Talk:Cold fusion

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

Moving on from RFC

The two-part RFC has now been closed. Cold fusion, or reports of cold fusion, may be said to be considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. Cold fusion may also be categorized in Category 2 as defined by the ArbCom in WP:ARBPS, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience but have a following. Any edits that differ with those conclusions are against consensus, and so are disruptive. Any questions that do not contain sufficient to be answered, or any edit requests that do not contain sufficient detail to be understood, may be ignored, but, if persistent, are disruptive editing, and can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement.

Now that the RFC has been closed and consensus is established, I will be requesting that this talk page, but not the article page, be unprotected, to allow comments by unregistered editors. However, any disruptive editing of this talk page (which has happened more than once) will either result in its semi-protection again, or in Arbitration Enforcement, or both.

Now that the RFC has been closed, we can move on.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what this is all about, but you certainly do not have my agreement to the proposition that CF is considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. The fact that papers on the subject have been published by regular peer-reviewed journals disproves the proposition. This whole business has the air of a coup and smells distinctly nasty. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly RFC could have lasted longer than the default duration (30 days) and not necessarily needed an explicit closure. In cases with obvious lack of consensus like this an explicit closure that just count votes and not !votes is not needed.--86.125.191.31 (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

N-rays and polywater were also published in peer-reviewed journals. Perpetual motion machines are still occasionally patented (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines#1981 to 1999). Being published means next-to-nothing. It is the scientific consensus that is derived through discussion of such publications that brings validity, and when the cold fusion researchers deliberately misunderstand critics and refuse to answer them, they prove they are pathological scientists. Invoking conspiracy theories doesn't help either. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Those mentioned topics have been falsified quite rapidly.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact that pseudoscience got published before, and probably will again. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Once falsified, the topics disproved like poliwater have never been investigated and published.--86.125.191.31 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean that ANY addition to the article supporting the proposition that Cold Fusion is real, and that its investigation is legitimate, if controversial, science, is against the "consensus" and will be regarded as disruptive? Alanf777 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that additions to article should be based on reviews articles in journals.--5.15.36.30 (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what sources support the statement, and how the statement is presented. Compare these two statements:

• "Cold fusion is real, and most scientists agree with this" (link to the self-published website of a supporter)
• "According to historian of science X, cold fusion is currently not considered real by scientists because of Y and Z. But it should be considered real because of R and T." (cite to a scholar book, the author is a guy who specialized in history of physics and has good reviews)

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In the latter case, the opinion of historian of science X may be cited with the reference to reasons R and T as the opinion of historian of science X. All statements made in the voice of Wikipedia should be avoided, regardless of what side they are on, because Wikipedia's job is to present the divided voice of mainstream science. Reliable quotes are permitted in the voices of their authors, not of Wikipedia. Quotes that give undue weight to the idea that cold fusion is mainstream should be avoided. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems reasonable that statements in Wikipedia voice should be avoided. Selection of quotes however isn't a clear cut issue and it can easily be abused. There is no consensus in reliable sources about CF status as fringe or not and Wikipedia should reflect this lack of consensus in sources.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would think this article needs to be revisited as pseudoscience: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.6.9.83 (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The entire point of the discussion above was that we shouldn't change the article every time some blogger comes up with a new screed claiming that this time it's real and not just a scam. That website post is more obvious pseudoscience. For example, on page 28 we find the sentence "In the SIMS analysis the ⁷Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5%." What would any rational scientist think after measuring the same physical property with two methods and finding that these two measurements contradict each other by far, far more than the accuracy they expect? I'd expect them to investigate to find out how one or both of those contradictory measurements is flawed, or to otherwise explain the discrepancy. These authors reported this obvious contradiction but instead of science their very next sentence is, "This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place." --Noren (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You obviously have not any experience with mass spectrometry to support your statements.--5.15.42.41 (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I noticed that the authors of that 'independent' report thank Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for financial support. That's the company who owns the patent rights to the E-Cat.--Noren (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't violate independence, companies pay people to independently to verify stuff all the time. Its practically the norm in everything from pharmaceuticals to engineering. If you had any experience with SIMS or ICP-MS (which i do) you might know that they don't work in the same way (measurement affects results in some cases). The difference between SIMS and ICP-MS measurement here could actually help explain whats going on. The important point was that both were lower than originally, even if different samples had slightly different results (grains that were in different places in the reactor interior). My point really is that you shouldn't be so quick to judge someone's findings unless you are an expert in the field. Thats why we source stuff and don't just use OR.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the mass spectrometry analysis is very sensitive to the skills of the analist.--82.137.11.180 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to say whether there is anything to the LENR claims, but I do think that the downright condemnatory tone of this article clashes with the ecstatic, advert-like tone of the write-ups on other renewable energy topics. We know that other renewables promoters have made some serious exaggerations of the performance of their products, possibly more serious exaggerations than some claims made for LENR. If claims of neutron radiation were unfounded, then disproven claims that for example 'wind power will be continuous because the wind always blows somewhere' should be given the identical condemnatory treatment. There is after all no such thing as 'quack science' -there is just accurate science which precisely describes the behaviour of a system, and inaccurate science which does not. The fact one sounds more plausible than the other does not exclude either from scrutiny as inaccurate science.

