Talk:Cold fusion

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

Defkalion demo

I've added a section on last week's live webcast of Defkalion's Hyperion. I'm not sure the precise details of power, temperature, duration etc. so if anyone would like to plough through the hours of webcast to add the details to the page please feel free to do so! --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The vandals or whatever you'd prefer to call them have been very busy and removed it I see -- I'm not surprised given the history. The objection that there are no reliable sources is incorrect, since in the past it has been agreed that Forbes is a RS -- sorry about that! Unless a better reason is found soon I shall revert. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And, furthermore, another source in the disputed session is a video of the event being described. It requires only minimal intelligence to recognise that a video of an event is more reliable as a source than any article about the event can ever be. My recommendation is therefore that the item concerned be restored, with the possible exception of the final sentence. ---Brian Josephson (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)-[

Including a webcast of a "demonstration" is completely undue for this article. Let's wait until some real independent scientific evaluation about a "LENR" device happens (or maybe when they are distributing), and then consider the issue at that stage. This article has a long history, and plenty of secondary sources, trying to include the latest videos you find on the internet with extraordinary claims is undue, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In regard to IRW's Including a webcast of a "demonstration" is completely undue for this article., this is a typical case of 'proof by diktat'. These people who say, "a video of the event is not good enough, it has to be confirmed by a RS", remind me of Michael Frayn's "I do not know there is fog on the road unless it is accompanied by an illuminated sign saying 'fog'" --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Due and undue weight are standard parts of WP:NPOV, one of the core content policies. The concept of undue weight is not my invention. Material being undue and being reliably sourced are not the same thing. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Could be this needs fleshing out. I agree that there have been very many claims for cold fusion (quite a number in refereed journals, I might add). Almost all of those have involved small amounts of energy, however (at most tens of watts), of little practical value. But recently there have been claims (by Rossi and Defkalion) of much larger quantities, kW from small devices. If the claims are correct, they would have revolutionary significance in the context of energy generation, unlike the low energy claims which would be of interest to physics only and of no more importance than many other discoveries. In view of this, I reject the assertion that this event is being given undue prominence.

Some of course have suggested that this is faked, that it is easy to fake such demonstrations. I disagree. Presumably to fake this demo you would have to program a computer to generate the displayed numbers, which would have to agree with what was happening in real time. It would still have to fit despite unexpected eventualities such as Mats Lewan blowing the fuses when he connected a meter to the power supply. Equally difficult would be getting the water flow displayed to match that measured by collecting the output water in a bucket over a prescribed period of time and weighing the increase. "Before beginning to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed, one armchair" (Dan Drasin). --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You think its significant because of your interpretation. That is not how wikipedia works. We defer to reliable sources and weigh up due weight from them. We don't pick thinks because we think they are significant. I could address your opinion that a demonstration fully in the control of the people making the claims means something because you don't know how it could be done, but this is not a forum. This is like the magic show where the audience are invited up to have a look and make sure there are no tricks. Stick to showing sources, and asking for changes based on sources rather than engaging in speculation. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that the sources that have commented on the demo (which are the only ones that come into consideration here) consider it important, e.g. this article in Wired. The evidence seems to speak against your PoV.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And here is a clip from the video demonstrating that anyone following the link can very easily verify the details to be described in the article, unless in a complete state of fog.

--Brian Josephson (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

What you are proposing is to take the numbers and then form them into a claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by 'forming them into a claim' please? I don't have anything particularly in mind other than saying what the numbers were. (In the interests of clarity I've moved your Q to a place where it seems more appropriate, i.e. below the screengrab). --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the video is authentic, Unless you plan to use something purely descriptive along the lines of "In a display in the video there is a box which has the figure 1906,5 within 'total' under 'input electric power (W)' and the figure 4484.5 under 'Output Power'." Going beyond this is original research. If they explicitly make a claim, you can say they made a claim, etc but you can not say the claim is true or go beyond what was explicitly said or done. See WP:PRIMARY. This would not deal with the stated issue of WP:UNDUE weight which, for me, is the main issue with your proposed text. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Even the source that you're citing – the overly-credulous tech journalist/blogger Mats Lewan – is hedging. The blog post you footnoted your edit with ([1]) says explicitly "I believe we will get some reliable answers on the validity of Defkalion’s and/or Rossi’s technology during this year."—in other words, this stunt isn't good enough. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lewan was just exercising the caution of the scientist there. By any criterion this was a notable event, and I note that no-one has contradicted Forbes being an RS. Since the Forbes article actually gives a link to the video there is no problem omitting that link. It would also be well in accord with w'pedia conventions to include a summary of what happened in the demo, and for the sake of peace I will agree to leave out the reference to Lewan's blog. I would be happy with such a compromise, or do the others here prefer to engage in accord what a colleague with no previous involvement with LENR but has been made aware of the deletion has referred to as 'people who want to censor evidence counter to their beliefs'?--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Demonstrations" like this are dime a dozen and mean jack shit. They provide exactly zero evidence. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My friend over here says what you are doing is trying to insert a publicity stunt into an encyclopedic article. A publicity stunt which as you know is essentially meaningless since its not in the hands of independent scientists, nor has it been recreated by independent scientists. Why we should give weight to it in this article, with its long prestigious history of grand claims, I don't know. (I'm curious, have you ever tested the positions you defend? Did you ever work on bubble fusion etc? Do you have a cold fusion machine?) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My position is that I think it is an important development, important enough to be worth including in the article. The question is, if you are trying to deceive people, would you give this kind of demonstration, where there would be every risk you'd be found out (there was an observer whom I know personally -- in fact they invited a number of people but most were too 'frit' to come -- and the process was in effect continuously monitored and transmitted)? There's also the question of the integrity of the people involved, and here it is important actually to watch the demonstration. I think it most unlikely it is a fraud, and they way it was done, including the control expt., seems to me to make it unlikely there are serious errors. Publicity stunt? Does it matter? Why? Is that a valid reason for not including it in the article? I suggest you look at the video yourself before passing on such comments.

