Talk:Cold fusion

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

POSSIBLE SLANDER

In wikipedia cold fusion is categorically listed as a prime example of pathological science. see wiki (pathological science) IT IS NOT.

In wikipedia cold fusion does not publish in peer reviewed journals and does not have recognition in mainstream science. Those practicing cold fusion are crackpots practicing pathological science and as such will have ruined careers. Blatently false and harmful to cold fusion researchers. EDITORIAL OPINION--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Wiki is responsible for editors actions.--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC) I love lawyers--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

1. First of all, "slander" refers to spoken statement - you mean "libel", which is the correct term when defamation is in print such as in Wikipedia.
2. Secondly, you may want to be a little careful with your inflammatory wording because an accusation of either libel or slander would constitute a legal threat - which is not allowed here (see WP:NLT) and will get you banned from the site quicker than you can blink. WP:NLT says "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended.". And if you truly believe what you just wrote, then WP:NLT says: "If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en@wikimedia.org.".
3. Thirdly, our statements are backed by reliable sources. We have no less than three references for this statement - two in this article and one more in the Pathological science article.
4. Fourthly, we don't say "Cold fusion is pathological science", we say "Cold fusion has...a reputation as a pathological science" - and that second statement is 100% true. We have totally solid references to show that cold fusion has indeed been described as "pathological science" in mainstream literature - and stating that this reputation exists is not libel (or slander).

Hence, I think you need to be far more careful about your own inflammatory statements. I suggest that you calm down, read our article more carefully and please feel free to make specific editing change recommendations - providing that you can back them up with WP:RS-quality sources and avoid making implied legal threats.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone has already brought things to ArbCom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gregory_Goble. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's kinda sad. Thanks for the heads up. SteveBaker (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Gregory Goble

Never will I ever sue or bring legal actions against Wikipedia or any of the Wiki editors. Seriously! Gregory Byron Goble My apologies; time constraints have tardied my response. In consultation while formulating dialog; two or three more days, Thank you so much for your patience. While following a Cold Fusion/LENR seminar I tried to find one person who had a reputation as a crackpot. I couldn't find one among the speakers or the registered attendees; anyone of recognizable importance had impecible reputations as far as I could determine,

As I suggested from day one.

To improve the article: 1) Wiki needs to view it as science. 2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in the art of this field of physics.

A preview of my response.

example A this edit suggestion of mine was not a waste of time... Room Temperature It used to read: "Cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR), refers to the hypothesis that nuclear fusion might explain the results of a group of experiments conducted at ordinary temperatures (e.g., room temperature)." The majority of LENR experiments require temperatures well above room temperature. It now reads: Cold fusion is a proposed[1] type of nuclear reaction that would occur at relatively low temperatures compared with hot fusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gregory_Goble&oldid=473668504

example B this edit succeeded and then was reverted much later... Removed Sentence from Conferences Section (first part of sentence) By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science,[29] (second part of sentence) and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences. [97]

The following is part of my Wiki discourse on this edit. Please follow the rest to see sourced chapters from the book Undead Science. It’s an obscure book. One found at USF (none S.F. library system) one S.F State, none S.F or San Mateo community college. Please read the book to make a responsible response as to whether words may have been taken out of context from an authoritative source.

Simon argues that in spite of widespread skepticism in the scientific community, there has been a continued effort to make sense of the controversial phenomenon. “Researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work. In this manner cold fusion research continues… “ and “The survival of cold fusion {research} signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and the lay public; and the conceptualization of failure in the history of science and technology.” {author} Bart Simon is an assistant professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. [97] Note that the author is an assistant professor of sociology not physics. To reference part of a sentence from this book may be taking the intent of the author out of context.

