Talk:Cold fusion

Pcarbonn is banned from editing the Cold fusion article, for a period of one year.
	The above mentioned editor has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the Cold fusion article. The user is additionally prohibited from discussing or proposing changes to the article, on this talk page. Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details.
This notice was posted by Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

long sentences in the intro

These two sentences:

• "In common usage, "cold fusion" refers more narrowly to a postulated fusion process of unknown mechanism offered to explain a group of experimental results first reported by electrochemists Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton."

• "Enthusiasm turned to skepticism and scorn[5] as a long series of failed replication attempts were weighed in view of several theoretical reasons cold fusion should not be possible, the discovery of possible sources of experimental error, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[6] "

are pretty long. I recall hearing somewhere that you should only have a few ideas in each sentence. I think these sentences should be cut up or at least shortened. This would make the intro easier to read. Kevin Baas^talk 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps as a general rule, any sentence over two full lines on 1280x1024(or 800) screen might be a candidate for some slicing. Kevin Baas^talk 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried giving it a go:

In common usage, "cold fusion" refers to a hypothesis offered to explain why certain electrochemical experiments sometimes seem to produce significantly more heat than predicted by theory. Electrochemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann publicly claimed that these results were due to a nuclear fusion process of unknown mechanism.

Enthusiasm turned to skepticism and scorn as a long series of failed replication attempts were weighed in view of several theoretical reasons cold fusion should not be possible. This, coupled with the apparent lack of nuclear reaction byproducts and the possibility of experimental error, was enough to extinguish most of the excitement.

Kevin Baas^talk 17:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence a bit verbose, I personally don't see a problem with the second. Your revision of the first sentence is ok but it has some problems - it narrows the scope to "electrochemical experiments", "sometimes seem" is kind of weasely, it narrows to scope to heat instead of a range of reported effects, and there's no introduction to who Pons and Fleischmann actually are or why they matter. You're just kind of hit with the names without context. So it needs a bit of revision before it replaces what we have I think. Phil153 (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well just trimming the first sentence down gives this:

• "In common usage, "cold fusion" refers more narrowly to a postulated fusion process of unknown mechanism [hypothesis] offered to explain a group of experimental results first reported by electrochemists Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton."

If i'd keep anything that i struck out there it would be "postulated fusion process of unknown mechanism". in any case i think it makes it substantially shorter with out leaving out anything really important.

And perhaps changing the ending from "...reported by electrochemists Stanley..." to "...reported by two electrochemists, Stanley...", thus breaking the sentence up so that they can digest the first part before they're introduced to two new people. Kevin Baas^talk 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation Format

Resolved

The template at the top of the article says: Its references would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking. Tagged since November 2008.

Is there consensus to change to a direct citation method like other articles? If so, I'd be happy to do it. If not, we should remove the tag. Phil153 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this tag, I don't see a conflict of citation styles but there is a heavy flow of editing here. I suggest once the major issues have been sorted out that citation style can be revisited if needed. -- Banjeboi 12:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Major Fallacies of Cold Fusion

To address many of the issues raised by my critics here, I have written a long explanation on my user page. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell all that is a long argument about how cold fusion can't be true. How exactly does that help improve the article?--Patton^t/c 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It supplies the reasoning behind why one doesn't have to believe the CF claim. I think the Wiki article would be better if the reasoning was clearly stated as opposed to simply being assumed or implied. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd asked for critical comment. I'm not sure what Shanahan is talking about when he mentions "issues raised by [his] critics," but his explanation is background. It may be original research, or not, but, to my mind, it's welcome here. There was a page on Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, but it was AfD'd by JzG on the grounds that it was a product of Pcarbonn's alleged POV pushing, in spite of the fact that a major contributor (the major contributor?) was Shanahan. Anyone else interested in getting that page back, and using it to address the calorimetry issues, in summary style here? --Abd (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For an example of 'my critics' see my user talk page and the one comment I have received so far. In it, the author says I do bad science, when in fact he is clueless as to what is going on. There have been several others like this in my months-long interactions on this page. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you are committing both bad science and intellectual dishonesty. If you were so confident that my remark on your talk page was nonsense, why did you delete it (as recorded in the page History) instead of explaining why you thought it was nonsense? It is the essence of hypocrisy to think you can spout criticism and also suppress the criticism of others. It is the hallmark of Religious Authoritarianism, not Science, to think that only one point of view should exist for others to see. And it is people who hold attitudes such as you have demonstrated, that cause edit wars in Wikipedia. Well, I've copied it to MY talk page. Feel free to try to trash my argument. V (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the following section on my user page "Comments on 'the major...'" Please note that I completed that section BEFORE I posted the above response. You've got some anger issues dude. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for jumping to a conclusion regarding "deletion" instead of "moved". Perhaps next time you might reply in the same place as a comment, with a note that you intend to move it later? I do not apologize for my opinion regarding the intellectually dishonest hypocrites who often infest controversial Wikipedia articles. Perhaps Wikipedia itself needs a formal way to accommodate such controversies. How about a two-column page format (HTML frames?), with "pro" in one column and "con" in the other? Then each side can say what it wants, the way they want to say it. And the other side can quote and refute. And members can be banned for messing with the other side's writings. V (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The deleted page was created by PCarbon in an attempt to take my comments out of the main article. He used silly reasoning like it was too long for the main article, when in fact the whole section on criticisms of CF was shorter than the sections he wrote promoting it. But instead of just disappearing it, it should have been put back in the article, but of course today the whole format has been changed to take all pro and con presentations out, so, oh well, that's the way it goes. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My comments are not OR, even though all my critics wish it were so. The CCS is published, as is the Clarke He work. The comments regarding XPS and SIMS, etc., are not explicitly published, but I can quote paragraphs from texts written long before the CF furor that explain how to do SIMS and XPS, and they will support the statements I make on heavy metal transmutation results, but that would make for an amazingly long article and should not be needed, since they do nothing but quote what is the accepted norm for surface science research. The CFers just don't do it right. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pcarbonn wasn't topic-banned for actual behavioral improprieties, only for assumed ones from evidence that established an "agenda" making Wikipedia a battleground. Most of his edits, however, sought balance. I understand, Kirk, that from your point of view, this was imbalance, but the removal of extensive discussion from this article into a subarticle is the standard response to a need for detailed discussion that is too much for a main article. Then, the theory goes, a consensus summary is brought back into the main article, so this extra information is not suppressed, it is merely sorted in a tidy and useful way. I didn't review the history of the removal of material from this article, but it could certainly be put back, and if there is complaint, we'd then have quite good cause to undelete Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments (assuming that the Calorimetry article is, at the time, balanced by consensus). You were a major editor of that article. That's probably in violation of WP:COI except that your intention was, I strongly assume, to help the project, and I don't see that there was objection. There is a copy of the article in my user space, anyone is welcome to edit it, however, as it is in my user space, I may exercise extra "control" over it, but I assure editors that my goal is consensus, not some POV, and any "extra" control is solely for efficiency. And if anyone seriously thinks that I'm abusing that effective trusteeship, I'll move it to any place that improves consensus. Consensus about text and process is more important to me than any single POV. Bad process, bad project.

[comment inserted here by User:Kirk shanahan moved below my signature.]

Meanwhile, my position has been that we need, very much, for all significant POVs, including fringe POVs, to be represented in our process by the best possible experts and advocates. What we don't need is incivility, edit warring, and truly tendentious debate, i.e., debate that isn't directed toward establishing consensus, but only toward strong assertion of a POV. Hence, Kirk, your participation is very welcome, if you remain within behavioral guidelines, and I even consider it crucial. Wherever you have a conflict of interest, you should refrain from actually editing an article. Don't worry, you get to make occasional mistakes. Just don't fight about them! (Just to make sure I'm not misinterpreted, I've seen no true misbehavior on Mr. Shanahan's part, though I certainly haven't reviewed the record in detail.) --Abd (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with what you write is that the cold fusion field is abnormal, and the rules developed for normal issues don't work. This has already been discussed on these pages, and I don't feel like retyping it once again. PCarbon applied legalistic rules in the narrowest sense to block any contrary evidence I wanted to add, evidence that I added to try to point out to the Wiki reader that there were conventional explanations and problems with ALL of the CF claims. He really didn't like that at all. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with what you write is that the cold fusion field is abnormal, and the rules developed for normal issues don't work. This has already been discussed on these pages, and I don't feel like retyping it once again. PCarbon applied legalistic rules in the narrowest sense to block any contrary evidence I wanted to add, evidence that I added to try to point out to the Wiki reader that there were conventional explanations and problems with ALL of the CF claims. He really didn't like that at all. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's an "abnormal field." However, you've missed something. Wikipedia doesn't have rules that "don't work." It doesn't have rules. While there are "policies," they are very, very flexible, being interpreted by editorial consensus. You disagreed with Pcarbonn's decisions, but those decisions wouldn't have been maintained if he'd not had substantial consensus behind them. I'd say, from reading what you've written so far, that you have difficulty distinguishing your own opinion from what is notably published in a field; this is a very common problem with experts, in fact. I'm expert in certain fields. If I assert my expertise here, facing controversy, violating sourcing policies, I'd be dead meat. Wikipedia doesn't rely on the opinion of experts, directly expressed here; the best you can do is, being familiar with the field, guide us to sources that we can use. Your unsupported opinion, here, not only has no more rights than those of any other editor, but it may actually, because of conflict of interest, have less. Where you are really useful is in advising us. See below about conflict of interest.

I want to assure you that my opinion is that whatever has been notably published in a reliable source, whether of criticism or enthusiasm or whatever, should be somehow, somewhere on Wikipedia, or within a single link, preferable. It should be very easy for someone wanting to learn about cold fusion to review the field, including "promotion," criticism, positive results, negative results, theories and even crackpot theories (if notable, sometimes they are).

When my interest in cold fusion was reawakened by seeing a complaint about the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, I started researching the state of the field; it was easy to find, of course, the old rejections and failure to replicate, etc. But there has been a lot of work done since then, and some of this work is quite striking. I'm fully aware that there are possibilities of how the results have been misleading; however, some of this work is so clear and so apparently simple to reproduce, and it was coming, not from isolated fanatics, but from apparently respected and knowledgeable researchers, that I've been amazed at how difficult it is to find cogent criticism of the more recent work. There is science history here, comment in publications, and opinion about "fringe" is keeping us from simply being complete. That's why I'm interested, and that's why a number of administrators are interested. Wouldn't it have been great if I could simply have gone to the cold fusion article, and subarticles, and found a description of the state of the scientific inquiry, as reflected in sources of reasonable reliability? Plus, by following links to sources and to various web sites -- including "advocacy" sites, appropriately described -- I'd have found even more, the mixture of cutting edge and bullshit that I'd expect to find out there. We do our readers a disservice by "protecting" them from fringe. None of this denies the matter of undue weight, but that policy doesn't apply to the project as a whole. We can have an article on the Earth and another article on Flat earth and the relative length of the articles is irrelevant. This is why deletion of the article you helped to put together was a serious mistake, unless it were really true that the material there is covered here. I think we'd agree that it isn't. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: . . . some of this work is so clear and so apparently simple to reproduce . . ." Some of the work is clear, but all of it is VERY DIFFICULT to reproduce. I do not know any researcher who says it is simple. I have spent weeks watching people do experiments, and I sure couldn't do them! - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.198.240 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "I've been amazed at how difficult it is to find cogent criticism of the more recent work." Boy oh boy is there is there cogent criticism! But you do not see it. It comes during peer-review at journals, internally at National Labs, and by funding agencies such as DARPA. I happen to be sitting here this morning working with 13 pages of closely argued peer-review criticism from a journal, regarding a paper now in progress. (The authors are not native speakers of English so I am helping to draft the responses and revise the paper.) Believe me, the journal reviewers run these authors through a wringer -- as they should. By the time the paper reaches print, which is sometimes months or years after submission, there are no errors left. That is why there are no valid published papers showing significant errors in major cold fusion experiments -- because the errors were eliminated years ago. Cold fusion has probably been subjected to the most careful, thorough vetting by funding agencies and editors of any scientific discovery in history. (Anti-cold fusion papers and books, on the other hand, sail through peer-review like greased lightening.)

The peer-review process works, when it is done by unbiased people. So does the experimental method, and replication. You should have more faith in the scientific method. There is not the slightest chance an effect replicated by hundreds of labs at high s/n ratios could be a mistake.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.198.240 (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

a) I don't have a COI. b)I never edited anything PCarbon wrote (that I can remember). My contention was we should have a common history section of the article (which was fine as I found it last June, ergo no editing), a 'pro' section that P basically wrote (that had lots of problems which I pointed out in the Talk pages), and an 'anti' section which after my edits, I basically wrote (the prior anti section was lame). Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You all may want to look and see what the CFers (actually the CFer groupies) think of Wiki. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg29899.html and http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg29899.html. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, the author of an article is generally considered to have a [[WP:COI|] with respect to the use of that article as a source. Some have tried to assert that such an editor also has a COI with respect to the field covered by the article. Maybe; but here I was simply referring to your editing to add references to your own work, if you did that. No misbehavior was alleged. However, you do seem to be trying to bring in outside controversy. What a bunch of idiots, or fine upstanding researchers, or whoever writes outside isn't relevant here unless it can help us understand the topic. Please don't make Wikipedia into a battlefield. That's what Pcarbonn, rightly or wrongly, was topic banned for. We are here, or we should be here, to seek and find consensus on article text, so, please, stay on that topic.

However, I did look at the links. There is really only one link there, not two. I see nothing there but properly and civilly expressed opinion and suggestions. Your frequent use of "CFers" and terms like "CFer groupies" is a bad sign, it would seem that you aren't capable of or willing to detach, which could damage your participation here. I hope you can be more professional. (People working in LENR really don't like the term "cold fusion" any more, for the most part, because most agree now that whatever is happening in these experiments isn't what we know of as "fusion," and don't you agree with that? You simply think that there is a systematic experimental error, which is an obvious and reasonable hypothesis. Now. How would you confirm that with experiment? Others think that there is some true unknown phenomenon; you've focused on calorimetry, but, to me, there could simply be a colossal error: the calorimetry was indeed bad -- though that seems a bit unlikely to me on the face, to be so uniformly bad with so many researchers who should know better -- *but* there are many reports of radiation and other products that we can't easily explain except by hypothesizing nuclear transformations. And none of this proves that whatever is found to be happening can be turned into a clean energy source, for example. We need science, and more science, not incivility and rejection of people doing research just because errors were made twenty years ago. Criticism is essential, in this. So why is there so little? And I've got to say, there is little.

For example, to me, the smoking gun was found with the SPAWAR CR-32 experiments, unless that can be impeached. Those papers were published in reliable source, they are citable. There is a critical report from Kowalski, which has been answered. There has been confirmation of similar results. There isn't any, as far as I can see, neutral review. There is increased interest in research in India, with notable publication. Is this stuff in the article? Why not? Well, there are surely problems, and it's going to be complicated finding consensus, I'd predict. But that is our task.

The idea that research is needed was found with the 1989 and 2004 DOE reports, this isn't some fringe claim. I'd judge from those reports that the majority opinion was that the research was most likely to find experimental error or something other than "low energy nuclear reactions," hence no recommendation of a federal program. From my point of view, the article is currently biased, a bit, against "cold fusion." But Wikipedia isn't based on my personal opinion, and my user name means "servant." --Abd (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A brief comment. It's CR-39. The fact that pits were found in CR-39 plates is not proof of nuclear reactions. I proposed at least two conventional sources for them in 2002 when Oriani and Fisher first published their similar claims. There were claims by Szpak that one of them was eliminated, but, as usual, there was only the claim, no details. There are a lot of subtleties to the CR-39 studies that are glossed over in the latest set of Szpak and Kowalski papers. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone wrote:

Others think that there is some true unknown phenomenon; you've focused on calorimetry, but, to me, there could simply be a colossal error: the calorimetry was indeed bad -- though that seems a bit unlikely to me on the face, to be so uniformly bad with so many researchers who should know better . . .

This is completely incorrect. The calorimetry employed in the top cold fusion labs is the best conventional (water based) flow and isoperibolic calorimetry ever performed. Millions of dollars have been spent on the instruments at SRI, ENEA and Toyota, and the instruments were reviewed by experts from the funding agencies such as EPRI and DARPA (and by people from the "Jasons" who are less qualified in my opinion, but they wrote a report, and they found no errors.) The calorimeters at many other labs such as TAMU were designed by outside experts in calorimetry.

Jed is completely correct here. The calorimeters McKubre and Storms use are top notch. Storms has 98%+ heat capture efficiency in his, and I doubt McK's are any less efficient. However, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of the CCS, as I showed in my 2002 publication. For the record, I began developing my hypothesis while studing the data supplied by McK in his 1999 EPRI report, whichj reported on experiments done in 1993-1994 with the famous 'million dollar calorimeter'. Unfortunately there was no calibration data supplied that would allow the assessment of calibration constant variablility. So Storms 2000 data was the preferred set. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kirk: I think it would be a little easier to follow if you would insert your comments after the message. Anyway, my point was that EPRI and the Army sent the best experts in the country to examine McKubre's calorimeter, because they paid millions of dollars for it. These experts found nothing wrong. So, either they disagree with your CCS hypothesis or they are unaware of it. It seems unlikely that you have discovered something all of these experts do not know, but it is conceivable. As best I can understand your hypothesis, it is not in evidence. - Jed Rothwell, you-know-who —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.198.240 (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As Hagelstein wrote in 1993: "Scientists in the field have gone to extremes in attempts to satisfy skeptics. Cells were stirred, blanks were done, extremely elaborate closed cell calorimeters have been developed (in which the effect has been demonstrated), the signal to noise ratio has been improved so that positive results can now be claimed at the 50 sigma level, the reproducibility issue has been laid to rest; but still it is not enough."

"50 sigma" when using the baseline fluctuation as the total noise level. So, at 75 mW noise, that was a 3.75 W signal vs. a .78WW from Storms, a factor of 5 larger. I wonder what the input value was, and what the calibration variability was? Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note also that no skeptical paper has been published showing errors in the calorimetry in any major experiment. I am sure that after 20 years, someone would have found an error if there were any. Assertions such as this, that the calorimetry "was indeed bad" are not in evidence. (Shanahan believes he has found errors, but I do not know any experts in cold fusion or calorimetry who agree with him, and in my opinion his hypothesis has no merit.)

But Jed's opinion doesn't count. Only the facts count, and the fact is that the CCS has the potential to explain "all". Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested that errors will be found sooner or later, or that there may be something wrong, therefore we must reserve judgment. This argument is invalid because it cannot be falsified, and it applies to all experiments that ever been performed since Newton. Any experiment might be wrong, but it is exceedingly unlikely that techniques such as calorimetry, that have been widely used for 150 years, are wrong, and that some undiscovered error in them will be found. Anyway, until you actually find such an error, you have no case. To disprove cold fusion calorimetry, you have to find hundreds of different errors, in different labs, with flow calorimeter, isoperibolic, Seebeck, microcalorimeters, bomb calorimeters and IR cameras. This is even more unlikely.

