Talk:Cold fusion

IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss your personal opinions of the merits of cold fusion research. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about cold fusion and the associated scientific controversy surrounding it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

This article was the subject of mediation during 2009 at User_talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion.

Widom-Larsen Process

NASA Langley Chief Scientists Dennis Bushnell who is cited in this article, has stated he believes that LENR is a form of "Widom-Larsen" nuclear process. The Wikipedia does not have any article on this process, I propose that one should be added. Charles (talk)

Dear POVBrigand, Greetings , thanks for removing my citation on Cold Fusion with a reference to PESN saying it is not RS. Please help me understand which sources are RS and which are not. For example, in this google search I have found 155,000 alternative references to Bushnell citing Widom-Larsen as the energy behind eCat. Which if any of these would you say is a "RS"? Thanks.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=cpsugrstla&cp=21&gs_id=2a&xhr=t&q=bushnell+widom+larsen&tok=pHip_hYJPWvTKdEmzWxjPA&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=bushnell+widom+larsen&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=7a815af5c44e7640&biw=1146&bih=622

Charles (talk)

objections

Enric Naval didn't agree with any of my contributions, the edit summary reads: "undo all the POV pushing by 84.xxx still considered pathological, still pursued only by small groups, Jones' experiment is was not "similar", *they* said that it could only be explained by nuclear reactions"

He also warned me on my talk page.[1] It seems a bit premature but he did disagree with all of them so I suppose it was appropriate from his perspective. I would much rather just debate the suggested changes. I did try to make sepperate changes in order to make it easier to revert those that require more discussion.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I welcome your enthusiasm, but I also think that some of your changes are a bit too pushy. Take it a bit slower and stay within the consensus.

Thank you for taking the time to present each change here so we can comment them one by one.

Why don't you get an account ? POVbrigand (talk)

Should we name the several entrepreneurs or just say they exist

[2] "Several entrepreneurs have claimed in the past that a working cold fusion energy generator is near to commercialization, yet so far no working machine is available on the market."

I added the "who" part. I claim this is perfectly appropriate because the text only talks about the E-Cat. Reverting this requires a better excuse than to call it POV pushing.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What we write should be verifiable. It is not a must to write down each verification. Surely you won't argue that several entrepreneurs have indeed claimed that they had a working machine. Adding them into the article (maybe somewhere else) is something that we can discuss. POVbrigand (talk)

The tag is arguibly correct. Tags like {{who}} and {{clarify}} are just requests to clarify confusing stuff. Physics world (free registration) explains the case of Petterson cells. Park explains it too in Voodoo Science. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues section violates scope

[3] I changed the section title from:

"issues"

into:

"Issues with the Pons and Fleischmann experiment"

While not a very elegant solution it appeared to me that all those sections apply to the Pons and Fleischman experiment. This is not the whole scope of the article.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this (even if not very elegant) will solve some of the problems of discussing old and new stuff. It adds clarity. POVbrigand (talk)

The issues apply to the whole field, not just the first experiment: why the fusion shouldn't be happening in the lattice, what byproducts should be observed according to theory, etc.

I will amend that somewhat. Because one of the issues is whether or not any CF experiment can actually produce so much anomalous energy that it cannot be explained without invoking a nuclear reaction. If that issue happens to one day get resolved positively --as far as I can tell, it is the most important issue that CF researchers should be focusing on-- then the theorists can argue the other issues regarding overcoming nuclear Coulomb repulsion, reaction pathways, and byproducts. V (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose we go through the Issues section and explicitly state when the issues were raised and when the "issues" were debunked. I don't know how, but we need to add clarity for the casual WP-reader. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

DOE decided to leave research to undefined small group

[4] This should probably have been split over more divs.

I reduce 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 enough to start a special program, but was "sympathetic toward modest support" for experiments "within the present funding system." A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first."

Down to this:

"In 1989, and in 2004, the US Department of Energy (DOE) considered a special cold fusion program."

This is all they did. They considered researching it. It isn't even note worthy to be honest. I'm sure you wonder why, let me explain: The US DOE has an enormous budget. Cold fusion was not even significant enough to build one cell. To then jump to the conclusion they investigated the topic is nonsense.

DOE dismissal is non significant. While the sources may not be used many researchers attempted to contact the DOE in a fruitless effort to inform them. I will try find good sources but I think my motivation is clear? While I understand it might appear that way, it has nothing to do with my POV, I'm only interested in accuracy. Feel free to add 100 skeptics who actually tried to build a cell and transcribe exactly what they concluded. It wouldn't bother me at all. No actual work was done by the DOE. They chose not to.84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Symantics: "they considered" might be read as "they proposed". I don't support your change here. POVbrigand (talk)

removing the negative parts of the DOE review. Then you added the work of a group of scientists that happen to work in SPAWAR, as if it had been promoted by SPAWAR. And implying that the SPAWAR experiment revokes the DOE conclusions (and using a press release a go against the DOE report). And again trying to imply that the new experiments are wholly unrelated to F&P's experiment. I think that people in the talk page are asking you for sources for that change. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In the same edit I changed this: "A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion" into this "Researchers continue to investigate cold fusion."

We have no credible source for "small". What does small mean in this context anyway? Illustration: http://www.iccf11.org/index2.htm they might look small on your monitor, they are big names in science and they are many. You want to source "small" on this:[5] and this:[6] It looks to me like the sources only confirm there is actual research. The word "small" isn't on any of the pages. Small also suggests there is some appropriate size for such research effort? If the effect is that small we shouldn't expect large numbers of investigations? Are you suggesting there is a big effect?