Let me address your query as to my involvement in this area, which I think is worth stating so you know where I am coming from. I initially uncritically accepted the general conclusion that P and F made an error and there was no heat effect. Many years afterwards someone in the field approached me, knowing I am an open-minded (though critical) person and handed me a DVD with the video 'Fire from Water' on it. That radically changed my view, but I wanted clearer evidence. I was going to a conference in Boston, and asked Gene Mallove if there was any lab in the area that I could visit. He fixed up a visit. The method appeared to me to be sound (and my Ph.D. is in experimental physics, I might add) and I concluded CF was a real phenomenon. I have visited a number of CF labs since and in those where I was given a full account of what the experiment was I concluded they had observed a genuine effect. I admit to being an advocate for CF on account of the fact that the true facts are very largely suppressed, and I regret to see unqualified people contributing to this suppression in w'pedia. Does being an advocate matter? Can the people advocating deletion of reference to the D. demo put their hands on their hearts and say they are not an advocate of a particuar PoV?

Re Taleyarkhan and bubble fusion, my belief is that he did get fusion but was nobbled by enemies of various kinds, for reasons including competition and racial prejudice. Nature published some extremely hostile analysis based on a false analysis of funding issues, and refused to acknowledge that this was the case (my guess is that the details of the analysis were such as to be way out of the depth of Nature's staff). Then someone managed to get his funding stopped or something on the basis of a technicality -- it is easy to get rid of someone who have friends and know the tricks.

What is often overlooked in the context of bubble fusion is that we are dealing with an enormous range of compression and any asymmetry will stop the bubble compressing to almost a point, and so reduce the temperature increase. I can well imagine that it would be very difficult to replicate the claims, and failure to replicate proves little. But that's how things go in this competitive world. But I've written enough and must get on with other things.--Brian Josephson (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"The question is, if you are trying to deceive people, would you give this kind of demonstration"

Yes. It's a very common ploy among con artists.

"where there would be every risk you'd be found out"

Yes, as the risks were minimalized because the promters remained in full control of the demonstration.

"There's also the question of the integrity of the people involved"

Matters little if anything as long as the promoters do not allow them to examine the whole system on their own terms with their own equipment. Even the most reputable scientists sometimes get suckered by flim-flam artists.

Again, the "demonstration" is nothing but a publicity stunt, the likes of which are legion in the realm of fringe science and pseudoscience. Nothing particularly noteworthy about this one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The observers were given very wide licence to look at everything except inside the reaction chamber. That was irrelevant to the question of whether the device generated useful amounts of power or not. There are plenty of cases where you cannot look inside something to see how it works, for example a computer chip. What matters is whether it behaves in accord with the spec. or not.--Brian Josephson (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if they truly did not wish to deceive, they would give the device to independent scientists to verify it. That doesn't mean letting scientists watch from the sidelines, that means giving it to them to study over (take for example D-Wave Systems, they allowed scientists to look at there devices independently of the manufacturer, with full control). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"The question is, if you are trying to deceive people, would you give this kind of demonstration"

By the same token, we should trust that David Copperfield actually made the Statue of Liberty disappear, given that it was a televised event, performed before a live audience. If you are trying to persuade scientists, you provide tangible physical evidence—especially in a field (and dealing with particular individuals) with a documented history of over-promising and under-delivering.

