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.

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 [1]. 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: [2] 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)

Look, it's really simple. You claim that your method is an explanation for the excess heat, and your editing implies that it is in fact THE explanation in most cases. Yet this is a positive claim; you have to show that the calibration constant actually does shift to the degree required in a range of experiments to cover that amount of excess heat. You have not done that (to my knowledge) except by reanalyzing the data from one set of experiments. You have not done it for different calorimeter types, nor is your theory adequate to cover them, especially the theory of heat shifts as a cause. Because of this, it doesn't "refute" cold fusion results, but merely introduces a type of error to check for when certain types of apparatus are used. This is what I mean by claiming too much. Szpak and Storms have offered refutations which question the veracity of your theory as an explanation for CF heat.

Also, I don't retract the claim that you are unable to write to NPOV standards, since I never claimed that. I claimed that COI regarding your own work has led you to claim far too much, just like Jed and nearly every other COI SPA does. There is no reasoned commentary on the limitations of your own work. Instead, you make claims that you refuted everything thrown at you by CFers, which IMO is clearly false. Also, see edits like this

If you reply here I'll reply on your talk page after that since this is getting off topic. Phil153 (talk) 02:57, 16 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)

Who defines "improved"?

I do wish to help improve the article. I even tried to go about it in the recommended way, by discussing it first, instead of just sticking some new text in the article. But it seems there is a radical element promoting a particular POV here, which is so much against posting valid data that conflicts with their POV, that they would rather delete all the arguments in favor of posting the data, than admit they have no real argument, supported with references, for why it shouldn't be posted. Tsk, tsk. Who do I post a complaint to, so that such behavior can be properly reprimanded? V (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Kowalski and Mosier-Boss et al (2008)

I'm replacing this section from the talk archives because the discussion surrounding Olorinish's suggestion that the table be summarized was never concluded. (See below.) In particular, is it possible even, to summarize the table in a single sentence? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary of U.S. Navy SPAWAR's CR-39 nuclear track
detector Pd/D co-deposition control experiments:

Experiment	Pits?	Conclusions
PdCl2–LiCl co-deposition in D2O	Yes	Pits are observed where Pd deposit was in contact with CR-39. The Pd deposit is the source of the pits.
Cathodes, plating solution, PdCl2 in contact with CR-39 – No electrolysis	No	Pits are not due to radioactive contamination of the cell components
LiCl electrolysis in D2O	No	D2 gas impinging on the surface is not responsible for the pits
CuCl2–LiCl electroplating in D2O	No	Electrochemically generated D2, O2, and Cl2 gases do not cause pits. Metal dendrites piercing into CR-39 not responsible for the pits.
PdCl2–LiCl co-deposition in H2O	Yes	More than four orders of magnitude fewer pits are observed than for D2O. Observed pits could be due to Pd/D interactions.
Table 1 from Mosier-Boss et al (2008) "Reply to comment on 'The use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments': a response to Kowalski" Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 44: 291–5, p. 292.

The article's photograph of the CR-39 pits gives practically no information, it's poorly cited, and the text next to it doesn't talk about it at all. I recommend that it be replaced or supplemented with this table.

I further recommend that the 2004 DOE Report's conclusion stating that, "reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, [including] the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods,"[3] be summarized along with a description of the CR-39 detector and SPAWAR experiments using it. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I for one appreciate your efforts. However, I don't understand what the case is for including primary, non repeated, challenged research. The image makes sense as a curiosity but that's very different to what you're proposing.

I mean, when Kowalski first debunked the research some months ago, should the article have reported that "Claims of CR-39 pits have been shown to be unconvincing"? Is it really the job of Wikipedia to follow the comments and counter comments in a single journal for an unreplicated experiment? Sounds like a mess to me, and far too much weight on unverified primary research. Phil153 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The chronology and authorship of the many challenges to the nuclear interpretation of the CR-39 pits may be different than what you seem to think it was. All of the challenges to CR-39 pit interpretation including Kowalski's more recent have been addressed by the Navy, and the original challengers have made no attempt to claim that the Navy's response was insufficient (unlike Shanahan, who still relies on his "calibration constant shift" method of designing an argument around the conclusion he wishes to reach, according to his own words in the most recent archive.) In both of the most recent back-to-back academic journal publications, the editors have given the pro side the last word, but only Shanahan claims the response was insufficient. Could it be any more conclusive than that? 69.228.220.30 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: "method of designing an argument around the conclusion he wishes to reach" -

I'm sorry "69" but you don't seem to have a clue here. I did NOT design an argument around the conclusion I wished to reach, I tested the impact of variability in the experiment on the conclusions drawn from it. That's known as 'error analysis', which consists of two parts, numerically defining the error (in this case the variation in the calibration constant) and computing whether the claimed observation falls within the 3 sigma error bounds. That is scientific SOP, except for CFers. The upshot is that the observed peaks in the excess heat curves are explainable by 'error', thus no one has to conclude a nuclear reaction is ongoing based on such claims.

