Talk:Cold fusion

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

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[1] (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)

I've now looked up the paper by Huot that Huizenga cites, and there seems to be a big gap between what he says and any assertion in the paper itself. If Huizenga thought there was some implication from the paper such as he asserts, he didn't go to any trouble to spell out his reasoning.

The conclusion from all this would appear to be that Huizenga's assertion is overblown, and I suggest that instead of trying to summarise what people think about it as EN suggests that assertion simply be deleted from the article as having insufficient support.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It could be deleted or at least rephrased with according to Huizenga, a critic of cold fusion. I have added the sentence (The equation has been involved in the scientific controversy of denying the reality of cold fusion phenomena) to the article of the equation.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:34, 1 November 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)

Use of the equation to deny the hypothesized fusion of the deuterons

Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.--5.15.178.93 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The equation cannot be used to deny the fusion of the deuterons.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (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)

I see no objections to this type of articles as sources.--5.15.200.152 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Favorable

I found the following articles that gave a favorable opinion of cold fusion:

• [2] “What If Cold Fusion Is Real?” Wired magazine.

• [3] “Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: Maybe The World Will Change After All”.

• [4] “Cornell University Library: Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device”. 7 Jun 2013.

• [5] “Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas”

• [6] “Falls Church News-Press: The Peak Oil Crisis: Update on ‘Cold Fusion’”

What makes these articles somewhat credible is that they are from sources not specializing in unorthodox ideas like CF, so a major source of bias is removed. (It is not clear if any of these sources openly say that CF has been “proven” to work; I would have to check.) Should these sources be cited? If so, how would they be integrated into the article? The Wired article is a little questionable because the name Wired sounds cheesy; also, it is a hippie magazine, so it may have the bias of being oriented toward unorthodox ideas. The other sources seem more serious.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Wired article is the best of the bunch, and it's speculative. We cannot use arXiv as a source, even if the article were good. There seems little evidence that ExtremeTech is intended to be credible. Forbes would be the best if we could verify that it was subject to editorial review, even though the scientists clearly are not independent of Rossi; columnists are generally permitted to write whatever they want if not libelous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 11 November 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)

In the context of the reproducibility it is interesting to notice another domain with problems in this regard, but not so controversial, the field of bioelectromagnetic studies. This has had many failures to replicate the results as pointed out by the book Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (vol I) edited by David O. C(arpenter?), Academic Press, 1994.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the problem seems to be a very general one -- I've been reading that a sizeable fraction of all published papers are wrong. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the ireproducibility of materials is a feature of complex systems through chaotic behaviour (as stated at least by Kozima).--5.15.53.183 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Impurities favorable and unfavorable to reproducibility

In Pd systems it is claimed by McKubre etal that Al and Si on the surface of Pd enhances reproducibility.--5.15.0.43 (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Some metals can lower the reproducibility, like Zn or Cu.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Content suggestions that don't provide any source

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)

Excellent content-based suggestion. I have browsed the mentioned repository an I have noticed some works with content related to some aspects I was considering to raise for discussion of inclusion.--5.15.202.119 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

lenr.org is not a reliable source and the papers it includes are generally fringe views and minority positions (WP:UNDUE), IRWolfie- (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

lenr.org is a repository of articles (many of them) which have been published in reliable journals. As for the fringe labelling, it is just a pure subjective assertion of some wikieditors who insist on their biased POV despite the evidence to contrary.--5.15.208.179 (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No source is inherently reliable (some are fairly close, like Nature and Science). Also bear in mind that WP:DUE weight applies, particularly with regard to WP:FRINGE positions. Minority views, even when published in peer reviewed journals, should not be confused or misrepresented as the mainstream position. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A pretty confused response! You don't ask of a library of physical books whether it is a reliable source or not; it is a collection of sources (books) some of which are reliable and others not. Likewise some of the items in the lenr.org library are published in reputable journals with good refereeing procedures and can thus be considered reliable. It is a nonsense asking how reliable the library as such is. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The topic of this subsection is the inclusion in the article of the answer to the question if there are any reported experiments in which the cold fusion phenomena occurs in systems containing only heavy water subjected to an alternating electric field through electrodes, considering that the Reported results section in the article begins with the enumeration of the constituents and conditions for experiments: metal/electrodes, deuterium/heavy water, type of system (gas contact, electroytic, etc) and excitation (fields, acustic waves etc)--5.15.177.181 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the work of Bockris and Sundaresan reports results of such kind with carbon electrodes in simple water.--5.15.53.183 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 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)

Taubes accused Bockris of contaminating electrolysis cells with tritium, allegation disproved.--5.15.0.43 (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, the extreme skepticism makes the material more notable. Until all doubt is removed we cant really place the critisim in historic context, we can try but it isn't easy. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2014 (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)

Browsing the archives of this talk page (for example Archive 41) one can find a sample of totally inappropriate attitude/response of some editors on this page illustrated by a small quote about Robert Duncan by user Greg L : --5.15.202.138 (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

And is the kind of language used in the above consistent with WP best practice? If it is, it should not be. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Collapse per WP:NOTFORUM - no edit proposed. This is not the place for a discussion about editors, or a forum for general discussion about cold fusion.