No, just one, the CCS. (And by the way, CF calorimetrists know about this in isoperibolic calorimeter. It's called the 'hot spot' problem there. I just generalized it to cover all types.) Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The CCS finds errors in all of these different calorimeter types? That is a powerful model! Does it also disprove gas loaded cold fusion? Does it show errors in the heat balance from ordinary electrolysis? (I suppose it must, because you are saying that cold fusion is ordinary.) Does it also show that the textbooks are wrong about the heat of other chemical reactions measured in calorimeters? That is astounding. It is amazing that no one else noticed, and all these experts who designed the calorimeters at SRI and TAMU do not know about the CCS. - Jed Rothwell

P.S. What's more the CCS model shows how artifacts fool the human senses! A cell in heat after death may appear to have boiling water in it, and it may seem hot to the touch, but the CCS tells us that it is actually stone cold. All this and more the CCS can explain. - Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.198.240 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an appeal to authority. Do you think experts don't make mistakes in their own experiments? Au contraire, they do it all the time. And yes, it does show errors in the heat balance from ordinary electrolysis - groups have found heat using ordinary light water. Unless you think there is something going on there as well? In which case, all your control experiments to baseline the D2O heat are useless. Pick one please. And by the way, they most certainly did notice; serious errors in calorimetry are [known and written about by highly prestigious labs like Bell Labs. Read the full text preview of that last link. Phil153 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil153 wrote:

That's an appeal to authority.

No, this is not an appeal to authority (more properly "Fallacious Appeal to Authority") because the people I am talking about really are authorities. If they were not qualified to do calorimetry, you would be correct. See:

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

groups have found heat using ordinary light water. Unless you think there is something going on there as well?

Obviously there is. The instruments have been calibrated and checked carefully. It is not a matter of what I think or you think. The instruments show heat, so there is heat. No one can argue with a thermocouple, once the results are replicated. It seems likely that Ni can produce heat with light water, or possibly from the fraction of heavy water in ordinary water.

In experimental science, the instruments decide all issues, overrule all objections, and push aside all theories -- subject only to replication. It does not make the slightest difference how surprising or inexplicable the results may seem: they are real by definition. There is no other way to define reality.

Do you think experts don't make mistakes in their own experiments? Au contraire, they do it all the time.

No, they do not. This is rather like asserting that airplane pilots crash all the time, and doctors lose most of their patients. Most professionals do their jobs competently. People make mistakes when they do experiments that are not in their area of expertise, such as when Fleischmann tried to measure neutrons, and when plasma physicists tried to do electrochemistry.

Read the full text preview of that last link.

It discusses recombination. All electrochemists know about this. It is usually eliminated by putting a recombiner in a closed cell.

- Jed Rothwell

- Jed Rothwell, from you-know-where, whose comment will surely be erased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.198.240 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Jed, your commentary is important, though I'd ask you to be (1) more careful before reacting, (2) briefer if possible (I know, all too well, that it's not always possible, and (3) to focus on improving the article. That's where we need advice. If you just want to continue a debate here, you will be properly blocked, and, yes, your contributions will be reverted, far more automatically than you have seen. I think that would be a shame, please don't make it necessary. We are working on getting some pages from lenr-canr whitelisted, which is the toe in the door that might open it up more fully. If we can't get some pages whitelisted, delisting from the blacklist is hopeless. So one step at a time....

Now, anyone can put this conversation in a collapse box, that would be better than deleting it or removing it. Like it or not, Rothwell is extremely knowledgeable in this field, and his participation here may even be essential. Imagine, if both he and Shanahan sign off on some text, it's pretty likely to be NPOV! And that is possible, though certainly I'm not holding my breath. The rest of us will be better off if these issues are explored in Talk, instead of through edit warring and other not-niceties. If you find this boring and useless, please don't read it! If we make an edit based on this stuff, your rights haven't been removed to revert it and ask for discussion, you won't be sanctioned because you didn't participate in this extended discussion.

Now, Jed, you wrote "This is completely incorrect," in response to "Others think that there is some true unknown phenomenon; you've focused on calorimetry, but, to me, there could simply be a colossal error: the calorimetry was indeed bad -- though that seems a bit unlikely to me on the face, to be so uniformly bad with so many researchers who should know better"

I think you actually agree with the statement, at least you do if you still have some scientific objectivity left, and I think you probably have a lot, if you will bring it to bear. "Others" was a reference to those not directly working in the CMNS field, but with some indirect knowledge of it (critical or friendly). That there is some "true unknown phenomenon" was always considered a possibility in the DOE reviews that were supposedly negative. Then I turned to Shanahan and said, "you've focused on calorimetry." Was that incorrect? Remember, you just wrote "completely incorrect." Not just "incorrect in part." This is the writing of someone accustomed to tenacious debate, where there are sides and there isn't a common goal, but apparently opposing goals. I'm here because I'm a Wikipedia editor who believes in the value of NPOV, when it is true NPOV and hasn't been warped by the exclusion of some element of it. (NPOV isn't a POV, it's a consensus report of POVs and other facts. Or we could say that the POV that is NPOV is one which knows the difference between relative certainty and opinion, and doesn't report opinion as fact, but only as attributed opinion.)

Then, to Shanahan, I pointed out a theoretical possibility. I actually said that I considered it improbable. Do you think that "completely wrong?" Your habits of debate suck you into excess. It's damaging the field, and my opinion on this has been confirmed by others in the field. Your library is excellent, it's been unfairly attacked, all that. But we could deal with that if you'd clean up your act. Please, for your own sake, for lenr-canr.org's sake, for the field of condensed matter nuclear science, indeed, for the future of humanity (whether lenr turns out to be a blind alley or not), not to mention the benefit of Wikipedia, consider improving your behavior, becoming more like a professional librarian. Otherwise, I predict, I'll be watching your ban, a far more effective ban than you've seen, shaking my head and unable to do anything about it.

Now, I was going to ask you, is there any peer-reviewed work pursuing to Shanahan's claims, or recent reviews of the field that might meet WP:RS requirements? I'm aware of primary research with implications, but there is only so much we can do with that. We need some independent secondary sources. I'm prepared to argue that some sources that might be considered not-independent actually are, but the sources shouldn't be clearly biased. Even notable opinion might be helpful. --Abd (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear. I meant that there could not be a colossal error, and that the calorimetry in all of the major experiments was good, not bad. (There have been minor experiments in which it was pretty bad. I don't recall any that got through peer-review, except the negative findings of course, which always sail through unchallenged.)

If there was a colossal error someone would have found it by now. They would have found a subtle error too, but a subtle error is ruled out in any case. The effect is often large, so it cannot be caused by a subtle error. A subtle error (such as poor mixing or drifting thermometers) causes a small spurious indication of heat, say ~50 mW. With equal probability, it would indicate negative 50 mW, which is impossible. It would never indicate 10 W. Heck, even the calorimeters that I personally have constructed would never be off by more than 100 mW, and they were rudimentary!

Now, I was going to ask you, is there any peer-reviewed work pursuing to Shanahan's claims, or recent reviews of the field that might meet requirements?

Well, Storms wrote a response to one of Shanahan's papers, and Shanahan said he published a rebuttal to Storms. I think that's where it stands. You would have to ask Shanahan.

- Jed Rothwell <spam removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.198.240 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Jed, as has been mentioned before, it is not appropriate to include external links in your signature, doubly so to a site you control that is on the blacklist. See Wikipedia:SPAMMER #7. Since you haven't got a user page, I'm notifying you here. I'm going to remove any such links from your signature here as a straightforward application of policy. Phil153 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not put an external link in my signature. A robot did that. - JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.198.240 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's not spam, as such. Those aren't links and, obviously, aren't prevented by the blacklist. They are just a URL, a URL anyone could quickly find by googling the name, so it's a convenience to someone who wants it and pretty harmless to someone who doesn't. Linkspam usually refers to links in articles, not to Talk, and is only applied to Talk pages when the links are truly inappropriate. If you'd like to buy some yarn or fiber, I could add a URL to my signature.... I'd probably get sanctioned. But for an IP editor to identify himself as the librarian of a web site on the topic of the article isn't harmful. He doesn't need the advertising (Google LENR! Googling "cold fusion," though, drops him to my second page of hits, which is appropriate, since "cold fusion" isn't the name of the field in which ongoing research is taking place.

However, for sure, it's highly impolitic of Jed to sign that way. He should stop. He has a user page, Jed Rothwell but because he never edits from it, we don't know if he logs in and uses it, and so he may not get notices that he has messages.If he keeps it up, I and others who'd like to see his useful participation here will probably be powerless to prevent his being actually banned, with active detection, regular IP blocks, and immediate removal of detected edits. His edit above is cogent. It didn't add anything I didn't already know, but he answered the question; what we need, though, are reviews that weigh and compare the conflicting views. On the face, by the way, Rothwell is probably right as to the substance of what he's said. Unfortunately, "probably" doesn't cut the mustard as a reliable source. And I certainly don't want to close the door to Shanahan; big mistakes do get made sometimes. Hmmm.... In the LENR field, Shanahan's work is fringe opinion.... which is no argument against it at all.--Abd (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bothered me for a while - it's basically promotion of the site littered all over the talk page. I doubt we would tolerate it anywhere else, say "webmaster, freerunningadvice.com", or "librarian, hydrogenengineresearch.org". I don't think his intent is spam, but I'm also quite sure he appreciates people visiting the cold fusion talk page to have plenty of references to his site and its opinions. I don't intend to warn him for spam, merely remove it when it gets posted in every single signature. I generally agree with you you that Jed has valuable things to say, but his constant overstating of the case (and not pointing out the boundaries of where those cases break down, instead lumping all things together) makes it hard to know when he isn't overstating. It's frustrating. I'd certainly welcome any specific suggestions he has to improve parts of the article and would be happy to add them myself. But they need to be sober, if you know what I mean.

I personally don't find Shanahan convincing, it's fine as a generalized critique and he raises sound points, but it needs hard evidence to be taken as more than plausible hand waving. It needs falsifying and quantifying in actual experiments to be compelling explanation for multiple reports of excess heat of a particular magnitude. Phil153 (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't find Shanahan convincing, but ... the DOE (1989 and 2004) didn't find the excess heat results "convincing" either. Shanahan's criticisms deserve response. There has been response, I understand, but it's incomplete. This much is clear to me: the DOE reports deserve more respect than they have gotten, from both critics and supporters of LENR. This article has tended to only report one side of the DOE reports; it's a serious problem. Because the DOE reports were widely reported in a certain way, i.e., as "debunking cold fusion," rather than simply pointing out that the evidence wasn't strong enough to revise our general understandings of physics, rather than simply pointing out the difficulties in replication, difficulties which make it quite reasonable to continue to be skeptical, when we understate what is actually in the reports, we create an effective imbalance, even if what we report is reliably sourced. I dipped my toe in this article by adding some sourced text from the 2004 DOE report, and it was reverted, with a series of reasons being given. What was legitimate about the objections would more appropriately have been addressed by adding balance, instead of removing sourced text that allegedly created imbalance. That's where we should go, on this point. Shanahan is not an experimentalist in this field, he is merely proposing, as I read his work, a kind of generic explanation of excess heat. Without a lot of careful study, I don't feel competent to judge his work, all I can say is that I'm not convinced, and that Jed's objections seem generically more likely to be correct. Absolutely, as you wrote, Phil, it needs falsifying and quantifying in actual experiments, and more than that, it needs independent review like anything else. We can report Shanahan's opinions and claims, to the extent they are in RS, but we can't imply that they are true or accepted. We may in some cases even be able to go outside standard RS, for statements that we attribute to notable experts that verifiably were made by them (an example would be Fleischmann's papers on the history of the CF affair, presented at a conference in China, and, yes, hosted by lenr-canr.org. That source was being used in Martin Fleischmann, and it wasn't controversial, apparently. --Abd (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No disagreement, except...I think our section on the 2004 DOE is absolutely fine, and more balanced than anything we've had before, which is ironic given that the only person topic banned was a CF advocate. Compare with a typical commentary from November, for example. The only thing that could be modified is that lead, maybe with something like "The majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1989 found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive, although uncertainties remained". It's hard to think of wording that's sourced, brief, and won't start WWIII.

BTW, looking at that November version, I think the article has gone downhill since the rewrite was done. It reads like an essay instead of an encyclopedia entry - it's focussed too narrowly on precisely looking at claims and precisely reporting events, instead of also presenting context and the social history of the topic in the narrative, which are both relevant and interesting. Phil153 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban reminding

Guys, I remind you all that Jed is topic banned from this page, so I'm striking out all his comment here per WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits (I'm not removing them because it would be difficult to follow the discussion). New comments by him on this page should be deleted on sight.

Note: I'm not striking out his comments under the blacklisting discussion, but just because it's an off-topic section, so I find it silly to apply a topic ban there. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You people need to stop obsessing about me, and ask yourselves how you ended up with an article about cold fusion that features crackpot nonsense about recombination, and no actual facts about cold fusion, such as the power levels or control factors. You have succeeded so well in ridding yourselves of me and others who know something about this subject that you are now an isolated Cult of True Believers. - Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.50 (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, leave it to Rothwell to troll for a ban. Well, one reason we ended up with a relatively poor article is that an expert such as yourself has truly poor people skills, and needlessly insults people. We didn't get rid of you, you got rid of yourself, and, by failing to heed the advice from your friends, you have made it quite difficult for those who do, indeed, see the problems with the article and would try to fix them. Pcarbonn, I predict, will be back. Maybe even before the year of his present topic ban. Unless he does something foolish such as act as you do, which I rather doubt will happen. He actually understands this place. I and another editor are currently attempting to get some pages at lenr-canr.org whitelisted, which is really the first step to getting the site delisted from the meta blacklist. No thanks to you. And I don't expect any thanks from you, either, I'm not doing it for you, I'm doing it for the project and for humanity. See, I happen to think that your site is very useful, and that people, the readers this is all for, should know about it, and that I might get dinged for incivility for saying frankly what I think of your personal behavior is irrelevant. When the smoke clears and a definitive history of condensed matter nuclear science is written, it may record your substantial contributions, but also that you retarded the field due to certain unfortunate personal characteristics. You could fix those, if you'd unplug your ears and start listening, not about CMNS, but about how to deal with people. It's your choice. If you'd clean up your act, I'd support you with my not inconsiderable skills here; if not, I'll still act to benefit the project, but I'll be unable to defend you. Pcarbonn is another matter. He got a raw deal, in my opinion; fixing it will take time. The wheels of justice grind slowly but they grind exceedingly fine. --Abd (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that Jed Rothwell is topic banned. JzG thinks so, hence what's in the link above. He's got a registered account, it's not blocked. (He doesn't use it, I don't know why.)

There are some IP editors here who are clearly Rothwell, but I don't see abusive IP socking. Are the IP editors blocked? Blocks of IP editors don't establish a ban, partly because the IP editor may be unable to respond with an unblock request, for example. But I don't see routine blocking of identified Rothwell IP. For example, see Special:Contributions/68.219.198.240, the most recent IP for him. Many edits from 20 Jan to 23 Jan, then look at the block log. No block. With some difficulty, I found some IP blocks, looking back, before. I've had occasion to follow some truly banned editors, and when IP was identified, it was usually blocked immediately, certainly with this long a discussion here, in a place that many admins see, if he was logged as a blocked user, he'd be quickly blocked. There is a log of bans and blocks. I'll bet he's not on it.... That would take a ban discussion somewhere. I haven't seen one that came to any conclusion.

So, while his edits here are irritating, and he's tendentious, missing the point of collaboration here, he is also, perhaps unfortunately, right about a lot that he writes. I'd suggest the use of collapse boxes if someone is offended by how much space he takes up. Strikeout is irritating, I may remove it. Nobody is forced to read it; collapse box would retain easy readability for someone who wants to read it, and avoid needless irritation for those who don't. --Abd (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer your implied question, see [1] and [2]. Cheers.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive179#Is_this_the_place_to_report_an_admitted_soapbox_editor.3F looks like clear consensus for a talk page topic ban to me. And it's only a month old. In addition to the 5 involved parties, uninvolved adminstrator Protonk agreed. No one objected. You can always bring it up for review at AN I guess and see what the community thinks? Phil153 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick review of Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions suggests that no ban was officially imposed or declared. Had such an official action taken place an administrator would have officially closed the WP:AN you reference here, clearly declared the parameters of the ban, and made a notation at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions. None of these actions took place so, no, I would say that no such ban has been imposed. --GoRight (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It looked like an informal consensus on how to deal with a disruptive soapbox editor. Jed's contribs are entirely off topic anyway (they don't relate to article improvement, despite repeated requests), so they can be removed under the talk page guidelines anyway. However, I would appreciate if Enric Naval would clarify why he thinks Jed is topic banned from this page so we know where everything stands. Phil153 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not reviewed his specific edits, however I trust User:Abd's judgment in these cases (see his characterization above). I am not commenting on anything other than the formality of whether an actual ban has been imposed, which by my understanding it has not. --GoRight (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

He was already blocked for disruptive edits on December 2007, there was a AN discussion for topic banning him where it's commented how they can't block because it's a dynamic IP, the first message in Talk:Cold_fusion#Jed_Rothwell is an admin's announcement on the talk page that he's banned (diff), this sort of announcement is not a requirement but is standard issue when handing out topic bans, and I already explained how and where to appeal the topic ban.

Those steps are enough to impose a topic ban on an editor. Additionally, if an editor only disrupts one page the usual solution is blocking but:

a) he is using a dynamic IP so it would need a IP range block that would affect other people on his ISP

b) he has not edited from his account so nobody has seen the need to block it (mind you, if he edits this page from his account he'll probably be considered to be making edit "in deffiance of his topic ban" and get his account blocked)

c) a ban can be implemented by using the technical mechanism of block, but you can also topic ban an editor from certain pages without blocking him (User:Pcarbonn, is an example of this)

d) listing in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is not a requirement and there must be like a thousand banned editors not appearing there because nobody cares

e) it's not even a requirement to slap a {{Banned user}} template on banned users' userpage and sometimes admins even forget to block the account, someone else will block later when/if the error is noticed because the ban is still in effect even if the user is not blocked

f) bans are not done on accounts but on persons, so he's still under the ban conditions even if he edits unlogged or from a different account

g) we are not even counting all the tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of accounts that are technically banned because they are indefinitely blocked for assorted reasons and no admin is willing to unblock.