Also, in my case, the 'anti' claims got the 'last word', as if that was important. What is important is that I answered all charges against me in my last rebuttal. No outstanding issues, and none of Storms' comments were found substantive. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That table is very large. Maybe someone could add a sentence summarizing it instead. Combined with the blue-green image, that would probably give the Cr-39 work the proper weight. Olorinish (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to summarize that table in a single sentence? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

ONE way to shrink the table is to simply shrink the table, using smaller fonts and so on. Why not? Is there a problem with the number of bytes it takes to represent the table? V (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

ANOTHER way to shrink the table is to make two images of it. Post the large image at the "commons" site, and post a highly shrunk version of the image in the article, with a "click to enlarge" thing associated with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivist (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Has any other group performed CR-39 experiments and confirmed their conclusion that the CR-39 detectors are detecting fusion products? If not, I don't think the CR-39 results deserve additional emphasis in the article. Olorinish (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What I vaguely understand is that the original paper was presented, there were challenge(s), and the original authors followed up a couple of months ago. I don't work in this particular field but academic journals generally have significant times between comment and reply. The person who has the last word has little bearing on who's right, either, and frankly I'm bemused that you would call something conclusive without replication or sufficient time for reply. In short, the current state of this particular debate has little bearing on most of my objections to the inclusion of this comment, which are: single result (not independently replicated), primary research (which is discouraged, for a host of obvious reasons), and the work has not stood without challenge for long enough (doubly so given the extraordinary burden of proof). Exactly the kind of stuff that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia with such weight as you're giving it. It probably deserves mention, similar to how Shanahan's work is mentioned in passing (note that I argued against the inclusion of Shanahan's work on the same grounds, so it's not a pro or anti cold fusion thing). Phil153 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not including my work is an omission of fact that leaves the reader presuming CF has been significantly substantiated by experimental evidence. It has not. Thus, your edits have skewed this article back to a proCF POV.

I also note in passing that the secondary page PCarbonn set up to isolate the impact of my work has now diasppeared as I predicted, it was just someone else besides P who did it. Wiki is far too transient for me. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Journals don't usually publish replies to critiques along with the submitted critiques unless they think they are merited. The various challenges date back as far as April, 2007 as far as CR-39 goes. If you read that, you will see that there is already a series of independent replications since the original publication. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the challenges go much further back than that. I was negatively commenting on the Oriani and Fisher report of CR39 pits in 2002. See:

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion

From: kirk.shana...@srs.gov (Kirk L. Shanahan)

Date: 13 Nov 2002 09:15:34 -0800

Local: Wed, Nov 13 2002 12:15 pm

Subject: Re: Oriani & Fisher in JJAP

where I begin the discussion of the claims by pointing out some errors in the paper (later found to be due to typesetting problems) and by showing how my challenged chemical mechanism for CF can also explain CR39 pits. I added another possibility in a later post. I suggest you read the whole thread. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And, at least in the journals I publish in, when an author critiques some prior paper, the authors of the prior paper are informed and given the opportunity to respond. This is what happened with the 2006 rebuttal to Storms' comments. The SMMF publication of 2005 apparently didn't have enough of a comment to warrent that however, as I was not informed such a paper had been published by the Editor. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Noone can "isolate the impact of [your] work", nor does anybody need to. Your work - that i have seen you present here - is very specific in scope. For instance, it deals specifically w/conventional electrolysis cells. Aspects of electrolysis cells that by their very nature do not apply to gas-loading experiments. They also do not speak at all to claimed transmutations, pits on cr-39 present in significant quantity only when heavy water is used, or things like structural anomalies on the cathode in co-deposition experiments (craters, etc). But this specificity is all very natural for science (and reason), and i don't see you disputing any of it so i don't see the problem.

