that they did, merely that they work in an area outside their expertise (Fleischmann, a man who had plenty of "high honors", is a perfect example of someone fucking up freshman physics on the world stage and later retracting. Another example are claims of transmuted elements, which are hilarious to actual nuclear physicists. Many of the neutron and helium detections fall in this area as well). The field is also rife with possible errors that are hard to detect. And some of them doubtless have lost their marbles...but no one is suggesting "en masse". Are you keeping count of the strawmen?

• Do you seriously believe that calorimetry, x-ray film, mass spectrometers, tritium detectors and all of the other tools of cold fusion do not work, or that thousands of professionals who have used these instruments for decades are suddenly making huge errors?

No, but I think they are unreliable in the hands of amateurs in that field at levels that are close to background or potential error, which the large majority of cold fusion researchers are. The poor and amateurish use of such detection methods by cold fusion researchers is well commented already, especially for things like transmutation and helium. When you cut it down you're left with a handful of experiments that were done well, not the thousands that you constantly trumpet. The fact that you see them all as proof positive is indication of a true believer. It's human nature to do that but, a careful thinker tries to avoid it.

And your coup de gras is just hilarious:

the denial of cold fusion -- which necessarily denies the laws of thermodynamics and most chemistry and physics going back to 1840 -- is the epitome of fringe science.

I'm archiving this page and this topic in 24 hours since I can't help responding to you. Should be enough time for you to reply, should you wish to. Phil153 (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are making a logical fallacy: Fallacious Appeal to Authority (Irrelevant Authority) See:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

(This error is often misunderstood. It does NOT mean that citing real authorities is an invalid argument.)

The thousands of scientist you cite have not read the cold fusion literature, and most of them have no idea what claims are made, or what evidence has been found in support of these claims. Therefore they have no business weighing in on the claims. They cannot judge.

The only valid poll would set ground rules such as: the respondent must work in some relevant field, and he or she must have read at least 5 papers on cold fusion. With that group of respondents, I am confident that the majority would agree that cold fusion is real. If you limit the poll to people who have read 50 or more papers, then I expect you will find nearly all agree the phenomenon is real. I have corresponded with several hundred people in that category, and only two of them do not believe cold fusion is real. (In my opinion, these two both have a screw loose, but we will leave it at that.)

Before you challenge on these assertions, let me explain that I know a lot about people who read cold fusion papers because I run a web site which distributes ~3,000 papers per week. Nearly all readers are professional, full time scientists, because the papers are boring and no one but a scientist would bother with them. I hear from readers from time to time, usually with requests for papers not on file, or corrections. As I said, I know of only two who expressed any doubts. It is possible others do not believe the results, but I doubt they would go to the trouble to ask for papers or read so many. Note that people have visited LENR-CANR 1.6 million times and downloaded 1.2 million papers.

- Jed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.198.240 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)