subsection with another quote hastily removed by IRWolfie.--5.15.198.117 (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Not sure where that is from in the archive, but be aware of the fallacy fallacy. If you want to make a suggestion, then make it, but don't use it as an opportunity to attack random editors. I reverted one of your additions which amounted to a pointless personal attack on an individual. Picking quotes and declaring them ignorant without further reasoning is also incredibly authoritarian (I assume Brian will speak out against attacks on scientists based on authority, right?) and also fallacious. Digging up past utterly unrelated comments also adds nothing to the current discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC) The quote has not the intention to attack some individual user but to underline some reasoning unawareness from some editors who make hazardous assertions here concerning the reliability of some sources they do not like, among other aspects.--5.15.198.117 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC) You have shown no such thing. Please focus on making your own arguments for inclusion of specific content rather than creating straw men from the archives, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC) What a hasty reaction from a user! I was about to give details about the relevance of the second quote when a user hastily intervened and caused an edit conflict. So I will restore the second quote with details.--5.15.194.94 (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC) You have provided no relevance at all. We aren't here to discuss your beliefs or anyone beliefs about the scientific method. They are irrelevant to this article. We do not base our articles on original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Really? No relevance at all? You have not pointed out any argument supporting this assertion. It is not about belief in the collapsed content, it is about noticing a modus operandi of some editors who, by lacking deep understanding of the scientific method pointed out by their edits, have a pattern of editing in this talk page of disregarding anything that opposes their views about the topic of cold fusion and the sources which support it by misconceived appeal to wikipolicies of NOR and UNDUE using them as buzzwords ad nauseam. Such editors are not able to asses the reliability of sources and to appreciate what is OR and what is not OR. Using the collapsable box is also a sign of disrespect to counterarguments which they do not like.--5.15.206.0 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The subtleties of the scientific method

I have found quotes in the archive of this page which indicate that some wikieditors are not very aware of the subtleties of the scientific method. The entire subsection has been hastily removed by another user who has interpreted the use of that quotes as a personal attack.

The removed quote contains assertions about the correctness of theories and the acceptance by scientists. These aspects are contrary to the scientific method because their insist to much on present models and assumptions on (thermo)nuclear fusion and the so-called scientific consensus and thus denying the validity of the cold fusion experiments due to contradiction to current models. Current models and assumptions have not an absolute status which would allow the categorical conclusion that cold fusion results are necessarily an error. The current models and assumptions are perfectible. Using them as premises to categorically deny the reality of cold fusion is a great reasoning error and thus a serious deviation from the scientific method.

I^ll restore the quotes later when I^ll find time.--5.15.195.89 (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Quote by Brian Josephson

The lecture Pathological Disbelief could be cited regarding the deviation from the scientific method in the case of cold fusion in comparison to other cases.--5.15.196.180 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

For instance, in the case of the origin of meteorites there has been little scientific base to object to the non-terrestrial origin of meteorites as pointed out by Max von Laue in his History of Physics (Geschichte der Physik, 1958). Some newtonian disciples considered that meteorites could not have come from outer space because this was seen a disturbance of cosmic harmony.--5.15.198.26 (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've read somewhere of a different objection to non-terrestrial origin. As all planetary orbits are elliptical, it was thought meteorite orbits must also be elliptical, but an elliptical orbit would have hit the earth some time in the past. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Although Max von Laue does not specify explicitly what kind of disturbance to cosmic order was involved, it seems this must be it, the cosmic order consisted in the assumption of the same type of orbits for both planets and meteorites (whether or not with the same eccentricities).--5.15.210.172 (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be continued elsewhere or the cabal will become restless ;-) I just wanted to make the point though that surely Newton at least was aware that hyperbolic orbits were equally in conformance with his laws? --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course the discussion could be continued elsewhere to prevent allegations of irrelevance. I was trying last night to post something similar on your talk page, but the content has at some moment suddenly disappeared. I′ve posted a rephrased version of the lost content here this morning.--5.15.197.78 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The concept of cosmic harmony is an influence from Plato, as pointed out by John Desmond Bernal in his Science in History.--5.15.7.76 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Incompatibilities with conventional fusion

What is the scientific base of the reasoning that cold fusion must have the exact mechanism as conventional fusion in free space, otherwise its existence is denied? (the answer should be specified in the article)--86.125.163.60 (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with this subject, but I see the article on the subject has a section Limitations, and it looks from this that it may not be correct to apply the Nernst equation. The article states specifically:

In dilute solutions, the Nernst equation can be expressed directly in terms of concentrations (since activity coefficients are close to unity). But at higher concentrations, the true activities of the ions must be used. This complicates the use of the Nernst equation, since estimation of non-ideal activities of ions generally requires experimental measurements. The Nernst equation also only applies when there is no net current flow through the electrode. The activity of ions at the electrode surface changes when there is current flow, and there are additional overpotential and resistive loss terms which contribute to the measured potential.

The situation I believe is that Fleischmann was aware that the naive application of the Nernst equation indicated that fusion should not occur at an appreciable rate, but in view of the uncertainties he thought it worth trying the experiment just to see if anything happened -- and the meltdown showed that it certainly did and he hastily checked for radioactivity and used smaller amounts of Pd in future experiments. The latter part is in Beaudette's book and there are no doubt lectures by Fleischmann somewhere that would confirm the rest of what I have said.

In any event, the article would be improved by including the fact that the Nernst equation becomes more complicated at high concentrations and if there is an electric current, as that will indicate that Huizenga might not have been right in his criticism. Ideally someone would look at his book and see what exactly he said. If I have time I'll ask the experts to check on this rather important point. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed this page and the controversial aspects (especially those concerning Nernst equation) presented here. It seems there have been many omissions of important aspects in the history of this topic. Nernst equation is one of them. It has stated by its author originally appealing only to concentrations (thus considering tacitly ideal solutions) and at zero net current (thermodynamic equilibrium of electric and osmotic force).