Seriously, there is no big hidden mistake that everybody missed except you. He's topic banned and you need to argue how lifting the topic ban would help the encyclopedia (have I already linked to how and where to appeal the topic ban?). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything, actually, since I don't have any stake in his being banned or not. But procedurally you can't just get five or six people to make a couple of posts on WP:AN and call that a ban. If you feel that this user actually IS banned, then I suggest that you follow the proper procedures by having the administrator who is declaring the existence of a community consensus for the ban (based solely on 5 or 6 comments in an obscure thread) formally make that declaration on WP:AN and subsequently record that finding at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. If things are as you claim this should be a simple matter to accomplish. Until then you are clearly on thin ice with your claims. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --TS 22:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As Tony says. There is no need to try to fullfill a set of not-actually-needed bureaucratic steps that the rules don't demand.

Also, this an useless discussion, so I'm not replying anymore to it. Please direct further comments about flawed bans to WP:AN, where they belong. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am just saying that IF a topic ban actually exists, it should be no problem to have it actually recorded in the proper places which already exist for doing so. As you say, failing to have done so does not change whether the ban exists but having it recorded in the proper places should work to your benefit in this matter as this would remove all doubt. Failing to record the ban only aids the banned user. --GoRight (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Absence of an entry in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions doesn't mean he isn't topic-banned. That was a very brief discussion, though. I don't see a problem with reviewing his contributions and declaring a topic ban if it's necessary, though I take into account Abd's opinion that he's "right about a lot that he writes" which suggests that his comments may be of some value. If he's being a nuisance by not logging in to comment, we could require him to log in, and ban him from making comments without logging in. --TS 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree on a procedural basis. There is nothing in the WP:AN discussions that declares a topic ban. There are a handful of users expressing general support. I doubt that this is considered sufficient. But as I said above, if he truly is topic banned there should be no problem dotting the associated i's and crossing the associated t's now that everyone is aware of them. If there is a problem getting those i's dotted and those t's crossed, however, then I would argue that the claims of a ban are premature.

Hell, even the request for semi-protection of the talk page was denied. Obviously page protection and banning are two completely separate things, but this does suggest that the problem was not considered worth addressing even at that time. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

PS - Please also note the title of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. The purpose of the page is to list users who are NOT banned but have editing restrictions (which a topic ban would be). It is not titled List of All Banned Users. Note also that User:Pcarbonn appears on that page, consistent with the arbcom ruling creating the editing restriction. --GoRight (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I have no idea why some think this so important, but one argument at a time:

• LeadSongDog wrote, To answer your implied question, see [3] and [4]. The first diff is to short blocks and user-requested user page deletion from April 2006. The second is to Rothwell's Contributions, showing last contribution logged-in as May 2006. I don't know why LeadSongDog would think I hadn't already look at those, but ... they show me that, yes, he's not recently using the account, but he also negated his stated intention not to participate by contributing after those events. For all I know, he may have spiked his password or simply lost it and it isn't worth it to him to go to the trouble of recovering it. This is moot. He has an account. It's not blocked. It has a Talk page, a convenient place to notify him of bans, and he'd be easily considered responsible for following them, then. And they could be appealed, as could any blocks of the account.

• Phil153 wrote, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive179#Is_this_the_place_to_report_an_admitted_soapbox_editor.3F looks like clear consensus for a talk page topic ban to me. First of all, this discussion opened with a serious error. Rothwell could be considered to have a WP:COI with respect to the topic (it's debatable). For him to confine his contributions to Talk pages was asserted here as some kind of problem, when, in fact, it's what a COI editor is supposed to do. He's an expert on the topic, a published author, has collected the largest and most useful bibliography on it and the largest collection of freely-accessible copies of published papers and other documents. He's also, like a lot of experts, quite opinionated and short with those who don't know as much as he does about it, and who ignorantly repeat what he's heard a thousand times and knows to be false. That doesn't mean he's right, in any given instance; this is the classic problem with many experts on Wikipedia. As to the discussion, the first attempt was to semiprotect the page, that's what Protonk "voted" for. The request was (properly) denied, see [Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=258795705#Talk:Cold_fusion_.28edit.7Carticle.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 permanent link]. Then Oloinish, who had made the report in the first place, asked, Is it OK if we just delete all future messages identifiable as Jed's? Two consented: JzG, who is deeply involved (he'd just unilaterally blacklisted Rothwell's web site, and removed references to it which had been accepted by consensus), and Bishonen. The latter admin (quite a respected one, by the way), opined: User's edits are a complete waste of time. I have no reason to consider her involved. However, the judgment would be a complex one, rather difficult for someone who doesn't know the field to determine. And this discussion didn't mention "ban." It wasn't closed, because no decision was made that required administrative action. It established nothing other than that an editor could remove (with the consent of two administrators, one involved and one presumably not) edits of Rothwell's on sight; otherwise such a removal might be, itself, considered disruptive.

• Enric Naval gave an extensive list of reasons why we should consider there is a ban. Most of them are moot. But I respect Enric, and he deserves an answer.
  • He was already blocked for disruptive edits on December 2007... 24 hour block. There is no question that Rothwell's behavior is marginal. But he's not blocked, let alone banned. Certainly it is possible that if his behavior were brought up, he could be blocked or banned. JzG, here, by the way, reveals the source of his clear POV on the topic. Personally, as to Rothwell, I'd prefer to continue efforts to persuade him to begin to act in a collegial manner. I'm under no illusion that this is easy! He is an expert, he knows the sources (on "both sides"), better than any of us, I believe. That he may be biased doesn't negate this.
  • there was a AN discussion for topic banning him where it's commented how they can't block because it's a dynamic IP This was covered above. Further, they can block, and it's routinely done when an admin thinks it worthwhile. That the editor may easily evade it doesn't change that. It takes moments to block a single IP. But it requires an administrator to take responsibility for the block.
  • the first message in Talk:Cold_fusion#Jed_Rothwell is an admin's announcement on the talk page that he's banned.(diff Note that the IP editor whose comments were removed in association with this wasn't Jed Rothwell. Jed Rothwell seems to always sign his posts with his name (and domain, irritatingly). That wasn't just "an admin's announcement," that was a comment by JzG and was simply his own inadequately confirmed opinion. Admins can do all kinds of things like this if nobody objects. It's efficient. However, as one very long-term, highly respected editor commented in this affair, the same administrator should not be prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Too many hats interferes with clear thinking.
  • The rest of the list from Enric aren't reasons why there is a ban, but rather reasons why, for example, that there is no block of User:JedRothwell, that there is no editor restrictions listing, etc., doesn't prove that there is no ban, and that is all correct. However, the lack of these things, continued after attention has been called to them, does establish that something is probably missing: a ban that is anything more than an informal decision by a small number of editors or administrators. Most notably, what is missing is a neutral administrator who closes the ban discussion with a decision and then takes responsibility for administering the ban. Then, if someone wishes to appeal it, they would first go to that admin. That's how WP process works. It's highly efficient. Examples given of a closing admin not taking actions like informing the user, blocking the user for violations, or logging the ban assume a closing administrator with the responsibility to do that. The suggestion that I, for example, should go to AN to appeal the ban is backwards. There is no ban to appeal. There is no block worthy of being appealed. AN would be a waste of many editors' time. That someone claims there is a ban doesn't cut it. Even if that someone is an administrator. If the administrator uses admin tools to enforce the ban, then there would be something to appeal. Do I need to spell it all out? Hint: I won't.

• What happened is that a user, believing that there is a ban, removed text. I'm not offended. If I don't like it, I can revert that. The status quo is that some editors believe there is a ban and some don't. I have no agenda to fix that, but I'm responding to statements here that there is a ban. I do not see adequate evidence for that, but until and unless an admin uses tools to enforce it, it's moot. One point, though: no dissent was expressed in the AN report cited as the primary evidence for a ban. There is, however, dissent expressed here. Where is it more appropriate to discuss a topic ban? In an article on the topic, where it will be seen by the editors interested in and knowledgeable about the topic, or on AN, where it will be seen by editors and administrators not familiar with the topic, who may opine -- and often do -- based on shallow and inadequate investigation if, indeed, there is any investigation at all? Generally, going to a noticeboard should be preceded by lesser efforts and the formation of editorial consensus, which someone then violates. Was this less disruptive process followed? --Abd (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN is thataway --Enric Naval (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. Be my guest. Let me know if I'm mentioned so I can hide under a rock. Or not. --Abd (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Meaningless Break

I have requested that User:JzG address this point both here, and at WP:Editing restrictions if appropriate. --GoRight (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, GoRight, let it go, don't harass the poor Guy! Too much drama already. Rothwell's irritating IP edits are a minor issue. Given how totally impolitic Rothwell is, wider attention is simply likely to get him actually banned, no matter how harmless it is. Let me put it this way: if you want to clean up a hornet's nest, don't stir prematurely. --Abd (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He's evading a block. Or rather he was, he's now blocked at his new IP. We do not need him, we should simply WP:RBI whatever he posts - he and Pcarbonn are collaborating externally and anything Jed does can be viewed as covered by Pcarbonn's topic ban. As an aside, Kirk also has a COI here so should be watched carefully. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(removed comment by banned user) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not particularly civil, but he's largely right. He's been accused by JzG, for a long time, of massive copyright violations, yet not one piece of proof has been provided, and expert opinion has been that there is no evidence of copyright violation. JzG is an involved editor in this article, yet he argued for the ban on AN (prosecutor), then declared it (judge, but not closer of the discussion), then enforced it with a block (executioner), then blocked other IP, not Rothwell for supposedly violating the ban, then blocked Rothwell again long after the original ban had expired for "violating" it (presumably based on the non-Rothwell blocks), in addition to other actions as an involved admin. He took this matter to ArbComm in blatant violation of ArbComm policy (ArbComm is a court of last resort, not of first impression) and apparently thinks that because the arbitrators are inclined not to open a case (big surprise, Not), he's vindicated and can do all this with impunity. See User:Abd/JzG for evidence prepared for the RfAr comment, at the request of other editors (by email). (one admin, one long-term highly respected editor). JzG removed the above comment, I reverted it back. Jed Rothwell has been abused for a long time here, I saw it when I was compiling the evidence for the RfAr. He shouldn't be uncivil back, but what I've seen here is sustained, long-term incivility by an administrator, plus use of admin tools while involved, and, indeed, that this has been tolerated does reflect badly on the whole project. --Abd (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As we all know, blocks are not bans. I note the lack of any updates at WP:Editing restrictions. Until the purported ban is recorded there I will assume no such ban exists.

WP:RBI would seem appropriate in this case for anything that actually constitutes vandalism, but again that clearly is not the same as a topic ban.

"anything Jed does can be viewed as covered by Pcarbonn's topic ban" - I am not aware of any policy that says topic bans are transitive to other users. Indeed, such a notion seems completely counter to the prevailing cultural norms here on wikipedia. Can you please provide a reference? --GoRight (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Jed is editing on behalf of User:Pcarbonn? The mere fact that they may or may not have an off-wiki relationship is irrelevant to that point. I think at this point that it is well established that they are different individuals and that Jed is not merely a meat puppet for User:Pcarbonn even though they may share similar views. --GoRight (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I presume your question is intended for Guy. I was merely providing you with some policy information, to show you that Guy's position ("he and Pcarbonn are collaborating externally and anything Jed does can be viewed as covered by Pcarbonn's topic ban") is consistent with ban policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Your policy information does not actually contradict my original statement which is that topic bans are not transitive. In other words, just because User:Pcarbonn has a ban does NOT mean that Jed does. The policy you cite does not restrict Jed from making his own personal comments. So in order for it to even apply in this case you must have direct evidence that a given comment made by Jed was done solely at the direction of User:Pcarbonn. Hence my request. I don't care who responds with the evidence. --GoRight (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pcarbonn is topic banned. Truth. Jed Rothwell isn't banned at all, as far as I can tell. This would be the first time, to my knowledge, that a topic ban on one user is applied to another based on an alleged coincidence of opinions; my guess is that Rothwell and Pcarbon, however, disagree on many things and that Pcarbonn would likewise protest against the worst aspects of Rothwell's behavior. I haven't seen evidence that Pcarbonn and Jed Rothwell "are collaborating externally." Normally, in any case, external cooperation isn't relevant here. If Rothwell were taking comments from Pcarbonn and posting them, instead of simply posting his own opinion, absolutely, it would be meat puppetry and sanctionable. I highly doubt that this is happening. How about asking Pcarbonn? My sense, though, is that he's paying hardly any attention to Wikipedia now. He'd probably respond to an email. --Abd (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked this discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. It's obvious that Jed Rothwell is about as topic banned as it's possible to be, and the arbitration committee does not want to be dragged into a formal procedure simply because some editors insist to the last that he is not. It's done, he's banned. --TS 13:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, evidently I am not banned. Or blocked, whatever the difference may be. However, someone keeps erasing my comments. - Jed Rothwell

JzG escalated to arbitration, opening the can of worms. No, Rothwell isn't banned, he's blocked, by JzG. And ArbComm now has an opportunity to examine this. Note that we have, here, an admin taking his action to ArbComm, not because he's been reversed, but because there was objection. The one asking for ArbComm action here is not me, and not GoRight, but JzG. Insist to the last? Tony, I had simply asked Guy to unblock, based primarily on his prior involvement and lack of sufficient evidence for a block. You want to the last, you ain't seen nothing yet! I'd done the first step, it was over, JzG refused. So, second step, probably, seek informal mediation. That had not begun. All that had happened, let me repeat, was that an admin took an action and two editors requested reversal, giving reasons. JzG doesn't want discussion on his Talk page, he can ask that it stop. But he went to ArbComm. Might be a good thing, actually; the risk is that ArbComm confirms JzG, which would do a great deal of damage, in my opinion. But it might well decide that WP:DR wasn't followed and so a hearing is premature. Or it may also realize that there are some serious issues here, issues of administrative abuse to enforce a POV, and take the case. I know that there is substantial sentiment in the community that this is the situation, but many have thrown their hands up in the air, believing that nothing can be done about it. Maybe they are right. Maybe we will find out. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I saw that Dan Tobias had stuck his oar in, I knew this would turn bloody. I now see no alternative than to let the Committee go to a full motion to impose a topic ban on Rothwell. --TS 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a possible outcome; however, it would establish some very dangerous precedents. Indeed, my opinion is that PCarbonn's topic ban set a poor precedent in itself, but I certainly wasn't confronting that aside from an occasional comment like this, not pushing any action. What I hope is that ArbComm doesn't pass a ban motion without careful consideration of evidence. The evidence asserted by JzG is that kind that can look solid if taken as true, or if only examined superficially with a conclusion already in mind. It falls apart, seriously, if examined closely. There is no meat puppetry involved, that is very, very clear (and evidence would show this). JzG is an involved editor, that, likewise is simple to establish. He's using his admin tools while involved. That is likewise very, very simple to show. I didn't want to take this to ArbComm, I didn't even want to take it to AN or RfC, I simply asked JzG to recuse himself, to unblock, based on his involvement. He refused, but instead of then leaving the next step to me, as I'd have expected, he escalated it to ArbComm. Sure, Rothwell might get banned. But many admins and, I think, at least some arbitrators, are aware of the problem of involved admins using tools to block, and ArbComm has generally taken this very seriously.

There was no emergency, no serious ongoing disruption by Rothwell. JzG's block of Rothwell IP came out of the blue, not in connection with significant ongoing edits. The edits had stopped, without any such action. My opinion? He blocked to support his claim that there is a ban. If there is a ban, then the block follows, though, still, it should be a neutral admin, not JzG. No admin willing to block on the basis of the ban, no ban. Note, however, that there was also no block violation. JzG's original block of Rothwell expired some time ago, and Rothwell appears to have respected the block, in substance. JzG may think differently, he blocked IP that was almost certainly not Rothwell from behavioral and possibly IP evidence. Again, the block was based on JzG's opinion about similarity of opinion. Very, very dangerous.

If ArbComm confirms a topic ban, based on a discussion of only Rothwell, it will effectively be ratifying abuse of admin tools; it will be ratifing escalation to ArbComm without pursuit of less disruptive means of dispute resolution, it will be affirming that similarity of POV with a banned editor is sufficient basis for banning the new editor, and this means censorship of POV, not only in articles, but in Talk. Think about it. Rothwell has a COI and is an SPA. These characteristics are common for experts. So what do we require of such editors? Confine edits that might be controversial to Talk. But now, come JzG, and even Talk edits are out of bounds, if you have the wrong POV. The consequences of tolerating this abuse of policies have already been great, and if ArbComm goes as JzG has asked, it will, I predict, get worse. Much worse. --Abd (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments

This article was deleted January 11 after a one-day AfD discussion. I requested that the AfD be reopened, and it has been. The article was already undeleted and userfied. It appears that the article was created to allow detailed consideration of the calorimetry issue without creating undue weight problems here. The work to bring back a summary may not have been completed. --Abd (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Um, no, it was created in order to inflate the significance of the fringe views of its creator. Like all the other forks he created. You are doing an extremely good job of appearing to advance the same agenda, and indeed to work on behalf of the topic-banned POV pusher. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pcarbonn created that article, yes; it doesn't appear to have been controversial at the time. That doesn't prove much, but I don't see that article as "fringe," nor does it reflect Pcarbonn's views. Maybe what is there belongs here. Maybe what needs to be here is already here. I'd just like the editors of articles to decide what goes in them and what is subclassified, not unfamiliar editors at AfD or involved administrators who delete pages because they don't like them. In any case, this isn't the AfD, JzG, so why did you come here with your WP:ABF comment? Please use this Talk page to improve the article. However, for other reasons, thanks for contributing to Talk history, it might be useful some day. --Abd (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the AfD closes with Delete, and any editor has argued for that, please do not then object to the inclusion here of reliably sourced material on the topic as creating "undue weight," for the community will have decided that the topic belongs here. If it closes with Keep, and you have argued for that, please do not then object to the removal of reliably sourced material here to that article, provided that there is adequate reference here to that article. Note that summary style doesn't generally need citations, the main article should contain them. It really can clean up an article. My own preferred position would be to Keep, but then Merge or not according to current consensus here. Merge is more flexible. With a Deletion, it's much harder for consensus to shift, it would require a deletion review. I was able to get the AfD reopened because it was closed in a day, instead of the standard period, and I requested it, not because I concluded that we should have an active and separate article, but because that is a reasonable opinion, and if we are going to freeze our conclusion, we should go through the full process. So I urge editors here to consider the options and participate in the AfD, if you have an opinion. At this point, a strong enough majority is clearly Delete, so that I'd expect a Delete close, and I certainly would not take this to Deletion Review myself unless a clear consensus appeared supporting that. It simply places more burden on this article, but not an impossible burden. Your choice, Wikipedians. --Abd (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the AfD closed Delete. Unlike the first, prematurely closed, AfD session, however, there was substantial Keep opinion expressed. As noted above, I expected a Delete close (though I considered Keep possible, or I wouldn't have bothered). I had to, once again, request a copy of the article, which is, again, at User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, in case anyone wants to see it and review it for possible inclusion of material here. I have no opinion on that until I review it myself. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The image of the SPAWAR cell that adorned the article

A few days ago, Steven Krivit replaced the image of the SPAWAR cell that had graced the article prominently, with a version that said "Removed," and clearly reacting to the (in my view improper, unjust, and unfortunate, there was no linkspamming) blacklisting of newenergytimes.com. Because the file had been licensed for use under the standard commons license, Krivit cannot, if I'm correct, revoke permission. I have accordingly restored the file, taking the copy that was at Wikiversity, copied there back in 2006. I'm not today inserting the image again, it's more complex than I have time for at the moment, but the original file name, File:Spawar1stGenCFCell.JPG, works. --Abd (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't revoke permissions after you release them under a permissive licence. That would make permissive licences meaningless. Krivit's recent actions related to these images and the CF article are pure vandalism, even if done in good faith belief in his own rights, and should be reverted on sight. Phil153 (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on, be nice! The V word is totally unnecessary. Krivit discussed this with admin Noren. I did revert one, it was then taken out because an editor objected to the language -- which had been standing -- so I put it back in with simpler language, I'll let somebody else spice it up if that's needed. Krivit is bailing from supporting Wikipedia, and I understand why. He's basically been slapped across the face, so to speak, for no reason. No linkspamming. No incivility. No excuse, in short. Just an admin who has a point of view and who uses his tools to enforce it. If he's got consensus, fine. Consensus is the authority here, except for what's supposedly non-negotiable from on high. But if not .... --Abd (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to clarify here that I'm not and have never been an admin. -Noren (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand he's angry. But he's knowingly disrupting Wikipedia and making an article poorer. It's no different to me getting blocked by an admin, then going through and removing a bunch of useful edits I've done because I'm pissed. It's a simple case of vandalism that needs reverting. It's just a description of the edits, not a judgment on Krivit.

