Talk:Cold fusion

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

More eyes needed again

This is getting arcane and hard to follow. Perhaps necessarily. All I can really understand as a non-scientist is that Kirk is getting a hard time. Having a genuine researcher in the field present and editing under his own name is potentially helpful but it's not the normal state of affairs so we all need to be cautious. Please stick to the advice at the top of the page about being welcoming. The article needs more opinions, so I'm going to post a note again on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. I'm also going to ask Kirk a question on his talk page for my own clarification. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see that for a non-scientist. The primary problem I am having is with basic explanatory comments I wrote to help the reader understand the criticisms I am listing being taken as some kind of original thought and thereefore needing refernces. They aren't available, because they are underlying concepts to the field of chemistry. That's why I keep referring to sourcing 2+2=4. I welcome more eyes, and I will go now to check my talk page. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Which facts in particular were removed as unsourced?

Here is a sentence in the article which is very difficult for me to understand: "His [Shanahan's] response included a breakdown of the 10 experimental runs analyzed into 4 sets based on what seemed to be a clear time-dependent shift in the calibration constants. This time dependence suggests a chemical aging effect that can be reversed by appropriate in-cell processing, further emphasizing the non-nuclear nature proposed by Shanahan."

What is meant by "breakdown," "analyzed into," "time-dependent shift," "chemical aging," and, "appropriate in-cell processing," in that sentence? 69.228.210.225 (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you have read the version of Sept. 17, 2008 before the large sections I had added to the Criticisms section were deleted. After the deletion, only disconnected bits and pieces were left, the sentence you cite being one of them. I wouldn't have had a problem editing for clarity if what I had written made no sense to some, but the block deletions were a problem in my opinion. So, you can get some context from the Sept. 17 version. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Those two sentences are the same in the version of September 17th, with no more explanation for the terms I asked about than there is now. What do those terms mean in those sentences? 69.228.230.16 (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was hoping that seeing them in their original context would have clairfied. In my paper I analyzed 10 'runs'. A run was an experimental sequence where the applied voltage to the cell was ramped up for 0 to a maximum and then back down to 0 (or near it). If you plot the calibration constants as a function of time (or simply in sequence), it is clear that there is a pattern present. I identified what seemed to 'reset' the pattern and start it over, and this resulted in being able to group the 10 runs into 4 sets containing 3,3,1,and 3 runs each. The CF 'activity' systematically reduced in the series to level measured with 'dead' electrodes. This strongly suggests a chemical process altering the electrodes systematically in time, i.e. a chemical aging effect. Since it could be reversed, i.e. the activity restored, this adds to the impression that chemistry is at work, not nuclear physics. BTW 'analyzed into' should not be connected as you have done, it is 'runs analyzed' and 'into'. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I altered the wording slightly. Any improvement? Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not for me. Would you please completely rephrase the summary in terms of the hypothesis (chemical instead of nuclear, right?), the data, and the reason(s) the data support the hypothesis? IwRnHaA (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is one of the sentences added by Shanahan. I have removed many sentences for lack of sources. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems you also deleted some sourced statements. For example, cited to Little and Yamada. You removed the citation to Little, so that can't have been an accident. Why? 69.228.210.225 (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Little source is a self-published page on his website. Little has not published any paper on cold fusion in reliable scientific journals. Therefore, he cannot be considered as a reliable source according to WP:SPS. We should be particularly cautious about such sources on a controversial topic like cold fusion. Yamada is not offered as a source for the paragraph in dispute, but rather, is criticized without any sources. After removing the unsourced criticism, there is no reason to cite Yamada anymore. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In his continuing attempt to make sure no valid criticisms get out about cold fusion, Pcarbon wiped out another part of my additions. I have restored them. Some simple editorial changes that he made (such as dropping the (a) and (b)) wouldn't have been a problem, but he wiped out the entire fact that in his 2007 book, one of the leading cold fusion scientists refused to fully address the issues I raised in my publications. That is a crucial fact regarding the current state of affairs with the conventional explanation of the Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't see it as something as important as you do. I fail to understand why it is important, since the arguments presented are the same as the ones in the previous paragraph, and no sources are presented that are not in the article already. Again, please beware of WP:UNDUE weight, and of writing about oneself. I'm open to comment from others, though. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As this is the 'More eyes needed' section, I heartily request just that. Pcarbon is heavily biased and incapable of fairly editing any critical material. For those other eyes, there are two levels to all the criticisms that I have added (the ones present before were primarily from the 1989 DOE report, and, at least in part, were somewhat adequately addressed, and thus were of historical value only and certainly not very critical at all). The first level is the technical one, i.e., there is a simple and valid conventional explanation for apparent excess heat signals. The second level is that the researchers whose work is impacted by these criticisms routinely fail to incorporate any response to these criticisms, which is a very telling observation. To get a true picture of what is going on in the field today, one needs to know, for example, that Storms completely ignores the final rebuttal of his objections to the CCS problem, and further concludes in his book that it is not an issue! That is downright misrepresentation on his part, and that fact needs to be brought out in the Criticisms section. Note that he does the same thing with the Clarke results on He detection (not mentioned in the book), and Storms inadequately addresses the contamination issue (in that case there is no specific reference that can be quoted, as only basic chemistry is needed to understand the issue). Mainline science does not accept claims from scientists who ignore their critics. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I now understand your point. No need to make ad hominem attacks: I'm perfectly capable of accepting other's opinions. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the only source that you have provided for your opinion is Dr. Britz review of Storms book : "The book makes a good case for cold fusion. There are some weaknesses. Some of the figures are poorly done, and the text is often awkward. Some expert criticism of Storms' calorimetry (Shanahan, 2006) is not mentioned, [...]. Nevertheless, these weaknesses are comparatively minor and do not detract from the major message of the book, the rather solid experimental evidence of some exotic process taking place, from a careful and self-critical researcher." (cited by New energy Times)

