Talk:Cold fusion

An editor has been banned from editing the Cold fusion article, for a period of one year.
	Pcarbonn 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.

Lecture by Robert Duncan

Robert Duncan, the scientist who was asked by 60 Minutes to look at a cold fusion lab, gave a lecture at the Missouri Energy Summit on April 23 about the scientific method and cold fusion. A video of the lecture is here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a 100 MB file, I downloaded it and watched it, the Duncan lecture -- which is quite good -- starts in the middle. There might be another way to access just the Duncan lecture, but I couldn't find it. Duncan is really emphasizing the scientific method, which is about an ongoing process and which does not involve fixed conclusions. Ever. He reports one incident after the CBS special where a physicist called him up and was very angry, and his report shows the problem. When he asked the physicist to sit down (metaphorically, I suppose) and go over the evidence, that was angrily rejected with a comment that summed it up: something like "We already did this (i.e., in 1989-90) and you charlatans won't give up." The physicist obviously was so angry he forgot who he was talking to. Duncan isn't a charlatan, he's a reputable physicist, and simply looked at the evidence (new evidence! plus, probably, a revisitation of the old evidence, which was never properly analyzed) and came up with conclusions that were already creeping up toward majority opinion in 2004. Our resident skeptics managed, for a time, to keep the fact out of the article that half the 2004 review panel considered the evidence for excess heat "compelling." One-third thought similarly (perhaps not so strongly) about evidence for nuclear reactions. This isn't "fringe science," at least not any more. It's "emerging science," breaking through, supported by a huge amount of research of increasing clarity. If we simply follow reliable source guidelines, and apply the concept of undue weight in a neutral fashion, as recommended, we'll be fine. But if we cleave to either extreme, we'll have an unbalanced article. Right now, it's unbalanced, in my opinion, toward the skeptical side, but I reverted the re-addition of the POV tag because I believe we are working on and can resolve those issues, and since the imbalance is simply a matter of delay in reporting a shift in opinion, it's not as serious as would be, say, imbalance in the other direction, treating cold fusion as if it were a proven and accepted phenomenon. It's not. It's emerging science, with controversy remaining, lots of it, and we can and should report the nature of that controversy as shown in secondary sources like Simon. And if this makes the "pseudo-skeptics" -- the ones who confuse their own negative certainty with skepticism (certainty is the opposite of skepticism) -- look bad, let them generate reliable source to defend themselves. I don't think it's there. Good example of a genuine skeptic: Hoffman (1995). --Abd (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The University of Missouri link above has apparently been edited to remove Dr. Duncan's lecture. Dr. Duncan's lecture is now available on Youtube in three parts, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. Krellkraver (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The U. Missouri link is back, as cited by Coppertwig, above, and no explanation has been given, to my knowledge, of why it was removed, but it's easy to guess. The YouTube links appear to be up, still, and may be more convenient, in the place of downloading that huge file that is both speeches. --Abd (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The collapsebox doesn't render well on my phone, and that text appears to be discussing important sources. 208.54.4.50 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Decision

Polls are boring and inconclusive, especially when people start arguing over which is valid. The solution which will please no-one is: User:Hipocrite and User:Abd are both banned from editing cold fusion, and its talk page, for an arbitrary time of approximately one month, during which time we'll see if a stable version developes. Complain on my talk page if you wish to. Oh, and I'll unprotect William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Harsh in some respects, but lets see where it takes us. Some decisive action was needed, and you have provided it. I hope that the remaining editors will show some restraint with the revert tool, and adhere to WP:BRD - perhaps without the Bold bit first? This is only a suggestion. Verbal chat 19:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[Deleted. Do this again and I block you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)] --Abd (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that the ban remains in force on the talk page, otherwise it would seem pointless. Verbal chat 20:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Such discussion should probably be moved to WMCs talk page, in deference to the ban. Verbal chat 20:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, finally, thank you very much. Let's see if I can put some stuff into the article without being drowned in wikilawyering and POV defending from both "sides". (also, I also ask that the talk page ban is kept) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I'll edit the article now. I haven't had the patience to keep up with the megabytes and megabytes of argumentation, pontification and such, so if I break any of the rules please slap me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion in this ANI thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• At the risk of sounding like a wikilawyer, is there some sort of "authority" (like WP:PSCI) or precedent for unilateral topic bans like this? II | (t - c) 07:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Since this is not related to editing the article itself, I have replied in User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed#topic_banning_by_a_single_admin. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: the ban on H is conditionally lifted. Details [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Something Awkward

One of the early paragraphs in the article is this:

There have been few mainstream reviews of the field since 1990. In 1989, the majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive. A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached similar conclusions.