As for the image, I prefer the old wording, it presents the context much better to a lay reader. Hopefully others will agree and then it'll get re-added. Phil153 (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you could describe it that way. Go ahead, pour salt on his wounds. I feel bad enough insisting on keeping it, he was the photographer. Look, I didn't see anyone here screaming about that image going missing. The only one who worked to get it back was me. I'd never uploaded an image to Commons before, and I'm still not sure I did it right. In any case, it wasn't treated as vandalism, at least not the SPAWAR cell. Rather, Noren replaced it, moving the calorimeter image up. I'll fix that. Meanwhile, we have a situation with the CR-39 image. There's always somethin'.

No comment. As for the CR39, it was in the article for a long time, which I think implies some form of consensus for its inclusion. I've put it back in, we'll see what happens. Phil153 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a section below, Talk:Cold_fusion#Removal_of_CR-39_image on this. Phil153 beat me to the revert. I'm certainly open to discussing the caption! --Abd (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My edit to move the other image to replace was not intended to be any sort of verdict about status of the previous image, it was just a simple patch to improve the then-existing article with the ugly deleted image caption.--Noren (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. That was obvious. It was an act of clean-up. It was substantially more work to find another copy of the image; though for someone experienced with image process, it would have been pretty easy. No piece of Wikipedia work is obligatory for anybody, with few exceptions. Now, it is also relatively easy to put the image back; I restored the original image at commons. Noren's edit can't be reverted, so it's just a matter of moving the calorimeter image back where it was and adding the link to the original, the same link should work. So what's interesting to me right now is how willing we are, collectively, to discuss the process, but nobody puts the image back. As I wrote, I will, when I can get to it. My hands are a tad full right now. I'm very concerned how much we are focused on the battle against POV pushers -- on all sides -- and how little on the article itself. There is a lot to do, folks, and we need to unite and work together, and we won't do that by tolerating incivility and borderline edit warring and other pathologies. Some of us are working together, in spite of apparent POV differences.

My own POV is that all POVs of any notability must be represented in any consensus, by those who hold them, or else we are in danger of subtle POV bias, we need the "spin detectors" that anyone knowledgeable and who has a POV can be. Excluding them is very, very dangerous, if our goal is a "compendium of all human knowledge," that is also solidly NPOV. I've been reviewing the history of this article in detail, documenting pieces of that history, and I'm struck by how often sources and links to information that I'd want to know about as a reader, the best available on the web, has been removed because it was allegedly biased or argumentative. To me, as a reader, the project is being damaged, just as damaged as it is when fringe opinion is presented as reasonable or excessively important. The conflicts here are symptomatic of conflicts taking place all over the project, where there are controversies. Articles that haven't received so much attention tend to be more poorly sourced, but, often, more interesting and useful! As a reader, I can recognize POV, weasel words, unsubstantiated claims, all that. And I think most readers can, in fact. We are not smarter than them. We just know more about Wikipedia process and how to use -- and abuse -- it. --Abd (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To revert the removal of the original image by its photographer User:StevenBKrivit as suggested would have required making a judgment in the other direction- I did not intend to make such a judgment call in either direction. I am just an editor, not the admin that Abd claimed I was above, and I did not make any edits that are not easily undone. Perhaps the difficult to undo edit attributed to me was User:StevenBKrivit's removal of his image, that would not be easily undone, but it's not my edit. I do not understand why Abd persists in labeling me with attributes that I do not possess. --Noren (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd. I think I may have, somewhere, written that Noren was an administrator, if I did, I apologize. But the rest of what I said didn't assert that, nor am I criticizing -- in the least -- Noren's actions in this matter. Please be more careful, Noren. One error doesn't indicate that I'm "persisting." But I think I see one misunderstanding: Noren's edit wasn't easily undone because, by the time the situation was fixed so that a simple revert would have done the trick, the section had been edited again. So it wasn't so simple, it takes just a bit more, enough that I didn't just do it immediately. So my comment "Noren's edit can't be reverted," which is what I think Noren is referring to, was a simple statement of fact, with no nasty implications. It can't be reverted. But a new edit could accomplish something similar, it's just a little more complicated. --Abd (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of CR-39 image

The CR-39 image was removed by the original contributor recently; Two days ago, I reverted that and was reverted by Kaiwhakahaere, with the summary (Weasel! Remove image which possibly or even probably does not show possible nuclear activity, perhaps.) Well, the original caption was A CR-39 detector showing possible nuclear activity in cold fusion experiments at SSC San Diego The weasel word there would be "possible." I think that "possible nuclear activity" is, in fact, quite accurate. We couldn't take "possible" out, until and unless the claim that nuclear activity is taking place is solidly confirmed. At this point there seems to remain some controversy.

However, to meet the objection, I restored the image with a simpler caption, |A CR-39 detector from experiments at SSC San Diego. Kaiwhakahaere again reverted, this time with the caption, (Remove image which is NOT of a detector as caption claims. Inclusion would require caption accurately stating WHAT the image shows.)

The image is a micrograph of a CR-39 plastic radiation detector. These plastic chips are manufactured for that application. Note that for use for radiation detection, the date of manufacture and how the chips are handled is crucial; for background radiation will slowly fog the detectors. As to calling them detectors, that usage is routine. See [5], for example, and many other pages can easily be found. I see that Phil has reverted.

The image was stable in the article. I only looked back about 1000 edits, though. --Abd (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Lost this in wikiconflict, so replacing) I don't have a major prob with the image. I simply want to see it accurately described, without weasel words or inference, because I think words are important. You say you restored a simpler caption, namely "A CR-39 detector from experiments at SSC San Diego". Read that again. It is not a coherent sentence. It also does not explain what the reader sees in the image. So I removed it because the intention seems to be that the image remain without a sensible caption. Look back here where I changed a misleading caption. The image was not of a calorimiter claimed, but was the diagram of one. Same problem there as with the CR-39 image - words are important. Kaiwhakahaere (talk)

Sure. However, picture captions don't need to be sentences and, in fact, a sentence can be more difficult. Would the caption be any better as a sentence that says the same thing? "Above is a CR-39 detector used in experiments at SSC San Diego." I don't think so. What I'd agree with is, however, that the image is more than just that. It's a microphotograph of the detector showing pits claimed by the researchers to be a product of nuclear radiation, and no coherent objection has been made, though this claim has been out there for quite some time. Only Kowalski, to my knowledge, has published a critique that postulates something else, and his claim is, in fact, preposterous, reviewing the evidence. What a casual observer of this may not realize is that these pits often don't communicate with the surface of the detector, they are buried, and exposed by etching. Right away, that rules out chemical contamination, dendritic damage, or corona discharge, leaving ... neutrons, which are hypothesized to interact with the material and generate tracks. The tracks also appear on the opposite side of the detector, in a pattern correlated with proximity to the cathode. Etc. Has the work been verified? Yes, there is confirmation. Has it been reviewed in a secondary source? I think so, but ... what's a secondary source that we can use? There are specialized publications which report on this field. At least one of them operates according to journalistic standards, though it also includes "editorials" with attributed opinion. It reports all the negative work that comes up. Looks to me like it's reasonably neutral. But we can't use it. Blacklisted. Why? Did we decide on that? I'd say not, that's clear from edit history. --Abd (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the CR-39 image was incorrectly removed from the article on the premise that it may not actually show nuclear activity. The correct standard to use is not what's true, but what can be verified. The image can be reliably sourced to peer-reviewed claims. Provided the image represents something notable, and I think it does, the article should include the image and allow the reader to determine the validity of the researcher's claim. If there is evidence that the image is not what the researchers claim then that can be included as well. Simply removing the image based on our own notion of it's appropriateness is WP:OR. Ronnotel (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the dispute is about "possible nuclear activity". I think that's fine and describes the signficance of the image. You have tracks in a detector that are thought by some to be nuclear in origin. Possible covers this. It's not like the caption is a standalone from the article, without context. Kaiwhakahaere thinks "possible" is weasely. It's been replaced with "unknown activity". Guess we need more opinions. Phil153 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "purported nuclear" in place of "unknown"? That seems less weasel-like. Ronnotel (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG, "purported" seems less weasel than "unknown"! Really? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I think I need to stress something here. I do not lean for or against the concept of cold fusion but for encyclopedic standards in Wikipedia, and will continue to fix bias/pov either way when I see it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk)

Sorry, did mean to seem antagonistic, I used the term weasel loosely and should have avoided. But yes I do think purported nuclear is better supported by the sources than the term unknown. Ronnotel (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're taking the weasel thing a bit far. The trouble with "unknown activity in a CR39 detector" is that it presents no context for the reader. Are the tracks an x-files mystery? Are they caused by bees? Heat? Electrons? The significance and perspective of the tracks is that they're "possibly nuclear", or "purported to be nuclear", "unknown" fails to convey anything. Phil153 (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think in just about every other circumstance people would just put "nuclear tracks" without hesitation. I.e., if it was from a fusor or a tokamak or just some radioactive material. But due to the controversial nature of c.f., i suppose, there are those who would sooner attribute the pits to divine intervention. In any case the cause of pits like that in cr39 detectors is well known. It's why we have cr39 detectors in the first place. Any scientist familiar w/cr39 detectors can tell you that. Kevin Baas^talk 20:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, I couldn't have made my point better. You asked whether the tracks were a, b, c, or d because you don't know the answer. It is unknown. And yet, even though you agree the answer is unknown, you want to tell readers a, b, c or d are possibly something. No wonder Wikipedia is often ridiculed. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unknown and possible are not mutually exclusive. In fact, possible is less weasely than unknown since tracks in a common nuclear detector are possibly nuclear in nature. That's their significance and reasonably assumed status until proved otherwise. I mean, the image is next to a paragraph stating that nuclear activity has been reported but not accepted by the mainstream...I can't see how the reader could possibly (unknownly?) be misled. Phil153 (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like me and Phil are on the same page here: that's exactly the point I was trying to make. When you put "unknown", it reads like nobody's every seen these mysterious pits before and have no idea what could have caused them. Like it's some new phenomena that people are investigating. When, in fact, these pits have been seen millions of times before and the causes are well known and well documented. As with any scientific experiment, there are possible sources of experimental error, such as the lack of sufficient controls, and the like. But we don't go around saying that everything about every experiment is "unknown" simply because there's always a nonzero chance that something went wrong. If it looks like pits we say it looks like pits. Kevin Baas^talk 15:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

@Kaiwhakahaere, in regards to the fact tag you placed, there are multiple citations to articles by Mosier-Boss, et. al. in the bibliography that support the wording of the caption - i.e. purported nuclear activity. Do you find these objectionable somehow? How high must the bar be set? Ronnotel (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You still don't see the overriding picture, do you. No-one knows what it is. Therefore we should not say it is something, or claimed to be, purported to be, possibly perhaps.. It is more accurate and encyclopedic to say that the pretty picture displayed in the image is of something unknown. That is not a POV, it is a fact. All the claims, and purports etc are POV. Say where it came from, how it was created, how it was obtained, but don't claim it is or depicts something without giving a reputable inline cite. Funny how that word "claim" pops up a lot. If you don't mind I want the bar set higher than purported. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to be convinced but your arguments would carry more weight if you cited relevant WP policies. Ronnotel (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject here -- in support of 'purported' and the like, I can cite WP:OR and WP:verifiability. putting "unknown" is original research and isn't verifiable. putting "purported", or what have you, is an accurate characterization of the cited material, i.e. is verifiable. so there we have an issue with original research and verifiability, which -- it seems to me -- is pretty cut and dry. Kevin Baas^talk 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone outside the original group claimed to have detected fusion using CR-39 detectors? Olorinish (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As with so many other aspects of this article, the evidence of replication is mixed. I believe there have been some early indications of independent replication, but others have disputed this. Here's an article from a couple of years ago that discusses state of play back then. There may be more definitive evidence around. Ronnotel (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been about two years and it appears no group has reproduced the CR-39 results. Maybe we should just get rid of the image until that happens, but keep a mention of it in the article. Olorinish (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Cite error:"

There is a stray "Cite error:" message at the bottom of the article which seems to have been there since this edit (16:06, 28 October 2008) in which the citation format was cleaned up. Investigating further, I find that the links for the citations "Tate 1989", "Di Giulio 2002", "Fleischmann 1990", "Storms 1993", "Miles et al. 1993", "Krivit 2007" in the References section do not work (at least, not in Firefox 2.0.0.20). By this I mean they do not take the reader to the correct entry in the Bibliography section, as all the other references do. In my browser, they just stay in the same place on the current page.

I don't know how this citation format works, but I do note that in the rendered HTML the link for Tate, 1989 in the References section is shown as '<a href="#CITEREFTate1989" title="">Tate 1989</a>' whereas the citation appears to be labelled with 'id="CITEREFTate"'. Maybe this is the problem, and if so, maybe somebody who knows how to do this citation style can fix the broken links. --TS 07:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I managed to fix the Tate 1989 reference--the parameter "year=1989" was missed from the citation template. The others proved too difficult for me--and some references, such as "Storms 1993", do not seem to have citations in the bibliography. --TS 13:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. There was a bad entry in the bib. --GoRight (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant thread blanked

Diff can be viewed if you need to see it. Article talk pages are not for discussing user behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 02:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Condensed Matter Physics Gets Stranger

This article http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/01/29/making-magnetic-monopoles-and-other-exotica-in-the-lab/ does not mention Cold Fusion as one of the possibilities, but the things it does describe are so out-there that CF might seem ordinary by comparison. V (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah, like magnetic monopoles. Kevin Baas^talk 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been known "forever" (or at least since 1931) that a magnetic monopole can be simulated by a long solenoid. It is equally trivial to simulate one by surface currents. Nothing exotic happening here. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, there are two possible connections with "cold fusion" here. One of the theoretical explanations that have been advanced for possible low energy nuclear processes (such as "cold fusion") involves magnetic monopoles, and that has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, as I recall. The article also refers to "condensed matter" as possibly allowing a thing not seen in gaseous phases. Condensed matter nuclear science is often rejected based on assumptions that the nuclear physics of condensed matter is not different from that of free matter or what is seen with high-energy interactions. Maybe it isn't or maybe it is. There appear to be exceptions, in theory and in fact, such as muon-catalyzed fusion, so it certainly does not contradict what is known about physics that there might be others. How much of this is usable in the article? That depends on where we draw the line as to what we can report, and how we report it. The status quo here seems to be that even though text can be reliably verified, it will be undue weight if we use it here; the classic solution for this is to create specialized articles; but this is then resisted as creating POV forks, hence the current AfD for Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments and the standing redirect -- protected by JzG -- of Condensed matter nuclear science. I expect we are going to be able to improve the situation. With patience and caution. (By the way, I'd concur that the CMNS article was effectively a POV fork, but the solution was to balance it by making it clear the majority view regarding those assertions. It's possible that the CMNS article should at present be little more than a stub covering the international conference and the peer-reviewed publication, and whatever can be uncontroversially and reliably said about the field. But it is a broader field than "Cold fusion.") --Abd (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I set up this section and posted the link mostly because so many detractors of CF seem to think that if they cannot imagine how CF could happen, then it must not be able to happen, period. Kind of like the Inquisition telling Galileo that the Earth doesn't move. The link simply indicates that others can imagine very differently, perhaps differently enough, even if that particular link has nothing directly to do with CF. In the end it will be the evidence that decides the issue, regardless of what people can or cannot imagine. Until we have evidence that ends the controversy, and since we know the motives of the proponents (visions of Nobel prizes dancing in their heads), we might wonder about motives of the detractors. Some of that was done, heh, back in 1960! http://manybooks.net/support/g/garrettgr/garrettgr2406424064-8.exp.html V (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but while it may seem like an obvious question, it's an important one:

Do you realise that this is not an appropriate place to debate the question of whether cold fusion works or to discuss "the motives of the detractors"?

Please take such discussions to another website. --TS 16:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

V, what do you think of Quantum Ring Theory, a separate theory not directly related to cold fusion, as a possible explanation for CF experiments? It appears that the author, Dr. Guglinski has been published, do you want to include a mention in the article? Phil153 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I am not familiar with that notion. And if QRT is not directly related to CF, then what sort of link has been forged, if you are indicating it might explain CF? By whom? I cannot have an opinion about it until after I learn more. V (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bauuinstitute.com/Publishing/QuantumBook.html --this seems to indicate a more direct relationship that you initially specified, Phil. V (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I will have to disagree with at least one item that is reputedly associated with QRT. This one, http://peswiki.com/index.php/Quantum_Ring_Theory_corroborated_by_radiative_decay_mode_of_the_neutron --it talks about how an electron should emit lots of gammas as it leaves the scene of a neutron decay. The claim is not reasonable in terms of the available energy; gammas are too energetic. UV photons and maybe an Xray or three, OK, but not gammas. There is also the fact (not mentioned) that QM can allow the initial appearance of the electron to be some distance from the proton that also appears when the neutron decays; that initial distance means it's not inside the strongest part of the proton's electric field, so again no need for gamma photons to appear, as the electron leaves/slows. V (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the things described about QRT reminds me of a hypothesis that is sometimes called an "aetherial interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." Here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2217180/THE-GHOSTLY-TOE-by-Vernon-Nemitz-March-31-1995-Theory-Of- The described connection with Cold Fusion, however, does not strike me as likely enough. That is, the probability that CF can happen in the manner described seems inadequate to explain the sheer numbers of fusions required to explain the heat. I might be missing something, though, in my skimming of what is easily available on-line. V (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of patent authorship for purposes of to-do item 1?