Whilst we are told that we may not quote claims for success with LENR made by organizations with vested interests, there seem to be no compunctions whatsoever about basing claims for other renewables on self-quotes from their sellers and promoters. Witness for example the header of the renewable energy page, pulled straight from REN21, and filled with unverified claims for the products listed.

There would seem to be a strong editorial bias here, something which is supposed to be a no-no on Wikipedia. Let's keep things on a level footing.--Anteaus (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The very short response I could make is just a link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—the mere existence of some other articles which handle a topic badly doesn't mean that we should corrupt this article to match. (That said, I think you overstate the issues with renewable energy.) Still, if you want to compare apples and oranges anyway, I'd say that the most fundamental difference is that there is no doubt about the existence of working wind turbines and photovoltaic panels. The underlying physical principles are well-understood, thoroughly-tested, and extensively and credibly published and patented. Individuals, corporations, and national governments can buy and build these devices and structures from numerous commercial entities, and get real, measurable amounts of electricity from them.

The arguments about whether and how to deploy renewable energy technologies variously involve political and philosophical questions, economic questions, balancing environmental concerns, and engineering/efficiency issues. You can argue that a wind-turbine salesman is scamming you by underestimating the lifetime of his turbine or its maintenance requirements. You can argue that the wind-turbine salesman is scamming you by overstating the performance of his turbines under particular local wind conditions, or even by underestimating the number of likely bird strikes. But nobody – well, no reasonable person, and certainly no scientist – can credibly argue that wind is an imaginary phenomenon resulting from the salesman's wishful thinking, selective observations, and imagination. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Windmills have existed since the Middle Ages, or earlier. In 1952, fusion was used to blow a hole in an island. Both undoubtedly exist. There are nevertheless doubts as to whether fusion can be perfomed in a test tube, and there are doubts as to whether wind turbines can replace fossil fuel power stations. Interestingly, the issue of intermittency figures in both. LENR experimenters do not seem to be able to achieve repeatable or consistent results. Presently, we do not know why that is. By contrast, the intermittency of wind is well understood by meteorological scientists, and if they had been asked about this aspect they would no doubt have pointed out the errors in the assumption that geographically wide-scale deployment would eliminate the intermittency of wind energy.

The nonrepeatability of LENR results has been attributed to poor experimental technique, although there does not seem to be any concrete proof of this attribution. If this nonrepeatability can be understood and resolved, then LENR may possibly be a viable energy source. By contrast, we know that the intermittency of wind (and solar PV) is a fundamental property, and cannot be resolved. Wind energy marketers have responded by claiming that advanced energy storage technologies will resolve the intermittency -A claim for which there is no more scientific basis than the claim of test-tube fusion, since the touted energy storage technologies do not yet exist, and may never exist.

It might be added that failure to successfully repeat an experiment does not constitute disproof of the original result. That amounts to argument by way of ineptitude - 'Because I cannot do this, it follows that nobody else can.' Possible reasons for the failed replications have been discussed elsewhere -Contaminated cathodes through reusing old palladium, rushing to meet publication deadlines, etc.

Anyway, I digress. The key point here is not whether other poor articles exist, but that a consistent policy ought to exist with regard to cyclic references, that is, quoting from an organization's PR material when that same organization has most likely paid you to write the WP article. As suggested above this practice is not always bad, but in some circumstances where heavy WP:PROMOTION is involved, it is reprehensible.--Anteaus (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we'll agree to leave aside your rather dubious analogies and stick to your "key point"—can you identify the articles where there are editors with a conflict of interest, and go through the appropriate processes to clean them up? If editors with a clear COI have been editing renewable energy articles in a misleading, deceptive, or otherwise-suboptimal manner, then that's a potentially-serious problem in those articles, and something that you should definitely raise on their talk respective talk pages and the relevant noticeboards. Nothing you have said suggests to me that it would be a good idea to puff this article up with pro-cold-fusion material from fringe proponents. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that the 'magnet motor brigade' be let loose in here. However, to take just one example, this list seems fairly convincing. I guess it could be fake, and the way to find that out would be to ask a few members if they gave their permission to be included. I'm sure you are aware that NASA has published articles on the subject, suggesting that it merits further research.

BTW I have in the past suggested that independent citations be required for claims made of renewable energy technologies. Doing so doesn't seem to achieve much. --Anteaus (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, the place to discuss problems with other articles is on the talk pages of those articles. Encouraging the importation of poor practices from other areas here is a non-starter.