Actually you're wrong Kevin. When I added my first contributions to the article back in the May/June timeframe, I added several comments to the existing article. PCarbon was about the only editor there contributing regularly at the time. He deleted almost everything I wrote. What he couldn't delete were the comments regarding He detection and the Clarke work on that, and my work on the CCS. He did however, spin off a subpage to 'isolate' the comments on my work, a page by the way that is not lost somewhere in the Great Wiki Void (pretty well isolated I'd say). I commented negatively on all positive claims in the article at the time, thinking Wiki would be reasonable about this, but they weren't. Today, the article has a brief mention of my work, mixed in with other stuff, which misrepresents its significance greatly, and the Clarke work is no longer discussed. There is no mention of the problems with the transmutation claims or the CR39 pits, even though I have tried valiantly to explain them to the editors in this Talk page (go check the archives). Your claim as to 'structural anomalies' is not correct, conventional explanations exist for those too. So, do you see me disputing it Kevin? Let me be clear: For any body of related results that is large enough to be considered to have some level of reproduction in it, conventional explanations are available and preferred. How's that? But, as noted by others, since the mainstream all think CF died somewhere in 1990-1994, no one is publishing anything negative, because they aren't even aware 'research' continued! So you are not going to find specific articles now or anytime soon. So how do you fairly represent this to the Wiki reader? You get an expert to explain the problems to you and include them in the article. But this Wiki article has gone exactly the opposite, with a reduction and removal of all negative criticism of the supposed evidence for CF. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, a couple of points. First, you are one person who sought flaws in the experiments. You found many. However, to the extent you think a group of people seeking flaws can do better, then you need to be reminded that the 1989 DOE panel consisted of 23 people who at least partly had the job of finding flaws in experiments, because they knew just as we do, about the theoretical difficulties for CF. Neverthless, in the "Executive Summary" of the conclusions of that panel, http://www.ncas.org/erab/execsumm.htm , the group stated: "The Panel also concludes that some observations attributed to cold fusion are not yet invalidated." YOU are talking as if every single experiment in this field can always be invalidated, yet the evidence is, and you even agreed with this, that a small percentage of experiments has defied and continues to defy the flaw-finders. In my opinion this leaves everyone with three paths to take (some of which you yourself wrote about on this page, and so the rest of this is not directed mostly at you, Kirk). (1) We focus on replicating those experiments so they no longer are a small percentage of the total. (2) We assume they are all flawed, regardless, and strive to explain them that way. (3) We accept that CF is real, if rarer than originally thought, and strive to explain it. I'm fully aware that Path 1 can eventually indicate which of the other paths would be the better choice to pursue. However, not everyone is a good-enough experimentalist for Path 1 (as evidenced by so many flawed experiments!!!), which would leave a lot of interested parties with nothing but Path 2 or Path 3 to take, blindly. It would not hurt this Article if people taking those paths exhibit some simple respect for each other's work. This means that hypothesized explanations for flaws deserve the the same treatment as hypothesized explanations for CF. The Article would be richer if it had both instead of neither, and "standards" for the technical parts of the Article don't necessarily have to be the same as the standards for hypotheses. Finally, that richness may be historically valuable even after Path 1 eventually/finally leads to a "winner". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivist (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Speculations and unpublished material do not belong in wikipedia articles, quite irrespective of who writes it. If your description is accurate, Pcarbonn was correct in removing the material in question. My claims as to "structural anomalies" are correct: there are "structural anomalies" that have been found in co-deposition and they have been published. And -- on a side note -- i'm not aware of any conventional explanations for those craters, other than a concentrated and high-heat reaction, and this is corroborated by the thermal output. i.e. The conventional explanation is pretty simple and straightforward. So back to the subject - no, i don't see you disputing the existence of these structures, nor the fact that your published work (that i'm aware of) doesn't even mention them, nonetheless speak to them. In fact, the only thing I've heard from you is speculation and unsupported claims - both of which are worthless to me, and neither of which is very scientific.