It should be obvious removing it was not based on my POV. I actually bothered to open all those pages. What is actually going on is that the negative side of the argument has no sources (the small part) while the positive side (the research exists) is completely stuffed with them. If there is any unjust POV that would be it. I removed the unsourced part. If this means cold fusion now looks like something real then that would be something you will have to get used to. I'm very obviously just trying to write things as they are reported. No harm was done.

I do understand it might look that way. Just so that you know ;) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The "ongoing scientific work" section is hopelessly underdeveloped. But the community is small and we should state that. POVbrigand (talk)

Implying that it continues to be researched by a non-small group, against sources. [sources] don't say the word "small", because "a small community" is an attempt at summarizing them. It's not a word-by-word copy of one of the sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

heat after death

[7] here I change this:

"By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,<ref name="Browne_1989" /><ref name="most scientists">{{harvnb|Taubes|1993|pp=262, 265–266, 269–270, 273, 285, 289, 293, 313, 326, 340–344, 364, 366, 404–406}}, {{harvnb|Goodstein|1994}}, {{harvnb|Van Noorden|2007}}, {{harvnb|Kean|2010}}</ref> and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as [[pathological science]].<ref name="nytdoe">"

into this:

"By late 1989, many scientists considered cold fusion research [[pathological science]].<ref name="Browne_1989" /><ref name="most scientists">{{harvnb|Taubes|1993|pp=262, 265–266, 269–270, 273, 285, 289, 293, 313, 326, 340–344, 364, 366, 404–406}}, {{harvnb|Goodstein|1994}}, {{harvnb|Van Noorden|2007}}, {{harvnb|Kean|2010}}</ref><ref name="nytdoe">"

I wouldn't know why but if those should really be 2 separate statements the pathology should come before death. Maybe it is a bad idea to describe a controversial topic with a controversial term without attribution? May 3, 1989 Dr. Douglas R. O. Morrison said it was an example of pathological science[8]. The "subsequently" chronology doesn't work. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, after late 1989 cold fusion was considered dead, what happened after that until today was perceived as "dragging on" pathological science. I like the original way better. POVbrigand (talk)

Implying that CF was only considered pathological science by late 1989, against the sources in the paragraph (which are more recent than 1989). And implying by extension that it no longer is considered pathological. Also weakening the sentence by changing "most" to "many", against what sources say.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to explain what pathological refers to in this context. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, it's no use. Pathological science as a label was already discredited. It's a useless label. BUT, it is attached to cold fusion and that's a fact. So we report it here in the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Jones faxed the paper to Nature

[9] I inserted: "In 1980, Dr. Steven E. Jones used a similar device, he did not claim excess energy was produced. But more neutrons were detected than could be expected from normal sources."

"Realizing their work was very similar, Jones and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day, March 24, 1989. However, P&F announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature." - Ludwik Kowalski (3/5/04)Department of Mathematical Sciences Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043[10]

Removing that bit was clearly vandalism Enric. :) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The "truth" is somewhere in the middle and we should be careful with the wording POVbrigand (talk)

under Cold_fusion#Repulsion_forces you can see an explanation of why Muon-catalyzed fusion is not relevant. This makes it look as if F&P's experiment was replicated by Jones. Jones' experiment is accepted by mainstream science as a correctly performed experiment with results that can be explained by current theory, as is accepted as replicated successfully. The NYT calls them similar, but more reliable sources that give more in-depth explanations. And, yes, as POVbringand says, there are a lot of caveats there. -unsigned by enric

It's a poor argument:

• Muon-catalyzed fusion is a LENR.

• This article is about LENR.

• This article is not about Pons and Fleishmann, they have their own articles.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

uninteresting

[11] here I change: "and Stanley Pons in 1989 that they had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium."

into: "and Stanley Pons in 1989 that they had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") that would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes and that they measured small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium."

I thought that was an improvement.

In the original paper Fleischman says: "...the bulk of the energy released is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes"[12]

It is a matter of taste, I liked my own version better. I don't think it really makes enough difference to justify a debate. If you see something wrong with it I don't really want to hear about it. Just revert it. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the original version better. We should keep it POVbrigand (talk)

F&P said that it could only be explained by nuclear processes. Other said that it could be explained by flawed measurements, contamination, overlooked chemical reactions, unaccounted inputs, etc. Other cell exploded in other lab[13], and a investigation concluded that it was a chemical reaction (I think this appears in Huizenga). I think our article doesn't say it, but F&P thought that it could only be nuclear because of the explosion of a cell during one night. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - but I like the original version better too. It makes it crystal clear that Pons claims that this result can only be the result of nuclear processes - where the second version can easily be read as if it is an established fact that the result that Pons obtained can only be nuclear in nature. Since that is absolutely not the case, we need to keep that clarification from the first version. SteveBaker (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear technology in the wild?

Many countries keep reactor research under strict government control and classification. The denial around cold fusion seems to allow for it to freely exist in the wild. The way I see it the excess heat may or may not be a nuclear reaction. That seems a reasonable position to take? Even if you want to argue the excess heat to most likely be a measurement error you can not fully disprove all probability for it to be a nuclear effect. If that happens one day, how will they put the jinn back into the bottle?

Is there anything to be said about this in the article? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

no, the personal OR from editors is no good for wikipedia --POVbrigand (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Idea!

If the problem is a lack of heat to breach the seal, why don't they used stabilized thermite to get the heat reaction?