Demonstrating a non-natural isotopic distribution in analysis of 'spent' fuel, for instance, should be a slam-bang, no-brainer, low-cost, absolute game-changer, and it could be done in an independent lab tied up in as much non-disclosure red tape as necessary. But of course the only time such an analysis was carried out, it found nothing of interest—just normal, natural abundances of nickel isotopes: [2]. Since then, of course, the principals in the field have avoided any sort of independent attempts at analysis or confirmation of their purported results. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I should imagine the time they wanted to spend on this demo was limited. As I understand it, they used a regular industrial device to produce the readings. It would have involved much effort to produce a fake instrument to simulate what was observed. But equally the time I want to spend debating with (what from my perspective) are unreasonable people who have not place themselves in the real world by looking at the recording of the demo on line and prefer to indulge in armchair speculation. Of course your proposal might have helped gain acceptance but it can be guaranteed that if this had been done you people would have found some other reason for not including the information here.--Brian Josephson (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to that last point, it should not be too difficult to do a swap and present a suitably doctored sample with different isotopic distribution pretending it was one produced in the reactor.--Brian Josephson (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

None of this is helpful. The video is usable for anything only if it is authenticated and from a reputable source, and, even then, it can only be used for what it actually shows. Any conclusions would require a separate reliable source. And the number of "demonstrations" of overunity devices is legion. This is the first one in recent times which also is claimed (by some) to be cold fusion, but that doesn't make it notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. Are you suggesting that the events transmitted by livestream didn't actually happen? How are you suggesting the movie was generated then, from a recording? If you think that, then how do you account for the fact that Mats Lewan, an accredited technology writer, said he was there and that he saw the demo portrayed in the video? Was he making that up?

If you aren't suggesting that (and that would be an extraordinary hypothesis indeed), and agree that the transmission (now archived and available on the same web page) shows an actual demonstration, then I agree that 'it can only be used for what it showed'. Yes indeed! And what it showed was, prima facie, a proof that the device was generating excess heat as claimed. Livestream is a reliable source because it transmits in real time, with no opportunity for fakery by editing. That is exactly why I consider the link should be given. I have no objection to people adding provisos, but the factual account of what happened, verifiable by viewing the video, which could not have been subject to editing as livestream transmit it and archive it as it happened live, should be restored. Saying livestream is not a reliable source (they would not be pleased at the suggestion that have doctored the video) is plain twaddle.

And as regards conclusions, the figures I quoted can be checked by viewing the video (which I bet none of the critics have done). I agree that conclusions need a reliable source, but the description I gave is precisely what you see in the video, with no interpretation added (but you can add a few 'apparently's if you wish, I have no objection to that).

Let me add one final point. A video on youtube would, I agree, prove little, as it can be doctored. Livestream offers no such opportunities to change content.--Brian Josephson (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Are you suggesting that the events transmitted by livestream didn't actually happen?"

Whether they "happened" or not, they are of zero significance.

"If you think that, then how do you account for the fact that Mats Lewan, an accredited technology writer, said he was there and that he saw the demo portrayed in the video? Was he making that up?"

Mats Lewan clearly said that the test was fully under the control of the promoters, so the "demonstration" was meaningless.

"And as regards conclusions, the figures I quoted can be checked by viewing the video (which I bet none of the critics have done)."

We can't do that. It's expressedly forbidden by WP:NOR.

"I agree that conclusions need a reliable source"

Great. Produce one. The video doesn't even come close to fulfilling our sourcing policies.

"the figures I quoted can be checked by viewing the video ... but the description I gave is precisely what you see in the video, with no interpretation added (but you can add a few 'apparently's if you wish, I have no objection to that)"

No can do. Again, that would violate WP:NOR.

"A video on youtube would, I agree, prove little, as it can be doctored. Livestream offers no such opportunities to change content"

Means nothing if the demonstration itself was faked, which it almost certainly was. Burden of proof is on YOU to show that it wasn't, using reliable independent secondary sources of extraordinary high quality.

You're barking up the wrong tree. You're not even in the right forest. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong tree?? Are you not aware that it is impossible to prove a negative? The burden of proof is on you to show it was faked, using reliable secondary sources of information. And there are many RS's to prove that CF is not a dead horse. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If it were impossible to prove a negative (that it wasn't faked), it would be impossible to prove that the energy observed wasn't from the grid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem, Brian, is that you're saying that if someone posted a video demonstration of anything, say a video that claims to prove that aliens produce crop circles, that until someone else comes forth and shows that it was faked, we must therefore in the mean time accept it as a reliable demonstration. Do you see a problem with that approach? — Loadmaster (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What is OR?

Let's see now. Suppose there's a football team X, which has a w'pedia article that among other things lists their successes in the World Cup, including the scores. A supporter watches the latest final on TV, which they win again. Is it in order for the supporter to add the success and final score to the list in the w'pedia article, based on what he has seen on the TV? Or is that OR?

Let me quote here "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". In what way is Livestream not a reliable transmitter of live events? And if the defence of your position is that the events described (the Defkalion damo) never happened, where is your proof of that a priori implausible proposition? --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

you are using two sources, 1. a live broadcast which is a primary source. and 2. a blog by someone involved, again a primary source. You are reporting in the article as though these primary sources are inerrant truth. Firstly 1. We don't include material sourced only to primary sources as that would be undue, 2. you are stating things which no source (even the primary sources) appears to state. That is original research. 3. The score of a football game would not be included in wikipedia unless reliable secondary sources drew attention and gave some significance to the score. Finding out the score yourself and adding it would be undue, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you would be so careless as to choose such a poor analogy; it could only serve to obfuscate rather than to clarify, and it doesn't speak well to the level of consideration or respect that you offer your fellow editors on this talk page.