While Dr. Britz gives notability to the idea that Storms' book has weaknesses, it does not exactly support your sweeping statements on "the true picture of what's going on in the field today" or on "downright misrepresentations", on the contrary. Your generalisation is largely overblown and exagerated. While I could see it mentionned in an article on Storms, I don't believe it belongs in the cold fusion article, for WP:DUE weight reasons. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Following a brief description of his calorimeter, Storms (p. 41, chap. 3) remarks that a 1.2% agreement in Joule and electrolytic calibration “demonstrates the calibration errors proposed by Shanahan [18] are absent.” Ref. [18] is to my 2002 paper. On page 172 (chap. 7), Storms writes that “Shanahan [78] has proposed that…” and “This error is shown by Storms to apply to neither flow [79] nor Seebeck calorimetry,[42]” Ref [78] is to my 2002 paper. Ref. [42] is to a Storms presentation at a conference in 2005. Ref [79] is to the Storms 2006 comment. My 2006 rebuttal to that, published back-to-back with Storms' 2006 comment, is NOT mentioned at all in either chapter. According to the Index, these are the only times my work is mentioned. These are facts. That's what was written. That's what was sourced. Check the book yourself if you think I am lying. Therefore your cites of rules and regulations are irrelveant, and just serve to demonstrate the extent you will go to to try to suppress my additions.

Further, what you apparently didn't get from my comment above, is this treatment from Storms (and may I add Kowalski's Web page does the same thing) is notable for those seeking to determine what is going on in the field, and thus is a valid addition in and of itself in the Wiki article. Remember "Some EXPERT criticism of Storms' calorimetry (Shanahan, 2006) is not mentioned," [emphasis mine] and "Mainline science does not accept claims from scientists who ignore their critics." Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the fact that your recent expert work is not cited in Storms' book. I'm saying that we don't need to give it a full paragraph and thus undue weight, based on what Dr. Britz say. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In the last paragraoph, there are 4 sentences. I agree the second is superfluous, I didn't write it as I recall. If the second sentance is removed, the third needs some slight modifications to make sense. But those three sentences constitute the explanation of the problem with the Storms 2007 book. Thus, they are necessary and not redundant, as the other paragraphs do not deal with that issue. I will make the changes. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed an offensive phrase from the article: "With funding from the US DOE". This phrase was added by Pcarbon in an attempt to discredit my work by associating it with the 'big, bad DOE'. In fact, funding sources are irrelevant to this discussion. The work was published in a mainline, peer-reviewed journal where funding sources do not impact that process. Unless all work referenced in the article is equally described, the application of such a phrase ONLY to me is biased. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:Assume good faith. That the DOE is funding your work is relevant when some say that DOE is not financing work on cold fusion at all. It's also interesting to note that DOE held the 2004 panel AFTER you have published your work with their financing. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it comes as a surprise to just about everyone that you have such a low opinion of the U.S. Department of Energy. Most people would take pride in having their work funded by the DOE, whereas you apparently take offense. I don't think anybody could have anticipated that so I don't really think it was meant to be offensive. It seems to me that, quite to the contrary, it was meant to give weight, notability, and credit to your research. But to each his own, I suppose, and I see no harm in removing it. But in the future try to WP:Assume good faith. Kevin Baas^talk 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I began this exercise assuming good faith, but I was proven wrong. I can't assume that anymore.

I work at the Savannah River National Laboratory, which is a 'goco' (government owner, contractor operated), thus anything I do that gets published via work gets stamped with the 'DOE-funded' label, and since CF involves Pd, and I am a Pd-H chemist, I can't do it from home by the terms of my employment agreement. However, most of my managers can't understand why I want to worry about CF because "everyone knows it's bad science". I have taken as much flak over this as any other CFer. So don't assume DOE 'supports' me in anything but an indirect manner, just like the way NRL 'supports' CF research in its ballpark.