Its original formulation appealed to a doubtful concept - the dissolution tension of metals - which had implausibly high values and has been dropped being replaced with the notion of activity due to non-ideal solutions (ionic solutions being non-ideal from start). The nature of ionic solutions has been pointed out firstly by Arhenius and then by Max Born with his simplified version of the heat of solution of solid salts, thus underlying the presence of mobile ions.-

The relevance of the equation to the present topic seems to be in whether or not some factors could trigger the fusion of deuterons in solid lattice of transition metal hydrides, perhaps differently from the mechanisms in conventional fusion.-- 188.27.144.144(talk) 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Shortcomings of the DOE report conclusions

As some editors complained about the lack of a specific edit proposal, I suggest that the shortcomings of the DOE report should specified in the article (of course using sources in order that some editor not say that could be OR).--5.15.209.114 (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, there are 186 footnote references and a lengthy bibliography for this article. If you want to argue for a change, you'll need to provide sources to back up your claims.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the DoE report, its 2004 report included the following text (page 4):

Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic. Those reviewers who accepted the production of excess power typically suggest that the effect seen often, and under some understood conditions, is compelling.

In conformity with requests by some editors, I should like to ask, before including it in the article, whether there is a legitimate reason why this quote should not be included? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the article already discusses the 2004 DOE review. We should be careful to avoid giving it too much weight. Olorinish (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic, I'm afraid. It would be different if that short quote was similar to something already there, but that isn't the case -- in fact what little reference there is to the 2004 review is a little misleading (see below). And one might characterise my suggestion by saying that the sentences quoted fill a gap in what is there at present.

If you think too much is there re DoE reviews, the answer would seem to be to remove some of the material regarding the 1989 review, which was less searching than the 2004 review and therefore deserving of less weight. And it isn't exactly right to say 'reviewers found that cold fusion evidence was still not convincing 15 years later'; rather it was some reviewers (roughly a half) that was not convinced by the excess heat measurement. Would you like me to try and improve the article in that respect? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is an article about cold fusion, not excess heat. Olorinish (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(insert: This article, amoung many other things, is also the article about Excess heat   - 84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC) )

The subject of cold fusion is intimately bound up with experimental evidence that it is occurring, and heat in excess of what can be explained in conventional terms is one of the main lines of evidence. In addition excess heat is one reason for the subject being of general interest, since if it can be produced on the scale claimed by Rossi and Defkalion it would have important practical implications in regard to energy production. Therefore there is an intimate connection between the two.

However, searching suggests that quite often in WP the means of detection of something such as 'nuclear reactions' do not appear in the main article on the subject, which perhaps suggests a separate article describing the methods of testing the cold fusion claims, including measurement of excess heat. However, if there were such an article people would probably be immediately suggesting its removal, and so I would favour this aspect being included in the main article, perhaps with a more logical organisation than at present. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It is stated in the article that DOE considers the theoretical proposals to be the weakest part of CF reports. What is the scientific base of such assertions about theoretical models? The answer is important to be specified in the article.--5.15.62.129 (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

DoE is now funding LENR research, page 7 box 3.6 http://www.floridaenergy.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/DE-FOA-0001002-FOA-IDEAS.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.89.28 (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

See new section -- in article and talk. Alanf777 (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Collapsable text box - abusive use

It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.--5.15.179.182 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's appropriate to use when it's completely off topic and disrupting the page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.192.114 (talk)

Of course it would be justified in cases that are really as you say but here it is not the case, your labeling as off-topic and disrupting the page has little base and is just the opinion of some editor lacking convincing other reply to the pointed facts/deficiencies.--5.15.213.209 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. This sure looks like censorship to me, and I think it would be wise for editors not to act in ways that may give rise to a suspicion that censorship in some form is involved in their actions. The problem is augmented by the fact that a certain degree of expertise is sometimes needed to judge whether something is irrelevant in the context or not, and editors do not always have the expertise that is required. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the expertise of some editors who complain of supposedly irrelevant archives search and attack when it comes to their shown (lack of) expertise pointed out by previous comments, there is some wikirule which underlies the necessity of some expertise in fields where is needed and the lack of it would a problem. This wikirule is WP:Competence#Lack of technical expertise.--5.15.193.118 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of archives′ content

From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?--5.15.178.192 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Only when it's relevant for making specific changes to the article (when a specific source was discussed in the past, when the merits of including a specific fact were discussed, etc).

Sometimes it's used for discussing the behaviour of a specific editor. But a talk page is not the place for this type of discussion. If there is some merit to the discussion, it gets bumped to a specialized noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

An example of need to use probably the archive is shown in the section ″Connection with bubble fusion and sonoluminescence″ for revisiting a past arguing/discussion.--5.15.15.146 (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutron involvement in triggering cold fusion

Another aspect which should be presented in article is the role of neutrons, as there are some claims that lacking background neutron cold fusion does not occur (experiments done with Kamiokande machine in an isolated cave at high depth).--5.15.206.146 (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what and who these claims are? Then they can be evaluated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Claims for instance, by T. Ishida 1992 Study of the anomalous nuclear effects in solid-deuterium systems, Thesis, Tokio University in coperation with S.E.Jones.--5.15.21.236 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

TNCF model

It would be useful to mention the Trapped neutron catalyzed fusion (by Kozima) in the subsection Proposed mechanisms.--5.15.205.255 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This model assumes the existence of stable trapped neutrons in some solids connected to triggering of cold fusion.--5.15.37.249 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The source of initial neutrons is from the background neutrons.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

References for the model by the author.--5.15.55.216 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.--5.15.177.58 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that rather sounds like it would end up as a POV fork. I think the real issue is that you and Brian don't like what the secondary sources say. It is also unnecessary, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think some of us are capable of being sufficiently objective. But you and others would find reasons to dispute an objective article, and on account of that alone I'm rather inclined to consider user@5.15.177.58's suggestion not that useful. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources, those like Huizenga and Taubes are clearly given undue weight. Also finding unreasonable reasons to dispute an objective article is tendentious editing. Perhaps there are lesser to no objections to a user space rewrite/draft.--5.15.200.250 (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Current Status Section