• A football match operates on well-understood principles, obeying rules and laws set out in advance, readily understood and agreed-upon by everyone involved in or observing the process: players, officials, and spectators (both those present and elsewhere), experts and laypeople alike. The same cannot be said for cold fusion or over-unity 'demonstrations'.
• The methods by which a football match are 'scored', and the standards by which 'success' or 'failure' attained are clear and unambiguous. Generally speaking, there is no question about which information is important or irrelevant, or which data are trustworthy.
• The core factual information that should be reported – in the press, and in Wikipedia – regarding a football match is well-established.
• The hypothetical situation is unrealistic, in that for any important football match, multiple corroborating sources (from sports experts, publishing in reliable sources) will appear online within minutes of the final whistle—probably before our ambitious television-watching editor even finishes writing the score into the article. Moreover, given past experience with thousands of past matches, an editor will have a reasonable expectation that such sources should become immediately available; such expectations are not reasonable for cold fusion 'demonstrations'. (In truth, I would expect and hope that a score supported only by a video would get flagged, and that someone would quickly replace the video with a more appropriate source.)

All that said, IRWolfie gets to the nub of the matter. Doing a live webcast is never sufficient to bootstrap a bit of content into Wikipedia. If a point in a webcast is sufficiently significant that it should be covered in Wikipedia, it will be covered by independent, reliable sources. It should not be we who decide that a particular element of a video (or the entire video) is important and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, absent independent, reliable, secondary coverage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In many w'pedia pages one sees 'citation needed'. People very often use their common sense, and don't demand such an entry be removed because it isn't properly sourced -- and the pages concerned are better for this. Would that the same sensible approach is not applied everywhere, as very often what happens, as with this page, gives a remarkably strong impression (rightly or wrongly I have to add) that the rules are being strictly applied in this way purely for the purpose of bolstering up a PoV.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a general idea that we don't remove long standing content if its otherwise correct but lacks a citation, but use citation needed tags to give other editors a little bit of time to gather the citations. Specifically the policy is WP:PRESERVE. Of course if no one does get a citation in a reasonable amount of time we remove it if someone thinks its wrong. Now in the current case, we have the addition of content not covered by adequate sources, i.e it is not long standing content. In this current case we can ask that the material be reasonably cited (as already noted its undue, synth etc). The material has been challenged and removed, the onus is on the restorer to adequately cite things. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Aha! So you have to back up and resort to 'general ideas' when inconvenient facts are pointed out. I see! In the real world there are also 'general ideas', such as the fact that w'pedia is effectively useless in areas where people with strong PoV's take over pages and block any content they don't like. Some quotes I've found in this context (I trust you can find them with Google so I won't go to the trouble of providing links):

• As Hannun puts it, “history is written by the victorious Wikipedia editors”.
• With any of these [particular pages are quoted, but it applies just as well here], if you attempt to enter anything at all, editors will strike back and remove or revise your additions.

--Brian Josephson (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have missed what I said. I suggest looking at it again. Particularly the part about long standing content. This clearly does not apply here. Let's not jump the gun to make assumptions about the motives of others. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've now looked at your reference. It seems to me that there is much flexibility in how the guidelines are to be interpreted. You may think you are interpreting them correctly, but others will judge things differently. This offers much scope for the kinds of activity that I have criticised.--Brian Josephson (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

make sure you read WP:CANTFIX as well. Then I'd suggest reading WP:BURDEN, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE.IRWolfie- (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You think I have time for that? Unlike some, I live in the real world, not the world where 'rules are the most important thing in life' (thanks to a Russian student victimised by our university admin for the phrase).--Brian Josephson (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to verify that your interpretation about policy and guidelines is correct, that requires familiarity with them. WP:FRINGE is a good brief for fringe science, since it covers other relevant areas of policy. At most a 20 minute read. True familiarity with policy and guidelines comes from months of reading and re-reading, and continual discussions about policy and guidelines, but 20 minutes is a good start. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice.--Brian Josephson (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You have time to pursue a fruitless WP:DEADHORSE argument that amounts to inept schoolboy special pleading. And you don't have time to read the policies and guidelines?

You're wasting your time and ours. Article talk pages are not the place for spouting bullshit about WP and your ideas about the real world. And yes, we have a policy about that, too: WP:TPG. If your proposals are not backed up by reliable sources, and are not consistent with are policies and guidelines, no one here is interested in them.

If you disagree with pur policies and guidelines, and wish to make changes to them, the place to discuss that is on the talk pages of the policies in question. Or start your own online encyclopedia if you want. Right now, you comments amount to garden variety trolling. And it's pretty sad when a Nobel prize winner stoops so low as to troll on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I restored this comment which 84.* surreptitiously deleted, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I just want to pass on a view from an expert that some of the above discussion constitutes trolling. For example he states of one of the items (by DV):

"This was trolling. [The comment concerned] is off-the-wall, based on nothing other than prejudice and his own opinion, even worse than original research, it's a POV."