Name-dropping for the sake of name-dropping from that list (or any other) is a dubious approach. For almost any fringe position it is possible to find a scientist who will endorse some portion or another of it; saying "Wow! There's two PowerPoint slides' worth of scientists who endorse this (or at least some part of it)!" is just another way of writing "There are hundreds or thousands of scientists who aren't terribly impressed." This type of tactic has been regularly use to give a false impression of the scientific view of topics like creationism and climate-change denial; it's also a recurring problem when news outlets always present – and give equal time and credence to – one expert from each 'side' of an issue, regardless of how the topic is actually treated within the scientific community. So...no; not a good approach here either.

At this point, since you haven't actually been suggesting specific article edits and it seems unlikely that any plausible ones will be forthcoming, I'm going to disengage; I don't have the time to get sucked into endless back-and-forth for the sake of back-and-forth. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well, I think you've shown your hand with the invocation of climate change denial. There is no point in attempting any kind of rational discussion where that odious paradigm dictates what may be said, and what might be heresy. Nor of offering any real science for the article. Bye. --Anteaus (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I would consider a list of names something crediting a claim like, "Hundreds or thousands of scientists don't believe in x y or z." It's dubious only in that there would need to be some kind of source for each scientist to which the list refers. I want to call attention to the perception of false attention. Obviously we can't really use names as a source for something being believed, but what's the real point there? Aren't we wanting to use articles or research for that? The name might come in way of the author who wrote whatever it is we're reffering, but having a list of names doesn't really say much, even if a slide says they "endorse" it. If it's a provable theory that is in discussion, whether or not people believe in it or endorse it will matter. Here's 30 scientists who endorse gravity. That doesn't mean there's hundreds who don't. Maybe a little farfetched, sure, but you get where my angle is. The articles and sources are above all the most important for any article, and not who is represented in the spearheading of a belief or operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talk • contribs) 22:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The research of Steven Jones at Brigham Young has not been vetted in this article. It is very significant and peer reviewed in Nature. Also, the back-stabbing, slanderous activity of competing physics labs is significant, especially when they all secretly patented their unique versions of the experiments. Most of the recent patents do not say "cold fusion". They say "muon catalyzed", "piezonuclear" or "plasma" experiments because the patent office would summarily trash can anything that said "cold fusion". This kind of sophomoric playground nonsense always occurs in scientific organizations prior to paradigm shift (the rush to publish, own and monetize). CF is recognized as occurring at atomic levels, just not at practical energy-producing levels, yet. I think I know what they are doing wrong, and I am not talking. I need a couple hundred thousand dollars to prove it.

D8. Publishable results obtained in 1988-1989

In August 1988, we did gamma-ray studies, using the sodium-iodine detector easiest set up. As before, we saw only non-significant hints of gamma production in our 3 inch sodium iodide counter, so we decided to concentrate on using the neutron spectrometer, which was fully conditioned for use in late 1988. Our first studies with this spectrometer were done using titanium, palladium, tantalum, nickel, aluminum, iron, and lanthanum. We also used several methods of loading deuterium into metals, including the original electrochemical method. Thus, we performed anew the experiment which we had started in May 1986, namely electrolytic infusion of deuterium into metals, but with a much-improved neutron detector. Of these experiments, Paul Palmer records: "Steve [Jones] and Bart [Czirr] have set up experiments exactly as we did a year or so ago and looked for fusion-generated neutrons in Bart's liquid-scintillator, low-resolution spectrometer.....As in the previous work, the results were tantalizingly positive." Within a few weeks, the results had reached a statistical significance of over five standard deviations. We also found correlations between tritium detected in Hawaii and volcanic eruptions there, in agreement with expectations that piezonuclear fusion occurs in the earth. We decided in early February to publish our results. ........

It is noteworthy that our paper to Nature was published (April 1989, 338:737)

Danarothrock (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Thats soo oldschool. Nowadays, truth is democratic ;-)). If nobody reads your papers - they are fraud. Even the attached handwritings are highly suspicious. Everybody knows that serious science involves the usage of computers. lol. "The two-part RFC has now been closed. Cold fusion, or reports of cold fusion, may be said to be considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. Cold fusion may also be categorized in Category 2 as defined by the ArbCom in WP:ARBPS, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience but have a following. Any edits that differ with those conclusions are against consensus, and so are disruptive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the larger point here is that ArbCom have ruled. Since they are, essentially, the "supreme court" here at Wikipedia, we really have to follow their ruling. Arguing about whether it's a valid ruling or not doesn't belong here - it belongs with ArbCom. Even if you have a completely convincing argument and swayed the opinions of all of us here - you'd STILL have to take that to ArbCom in order to get their ruling reversed. So, honestly, the debate should be over and done with in this forum - and continuing to push it is disruptive editing - which can get you in trouble here. We're going to call Cold Fusion 'a pathalogical science' - we're not going to call it 'good science' and we're probably not going to call it 'pseudoscience' either. Debate is therefore closed until/unless ArbCom are presented with new evidence and persuaded to reconsider. SteveBaker (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I respect roles and processes. Cold Fusion in its original physical sense is "dead". The article covers this issue with "There are many reasons why known fusion reactions are unlikely explanations for the excess heat and associated claims described above." This means that a (known) fusion reaction has to have properties like production of deuterium and gamma radiation. But the decision if this article deals with low temperature effect with known fusion reaction characteristics - or anomalous heat generation without known fusion characteristics isnt taken. Its well mixed up - and even the move to relable anomalous heat generation without known fusion characteristics as "LENR" is misinterpreted as synonym for cold fusion - instead of a clear new generated category in physics. So there would be some need to differentiate between CF in physical and common sense - as well as a differentiation with LENR - which is definitely something different as CF. Does ArbCom decision apply to all this 3 different items ? Thats the primary question. Does ArbCom decision covers these aspects ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.182.233 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