It contains an inconsistency, since the first sentence specifies "since 1990" and the next sentence specifies 1989, which obviously is not since 1990. Perhaps this?

In 1989, the majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive. There have been few mainstream reviews of the field since 1990. A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first.

Maybe the tail of that last sentence could be modified: ", but with a smaller majority." Does the American Chemical Society meeting of last year count as a "mainstream review of the field"? What about that recent symposium hosted by Robert Duncan (only a couple weeks ago)? V (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No to both. Both were set up by cold fusion promoters and had no negative presentations to counterbalance the massive proCF POV. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, Kirk, but that's only two "No" answers to three suggestions. What of the first ("Maybe the tail ... could be modified")? V (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

V, a modification along the lines of your suggestion to reflect the reduced consensus on the 2004 DOE panel seems fair. Krellkraver (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If no objection appears in the next few days, then I'll replace the paragraph as indicated above, and append that little extra detail to it. V (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the "majority of a review panel" bit. In reading the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the report there are statements such as "the panel concludes", "the panel recommends" and the like, but no evidence of separate panel-majority and panel-minority findings (comparable to say, a Supreme Court decision). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Abd found some data regarding a breakdown of the votes. I'll probably have to ask him on his personal talk page for the link. (note the agreements above indicate I'm not the only one who saw some of that information.) V (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Abd has responded to my request, but not with links per se. I quote: "Look at the report that we cite for 2004" and (for 1989) "Taubes, p. 422" --likely referring to links we already have. Read Abd's full account at the bottom of his talk page. User_talk:Abd V (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've implemented the change. I might mention that the main reason for specifying "a smaller majority" is simply that the first part connects a majority to a particular statement, moreso than it connects the majority to all the conclusions of the 1989 review. So, because it was true that a smaller majority was associated with that particular conclusion in 2004.... V (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"excess heat observations" section

I restored some changes that were lost due to the reversion to an earlier version made by WMC during the protection. That section was the center of a short edit war:

• 13:31, 19 May 2009 Hipocrite "facts changed to allegations, observations. Mos says one space" [2]
• 13:42, 19 May 2009 Abd "Well, the observations are not only not challenged in the literature, they are confirmed massively. The open question is interpretation; the apparent excess energy could be artifact." [3]
• 13:42, 19 May 2009 Abd "add qualifiers to acknowledge that excess heat is controversial, is it real, or is it only apparent?" [4]
• 13:57, 19 May 2009 Hipocrite "excess heat is considered an experimental artifact. Replication failures do not make the fact that broken experiments break repeatedly meaningful - WP:SYN" [5]

Please feel free to review the change and update as necessary if it had problems that I didn't notice. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on that last one (by Hipocrite). I followed the links of the reference given for that quote. This is where I ended up: "Szpak, Stanislaw; Mosier-Boss, Pamela A.; Miles, Melvin H.; Fleischmann, Martin (2004), "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition.", Thermochimica Acta 410: 101, doi:10.1016/S0040-6031(03)00401-5"

I find it a bit difficult to believe that such an anti-CF quote could have been pulled from that particular article (I don't have access to the full text so cannot be certain). If I'm right, though, then either Hipocrite goofed in providing a reference, or some reference-scrambling has happened (I wouldn't be surprised, with all the editing going on) --or, worst-case-scenario, Hipocrite has posted a personal opinion and pretended to provide a reference for it (not good!). V (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean Szpak 2004? It can be read at http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSthermalbeh.pdf.