--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OR stands for Wikipedia:No original research, talk:cold fusion is not the place to talk about policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.26.81 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 2 August 2013‎

unlock the article

Any reason why I should not be allowed to edit the article? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that nearly every contribution you have ever made to any article has been problematic and been reverted as such by a wide diversity of different editors? No one is stopping you making an account, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is another aspect which shouldn't be ignored, that is not protecting the page to create unfair advantage to registered users towards unregistered users.--5.15.205.101 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If this topic did not have such a strong attraction for vandalism, that might be a viable choice, but we are stuck with the world in which we live. Meanwhile, you are encouraged to register an account. It costs nothing, improves your privacy, and helps facilitate your communications with other editors (in contrast to IP-hopping). LeadSongDog come howl! 20:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it really about vandalism here? Or is about something else that someone wants to consider as vandalism?--5.15.178.52 (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheles I'm considering registering with a username like User5.15... to eliminate IP-hopping.--5.15.178.52 (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be helpful, both for you and for fellow editors. Page semi-protection is not solely to counter vandalism, the article has many times been the focus of edit warring and disruptive socking. WP:ASSUME only goes so far. At some point admins act to protect the encyclopedia. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Qualitative reproducibility

The article should include aspects concerning qualitative reproducibility as is the case for nuclear phenomena like the distribution of atomic numbers of nuclear fission which is qualitative and not insist that the quantitative is the only acceptable reproducibility.

It seems that people who post here keep insisting tacitly that reproducibility is only quantitative ignoring known facts and by this deviating from the scientific method which they claim to apply especially to this article.--5.15.205.173 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'qualitative reproducibility' in this context, or exactly how it would apply to changes to this Wikipedia article. What do you mean by "the distribution of atomic numbers of nuclear fission"? And could you offer a specific example of the type of information that you would like to add to this article (along with the relevant sources)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that I've forgotten a word after distribution of ...nuclear fission namely products to make full sense. It is known that nuclear fission products have random atomic numbers but their sum gives the atomic number Z of the fissing nuclide (uranium for instance). This is an example of qualitative reproducibility which applies also to the case of this type of (controversial) fusion. A source which contains this remarks is Cold Fusion Phenomena by Hideo Kozima, Elsevier 2006. In the case of this phenomen a normalizing condition like that of the mentioned sum has not been discovered yet.--5.15.177.251 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've found the bits in Kozima's book about "qualitative reproducibility". (Note that I am only working from the searchable free text available through Google Books.) It appears that this is a somewhat special definition of "qualitative reproducibility" created by Kozima, that is somewhat at odds with the usual definitions of those words (and also add odds with the occasional previous usages of the term in the literature). If you search for qualitative reproducibility in Google Scholar or on PubMed, you will find a number of examples where it is used as one would expect from a naive understanding of the two words. In such cases, the results of the test or experiment were generally highly reproducible – the outcome, effect, or product reported did occur in most or all experiments – but the agreement was qualitative only—either the measurement was inherently non-quantitative (as with a positive or negative outcome of a binary test, or where looking at a pattern or arrangement in an image), or the measurement gave a wide range of numerical results (but where most or all of which were appreciably different from the control condition).

To take a couple of recent examples, Sudo et al. (2012) compare qualitative and quantitative reproducibility of different assays to detect RNA. Their quantitative assessment looked at the amount of RNA of each type detected by each assay, whereas the qualitative assessment just looked at which types of RNA (regardless of amount) were detected by each assay. Nakada et al. (2013) offer what I would say is the most succinct definition, when they write "Thus, we have validated qualitative reproducibility (ie, patterns and tendencies of physical properties)...".

In contrast, Kozima proposes a definition wherein "qualitative reproducibility" means something rather different. From page 58, introducing the section "The qualitative reproducibility" [3]:

We have noticed already several times in this book that events in [cold fusion phenomena] do not repeat, or are irreproducible, even when experiments are performed with the same macroscopic initial condition. The results of the observation of an observable x distribute widely from null to a maximum value of x_max, which is undetermined by any known conditions at present. Furthermore, we cannot determine when an event occurs, i.e., occurrence of an events is sporadic. ...

It is advisable to use appropriate terminology to express a situation correctly. We propose to use a concept "qualitative reproducibility" to express such events in the [phenomena] described above that have disperse results for the same macroscopic condition.

In other words, Kozima would like us to describe a result as qualitatively reproducible even when it cannot be reproduced most of the time. He attempts to justify this reasoning by allusion to various sporadic (eg. wind, in the output of wind turbines) and stochastic (eg. the distribution of nuclear fission products) processes. It is not a persuasive argument, which is probably why his unusual terminology does not appear to have been adopted by the scientific community—which in turn is why it would be inappropriate for us to add this definition to this article or to Wikipedia as a whole. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say that is not a persuasive argument? Comparing the analysis of RNA with nuclear phenomena which exhibit random/chaotic behaviour does not hold as an appropriate comparison.