Short of a complete rewrite, a lot of information is buried in the "history" section. Following the structure of Fusion power I think that a "Current Status" section is appropriate (of course, "current" will migrate to "history" on a timescale of maybe 5 years). A subsection of "current financing" could include the Kimmel/SKINR grant and the recent DOE funding proposal. Similarly, "current research/progress" could contain recent reports. Alanf777 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A five-year window 2009-2014 would bring in a good selection Alanf777 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Reported helium generation - competing hypothesized mechanisms

How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?--5.15.206.234 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Err ... do bear in mind that 'This is not a forum for general discussion about cold fusion'. There's a time and a place for everything! But if you have a specific proposal for this article, do go ahead and make it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I consider that the statement about not forum can be tacitly assumed. The answer to the asked question about competing reactions, assuming its existence, should be specified in the article.--5.15.212.24 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.--5.15.41.17 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Excess heat as due to difference in conductivity of heavy water/water with lithium salts

There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.--5.15.62.129 (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Taubes can be cited as according to Taubes....--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

There no good reason to archive the talk page with time between archiving of 1 month for unreplied sections. The archiving settings could be changed.--5.15.41.17 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Who has made the setting of archiving this page of 1 month since the last unreplied comment in sections?--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The page should be delisted from bot archiving.--5.15.4.233 (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Increased to 60 days. Delisting would need a commitment from a long term editor to do it manually, something which seems unlikely. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality of experiments

Something should be inserted in article about the quality of experiments and experimental design in regards to reproducibility, like the following text:

After the announcement of the Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, there has been great debate between the deniers and the believers of the science of cold fusion phenomena. The debate continues to this day after two decades since the announcement. In other sciences, this situation is rare typically due to the fact that experiments are either reproducible or not. In this particular situation, the poor reproducibility of the experiment has been a major issue. As a result, the truth about whether or not cold fusion is even possible has been questioned. The purpose of this paper is to clarify why this unique situation occurred. We divide the process of experiment into four phases to analyze why "poor reproducibility" occurred. (1)Setting up the hypothesis, (2) Planning of experimental design, (3) Implementation of the experiment and (4) Verification of experiment. We would like to discuss what the problems have been in each phase.We interviewed the scholars in the field of Cold Fusion and found that the following problems have occurred in the four phases. (1) Hypotheses: There have been a number of hypotheses. Therefore, it has been difficult to get specific, measurable feed back. What one believes theoretical plays outs quite differently in experimental form (2) Experimental design: Each experiment may appear to have been carried out under the same conditions. However, variations appeared in the experimental results. It is possible that there were unknown conditions in metal, gas, and other components. Such unknown conditions might have not been considered in the experimental design. (3) Implementation of the experiment: Preventing the dispersion of the gas such as nano-structure of the metal as well as the gas such as hydrogen is very difficult. Hence, it has been difficult to control the experiment perfectly. (4) Verification of experiment: There has been some uncertainty about the various hypothesis and experimental conditions. It is difficult to write specifically about all the experimental conditions in the papers. Therefore, reproducing the experiments have been difficult for other researchers. In this study, we focused on the quality of the "implementation of experiment". In particular, we analyzed the prototype of the venture companies outside of Japan. We looked at the photos and the data of the prototype. We also analyzed the structure of the prototype, material, gas, and the method of heat measurement from the photos. We came to the conclusion that the results and outputs that the company claims are quite different from what they appear to be. Moreover, the data and the information which contained a lot of noise were announced without peer-reviews. In conclusion, "the lack of clear hypothesis", "difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions" and "uncertainty of information" led to the current controversy of Cold Fusion. It is important to solve these problems in order for the society of Cold Fusion to be in the main stream of the scientific society.

by E. Igari, T. Mizuno--5.15.41.17 (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current scientific consensus is that many of the experiments, specifically a subset of the negative ones that conclude no cold fusion exists, are quite robustly reproducible under controlled conditions. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is equally the case that many experiments require a lot of expertise to reproduce the effects under investigation, which means it is strikingly easy (though uninformative scientifically) to reproduce a null result! --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You may be right for what little I care; I was speaking merely to what the scientific consensus appears to be. As always, the scientific consensus may be wrong, but it's not Wikipedia's place to attempt to overturn it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The scientific consensus may be wrong or even lacking, especially in the case of CF. From the above probabilistic approach follows necessarily: the probability of reproducing a result and the probability of the complementary event, namely of not reproducing the result(s) must be considered.--5.15.191.89 (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Other aspect concerns the factorial design approach to experiments, considering the rather loose connection between theories of CF and experimental results.--5.15.191.89 (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The influence of alloys electrodes can be tested.--5.15.50.78 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Types of models

Several types of models, considering or avoiding the potential barrier to fusion of deuterons are reviewed by Chechin&Tsarev Int. J. Theor Phys. (1993)--5.15.41.228 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC) 4. 1 Barrier Circumvention (Avoidance)

      4.1.1 Transmission Resonance (TR)
      4.1.2 Lattice Induced Nuclear Chemistry (LINC)
      4.1.3 Barrier Free (BF)
      4.1.4 Coherent Deuteron Disintegration
      4.1.5 QED Neutron Transfer
      4.1.6 Bineutron (2n)

4.2 Barrier Reduction

      4.2.1 Heavy Particle Catalylists (HPC)
      4.2.2 Superradiance (SR)
      4.2.3 Lattice Vibrations (LV)
      4.2.4 Quantum Electrodynamic Confinement (QEC)
      4.2.5 Screening and Effective Mass

4.3 Barrier Ascent

     4.3.1 Fracto Acceleration (FA)
     4.3.2 Fracto Acceleration Plasma (FAP)
     4.3.3 Interface Acceleration (IA)
     4.3.4 Lattice Collapse (LC)
     4.3.5 Quantum Mechanical Transient