Also, the first ref in that paragraf. Fleischmann 1990 ({{harvnb|Fleischmann et al.|1990|Ref=Fleischmann1990}}). is broken and I can't find any 1990 paper in the bibliography, can someone point out the paper for this ref so we can restore the lost reference?. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hum, Szpak 2004 appears to be sourcing only the sentence "Similar observations [of heat after death] have been reported by others as well." Can you clarify what sentence in that diff is the "anti-CF quote" so we can check its refs? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Enric, I'm talking about this anti-CF statement: "excess heat is considered an experimental artifact. Replication failures do not make the fact that broken experiments break repeatedly meaningful" ---I'm saying that I doubt that statement can be found in the reference I traced/specifed. V (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's his edit summary, that's not part of the article. Could you point at specific sentences in the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, I thought this section was about reversions to part of the article. I therefore retract any perceived complaint about Hipocrite expressing an opinion. Instead I can express a question, regarding heat production in the compressed-gas experiments (deuterium pressurized into metal): With two different ways of getting gas into metal, both types of experiment appearing to yield unexpected heat, and the "signal" is "clearer" and easier to reproduce in the pressurization method --no electric-resistance heat, no oxygen present for recombination; there is only some equivalent to "heat of solution" if the gas source is previously pressurized/cooled-- so why should the electrolysis experiments be considered uniformly flawed?

I know I have to wait for hipocrite's temporary ban to end, before he can reply to that. I doubt he has one. (I doubt Kirk Shanahan has an answer, either!) V (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fleischmann1990

I restored Abd's ban-defying edit assuming it would fix the problem with this ref not linking properly, but it doesn't. There are several broken links to Fleischmann1990 and Fleischmann 1990. Could somebody who knows how please fix this, thanks. Verbal chat 14:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this can be fixed by replacing broken references with <ref name="FleischmannPons_1990" />. I have to go now so I can't do this until tonight at the earliest. Verbal chat 14:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fix'ed. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How to get patent story NPOV?

U.S. Patents 6,248,221, 6,764,561, and several others were in fact issued on cold fusion processes. Yet the text, as it stands after those who would edit differently have been disposed of by administrative action, says that no cold fusion patents have been issued by the USPTO. Why does this article quote a minor patent office functionary contradicting the standing administrative record of her own agency? Could anything be further from NPOV? When will the persecution of those who want this article to tell both sides of the story end? Why are so many editors willing to betray foundational issues such as NPOV in pursuit of an absolutist stance on the question of whether the phenomena are real? Have the editors here made a full financial disclosure of the extent to which their and their peers' funding depends on the continued funding of traditional fusion research? Splargo (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't see it as a POV issue - at the moment it describes the situation with the US patents, and while you may argue that the description is incorrect, this doesn't then presuppose that this is a good or a bad thing. But be that as it may, it seems to me that neither of the two patents you refer to contradict the claims in the article: if I'm reading it correctly, the first describes a device for the testing of cold fusion, rather than for the production of energy, while the second describes the creation of an alloy that can be used in cold fusion experiments. Both therefore meet the utility requirements, as they don't claim to produce electricity in and of themselves. - Bilby (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's like the Yellow article saying that the assistant commissioner of trademarks once said that the trademark office doesn't issue registrations of blue trademarks. Not only is it repeating a lie, in this case it's doing so in a very biased manner because some otherwise decent editor(s) with dog(s) in the fight to various extents started throwing hissyfits about accurately conveying the state of scientific uncertainty on the subject of this article. Since when are reports on the off-hand comments of individual government employees more reliable sources than the actual government documents which the comments are about? Splargo (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are more than 250 patents at present in Dr. Britz's bibliography. Do the editors here want to be known for their familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature on the subject, or for their oratorical skill at causing and defending the bans and blacklists that characterize the administrative interventions here? Splargo (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Dr Britz's list is of patent applications, covers multiple countries, and is not limited to patents for cold fusion, but includes inventions which are used in cold fusion experimentation. The discussion here is in regard to US patents granted for cold fusion itself, and the sources supporting the reluctance of the USPTO to grant applications are pretty good. I would have thought that this is not an issue in terms of cold fusion's viability - the issue is that the patent office is unwilling to accept that cold fusion works, which doesn't speak to whether or not it does function. Indeed, I note online a degree of anger from cold fusion researchers that the patents aren't being granted. - Bilby (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Will you grant that there is a difference between a patent official being quoted in a newspaper as saying that the office is unwilling to grant such patents, and the office actually being so unwilling? I would have no objection to merely stating a reluctance on the part of an individual official, if that official's name, title, or both are included. Splargo (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

While I'm happy in principle, there's a slight issue with the source: the Washington Post only ascribes to the (then) deputy commissioner the reason for not granting patents.

"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."