Conferences (after my edit removal) Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since.[29] With the founding[97] in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science—an example of the approach the cold fusion community has adopted in avoiding the term cold fusion and its negative connotations.[73][75][98] Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[99] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[73] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=474082175

NOW Conferences (many weeks later someone reverted my delete) Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. Attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics;[99] thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science.[100] Critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences, with the notable exception of Douglas Morrison,[101] who died in 2001. With the founding[102] in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (the reasons are explained in the "ongoing" section).[73][75][103] Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[104] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[73]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gregory_Goble&oldid=473668504

Clearly Undead science is about cold fusion SCIENCE continuing after a bad start. One chapter is about how it gained this “bad reputation” while the rest is how it survives as science… (increased sophistication of instrumentation and review) hence the title ‘Undead Science” not undead pathological science. To source his book as reasons for the wiki reading public to reason that cold fusion is pathological science or bad science shows poor judgment. The author is not taking such a stance. Wiki influences the public. Care by administrators and editors should be taken to not take authors content out of context if it may cause harm. … a wiki editor or three or four… are using his words to promote a stance harmful to this art; that it is pathological science. --Gregory Goble (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by IRWolfie- User:Gregory_Goble appears to have very severe competence issues that essentially waste the time of other editors. See some recent examples here: Talk:Cold_fusion#POSSIBLE_SLANDER, Talk:Cold_fusion#The_third_sentence_in_this_article_is_out_of_date_and_erroneous_-_Let.27s_fix_it Talk:Cold_fusion#In_Popular_Culture_-_Cold_Fusion. Most of his comments appear to be borderline incoherent with some going pretty far into the realm of craziness: User_talk:Gregory_Goble#hi. The rambling isn't a new feature: [19]. I suggest there is a very severe issue of WP:INCOMPETENCE rather than negative intent. When he accuses other editors of wikilawyering I'm not even sure he knows what he is saying. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by SteveBaker His post: Talk:Cold_fusion#POSSIBLE_SLANDER (I think he means "libel") where he accuses us of being defamatory towards cold-fusion researchers because we use the term "pathological science". That post was followed three minutes later by an additional post. (It's easy to miss that addition inside his signature blocks.) It says "I love lawyers". I didn't notice when I made my reply - but now that I see it, this constitutes a clear WP:NLT. His threat is unjustified because we don't say that cold fusion is pathological science - we say that it has a "reputation as pathological science" - for which we have plenty of WP:RS showing mainstream scientists saying exactly that in published journals. Aside from the (many) other issues, I believe we have clear grounds for indef-blocking him under WP:NLT without further delay - which means we can take our time deciding whether some other grounds would justify heavier measures. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by POVbrigand Many of the contributions that Gregory makes on the talk page are hard to understand for me. Lately I did get the idea that some of his contributions were getting better. He seems to have a problem that cold fusion is disposed of as pseudo science. It is a widely held belief in the real world, so it is absolutely correct to incorporate that view in the wikipedia article. I do not see his latest "slander" comment as a legal threat. I think he is again trying to make the point that it is, in his eyes, unfair that cold fusion is treated the way it is. I think everyone should chill and Gregory should think if he really want to contribute constructively or not. As IRWolfie noted above, Gregory's conduct is not malicious. Involuntary mentorship could be a solution. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts and much more--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on an excellent and persuasive contribution to the discussion. This is by no means the only topic in which Wikipedia's failure to have an efficient and fair minded way of adjudicating dispute, which in effect sanctions highly regressive and inaccurate thinking in the service of dominating institutions and obsolete ideas, has resulted in the kind of problems your posting directs attention to. Perhaps Wikipedia can, as an institution, learn something from how this goes over the coming weeks. The Return of "Cold Fusion" appears to be destined to happen so rapidly that it is really going to expose some of the follies of our scientific institutions, not to mention reveal the importance of creativity, independent experimentalism, and a contingent view of scholarly truth, in scientific innovation. The "pathological science" crowd deserves to be knocked around (metaphorically speaking, of course) theroom a few times until they get some sense into their collective head.--BenJonson (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to be wrong just as soon as cold fusion energy sources are installed and working to generate heat or electricity. Based on past announcements, your wish for imminent success is hopeful at best. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias by selective (and purposeful) omission seems to be still an issue

See the discussion on a rather telling detail concerning the amazingly sensitive word "NASA" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&oldid=476490280 ("All mention of NASA has been deleted from this article").