--XXDFliyerzXx —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

FYI about why cold fusion can't possibly work

By way of background, I have 13 patents in fuel cells. I haven’t even read Wikipedia’s “Fuel cell” article because it would be so frustrating to find total garbage written by 16-year-old I.P.s who read in Popular Mechanics that by the year 2014, 20% of American automobiles will be powered by fuel cells. After all—the 16-year-old would argue—Popular Mechanics is an RS and it was obvious from the article that they got their information from Ballard back in 1997. Well… none of that changes the fact that this kind of misinformation has been promulgated by fuel cell companies looking for their next government grant and your average *science* magazine that is suitable for placement next to Turbo Hondas on the magazine rack has editors who just regurgitate claims with abandon. Now…

Platinum and palladium both absorb huge amounts of hydrogen. But first, they atomize and then ionize the hydrogen; which is to say, they break the diatomic hydrogen molecule into individual hydrogen atoms, and then they ionize (strip off the electron), which now becomes a mobile conduction electron in the metal. The proton is now imbedded in the atomic interstitials of the metal. This phenomenon is central not only to fuel cells (their catalyst works that way) and hydrogen storage, but also to membrane separators used in reformers; hydrogen goes across a thin foil of platinum and the carbon dioxide remains behind. It is also the phenomenon underlying hydrogen embrittlement.

There is no way in the world you could get two protons to crowd together into the same interstitial where they would allow themselves to be squeezed together; they are repelling each other and too quickly escape. It would be *pretty* indeed to hope that an interstitial might act like a hammer-forging machine and let in entire hydrogen atoms (complete with their electrons) and the interstitial mauls away at the atoms by ionizing them (allowing the electrons to become mobile conduction electrons) and that this phenomenon would now leave behind the electrically opposing protons, which could be crushed together. After all, cracks and lattice defects would provide sufficient room for a gigantic complete hydrogen atom (that is something like 99.999% empty space) to squeeze into defects. But once you finally ionized the atoms, the protons would “see” each other and repel each other far, far faster than 300 kelvin metal can do anything about it.

Just judging from the picture of the experiment, 20 kelvins extra temperature in that apparatus had to have been the result of something like 2–8 extra watts (guessing). Indeed, the neutron flux—if that heat had been the result of fusion—would have killed Fleischmann and Pons before they could tell anyone about their discovery. So now proponents of cold fusion are advancing unknown nuclear phenomenon as permitting cold fusion to still be responsible for the excess heat. Wishing fervently for something because it is *pretty to think so* is not science; it is faith: a belief that is not based on proof. And faith is not science. In the late 1700s, scientists were called “naturalists”. The equivalent of France’s Einstein at the time was called “the great French naturalist…”. The moniker was used because naturalists endeavored to explain the world around us in terms of natural phenomenon, without invoking supernatural phenomenon.

And so it is with cold fusion; its believers would have the world believe that several watts of excess heat can be the product of fusion—only it is a *new* kind of fusion unfamiliar with nuclear physicists that doesn’t kill people with neutrons and darn near turn them into a pillar of salt by looking at it. If you have to hold hands, close your eyes, and fervently wish for pleasant outcomes that flout known science, then it doesn’t even rise to the level of Carl Sagan’s saying: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; it is just plain non-science. Something was responsible for the excess heat. But jumping to the conclusion that it is cold fusion is akin to saying “I saw unfamiliar lights in the night sky; it must be interstellar aliens.”

I very much hope that the *believers* (POV-pushers in wiki-parlance) are kept at arms length from this article. Greg L (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This is all your OR, we don't need any of that on WP even on talk pages. Go publish a book and be happy. Cheers --POVbrigand (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's marvelous, Greg L, well-written and plain as day. I'm glad you wrote it, even though it does not conform to talk page guidelines and cannot be used in the article. I agree wholeheartedly that this article cannot be an unlimited playground for cold fusion promoters. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Greg will just have to write down his genious theory in a peer reviewed paper and publish it in Nature or Science. ENEA and NASA and SPAWAR will surely notice and it will be a complete eye opener to them. My goodness, how could those renowned institutions ever have thought that cold fusion could be real, when Greg here knew all along that it _just can't possibly work_. Greg, joking aside, in your thoughts here, did you differentiate between "cold fusion" and LENR or is it all the same to you ? --POVbrigand (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Binksternet for your kind response. You saw my post as I intended it. Allow me to explain what stimulated my sudden interest here. I saw an improper edit to this article made by an I.P. who could find his or her way to a Starbucks in Hartford. I thought I’d post a reality-check to flesh out who “had religion” on this voodoo and was active here… interesting.

  In response to your first post here, POVbrigand: I know full well what I wrote is O.R. and isn’t suitable for putting into the article; I hadn’t intended any of it for inclusion in the article and I don’t think any reasonable-minded editor interpreted it that way. It was a call for keeping *those with great faith* at bay so the article is grounded in science. As I wrote, plain as day there at the end, I very much hope that the *believers* (POV-pushers in wiki-parlance) are kept at arms length from this article. Now…

  If anyone needs help here (Binksternet?) with the POV-pushers intent on spreading the *religion* of cold fusion, let me know. I can help establish a consensus that is properly grounded in Wikipedia’s Five Pillars and its requirements for RSs so we cut to the chase and less time is wasted trying to argue with those who push voodoo science. One of the tricks these POV-pushers resort to is to write the equivalent of Cold fusion was shown to have been consistent with the findings and *cite* some peer-reviewed journal but when one actually reads the monograph, it says no such thing; which amounts to lies (or exceedingly poor understanding of science) masquerading as truth. I can help sleuth-out suspected instances of this stunt.