Thus I'm a tad uncomfortable ascribing to Kepplinger the additional claim that the patents are refused. It does give us:

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejects any patent claiming cold fusion. Esther Kepplinger, who was the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, argued that this was a result of the same concern that prevented patents being granted for perpetual motion machines: they do not work."

which is better, I think, in that it doesn't ascribe the "they don't work" claim to the patent office. I suppose you could date the Washington Post claim - "As of 2004, the ..." or something similar, but that's getting a tad unwieldy, especially for something that wasn't that long ago; or perhaps "traditionally refused" rather than just "refused" would help (if it isn't too weaselly). - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I made a change based in your suggestion. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The reliable source criteria consider officials quoted in The Washington Post as less reliable sources about patents than the government-issued patents themselves. Splargo (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

"U.S. Patents 6,248,221, 6,764,561, and several others were in fact issued on cold fusion processes." These are patents on cold-fusion-related processes, not the combination of nuclei to form larger nuclei. The fact they have been issued does not indicate that the patent office is convinced they describe how to produce cold fusion. (Incidentally, I have no research funding and no financial stake in these issues except as a taxpayer.) Olorinish (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if what you write were pertinent or true or both, it would not change the fact that the article contains a newspaper source of an individual official contradicting the state of her agency's work product. That lie is not only in contravention of the reliable source criteria, it serves no other purpose than to advance the biased position of those who are convinced that the scientific question is settled instead of still open. If there were any secondary sources anywhere near to supporting such a resolution of the field, they would have been added a long time ago, but there can be none, because the academic literature, like the DOE panels, has remained split for two decades now. Splargo (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

So far I've yet to see any evidence that the US patent office has approved a patent on cold fusion. The claim isn't that patents related to cold fusion are denied, just that patents of cold fusion processes that produce energy are denied. That said, until there is a reliable source showing that a patent for cold fusion was granted, that claimed to be cold fusion, (as per the article) we're stuck with the basic principle of wikipedia - verifiability, not truth. The claim that the patent office refused patents on cold fusion until 2004 is verifiable. Right now, a claim showing otherwise is not. - Bilby (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that first sentence. Splargo (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I'd be fine w/just striking any mention of patents out of the article. I don't think it's very pertinent. There are probably TONS of patents for hot fusion reactors but not a single mention in the article - or any of the literature for that matter, either. Point is, this is a scientific article, not an engineering article, and certainly not a legal one. (not to say it's a crime) I don't think we need to mention anything at all about patents. Kevin Baas^talk 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article would be far superior with no mention of any patents than the blatantly false and biased swill which it now contains, but our goal is to be comprehensive, is it not? What's wrong with good, old-fashioned balance? Splargo (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Wow, hyperbole much? I don't even understand what you're saying! You seem to be contradicting yourself - do you want mention of patents removed or do you want balance? which one is it? if i couldn't understand due to sarcasm, keep in mind that sarcasm doesn't transfer well in writing. And also I believe someone just spoke strongly against using sarcasm here, when it wasn't even being used - and i believe that person was you, just now. So I hope you can see how I find this all very confusing. Kevin Baas^talk 14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your opinion now. Sorry, the hyperbole was really fogging up your message for me. Your opinion is that as it stands, the content in question is too one-sided and as such the article would be better without it, but the article could be made even better if the content was remedied to present both sides in due proportion. Now my argument is that if we did present both sides in due proportion we'd get exactly what i'm suggesting: nothing. So some guy made a very opinionated comment that really has no authoritative weight - he's not the patent arbitrator (there is none, and for good reason) - not the first time that's happened and certainly not the last. i don't see how it's really any more significant than any other squabble. As to the patents, well, they're not patents about methods of creating cold fusion, so it's really doesn't rise to that level of significance. patents on setups to test and all that, while certainly relevant, are by no means surprising. (or at least not for the reasons we are concerned w/ - that someone thinks they could make money off of it, i find surprising.) it really doesn't say anything important or interesting, IMO. Neither side seems to have anything truly interesting to say. Kevin Baas^talk 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And on a side note i'm working on a perpetual motion machine that uses wikipedia debates as a fuel source... (j/k) Kevin Baas^talk 20:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that people try to focus on improving the article instead of making sarcastic off-topic comments? Splargo (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes it is. I don't see how that was sarcastic, or to what the sarcasm would be directed at. But I do know that it was a joke. The purpose of jokes is to add levity. And it is considered good practice to joke or otherwise add levity once in a while to allay tensions in a group discussion. If you've ever been to a couple of business meetings you may have noticed this. I'm sure if one studied communication academically they'd come across it. However, when someone responds with an acerbic comment such as you did, it very much ruins it - per chance even makes things more tendentious as they were before. If this was a business meeting, that comment alone would have made everyone there very uncomfortable, and essentially turned it into a failure. Kevin Baas^talk 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you really not see how your statement could be seen as ridiculing the non-absolutist position, those of us who believe that it is the natural and proper course that debate should continue until the scientific questions are closed? What part of the definition of sarcasm do you think your statement was not? Splargo (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I am one of "[those] who believe that it is the natural and proper course that debate should continue until the scientific questions are closed". And no, I do not see how my statement could be construed that. Would i, I would certainly not write it, for i am not a fan of ridiculing myself. As to "What part of the definition of sarcasm do you think your statement was not?" - ALL parts. wikipedia defines sarcasm as "Sarcasm is the use of sharp, cutting remarks or language intended to mock, wound, or subject to contempt or ridicule." were my remarks sharp? no? cutting? no. intended to mock? no. wound? no. subject to contempt or ridicule? no. Kevin Baas^talk 18:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