It seems to me like you are twisting my argument to make it sound like you have a rebuttle. This to me is all straw man and non-sequitor. It's specious. It may sound persuasive but it's really deceptive. It's not an ethical way to argue. Once should try to avoid logical fallacies like those and respond to the strongest interpretation of your opponents argument (by strongest i don't mean boldest, I mean most difficult to attack), not the weakest. etc. etc. FWIW, I develop a strong distaste for people very quickly when I see them discuss things in an unfair manner. Kevin Baas^talk 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As to the Arbcom ruling - it appears I am not the only who found it to be a complete farce (double standard in comparision to ScienceApologist). Though you seem to be the only one taking joy in another's suffering and using what many see as an injustice as a premise for a (fallacious) argument, thus adding insult to injury. Kevin Baas^talk 16:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your insult is noted. I challenge you to support that by citing where I have 'taken joy' in the ban. Make sure you realize that PCarbon was a hindrance to the Wiki article development once there was someone other than CF afficianados editing it. He opposed everything negative regarding CF, and that led to an unbalanced article. His persistance in this was recognized as POV-pushing and he was banned for it. If you check the pages on this, I suggested there that PCarbon not be banned but be restricted from editing the 'anti' section of the article (which is now gone as well). Your comments betray your position, and I'm not going to be responding to you further on this. I had a great time while away, and I think I shall probably just leave you all to it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My insult?!? -- Opps, I looked back for reference and found that I had just misread something you read -- sorry about that. You are correct, there is nothing you said that would support that notion. I will say, however, that your most recent reply certainly "betray"s a sense of relief and a very low opinion of his work. "Make sure you realize" that PCarbonn is almost solely responsible for getting this article up to good article status (which if i'm not mistaken it has since lost on a request for reevaluation). He has contributed a lot of material on both sides. That's right, he has written for "the enemy". If we're making neutrality comparisons here, that puts him a step above you.

My comments betray what position? I said I thought the arbitration ruling was unjust because it punished Pcarbonn for violations less severe and numerous than that of ScienceApologist, as elucidated by the evidence presented to arbcom, yet SA didn't get any sanction for his actions. That is my position. I state it plainly and intend it to be known so there is nothing "betrayed"; in speaking plainly on the matter i have been perfectly loyal to my intentions. And I am glad you're not responding further because if you did I wouldn't expect it to be very productive. Kevin Baas^talk 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have my own question here; I thought the codeposition/particle-track experiments were done after the 2004 DOE review, so that data was not available to them? On the other hand, I've also heard (yes! hearsay!) that those experiments were highly repeatable. Have any of the doubters (a group that doesn't include rabid detractors) tried it yet? If any of them get positive results, then I have another Question for the detractors: "With evidence of more-ordinary fusions occurring in very thin deuterium-saturated palladium (because of the particle tracks), what could be the CAUSE of those fusions?" Note this is essentially the same question that has to be asked regarding deuterium-saturated bulk palladium; if fusion is the culprit for the claimed/observed heat, then how could have been Caused? We can ignore for the moment the mechanism that carries away the energy in the latter case (no ordinary high-energy fusion-byproduct particles), because the KEY is the first Question. If deuterium is fusing in a thin layer of metal, why couldn't the same mechanism cause it to happen in bulk metal? AFTER the common Cause has been figured out, THEN the differences can be examined, regarding how the fusion energy is released. V (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop saying "high energy fusion byproducts"? It's a red herring and we discussed it above. Both low and high energy fusion byproducts are observed to be the same, which is one thing that make CF so unlikely. And you can see why "high energy" is irrelevant if you look at the energies - between 0.01 and 0.1 MeV are required to overcome repulsive forces (depending on the nuclei), compared to 24 MeV coming out. It's like flying a toy aeroplane into a tornado - it doesn't really matter how fast the plane is going, the tornado takes over and decides how everything turns out. Anyway, sorry for the aside, that bit of nonsense spread by CF advocates (not you) annoys me. Phil153 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that ordinarily the 50/50 split of protons and neutrons released as a result of D+D fusions are indeed "high energy" particles (although nowhere near 24MeV due to the particular reactions involved). I could agree that "byproducts" may be inaccurate word-choice, since that word typically is associated with unwanted stuff like pollutants. Nevertheless, my prior paragraph was more about "If we have repeatable evidence for CF in thin-film metal, then detecting vs not detecting [them, the "semi-products"] in bulk metal is irrelevant, until after we understand how CF can happen at all". Do you have a disagreement with that logic, Phil? V (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think I misread what you were saying. Shouldn't edit from work when distracted. Sorry. As for your logic, it seems premature to me. I think most scientists would like to see something unequivocally demonstrated first before they go chasing theory fairies. Surely that's not too much to ask after monstrosities like polywater and N-rays. And make no mistake, the CR39 stuff is full of holes. Read the critiques or even the attempted replications that IP editor posted above. Phil153 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I used the initial word "if" for a good reason. You do not have to accept-as-fact anything preceded with "if" in order to analyze the logic of a statement. I could write, "If God exists in accordance with certain claims, then it must be possible to build a perpetual-motion machine." The statement is either logical or illogical, and whether or not its premise is factual is irrelevant. Therefore I ask that you not avoid answering the question I asked in my prior paragraph. "IS it logical to ignore where the energy goes in bulk metal, if fusions are happening in thin-film metal, until after the initiation mechanism has been understood?" Thank you! V (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