This strikes me as regrettably all too typical of the way narrow vested interests dictate wiki policy. Anyone who does not know by now that NASA is a publicly acknowledged entity that has engaged *by apparent policy* a longstanding research and theoretical interest in LENR hasn't a damn bit of interest editing an article on the topic.--BenJonson (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)--BenJonson (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As promised, I now gave this article a lower objectiveness rating and I encourage others to consider doing the same. It's a pity, as I think that overall it's a good article. Harald88 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The article does have much good information. But its current slant is still strongly in the direction of yesterday's dogma -- entire sections of it are likely to seem ridiculous in a year or two. All that old #@! about how Pons and Fleischmann couldn't measure heat accurately has been exposed for the fraud that it always was. Just my two cents. --BenJonson (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)--BenJonson (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ben, Trying to get the 'gate keepers' to bring the article up to date is a waste of time. While WIKI articles often have a statement "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject," the present attitude in this group seems to be that "If you think you are an expert, you are not, since pseudoscience can have no experts. Besides, to even claim you are one says you have a point-of-view and your introduction of anything pro-CF will be deleted sooner or later."

To 'prove' that they are neutral and allow significant contributions past 1999, they allow blogs that denigrate CF (e.g., Kean, Sam (26 July 2010), "Palladium: The Cold Fusion Fanatics Can't Get Enough of the Stuff." They prefer to delete references to papers in impact factor journals (e.g., Current Science) that give CF credence by providing a theoretical base, which CF-deniers still contend cannot exist. So much for a neutral point of view.

You could look at what references they have 'allowed' since 1999 and delete some of their trash. Aqm2241 (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Widom-Larsen theory

Should there be a seperate article about Widom-Larsen theory? This article doesn't give much information about it and I came here to find how Widom-Larsen theory differs from cold fusion. This article seems to suggest they do differ: http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.242.147 (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No on wikipedia we create articles only when they are notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I guess I'll look elsewhere." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.242.147 (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove name from section

I want to remove my name from this section shown below in association with "cold fusion." I perform research on the anomalous heat effect, that is a real phenominon, and is certainly not cold fusion.

Loading ratio

Michael McKubre working on deuterium gas-based cold fusion cell used by SRI International. Cold fusion researchers (McKubre since 1994,[159] Graham K. Hubler from the Naval Research Laboratory in 2007,[86] or ENEA in 2011[72]) have posited that a cell that was loaded with a deuterium/palladium ratio lower than 100% (or 1:1) would never produce excess heat.[159]

It can be changed to - Researchers working on the anomalous heat effect (McKubre since 1994,[159] Graham K. Hubler from the Naval Research Laboratory in 2007,[86] or ENEA in 2011[72]) have posited that a cell that was loaded with a deuterium/palladium ratio lower than 100% (or 1:1) would never produce excess heat.[159]

or

Cold fusion researchers (McKubre since 1994,[159] or ENEA in 2011[72]) have posited that a cell that was loaded with a deuterium/palladium ratio lower than 100% (or 1:1) would never produce excess heat.[159]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hublerg (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to remove my name from this section shown below in association with "cold fusion." I perform research on the anomalous heat effect, that is a real phenominon, and is certainly not cold fusion.