People saying that the USPTO accepts cold fusion patents should read the multiple sources for that statement, including a chapter from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure the 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections (R-5) - 2100 Patentability under "II. WHOLLY INOPERATIVE INVENTIONS; "INCREDIBLE" UTILITY" which mentions both cold fusion and the Swartz case, and 2164.07 Relationship of Enablement Requirement to Utility Requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 - 2100 Patentability under "Examiner Has Initial Burden To Show That One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Reasonably Doubt the Asserted Utility" which cites the Swartz case. I also cited three books, two that deal with patents in general and one that deals with cold fusion in general, Simon's book.

Also notice that the article already says that researchers can get cold fusion patents by obfuscating references to cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that several such patents have in fact been issued by the USPTO. I am willing to compromise by removing the word "any" in your new first sentence. Is that acceptable? Splargo (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it is. Bilby has already tweaked it well. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Talking about patents is fine, but it shouldn't be used to imply that cold fusion is real. See also: patents on perpetual motion machines. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Invention Reaction

The title of this section is a bit of a play on words, because of the previous section, and because of what I actually want to talk about here, which is in the second-to-last paragraph of the "Reaction to the Announcement" section of the article. This particular sentence seems to me to have a one-word flaw in it (stressed): Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.

The flaw that I perceive has to do with the fact that if CF is happening, then the way it happens is a Natural thing, not something that Man actually causes, and therefore not an "invention". Properly, all we can do is figure out or discover the details of a Natural event. I remind you that even though we discovered nuclear fission and thought ourselves mighty clever to build reactors that used that discovery, Nature was first: Natural nuclear fission reactor. So I submit that the word "invention" should be replaced with "discovery", in that sentence. V (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the intent of the sentence is to say that it would require the invention of a new theory describing this as of yet misunderstood nuclear process. I agree that some wordsmithing is in order. (For what that's worth.) --GoRight (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I see there haven't been any other comments for a while about this. Taking into account what GoRight wrote, I propose this version of the questioned sentence: Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and, if verified, would require theory to be extended in an unexpected way. I'm choosing this phrasing because it is exactly descriptive of what happened when muon-catalysed fusion was discovered/verified. Also, it seems to me a bit rash to assume that "an entirely new nuclear process" is required to explain Cold Fusion, simply because we do not know. While I understand that at least one such has been proposed (involving a Bose-Einstein Condensate of deuterium inside palladium), in one sense even that is still an extension of existing knowledge (merely extended to encompass nuclear events) --and other proposals (such as electron catalyzed fusion) are indeed merely quite straightforward extenstions of existing knowledge. If someone could point out a CF hypothesis that is not some sort of extension of some branch of existing knowledge, I'd like to know! V (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Britz bibliography

Why is Dr. Britz's bibliography not cited or listed as an external link? Is there any reason it does not qualify as the best possible external link per WP:EL criteria? Splargo (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree, and have added it. At one time the article did have a link to Dieter Britz's bibliography. Cardamon (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Contents proximity