If you dislike the term qualitative attached to reproducibility, then other term(s) could be used like semi-reproducibility or no explicit mentioning of reproducibility. But the mentioned features, sporadicity and stochasticity should be included in article as intrinsic features of the phenomena of this type (nuclear), including nuclear fision which is known to be semi-reproducible, namely the fission is reproducible (the spliting of uranium nucleus) but the composition of fission products is not reproducible beeing stochastic due to the degrees of freedom involved. --5.15.212.132 (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Kozima's definition is not shared by the scientific community at large, and sounds like special pleading to me. Doesn't carry enough WP:WEIGHT to even be mentioned in this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to repeat that this isn't about the supposed point of Kozima which apparently would not have much acceptance in the scientific community, it is about pointing out (whether by Kozima or not is not very significant) obvious known facts (that would not normally require a source) about the reproducibility of similar phenomena which have been ignored in the analysis by the skeptics of the phenomena. It would useful also to specify about about what scientific community are we talking and whom it includes? Just the skeptics who seem deviate from the rigour of scientific method ignoring known applicable facts to this phenomena and having unreasonable expectations about the reproducibility?--5.15.210.25 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That's original research, and it's forbidden by our core policies, specifically WP:NOR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you consider that would be OR? Obvious statement (like the sky is blue, 1+1 = 2, etc) are not OR and need not any sources.--5.15.210.25 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Read our guidelines WP:OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There's an article on reproducibility that seems relevant in the cold fusion context. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What about the quote (which seems that someone rather impolitely considered to be off-topic) from Brian Josephson explaining the situation of the reproducibility expectations, could it cited? Or is it also repugnant to some posting comments on ground of apparent lack of acceptance? I will restore the visibility of Brian Josephson's comment because there are no good reasons to be included in a collapsable box.--5.15.210.25 (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It was collapsed because Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of general topics. Editor 5.15.x.x proposed an edit to the article, accompanied by a source. Source is not found to be adequate. End of story. We don't need to rehash in every thread a variation of "wikipedia is being unfair / the scientific community is being unfair / the real world uses unfair definitions / the possible benefits are so big that it has to be researched".

Also, for the variations of "this is not the correct interpretation of policy X", Brian can use the policies village pump, and each policy and guideline has its own talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a more likely explanation of the collapsing is that someone hasn't liked Brian's reply and has used Wikipedia is not a forum as pretext to express his dislike or hostility.--5.15.179.181 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Josephson's comments are about "a more general one than w'pedia editors". A talk page is never the place to have that sort of discussion. The act of replying to him would drag things even further off topic. Josephson appears to think this is an appropriate venue for debating the topic, but it is not. Wikipedia is not a place for debate. If he wants to discuss policy (he has already stated he doesn't want to read any policy) he can do that at a policy page, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the assertion about the source not being adequate, it is more likely that it is an impression of someone who considered the facts pointed by the source inconvenient to his convictions/POV.--5.15.179.181 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear! How true! More justification is needed to reject that source. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian Josephson, you have been asked several times to read our policies. Considering you refuse, would you please drop the matter or else read them. You can't argue the interpretation is wrong when you haven't looked at it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the connection between Brian's comment and wikipolicies? I consider myself rather well informed on Wikipolicies and don't see a breach of them in Brian's last comment. Even a well informed wikipedian should not apply blindly a wikipolicy. An example of wikipedian who regards wikipolicies non-blindly is User:Count Iblis.--5.15.178.52 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather poor obvious canvassing technique you've got going. Anyway, Brian has reacted to the rejection of a source, yet he has not read the policy about why we have rejected it. It's really simple, the sources are utterly unsuitable, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Poor obvious canvassing technique? Really? It is your opinion like that about sources being utterly unsuitable. To evaluate the suitability of specialized/technical content sources a certain technical competence is required to be shown, or by your comments you don't display the minimal understanding of technical aspects required to make assertion regarding the suitability of some sources. The suitability of some sources cannot be simply evaluated by applying a wikipolicy without the minimal understanding.--5.15.178.52 (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are not make general complaints or WP:RGW.

The problem 5.15 ... cites is a more general one than w'pedia editors of course, it and other problems afflict the scientific community in general, for historical reasons, as I explained in a letter published in Nature. For example: "The situation at the time of the announcement of cold fusion was confused ... because of the difficulty researchers had with replication. Such problems are not unusual in materials science. ... none of this [scepticism] would have mattered had journal editors not responded to this scepticism, or to emotive condemnation of the experimenters, by setting an unusually high bar for publication of papers on cold fusion. This meant that most scientists were denied a view of the accumulating positive evidence" The way rules are quoted here is little short of fetishistic: is it really worth arguing over how notable the Defkalion demo is, and insisting editors have to leave their minds behind and not take into account cogent arguments in favour of notability? In 2007 I corrected a misconception in the Mössbauer effect article, with a whole new paragraph of explanation, with no sources cited at all. No fussy editors cited w'pedia rules insisting that I provide a reference to prove I was correct, they just assumed I knew what I was talking about. A victory for commonsense!--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Indeed, someone doing a thesis on w'pedia practices might very well come to the conclusion that what is going on here are cases of special pleading. I quote: "Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption." The generally accepted rule here might be that encyclopedias should be as informative as reasonably possible, a principle that seems not to get much of a look in in these parts. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC) And, again, we have this from One-sided argument: "With rational messages, you need to decide if you want to use a one-sided argument or a two-sided argument. A one-sided argument only presents the pro side of the argument, while a two-sided argument presents both sides. Which one you use will depend on which one meets your needs and the type of audience. Generally, one-sided arguments are better with audiences already favorable to your message. Two-sided arguments are best with audiences who are opposed to your argument, are better educated or have already been exposed to counter arguments." --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC) visibility of Brian's reply restored.--5.15.210.25 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian Josephson's quote in Nature - usability