References

You make some good points there. The naming of the phenomenon as 'Cold fusion' was by the press, not by researchers, and was perhaps unfortunate as the name itself creates presumptions, perhaps unjustified ones, about what properties should be observable. The accusations of 'junk science' stem from two sources: Inability to replicate the results, and inability to observe the byproducts of nuclear processes. The former would seem to be have been a consequence of rushed and inept replication due to a presumption that the work was a waste of time, whilst the latter arises from taking the press-given name of the process literally. At present, all that is definitely known is that certain processes produce more heat than the law of energy conservation would allow. Exactly how this arises, is not known. --Anteaus (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Current Science Journal Has Special Section on LENR in upcoming issue

Current Science has a special section dedicated to LENR in their upcoming issue. The full list of 12 LENR-related papers can be found in the below link.

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/fcarticles.php

As the top multidisciplinary journal in India, this represents a HUGE change of stance and should be reported in the article.

This also impacts the recent choice to reclassify the CF WIKI article as Pathological Science, as Pathological Sciences tend not to have large sections dedicated to them in high profile journals long after they have been 'debunked'.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The "top multidisciplinary journal in India" isn't very good, is it? Sub-unity – 0.833 and declining – impact factor? Jean-Paul Biberian's "biological transmutation" nonsense?

This "special section" says very little about the way cold fusion is seen by the scientific community, and much more about the quality and relevance of Current Science. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see. So anyone who actually looks at the evidence and publishes real science based on this is disreputable? Sorry mate but your personal opinion matters, in this case... not at all. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a Peer-Reviewed journal going out of its way to put CF forward as a special topic that demands consideration. i don't feel that us at Wikipedia can ignore that.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Does "multidisciplinary" mean "fringe"? It seems to in the US. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Science (Journal) is multidisciplinary, and Nature (journal) is 'natural sciences' which covers almost all disciplines. So no multidisciplinary does not mean fringe. And even if it does, you have lent support to my suggestion that this article be moved back to 'fringe science' rather than 'pathological science'. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

In "Cold fusion: comments on the state of scientific proof" [1] by Michael C. H. McKubre (published in the section mentioned above) McKubre argues that:

If pressed the authority of experts in the fields of nuclear or particle physics are invoked, or early publications of null results by ‘influential laboratories’ – Caltech, MIT, Bell Labs, Harwell. Almost to a man these experts have long ago retired or deceased, and the authors of these early publications of ‘influential laboratories’ have long since left the field and not returned. The issue of ‘long ago’ is important as it establishes a time window in which information was gathered sufficient for some to draw a permanent conclusion – some time between 23 March 1989 and ‘long ago’. Absurdly for a matter of this seeming importance, ‘long ago’ usually dates to the Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) on 1 May 1989. So the whole matter was reported and then comprehensively dismissed within 40 days (and, presumably, 40 nights).

This tells volumes on our approach here at this Wiki page, where we also focus heavily on those 40 days and those labs (Caltech, MIT, Bell, Harwell)

I would argue that the condition of certainty is approached asymptotically – we achieve the comfortable condition of ‘knowing’ by painstaking repetition and accumulation of knowledge over periods of years, decades or generations. Very few people ever attempt this exercise – those that do are called experts – those who do not look to these experts for answers. What is sought is not fact, but patterns and consistencies of behaviours. In his most recent book7, Ed Storms reviews over 900 publications sorting through these patterns in the attempt to create systematic order for those of us with less time, talent or devotion. By any standards Storms is an expert on the subject of cold fusion – one could argue that he is the preeminent expert on this topic. But where does one go to get a countervailing ‘expert’ opinion? I would argue that there is no such place or person and has not been for more than two decades, and that this is a problem. Individuals selected to evaluate the accumulated evidence or some subset of evidence with an open mind invariably come to the conclusion that the case for cold fusion is not disproven (the experience of Rob Duncan and 60 min comes to mind8). To hear a counter argument one must approach experts in related fields and ask their opinion about matters that they have not studied. Of course, all one can expect is an intuitive, emotive or self-serving response.