Currently the top item on the to-do list says, "Expand the Cold Fusion Research section to describe all types of experiments that reliable sources claim demonstrate cold fusion."

Recently United States Patent 7381368 was published with the following report of results, "Nine samples in electrode form were tested. This testing centered around the generation of heat with the electrode. Each palladium-boron electrode was connected to a platinum anode, and the palladium-boron cathode was then immersed in water containing deuterium. After immersion, the electrodes were then electrochemically 'loaded' with hydrogen. It is believed extra loading was possible due to the two-phase structure brought about by the solution of boron within the palladium. Of nine samples tested, eight yielded positive results of heat. The results of these experiments are more repeatable than any experiment of this type completed thus far. Not surprisingly, amount of heat varied with, and had a positive relationship to, boron content."

Both of the authors of the patent were employees of the Navy at the time they applied for the patent. Should the patent be considered at least as reliable as a government technical report? Should palladium-boron alloys be given a greater weight than codeposition in this article? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting. This is a patent issued to the SPAWAR researchers. They have commented that if they had used the words "cold fusion," the patent would have been rejected, just because of those words. The issuance of a patent does mean something, but I'm not sure what. --Abd (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Patents are not reliable sources for anything. Besides, the abstract merely describes a new method for making a hardened alloy of palladium using boron. That's what patented. Whatever effects they mention have no relation to the patent or its acceptance. Also note that the patent office refuses patents for both cold fusion devices and perpetual motion machines, putting them in the same category. But they will patent novel methods of making materials or doing electrochemistry where the claim of significance and innovation does not center around cold fusion, perpetual motion, or other nonsense. For comparison, one of the commercial CF "power cells" (CETI Patterson?) was also patented as a "method of doing electrolysis", but that is no evidence for the claim that it actually does fusion. I'm sure patents have been discussed before as unreliable sources, if you do a bit of digging (maybe on the RS noticeboard archives?). Phil153 (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source saying that the patent office refuses all cold fusion patents, or that they consider them to be in the same category as perpetual motion machines? I know of others beside this one, 7,381,368, and the CETI patent which have been granted. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this, from 2004:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to grant a patent on any invention claiming cold fusion. According to Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents, this is for the same reason it wouldn't give one for a perpetual motion machine: It doesn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil153 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though Kepplinger's theory has been contradicted by the empirical observation of actual awarded patents. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where that comes from. Certainly none of the ones you mention are patents of a cold fusion process. They're patents surrounding novel materials handling or electrolysis methods. Note that the patent office does not generally investigate the efficacy of a device, and only generally only denies non innovative processes, or claims which are false on their face (such as perpetual motion or cold fusion). Nor is his comment a "theory", it's the reason why they are denied by the patent office. Anyway, as far as reliable sources go, patents are out. This has been covered on the RS noticeboard here, although certain not in depth. You could always take it there again for more discussion? Phil153 (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you read claim 14 before you decided that it isn't a patent on a cold fusion process? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The patent was filled in 2004, and at least one of the authors had already retired from the Navy in 2002[6]. Also, the patent wasn't filled on behalf on the Navy, but as a personal application from them. This is not an official Navy publication and it's not endorsed by the Navy in any manner. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for those assertions? My understanding is that it was not a "personal application" but an application made during as part of the researchers' execution of their Navy duties. As for it not being endorsed, I believe that is also mistaken, as the NRL Technology Transfer Office has nominated that patent for the 2008 Edison Patent Award. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

About retirement, the patent page says "Filing Date: 08/23/2004"[7] Mille's personal website says "Dr. Miles retired as a research scientist from the U.S. Navy in January of 2002"[8].

About the Navy, my mistake, I was totally wrong, it was actually filed on behalf of the Navy, the patent page reads "Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy (Washington, DC, US)"

I didn't know about the Edison Patent award, I wish them luck on getting it. However, there's still the problem that it looks like a method to test electhrolisis better, with nothing to do with demonstrating that cold fusion exists, even if this sort of cell is used on cold fusion experiments (maybe I'll be proven wrong also on this one :) ) I mean that this patent would belong more to Electrochemistry, it's not making any claim about cold fusion, nuclear reactions or anything similar, it's about how to improve a certain type of electrodes. How would this be integrated into the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The patent says, "This application is a continuation-in-part application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/093,021 filed on Mar. 8, 2002, now abandoned...." but DTIC has something around May 2000. As for where to put it, there isn't a Generation of heat by palladium electrolysis of heavy water article yet, and we have to go by what it would typically be called. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The patent 7381368 does not describe any fusion reactions and is not relevant for this article. In the "Field of the Invention" section, it describes the heating from their electrodes as being an electrochemical process: "... as an electrode for numerous applications including the generation of heat energy or other electrochemical processes ..." Olorinish (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's quite an extreme view. It's relevant; however, the real question is whether or not this can be used as reliable source, as an equivalent of a peer-reviewed publication. As has been pointed out, the granting of a patent does not necessarily involve a review of all the claims made, and the patent apparently avoided direct mention of "cold fusion" or the equivalent. I didn't see a direct reference to the full patent above, here it is. The abstract doesn't say "cold fusion," but does say The hardened composition can be used to create thinner membranes for hydrogen purification and improved electrodes for generation of heat energy, and other electrochemical processes. There is no doubt that "improved electrodes for generation of heat energy" is a reference to what is, in the end, strongly hypothesized to be cold fusion -- or some sort of systematic, widespread, experimental error that cuts across many different methods of electrolyis." Deeper in the patent, however, there is more:

• 14. A method of generating energy comprising the steps of: providing the electrode of claim 13, connecting the electrode to a cathode, immersing the electrode and the cathode in water containing deuterium, and applying a current to the electrode and the cathode.

• (under "Field of the invention") Further, the demand for energy increases each year while the world's natural energy sources such as fossil fuels are finite and are being used up. Accordingly, the development of alternative energy sources is very important and a number of potential new energy sources are under study. Although there have been many attempts to develop a palladium compound which can be utilized in processes to generate heat, such as through the introduction of aqueous deuterium, none of these attempts have been successful or repeatable, and there is thus a distinct need to develop palladium alloys which can be utilized for the generation of heat as a potential energy source.

• However, what is lacking in the prior art is a pure boron/palladium composition of sufficient strength to be used as a reactive structure rather than a coating material, and which may be used in thin hydrogen purification membranes or as an electrode in a heat-generating process. [emphasis added]

• An additional application of the alloy, which has been borne out by experimental data is as an electrode in the generation of energy in the form of heat. In a preferred process using the alloy of the present invention in the form of an electrode, the electrode in connected to a platinum cathode and immersed in water containing deuterium. The immersed electrode is loaded with deuterium from the surrounding electrolyte. As a current is applied, excess energy from the loaded electrode in the form of heat is generated. Using the palladium-boron electrode manufactured in accordance with the present invention, excess enthalpy has been achieved, and this result has been far more reproducible than in past experiments of this type, which may result in a new energy source at low cost.

This is a claim regarding what is popularly known as "cold fusion," but only describing one experimental effect (excess heat), without any hypothesis as to the origin. This patent shows some kind of confirmation, at least as to reputable claim, of the excess energy effect, which could, of course, be possibly used -- if other technical obstacles are overcome -- for generation of heat regardless of where the heat is coming from. From the 18th dimension? From Maxwell's demon? From magnetic-monopole catalyzed fusion? It doesn't matter. A patent has been granted which includes claims of excess heat. Does that validate those claims? I'd say my preliminary opinion is that it does not. If those applications turn out to be moot or impractical, the patent would still stand based on other possible applications, plus an application of the electrodes could be for usage in experiments to demonstrate that the excess heat, and thus the original evidence for cold fusion, is due to some other process than fusion.

I would not rule out a properly framed reference to the patent in the article. However, it's possible that we should have a different article on the Fleischmann effect, which is about experimentally-found excess heat, not about the hypothesis for its generation. The majority opinion among experts now appears to be that there is excess heat, cause not yet known to scientific consensus. The patent is simply one piece of that picture. --Abd (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I created Fleischmann effect as a redirect. We can work on making it a separate article. This would include the usable material here and in Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments which is currently likely to be deleted, plus I'd think the patent would be very relevant there. It's correct that the patent makes no explicit cold fusion claim. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I also created a redirect at Fleischmann-Pons effect which is actually how it's cited in the literature. --Abd (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe a patent application by a government author acting in furtherance of their duties which is later nominated for an award by the agency's Technology Transfer Office does qualify as reliable as a government tech report, but we don't even have an article on Codeposition, which is supported by a lengthy list of peer-reviewed papers in several sources, but only appears in Storms' monograph as far as secondary sources go. So what does it matter that people from the same lab say that Pd-B is more reproducible? If it's not cold fusion can we agree that there isn't a "mainstream" presumption against articles about it? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have dreamed up a possible bit of text to insert this info, altough it's quite OR. Under the "Excess heat observations" section: "Research continues on better palladium-whatever electrolisis cells; a 2004 Navy patent on this type of cell has been nominated for the 2008 Edison Patent Award^{[patent ref][award nomination ref]}" --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is all I have so far, edited for anti-spam measures; I asked these people to put it on their web site:

From: Rachel dot Donahue at nrl dot navy dot mil
Date: January 9, 2009 9:33:47 AM EST
To: ashraf dot imam at nrl dot navy dot mil
Cc: Steven dot Marquis at nrl dot navy dot mil
Subject: 2008 Edison Patent Awards Nomination 7,381,368

          TITLE OF INVENTION 
          PALLADIUM-BORON ALLOYS FOR EXCESS ENTHALPY PRODUCTION

INVENTORS
Melvin Miles, M. Ashraf Imam 

US Patent Application:  10/922,996 
US Filing Date:         August 23, 2004 

   The above referenced invention disclosure is being considered 
for the 2008 Edison Patent Award.... If you have any questions, 
please contact me at 202-767-1328 or by e-mail, or Steven Marquis.
    
   Rachel Donahue
   Technology Transfer Office, Code 1004

GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, is that a private email? There is no official list of nominees at the award website? No source for the nomination? Not even a mention on newenergytimes.com? A post on a public mailing list? Dr. Miles personal website? Nothing we can use as RS? :( well, let's see if they put it on their website so we can reference it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Imam appears to easily qualify as an WP:ACADEMIC. He and Dr. Miles have published more information about the claims in the patent, including: "The collection and analysis of the electrolysis gases from one Pd-B experiment places the helium-4 production rate at 1.0×10¹¹ 4He/s*W. This is the correct magnitude for typical deuteron fusion reactions that yield helium-4 as a product." GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

archiving

I've tweaked the archiving to remove stale threads sooner as this page is currently clocking in at 310 kilobytes. I've also added a parameter to leave a minimum of 7 threads so the page doesn't empty. Somehow I doubt that's a major concern. -- Banjeboi 13:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Incompatibilities with established physics

That part of the article leaves out something. Here is a suggested replacement for the first sentence:

Postulating cold fusion to explain experimental results raises at least four separate theoretical issues. The first issue logically flows from the common mental image of an atom as being a tiny nucleus surrounded by spherical shells of orbiting electrons. Inside atoms, nuclei are almost always much too far apart from each other to be able to interact with each other in a nuclear way --what might seem like an obvious exception, the nuclear chain reaction, is actually an indirect interaction between nuclei; fusion requires a direct interaction. Therefore, in order for cold fusion to be possible, the electron shells of deuterium atoms must somehow be peeled off, first --but under ordinary physical conditions, including those of CF experiments, most atomic nuclei stay within their shells at all times.

Given a solution to that first issue, the other three problems are much more difficult (existing Scaramuzzi reference replaces this parenthetical remark): V (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this issue is inventing a problem in order to solve it. "Look your honor, there's four problems but we managed to solve one!". All the skeptical commentary I've read talks about the "three miracles" needed for CF to be possible. Are there any reliable sources that consider this a problem for postulating cold fusion? Phil153 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil, that looks to be a misinterpretation on your part. "Given a solution" does not mean a solution actually exists that everyone accepts. The phrase was just intended to be a short way of saying, "even if that problem was solved". DO you know of a widely accepted solution to that problem? (It is my understanding that this problem is basically ignored, not actually addressed, by most CF theorists.) V (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We need better secondary source to say much about this. There are some problematic assumptions above. One is that whatever is happening in the condensed matter is "direct fusion." It probably isn't. If it were, we'd probably see those neutrons. The "dead graduate students effect." Which doesn't happen. There really is only one problem; violation of accepted theories is not a problem. The problem is explaining the experimental results, of excess heat, radiation, transmutation, and all that, without nuclear reactions, or, in the alternative, coming up with a reasonable and verifiable theory. Science is utterly unconcerned about the overturn of existing concepts of impossibility; but cold fusion doesn't involve anything intrinsically impossible.

There are really only two roads: there is either Miracle A: some kind of mass delusion that has persisted for twenty years, afflicting reputable scientists and many others, including the SPAWAR researchers, who claim reliable reproduction of the Fleischmann-Pons effect, plus radiation sourced at the cathode, and other phenomena pointing fairly strongly to nuclear reactions, or, if the experimental results -- which don't say "cold fusion," -- are not errors, Miracle B, nuclear reactions at low apparent energies.

But, in fact, I wouldn't consider Miracle B to be a true miracle. For it to be so, we'd have to assume that our knowledge of nuclear physics in the condensed matter state is comprehensive. We'd have to assume that what we know from high-energy reactions and the behavior of matter under most conditions applies to all condensed matter conditions. What quantum-mechanical tunneling or other phenomena are possible? Note that "solution to the problem" shouldn't come first. Is there a problem? If the experiments are all subject to some reproduced experimental error, or are suffering from publication bias, etc., if that could be shown, then there wouldn't be a problem, would there?

If I didn't know as much about politics as I do, I'd be amazed that such a possibly important issue wasn't being clearly and definitively addressed. The DOE conclusions were actually inconclusive. That is, "not proven" was a quite reasonable summary in 1989, and it remained at least somewhat reasonable in 2004. Because of the paucity of serious critical study, I'd say it still isn't "proven." However, if someone builds a LENR home heating device (one of the obvious initial applications, where the simple appearance of excess heat could be efficiently used), it's all over. That such devices don't appear to be on the market does not prove that LENR is a crock, for, it turns out, palladium is seriously cranky stuff, those nice simple rods weren't. Electrolysis tends to mess with them.

Meanwhile, we have a problem right here in River City. There are lots of reliable sources that we would ordinarily use in an article, but they aren't used here because, it's asserted, they are "fringe." In reviewing the history of this article, it seems that anything that tends to support cold fusion is, ipso facto fringe. If there is an on-line library collecting papers -- in an attempt to be complete, with some natural bias due to what permissions are granted --, if there is an online magazine dedicated to journalistic, investigative reporting it the field, that all must be fringe, precisely because it's about low-energy nuclear reactions (even though the library and magazine report negative publications). Now, even if it is fringe, it would still be notable fringe, and, as such, should be covered. I saw editorial compromises made last year that didn't last very long, because new waves of very interested editors wiped them out. Those of us who love NPOV more than our own POVs need to start working together, instead of at cross purposes. I want NPOV in articles I read, but I also want them to be complete, and, in fact, if I had to make a choice (for myself as a reader) I'd choose complete over NPOV. Why? Because I can tell the difference! That is, if I read the sources. If the sources are available. With sources that can't be accessed, I can't tell. I am then dependent on the editorial judgment of those who write or mangle the article.

I think we've made a serious systemic error: "the encyclopedia of all human knowledge" will be NPOV, ultimately, in effect if it is complete. It is when we pare it down to selected knowledge that we run the risk of serious bias. Now, taken literally, what I've written here would be preposterous: "all human knowledge" would be indigestible and nearly unusable. So we still need the notability restrictions, at least in what we directly present; however, the rest of a field should be easily accessible through further reading, which can and should include polemic, advocacy, argument, biased web sites, none of which would be presented as reliable sources. And if we've done our work well, POV editors on all sides will say, "Yes, this is accurate." Except for true fanatics, they do apparently exist, and they will fight anything that afflicts their POV no matter how obvious it is, they don't care if it's true or not. Fortunately, in fact, most people, given the opportunity, aren't like that. --Abd (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, you also may be neglecting a relevant point. You wrote:

We need better secondary source to say much about this. There are some problematic assumptions above. One is that whatever is happening in the condensed matter is "direct fusion."

The name of the article under discussion is "Cold Fusion", and the name of the section of the article that I'm talking about here is "Incompatibilities with established physics". It is perfectly OK in my opinion for the article to explain the CF hypothesis, and to point out problems with that hypothesis. Just as it is also OK in my opinion for the article to describe some of the experimental results that lead researchers to propose CF as the explanation for those results.

Paul Keller has correctly pointed out (on personal talk pages) that the problem of getting two nuclei close enough to fuse is so much greater than the problem of getting nuclei out of their electron shells, that the "shell" problem is relatively trivial. Nevertheless, under ordinary physical conditions, it is still a problem. I don't know of any reason why the article should ignore that problem, even if theorists typically do. This also happens to be a simple-to-understand problem that uses common knowledge and plain logic, such that Official References to it aren't really needed. Hey, Phil153, if this problem was indeed set up just to be shot down, how would you have described the shooting? I know what I would say, but what would you or Abd or any of the others say? If different things, then what I wrote above was completely correct, about there not being a solution that everyone accepts. V (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that I have against it is that noone seems to care about the "problem" of the electron shells inhibiting fusion, as it relates to cold fusion. OR and all that. If you reliable sources that do then it may have a place in the article. Phil153 (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that pointing out simple, obvious stuff is not OR. In this case it would more likely be OR to find out why this simple obvious problem has been ignored!