4.4 Narrow Nuclear Resonances (NNR) 4.5 Multibody Fusion 4.6 Exotic Chemistry--5.15.191.239 (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

brought text--5.15.200.152 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Classical models

The models which avoid the barrier resort to hypotheses concerning forces that could facilitate the fusion of deuterons thus making the barrier concept unnecessary.--5.15.63.120 (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Connection with Bubble fusion and Sonoluminescence

It should be specified what are the connections between the two types of fusion.--5.15.41.228 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

They have their own articles and are mentioned in the parent article of Nuclear Fusion. They were mentioned in passing in an older version of this article, but as their hypothesized mechanism involves localized pockets of very high energy (temperatures) it was argued that they were not part of this topic and the mention was removed. Personally, I rather liked the old section describing other things that are sometimes incorrectly called cold fusion, but I would have to concede that this article is already quite long. I do see that someone has added an 'in popular culture' section again this time as 'cultural references'- such a section seems to get recreated and then redeleted every few years here.--Noren (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to that discussion (probably in some archive of this page) to see what kind of arguing was used?--5.15.15.146 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully, the "popular culture" section will survive if we only allow mention with high-quality sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Navy SPAWAR researchers are in a 1 hour and 3 minute video on YouTube claiming that the reaction is highly repeatable, makes gamma rays, neutrons, and transmutes metals into other metals, and creates Tritium. The talk was filmed at the U of Missouri. NASA has 2 videos on YouTube, both saying the reaction is a real thing, that it creates heat, that NASA is contracting for a space plane built around the Nickel-Hydrogen LENR reactor ,, that the Windom Larsen theory fits most of the observed phenomena in the reaction. I question the glaring omissions of these items from this Wiki. NASA slideshows on presentations that NASA Langley made at other NASA facilities are also on YouTube, they discuss the space plane, and aircraft with "unlimited hover". Why do we seriously consider that Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems (Pacific), and Langley, don't know a nuclear reaction when they see one? We shouldn't be bitter, but re-consider. 98.30.129.141 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Search for relevant videos on → Youtube.com. — Loadmaster (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As the last three NASA-related papers that I checked stated essentially that "cold fusion would be extremely useful if it worked, so more research is recommended." Although quoted by editors as saying that it worked, they did not. Hence, if you can provide a specific NASA paper which actually said that it works, I might consider it worthy of addition. As it stands, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Taleyarkhan's results

Bubble fusion and sonoluminescence seems to have close connection to cold fusion by mechanism as Taleyarkhan's experimental results indicate [7].--5.15.187.130 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Biased language

The article now partly shows language that goes beyond neutral and encyclopedic attitude. Example:

Many years after the 1989 experiment, cold fusion researchers still haven't agreed on a single theoretical explanation or on a single experimental method that can produce replicable results and continue to offer new proposals, which also fail to convince mainstream scientists.

Why should all researches agree on any one explanation? Are they all working together or following the same (hidden) agenda? How does a scientist achieve the classification of being "mainstream"? The whole field continues to be worked on, for whatever motives, multiple they may be, and it is WPs job to document that work, not to take side, or even support that decision to be made by the reader, for one or another side. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the excerpt must be rephrased. The demand of only one explanation is somewhat Procustesean and not very well-founded given, for example, the complexity of the phenomena and the possible generation of helium by deuteron fusion but also by other reactions .--5.15.53.120 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing isn't great. More accurate, although not easily sourced, is that there is no "accepted" theoretical explanation (even among the fringe community) nor any experimental method that has produced replicable results. Perhaps the "explanation" clause should be removed, but the "experimental method" clause should be strengthened. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow the topic cold fusion and the valuation of the proponent's motives are two separate storys; we might not want an extra article for the latter, but we should not mix these aspects as well. I propose to describe the discussion between the two (or more) sides, including attributions like "pathological", in _one_ paragraph. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User discussion

- Moved from my discussion page after a revert of my edits by User Enric Naval in this article. -

that information is on the cited sources

In reference to [8]. That's not original research by a wikipedia editor. The sources say, among other things, that it's a symptom of pathological science, that cold fusion proponents meet it, and that consequently the cold fusion field would have the characteristics of pathological science. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Enric, the attribution that researchers on cold fusion may be following "pathological science" is now four times in the article. This does not look like the spirit expressed in WP:NPOV. It is IMHO questionable if any valuation of something being "pathological" can be scientifically profound. The "sources" saying that may be reputable experts - in physics, but also in sociology of science? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion has become an example of pathological science, for a number of different reasons. It's only natural that it pops up in the text as you explain things.

There is no requirement anywhere that the sources have to be authored by people who have the degree of sociology of science. (but one of the authors happen to have such a degree, Bart Simon, and another has a degree in sociology and is expert on demarcation of fields of knowledge Thomas F. Gieryn) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Bernd.Brincken Wikipedia can point out when a discipline is widely regarded as pseudoscientific, or when some critics notably allege a discipline to be pseudoscience; see [[9]]. Such evaluations are, like much of the "philosophy of science", themselves non-scientific, but are nevertheless encyclopedic, and many people (including me) consider opinions about such distinctions relevant to their understanding of the topic. I would presume classifications as "pathological" follow the same guidelines. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

About "nowhere near enough" to "not enough", that doesn't convey that the distance is off by an enormous amount, even assuming the most optimal circumstances. See the language in some of the sources:

• "Deuterium distance (...) Thus even under the high D/Pd values attained by electrolytic charging, the D-D spacing remains much too large for any fusion reaction."[10] 2004 DOE report
• "The closest approach between the neighbouring deuterium nuclei (...) more than double the bond distance in deuterium gas molecules (..) Deuterium gas does not spontaneously fuse, and the situation within palladium is even less advantageous" (emphasis was in the original) Close, pp 257-258
• "In D₂ gas molecules (...) the theoretical cold fusion rate is 3 x 10^-63 sec ^-1 (...) As stated previously this corresponds to one fusion per year for a solar mass of deuterium! (...) In the palladium metallic lattice, however, the mean spacing of the deuterium niclei is even larger than that in D₂ molecules (...) [achieving the fusion rate claimed by Fleischmann and Pons in metallic palladium lattice] requires a high-grade miracle (...) Even an enhancement of 40 orders of magnitude (10⁴⁰), necesary for the Jones et al. fusion rate, has still to be included in the miracle class." Huizenga, p. 112
• "Several theorists performed calculations (...) but they quickly found that the upper limits for fusion under their conditions made the possibility of fusion astronomically unlikely." Simon, p. 50

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The language in the sources is in the sole responsibility of the authors - they are likely not bound to concepts like WP:NPOV or WP:OR - so their attitude can not be taken over in an encyclopedia. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an objective assessment of a physical phenomenon, not a political opinion. And it's made by physicists, so I don't see the argument for WP:OR. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The arguments from the assessments cited here are overblown/misconceived. Objectivity is lacking, especially in Huizenga's analysis.--5.15.187.130 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And about "have not yet" and "have yet failed". I am not an English native.

"yet" implies that it will eventually happen? Aren't we making a prediction that proponents will eventually agree on one method, and that they will eventually convince other scientists? And "still" is for things that keep happening right now? It sounds to me like "still" is more correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Failed" is biased language IMHO. This can and must be expressed more neutral. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with rewording to remove "failed". It hadn't occurred to me that this word was a problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And removed. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Biased Language? Generally, yes. I agree with Bernd.Brincken. There's also ambiguous, undiscerning language. Take the example in the first paragraph: "It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no accepted theoretical model of cold fusion."

Man, is that a loaded statement!

For one, "It" is ambiguous about what "it" is. Is "it" "the actuality of excess heat" or "the assertion that excess heat's source is fusion (D+D,D+P,etc.), or what? It's easy to muddle when we're not careful to be discerning and explicit in our writing. And when we do muddle, we open up the opportunity for any number of interpretations such as reading it as bias. If "it" means assertion of fusion as a source, and in the early years, then "rejected" might be apt. If "it" means observation of excess heat in later years, then "rejected" not so much.
Also "loaded" into the question is the idea that a field requires an "accepted theoretical model" to be valid. Mankind made excellent use of fire for a few years, and even engineered with it, before we understood fire or heat. We accepted and rejected numerous models of heat all the while warming our toes with it. Not having acceptance of one model of something is not a basis for acceptance or rejection of the fact of it (as is implied by the statement). In this case, only excellent calorimetry can do that.
The statement implies rejection for all time. In the earlier days both a fusion explanation and excess heat were rejected in large part, now the actuality of excess heat and even it's source being binding energy (by some pathway) isn't so widely frowned upon. In the beginning those ideas were frowned on, but not so much now. The tone asserts a strong rejection of all of "it" over the entire 25 years.
Not least, the statement is argument from authority. It implies an idea that science is something to be adjudicated by a body of mainstream authority. Ugh! Science is assessed by the testing of models for reliability and throwing them out when they fail. It isn't presided over.
Ubewu (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"it" = "the whole field of cold fusion"

The reasons for rejection are sourced from RS.

The rejection comes from "most scientists". Sometimes described as "the scientific community".

It's still rejected by most scientists. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It was hard to figure out whether "it" meant "the Cold Fusion name", or "the assertion that only fusion is the source", or "the measurement of excess energy", or any of a number of interpretations. I'm glad you came along and clarified it for me with such authority. Since "it" is ambiguous, we should clarify that in the text as well. Apparently, according to an authority, it means "the entire field, every thing about it, and for the whole of the last 25 years". We should clarify "it" with words to that effect. Since there is no bias, clarifying "it" like that shouldn't cause any change in the current cool, cut-and-dried, exclusively rational tone. Right? Ubewu (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

(Looking at the whole paragraph, "it" is also used in the previous sentence, and it refers to "the hypothesis"). A bit of clarification would be fine, but your version is a bit excessive. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right about my version being excessive. I was being melodramatic and snotty. Sorry, it was somewhat uncivil of me.  :-) Ubewu (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DOE ARPA-E Funding

Added an initial entry based on Forbes and DOE. Alanf777 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this merits a sentence at the end of the lead. Alanf777 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -- skinr and doe Alanf777 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll change those to named-refs if the para stands. I'm not sure if the first named ref can be empty. Alanf777 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also see my proposal to carve out a "Current Status" section covering 2009-2014 Alanf777 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not relevant to this article. As the Forbes piece says: "LENR technology has suffered from confusion with Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann‘s “cold fusion” experiment, which has largely been dismissed by the scientific community." Wikipedia should not be similarly confused. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

At present Cold Fusion and LENR (and various other acronyms such as LENT) are synonyms. Only Widom-Larson (and their main supporter Krivitt) claim that LENR is entirely different from Cold Fusion. "R" stands for "Reaction" -- which includes Fusion. A split of the article into "Cold Fusion" and "LENR" is not appropriate at this time, if ever. If this is your only objection then the "LENR" information should be restored. Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Alanf777 here: LENR and cold fusion are the same thing. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll undo the last two changes Alanf777 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone remember CMNS (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science)? The organizer of the international cold fusion conference still bears this name[11]. And right there I can see the "Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball-Lightning" and the "International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