With regards to the 2004 review, when I found out about it, it was just about to happen (within a week or two). I contacted our rep. in the Office that was running the review and sent him/her my paper and additional comments, and was promised it would be passed on to 'the right people'. I personally know two of the reviewers, one of whom referenced my work in the written comments, and the other being one of the oral presentation panel, and neither ever saw a word of my work. I am not down on DOE, I am down on the review. It was inadequate if it was intended to get a full picture. I doubt we'd be having this debate if they had looked at my work and let me present the counterview. Fourtunately, they did specify publically what was considered, so we all know my work wasn't. Also note the discussion on my user page. I actually got involved with CF in about 1995, with my first publication submission in 2000.

Kevin, you haven't followed the CF field. They routinely harrange DOE for not supporting CF research. For an 'insider' like Pcarbon, the comment was an allusion to a 'conspiracy theory', because 'if DOE were fair, they'd be funding CF'. The idea is that I am a 'paid labcoat' that DOE trots out to 'confuse' the public about the reality of CF because DOE is really run by the oil companies. All hogwash of course, but it is a direct slam to my integrity. BTW, the reason I got into CF was that if what they say is true, I had the potential of suffering physical harm from an exploding sample, or releasing tritium to the environment due to same. When I asked my collegues why I shouldn't worry, no one could answer (because they all know CF is 'bad science'). Personal safety was my concern. Intellectual curiosity kept me going. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kirk, thanks for the clarification on the DOE funding. I now agree that it should not be stated in the article.

Again please assume good faith. I was the one to defend the view that our article should represent the 2004 DOE panel's conclusion. See my personal page for the history of this article. Why would I do that if I consider them as part of a conspiracy ? I fully agree that the review had shortcomings, but I believe it affects both sides. I would fully support another review by the DOE if I was asked, and I would hope it would be done properly this time. I'm not sure what would be the outcome though. I doubt that your speculation on CCS would carry the day, but my opinion is irrelevant, and WP is not a crystal ball. My reason is that you have analyzed only one experiment (which uses Pt rather than the usual Pd), you have offered only an hypothesis which still needs to be verified experimentally, and there are still reports of unexplained radiations, even if not at the level expected in view of the excess heat.

You call me an 'insider' : I don't have anything at stakes in this, other than my intellectual curiosity and the wish that researchers provide a better world for my kids, if there is any chance they can do it. My (small) contribution is to present the state of the issue as it is documented in reliable sources, and to prevent the spread of unsourced and unscientific opinions like 'everybody knows that CF is bad science'. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You say: "Fourtunately, they did specify publically what was considered, so we all know my work wasn't." Please elaborate, because as far as I know the presentations made by the researchers during the one-day session was not made public. I have no indication that your work was not considered (the only indications that your work may have been considered are your statements above, and the leaked comment from reviewer #5, who may very well have mentionned it during the one-day session). Pcarbonn (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I find I have to correct myself. The information that was once posted when the report was issued included the full presentation and comments but has apparently been taken down. That it was there can be seen from the link to it found at the bottom of this page: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/archive.cfm/pubDate=%7bd%20'2004-12-08'%7d#energy . Therefore, I seem to have no hard proof that this happened, which makes my claims simply my word. Take that as you see fit. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just examined the 'leaked comment' and it is the documentation that I read at the time of the report. My memory may be faulty, but I thought I read this on the DOE Web Site where the report was posted. In any case, the context is now corrupted for this document, so it can't be used to support my previous claim anyway. (Reviewers 1-9 were the written-only reviews.) Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The document submitted by the CF researchers is already cited in the article (see Hagelstein). Is that what you mean to have seen ? I have never seen any copies of the 8 or 9 presentations made during the one-day session. I would be very interested in any info leading to them. If you have seen them on the net in the past, you may still find them on the wayback machine. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, what I recall reading in early 2005 was the Hagelstein paper, the DOE report, and the reviewer comments. That latter may or may not have been the 'leaked comment' mentioned above. I thought it was all on the DOE Web site at the time, but I may be wrong. In the end, all this means is that there is no visible proof my work was not considered during the review. I will stop claiming that now, and simply assert that that was the case. Take that comment FWIW to you. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The statements a person makes reflects their character, and your statement "I began this exercise assuming good faith, but I was proven wrong. I can't assume that anymore." particularly stands out to me in this respect, and I shouldn't have to point out the irony that this statement was in response to two people proving your bad faith assumption wrong.

I'm sorry, but what are you reading? You completely misrepresent the situation. This particular discussion centers around the "With funding from the US DOE" phrase. I explained why this was a problem above and below. Pcarbon's first response was to cite rules at me again, which, again, weren't relevant. The particular problem I am having is that he doesn't stop there, he block deletes my additions, most of which are still in the 'deleted' state. You support him. I still contend this opposition is unwarranted. As a person who has 'published' a sarcastic note of the same ilk as those quoted below, Pcarbon is not unbiased or seriously trying to be neutral in my opinion. My comment that you quote was in response to P's attempt to stifle me once more by citing irrlevant rules, and I stand by it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Kevin, you haven't followed the CF field." - correct. "They routinely harrange DOE for not supporting CF research." - i'm an outsider but i can say with confidence that this is a misrepresentation. and it certainly doesn't follow that they think the DOE dubious or that them providing some funding somehow magically makes your results erroneous - that's flimsy even for an ad hominem argument. And to assume that someone - anyone - was trying to make such an egregiously flawed argument is downright offensive. Kevin Baas^talk 16:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] On the other hand, the truth usally clears things up a bit. Take a look at these Kevin. It only took me 15-20 min. to come up with this. I didn't check sci.physics.fusion, but I'm sure there's lots more there establishing a long tradition illustrated by the following.