i'd just like to comment because i find this discussion interesting. I have to say when i read the "logic ... seems premature" phrase I was a bit confused - logic is not temporal so it can't be mature or premature. But from the next sentence I see that Phil wasn't actually talking about the logic. I actually still don't know what he was talking about there so I still don't know what that phrase was supposed to mean. As to "most scientists...chasing theory fairies", the scientific process is essentially that you do a lot of experiments and then from the results you try to form theories that tie the results together in a simple way and allows you to predict, then you try to find ways to test those theories. But ofcourse you can't really develop a tenable theory until you've done enough experiments to have a fair idea of what's going on. Which is exactly what I believe Objectivist is saying. And in that, I perfectly agree with him. I would say that, yes, if you have consistent empirical results that contradict your working model, then clearly your working model needs to be refined somehow, but it would be premature to refine it before you have a fair idea of what's causing those results. I'm not sure if, technically speaking, that's a logical conclusion, but it certainly is consistent with the canons of science. The working model is a logical system and the physical world is - for purposes of evaluation - a logical system. The goal is to make the working model approximate the physical world, and one does that by bayesian updates, Bayesian model comparison and all that jazz. And bayesian inference works best (is most robust) with a lot of orthogonal information, hence one gathers various types of data from various sources. And hence a "good" theory is supported by many strands of evidence. Gathering data means doing experiments to figure out what's going on. So I suppose from all that that one comes to a pretty solid logical-mathematical proof that if your goal is a good predictive model, then when you encounter a consistent discrepancy between your model and that which it models, the thing to do is to do experiments on that which is modeled to try to figure out what's going on. (But I imagine that to most scientifically-minded people this just comes as common sense.) In any case, i think Objectivist is simply trying to ask if this seems unreasonable to you, or more precisely if this "math" is wrong, and if so, how. Kevin Baas^talk 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually do need to add a little more, cause the question is a bit more complex than that - he is also asking if it's really prudent to rely on certain parts of a working model that apparently contradict the empirical results in order to refine that very same model. Or to put it another way, if it's more productive to use a descriptive model to predict the outcome of a process that, when it comes down to it, doesn't fit the description, or whether it's better to try to construct , by way of hypothesis, experiment, etc., a (revised) model that _does_ fit the description. Though I will say that knowing HOW the results differ from what's predicted by the current working model may certainly be helpful in revising it. I.e. particle emmisions, radiation, products, etc. is useful data for figuring out what's going on. It's simply that if after considering them you still don't know what's going on, then obviously you still have some more investigating to do. Kevin Baas^talk 17:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I was being quite that complicated, in asking what I asked. There are several intertwined problems. (1) Excess heat in electrolysis experiments, sometimes replicated and sometimes not. (2) Well-accepted theories regarding fusion, which do not offer much in the way of allowing either (A) fusion to happen in that environment or (B) fusion to produce heat without lots of radiation. (3) People who act as if the theories of Item 2 encompasses all possibilities, so therefore the excess heat must always be an erroneous measurement. (4) New co-deposition experiments indicating fusions could have happened, after all, in the electrolysis experiments --and these experiments don't need to pay any attention to the excess-heat question. (5) The continuing lack of a widely accepted plausible explanation for how fusions could happen (what is the hole in Item 2A?). (6) People who have committed themselves to a particular scientific position, and in order to not look like fools, need to grasp Item 5 to claim that Item 4 cannot be valid, either, except that if they are wrong they will look even more foolish! This could explain the lack of a reply to my question --simple "ignore it and maybe it will go away" philosophy-- which was about "Why not save Item 2B for later, and focus the theorizing on Item 2A for now?" See, to the extent that the co-deposition experiments produce more and more valid data (it is claimed this is highly reproducible, remember), the people of Items 3 and 6 will find their position less and less tenable. Which sort-of means those who lack the courage to recant can be ignored, and we need an answer to Item 2A more than ever! V (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mosier-Boss et al (2009) "Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons" Naturwissenschaften 96: 135–142 is particularly helpful in resolving the question of the particles detected. I would point out that Naturwissenschaften, Thermochimica Acta, and Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., are the highest impact factor journals in which the subject has been covered since the 1989-90 articles in Nature and Science, and they are all recent, since 2002. There is absolutely no reason to ignore the recent publications in Naturwissenschaften, Thermochimica Acta, and Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., because Wikipedia's reliable source criteria requires that they be given a higher priority than work in journals with a lower impact factor. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's still primary research which has to be weighed up against what the more reliable secondary sources say, regardless of where or when it's published. This is something I intend to bring up in the latest arbcom because it's a source of dispute in fringe science - mainstream science ignores something (such as N-Rays or polywater or homeopathy or cold fusion) and (rightly) requires a higher burden of proof to un-ignore it, so the only sources available become advocate material. I think careful editorial judgment in this case requires acknowledging the burden of proof placed on the field, although that's open to opinion of course. Phil153 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please correct me if there are any reasons that I'm wrong, but a primary source which has been peer-reviewed, challenged by critique, and a reply published back-to-back after the critique by editors who have had the opportunity to see the reviewers' comments on both the critique and the reply rises to the level of a secondary, juried source. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Published in a seconday source means published in a secondary source. Additionally, can you confirm that you are not logging out to avoid scrutiny? This page has been the subject of arbitration and one editor was banned from participating here. Jehochman ^Talk 22:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:SECONDARY, what is and what is not a secondary source is currently the subject of discussion. I am not logging out to avoid scrutiny. I saw the arbitration case and I think it is a shame that a respectable editor was banned here for no other reason than that he was resisting the deletion of all non-mainstream points of view, even though those points of view are held by the overwhelming number of experimenters who have published in the academic literature over the past decade. It seems that sort of thing has happened here before. I know that all of the incumbents on the arbitration committee who ran for re-election were soundly defeated, and I hope the banned users appeal to the new committee at their earliest possibility. 69.228.220.30 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