Abd, I think I might have misinterpreted part of what you wrote, because, I suppose, it didn't immediately make sense to me. "It probably isn't direct fusion" is what you indicated, and if that's what you think, I'd sure like to know a few more details about what you had in mind! Here's some relevent data: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00452.htm It says the hydrogen atom is 100,000 times the diameter of its nucleus. From that it figures that two H atoms in contact would have their nuclei separated by 100,000 nuclear-diameters (two atomic radii). Next, in "muon-catalyzed fusion", a muon first replaces an orbiting electron; that H atom will have a "muon shell" instead of an electron shell". Since the muon has 206 times the mass of an electron, it orbits 206 times closer; the H atom can be considered to have "shrunk" by a factor of 206, from 100,000 nuclear diameters to a bit more than 485 nuclear diameters. The muonic atom can invade the body of another H atom. There is an electrostatic attraction between the nucleus of the invaded atom and the muon-shell of the invading atom. There is nothing to stop that nucleus and that shell from reaching close proximity. In this case the distance between that nucleus, and the nucleus of the muonic atom, is now half of those 485 nuclear diameters, about 243 nuclear diameters. We know that if the two nuclei are deuteriums, then the Strong force can act across that distance and cause fusion. To the best of my knowledge, if the two nuclei are only protons, then fusion does NOT happen. It is well known that different nuclei have different "interaction cross sections" (see Barn (unit)); the radius of a muonic hydrogen atom appears to be near the limit for deuterium (the catalysis article indicates that a deuterium and a proton can fuse with 1 millionth the probability that two deuteriums can fuse). I suspect that if two muonic deuterium atoms came into contact, their nuclei, at two muonic-atom radii or 485 nuclear diameters apart, would not be able to fuse.

Which finally gets me to the point I want to make: Interactions between nuclei generally require rather more proximity than is possible when those nuclei are trapped inside their normal electron shells. Now while I understand that modern Quantum Chromodynamics has been merged with Quantum Electrodynamics, there is nothing in that, that I'm aware of, which would allow ordinary electrostatic/electromagnetic forces, the forces between nuclei and electrons in "condensed matter", to increase the range of the Strong Force. OR to increase the range across which nuclei can do quantum tunnelling. And for fusion to happen, the result is that two nuclei that started in different locations managed to end up at one location. Under ordinary physical conditions, with electron shells intact, those initial locations of hydrogen nuclei are always at least 100,000 nuclear diameters apart (more if the atoms are not in contact). What sort of "indirect fusion" did you have in mind??? V (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This argument isn't quite complete, V. In hot fusion, the nucleii approach within several nuclear radii. The reason muon-catalyzed fusion works at a few hundred radii is that the nucleii hang around near each other for such a long time. In a room temperature solid, all the nucleii are near other nucleii all the time. Because of this tremendous advantage in time and numbers, the tunneling rate doesn't have to be very big. I don't have a reference for the numbers, but if I recall from the days of F&P press conferences, it would only take a factor of two or so reduction in the deuteron spacing compared to the deuterium atom in order to give a significant amount of fusion power. As a physicist, I always thought that was a better way to think about things, not "the rate at room temperature would be 50 orders of magnitude lower than needed to account for the reported excess heat", but rather "the separation at low energies would have to be cut in half to account for the reported excess heat". Doesn't sound nearly as dramatic, although it doesn't make it any easier to achieve. Unfortunately, this way of looking at things doesn't seem to be very common, so that probably makes it OR and thus unacceptable for the article. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Art. If those figures are correct, then isn't it obvious that if the electron shells were removed, the deuterons should be able to do that rather easily? That is, compare the electrostatic repulsion between two electron shells, when H atoms are in contact, with the repulsion of two loose protons at 50,000 nuclear diameters. It looks to me that the "first miracle" of overcoming the Coulomb barrier would practically be a non-issue. --IF the problem of getting the nuclei out of their shells, under ordinary physical conditions, was solved. V (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow you. The electrons make it easier for the ions get get closer together. If you "remove the electron shells" you increase the electrostatic repulsion between the nucleii. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But the electron shells repel each other; they don't interpenetrate because of that repulsion. What amount of electrostatic force is involved there? I'm not talking about ions here; I'm talking about Atom B inside Hydrogen Molecule A bumping up against Atom A inside Hydrogen Molecule B, say as a result of thermal motion. The electrons of the two specified atoms are LOTS closer to each other than 100,000 nuclear diameters; therefore the repulsion between those electrons should be lots stronger (squared!) than the repulsion of the nuclei (if the shells were removed and the distance of 100,000 nuclear diameters was maintained). Therefore I concluded (in my last post) that it should be pretty easy for the nuclei to get within 50,000 diameters (most likely as a result of ordinary thermal motion), since that's only a quadrupling of their repulsion at 100,000 diameters.

Here's something that's off-the wall. It has occurred to me that certain claims about the thing called a hydrino --if the main claim is valid, then those shrunken hydrogen atoms (if they were deuteriums) should be able to fusion when kept in close proximity for a long-enough time...maybe I'll send 'em an email...I don't put much credence in the claim, but here's a chance to say, "If you guys are on the level, then you ought to be able to do this !  :) V (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I apparently misunderstood you in some way, so that my first post probably isn't even relevant. I have the impression that you don't understand the basics of QM atomic theory and the attractive and repulsive forces that arise from it. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but either way, I don't have the time and this isn't the place to get it straightened out. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(de-indenting) I'm aware that an electron doesn't spend all its time on the side of an atom where it can repel another atom's electron shell. I'm also aware that while from a distance an atom can seem electrically neutral, when up-close-and-personal its charged particles do affect the nearby surroundings. Van der Waals forces are sometimes described as an attraction between the electron shell of one atom and the nucleus of another atom, through "holes" in the second atom's electron shell, precisely because no electron spends all its time on the side of an atom where it can repel another atom's electron shell. This would be especially true of hydrogen, since it has only one electron.

Nevertheless, the Inverse-Square Law is a major factor, whenever the electrons of two adjacent atoms do happen to both be in-between their atoms' nuclei. Here's a crude diagram, for two adjacent hydrogen atoms:
e1..........n1..........e2 e3..........n2..........e4
I'm attempting to portray n1 and n2 as two atomic nuclei, 100,000 nuclear diameters apart. e1 and e2 (and, separate from that, e3 and e4) represent places where an electron can be located, defining an overall atomic diameter; H1 is at the left and H2 is at the right. My question for Art regarded the magnitude of electrical repulsion when the electron of H1 is located at position e2 and the electron of H2 is located at position e3 (referenced below as Scenario 1). It should be obvious that whenever this happens repulsion between the two atoms will be maximized, and this is what keeps the atoms from being able to interpenetrate their shells. It is what keeps the nuclei from STARTING to get close enough together for fusion to occur. It should also be obvious that if the electron of H1 is located at position e1 while the electron of H2 is located at position e4 (Scenario 2), there will also be repulsion between the atoms, thanks to their nuclei, but to a far lesser degree than in Scenario 1, because of the Inverse-Square Law.

The point I was trying to make was that ordinary thermal motion suffices for atoms to approach closely enough that it takes the repulsion of Scenario 1 to cause the atoms to bounce off each other. If the electrons weren't there, then that same thermal motion should be able to cause bare nuclei to approach each other to an equivalent distance/degree-of-repulsion. This would be well within the "factor of 2" of lessening-of-distance-of-separation-of-nuclei, that Art mentioned in one of his posts as being sufficient to explain the excess heat of CF experiments. So the "first miracle" would be answered, leaving us with the other two (plus the initial problem of getting rid of the electron shells). V (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that a soup of D+ at room temperature would spontaneously fuse at a rate similar to that claimed in cold fusion. If that was so, just strip the electrons off to create ionized deuterium, and bob's your uncle. No need for tokamaks or even electrolysis! Does the above make it clearer why the electrons are irrelevant? Phil153 (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just in the process of adding a note about the time factor that Art mentioned, and got hit by "edit conflict" and lost the note. Yes, from the above one might conclude that an ordinary neon light fixture, filled with deuterium instead of neon, should exhibit fusions. Maybe it would, only nobody has looked for it in a large-enough volume of "cool plasma". But more likely the nuclei just don't spend enough time close to each other. And perhaps Art's "factor of two" is incorrect, also. Part of this discussion did begin with the assumption that it was correct, after all. V (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize the breadth and depth of research that's gone into fusion power. Ionized deuterium at higher temperatures and pressures than anything Palladium could do simply doesn't fuse below the energy needed to overcome the Coloumb barrier. There have been so many experiments and reactor designs in this area that it's not funny. It's not a case of "oops, we never tried that!". Phil153 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I realize. I'm also wondering if you were paying close attention to what Art wrote. I quote:

"The reason muon-catalyzed fusion works at a few hundred radii is that the nucleii hang around near each other for such a long time. In a room temperature solid, all the nucleii are near other nucleii all the time. Because of this tremendous advantage in time and numbers, the tunneling rate doesn't have to be very big. I don't have a reference for the numbers, but if I recall from the days of F&P press conferences, it would only take a factor of two or so reduction in the deuteron spacing compared to the deuterium atom in order to give a significant amount of fusion power."

For muon catalysis, since the muons only last 2 microseconds, a muonic deuterium atom has to be near one or another deuterium nucleus for some amount of time not exceeding this, for fusion to occur. As a room-temperature gas deuterium molecules move somewhere around 10 kilometers per second. How far can they move in 2 microseconds? How LITTLE time would they spend near each other, even if their nuclei got within a distance where the fusion-probability was reasonable (per Art's remarks above)? Note that in hot plasmas the deuterons move rather faster than 10kps, and spend even less time in each other's vicinity....

So I return to and expand upon that wild speculation in my last post, and perhaps it indeed HAS been overlooked. If Art's remarks are accurate, then the three factors of distance, time, and numbers can be combined in a different way than in any other fusion device. First, we want the coolest possible deuterium plasma, to have bare nuclei moving at minimum speed, and staying bare. Second, we want a huge volume of it. If we consider the closeness that the nuclei can reach, at that temperature, and compare it to the time that two nuclei in this environment can be that-near each other, AND if there is some slight probability that fusion can occur during that time/distance, then having a huge volume of this cool plasma should mathematically result in significant quantities of fusions. Remember the tunnel in Texas where they were building, once upon a time, the SuperConducting SuperCollider? If that was finished and a huge magnetic-confinement torus was put in there, perhaps the volume of cool plasma could be big enough (and dense enough; that would help, too!).

Daydreams aside, inside solid metal, of course, deuteriums aren't going to be moving very fast at all. They can hang around each other for a comparatively long time, just like muonic deuteriums in liquid hydrogen. Of course, being whole and ordinary atoms means their nuclei can't reduce their minimum distance apart, as required by Art's remarks. Which is why I talk about their electron shells as being a problem. V (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a quantum mechanical problem (it's also a three-dimensional rather than a one-dimensional problem). Using physical intuition is not likely to be helpful here, in particular saying that electrons 'happen to be' at a particular location isn't a good approximation of reality- see Wave–particle duality. A short, oversimplified explanation would be that electrons are very fluid and the two electrons you refer to wouldn't spend much time that close to one another, as would be described by their wavefunctions. In describing the forces involved, consider that there are electron-electron repulsion terms, electron-nuclear attraction terms, and nuclear-nuclear repulsion terms. You seem to be focused on the first while glossing over the second and underestimating the third. Coulomb's law describes a very large (on this scale) repulsive force between two like point charges. A good way of thinking about it is that the core electrons shield the exterior from part of the positive charge by net cancellation of the forces- see Effective atomic number. The electron shells are helping the nuclei to get closer together by shielding their repulsive charges from one another. --Noren (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Noren, I was much more careful in writing what I wrote, than you were in reading what I wrote. For example, I specifed such phrases as "electron shells", "crude diagram", and "overall atomic diameter". How can you read that and decide I was talking about some one-dimensional thing? Also, I'm quite aware of the wave-particle duality, and know full well that statistics and probabilities are thoroughly involved in the descriptions of events on the atomic and subatomic scales. ALSO, however, I know that whenever the electron interacts, it reveals a sort of "instantaneous location" of itself at the moment of the interaction, and that all attempts to measure its size (not the same thing as its region-of-probable-locations) have found it to be smaller than our instruments can reach (something <10E-17cm). This means that two electrons can indeed be sometimes located at the places e2 and e3 in the crude diagram, with maximum Coulomb repulsion the result, far greater than the mutual repulsion of n1 and n2, and far greater than any attaction between either nucleus and the other's electron.

However, your remarks were not all silly, and I can accept that the electrons can "push each other aside" during a collision of atoms, since their locations while forming electron shells are indeed so uncertain. (Also, I neglected to pay enough attention to the fact that protons are 1836 times more massive than the electrons --and deuterons about twice that figure-- so any force between two atoms' electrons is not automatically a force between those atoms as a whole.) Here's another crude sketch:

O O

(| |)

In the first line we see two electron shells tohat are supposed to be round/spherical, and in the second line we might imagine the shells, during a collision, as opened up into hemispheres seen from the side. Especially for an atom like hydrogen, that has only one electron, we could expect such behavior during a collision of two atoms, which would expose the nuclei for mutual repulsion (and the ring-shaped edges of those hemispheres would be adding something to that repulsion, between the atoms). In this case the nuclear repulsion would indeed be a significant factor, helping cause the two atoms to bounce away from each other. I should note that the degree to which this description is accurate is highly dependent on the initial speed of the colliding atoms. It appears, however, that all this can poke a good-sized hole in the wild speculation regarding fusion in a cool plasma. No sweat.

Nevertheless, the preceding does not change the fact that as the two atoms originally approached, and began to experience variances in each other's overall electrical neutrality, the repulsion between electrons had to dominate, because of the Inverse-Square Law. You did write, after all, "Coulomb's law describes a very large (on this scale) repulsive force between two like point charges." --and interacting electrons are certainly point-like, and have like charges. At what low speed do colliding atoms NOT experience seriously deformed electron shells, as described above? Remember, inside solid metal, hydrogen atoms will indeed be moving at low speed; it could be said that one reason hydrogen-absorption by palladium is exothermic directly relates to the kinetic energy the hydrogens had to give up. I therefore maintain the position that the electron shells are a problem for Cold Fusion. V (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

{moved a small section down below, where additions to it won't interrupt the primary discussion} V (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiplying a big number for {the repulsion if two electrons get very close} by a ludicrously small number for the amount that this happens results in a small number. The energy contribution for this has to be small, otherwise the wavefunctions of the electrons would change such that it would become small. Electron shells from different atoms routinely get close to one another to form chemical bonds, but this alleged problem does not arise. You're still ignoring that the electron-nuclear attraction energies go up faster than the electron-electron repulsion energies.

The shape of the electrons will be whatever the lowest energy configuration they can have given the current positions of the nuclei. (Electrons can be in excited states but let's ignore that for now, it works similarly optimizing to a slightly different local energy minimum.) You can imagine the shapes of various individual molecular orbitals that would be deformed, but that's missing the point. Electrons will have such a shape as to be a locally low energy equilibrium, and the energies of this configuration can be pretty well described. Modern Ab initio quantum chemistry methods model the forces involved between two atoms pretty well, at least where internuclear distances are not so small that the energies become extremely high, and they don't look at all like what you're describing. The potential energy curve for two D⁺ approaching one another is much, much more repulsive than the potential energy for the same system with a couple of electrons added.--Noren (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Noren, your argument looks to be completely valid except for one little thing, which I'll get at by first quoting something you wrote earlier: "The electron shells are helping the nuclei to get closer together by shielding their repulsive charges from one another." OK, we both know the limit of that "closer together" is about 100,000 nuclear diameters. In your model you are stuck there; the nuclei can't get any closer than that. Now let's pretend for a moment that just ONE deuterium loses its electron shell; it's nucleus can approach the electron shell of a normal deuterium atom, "relatively" equivalent to a muonic deuterium atom approaching the nucleus of a normal deuterium atom. It only takes one negative charge to shield the two positive charges from each other. The existence of muon-catalyzed fusion is proof of that fact. So, in this case the distance between the two deuterons can shrink from an atomic diameter to an atomic radius, 50,000 nuclear diameters. I'm not going to say that that is enough distance-shrinkage to allow fusion to happen; I will say that this example shows exactly why the electron shells are more of a problem than a help. V (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To repeat what I said in another long and relatively evidence-free section, what is needed here is not more argumentation but more sources. Arguing about Coulomb's Law gets us nowhere. --TS 05:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

TS, this particular section is about a proposed modification to the main article. Do electron-shells inhibit the chance of fusion occuring, under ordinary physical conditions? If "yes", then the proposal should be reasonable. If "no", then one ought to be able to conclude that CF is a fact, heh. V (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Either way, it's original research and therefore doesn't belong in the article. Next, please. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Olorinish (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect you were right, leaving it lie would have been wiser. This is not the forum for remedial quantum mechanics.--Noren (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The rules for OR exclude simple obvious logic, which this is. Likely, it is because it is so simple (and such a small thing in comparison to the "three miracles") that that is why it has been ignored by CF proponents and detractors alike. But as I mentioned above, that does not mean the article should ignore this simple obvious problem, in a section devoted to problems! V (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, folks, try this on for size:

(A) The proposed edit uses common knowledge and simple logic to conclude that electron shells pose a problem for Cold Fusion. Not Original Research. And, most Wikipedia readers will have no trouble understanding it. But it appears that any argument to the contrary, such as has been posted here, WOULD qualify as OR, since those arguments are based on uncommon knowledge and the weird logic of QM --and as you seem to have been happy to point out, very little if anything on that topic has been published. Not to mention, all such arguments retain the fundamental flaw that deuterium nuclei are kept too far apart, by their electron shells, to be able to interact via the short-range Strong Force, regardless of how close those same shells help them to approach each other against Coulomb repulsion.