Storms: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg01633.html

(blames DOE for failing to act in the text) http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/editorial.html

In Storms 2007 book, pps 17-18, he describes not participating in the 2004 reviwew because it was "a waste of my time". He may be right, but it illustrates his attitude.

On page 91 he is talking about He evidence and speaks of the DOE review thusly: "Or this information can be simply ignored, as it was by many members of the DoE panel..." Dovetails with his Vortex comments well doesn't it.

Mitchell Scwartz (editor Cold Fusion Times): http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html (look for: "DESPITE the US Constitution, the directives of the US Congress, the President, Secretary") (also: "because of the competition with oil and hot fusion, cold fusioneers have been attacked for 17 years by the some in the DoE, the US Patent Office, and some hot fusion physicists to a degree that is unknown in other competing energy and science fields.") http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html#PTO connections (look for "But this has so far been obstructed by many including some in the DOE and the US Patent Office,")

enough from Mitchell Schwartz. Lots more available I'm sure.

Rothwell (LENR-CANR Website manager and all around CF aficionado): http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg01660.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg03246.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg21601.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg21605.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg17808.html

Rothwell, but note the Storms and Miles connection: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg03309.html "The DOE Lies Again" @ http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf (also note the tomne of the discussion re; Miles proposal on the LENR-CANr website.)

enough from Rothwell. Tons more available I know...

Terry Blanton (Vortex): http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg07386.html

Brian Josephson (via Rothwell, Vortex) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg02211.html

Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is all fine. I grant you that these examples represent instances where researches have expressed that they feel there is too much pseudoskepticism and neglect of the field, and in some cases specifically named the DoE panel (they probably found their arguments specious). However,

• They are not denying empirical evidence - they are expressing the sentiment that the field is excessively neglected and plagued with pseudoskepticism.
• Were it that they do not generally fund CF research, that would not imply that the CF research they funded was suspect.
• Giving examples of CF research that the DoE funded, far from supporting the notion that the "DOE [does not support] CF research", undermines it.

Perhaps I could be more clear if I tell you that I see a number of distinctions here that it seems to me you are failing to make in your argument. Kevin Baas^talk 15:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientists who write about their work in Wikipedia

By some accounts, there are over 3,000 scientific papers on cold fusion, and probably as many authors. This spring, one of them, Dr. Shkedi joined our company. Last month, Dr. Shanahan paid us a visit. How many more will come ? How many of them will want their work to be "properly" presented in our article ?

Four paragraphs. Dr. Shanahan has insisted that it takes 4 paragraphs to present his speculation on cold fusion. No other paper has had so much coverage in our article. Not even the original article of Fleischmann and Pons. Four paragraphs for a paper that was ignored by the DOE panel, 2 years after its publication. Four paragraphs for a paper that only had a mention in passing in Storms book, 5 years later. Four paragraphs missing from a 300-page book, an oversight that Dr. Britz qualified as a minor weakness of the book. And now, according to Dr. Shanahan, our one-page article could not do without these paragraphs ? Who is to believe him ? Who is to accept his presumptuousness ? Who would accept such presumptuousness from any of the 3,000 authors ?

Dr. Shanahan has recently shown his righteous interest in the WP:Reliable policy. Isn't it time that he look at the WP:DUE policy ? Joining the 2 policies together, he will surely realize that a reliable source is needed to demonstrate the extreme notability of his four paragraphs. He has not provided any.

Many public figures have already been tempted to write about themselves on Wikipedia. Jim Wales himself contributed to his own article. He was quickly frowned upon. How long do we still need to accept authors writing about their work ? How many of the 3,000 will we accept ? How much time will we spend arguing with them, for so little ?

Scientists are welcome on Wikipedia, but they should refrain from writing about their work. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, you mention that your company recently hired a cold fusion researcher. Does your company have any interest in promoting cold fusion? If there is even a small chance that your company would profit from increased attention to cold fusion, you should disclose it. Olorinish (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