{unindenting} Quoting from earlier in this section, " there is already a series of independent replications since the original publication" --if that is true, then are not those replications secondary sources? (I suppose it depends on whether or not any made it into print yet.) V (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is little better than raw data. No way. ~Paul V. Keller 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How about Mosier-Boss et al (2009)? 69.228.207.247 (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what makes this technique attractive is its rife possibilities for misinterpretation. ~Paul V. Keller 02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Does Szpak & Mosier-Boss (2007) "Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd/D lattice: emission of charged particles" Naturwissenschaften 94: 511–4 leave any room for misinterpretation? 69.228.201.125 (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific. If someone other than the original experimenters do a codeposition experiment and replicate the apparent particle tracks in the plastic, AND publishes it in a reasonably reputable place (which is the part I "supposed" about above), then why is that "little better than raw data"? Isn't "replication" and "reputable publication" the things the detractors here have been insisting on??? I agree that there might still be an "interpretation" issue, regarding whether or not the particle tracks were caused by fusion products, but I would hope you are not planning on insisting that the replicated tracks don't exist at all, or are not similar enough to tracks that appeared in the original codeposition experiment! V (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What it means is saying you have seen tracks in CR-39 does not confirm that you have seen neutrons, or alpha particles, or energetic ions, or whatever else they are claiming. It is not something that even the most knowledgeable people who make it to this web site can look at and draw a conclusion about. All it shows is a disconnected observation. Saying that the tracks are "not inconsistent with . . ." or "look like tracks from . . ." does not give a conclusion reportable here. ~Paul V. Keller 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it is the job of Wikipedia to say what the researchers said, who got their data peer-reviewed and published. There is also the other published data tabulated at the start of this Section of the Discussion, indicating the tracks appear in a manner that is distinct from background noise and other sources than deuterium-saturated palladium. To the extent this data can-be/has-been replicated, then (A) a description of it belongs in the main article, and (B) the tracks require an explanation. I'd like to know if anyone has put a piece of CR-39 into a Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor (briefly!) to get some data on tracks made by known-fusion events, for comparison with the co-deposition data-pits. I recognize some compensation-analysis may be necessary, since a Fusor operates in a vacuum and electrolysis doesn't. But if CR-39 is such potentially important stuff, then I'm all for including a decent description of it and its usual place in particle-detection physics --and I'm also for including a published picture of CR-39 that has been through a Fusor, just so the readers can see how similar (or different) the pits are, to the other picture, and they could maybe also see why the CF researchers claim their pits are caused by fusions (or why they shouldn't make those claims!). (Yes, I know about the OR rules. But I bet a CR-39 picture could be added to the Farnsworth fusor article, and then this article would only need to mention that the other picture exists... or both pictures could be added to the CR-39 article!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivist (talk • contribs) 06:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the professionals editing the article have decided that skeptical sources need not be peer reviewed or meet any of the other reliable source criteria for physical science articles, but opposing sources from recent high-impact peer reviewed journals must not be included even when they are supported by back-to-back replies to peer reviewed critiques. Because, they are not WP:SECONDARY sources, meaning that even though they include their own background literature surveys approved by the reviewers, they were originally authored by experimenters who have actually made the measurements in question instead of theoreticians who only measure things with their word processor as they contribute to perpetuation of the "mainstream." Welcome to the wonderful world of controversial Wikipedia articles! 69.228.207.247 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[additional comments from another archived talk section on the same topic follow. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)]