  I want to make sure that Wikipedia best serves our readership. Thanks for the interesting responses and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg L, there is a way that I think you can help here: read the whole article with a fresh eye, and determine if the article properly conveys the extreme skepticism and/or dismissal that fusion experts and virtually all other physicists have for cold fusion. I have been trying to keep that aspect of the article accurate for years now, but I worry that I have been too close to this article for too long to really answer that question. Olorinish (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Olorinish. The article is painful to read. I’ve looked at all parts of it up to the pain threshold and intently focused on some areas. It looks clearly like the wikiproduct of a battleground subject, like our “Race and intelligence” article. It reminds me of Irving Berlin’s “Anything You Can Do” song (♬♩“Yes I caaaan!” “No you can’t!” “Yes I caaaan!” ♬♩). It has a Flesch reading ease of only 16.7% and at 8500 words in the body text, is too lengthy. Over and over it has been amply demonstrated that Fleischmann and Pons made numerous errors in their assumptions and measurements. It’s a very simple experiment and after 22 years, people would be making thousands of watts if there was any merit to it. The article is in sore need of a total rewrite to make it worth a crap as an encyclopedic bit of technical writing. Greg L (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg, you didn't answer my question, do you differentiate between "cold fusion" and LENR. Other question: Do you know who Robert Duncan is ? --POVbrigand (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

POVbrigand (I like that screen name), cold fusion adherents *have religion*. There are 3000 religions in this world. All, to one extent or another, think their’s is the most correct one and the others are in error to one extent or another. Whole classes of some religions are wildly at odds with other classes of religions, where they are convinced that the others’ prophet(s) were false ones. That’s quite a difference, don’t you think? Logically, these mutually exclusive differences mean that at least 2999 religions are in error. As a naturalist, I’ve found that religion doesn’t even offer up clear guidance on morality issues. For instance, I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Strangely, the police won’t stop by to kill him. (*sigh*)

If religion stopped at matters of morality and philosophy, that might be OK in my book, but religion also treads into science and there are well-meaning religious adherents who think the earth, having been created October 23, 4004 B.C., is precisely Template:Delimitnum days old (← that number updates daily if you want to bookmark this page). I’ve found it is pointless trying to point any of this out to believers with faith; it’s like trying to teach a pig to sing: one only wastes their time and annoys the pig. Why? Because their positions are non‑falsifiable, which is frustrating from a *scientist’s* (naturalists) point of view. Cold fusion might as well be lumped into religion because their arguments too are non‑falsifiable; thus making that 3001 religions on this pale blue dot. Now that I’m done with soap‑boxing about pathological science (as the song goes: a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest), allow me to address your *challenge* to me…

You asked me if I know who Robert Duncan©™® is (honestly, a mental image of a dog with its tail wagging came to mind with that). I am exceedingly pleased to respond, “F--k no, and proud of it.” So I just now googled his name and stopped at the first site that wasn’t Wikipedia (*queue “eye rolling” clip from B‑roll*) or (literally) Cold Fusion Now-dot-com, and looked at this blog about the fellow, where there were individuals who seemed to be less-than-impressed with His Highness Of Cold Fusion. As for what “LENR” means, it’s just one of the many—as Sarah Palin might say—*sciency*-sounding pseudonyms to avoid saying “cold fusion”; an effort to put lipstick on a pig and pass it off as a prom date.

And, speaking of “His Highness Of Cold Fusion,” how about Irving Dardik? Have you heard of him? He literally wrote the book with his “Irving Dardik and His Superwave Principle,” which is a system of treating diseases using wave form technology, which he called "supersonant waveenergy" His system basically involved exercise techniques that were designed to modulate the cardiac rhythms in order to amplify the bodies natural wave frequencies to fight disease. He lost his medical license in 1995 after the medical board found he was engaged in “quackery.” Now he is *into* cold fusion. As the Church Lady on SNL might say: “Well, isn’t that just *extra* special.” Greg L (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard about Irving Dardik. Ask Robert Duncan what he thinks about Irving Dardik's work. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Does it amount to “Irving equals ‘poopy’; me smart smart smart”? Inquiring minds want to know. Greg L (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost like that, read the sources, it's great fun --POVbrigand (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg, I appreciate your intent in noting for future editors that the original claims regarding cold fusion, if true, would have falsified a substantial amount of established science, and would thus have required very substantial evidence in support. It's also appropriate that you have noted that your views, whilst in line with mainstream scientific thought, are not directly usable on the article without reliable sources, etc, and thus that you were not proposing any direct change. Unfortunately, I suggest that some of your posts since then, and also comments from POVbrigand, have wandered away from anything which would typically be considered allowed talk page discussion. This topic is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which provide broad discretion for an admin to take unilateral action, and on this topic over-zealous action is not unknown. Thus, I strongly suggest to you both that if you want to continue a robust and frank discussion of cold fusion and LENRs, etc, that you move it to one of your own talk pages, where the potential for an abrupt termination of the discussion is much reduced. And No, I am not an admin and this is not a threat, merely some advice from a fellow editor. Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for the heads-up on how chronic misbehavior and BATTLEGROUND mentality lead to ArbCom babysitting of this article to ride herd on POV-pushers. Sometimes candid discussion is required to fix screwed up articles like this one and that’s why I weighed in as I did: to better serve the interests of our readership.

