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)

This section of video shows how 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) 08:46, 20 September 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)

A problem with the way you are representing it, yes. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

For uncontroversial trivial run-of-the-mill factoids, a youtube video might be enough sourcing. For extraordinary claims (revolutionary new generator type) the sourcing has to be extraordinary. See WP:REDFLAG: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources and its warnings against certain types of claims. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

To have this misconceived, knee-jerk criticism, not based on proper scholarship, in no way surprises me. Unbalanced criticism is far too common with articles such as these. You will see, if you go far enough back in time, that I never proposed a youtube video as a reliable source. The video I had proposed for the article was a live webcast, archived in its original form by a reputable company. Mats Lewan was present during the webcast and I think we can take it that the video showed an event that actually happened or he would have said something about it, and that the meter readings seen in the webcast were the actual meter readings. Various tests were done to check that everything was in order but no doubt you will say that Defkalion found a way to fake everything. They did invite a number of people to be present but unfortunately Lewan was the only person who accepted which I suppose would have made faking easier -- if you subscribe to that hypothesis.

Perhaps you've been confused by the fact that I have provided a youtube video link on this talk page to assist in making a point. The video concerned is a clip from the original source, and I used a link to the that clip here because youtube provide a straightforward way to link to a specific point in a video, which as far as I am aware cannot be done with the original source. Ideally I would have inserted a still from the original video but I am told that this cannot be done in a talk page, which seems illogical as I would have been allowed to use it in the article itself. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:09, 21 September 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

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)

That's from Huizenga 1993, pp. 33, 47. From page 33. "Based on his interpretation of the Nernst equation (taught in college freshman chemistry courses), Pons concluded that the deuterium pressure in the palladium cathode was equivalent to a hydrostatic pressure of approximately 10²⁷ atmospheres! It seems that it was this incorrect conclusion which led Fleischmann and Pons to believe that, in a palladium cathode, the deuterium nuclei would be forced together close enough to fuse. The Nernst equation, applicable under equilibrium conditions, was used to relate the overpotential in an electrochemical cell to deuterium fugacity. If this simple, but erroneous procedure is followed, a large overpotential does give a high deuterium fugacity. The use of the Nernst equation, however, for the overall deuterium evaporation reaction under conditions of large values of the overpotential for estimation of the pressure of deuterium in the palladium is inappropriate [J. Y. Huot, J. Electroche. Soc 136 631 (1989)] The actual hydrostatic pressure of deuterium in the palladium is many orders of magnitude less than estimated by this faulty procedure."

Another book cites this paragraph from Huizenga, and adds: "'The general message is clear: in using our pre-equilibrium arguments to establish Eq. (2.43), we must ensure that the pre-equilibrium is actually operative if the equation is to be meaningful. If large currents are being drawn, this may not be the case. Accordingly, the reader might note the need for caution in applying the analysis derived in Section 2.8. He/she might also wish to review he discussion of the Nernst equation in Chapter 1 of this book."

There was a comentary in a German journal[3] (search "Nernst")

Ebert K; Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 470 (in German).

"Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium" (Electrochemically induced

fusion of deuterium).

** Early comment, reporting on the initial F&P press conference and the paper

in JEC. The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to

the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV).

I don't know how to summarize this in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real that addressing a single issue (viz. whether Huizenga's criticism would in fact stand up if one looked properly into the details) seems hardly worth the trouble. This article should really be re-written from the start, with a view to including the totality of the evidence on both sides. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Currently, the article is so biased against the possibility that CF might be real" because the reliable sources overwhelmingly say it is not real. As has been mentioned, we summarise what the reliable sources say. We are not aiming to balance minority views with the mainstream. Fringe theories are put into perspective with the mainstream. I won't link the policies and guidelines as you have already admitted you have no intention of familiarising yourself with them, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is an unsettled issue from the hastily archived sections about who asseses the reliability of the sources. Which are those reliable and those unreliable and who decides that and the related issue of mainstream vs fringe. In this case it is extremely important who makes this assertions.5.15.195.190 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

text from user talk Brian Josephson about the mainstream vs fringe

Perhaps the situation could be summarised by saying it is pretty well mainstream by now but most scientists go round wearing blinkers and haven't noticed. Of course the fact that people still go on referring to it as if it is all an error has something to do with it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.195.190 (talk)

It would be interesting to know just what article of the Wikicreed legitimises the extent of bias that is apparent in this article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant section on minority views is at Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Due_and_undue_weight. - MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Yes indeed; it is very easy of course to interpret wikicreed in a biased way (metabias one might call this). This is an important point and I will start a separate section for it.--Brian Josephson (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For fringe views specifically: WP:FRINGE, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Patent

no edit proposed WP:NOTFORUM. The patent office do not verify whether something works or not (they have allowed perpetual motion machine patents in the past until quite recently).