(B) Why would detractors of Cold Fusion NOT want that included in the section of the article devoted to theoretical problems? Proponents won't care in the slightest! That's because they are convinced CF is real (for evidence, see http://www.analogsf.com/0904/altview.shtml --choice quotation: "I think we’ve reached a point where the deniers are now going out on a limb."), so to them every imaginable problem must therefore have a solution, even if nobody has yet figured out what those solutions are. So, folks, why not? V (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(C) During the request-for-arbitration discussion on Jed Rothwell's behavior, I posted a statement that included an observation regarding the possibility that certain notions about Cold Fusion may have an inherent and unavoidable POV. Just consider that to a proponent, CF is a fact, while to a detractor, CF is just a claim. So the main article here begins, "This article refers to a purported type of nuclear fusion." --obviously a detractor-POV statement! It is not my intent at the moment to point out all such statements that are in the article; I just want to point out that it is possible to "push" a particular POV via something known as "a lie of omission". That is, if Fact A and Fact B can be combined to reach a certain logical conclusion, adding a new Fact C might lead to a different conclusion. Therefore, all someone advocating the first conclusion has to do is deny the inclusion of Fact C, to influence an article like this one on Cold Fusion. I'm well aware, of course, that it logically follows that someone advocating the different conclusion would wish to include Fact C. Thus there is a dilemma: If Wikipedia is to strive for a Neutral POV, what can be done about Fact C??? V (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just find a reliable source saying that this is a problem for cold fusion, and you will see a change of attitude about your proposal. I humbly suggest that you try books.google.com or scholar.google.com, or that you look at journals or books about cold fusion that you have at home or at your library. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this link?:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KKW908I8TzIC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=%22nuclear+fusion%22+%22electron+shells%22&source=bl&ots=FUugDw4T2o&sig=bIs6rJSyuXKt2MoCeLOjf8cwUFw&hl=en&ei=SYyQSfyRG8H7tgf1zKCsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

It mentions the electron shells being in the way of fusion, generically. Why wouldn't that apply to CF? V (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Muuuch better. I think that we could make a "other problems" subsection under the incompatibilities section. For example:

“ other problem that fusion at lower temperatures has to overcome is the repulsion between atoms, both the repulsions between the electron shells surrounding the nucleus, and the repulsion among the nucleus themselves. In normal collusions at low temperatures the nucleus never get near enough to each other, to the point where the strong forces will bind the nucleus together. In hot fusion this is accomplished thanks to the high energies carried by the atoms, which collide so fast and violently that the electron shells get ripped away and the nucleus collide together^ref ”

Does this look nice and correct? Anyone sees a problem here with OR or something else? Because if you don't, then I'll go and add it directly to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, while I'm not married to the wording I proposed at the start of this section, it seems to me you are in effect including the "first miracle" in your proposal, while I left it out. Also, there is a logical sequence of problems. The three miracles are listed in the order in which each IS a problem, in terms of properly explaining how the CF idea must fit the data. That is, before condensed-matter cold fusion can be a fully sensible idea, an explanation is needed for how Coloumb repulsion between nuclei can be overcome. Then an explanation is needed for why the products of CF are not the same as the products of hot fusion. Then an explanation is needed regarding how so much released energy appears as heat instead of the other radiations that are observed in hot fusions. See? So, the electron-shell problem is, equally properly, a prequel to the main events. V (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hum, maybe make an addendum to the first miracle, indicating that it should first overcome the electron shell mutual repulsion before even addressing the nuclei repulsion? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That almost works, except then it is poorly consistent with the existing first-sentence reference that talks about three miracles. I tried to be very logical in my proposal, although I understand that it may be too wordy. I'm sure it can be shrunk if it includes its own reference to that googlebook. Feel free to twiddle! V (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a version, reduced from the original proposal at the start of this section:

Postulating cold fusion to explain the experimental results raises at least four separate theoretical issues. The first is logically derived from the common mental image of an atom as being a tiny nucleus surrounded by spherical shells of orbiting electrons --the shells keep the nuclei much too far apart to be able to fuse together. For cold fusion to be possible, the electron shells of deuterium atoms must somehow be peeled off, first --something that typically does not happen under most ordinary physical conditions [put new link here].

The other three theoretical problems are much more difficult [use existing link]:

V (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your thing with the shells is not a question of "common knowledge and simple logic". I believe you (and the reference you cite) are dead wrong. Drop it. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what fun!!! Art, what you believe is irrelevant here; what you can prove is relevant. Provided it is not obviously Original Research, of course! So far, from what I can see here, there is a rationale that the electron shells allow deuterium nuclei to approach each other as closely as 100,000 nuclear diameters under ordinary physical conditions --and no closer. Yet somehow they must get closer for them to fuse. Sure, a long quantum tunnel could allow them to do that --except no rationale yet exists for how a long-enough tunnel could form, given the known drop-off of intensity with distance for the Strong Force. If CF theorists have been ignoring the electron-shell issue for 20 years for a reason greater than, "It is trivial compared to the three miracles", then it ought to be published somewhere, where the article can reference it. If instead nuclear fusion can occur while both nuclei are still known to be inside their electron shells, then data and reports about that ought to be published somewhere, where the article can reference it. If you would like to suggest "hydrino"-type shrunken deuterium atoms as allowing their nuclei to get close enough together for a long-enough quantum tunnel to form, well, all you need are "reputable" references about that. (did I say something about "what fun!"?) If you would like to suggest that somehow a neutral whole deuterium atom can be accelerated inside solid metal, such that when it collides with another deuterium, their two nuclei can meet and fuse, all you need is a published explanation of how such acceleration can happen, with published supporting evidence. But if you simply want to keep this problem out of the main article because the three main CF problems are more difficult without it, tough. (Search for "lie of omission" earlier in this Section.) See, one thing that you seem to have been neglecting is: "If there is a rationale for how a deuterium could lose its electron shell inside solid metal, then where does the electron go?" Wouldn't it join the vast numbers of loose electrons already in the metal? And wouldn't there be interactions between those many electrons and the deuteron left behind? And is it not obvious that if the deuteron's original electron was able to freely leave, then none of those other electrons would have to start orbiting the deuteron? And couldn't those electrons shield two deuterons from each other? And, because the electrons would not be orbiting the deuterons, could the deuterons now be able to approach the quantum tunnelling distance --thanks to first losing their electron shells? All three "miracles" actually are easily answered, if the deuterons are freed from their shells and allowed to interact with the metal's conduction band. V (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your reference is specific to atoms with filled electron shells. Deuterium atoms have no filled core of electrons. The reference you provided has no relevance to deuterium. Please provide a relevant reference for all of this WP:OR.

Your logic is inverted, by the way. The progression is {muon very close to the nucleus} --> {electron at medium distance from the nucleus} --> {no electron = negative charge at infinite distance from the nucleus.} Fusion is harder without a negative charge nearby to offset the repulsion of two positive charges, not easier. --Noren (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two conditions under which something, e.g. your ideas about electrons shells, can be included: either there is a RS source saying just that, or it is really obvious:

The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers, rounding them, calculating percentages, converting them into similar units, putting them on a graph, or calculating a person's age) that add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources. (WP:SYNTH)

My point is that if I with my Ph.D. in physics (and Noren, where ever he's coming from) think you are wrong about the physics, then your ideas cannot be considered "routine calculations". Either find a RS or shut up. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I also have a Ph.D. in physics, and I also say this discussion of a fourth "incompatibility" doesn't belong in the article. It simply is not discussed enough in the documents which describe cold fusion. Olorinish (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Noren, your argument is ridiculous. Only a very few atoms (helium, neon, and argon) have TRULY filled electron shells, and can participate in energy-releasing fusion. The reference is making generic statements, so that it specifies "light nuclei" instead of particular elements. It does not need to say HOW filled an electron shell is, when making generic remarks about light nuclei. It DOES specifically state, "In normal conditions between atoms or molecules, the nuclei never get close enough for fusion to commence". And all of us here know that the conditions of CF are far more normal than stellar. Regarding the other stuff in my last post, I do know that it is OR and was not trying to get it into the article at this time (it won't be OR forever). I just wanted to point out to Art, who brags about his Phd, that he's the one who is dead wrong about electron shells being in the way. I recall reading about the shells being in the way about 4 decades ago, when I first started learning stuff about fusion. It was the very first thing that came to my mind, as a problem to solve, when I first heard about cold fusion. It is silly to not mention this problem in the article here. IS there a conspiracy by CF-detractors, to keep any data out of the article that might someday become related to the solutions to the main problems? Why else would Art do his latest lie-of-omission ---OOPS! I apologize, actually it is Noren doing the lie-of-omission---, trying to talk about real nuclei under real-world conditions without paying any attention to the electrons that were associated with those nuclei? The SUN does not fly apart, all its temperature-freed nuclei receding to infinite distance under the influence of mutual electric repulsion (which would indeed happen if there were no electrons in the mix). He even wants us to believe that while we can mathematically add 2+2 to get 4 in a Wikipedia article, we can't do simple obvious logic that is equivalent to mathematics. If a source article says, "termites caused the collapse of this house", Wikipedia can't be precisely accurate and say, "gravity caused the collapse of that house, after termites weakened its structure"?? V (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Every atom but hydrogen isotopes (and atoms in very high energy states) will have 'truly' filled 1s shell. Logic and reason don't appear to have any effect on you, so we're playing this by the book, and your reference is explicitly not applicable to deuterium.

By your 'simple logic', it is their wings that prevent penguins from flying. After all, an Atlas V very well without wings. It's obvious that the wings get in the way of the air flow. This example 'proves' that the best way to design a flying penguin would be to remove the wings. --Noren (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Noren, "You are mistaken. Logic and reason don't appear to have any effect on you" Your inconsistency is obvious; you add irrelevant data and exclude relevant data, when constructing your so-called arguments. The GoogleBooks reference does not mention the 1s shell at all, so why do you need to bring it up? The book says "shells" but does not say if it is talking about multiple shells of one atom or the at-least-one-shell-each of multiple atoms. The book DOES specify, "to start nuclear fusion, a collection of light nuclei (for which fusion is favorable)" --and only in your wildest imagination can that specification NOT include deuterium! Next, you do not mention the force-to-weight ratio of an Atlas (which also increases rather rapidly as it uses up fuel), vs the force-to-weight ratio of a penguin (which applies that force rather differently, also). Would you be willing to bet that if a penguin could exert a sufficient force-to-weight ratio (and its body held together while doing that), it still would be unable to fly, using its wings? We do have evidence that smaller-winged animals fly by flapping faster, after all.... Not to mention the time-of-flight factor, which you also completely ignored: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79292 --that link may be a spoof; this one is more like what I was looking for: http://flickr.com/photos/dgbalancesrocks/57289615/ V (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Objectivist, you are skating on thin ice. Wikipedia is a project that depends on collaboration. Push a point too hard, it will push back, and then you may complain that points are being pushed at you. It isn't about "you" or "Noren" or any other editor, it's about our consensus, and if you seek consensus, you must be inclusive, not dismissive; if you become dismissive, the consensus will spit you out like a bad grape. Being "right" is no defense at all, there are legions of editors who were blocked being "right." But you may not be right, even if every fact you allege is true. Be careful. Respect the process and the other editors. You'll get more accomplished if you do. I've been considering moving this discussion to a subpage. The first task I see is to identify the dispute, if there is any, such that all sides will agree, "Yes, this is where we disagree," and this dispute must be over how to improve the article, or we should drop it. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to ignore this thread for some time, but could we please take it off Wikipedia? We're not running a discussion forum. --TS 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, thank you, and this discussion is indeed about a small improvement to the article. It is almost always better to have as much factual data about a subject as possible. And I agree that collaboration is a Good Thing, except when it becomes obvious that the collaborators are banning their opposition, and as much of the opposition's data as they can manage.

It is a simple fact that cold fusion experiments mostly take place under relatively ordinary physical conditions (certainly as compared to hot-fusion experiments). It is also a simple fact that under ordinary physical conditions fusionable atomic nuclei are surrounded by electron shells at such a distance that the mutual repulsion of the shells prevent the nuclei from getting close enough for fusion to occur. I do not object to modifying that statement to include the possibility of "at a detectable rate", since ridiculously-low-probability events do happen every once-in-a-while, and fusion under normal conditions may qualify as ridiculously-low-probability. I do object to the idea that such a simple problem for cold fusion does not deserve to be mentioned in the article, just because, apparently, the theorists would rather concentrate on the major problems. After all, do you think a Nobel will be handed out for solving the small problem? Hah!

So, I was asked to find a reference supporting the thing that I thought was common knowledge, that atoms have electron shells under normal conditions (such as are, for the most part, the conditions of cold-fusion experiments), and that nuclei need to escape their shells in order to fuse --and I did. Now the "collaborators" seem to want it declared as invalid as all the stuff at Jed Rothwell's site --without offering a sensible reason why. I ask them to find a reference indicating that the electron shells are not a problem for cold fusion, which would be a logical counter to the reference I found, since my reference refers to fusion generically, and cold fusion is a special subtopic where perhaps an exception does apply --and they, apparently, refuse to look. Where is the fairness in that? How can a consensus possibly be reached if the opinions of a group are allowed to control facts? How can Wikipedia's standards ever be met in such a situation??? V (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

separating condensed matter nuclear science from cold fusion

Whatever is going on within the palladium lattice (and in similar experiments with other materials), it certainly isn't brute-force smashing of deuterons together. That would beg the question: where would the energy come from that would accomplish this? If there is real excess heat, if there is real nuclear radiation and products of nuclear transformations, including effective fusion, it's not by any known mechanism. The field is now called "condensed matter nuclear science." The basis for that is an understanding that it's possible that some conditions in condensed matter may allow reactions to take place that don't happen "naked." There are hypotheses that have been advanced, speculations on what it might be, but nothing, to my knowledge, has been validated by experiment, beyond some clues. It does appear that low-energy neutrons are being produced; probably missed because everyone expected high-energy ones if it was fusion. (Tracks appear on the reverse side of the CR-39 detectors, away from the cathode, but still showing proximity to the cathode -- not in areas of the film away from the cathode. What's that? The hypothesis on that is neutrons, which don't create tracks until they interact with the material, not being ionizing radiation. Then they create, the SPAWAR researchers have published, little triple tracks. So the tracks themselves seem to be fairly well understood, but not the source of the neutrons. We cannot report these things as scientific fact, but, because they are in peer-reviewed publications, we could report the existence of the reports. We have stuffed two separate topics into this one page: the history of a scientific fiasco, "cold fusion," and a new branch of physics: condensed matter nuclear science. Obviously, they are related, but they only overlap, they are not the same topic. The scientific fiasco we can probably document fairly easily and we should be able to agree on it, once we can get beyond the knee-jerk reactions. The new science needs a different kind of treatment. But there are reliable sources on it. --Abd (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(note: the comments above were split off into a new section by another editor, it was originally posted as a response in the section "incompatabilities in established physics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil153 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is at least the third time you've mentioned some supposed differences between "cold fusion" and "condensed matter nuclear science", as well as pushing for (and creating redirected articles in preparation for) forks. The bottom line is that cold fusion is the accepted name for the whole range of palladium-deuterium type experiments, and the set of reported effects and anomalies, and per our naming conventions, nothing like you suggest is ever going to fly. It's not even close, and I'm confused why you're pushing this.

The recent attempts by advocates to rename the field are smart PR, but nothing more. There is no distinction between the set of experiments, detections, and anomalies reported in 1989 and today. It's the same phenomenon. It's the same people. Even the latest Internal Conference on CMNS, the most prominent conference in the "field" of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, has the acronym ICCF [9]. Guess what the CF stands for?

As for alternative formulations and the uncertainly of fusion, it has no basis. If there is actual excess heat of the larger magnitudes reported, it has to be fusion. I think all parties agree, except those trying to obfuscate (I don't mean you). Can you find good sources that suggest otherwise? The reason it has to be fusion is that energy does not come from a cold fusion researcher's butt; it has to come from somewhere, and the only source within a cold fusion cell is matter. And the only way to get energy out of matter is to modify existing matter such that a higher energy state is transformed into lower energy state, leaving products which are in a readily detectable lower energy state. And the only part of matter in a cold fusion cell that has sufficient potential energy for the size of the effects claimed is the nucleus. You can't wave away the requirement that fusion is going on here; within the bounds of reason there is no other alternative. Every physicist with their sanity intact agrees with that.

Anyway,Can we take this to one of our talk pages? I've avoided responding to you because it's off topic and most of your last 20 or so comments (plus mine here) fit 100% under WP:NOTFORUM and simply do not belong on the article talk page. But not responding doesn't seem to help; long off topic commentary gets posted anyway. Lately they've been inserted in every single section (that attempts to improve the article) with long diatribes about one thing or another unrelated to improving the article. No blame here, just a request because there's no end in sight to this stuff. Phil153 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No. This belongs here. My discussion here was (1) background and (2) very clearly about improving the article. Phil153 doesn't like my specific suggestions. Fine. I can do little by myself, given how ready some editors are to bald revert. Absolutely, I created some redirects, and one of these might turn into its own article. Maybe. I'd say, Phil, you are part of the failed old guard here. You are welcome to disagree. We have a deficient article, almost everyone agrees, they just disagree on the direction of the failure. That's a sign that we have not been seeking consensus; instead, we've been making poor compromises, editing by force of numbers and the accidents of who shows up, and all the other dysfunctions that afflict controversial articles where the guidelines about civility and consensus aren't followed. And this is very, very much about improving this article. Don't like long posts, think they are "diatribes," don't read them! You lose no rights by not reading, though you might lose some knowledge, or not. Depends, doesn't it?

The naming can be discussed specifically. The 14th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science did indeed have an alternate name: also known as the 14th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-14). That's because it descended from the earlier ICCFs. The 2008 Conference web site has a page on terminology. It should be read: [10] Phil, I don't think it is that you are confused, exactly, I think that it is that you don't understand the situation, including me and my approach to Wikipedia process, because you are holding to fixed opinions. It's not obligatory to understand me. But I do know that many times during these discussions you have said things that just weren't true, both about the topic of the article and about Wikipedia guidelines and processes. Stop saying all this nonsense here and then objecting when there is response! --Abd (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a section title, this was straying away from the "fourth miracle" topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to object to that description. I clearly called the fourth thing a "problem", not a "miracle". And, actually, in order of events, if fusion is to occur, it should be considered the FIRST problem, not the fourth. Unless, of course, some method exists for nuclei inside atoms to interact with each other, without first escaping their electron shells. In which case it can continue to be ignored as irrelevant. But also which remains to be proved. IF cold fusion happens, of course. V (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Errr, whatever it's named, just discuss the name on the above section and not here, so topics won't get mixed again. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"We have a deficient article, almost everyone agrees, they just disagree on the direction of the failure." Actually, I don't agree. The current version is the best I have ever seen in the two years I have been monitoring the article. Olorinish (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, when I first read the article in October I was amazed at how bad it was. The current version is the best I've read. I think a bit more work need to be to document the cold fusionist voice, if only to give a sense of the social movement and the depth of belief held by proponents. A section on some of the evidence and why it's not taken seriously would be very informative too. Storms has been reviewed by P.V. Keller who's spent a good deal of time marking stuff for the article, so hopefully that will address most of those remaining concerns in the near future. Phil153 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that this is probably because of systematic exclusion of a POV. Note that Shanahan, a published critic of cold fusion, just opined that the article was bad. Yes, we need more material from Storms. But, hey, no tendentious argument from me. Believe what you like, but, please, just follow Wikipedia process, no edit warring (not even tag teaming, but there is a kind of legitimate tag-teaming which simply establishes a kind of default consensus as a starting point. Problematic tag-teaming uses bald reverts and simply sits on an article, preventing change toward broader consensus), discuss contentious edits, follow WP:DR, seek consensus, assume good faith regardless of POV, remain civil, etc. If we do this, we'll get there, and nearly everyone will agree on it. --Abd (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Both Shanahan and Jed are COI editors who refuse to back away from claims that are far too strong for the available evidence, and I haven't seen any evidence of ability to find consensus and a fair middle ground. Such is the nature of COI SPA editors all over Wikipedia. As a result, I'm not swayed when Shanahan thinks the article is bad, because based on his edits, the only article that would satisfy him would be horribly POV.