Which again speaks volumes that Ed Storms is consistently regarded on this talk page as being a disreputable source, (failure to be allowed to cite his work even when published in peer reviewed journals) despite being the preeminent expert on the topic. And that other so-called 'experts' are consistently cited despite not actually being involved in, or having studied, the field of cold fusion at all.

McKubre concludes:

From what we know today, and Figure 1 clearly illuminates, none of the cells in any of these early cited null studies would be expected to produce any excess heat. Not only for the reasons of a loading deficiency (as stated explicitly); the durations of the experiments were wholly insufficient. The Caltech work13 was completed and conclusions made public within 40 days of the Fleischmann and Pons public announcement. None of the Caltech experiments was operated for the 300 h (12.5 days) that was the minimum initiation time observed at SRI for bulk Pd cathodes and the entire set of Caltech experiments was complete well within the 1000 h (42 days) established as the minimum time of observation at SRI (see note 6). In addition, the current density stimuli used in these early null experiments were too small to reliably produce the effect and the deuterium flux was not measured. None of the criteria of eq. (1) was shown to be met, at least three demonstrably were not. In hindsight it is evident that the authors13–15 were victims of ‘unknown unknowns’, and perhaps ‘undue haste’ – but this is understandable in the frantic circumstances of 1989. What is important is that these experiments be recognized for what they are, not what they are not. They are important members of the experimental database that teaches us under what conditions one encounters FPHE. They are not any part of a proof of nonexistence of the phenomenon and cannot be used to support such a conclusion; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

in other words, pretty much all of the citations that we are using in this wiki article that were negative have been proven to have been victims of Unknown Unknowns, and do not now meet the criteria as reputable sources for determining the validity of the CF effect, except as a historical perspective on what was done wrong . from the now known criteria necessary for the production of excess heat, they would never be expected to work.

Source: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/forthcoming/CS-1.pdf

Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• The LENR-related material in that issue is confined to the "Special" section, the other sections being "General Articles", "Review Articles/Research Articles/Research Accounts", and "Research Communications". The page on editorial policies says all those sections are peer-reviewed except for the "Special" section, which goes unmentioned. Even putting other concerns aside for the moment, it is not clear whether these papers are peer-reviewed. If they are, then I don't understand why that wouldn't be made apparent. Manul ~ talk 01:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems quite common for this journal to use the heading 'special section' [2] for example in the last issue there was a special section on Geochemistry [3]. In the editorial section it clearly shows that ALL sections of the journal, and all categories of article are peer reviewed [4]. It does not state which category special section articles belong to, because they don't all belong to one category, (i.e. some might be 'review articles' and some might be 'research articles', others might be 'research news').

in the Peer Review section [5] however, it clearly states:

All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review.

In other words (as you might expect of a peer reviewed journal) EVERY paper, once assessed and approved by the review editor, is sent for detailed review. The special section is just a way of organising the journal, all the articles that are part of it are still peer reviewed. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I read the link that I supplied, including the part you quoted which is under "Peer Review Process". If something is peer-reviewed, then that is the process. But it isn't clear that these papers are peer-reviewed in the first place, for the reasons I gave. This is just one problem among others. Manul ~ talk 02:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless you are suggesting that all the other special sections on this list [6] are not subject to the normal peer review process (frankly ridiculous), i think you'd better move on to your 'other problems'. The editorial clearly states that all papers are peer reviewed, and then goes on to describe that process. The peer review section states that all papers in the journal are peer reviewed, not that all papers that are subject to the peer review process are subject to the peer review process. To try to imply that the journal would regularly include articles that aren't peer reviewed at all is pure delusion. Stop wasting my time and contribute to some meaningful discourse. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If every article is peer-reviewed, then what's with all the "Peer Reviewed" check marks under the specific sections given? You have to admit that makes no sense. And why would they leave out the "Special" section? As I said, the LENR papers may be peer reviewed, but it isn't entirely clear. It may just be that their website is screwy. Manul ~ talk 03:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you can't understand the clear wording given in the 'peer review section'. All papers are subject to peer review dude, its a fucking journal. Like I said earlier, 'special section' does not refer to a TYPE of article, (the check marks you mentioned are given for these), but rather is an organisational structure for the journal. I admit that it could be made more clear, but there is no doubt about the peer review of the articles. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It also states under the Author Guidelines [7] that all submitted articles are subject to peer review.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is your first and final warning about making personal attacks.

You are latching onto the phrase "All articles" that appears in the section "Peer Review Process". That may well mean "All articles that are part of the peer review process". Suppose for a moment that there exist some articles that are not peer-reviewed, as implied by the check marks if we assume the check marks aren't totally worthless. The "Peer Review Process" section would still make sense, and the "All articles" phrase would still make sense. The section wouldn't be describing articles that aren't under peer review.