On April 16 of 2013 the U.S. Navy was granted a patent on a process very similar to the 1989 work by P&F. The granted patent is on the US govt patent website. The Navy SPAWAR presentation at U of Missouri is easily available on YouTube, it's over an hour long. They document tritium, transmutation of one metal to several others, gamma rays, etc. They are using Palladium and Deuterium, NASA is also on YouTube, using Nickel and regular Hydrogen, claiming excess heat, and have are working on a spaceplane that would be so powered. Their slide shows, given at various NASA facilities, mention aircraft with "unlimited hover", and space planes that need only 20,000 pounds of fuel to attain low earth orbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.106.183 (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of journals articles

What journals that publish articles in the field are reliable and what are not?--5.15.176.81 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reliability of sources depends on context. You can't affirm that a given source will always be reliable in all contexts for all purposes.

We have a noticeboard for discussing the reliability of sources. The usual reply to this type of question is: "This is too general. Propose a specific source to support a specific content in a specific article, and then we can discuss it." --Enric Naval (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be echoes of Humpty Dumpty here: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. And again, The question is, which is to be master—that's all. Perhaps I'm being naive, but that's how it looks to me at least since some of the RS judgements deviate from what I'd consider to be reasonable. But then I'm only a scientist and I gather that doesn't count.--Brian Josephson (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For instance some articles from the journals mentioned in the section Publications like International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal, etc. Some of this journals articles should be analyzed and cited in text.--5.15.192.70 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting the law

WP:NOTFORUM. Talk pages are for proposing specific changes, not for soapboxing.

I want to comment further on what I said above, that articles can become biased through bias in how the rules are interpreted. This is a problem of law generally: Parliament or the equivalent makes the law, and it is then for judges to put law into action. They have to try and determine the intent of those who made the law, and sometimes there is a general view that a judge's interpretation is erroneous. Over time the question of what the law should mean gets determined. This is not a mindless process, and intelligence is required. Sometimes judges have an agenda or point of view; this is sometimes apparent in rape cases, where on occasion judges interpret the law according their own PoV that certain forms of behaviour generally considered inappropriate are perfectly reasonable. I mention this only to make the point that in w'pedia similarly PoVs lead to editors applying the rules in ways that more detached people would consider perverse. End of story. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reproducibility (again)

This edit cites this paper:

• Bodyagin, N.V.; et al. "Structural and Behavioural Irreproducibility of Solid Materals". Russian microelectronics. Springer. Retrieved 2 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)

I can't access the text. But I can see the list of references, and they are all unrelated to cold fusion? Does this paper even mention cold fusion in its text? Can we have a quote of the relevant sentence(s)? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The words and phrases "Cold fusion", "fusion", "nuclear energy", "nuclear reaction", "nuclear", and "energy" do not appear anywhere in the text of the paper. The emphasis is on the manufacturing of microelectronic devices (the stuff often colloquially referred to as 'silicon chips'), not on (putative) macroscopic fusion reactors. Leaving aside potential WP:WEIGHT issues, the way the paper is used in that edit is clearly a bit of WP:SYNTH intended to bolster a somewhat dodgy implied syllogism (which could be paraphrased as "Variations in microscopic processes can cause some electronic devices to fail to perform as expected; cold fusion devices fail to perform as expected, therefore variations in microscopic processes are responsible.") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

ToaT disingenuously avoids quoting actual text from the article, such as this:

"In the context of materials technology, reproducibility is usually defined as the accuracy to which a value that characterizes the material can be repeated in successive runs if all the process variables are kept constant to a maximum possible accuracy."