I consider that the quote mentioned above is reliable and must included in the article. Any one wishing to disagree?--5.15.205.101 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not reliable in terms of the factual content. It is only reliable as an opinion, but nothing about that means we must include primary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference between factual content and opinion could be very difficult to distinguish. Brian's analysis in Nature points out some aspects about hazardous conclusions about these phenomena reached on emotional grounds. The deficiencies in conclusions are elementary to seen if there is a real interest for a rigorous application of the scientific method and the emotional aspects/overskepticism don't take over rationality. So pretending that Brian's comment is not factual but opinion is just an unfound pretext in order not to include it in the article by those who find it unconvenient to their preferred POV, namely to include in the article only what is found against the positive evidence about the phenomena, positive evidence reports being considered ab initio either unreliable, fringe, .. primary souce and the like.--5.15.46.94 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is opinion and is not peer reviewed, and it clearly is a primary source. Have you read WP:FRINGE? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a statement of obvious facts which must be stated in order not to be said by some that there is no source stating obvious facts. Statements from known experts do not require to be peer reviewed and are acceptable generally and especially in this case where there is no scientific consensus regarding the status of the topic. The distinction in this case of mainstream and non-mainstream aka fringe is arbitrary, meaningless especially where there is no scientific consensus regarding mechanism of the phenomenona. Yes, I've read WP:FRINGE. It seems that some wikipedians conveniently and hazardously use WP:FRINGE and other wikielements as reasons to not allow inclusion in article of sources that don't like. 5.15.46.94 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

His opinion may consist of "obvious facts" to you, but that doesn't not mean it is true. There is no acceptance that there is a phenomenon to have a mechanism, and his opinion, is just that, his opinion. "there is no scientific consensus regarding mechanism of the phenomenona", there is a consensus that there is no phenomenon, so of course there would be no consensus about a mechanism. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a consensus that there is no phenomenon. Really? Among whom is there this claimed/so-called consensus? Who says that? It seems to be your opinion. About obvious facts the mathematical style asserts one can easily see that .... You/One should easy recognize obvious facts when they are encountered, unless some daltonism/cognitive bias gets in the way.

Opinion or not, Brian's quote is worthy of inclusion in the article.--5.15.200.65 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the use of primary sources somehow forbidden?--5.15.46.94 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought you said you read WP:FRINGE, tell me about using independent sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Independent sources ideally would be fine to use if they exist. In some situation it becomes more manifest than in others that truly independent sources do not really exist, they are just a theorethical ideal. In this case there are only two kind of not (quite) independent sorces: by deniers of the phenomenon and by proponents, the third option is excluded.--5.15.200.65 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Related discussion

Just to make editors aware that there is a discussion on the same topic at Talk:Reproducibility. This one is linked from there, but not vice versa (thus why I'm leaving this comment). Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Misconceived reversion by DV

DV has reverted an improvement I made to the sentence Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in peer reviewed scientific journals, the results do not receive as much scrutiny as more mainstream topics. It seems I now have to waste my valuable time explaining to even those of the most limited intellectual ability the reasoning behind this change.

It may be that CF articles are rarely published in peer reviewed journals (though not as rarely as one might think, as perusal of the LENR library will show). The fact that quite a number of papers on the subject do receive, and pass, scrutiny shows that some such research at least does stand up. It is therefore clearer to use the 'most' rather than the rather woolly original wording. The point basically is that a large amount of mediocre research can't cancel out the conclusions of high quality research -- in science one does not decide truth by putting good and poor quality research in one pot and doing some kind of averaging process. Lay readers can't be expected to figure this out and the wording should be designed not to mislead them. [subversive thought: do some people revert purely for the sake of reverting, rather than on the basis of careful thought? I'd love to know the motives.]--Brian Josephson (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about this revision:[4]

I believe that bit is primarily there to mention Journals refused to publish papers. Further refutation or confirmation was made impossible. Julian Schwinger resigned from the American Physical Society over it.

The sources used are:

• Goodstein, David (1994), "Whatever happened to cold fusion?"
• Labinger, JA; Weininger, SJ (2005), "Controversy in chemistry: how do you prove a negative?—the cases of phlogiston and cold fusion".