I had seen the Author Guidelines page as well. That also doesn't say that all articles are peer-reviewed. It says that all articles are reviewed. Every journal (except the ones we don't care about) has editors that review articles. That's not the same as peer review. Maybe "sent for detailed review" means peer review. It's not entirely clear, just like it's not entirely clear what is meant by those "Peer Reviewed" check marks and the missing "Special" entry that may or may not have a check mark if it were there.

I have not been saying that the LENR articles are not peer-reviewed. I have been saying that it's not entirely clear that they are. There is a difference between those two claims. Manul ~ talk 05:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering that it references that articles are 'sent for detailed review' in the Peer Review Process section i think it is safe to assume that this statement means that the papers are sent for peer review. It is a peer reviewed paper, and although the guidelines may not be as clear as they could be, I admit, nothing on the editorial pages at all suggests that any papers that are published in Current Science are not peer reviewed. Given this information, if you want to argue that the LENR papers cited above that are to be published in the paper in the next issue are not part of the normal peer review process I'm afraid that the burden of proof is on your side, until evidence suggests otherwise we can safely assume they are part of the normal peer review process.

I apologise for getting personal but this is taking way too much of my time and we haven't even talked about the subject matter. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll preface my remarks by reiterating my original observation that this is largely a moot discussion, as Current Science is not a high- (or medium-) profile journal, it is not widely cited, and it is not known for publishing groundbreaking new work in physics or any scientific field.

That said, I find it suggestive that the regular articles in the journal have "Received" and "Revised accepted" dates at the end of each article – as is typical for peer-reviewed articles in most journals – whereas this information is missing from the articles in this "Special Section". Actually, doing a very quick spot check of the last half-dozen Special Sections, it looks like this information is absent from every Special Section article. At the very least, this implies a rather different route to publication for these special articles. (It's an open non-secret that, for example, editor-"invited" manuscripts tend not to be subject to the same scrutiny as the unsolicited slushpile submissions; even if external – rather than just editors-around-the-table internal – review is involved, editors certainly know how to select friendly reviewers. Or they could be handled like conference proceedings, where 'peer review' tends to mean that someone looked to see that most of the words in the abstract were spelled correctly.)

Honestly, this Special Section just strikes a very odd note in general. Current Science – including its Special Sections – is predominantly a publisher of work by Indian authors, employed at Indian institutions. (Indeed, I saw no obvious exceptions in the last dozen Special Sections.) Given its historical collaboration with the Indian Academy of Sciences and the journal's overall low profile in the scientific publishing world at large, this isn't particularly surprising. It's just plain weird, then, that a dozen fringe papers by (apparently) an entirely non-Indian cast of characters with no obvious connection to Indian science would suddenly appear in their pages. How on earth did they get there? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Silly me. This special section in a small, unimportant journal, is of interest only to a small, unimportant population of scientists in a small, unimportant country. Alanf777 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The articles are very short: just a review of some of the things happening in various fields and countries. All the citations are to peer-reviewed papers. I don't see why extensive peer review is required for these summaries ... this is well within the scope of the editor in charge of the section, who presumably has the permission of the editor in chief to include the section. I suspect that if (hypothetically) Nature or Science were to write an editorial on the subject you would reject it because it wasn't peer reviewed. Alanf777 (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a rumor that Science Journal was hacked by North Korean activists to discredit a leading science nation. Its quite logical that all these CF fringe scientists get funded by North Korean government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That is an incredibly unfounded and ignorant assumption. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll, Insertcleverphrasehere. The IP above is a cold-fusion believer like you; he just likes to do "social experiments" to get a reaction. He previously trolled you at Talk:Energy Catalyzer. I would block him, but unfortunately if I did so people would shout "censorship!" and "admin abuse". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attach the title of 'believer' to me, belief has no place in science. There is only evidence. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite Appalling Article, have these people never head of NPOV ?

[Edited] I just typed LENR at the prompt and was redirected here. LENR is quite clearly not cold fusion, the theory is totally different, and unlike cold fusion LENR seems to be based (at least partly) on real and rigorous science and scientific theory. This article was published on a NASA site - http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/ Note that LENR is a speculative theoretical field - looking at potential future mechanisms for low energy nuclear reactions for energy production, it is not about validating or proving existing experiments. Without such research science would barely be able to progress at all, so attacking it by labelling it as pseudo-science beforehand is particularly annoying.