Hmmm..I thought Wikipedia disapproved of ad hominem attacks... Phil, a) the evidence for the CCS explanation of apparent excess heat is published in my 2002 paper, with expansions of it in the 2006 paper. My claims are based on that and by typical scientific standards, I have not 'stretched' anything. b) I was asked to edit the article in an attempt to remove proCF POV, and I did that by adding the counterarguments to the stuff PCarbon had written in. He immediately began block deleteing what I added in a clear POV-pusher fashion. I never edited antyhting he wrote (as far as I can remember now several months later, certainly nothing as substantial as his edits of my additions). My objective was to remove POV. The problem with the current article is that it has been so changed in anture that my comments are not relevent anymore, i.e. there is no technical meat in the article. And, as I suggested several times, I was content with a 3 section article; historical, pro, and anti, as long as editors were allowed to express their opinion but not suppress others. Your claim I would never be satisfied is not true, and is a personal attack. I guess you thought I was gone so it was OK. Nope, still watching. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on, you have to admit that the "evidence" you've presented is far from convincing and lacks hards experimental data. It's a theory, and probably quite a good one, but that's all it is, and it's claimed to have failed some tests of its veracity in experiments by CF researchers. While I'm not swayed by that at all, objectively, it weakens your position. Anyway, my comments on your POV take on the article are based on reading your numerous discussions on talk, not your article editing. I apologize if they are inappropriate, and they probably are. For what it's worth, your article edits seem fairly NPOV to me. Phil153 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for retracting your claim I am unable to write to NPOV standards. With regards to the evideence I have presented, my papers analyze data and come to a different and reasonable conclusion from the data's originator. But there is nothing unusual, strange, or anomalous in what I did. It is straight-up sensitivity analysis. Ergo, it is compelling evidence for the case analyzed. The point of the papers was to demonstrate, with real data, a new 'noise' term, one that was apparently unrecognized previously. Since it was previously unrecognized, it is impossible to evaluate in any published apparent excess heat claim up to that point, as the data necessary to do so (variability in calibration constants) is not publically available. However, since that is so, all prior claims to have observed excess heat must be reconsidered in light of the CCS. Also note that Storms' calorimeter was one of the best, and in less good calorimeters, the errors are expected to be larger and of other types as well. Thus, one has to be 'generous' in evaluating the possibility if a CCS in other calorimeter types and designs. This is all straight up science. No surprises, just SOP.

Unfortunately, the CFers have not responded properly to my publications. They have NOT begun publishing such data along with their cliams, instead they have denigrated the ideas with false accusations, which I have shown to be false in print. Read the papers if you disbelieve me here. So, to date, we still have no assessment of the importance of the CCS to apparent excess heat claims, and rational and reasonable scientists wonder why. By the way, the math of the CCS is not a 'theory', it is a simple mathematical fact, whose presence was directly detected in the one published case where sufficient data to study the problem was presented.

Perhaps you refer to the proposed mechanism of how a CCS could occur in a closed cell? If so, you need to consider the predictive power of my 'theory'. It is consistent with the observations that CF occurs infrequently, and 'explains' the exception of when very high surface to volume ratio material is used. It is consistent with the CR-39 observations. It is consistent with the Szpak IR video evidence. But of course there are other observations as well. Most of those are explained by other known phenomena, not related to producing apparent excess heat, so those weren't included in the 'theory' I proposed to explain that apparent signal. This does not negate the value of the theory.

P.S. I would love to see the reference to where "it's claimed to have failed some tests of its veracity", as I know of none. Please cite your references or retract your statement. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I think we should aim to have Storms material added by the end of this month, since PV Keller is understandably a busy man and I don't want to wait much longer. I'd also like to mention a few other skeptical references, like the Italian court case (which is one of the few times a true outsider has examined the field), and skeptical commentary in Nature and elsewhere. Phil153 (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I should say that I also agree with much of what Phil153 wrote above, and I share the hope. --Abd (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, I'm not objecting to a response. I'm not the one starting these discussions, and I've repeated asked for specific suggestions to improve the article instead of general commentary on all things cold fusion, but you don't seem interested at all. You want to get the calorimetry article undeleted first, against consensus. That didn't work. You want to split this article off into another name that can diassociate itself from the criticism. You seem to be on a crusade instead of wanting to improve the article that's the subject of this talk page. And that's your choice. But what I'm objecting to constant littering of sections with off topic comments about Jed's block, JzG's inappropriate actions, a proposed splitting that never gets quite proposed, the blacklisting of l-c.org at meta, the original thought "case" for cold fusion, and so on. It makes it really hard to stay on topic within that section. Most of the worst have been archived by other editors recently because they were so OT. If you have specific suggestions, like moving this article to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science or building a Fleischmann effects article, bring them up in a separate section so we can discuss them! I'd welcome an open discussion so we can either move forward with the new ideas or work on improving what we've got. Wouldn't you? For your peace of mind, I'm done commenting on this here, you're a very experienced and quality contributor and if that's the path you want to take, ok. I just wanted to point out how problematic I think it is for improving the article via this talk page (as opposed to raising the profile of cold fusion on Wikipedia). Phil153 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Boy, for someone who claims to want to stick on the topic of improving the article, Phil, you are all over the map. Don't be distracted by discussions that don't interest you. I've been working with on-line discussion and projects since the mid-1980s, and there is this strange phenomenon: even though nobody is required to read anything, nobody has to sit through a boring speech, people still protest about others writing what they aren't interested in and think useless. I agree that there can be a problem with too much talk, but that can be handled by respectful refactoring, if anyone really cares. (In fact, usually nobody bothers to refactor the archives, it's a problem.) I really wish editors would stop assuming what I "want." I discovered that JzG had nominated Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, and that it had been deleted. I asked for a copy so I could see if there was any valuable material there. However, then I noticed that the AfD had closed within 24 hours, and there was totally inadequate notice of the AfD. Please don't wikilawyer "adequate notice!" So I simply requested that the AfD be reopened, and I did argue for Keep, that's true, but I generally favor breaking down articles into subarticles, and I'm hardly attached to Keep; in fact, though, what I'd like to see is Merge, because this preserves the rights of editors to change their minds, AfD is much clumsier, and I've seen editors really regret deletions that they voted for -- when it became obvious that the article they were protecting, they thought, now had to bear the weight of whatever was reliably sourced in the deleted article. I do intend to do a lot of things with the CF article, and, yes, to unmerge the CMNS article, probably, but one step at a time, I'm still doing a lot of research, and, besides, I'm a tad distracted by this little issue of administrative abuse -- which is very clear, by the way, and a very serious issue, apparently impacting, I've been told, "dozens or hundreds of editors." And I have kids to raise, a business to run, etc., etc. And I need to decide whether or not to put half my life savings into palladium. What do you think?--Abd (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, just provide secondary reliable sources stating that "condensed matter nuclear science" and "cold fusion" are not the same thing --Enric Naval (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to do it if you will find secondary reliable sources saying that "fruit" and "mango" are not the same thing. "Nuclear science" in the condensed matter environment isn't only about fusion. Condensed matter nuclear science is essentially the study of nuclear physics in the condensed matter environment, which used to be considered irrelevant. (I.e., the realms were entirely different, and it was assumed, for the most part, that nuclei were simply unaffected by chemistry and the condensed environment. Now, in favor of your argument, "condensed matter" is by definition "cold." What nuclear behavior occurs in cold environments? We have some examples: muon-catalyzed fusion is one. It's true, the most interesting nuclear phenomena would be fusion, but there is also evidence for fission in that environment, apparently. Does the close environment affect nuclear stability under some conditions? Nevertheless, most material being published under the rubric of CMNS is indeed about evidence for nuclear reactions taking place at low temperatures, and fusion is the obvious hypothesis, beyond some sort of experimental error. Now, as to secondary source, here is one: Institute of Science in Society. But I'm not sure of the nature of the article. Reliable? I'm pretty sure that there are those here who will argue that whatever seems to confirm "cold fusion" is, ipso facto, fringe and not reliable.... There are some pretty remarkable assertions in that article. However, we'll see. I'm in no hurry. --Abd (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, "fruit" and "mango" are not the same thing. "mango" describes many things, a few of which are the "fruit" of mango tree cultivars. See here for details. Here is an assertion that "Mango is also a valuable ornamental and shade tree and contributes to the protection of soil against erosion." If you think that www.i-sis.org.uk is a wp:RS, I'd suggest testing that belief at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see what reaction it gets. Frankly, I'd much rather see a peer-reviewed journal, but

Also I'd like to hint that splurging long, dense paragraphs is not a sensible way to discuss any matter on Wikipedia. By doing so you limit the number of people who might agree with you to those who have the patience to wade through your words. At this point the provision of reliable secondary sources in support of the words already uttered would be worth far more than a bushel more words. --TS 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Image caption

@LeadSomgDog, maybe it's me but your edit summaries are too cryptic to determine what your objection is and why you keep adding the who and where tags. Are you disputing the cited sources as unreliable? Or are you merely taking issue with the text referring to authors without specifically naming them? I think everyone is working towards consensus here but it would go faster if you gave us more feedback. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if the tags are too cryptic, but that's what they are for. My objection is straightforward writing style. The caption should not say what it did because it is a nonsequitur. It should say what is in the picture.If the caption mentions "the authors" then it is left to the reader to guess what they were the authors of. This wp article? The cited paper? Something else? The meaning of the caption should be clear without having to follow the link to the citation. If the caption is describing the M-B et al paper, it is also misinterpreting it, but that's another matter. M-B et al found the pits "suggest that D-T reactions" are occuring. LeadSongDog (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, what do you think the caption should look like? Do you think the picture should be removed? Be bold. Olorinish (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ROFL. This is the Cold Fusion article. I'll be bold with an abundance of caution. I'd suggest something like "Pits in a CR-39 detector. The triple pits were interpreted by Mosier-Boss et al. in a 2008 short communication as suggestive that D-T reactions were occuring." (with citation following). LeadSongDog (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Ronnotel (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the "lenr-canr" web site, the authors have written at least 10 articles on these kinds of experiments. I think they would say the data is more than "suggestive." In fact, they might describe it as "conclusive." I think "indicative" is pretty neutral. What don't you like about it? About the tritium, none of their articles on that web site mention tritium fusion in the title. Why do you want to mention it in this article? Olorinish (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll boldly suggest that tritium fusion can mentioned because of a two-step reason. First, tritium is one possible a product of the fusion of two deuteriums. Note that if it is present to any extent greater than the natural background level, when only deuterium was fed into the electrolysis cell, then that means some cold fusions had to have happened. Also, since tritium is hydrogen just as deuterium is hydrogen, there is every reason to think that once some tritium appears in a metal lattice that is full of deuteriums, some of which are fusing, the tritium will join the fun. (I forgot to include: "because the D-T reaction has a higher probability of occurring than the D-D reaction".) V (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My choice of wording was based on what the cited source supports. Would someone care to cite a source that says something different?LeadSongDog (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretensiousness

does the article have to be written so pretensiously (sp?).. Why all the OH SO BIG WORDS? Its a hard read. Granted, it's a complex topic, but most likely, those who are seeking information on cold fusion are laymen; The article should be an easy read. Flech level 9 max guys. 72.137.11.12 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of muon-catalyzed fusion in this article.

You know, we are treating muon-catalyzed fusion rather ambiguously in this article. If you read the article, you can tell that muon-catalyzed fusion is a form of cold fusion, in particular, that's what Jones called it in his Scientific American article. Now, if muon-catalyzed fusion is a form of cold fusion, it should have a section in this article with a brief summary, with reference to the "main article," Muon-catalyzed fusion. It shouldn't be a disambiguation link at the top, which implies that muon-catalyzed fusion isn't cold fusion, there is merely a confusion of names. It's cold fusion, all right.

The Fleischman-Pons effect, and the other effects that have been found in relation to "cold fusion," are, indeed, unexplained, though there are many theories. Some of the theories involve catalysis by various exotic mechanisms, such as magnetic monopoles or hydrinos, etc. The only thing really different about muon-catalyzed fusion is that it's a reasonably understood phenomenon, involving known particles and mechanisms. Clearly Pons and Fleischman and Jones though that the topics were related, the history shows that. And I'd agree. If there is one obscure mechanism that overcomes the apparent obstacles to fusion at low temperatures, there may be others. The claim that low-temperature fusion is impossible has a clear counterexample in muon-catalyzed fusion.

Some editors have become confused about Bubble fusion or Pyroelectric fusion, and I just came across Fractofusion, see Takeda, 1989. All of these are hot fusion; the idea that they are "cold" results from mistaking the temperature of most of the apparatus with the actual temperature of the reactants. Bubble fusion is alleged to produce temperatures comparable to the interior of the sun, for example. Pyroelectric fusion is being harnessed as a neutron generator, there is RS for this, which apparently it does cheaply. Fracture fusion is, interestingly, proposed as an explanation for the Fleischmann-Pons effect, through fracture of the palladium electrodes. In other words, "cold fusion" may not be. It would just be that things got hot in a very small volume, much hotter than we would have thought. --Abd (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(In one discussion, the idea that deuterons accelerated by an electric field aren't "hot" was raised. That's a misunderstanding of what heat is, in this case. What "hot" means is that the atomic motion in the fuel is fast, high velocity, that's all, and whether this is produced with individual ions or by general gaseous conditions doesn't matter. What allows overcoming the Coulomb barrier by brute force ("hot fusion") is the approach velocity of the deuterons or other fusion fuels.) --Abd (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, the best thing is probably not to discuss it much at all, maybe give a few sentences just saying that it exists, it's real, here's the article on it, but it has nothing to do with the Flieschmann-Pons proposal. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Shoemaker's Holiday. The whole point of having easy links to other articles is so that duplication of data, within articles, can be avoided. Absolutely muon-catalyzed fusion should be mentioned as a variety of CF and linked, but not much more than that need be in this article. V (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Objectivist. There are some semantic difficulties here. Muon-catalyzed fusion almost certainly isn't what is happening in the Fleischmann-Pons effect, so that's correct. Muon-catalyzed fusion is true cold fusion, we can say that because it was, first of all, theoretically predicted, then verified by experiment. It happens at low energies, but it requires the presence of muons, which aren't easy to come by, it takes a lot of energy to make them in quantities sufficient to be able to observe the fusion. The F-P effect is an experimentally observed effect of unknown origin. As I point out above, it's entirely possible that it is fusion, but not cold fusion; rather, hot fusion from fractofusion in the palladium electrodes, or there might be some other effect that, on a very small scale, creates high-energy deuterons. F-P made the mistake of proposing that it was D-D fusion of the traditional kind, but at the same time not of the traditional kind. I.e., no gammas, few neutrons. The fact was that they didn't know. They had suspected that something might happen in the palladium lattice, because of the density of deuterium or hydrogen absorbed by it, but the only basis for calling it "fusion" was a paucity of other explanations, plus, of course, this is what they were looking for. Fleischmann claims, and it's reasonable, that they were not ready to publish, but the university, for legal reasons, forced them to go ahead. I've been reading some pretty convincing stuff, by Storms for example, that the F-P effect is real, that there is more excess heat than can be explained by ordinary chemical processes or systematic experimental error, but there are the other anomalous results; however, until there is more serious mainstream research I'd say that we won't know.

Practically speaking, for the article, I think we need to agree on what kinds of sources can be used. It seems crazy to me that a whole class of sources are being excluded, when, with other controversial subjects, "partisan" sources are allowed, if they are notable. ArbComm has been dealing with this, to a degree, in the Fringe science arbitration. We should not exclude sources just because they are claimed to be fringe. Rather, we need to pay attention to undue weight. If there is an article on a fringe topic, though, it would be silly to fill it with mainstream views, provided that the framing places the article content in perspective. I.e., an article on Flat earth is not going to spend 99.9% of its space explaining that the earth is not flat! Rather, it is going to detail the various flat earth theories and their history. "The shape of the earth was known to the ancients, but flat earth theories persisted into the twentieth century (or even today)," etc. and then the whole article will be about these theories. (To my mind, the flat earth article spends too much space on, for example, how it came to be known that the earth was spherical. That has its own article (Spherical earth}! --Abd (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, perhaps I'm misremembering some things, but I don't recall that some of the things you wrote about actually happened that way. For example, it is my understanding that muon catalyzed fusion was discovered by accident in liquid-hydrogen Bubble chambers of the 1950s, and then theoretically analyzed. Also, I think I read something somewhere (good old hear-say!) that P&F were trying to duplicate an earlier claim of CF in a palladium/electrolysis system, but with more rigor. Fusion is invoked to explain the heat that appears, only because nothing else seems adequate. P&F could have incorrect notions of HOW fusion could explain their experimental results, but such a situation is far from unique in Science. In one sense, all that really matters is, "DOES the evidence really require nuclear reactions to explain the observed heat production?" In another sense, if helium-4 and other fusion products can be detected in greater quantities than the background level, then while that can be just as important, it also can be considered the icing on the cake. Personally, I find it kind of ironic that if the D+D->He4 reaction is happening, with lots of energy released as heat, then it doesn't take a lot of such reactions to produce the observed heat, while it also doesn't produce much helium above the background level! Almost a Catch-22, with respect to trying to convince skeptics. V (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would never insist on anything based on my bad memory. No conflict with your report re the discovery of muon-catalyzed fusion. As to P&F, yes, they were aware of old research that had been discredited, but probably considered that maybe the discrediting had been merely a lack of confirmation, coupled with some historical factors. The question of a nuclear explanation for the heat hinges on a rather difficult question: how much heat is being generated, compared to how much energy is being added, or how much energy could be released from what's in the cell? The criticisms of cold fusion seem to claim that the excess heat is very small, so that, even if it is large in absolute magnitude, and because so much energy was pumped into the cell during "loading," the percentage of excess heat is small, within experimental error. While a set of independent experiments, showing even small excess heat, could be significant, publication bias and other factors complicate this. The consensus of those working in the field seems to be that the excess heat is far above what could be experimental error; some of the experiments show substantial excess heat practically immediately, and some show "heat after death," i.e., heat that continues to be generated after the electrolysis has been stopped, no more energy is being pumped in. We really need some objective and reliably sourced reports on this. Storms may have something, I'm thinking of buying the book or at least getting it from a library. But I'm balancing this with other tasks, as well.

Because of all the controversy about the calorimetry, the issue of nuclear ash and other transmutations, and the detection of radiation, then loom large. If, for example, the SPAWAR group and others are actually finding alpha or neutron radiation, spatially associated with the cathode and associated with excess heat or deuterium in place of hydrogen, it would be every bit as conclusive or even more conclusive as to some kind of nuclear reaction as would be excess heat alone. And this is exactly what the SPAWAR group is claiming, and some of it has been published in peer-reviewed journals. --Abd (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, you can't cite memories. Not until the mediawiki extension for virtual telepathy is implemented, anyhow. Abd, which publications are you referring to? We've been down the road before on conference proceedings (not refereed), off-topic journals such as Die Naturwissenschaften (the editorial boards and reviewers can't always competently assess the material's merits)LeadSongDog (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)