David Nagel lists 25 names on the last page of http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NagelICCF18.pdf (he regards the entire field as CMNS) -- I'm sure we don't need an article for each !! Alanf777 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the existing section, but it should read Forbes reports that New Energy Times (or Larsen) reports that the DOE ARPA-E study supports "cold fusion" research. The Forbes article does not actually report that the DOE ARPA-E may support "cold fusion" research. NET is not reliable; is Larsen considered a reliable "expert"? I don't know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Larsen? It would be OK to quote/paraphrase Forbes on "Lewis Larsen, the Chicago physicist who co-authored the Widom-Larsen theory of low-energy nuclear reactions, called the mention “a stunning reversal of a longstanding policy.”" He's too close to quote him on theory, but OK for policy. Adding that would indicate why the FOA is significant. Alanf777 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not uncommon. Something happens (DOE FOA). Somebody notices it and tips off a wiki-unreliable source, and then a wiki-reliable source picks up on that. Since there's no dispute that DOE did it, I don't think we need to document the entire chain. As a co-author of the "Widom-Larsen" effect (vigorously touted by NET, supported by NASA) Larsen is too close to be an unbiased expert. As Nagel pointed out in the above review paper, there are "approximately three dozen" groups of theories, and no consensus. Hmmm ... shouldn't the long-standing "Infinite Energy" magazine (still mainly print) be regarded as a reliable source? Alanf777 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm - problems?

I have to say this addition still strikes me as problematic. It has an entire standalone subsection written in rather a newsy "announcement" fashion to itself, and a meaty paragraph in the lede - which all seems rather undue. More particularly though, the secondary source we use explicitly says its subject is not to be confused with "cold fusion" such as Pons-Fleischmann's efforts. Yet here we are adding it to an article on Wikipedia entitled "Cold fusion" the opening words of which are "This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature". So something's wrong somewhere isn't it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The "about" section you quote is just to distinguish F&P metal-hydrogen CF from muon-catalyzed CF. It could be extended to add "and subsequent research" .. but that's covered in the lead. Since this is the first time the DOE has opened the door even a tiny crack to CF/LENR funding it is significant, and merits a mention in the lead (and I don't consider a 20-word sentence, where the long names make up 10 of those words, particularly meaty). I proposed a new "current status" section which would give it lower prominence in the article as a whole. Alanf777 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wired

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup - how about adding informations from this site? --22merlin (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There's little there which isn't quoting New Energy Times or Infinite Energy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

High temperatures are not in fact a prerequisite

The statement that, 'Nuclear fusion occurs at temperatures in the tens of millions of degrees' is perhaps a little misleading, since that is only true if heating is used as the driver. Electrostatic acceleration can achieve fusion with potentials as little as a few thousand volts. This has been conclusively demonstrated by devices such as the Farnsworth fusor, which is within the scope of mainstream science. Awareness of this has a significant effect on the apparent feasibility of other fusion approaches. In fact, any propulsive force which can overcome the coulomb barrier can initiate fusion, and the energy required to do this is quite modest by particle accelerator standards. It just happens that accelerating the particles by way of heating them is a dreadfully inefficient way of achieving sufficent kinetic energy, hence the enormous temperatures needed.--Anteaus (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

One can see above at Types of models section that there are models of classical type who avoid the concept of potential barrier.--5.15.200.152 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of Fleischmann-Pons_experiment

See "restored per Wikipedia:Notability - I strongly urge you to read the guideline before reverting".

Note that:

• Fleischmann-Pons_experiment is only a copy/paste of parts of Cold fusion as it was in November 2011.
• All RS look at this experiment in the context of how cold fusion evolved
• F&P's experiment didn't have repercussions outside of starting the field of cold fusion. It doesn't have scientific interest to any other field. It is interesting for sociology of science, but only inside the sociological context of how cold fusion evolved. I find it hard to justify a separate article.
• There are not many details about this experiment because of F&P's secrecy
• The few known details about F&P's experiment are already discussed all over Cold fusion. You can't explain why scientists changed their opinion without explaining almost all details that are known. Are we supposed to explain all details again in that article? In Fleischmann-Pons_experiment we would have to explain the repercussion of those details. In other words, we would have to repeat an awful lot of paragraphs from Cold fusion. That's a lot of duplication. And it would be more difficult to maintain and keep synchronized.

--Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

For reference, the previous discussion on this topic, from March 2013: Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 44#split "Pons and Fleischmann" from main article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

He has restored the article, claiming "user creates article". But he has restored a slightly modified version of the same copy/paste from November 2011, see commparison). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• All RS look at this experiment in the context of how cold fusion evolved

A better title would be "Pons-Fleischmann press release". That is the static content I aim to isolate. I now think the press release should be an aditional article. (Talk:Fleischmann-Pons_experiment#suggest_name_change)

One of the accademic objections to wikipedia is the way history can be rewritten (by annons) on a daily basis. I see no need for that. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Are we supposed to explain all details again in that article?"

Many of these sections use to be more elaborate. We should dig in the archives and find the most elaborate version. Then move that section to the article about that topic. If it still requires mention in the "cold fusion" article it can be brief and link to the full text.

We have a nice and very elaborate manual of style that (provided one can find the paragraph) explains everything in great detail.

• In Fleischmann-Pons_experiment we would have to explain the repercussion of those details. In other words, we would have to repeat an awful lot of paragraphs from Cold fusion. That's a lot of duplication.

Up to now the Cold fusion article was also the P&F article. To be a real Cold Fusion article the Pons and Fleischmann coverage has to be reduced dramatically. As this would be a great loss of content it makes sense to have a whole article for this.

"To be a real Cold Fusion article the Pons and Fleischmann coverage has to be reduced dramatically." That makes no sense to me; the media coverage of Pons and Fleischmann is quite significant. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand it wont be easy but when it is done we can expect new editors to understand what it is we are doing here. You might understand the article, you cant expect this from other people. I think Brian Josephson makes a fine example in this. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominated the FP experiment for deletion [12]. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Howmany users have been banned as a result of the confusing scope?