  Olorinish reached out to my overtures here (as an outsider with a WTF? reaction) and invited me to take a fresh read of this article and weigh in and state my opinion. He recognized the opportunity here to better serve the interests of our readership via the infusion of new blood to this article. And what about my opinion(?)…

  It’s clear to me that because of the persistent tug of war between enthusiasts and realists, the article has a palpable But this appeared like positive evidence (no it didn’t)‑look to it. That eroded this article and makes it appear substandard; it looks nothing at all like proper, encyclopedic technical writing crafted in a linear and coherent manner. Moreover, with a Flesch reading ease of only 16.7%, it is far too abstruse for a general-interest encyclopedia. There are terrible examples of launching straight into specialists symbology and terminology without proper introduction, such as Considerable attention has been given to measuring ⁴He production. A proper introduction to such concepts would introduce these things and explain that Helium‑4 is an isotope (a variety of an element with a different number of neutrons) before launching straight into symbols of chemical elements with a superscripted prefix. And with 8500 words in the body text, it is too lengthy. Moreover, entries in the citations and the bibliography have expired and much of it doesn’t really appear to be true RSs. The article, in short, needs a major redo.

  Given the difficulties of trying to revise this article from scratch, on‑line in real time, I’d suggest that the shepherding authors start a sandbox version (perhaps Talk:Cold fusion/New version) and work on it there for a few weeks and then post it to “Cold fusion”. Greg L (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

  
  P.S. FYI, my above post has a Flesch reading ease of 43.3%. If I delete that xt-text sentence with the ⁴He production in it, then my above post has a Flesch reading ease of 45.2%. That’s as low as a Flesch score should go, IMHO, for Wikipedia. A score of 16.7% is ridiculous. Greg L (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Looking at improving article

Greg, I was around when the case happened, and ArbCom intervention has certainly calmed things down, certainly once Abd was banned. I'm a scientist and well aware that the article is in dire need of improvement, I just became disillusioned long ago and would hate to see more santions here. Your points about Flesch reading ease are, in my view, entirely appropriate for talk page discussion - perhaps you might start a thread on that point? As for the back-and-forth in the article, unfortunately most scientists long ago gave up on this field so there is not any comprehensive and credible review article that would allow alot of the individual papers to be bypassed and a summary included. Without such a review to trump the inclusion of every claim I fear the battleground will continue as polite POV pushing remains an insoluble wiki-problem. EdChem (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's right. There are exhaustive reviews from 1989 to 199~ explaining why CF won't work, but proponents claim that they are outdated. Individual experiments get propped up as conclusive breakthroughs, then they are never heard of again, and a new claim gets propped up. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also "Famous scientist X said in an interview that CF research is promising", which I can only describe as a celebrity endorsement. CF is already endorsed by two Nobel laurate (Julian Schwinger) and Brian Josephson). As shown by Schwinger's example, getting endorsements from famous scientists doesn't mean that CF experiments are suddenly more replicable, the theories more correct, or the field more accepted by scientists. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is you're telling Nature what it can or can't do. Check your ego, bud. Nature doesn't give 2 s**t's what the entire universe has to say about it, nonetheless the tiny speck we call man. Tell it all you want, it doesn't take orders from ANYBODY! Which, BTW, is why these tiny specs invented what they call "science". Kevin Baas^talk 20:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And want to know what else can't possibly work? Electrons orbiting around protons! It's a complete violation of Newtonian physics. According to everything we know about Newtonian physics, they should just run right into the protons and neutralize in a matter of femtoseconds, annihilating all of electromagnetic force as we know it before the light from nearest atom skims the lens of our eye. Strangely, that hasn't happened yet. Kevin Baas^talk

This is going south quickly. Time to stop the thread as it is not helping the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Binksternet, the discussion hasn’t quite risen to the level of disruption; it just needs to be steered on track.

  Quoting Enric Naval [EdChem]: …unfortunately most scientists long ago gave up on this field so there is not any comprehensive and credible review article that would allow alot of the individual papers to be bypassed and a summary included. Enric [EdChem] speaks of how there are “not any comprehensive and credible review article(s).” This state of affairs—if true—puts mere wikipedians in the position of practicing their hand at being a science journal editor, where wikipedians are chasing our tails arguing about the meaning of science papers; that’s not properly within the purview of mere wikipedians on issues this complex and controversial.

  I suspect there are some high-level review articles by well-accepted, most-reliable, secondary RSs to which Wikipedia can look. I don’t have time to dig it up at the moment, but I seem to recall yesterday reading an article in The New York Times (or something like that) where they were writing of an Energy Department official who sort of <blinked> and said “I didn’t know anyone credible was pursuing that stuff anymore.”

  I suggest we consider scaling back the scope of this article (atomic-level details of “ ⁴He production” and what it purportedly means) and limit the scope of this article to the confines of the overviews of the secondary RSs in this subject. We have to agree that “dueling Jr. Einsteins” doesn’t work; we end up with the standard Wikipedia flaw endemic to some of our science-related articles, where editors plop abstruse lingo on pages partly to impress his or her wiki‑peers (“See, I’m fluent with parsing the lingo in science papers and am not some mook of a wikipedian but am *special and smart*.”) We take our desires to push a POV and subordinate ourselves to the secondary RSs; they must be out there.