These wont allow you to say much about the current state of publication. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence that is being paraphrased here is, "Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires."[5] The original wording is a better paraphrase than the proposed version. --Noren (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Usually one first writes something in a context then puts the source behind it.(2 in this case) The purpose of the sentence was to describe that publications had been refused preventing any sort of conclusion. All of the proposed sentences leave the reader guessing out of 3 possible scenarios:

• "authors chose not to publish"
• "journals rejected their papers after careful review"
• "The journals systematically refused papers about the topic"

But refusing to review something is not a review in it self. It doesn't say anything bad in the scientific sense either. How many people didn't read something doesn't change the text.

I think:

• "Several journals refused to consider papers about Cold fusion, with the result that those works didn't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires."

Would be more effective. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the Labinger source. You can search "Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a Negative?" in google and find the New Energy Times copy. The sources don't say why the papers are not being published. It could be rejection, it could be that the papers are not of enough quality to pass peer-review, we don't know and the sources don't tell.

In the article we have this sentence "researchers have had difficulty publishing in mainstream journals", but I don't have the sources here to check the original context, and I don't have the time. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

some unnecessary things

I understand sources need to be about the topic in specific. I wonder where in the text do we need: Phillip Ball "Life's matrix: a biography of water"? The book[6] doesn't appear to be about cold fusion:

"One of the four elements of classical antiquity, water is central to the environment of our planet. In Life's Matrix, Philip Ball writes of water's origins, history, and unique physical character. As a geological agent, water shapes mountains, canyons, and coastlines, and when unleashed in hurricanes and floods its destructive power is awesome. Ball's provocative exploration of water on other planets highlights the possibilities of life beyond Earth. Life's Matrix also examines the grim realities of depletion of natural resources and its effects on the availability of water in the twenty-first century."

The book is from 2001 and has a few pages with an interesting rundown of the cold fusion things happening at the time. It is not a book about the article topic. It shouldn't be here.

The American Scientist "Case Studies in Pathological Science: How the Loss of Objectivity Led to False Conclusions in Studies of Polywater, Infinite Dilution and Cold Fusion" from 1992, is not about cold fusion either.

I note: The association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.

(part of the comment moved to a separate section Enric Naval (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC))

84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be 100% about the topic. They can cover a more general topic, and then deal with each specific sub-topic in a chapter, a few pages, or even a few paragraphs. Scholar books can have a general overall theme and topic-specific chapters, each written by different authors. I don't recall any requirement that sources have to be about the specific topic, and only about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, the rationale for removing it doesn't make much sense, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont see what it is doing here.

Why is this old book advertised on this page?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule against "old books". And I don't think it's being advertised, since it's used to source stuff in the article. Philip Ball is a science writer who has written several divulgative science books and seems to have good reputation. By the way, he has a degree in chemistry and a doctorate in physics, this means he has a very good scientific background for understanding this topic? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary duplication in Scientific American ref

(moved from section "some unnecessary things" Enric Naval (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC))

Then:

* {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=,
  | editor-last=Saeta  | editor-first=Peter N.
  | title=What is the current scientific thinking on cold fusion? Is there any possible validity to this phenomenon?
  | periodical=Scientific American
  | pages=1–6
  | date=October 21, 1999
  | series=Ask the Experts
  | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien
  | accessdate = 2008-12-17
  | postscript = – introduction to contributions from:
}} 
** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=,
  | last=Schaffer  | first=Michael J.
  | title=Historical overview, assessment
  | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}}
  | pages=1–3
  | date=October 21, 1999
  | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien
}}
** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=,
  | last=Morrison  | first=Douglas R.O.
  | title=Assessment
  | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}}
  | pages=3–5
  | date=October 21, 1999
  | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien&page=3
}}
** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=,
  | last=Heeter  | first=Robert F.
  | title=Response
  | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}}
  | pages=5–6
  | date=October 21, 1999
  | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien&page=5
}}

The output of this stuff here looks very pretty. It is just that this article doesn't have the space for it and that it doesn't do anything useful. It is hard enough for the reader to navigate the wall of links without the duplicates.

A single link to the article would be a better approach. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

About duplication. That source has different authors for each section. The way the {{harvnb}} template works, it forces us to use one separate ref for each section. There are ways to solve this duplication, but they are ugly..... For example, we can remove all those sources except the first one, and in the ref tags:

:* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 }}
:* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 1-3; "Historical overview, assessment"; Schaffer, Michael J.}}
:* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 3-5; "Assessment"; Morrison, Douglas R.O. }}
:* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 5-6; "Response"; Heeter, Robert F.}}

--Enric Naval (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I implemented this solution for Morrison and Heeter, because they are cited only once. But Schaffer is cited several times, and it is cited in the middle of lists of references. The citations would become more difficult to read if I made this change for Schaffer. Actually, I am not sure that this is a good solution to this problem... --Enric Naval (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Huizenga's reasoning to Nernst equation missinterpretation

One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.--5.15.200.238 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)