How could I have ever said that ?? Here is what I said about what I had at stakes. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase my question. Pcarbonn wrote "By some accounts, there are over 3,000 scientific papers on cold fusion, and probably as many authors. This spring, one of them, Dr. Shkedi joined our company. Last month, Dr. Shanahan paid us a visit.", which implies that his company is using its employees working on company time to investigate cold fusion. Is that true, Pcarbonn? 209.253.120.214 (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Sorry for the confusion. I meant : "Dr. Shkedi joined our company of wikipedia editors. Dr. Shanahan paid us a visit on wikipedia" But if they want to come to Belgium, they are welcome... Feel free to look at the talk archive for Dr. Shkedi's contributions. Or rather, in the mediation talk page, I believe. We had the same issue with him as with Dr. Shanahan. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Pierre, you were among those who welcomed Kirk when he arrived. It's difficult all round when editors are very close to the topics they edit on. But on the other hand you'll agree that my contribution is limited by the fact I have only basic scientific knowledge. We have to strike a balance. Let us continue to work in a reasonably civil manner and leave a note at the conflict of interest noticeboard to get some supportive - I stress supportive - intervention from someone who has experience of such situations. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I do welcome him. I have thanked him for his contributions, eg. on Clarke. I have reacted to his correct request to improve the references in the article. I have not reacted when he incorrectly called me a "fanatic". I have directed him to the relevant guidelines when needed. On his talk page, I have warned him against writing about oneself on wikipedia. Who has done as much as me towards him ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to these ludicrous charges against what I wrote, I'd like to start by noting that no one else seems to have the desire to cover the criticisms. It is difficult to write NON_SCIENCE articles about oneself without introducting undue bias, however in this case, there's no such problem. The original additions I made may have been too wordy (but I think not in reality), but the stripped down version of what we HAD in the article certainly wasn't. It covered the facts very succinctly, probably too much so. Those facts are:*KLS published a critical article in 2002,*there were three propositions made in that publication,*those propositions were...,*SMMF published a 2005 paper deriding the KLS 2002 publication,*KLS responded, challenging the relevance of the SMMF comments,*Storms published a 2006 paper,*KLS responded back to back to all points raised,*Storms' published a 2007 book that ignored the KLS 2006 rebuttal. You can't get much more abbreviated than that and still get the message across. Further, the writing was totally in the third person, and would have been identical if someone else had published the Shanahan papers. (Try substituting 'Pcarbon' in for 'Shanahan' in what was written and see if that isn't true.) The idea that I am somehow self-promoting is unsupportable. Pcarbon has followed the path of many of the cold fusioneers. They seek to detract from my publications (because it requires them to redo their experiments to show no CCS effect) by intially attacking the message, but when finding out there is no valid way to do that, then attack the person (and the tenacity with which he does this clearly makes athe label 'fanatic' applicable). I thought Wiki frowned on this. In any case, in order to get even a minimalist version of the counterclaims into the Wiki article I have had to spend inordinate amount of time in a battel that in the end does doe nothing but label me as a fanatic too, clearly illustrating the old adage about what happens when you fight with pigs. I am done. I have added the primary criticisms and they have been deleted by the fanatics. So be it, science isn't done via the pages of Wikipedia. Bye. Kirk shanahan (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC).

Jed Rothwell on editing Wikipedia and Kirk Shanahan on electrolysis product recombination

Just for the sentimental (or the one curious in Wikipedia history): 293) Jed Rothwell comments on some accusations - a saved deleted version of this article. No opinions on Cold fusion intended. Said: Rursus (☻) 10:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is the item that I mentioned previously here, where Kowalski (although I guess it's really Rothwell) repeats the Storms tactic of ignoring my third publication, which rebutted all point raised by Storms against my conventional explanation. I note that McKubre is quoted as saying "What I objected to was you raising Shanahan's dead horse " (where 'you' is Dieter Britz). Funny, I am still riding my horse, and its far from dead... I further note that they are STILL equating my proposed cause for the FPHE with the Faradaic efficiency problem, which I clearly stated in my publications is not what I proposed. This does illustrate though that the CF community has designated my idea as dead without ever successfully explaining why. A clear sign of pathological science. The other funny thing is that they are dicussing the page I also worked on back in 2005 (I think it was '05), which has now completely disappeared from Wikipedia. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this your third publication: Shanahan, K. (2005) "Comments on 'Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition,'" Thermochimica Acta, 428(1-2) p. 207? Is there a courtesy link so that people who are interested can read it? I found http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2004528/ms2004528.pdf -- thank you! IwRnHaA (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please disregard that question, I see now that your other 2005 article must be your third publication. IwRnHaA (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have summarized your argument thusly:

The excess heat observed in cold fusion cells may be from the chemical recombination of the products of electrolysis. Cold fusion skeptic Kirk Shanahan suggests that the effect measured by proponent and fellow chemist Edmund Storms can be explained by "a 17% recombination in the cell in the absence of the calibration constant shift ratio impact (which would nominally reduce the amount of recombination required to get the observed apparent excess heat)."

• Shanahan, Kirk (2005b), "Reply to 'Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion', E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta (2005)", Thermochimica Acta, 441 (2): 210–214.