The fact that no specific reference to CF etc. is made in the article is a red herring, the issue at hand being the fact that irreproducibility is a generic property of materials (which distinguishes claimed cold fusion from thermonuclear fusion, which occurs in a plasma). --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the lack of any reference to cold fusion, processes that resemble nuclear fusion, electrolytic cells, special properties of palladium, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That is true, but irrelevant. Perhaps you cannot see the rather obvious connection between the italicised extract and the CF article, but your own failure to do so in no way proves that this is the case. And connections that are obvious to any reasonably competent person cannot legitimately be characterised as original research, even if people would very much like to do this in order to have an excuse to revert. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some obvious connections that Wikipedia can make without a source, but I can't see this as one of them. If there were a Wikipedia article on microscopic irreproducibility, then the Russian microelectronics article might be a good source for that article. However, that article has been deleted twice as not being notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

An example of microscopic irreproducibility is the previous mention of an individual nuclear fission event. It had to be reminded in case some editors here have forgotten. There is no reason that individual fusion events should not be irreproducibile since this is the case for fission. Failure to see the connection could mean either tendentious/biased attitude or the lack of understanding required to asses the suitability of the quote. (I have to repeat myself concerning the lack of understanding.)--5.15.176.133 (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(re comment by Rubin above) Someone once famously said 'he would say that, wouldn't he?' -- very relevant and how predictable! Sorry to be so cynical about this, but that's about all one can do when people bring up this sort of argument which wouldn't convince any knowledgeable person. By the way, someone has sent me a link to a very interesting analysis of w'pedia editing re this kind of topic, but as this isn't supposed to be a forum I won't go into details here. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To rephrase my comment: It's clear (to any knowledgeable person) that it (anything related to the alleged contents of the Russian article) cannot be added under the current Wikipedia policies. Whether the policies should be changed is another matter, which should not be discussed here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? What policies support the assertion alleged contents of the Russian article) cannot be added under the current Wikipedia policies.?--5.15.176.133 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No Original Research. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? In what way do you think that policy applies here? What are specific aspects that would allow the conclusion that using this source is OR? Whithout the specific aspects your answer is evasive and not convincing.--5.15.207.101 (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:No original research you can find, for example: "(...) and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly". I am sure you can find more sentences that would apply here. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Makes the statement explicitly? What is that supposed to mean? That if a w'pedia article contains a sentence X then some RS must contain the exact same sentence? --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore my b*ll***t detector is flashing, telling me it has picked up a truly shocking case of what they call 'economy with the truth'. The article quoted states in full: Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Omitting mention of the words in boldface above appears to be an attempt to hoodwink readers into thinking that what is merely recommended as 'best practice' is compulsory. Retraction would appear to be in order. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, that approach is not required for all statements. However, if you read on, you will see that the policy says 'Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.' This statement has been challenged - and on an article such as Cold fusion with a contentious history, it is best to assume that every statement you put into the article will be challenged. - MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, every statement will be challenged. Whether such challenges are reasonable or not is another matter, as the above 'economy with the truth' very well demonstrates. You may have noticed that I have not added anything to the article for some time, as I know from experience that would be a waste of my professional skills, which can be better applied elsewhere. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

By and large, the policies make good sense. It is only the way they are applied by some editors that creates the (widely recognised) problem.--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The source just straight up doesn't mention cold fusion. There is absolutely nothing surprising about it being removed. It seems what you don't like is that we are following the no original research policy and you are doing it to try and rebut a source. Clearly using OR to rebut a source is never going to be acceptable, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already pointed out the irrelevance of your first sentence. Please look at what I said! --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternating current electrolytic experiments

I suggest inclusion in the article of the answer to next question (rephrased comment): Are there some experiments performed with alternating current in electrolytic enviroments?--5.15.207.101 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this is an article talk page and not a general page for discussion (see WP:NOTFORUM), IRWolfie- (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This aspect is self-evident. You need not repeat this statement as a buzzword. I brought this up in order for some experiments reports of this type to be included in article , if there are some.--5.15.195.97 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to rephrase your initial comment so as to make its relevance more obvious to people. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed a rephrase is appropriate (to underly that this not forum) to contrast with direct current electrolytic environment experiment (F&P). Perhaps a suggestion of rephrase would be helpful.--5.15.196.40 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you study a source such as the Library at lenr.org and then come up with specific suggestions as to what might be included in the article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Biased views - Gary Taubes

Clearly Taubes book has a biased attitude focused on the emotions of scientists he interviewed rather than on scientific aspects. Thus the reliability of this source should be reassesed.

It seems that Taubes and Huizenga are the pillars of the biased attitude on cold fusion present in the article--5.15.198.54 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Appeal to the scientific method - Robert Duncan

Robert Duncan should be quoted in the article about the need to apply the scientific method to cold fusion. Or perhaps someone from the editors on this page would want to cast doubt on his reliability?--5.15.197.212 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, but I'm sure no bookmaker will give you good odds concerning how the editors on this page will respond. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Their (expected biased) reaction should not be taken seriously, if it contains fallacies.--5.15.195.97 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)