As for the article itself parts of it are totally non-NPOV and aggressive bordering on rude. It is also far far too long. In articles dealing with subjects labeled as pseudo-science or fringe science care needs to be taken - especially as supposedly neutral and scientifically trustworthy sources quite frequently abandon all neutrality and scientific principles in order to make stronger arguments. Sceptics are often no better at science than the people they criticize and this does not help the real debate. Two classic examples of subjects that were heavily attacked and debunked for decades as pseudoscience were manned flight and rocketry, but really the examples from history are almost endless...
Its almost certain that cold fusion is a complete fantasy and that either the reaction was not fusion or there was some kind of experimental error or fabrication, but the proof is not 100% absolute. Disproving negatives is very difficult especially in areas where the scientific base is not 100% complete, which is most of science.
Perhaps the real crime lies with the media, who always jump on every small discovery or idea and then blow it completely out of proportion, and then once bored jump the other way and attack it like a pack of hyenas - wrong both ways... Lucien86 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

“Several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted,” according to Dennis Bushnell, Langley’s chief scientist... "Blown up", "melted"? From nuclear energy from LENR? I've never heard of that. Got a source for that? http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/10/jpl-falls-for-l.html JPL Falls For LaRC Cold Fusion / LENR Story Jim1138 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is true that labs have blown up. Which is totally unsurprising, since many of these experiments have involved substantial quantities porous or finely powdered catalytic metals, hydrogen under pressure, and electricity. If you're not extremely careful, it's very easy to inadvertently catalyze an explosive recombination of hdyrogen with oxygen; lots of labs working with that stuff catch fire and blow out windows, no nuclear reactions (cold, low-energy, or otherwise) required. The most famous "cold fusion" case is probably Andrew Riley, who was killed while working with Michael McKubre back in 1992: [8]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear what the original poster, User:Lucien86, is saying is "appalling", since he or she acknowledges that cold fusion is probably a "complete fantasy", which is consistent with what the article says. If the OP agrees that cold fusion is a fantasy, then what is "appalling" about the article? Its failure to provide false balance? If the research being done by Zawodny is significantly different from Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion, then an argument can be made for disambiguating "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" and "LENR" to this article and another article. Cold fusion, as normally reported, strongly appears to be pathological science. Research into low energy nuclear reactions in general can reasonably be reported separately, although it may be appropriate to label it as fringe if it also has little support in the mainstream scientific community. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As TenOfAllTrades points out, finely powdered catalytic metal is dangerous. All sorts of materials in labs are dangerous. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think its a matter of tone rather than content. Thinking about it maybe NPOV isn't appropriate for a subject like this. Maybe the problem is that LENR redirects here - I started by reading the LENR section which is extremely dismissive in a way I wasn't expecting. The great problem with pseudoscience is that it can appear about any subject, and equally that areas that begin surrounded by pseudoscience or labelled pseudoscience can just as easily end up as real science. Early rocketry is a great example - where the idea of travel into space or to the Moon was utterly lampooned. Nano-technology 'assemblers' are another example, where the hyperbole (early 1990's) reached a point where much it pretty much became pseudoscience. Despite being quite possible theoretically, today assemblers are definitely what might be called scientifically 'toxic'. Then there is a depth of the 'pseud' in the pseudo - the deepest pools probably surround stuff like the 'psychic', 'government brainwashing', 'flying saucers' - compared to them cold fusion almost looks sensible..

I personally take an interest in quite a few areas that might be labelled fringe science. One is gravity engines, an area where if you read the literature is absolutely enmeshed and drowning in pseudoscience - but this definitely doesn't mean that a rigorous and scientifically robust and 'useful' analysis isn't possible. The problem is that the pseudoscience stops any discussion being taken seriously, and actually makes it very difficult for the scientific community to even look at the subject. - Real things may one day emerge from gravity engine research, for instance an answer to the question of which model of gravity is correct; ether - quantum force carrier, general relativity, super symmetry, Heim theory, string theory, m-theory, etc, or something new..

Oh and BTW the article is very long .. maybe a briefer synopsis article, with a more in depth article about the history and individual projects.. Lucien86 (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess the point is that we have to do SOMETHING to improve the quality of this article. It was formerly featured, and is not even a 'good article' any more. It is too long, which generally implies simplification or splitting. As no one can agree that a substantial portion of the article is unnecessary, splitting seems to be the logical conclusion, and in fact, there seems to be a logical place to split the article. I've always thought that the article should be separated into at least two articles, one surrounding the Pons/Fleischman debacle up to the point when CF was declared 'dead' (which I believe could be concise and perhaps make it back to featured article status, as the material is well documented), and one of "LENR", i.e. the body of current research being conducted on low energy reactions that produce excess heat, and especially the controversy, etc. The new LENR article could be labled pathological science if you like, and the pons/fleischman article would take a more historical approach. A small section at the start of the LENR article would be a summary of the Pons/Fleischman story and link to that article. Surely this has been suggested before? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for the sarcasm, but I suppose the "LENR" article would be named "Nuclear reactions that involve fusing nuclei at low temperatures, which is totally not cold fusion"? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it would be named... cold fusion! as the current one is, it is still a convenient shorthand for the phenomenon, even if few current researchers believe actual fusion of nuclei takes place and prefer different designations, (LENR, CANR, LANR etc). All I am suggesting is removing the material from this article directly related to the Pons/Fleischman experiments and making a new article for that material which is linked to in this one, perhaps called Pons/Fleischman 'Cold Fusion' experiment. as Lucien86 pointed out, current LENR research is not in the business of trying to 'replicate' the pons/fleischman experiments (except in rare examples), but often use completely different materials, entirely different (and equally unfounded) theoretical frameworks, and make entirely different claims on how excess heat is produced. While related by a shared 'nuclear origin of excess heat' postulate, the Pons/fleischman experiments and aftermath were far more focused. Attempting to pare down various elements in the article to reduce its length has only reduced the flow of the article until it reads as a disjointed mess.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I hear what your saying, but my impression is that Pons/Fleischman received by far the most attention in the RS's, and that not presenting it prominently, but spinning it off in a separate article, this article would not give due weight to the main focus of the subject as covered in the source material. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As to the article's formerly-Featured status; has there been a substantial decline in the quality of the article, or has there been a significant increase in the expected quality of Featured content? (Scratch that; I already know that the latter has taken place, but has the former played a role as well?) That is to say, when was this article Featured, when was it un-Featured (de-Featured? disenFeatured?) and what did it look like at each point, what changed between those two points, did those changes make the article worse, and has that trend continued? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It was named featured back in 2004. It roughly looked like this back then. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