Please let me know whether or not you agree this is the main point of your argument. I corrected the spelling of "amount" in that quote. I also see that Szpak, Boss, and Fleishmann (2004) have claimed that the measurement of the volume yeilded from recombination of the evolved gasses does not support your suspicion. (Section 2.3 on page 102, citing S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, R.D. Boss, J.J. Smith, Fusion Technol. 33 (1998) 38.) Is there any reason to doubt that? Does measurement of the volume yielded from recombination of the evolved gasses say anything about the possibility of the excess heat being from in-cell recombination? IwRnHaA (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate leaving the new guy to flounder about, so I will answer IwRnHaA's questions. Your summary is correct as far as it goes, but the problem is that the chemical recombination explanation of the FPHE is not experimentally proven yet. I had so much difficulty adding facts to the article that I was being very careful about what I wrote. The actual sequence is that I 'reverse engineered' some data that Storms used to 'prove' cold fusion, and found that a calibation constant shift could easily explain it. That is nothing but mathematics and has never been challenged. Next, I did some more math to show that a shift could occur from a heat redistribution in a cell/calorimeter. That also is just math and has never been challenged. Then, I _speculated_ that such a redistribution could arise due to H2+O2 recombination moving from the gas space of the cell to the electrode surface, which was implied by an Szpak, et al infrared video recording of an 'active' electrode. (All of this was published in my 2002 publication.) That hypothesis was attacked twice in the literature, once by Szpak and Fleischmann and coworkers, and once by Storms. I responded to both (Szpak in 2005, Storms in 2006), and in both pointed out that their complaints were ill-founded. The Szpak complaint focused on the idea that 'recombination' had been dealt with (see the Shkedi-Jones issue which used to be in the main article and now is in the stub), but that issue involves _electrochemical_ recombination, i.e. H2+O2 occurring via the power source that runs the electrolysis. It's a parasitic reaction which can impact your results if you use low current. However, the recombination I was talking about is the same as that which occurs at the recombination catalyst in closed F&P cell, i.e. _non-electrochemical recombination_. The CFers seem to have great difficulty understanding this. So, if I am correct in my speculation, then the CCS is likely caused by chemical recombination, but that is unproven speculation at this point in time. What is proven is that a CCS _can_ explain apparent excess heat signals in a F&P-type cell. Of course, excess heat represents the largest block of 'evidence' for nuclear cold fusion, so providing a conventional, non-nuclear explanation is quite a blow to those committed to the nuclear explanation. They respond by 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' by completely rejecting all my results. However, that is not good, as whether or not my speculative mechanism is proven true, the CCS mechanism can explain at least some of the excess heat results, and may explain all. One has to check their results against the CCS proposal to eliminate it, which is what has never been done to date.

My abbreviated summary would thus be: "It was shown that a calibration constant shift has the potential to explain apparent excess heat signals, and that such a shift can occur, at least in one way, by a redistribution of heat in a F&P cell. It was further speculated that such a redistribution would occur if recombination at the electrode became active, which is implied by available data, but is as of yet not experimentally proven." That would maintain the certainties as predominant and point out that experimentation is required to prove the speculation.

I've noticed you are using my 'papers' from the OSTI database. Be aware that these are the manuscript versions that were submitteed to journals for the peer review process. There usually are minor changes made due to that process. It would be best to get the real papers to be completely sure, but in general, the net changes I made were only cosmetic. No facts/conclusions were changed due to peer review. The manuscript version of my first paper can be found on the LENR-CANR website as well.

And finally, I won't be doing any more editing of the article, even though it badly needs it, as every attempt to do so is reverted by Pcarbon. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that we quote directly from the paper's conclusion as much as possible, rather than propose a summary that differs significantly from it. Also, we should say that the analysis was done on only one set of experiments: one cannot draw general conclusions on very different experiments.

That is incorrect. The derivation I present is generalizable to any calibration equation. This is an example of inductive reasoning. Furthermore, the summary is of the literature debate, not just one paper, and is valid. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me correct myself. The abbreviated summary above, which was for IwRnHaA, does not address the literature situation. The CF article should, as the unwillingness of the CFers to deal with the issues raised is a criticism in itself. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We'll add that one when we'll have a verifiable source saying that "CFers are unwilling to deal with the issues raised". Pcarbonn (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You say: "The derivation I present is generalizable to any calibration equation." Indeed, any model with enough parameters can be made to fit any particular experiment. Whether the found parameters corresponds to the physical reality, and can be used in other experiments, is not garanteed though. In the Storms experiment you analyzed, the excess heat was less than 5%, which is not surprising when Platinum is used instead of Palladium. Your approach can then find plausible parameters for CCS or recombination. Not so when excess heat is much higher. Hubler (2007) said: "Most of the research groups have reported occasionally seeing 50-200% excess heat for hours to days." You would then need to accept a Calibration Constant Shift so large that it would discredit any calorimetric study, including Joule's experiment demonstrating the law of conservation of energy. Same for the recombination rate : the recombination rate would be inconsistent with the Faradaic efficiency that is measured, and you would have to explain how control cells with regular water would bring results so radically different (a chemical effect like recombination is not known to be significantly sensitive to isotope varieties). Pcarbonn (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What we have here is a highly suggestive post by Pcarbonn. It suggests he went back to his CF friends and got 'the straight scoop'. Otherwise, it suggests he can't read, and I don't quite believe that. What makes this post a 'giveaway'? The mention of Faradaic efficiency. We have never brought that concept up before, yet here it is. What is the problem with that? Well, it refers back to the _electrochemical_ recombination issue I discuss in my 2005 response to Szpak, Fleischmann, et al, and in the explanation to IwRnHaA posted right above here. Now, if you are doing _open_ cell work, you probably could detect the CCS problem by measuring Faradaic efficiency, but that won't work in a closed cell, as the total recombination therein is always 100% (hopefully, otherwise pressure builds up and the cell can rupture), so it is clear that by moving to this argument, the experimental details now become important to consider, which is well outside the scope of the Wiki article. In fact this whole discussion should be of spf, not here. But to repeat, the Faradaic efficiency issue typically brought up by CFers IS NOT RELEVANT. In OPEN cells, you could potentially detect the CCS that way, BUT NOBODY DOES THAT MEASUREMENT.