The funny thing is that I had the exact opposite reaction. I started off thinking there might be something to it (lots of smoke for no fire), and every bit of research I read from CF researchers caused me to become more and more skeptical due to the quality and nature of the "evidence". It has all the hallmarks of error and pathological science. As for SPAWAR, http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html is very telling. Phil153 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how telling is that personal web page when in fact every single one of the issues it raises is addressed by the peer-reviewed Mosier-Boss et al (2008) "Reply to comment on 'The use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments': a response to Kowalski" Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 44: 291–5, p. 292? Where is the intellectual honesty? 69.228.206.231 (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, kids, be nice! The web page is interesting, and not conclusive in itself. I don't see that Mosier-Boss et al responded to the issues raised there. They addressed the issues raised by Kowalski. Look, this is the point. If it's fusion, it's extraordinary. Because of the magnitude of the claim, extraordinary evidence is required. CR-39 gets close, so too does reliable extra heat, if it really is that reliable and fast. But with the CR-39, there are obvious possible errors, and chemical damage is one of them. Mosier-Boss claims that chemical damage was ruled out, but nothing can be ruled out in this field, unless it's totally conclusive. Too many variables. It's going to take experiments with tiny changes in variables; my guess is that this work is going on now. How about varying the distance of the material from the electrode and seeing the effect on track density and depth? How about doing the same in the same solution with an americium source? How about a lot of things that I'm sure clever experimenters would think of. Editors and others are right to be skeptical. *Very* skeptical. My only point here is that we shouldn't pretend that skepticism is knowledge, nor that someone coming up with a hypothesis as to how the experimental results could be deceptive means that it has been debunked. One of the results from the web page is quite telling. They were finding SPAWAR-like pits; when they substituted normal water for heavy water, they also got the pits. "In several cases, we also substituted light water for heavy water in the electrolyte. These tests showed no discernible difference in the quantity of SPAWAR pits produced. This seems quite significant as the nuclear behavior of deuterium, at least in high energy experiments, is significantly different than that of protium." Indeed. Anyone know of a secondary source that reliably reviews the work? --Abd (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[undent] Kowalski incorporated the complaints in that 2007 web page into his critique. The editors of Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. sent his paper to their reviewers. The reviewers contacted SPAWAR with questions. SPAWAR submitted their reply to the editors, who forwarded it to the reviewers, who agreed that it should be published back-to-back as a response to Kowalski's critique. SPAWAR got pits from light water, too -- in the same proportion that deuterium exists in natural light water. The 2007 earthtech.org web page authors repeatedly assume that the pits are alpha particles and compare the pits to those from known alpha particle sources, but Mosier-Boss et al (2009) "Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons" Naturwissenschaften 96: 135–142 suggests pretty convincingly that alpha particles are not the source of the pits. 69.228.206.231 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is going to be so much fuss raised about CR-39 pits, then perhaps an alternate way to detect fusion products should be attempted. I'm thinking about the Super-Kamiokande detector as an example to imitate, heh. V (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Szpak & Mosier-Boss (2007) "Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd/D lattice: emission of charged particles" Naturwissenschaften 94: 511–4 shows one of the methods of detecting protons. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's where we can start. The reliably-sourced information, from peer-reviewed articles, belongs on Wikipedia, it's sufficiently notable and reliable and verifiable. Where does it belong? It belongs here, but if placing it here would create undue weight, then it belongs in a subarticle. Not a POV fork, simply a subarticle that considers a detail. And we need consensus on this, or, if we don't have consensus, then we need clear statements of each differing position so that further process has something to decide upon, clearly stated, and supported by evidence. Otherwise what we get are shouting matches and endless discussions that go nowhere. I intend to facilitate this process, if it doesn't happen by itself. I'm slow and very busy. Anyone else is welcome to try. I would, myself, create a page in my user space to consider the issues; other approaches would be to create Talk space subpages, but that's not flexible enough, sometimes, unless more than one page is created. Like a "consensus" page and another page that discusses what goes on the consensus page. What goes on the consensus page is what all or nearly all editors agree upon, *plus* attributed opinions where consensus couldn't be found. The consensus page should be NPOV, documenting both agreement and unresolved dispute. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusing people of intellectual dishonesty is no more useful than accusing editors of POV-pushing; in fact, it's less useful. Both just make editorial disputes into personal ones. Everyone, please, stop trying to put out the fires here by tossing volatile fuel on them. It doesn't work. We very much need the participation of editors with knowledge, including experts, and experts often have a COI, that's connected with what makes them experts, and people with knowledge quite often have strong opinions, which they assert, and some assert it arrogantly. It's a problem, but we address it by being welcoming at the same time as we stand firmly for civility and consensus. We need people who understand the subject -- from all notable POVs -- in order to ensure that our consensus is rooted in knowledge and not just in knee-jerk opinions. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to echo this comment made by LeadSongDog above: "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)"[4] --Enric Naval (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, there is more than one kind of intellectual dishonesty. For example, every Religion that ever tried to suppress competition was being intellectually dishonest, acting as if only its own POV was the only one anyone needed to know, without providing any supporting evidence for such actions. A chessplayer who overturns the board is doing even worse, not having the courage to admit, in the normal way, to losing. V (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] For those of you who continue to consider CR-39 evidence compelling, you may want to look at the Oriani and Fisher paper from ICCF10 (2003). It can be found at (delete the quotes): http://www."lenr-canr".org/acrobat/OrianiRAenergeticc.pdf That paper shows that CR-39 plates suspended _over_ the electrolyte, in the gas phase, develop pits as well, even with a Ni baffle present to stop any charged particles from making it to the plates from the liquid. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What does that tell you beyond that the "evidence for energetic neutrons" is supported? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: The Title is Cold Fusion