  I suggest we re-visit the question as to whether there really aren’t any proper summary materials by most-reliable secondary RSs upon which we can build a better (streamlined and far less abstruse) article that reads like proper, encyclopedic technical writing crafted in a linear and coherent manner (without the “dueling banjos”-effect). That will, IMHO, better serve the interests of our readership. Greg L (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg, I think you are actually quoting me, at least in part. Also, I'd be pleased to see a reliable recent review published in a reputable journal by an objective scientist, but I've not seen any evidence of such existing. The only recent reviews I've seen discussed here are comparatively uncritical summaries by cold fusion / LENR researchers and appear written for the insular CF/LENR community. EdChem (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I’m sorry for attributing that to someone else. I struck and revised. Awwe… shucks. I must say that after a bit of searching myself, I am rather surprised at the dearth of comprehensive summaries of cold fusion by highly respected secondary RSs. I found “When Scientists Sin” by Scientific American, which quotes a colleague of Richard Feynman at Caltech, David Goodstein. They wrote Other cases are not so clear. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons’s “discovery” of cold fusion, Goodstein concludes, was most likely a case of scientists who “convince themselves that they are in the possession of knowledge that does not in fact exist.” This self-deception is distinctly different from deliberate deception. But there is no scientific detail in the article. I can see why this article has become a battleground for wikipedians out to promote their favorite author and source. Greg L (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits to lede

[14]

Explanation:

• LENR is not a common term for cold fusion. We keep it out of the lede, but mention it in the article as a proponent acronym.
• Over-focus on experiments/hypothesis in the first paragraph was unneeded. Cold fusion is claimed fusion at room temperatures and FP were the famous example (and, essentially, the reason the article exists).
• Calling Fleishmann a "leading" electrochemist is a violation of WP:PEACOCK.
• Claiming "They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium." is a violation of WP:WEIGHT as well as unnecessarily technical. They were made famous for their claims of excess heat. "Further reports" were interesting wrinkles on the story but not lede-worthy.
• Claims that cold fusion papers do not receive as much "scrutiny" as other papers is an opinion that was inappropriately stated as a fact.
• Claims that "many scientists aren't even aware that there is new research" need to be corroborated by saying WHICH scientists aren't aware if that's something we want to say. Even so, it's not lede-worthy.
• Listing institutional funding of research is misleading. The funding characteristics of these places are not public knowledge nor are they found in the sources cited. We don't know whether the researchers there are receiving grants to research cold fusion specifically or other ideas more generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That all seems reasonable to me. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MIT

In this edit a new user has claimed (without a reference) that MIT is now teaching a course on cold fusion. Evidence offered was basically "contact MIT". I have reverted, I consider that any such claim (even if article-worthy) would need to be supported by an included reliable source. I am posting here as I accidentally hit the enter key while typing my rationale in the edit summary and I wanted the reason for my revert to be recorded. Anyone have any comment / criticism? EdChem (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. The red-letter editor who made that edit left an edit summary reading “Contact MIT for the full details.” (∆ edit, here), which is not a proper citation to an RS. MIT’s courses listed under Nuclear Science and Engineering, Spring 2012 doesn’t mention anything related to cold fusion that I can see. It would be difficult indeed for MIT to fill classes if they don’t make it easier for students to know it exists. Greg L (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought you would just contact MIT for confirmation. Here you go: Start 2012 with Cold Fusion 101 - A new short course on cold fusion science and technology sponsored by the Engineering and Computer Science departments at Massachusetts Institute of Technology will be held in January 2012. Designed for MIT students, Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments addresses the early history of cold fusion science. Please do some research and contact MIT, ask them why it isn't listed in web based course curriculum. Perhaps they are rushing to catch up with others who are publishing papers on the (MIT recognized) science of cold fusion and low energy nuclear reactions. Perhaps it is offered in an interdepartmental newsletter. This red-letter editor now edits his confirmation request: Contact the Engineering and Computer Science Departments at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (talk to them) ask if the editor of this Wikipedia Article could attend the class in preparation for a re-write of this article. "Cold Fusion: Is it a Science or a Pseudo-Science". MIT seems to stand on both side of the fence and has for a long time. Now with their first class offered on the "history of cold fusion science" (they charge money for the class) they are making money on the science of cold fusion. Therefore Wikipedia statements of cold fusion as a pseudo-science referenced to MIT, or MIT reports influencing the Department of Energy in this matter, should be moved to Historical footnotes titled "Immature Initial Analysis Falsely Classifies Cold Fusion a Pseudo-Science" Ask the professors teaching the course at MIT if they would object my suggestion. This Science has hundreds of peer reviewed articles published, hundreds of replicated experiments, accepted theories that explain and predict the occurrence of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions taking place in laboratories, nature, and other observed phenomenon which have not been understood. This article should reflect that this is now an accepted science in, its infancy, understanding developing at a rapid rate, with a hypothetical potential for rapid commercialization. Leave the hypothetical out of it till it happens, let's stick with that Wikipedia Rule, but please bring this article up to date. The idea to attend the MIT class and than rewrite the article is a sound one. I bet my reputation they would allow you to attend it for free... energy! Ha ha.... just trying a bit of humor there... sorry this is meant to be a serious academic discussion forum. Is it?

I am a self taught person 53 years old, left high school after my first year, went to community college for an early childhood development certificate and a certificate for elder care in the activities departments of nursing homes. I began studying this in July and am appalled at how out of date, or better expressed, is the POV of this article that this is a pseudo-science. Frankly it has that "flavor" all over it. This articles flavor should reflect our knowledge to date. Cold Fusion/LENR is an interdisciplinary Science with significant contribution from branches of nano physics, quantum physics, harmonic cavitation, wave mechanics of light and electro-magnetic frequencies, and magnetic field effects on micro particles. The folks at MIT will help clarify this much better than I. Of that I'm sure.

–Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A friend just sent me the MIT link: http://student.mit.edu/iap/nc9.html

Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments

Peter Hagelstein

Mon-Fri, Jan 23-27, 30-31, 11am-12:30pm, 4-145, 1/30 class meets in 4-149

No enrollment limit, no advance sign up

Excess power production in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment; lack of confirmation in early negative experiments; theoretical problems and Huizenga's three miracles; physical chemistry of PdD; electrochemistry of PdD; loading requirements on excess power production; the nuclear ash problem and He-4 observations; approaches to theory; screening in PdD; PdD as an energetic particle detector; constraints on the alpha energy from experiment; overview of theoretical approaches; coherent energy exchange between mismatched quantum systems; coherent x-rays in the Karabut experiment and interpretation; excess power in the NiH system; Piantelli experiment; prospects for a new small scale clean nuclear energy technology.

On 1/30 and 1/31 M. Swartz will discuss results he has obtained from a variety of cold fusion experiments he has done over the years. He has observed excess power in PdD and in NiH experiments; typical energy gains in the range of 2-3 are seen, with a few experiments giving higher energy gain; he has carried out a demonstration of his experiment previously at MIT; and energy produced from cold fusion reactions has been used to drive a Stirling engine.

Contact: Peter Hagelstein, plh@mit.edu

Our correspondence on this edit suggestion is being forwarded to the Cold Fusion/LENR Scientific community through various mediums. It will also be released to news organizations through my press agent.

Gregory Byron Goble Monday Dec. 19th 2011 (415) 724-6702 Sponsor: Electrical Engineering and Computer Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• This would be an excellent example of the WP:NOTBYASS (notability by association) that is pushed on these articles. In this case MIT is made out as a cold fusion supporter via the "non-credit activity" Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments offered during MIT's Independent Activities Period. The "activity" is being presented by Peter L. Hagelstein, an associate professor of electrical engineering at MIT and the principal investigator for the Energy Production and Conversion Group and yes; the group web-site www.rle.mit.edu/energy does actually redirect to The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.

Apparently Prof. Hagelstein has had a little trouble getting his research published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal...

The skeptics have been wildly successful in persuading others scientists (who depend on experimental observations for their own work) that experimental observations of any anomalies in PdD can and should be ignored. The willful disregard of experimental observations in this area is now a part of modern science; this, if nothing else, should cause people to think about what is happening.

Despite all details provided in the manuscript and the apparently rigorous procedure, I cannot recommend publication of the manuscript. The main reason is that the manuscript and the associated documentation target the rehabilitation of the cold fusion concept; unfortunately cold fusion has largely been disproved among the scientific community. (anonymous reviewer, 2010)

Our paper on the two-laser experiment was submitted to many journals over the course of a year prior to publication. It was returned from J Phys C without review. Another journal had tentatively accepted it, and when we submitted the paper in final form for publication, we received notice from the editor that they had received a late set of reviewer's comments and that the paper was now rejected. This criticism is from the associated review. No response to this criticism was allowed.

—source: Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT, Progress Report No. 152: Fleischmann-Pons Effect Studies, 2010. • Sponsors: "Nuclear Energy Release from Metal Deuterides", SRI International under subagreement #33-000075, Period: 3/23/09-9/27/11

So there you have it. More pseudoscience than you can shake a marmoset at. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling it pseudoscience will not make it go away. The course at MIT is still there. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course it's a "course". Regardless, it is still a pathological activity by the sources. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is an opinion with a slant... Apparently Prof. Hagelstein has had a little trouble getting his research published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal... Fact? or Opinion? The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is not a legitimate peer journal. Fact? or Slant? ...had a little trouble getting his research published... Why the slant. How many papers has he submitted during his career? To which Journals? How many were denied publication? Slanderous Slant please give me facts. Often when science attempts to explain newly observed phenomenon they get the theory wrong. Here we have science observing a phenomenon, learning how to better replicate it, improving scientists ability to observe it, and creating the arena for improved theories that will most likely lead our to ability to control and capitalize (profit from) our understanding of this phenomenon. This is science. Simply put are these folks pseudoscientists? Is this something Wikipedia finds to be based on fact? I'll tone down my edit request for you a bit...

Edit for introduction: Cold Fusion/LENR is a slowly developing Interdisciplinary Science in its' infancy with significant contributions being made to it from both new and old branches of Science. Chemical Science, Nano Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Harmonic Cavitation, Wave Mechanics of Optical and Electromagnetic Frequencies, and the Science of Magnetic Field Effects on Micro Particles are participating in the observation, creation, and understanding of these phenomenon. Initial advances, from scientists working together, have been made in understanding and creating the materials and conditions that result in longer and better replicable experiments yielding this phenomenon. This is creating new areas of peer review, a new area of established (not theoretical) Science as the experiments increase in, variety and quality of duration. Observation has led to understanding which increases the opportunities for increased understanding. Until theoretical models which accurately predict the effects measured in these experiments much controversy will exist concerning this new Interdisciplinary Science.