Why is the "Excess heat observations" section four sections away from "Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat"? Shouldn't the latter be a subsection of the former, or at least adjacent? Splargo (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

No, that's supposed to be under "nuclear products for excess heat" because that's where we are talking about the excess having a nuclear origin. And, yeah, it needs to be reorganized a bit. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref Consolidation

The references section has grown out of control, and it's nearly impossible to manage. I'm trying to consolidate the references - as of yet, I've only taken nearly sequential or nearly identical refs and compressed them (losing page numbers and the like). As a longer-term project, I'd like to discuss splitting refs - specifically, we have refs like 5, which reads "Browne 1989,Close 1992, Huizenga 1993,Taubes 1993" This could instead be split into 4 different refs, which would mean the body text would say "something"[5][6][7][8], with 5 being Browne, 6 being Close and so on. The advantage to this is that we would shrink the references count substantially (there's real overlap). The disadvantage is that the text would have a lot more references, and often the same number over and over. I find the second way easier to follow. Others? Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: If you prefer the old refs to the versions I have changed, please revert me - I won't touch them again. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I would rather they were separated out, and lower quality refs could be dropped or commented for over-referenced statements, such as Hipocrite suggests. Verbal chat 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As soon as you don't remove the page numbers from book refs.... it's not fun trying to find a fact buried in a 400 page book without a page number. If I use the same book for page 212 and for page 438 then they should be kept as separate refs somehow. For the DOE paragraph here we could use this technique that I saw at one article:

Blah blah blah blah blah.^{[7](page 115)} Blah blah.^{[7](page 212)} Blah blah blah blah blah.^{[7](page 438)[8]}

As a compromise between cleanliness and usability. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Can do. Hipocrite (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How about pp. rather than page? Less intrusive and more common in real life. Verbal chat 12:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivia question: Why is "pp" such a common abbreviation when "pg" is also common, and makes more sense? V (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I googled pp, pg, and page, and found a page saying that "p." is for a single page, while "pp." is for multiple pages. "pg." would then just be a clearer alternative to "p.". (and i suppose its plural equivalent would be "pgs."?) Kevin Baas^talk 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always seen "p." and "pp." in English. In Spanish it's always "pg." and "pgs.".

I assumed Wikipedia's MOS would specify usage for that, but to my surprise there doesn't seem to be any guidance for style in reference sections. At any rate, in the style manuals I'm familiar with, the standard usage is "p." and "pp." Woonpton (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's from the Latin paginae (pagina (n.) The surface of a leaf or of a flattened thallus.), p. singular, pp. plural. So know we know! Verbal chat 16:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Logically, therefore, "pg" should be used in the article, since most of the page references will be to a single page (even if it is only the first of several). That is, "pg 108" vs "pp 108-112" --if the overall idea is to save some space, then "pg" it must be. V (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Or p. or pp., as appropriate. I'd prefer this, but it's not a big deal.Verbal chat 17:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree; not a big deal (esp. if goal is to abbreviate stuff; "p" is better than "pg"). On another hand, the above research reveals that "p" and "pp" are Latin, and this is not the Latin-language version of Wikipedia, heh! (just kidding around. I vote we use "p" exclusively, and never worry about how many pages a particular reference may involve; just specify the first of the bunch. That is, "p 108" and never "pp 108-112" ) V (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"p" and "pp" are pretty much standard, as is defining the range of pages being used. Given that the citation templates take care of this, (as per LeadSongDog) I don't see why we should use just "p". It isn't significantly more difficult to use the standard approach, and there's no pressing reason to do otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The cite and citation templates all generate the form: William Shakespeare, Compleate Workes, pp. 1012–13, 1015 which complies with WP:MOS.LeadSongDog come howl 18:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I used the {{rp}} template, as suggest in my talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

need help with sources

Can someone with a subscription to these magazines open them and send me a copy of the text by email? (I'm trying to get better sources for the patent section in the article, and I would like to use these) Nature[6] Science[7][8][9]. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, although I couldn't access one Science article, as it was outside of the database's range. - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

SPAWAR neutrons but not charged particles?

Why does this article discuss SPAWAR's detection of neutrons but not their detection of charged particles? Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Gordon FE (2007) Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd–D lattice: emission of charged particles. Naturwissenschaften 94:511–514 ?