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.

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)

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)

Well, I've applied the change to the article. V (talk) 14:27, 6 July 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[2] Science[3][4][5]. --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 ?

I found its erratum amusing: [6] Navy Physics Geek (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Because, unlike the neutron detection, the charged particle detection wasn't reported by lots of mainstream new news sources including popular science magazines, and didn't appear in an ACS press release. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to mainstream "new" sources or mainstream "news" sources? I was under the impression that peer reviewed literature was considered more reliable than news stories or press releases. If that is not the case, please let me know where it's documented. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "news". You should know that one paper in a journal is nice, but it's not nice if there is no reply from other scientists, and if other sources say that the field is fringe. The reason is that, like the neutron detection paper, this is a primary source, and we can't really know what impact it has had in the field until it get replies or it starts being cited, or some scientific magazine comments on its impact. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The SPAWAR charged particle detection paper is discussed in Kalman P, Keszthelyi T, Kis D (Dec. 2008) Solid state modified nuclear processes, EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL-APPLIED PHYSICS, vol. 44(3) pp. 297-302. This is the abstract:

It is theoretically shown that an attractive effective potential is generated via optical phonon exchange between two quasi-free, different particles in deuterated Pd which, in turn, enhances the probability of their nuclear fusion reaction. Mechanisms that may be responsible for extra heat production and nuclear isomer formation are also discussed. Creation of 4 He pairs due to the significantly increased probability of the p + Li-7 -> 2(4)He + 17.35 MeV and d + Li-6 -> 2 4 He + 22.37 MeV nuclear reactions is predicted. Some of the basic questions of fusion reactions in solids seem to be successfully explained.

The theory paper cited in SPAWAR's erratum (Widom A, Larsen L (Apr. 2006) Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces, EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C, vol. 46(1) pp. 107-111) is cited in Hagelstein PL, Chaudhary IU (2008) Electron mass shift in nonthermal systems, JOURNAL OF PHYSICS B-ATOMIC MOLECULAR AND OPTICAL PHYSICS, vol. 41(12) and the April 10, 2008 Current Science by Krivit. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hum, can someone familiar with these journals comment on this? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the term 'ultra-low momentum' is applied to the neutrons postulated by Widom and Larsen (W-L). This means they are extremely reactive, very very high cross section for reaction in the solid state. That means that essentially none will escape at all, and this fact is noted in the W-L article cited above. That means that the 'neutrons' supposedly observed by the SPAWAR group _disprove_ the W-L theory. Further, the W-L theory does not say anything specific about charged particle generation, it predicts transmutations in the solid state which may lead to tritium and He formation in some cases. However, they point out they are not excluding anything by making that prediction. In other words if someone can come up with a nuclear decay chain initiated by a neutron capture event that would emit charged particles, they would love it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the source allegedly claiming that SPAWAR results disprove Widom-Larsen theory. The SPAWAR group is clearly under the impression that W-L is the most congruent theory to their experiments. There are still transitions which are not yet clear, but those exist in standard physics as well, which is why we are always building bigger accelerators, so that we can fill in those blanks.

And the stated criteria that all three of the works in question (neutron detection, charged particle detection, and congruent theory) have been discussed in other peer-reviewed literature has been met for half a year now. I should point out that EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C and JOURNAL OF PHYSICS B are two of the most reputable physics journals. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

arbcom case on banning from this page

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#William_M._Connolley_.282nd.29 --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

New article

Dated July 15 in "New Scientist" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.100-interview-fusion-in-a-cold-climate.html V (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)