Off topic. If you wish to discuss users or block statistics, do so elsewhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in asserting or exposing any editor conspiracy, that said I would like to know howmany users have been banned for being overly optimistic. It seems a very popular motivation to ban people. I'm most interested in the way the confusing scope creates such disagreements. A simple example would be the endless discussion about including NASA in this article. At first sight the article contains many news sources. Further examination reveals that the only sub topic that may use such sources is our Pons and Fleismann coverage. At first sight I thought not including NASA was very biased editing. In the amount of time it took me to figure this out I could have easily been banned. To state the obvious: Wikipedia has many articles. Millions of them. Some topics have thousands of articles. 1500 mentions of Power Rangers is my favorite example. Cramping everything related to cold fusion into one article create a very confusing scope. This comes at a price, the price is that we will have to ban many users who simply don't get it. Whatever you think is accomplished it cant be worth that much. I see over 800 Paula abdul articles. These have been written using the same notability policy. I don't want to work with editors who each think the scope of the article is something different. It is a terrible idea, I've tried this, it didn't work. It had no effect. Your thoughts? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Those user were banned because of tendentious editing and POV pushing, not for the reasons you state Forking the article wouldn't change the behaviour of POV-pushing editors. On the contrary, it would be easier to POV-push. In the past, POV-pushing editors created forks of this article where they presented only the positive parts of the field. I think that it would be harder to maintain two separate articles, because the topic can't be separated easily (as I explained in the section above). What is the benefit for the reader? I think it's better to have everything organized in this single article. A copy/paste of a few paragraphs doesn't look like a fruitful way to go forward Cold fusion is a smallish field that got a lot of publicity years ago. In those months of glory, it earned a place in popular culture. And there is an intriguing story of how science announcements can go bad. And another story about how scientists can stick to a field after most scientists have abandoned it, mostly because of Pascal's wager (if it worked, it would every energy need in the world!!! Even if the chance of success is beyond minuscule, the earnings of succeeding are so great that it justifies spending any amount of money!!!!!!! Imagine if it turns out to be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). But there is not much beyond that. After +20 year there is no independent verification of any significant advance in getting heat from that process. We can't report the advances on this field because there hasn't been any, despite the many claims of replication. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we don't divide articles on popular topics only because they are popular. Power Rangers is a bad comparison. It has many TV series, games, collectibles, fan culture, copycats, parodies, etc. It has many articles because it needs them. Every article needs to justify its existence on its own. Independient experiments only get their own articles if they are heavily important for whatever the reason, for example Michelson–Morley experiment. And you want to make an article about a press release that announced a experiment that was later shown to be flawed and didn't result in scientific advances? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (deleted) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC) A Wikipedia article on "Fleischmann-Pons experiment" is a bad idea at this time because it is likely to be a POV fork [13]. Already there is discussion there attempting to develop it "according to a particular point of view" [14]. Olorinish (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC) If you want to accuse me of POV forking you should provide evidence of it. Accusations should happen after I do something wrong. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Those user were banned because of tendentious editing and POV pushing, not for the reasons you state I disagree. Forking the article wouldn't change the behaviour of POV-pushing editors. On the contrary, it would be easier to POV-push. In the past, POV-pushing editors created forks of this article where they presented only the positive parts of the field. Try assume good faith. I think that it would be harder to maintain two separate articles, because the topic can't be separated easily (as I explained in the section above). You dont have to maintain anything. The topics can be separated. What is the benefit for the reader? I think it's better to have everything organized in this single article. It is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. A copy/paste of a few paragraphs doesn't look like a fruitful way to go forward That is the way [wp:spinout]] works. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we don't divide articles on popular topics only because they are popular. Power Rangers is a bad comparison. It has many TV series, games, collectibles, fan culture, copycats, parodies, etc. It has many articles because it needs them. Every article needs to justify its existence on its own. We dont create articles by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we use the notability guidelines. Independient experiments only get their own articles if they are heavily important for whatever the reason, for example Michelson–Morley experiment. And you want to make an article about a press release that announced a experiment that was later shown to be flawed and didn't result in scientific advances? The Water fueled car is an imaginary automobile that hypothetically derives its energy directly from water. Our article has sections with their own article. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell has a section Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car and the Gasoline pill to! If our pseudoscience can have all these nice things, then why would we deny the professors this? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Regarding the above comment by 84.106.26.81 that "You dont have to maintain anything.", my response is that people who want Wikipedia to provide accurate and useful information about cold fusion actually do have to maintain the relevant articles. If there were additional cold-fusion-related articles on Wikipedia, it would take extra work to stay up-to-date on any changes. Keep in mind that this topic has a history of biased editing, sockpuppet use, rambling, and rudeness, so it has been especially hard to get something close to NPOV. Olorinish (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Splitting of Fleischmann-Pons_experiment

Fleischmann-Pons experiment

I would like to see a link above the section: "Cold fusion#Fleischmann-Pons experiment"

::Main article: [[Fleischmann-Pons experiment]]

It only needs copy/pasting into the section. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Events preceding announcement

The section Cold fusion#Events preceding announcement doesn't have to be in this article. The exact text is available here: Fleischmann-Pons_experiment#Events preceding announcement.

It extends slightly into the next section:

In mid-March 1989, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on March 24 to send their papers to Nature via FedEx.[29] Fleischmann and Pons, however, pressured by the University of Utah, which wanted to establish priority on the discovery,[30] broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on March 11, and disclosing their work via a press release[31] and press conference on March 23.[28] Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to Nature after the press conference.[29]

The section and the paragraph can just be removed without loosing anything. (feel free to do so if you have editing privilages) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)