Cold Fusion/LENR or whatever handle the theorists give this phenomenon when they really figure out the physics of what's going on, Science or Pseudoscience? Are the groups of people in labs around the world duplicating and improving and reviewing the measuring of these phenomenon... are they scientists or pseudoscientists? Explain that to me. Is the slant on this article accurate for today? Pseudoscience is referenced 9 times in the article as reason to dicredit cold fusion Science, its' scientists, and the research papers presented to peers in the field as you have just done. Why? It is significant that MIT is offering a class in the "pseudoscience" of observable, replicatable, unexplainable phenomenon presently touted as cold fusion or low energy nuclear reactions. Or is it Science? What is the consensus opinion of the facts of this anyway, Wikipedia moderator? Please consider explaining the facts of this stigma. Don't give me continued pathological reosoning to support this stance. They are scientists doing this work, in top notch labs, being reviewed by peers. This is Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs) 14:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A friendly reminder that we're already put the matter to rest: Cold Fusion/LENR is pathological science but it is categorically NOT pseudoscience. However, there is quite a bit of pseudoskepticism with regard to it, hence you hear all sorts of arguments in which you can say, e.g., "hmmm.... that's true of biology too. I wonder if biology is pseudoscience." and of course it's not. Anyways, a friendly reminder, the topic has already been discussed ad nasuem, and the conclusion was this is pathological science, not pseudoscience. Kevin Baas^talk 15:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My take is that it would be misleading to say “MIT is now offering a 101-level course on cold fusion”; that alone would lend a notability and credibility undeserving given the details of who is presenting the material, why he is presenting the material, and what MIT’s involvement in this is. It would also be far too misleading to have what G. Goble wrote (“MIT now views Cold Fusion/LENR as a Science”). Ian Waitz himself might make an edit as an I.P., all red-faced, to discreetly fix that stretch of the imagination. Prof. Hagelstein wants to spread the word about his work and it is not correct to suggest that his being allowed to make it a non-credit course with no enrollment limit equates to an endorsement of the science by MIT. All it says about MIT is they are giving one of their own professors access to a room, which MIT also does for prayer groups and certain other clubs. Everyone from other Ph.D.s to the crazy guy picking up aluminum cans behind Steinbrenner Stadium can audit Hagelstein’s lectures as he speaks about his accomplishments. To properly give background on the totality of the meaning and context of this tidbit would require ponderous elaboration that would result in even more of the effect this article already has too much of: the “Anything You Can Do” song (♬♩“Yes I caaaan!” “No you can’t!” “Yes I caaaan!” ♬♩). This is best left alone since it is a minor issue that becomes yet more tempest in a teapot. Greg L (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"MIT now views Cold Fusion/LENR as a Science" is kinda like "MIT is not beating their wife". Cold Fusion/LENR is and has always been regarded as science. Pathological science, yes, even fringe science, but science nonetheless. the fact that some institution regards it as such is rather unremarkable. To say that some institution "now" regards it as science is to imply that they at one point did not. This is in a sense, "pulling a Fox News". Kevin Baas^talk 17:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The MIT non-credit activity has no place in this article. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It’s just that simple. Pathological science is where people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. Kevin’s argument of Pathological science, yes, even fringe science, but science nonetheless is akin to a “Well… a half-truth is still a truth” and reveals how easy it is to provide a disservice to our readership. What Prof. Hagelstein does at MIT to discuss and promote his personal interests does not mean that his views are endorsed in any shape, form, or fashion by MIT. Latching onto the *But it’s at MIT*-angle is misleading; there is too much “Robin’s best friend’s cousin = Batman” with this. It would be effectively misleading at many levels given its actual importance and the totality of circumstances and has no place in the article. Greg L (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

eh, that's not what i was saying. i'm saying that it's not pseudoscience. they actual use the scientific method and all. so no, it's not "half-science" as you seem to imply, whatever that means. it's 100% science. and i'm sorry to disappoint you but scientific hypothesis don't always turn out to be correct. hell, even theories turn out to be wrong. if that weren't the case it wouldn't BE science. so yes, one day someone could discover the mechanism behind the anomolous results people are getting some time, and it may turn out to be something trivial and uninteresting. but the very fact that that COULD happen SUPPORTS the proposition that what they are doing IS science. it boggles me how some people who consider themselves "scientific" are actually expecting out of science what one would from a religion, and thus ipso-facto NOT being scientific. if they would lower their expectations about what they expect to get out of science and shed a little of their faith-based goggles, well they might be able to see the world a little clearer. and maybe they might rediscover - or perhaps discover for the first time - the eternal virtue of the socratic dictum "I know not; yet, I know that I know not." -- a bedrock principle of science. Kevin Baas^talk 21:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

NASA

I removed the following text here because of a failed verification:

NASA Langley Research Center has implemented an experimental

project consisting of researchers from inside and outside NASA preparing for feasibility tests to begin by summer

2011.

The reference is pointing to an announcement of a lunch talk for the AIAA (http://www.aiaa.org/) which struck me as odd when I was looking into this. Wouldn't the appropriate link be to NASA-Langley?

So I looked into this more carefully. The claim is that Robert W. Moses is being funded through a Creativity and Innovation Grant through Langley. And, indeed, he is being so-funded as can be seen [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_innovationmetric.html here].

However, he is not being funded to study cold fusion. He is being funded to study through the Atmospheric Flight & Entry Systems Branch, Sys. Engineering Directorate, "How Fast to Mars is Fast Enough?" If he is using his funds to conduct "LENR" experiments, he is probably in violation of his grant terms.

I have put in inquiries to the project director, Marty Waszak, to see if he can shed some light on the matter. In the meantime, I think it highly irresponsible for us to claim that NASA funded a cold fusion experiment until we can find a statement from NASA that such is the case.