So that shows pretty clearly what I meant about much lower expectations when this article was originally Featured. Virtually no citations (definitely nothing resembling proper footnotes) even on some of the more wildly 'interesting' statements. The article has five 'references' in its References section, but it's really a (very lightly annotated) bibliography. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Back in 2004 the article focused almost entirely on the Pons/fleischman experiments and later replication of electrolytic cells.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It was fixed by glowing sceptics afterwards. Splitting would be a nice feature. Anyway, there is at least a section which differentiates LENR and friends from P&F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.45.23 (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be missing an explanation of LENR!

Search Wikipedia for LENR, and you get redirected to this page, which is all about the discredited Fleischmann–Pons experiment.

There is a mention of LENR, it suggests that it's an alternative name used by a small group of researchers who are continuing to attempt the Fleischmann–Pons experiment.

I was trying to find out more information about LENR research which has gone well beyond this, essentially not doing traditional fusion of deutrium to Helium but from Nickel to Copper, or Carbon to Nickel. This page seems irrelevant to the subject.

Here is a paper illustrating a typical contemporary LENR experiment:

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

And here is an interesting article from NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/

I do hope you gentlemen can stop squabbling about a 25 year old experiment and get on with explaining what is happening with contemporary LENR research.

Either that or stop redirecting LENR here because it's very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Irwin (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned in a lower section that Nickel is often used in experiments as well. The lugano report is not a reliable source (not peer reviewed and a primary source). A specific LENR article is not advised, as LENR is not a universal tagline for the field (some prefer LANR CANR etc.) Cold fusion is still a convenient tagline for the field, and will likely continue to be so until/unless a verifiable theory comes up to explain the effect. There has been some discussion about splitting Cold fusion and the Pons/Fleischman Experiment into separate articles however. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roger Irwin, did you read the section directly above this one yet? It seems to be about the same subject. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't. I started reading this (rather long) talk page at the top, but after reading about 10 minutes of FP bashing and naval gazing I gave up. In effect at the bottom the discussion does get more to the point.

But the real issue is that the caboodle (including talk page) really could be condensed more than a zip file full of spaces:

1) What is Cold Fusion (Fusion reactions achieved without artificial sun like conditions)

1) Summary of PF, problems with results and non repeatably; Link to a specific article about the experiment and the controversy etc (it is relevant to science history etc).

3) A brief paragraph for each of the hypothesized or attempted methods, citing experimental work in course, or linking to specific articles for more detailed experiments such as NIF's lasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.75.112 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this format would be better than what we have now, which is a bloated and unfocused article. I believe that a splitting of the article could be achieved without changing any of its content and result in two articles that are both superior to the one we have now. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am troubled by attempts to stretch the definition of "cold fusion" to include inertial confinement (as is involved at the NIF, for instance). Inertial confinement is definitely a "hot fusion" method, relying on extraordinarily high temperatures and pressures (albeit for very short periods of time)—and also relying, not incidentally, on widely-accepted physics. Yes, the fuel is 'cold' when it goes into the chamber, but it's damnably hot before anyone expects it to fuse. (This sort of semantic reframing and redefinition is kind of like what happens when homeopaths try to suggest that what they're dealing with is actually a form of hormesis, to try to add a gloss of credibility to what is otherwise scientifically implausible.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Irwin: Energy Catalyzer is an article. E-Cat has been around for a long time without producing any creditable results. They won't let any credible group test the process on that group's own terms. It would appear that the above NASA article was poorly researched nasa watch, using a single bad source. I would really, really like to see a Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor. Scams, an energy source, do not make. Jim1138 (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You ought to add an external link to:

http://lenr-canr.org/index/DownloadOnly/DownloadOnly.php

Not only would that provide detailed access to current research but it would give a general impression of the extent of research taking place in university and research labs around the world.