Loading ratio

Michael McKubre working on deuterium gas-based cold fusion cell used by SRI International. Cold fusion researchers (McKubre since 1994,[159] Graham K. Hubler from the Naval Research Laboratory in 2007,[86] or ENEA in 2011[72]) have posited that a cell that was loaded with a deuterium/palladium ratio lower than 100% (or 1:1) would never produce excess heat.[159]

It can be changed to - Researchers working on the anomalous heat effect (McKubre since 1994,[159] Graham K. Hubler from the Naval Research Laboratory in 2007,[86] or ENEA in 2011[72]) have posited that a cell that was loaded with a deuterium/palladium ratio lower than 100% (or 1:1) would never produce excess heat.[159]

or

Cold fusion researchers (McKubre since 1994,[159] or ENEA in 2011[72]) have posited that a cell that was loaded with a deuterium/palladium ratio lower than 100% (or 1:1) would never produce excess heat.[159]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hublerg (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it temporarily for the duration of the discussion [1]. I've also removed the corresponding claim that you are involved in Cold Fusion/LENR research as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But in 2008 he gave a talk titled The Status of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (aka "Cold Fusion") in ICCFF14 and it talks about "low-energy nuclear reactions" which is another name for cold fusion..... And in 2003 he co-authored a talk in ICCFF10 Report on Several On-Going Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Projects at NRL (Naval Research Labs).

And search "Hubler" in New Times Magazine July 3, 2009 Issue #32 to see long term commitment to "LENR".

And the photo with McKubre and Hagelstein about how he helped prompt the 2004 DOE review of cold fusion[2] --Enric Naval (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the issue, I just thought it prudent to remove it until this is resolved because of the BLP issues. I don't have access to the particular sources used. what do they say? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Basically, he has been quite involved with CF/LENR/CNMS/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. At most, we can point out that he doesn't think that it's caused by nuclear reactions? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a source for him not thinking it's caused by nuclear reactions? Do you have access to the source to verify the current statements? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have access [3]. He doesn't say directly that nuclear reactions are not the cause. He only says that the cause is not known:

• "A set of new materials experiments is suggested that, if performed, may help to reveal the underlying mechanism(s) responsible for the reported excess heat. (...) Less encouraging are the facts that there is still no viable physical mechanism to explain the heat effect, and triggering the heat effect is still not empirically understood. (...) The nuclear data that Fleishmann and Pons presented proved to be in error and have never been reproduced. However, there remains the possibility that their excess heat production results may have been correct."

--Enric Naval (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That looks ok to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should incline towards removing this material. WP:BLP is a concern here - and we know that association with cold fusion can have a chilling effect on the careers of physicists. SteveBaker (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Does someone want to take it to WP:BLPN or similar and see what there opinions are? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. I agree with the removal. For example, Wired talks about him, but doesn't mention his name "two of they key organizers are scientists affiliated with the Naval Postgraduate School and the Naval Research Laboratory (scientists from the latter institution having long been involved in this controversial field)." [4]. As an unintended side effect, our article now implies that no cold fusion research has ever been carried in the Naval Research Laboratory..... --Enric Naval (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

LOVE

Cold Fusion

WikiLove is a term that refers to a general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding among wiki users. It was coined over time on the mailing lists. Because people coming from substantially different perspectives work on Wikipedia together—religious fundamentalists and secular humanists, conservatives and liberals, et al.—it is easy for discussions to degenerate into flamewars. But we are all here for one reason: we love accumulating, ordering, structuring, and making freely available what knowledge we have in the form of an encyclopedia of unprecedented size. Wikipedia is not just another discussion forum, it is a project to describe and collect what we know. If we keep this common goal, this love of knowledge, in mind, if we concentrate on achieving a neutral point of view even when it is difficult, and if we try to actually understand what the other side has to say, then we can reach the state of "WikiLove". If we fail to achieve WikiLove, this will only mean that the encyclopedia and its mission as a whole will suffer. Constant flamewars will scare contributors off, biased articles will drive readers away, and both will harm our reputation in the long term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs) 09:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"closed" and "ongoing"

It is hard to know whether a particular research program is closed or ongoing. I propose to simply delete these section titles. Does anyone object? Olorinish (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)