I would also like to point out, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE _SPECULATIVE_ MECHANISM NOW. The CCS, as I note above (hmmmm....maybe P actually can't read...) is unchallenged, as is the possibility that heat distribution changes can cause a CCS. I really don't care if my GUESS as to what caused the CCS turns out to be right. The CCS is a real possibility that must be accounted for by the CFer who wants his work accepted by mainstream science.

As a chemist who determines isotope effects on a routine basis, do you think I am really unaware of them?? There is at least one clear example of them in the thermoneutral voltage. It is different for H2O vs D2O. In my speculative mechanism, they would be present also in the adhesiveness of bubbles to the electrode (surface tension). As I noted in my publication, the viscosity of H2O is different from D2O. Besides affecting the amount of force applied to adhering bubbles, it would affect mass transport of bubbles in the cell. So much for no isotope effects...

Regarding the size of the CCS' effect: As the total heat capture efficiency of the calorimeter improves, the CCS will decrease, because (as per TA 428(2005)209) the efficiencies of the different regions in the calorimeter/cell have less difference. To put a limit percent-wise on the maximum possible excess heat signal obtainabbe by a CCS, I would need detailed instrument information, which is never supplied. So, I refuse to put any limit on the CCS effect on a percentage basis. It potentially could be limited by the available energy present vis the P=I*V calculation using the thermoneutral voltage and applied current, when combined with the magnification factor that arises from the Pex equation I derived and published. Personally, I don't find 50-200% immediately outlandish, because I have no basis to judge that. Also note: just because one error (the CCS) has been shown to be inactive in a given experiment (some day in the future we all hope), ALL the OTHER errors can still be present. Separately, I looked at the 25,000% claims of the Patterson Power Cell and the 20,000% claims of Mengoli, et al, and found OTHER reasons to doubt their veracity. EACH EXPERIMENT must be judged clear of error before it is used in promotoing a conclusion, a fact the CFers never conform to (because it limits their useable results severely). They prefer to uncritically lump it all together and say, "See, the sheer mass of positive results proves it!" Well, no, it doesn't.

I also find it amusing that you need the word of a complete neophyte to the field to justify CF. Normally, newbies aren't trusted that much because they don't have the experience base to make unbiased judgements. (That's why you 'go to the expert', not to 'the newbie'.) Hubler doesn't reference me, and I doubt he's even considered my work, which is an endemic problem to the CF field.

You wrote, quoting me: "You say: "The derivation I present is generalizable to any calibration equation." Indeed, any model with enough parameters can be made to fit any particular experiment. " You have completely misunderstood, again. A calibration equation can be any form you desire. Its job is to translate a signal into an understandable number through the medium of adjustable parameters, the calibration constants. If you measure 3 whifflestompers, and you know that translates to 6 watts by multiplying by the calibration constant 2, then multiplying by 2.5 will give you the wrong watts. That is true with any calibration equation anywhere. All the CCS problem says is that your system has changed between the time you determined the constants and the time you measured your unknown. There is nothing complex about this. All this does is illustrate a 'truism' from experimental science that: "You can't calibrate an unstable system."

You mentioned that I wrote "CFers are unwilling to deal with the issues raised" and somehow implied it should be in the Wiki article. I didn't imply that. With the summary that WAS present in the article, I was satified. I am content to let the astute reader go to the literature and end up drawing that conclusion him- or herself.

BTW, all of this discussion is outside of the WIki article scope and doesn't impact the summation of my work or the summation of the way it has been handled in the literature. It amazes me the level Pcarbonn will go to to prevent my work from being included in the article. That's why I give up, I don't have the time to fight a fanatic word-for-word, line-by line. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Faradaic efficiency is mentionned in the second paragraph of this thread, so I did not bring it up. It was also discussed at length with Shkedi some months ago.