The article is titled "Cold Fusion" not "Origins and Debates Over CF".

However, the lead of this article (today) is dedicated to the debate over the original claims (SP and MF), and the conflict.

Note these words in the initial three initial paragraphs:

1) ... SP and MF 2) ... made headlines 3) ... enthusiasm turned to skepticism

I propose instead that the scientific processes, in simple terms, should dominate the article, dominate the introduction.

What does the term refer to?

It seems safe now to suggest he term "cold fusion" has an identifiable meaning, and that is in relation to certain 'experimental processes', ones that have varied results: some positive, some not. This is primary.

Then, other themes are secondary: 1) theories about how the results are alleged to be possible 2) there are many many theories, apparently not settled

Then, it is tertiary: 1) whether the results are possible 2) the findings were argued by some to be impossible 3) are the rejections of cold fusion supported by peered published evaluations of each experiment claiming positive results?

And 4) some of the debate is the normal tension in science between theory and discovery 5) some of the debate was highly emotionalized involving science politics

I acknowledge that the highly acrimonious political origins of cold fusion is a 'reality' that can be defended as 'relevant'. However, those origins do not *entail (define) what cold fusion *is today.

Thus, I propose that the paragraphs that "lead" the article instead belong to a subsumed section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"I propose instead that the scientific processes, in simple terms, should dominate the article, dominate the introduction." The present introduction is already dominated by the scientific processes. It describes some details about the proposed reactions, how the researchers presented their experiments and their results, and how other researchers responded. It then describes, briefly, how the government has reacted to the situation. Olorinish (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please double check. I acknowledge my note is not perfectly expressed, and I acknowledge that PART of the introduction is rightly about science, but my note warrants more than just a casual dismissal. Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to propose an alternative. I don't see any problem with the current lead (along the lines you suggest) Verbal chat 20:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)