Mea culpa. Still your regurgitating the very argument I showed was invalid is indicative. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me the level you will go to get your work published on wikipedia, instead of getting it accepted in scientific forums. So far, neither the skeptics nor the proponents seem to care for your work. Hopefully, now that you quit wikipedia again, you will have the time to promote it. When it's done, we'll give it the credit it deserves here. As for the CF proponents, they are doing just fine, so you don't need to give them advice on what they should do to get their work accepted. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...my work is _already_ published, the last nearly 2 years ago... And of course, since it is done, when are you going to give the credit I deserve, which you promise right above? Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We already have given it credit. Our article has one paragraph on it. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you had been paying attemtion, you would realize that my opinion of the paragraph is that it is incomplete and presents the work in such a fashion as to come to the wrong conclusion, which of course is what you favor. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You say: "I did some more math to show that a shift could occur from a heat redistribution in a cell/calorimeter". I don't recall reading this: which article are you refering too ? Pcarbonn (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

TA 428(2005)209 Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate? Thank you. IwRnHaA (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He is referring to Shanahan 2005, published in Thermochemica Acta and listed in our article. This article takes an hypothetical calorimeter and does some math on it to show how a change of place of the heat source can change the calorimeter constant. It does not use any experimental data to test whether this hypothesis applies to the calorimeter actually used by Storms. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. It is one possible general way a CCS could occur, and I simply showed how it would work with some simple mathematics. It does however provide a testable hypothesis, namely that the heat distribution has changed. This led McKubre to conclude my theory is a 'dead horse' because he had recorded the temperature near the recombination catalyst in some studies done in the '93-'94 time frame that were reported in a '98 EPRI report (private document, not easily obtainable), and the recombination catalyst T sensor didn't show a change when the apparent excess heat signal was present. So it's possible my theoretical idea is the wrong one on this point , or it's possible that the T sensor was misplaced to deteect the shift I propose. To test it, more work has to be done, but that's not going to happen when McKubre thinks my work is a 'dead horse'. Also, even if my hypothesis is wrong, it doesn't negate the CCS as an explanation of the apparent excess heat, it just requires a different base explanation for the CCS itself. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We agree on one point: a lot more work needs to be done to understand the cold fusion phenomena. There is enough scientific evidence to show that something strange needs to be understood. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the volume yeilded from recombination of evolved output gases exclude in-cell recombination?

Kirk, would you please answer my earlier question, "Does measurement of the volume yielded from recombination of the evolved gasses say anything about the possibility of the excess heat being from in-cell recombination?" It seems to me that if the output gases are recombined, and the produced volume of water measured, that could serve, along with the amount of power applied, to measure the amount of gas produced.

This is only possible in 'open cells', where the electrolysis gases are allowed to escape the cell, supposedly without recombining. That means the electrolyte has to be periodically refreshed to make up for the loss. In the 'closed cell' the gases are trapped inside the cell an recombined at a catalyst so they don't build up pressure and explode or rupture the cell. In theory, if one could accuately and precisely measure the amount of escaping gases in an open cell, one could account for any in-cell recombination. I note in my 2005 comment on Szpack and Fleishmann, et el, that they make such an attempt but the error on that measurement is larger than the one needed to explain the excess heat signal, i.e., they weren't accurate and precise enough. I haven't found a case where they have done it properly, nor are we likely to see one, since they have decided that my ideas are a 'dead horse' and not worthy of discussion (a la Storms 2007 book). Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Szpak et al paper at TA(410)102, they say, "The frequently cited D₂ + O₂ recombination reaction, as being responsible for excess enthalpy generation, is not supported by experiment (recombination of evolving gases yielded volumes that were better than 1.0% of those calculated assuming 100.0% Faradaic efficiency [citing S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, R.D. Boss, J.J. Smith, Fusion Technol. 33 (1998) 38], or theoretical considerations [citing F. Will, J. Electroanal. Chem. 426 (1997) 177])."

If 1.0% isn't good enough, what would be? IwRnHaA (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(I tried to keep this short but it didn’t work, sorry.) I reply specifically to that comment in my rebuttal (2005), but today I can’t find my FT version of the paper. There is a version on the LENR-CANR Website, which I have perused, and for the moment I will assume it is identical to that published, as it is listed at the Website as being the FT vol 38 paper. In my rebuttal, sec 2.3, pg. 210, I state that the 1998 reference has no excess enthalpy numbers in it, nor any discussion of accuracy issues (i.e. it is a bogus reference). The Will ref is good, and is to the model Storms used when combining the Jones-Hansen data with his own to show electrochemical recomb. is not important at high currents. However, in 2006 I comment upon the plot Storms made for this, stating that it showed several data points where 15-25% (guessing at the numbers right now) unexpected recombination over the Will model line, the excess I called evidence for the nonelectrochemical recombination. In Szpak’s 1998 paper, I can only find the word recombination twice, both in reference to the recombination catalyst used in the cell, i.e., it is about a closed cell, where you can’t measure Faradic efficiency (FE). So it _really_ isn’t applicable.

In any case, in the 2004 paper they measure 7.7 cc of collected water vs the theoretical value of 7.2cc, a 6.5% excess water volume overage (maybe they are creating matter as well?? (no, try thinking about entrainment)), but claim that is within experimental error, but I point out that is greater than that needed in Storms case to produce an ~0.8W excess heat signal (maybe not quite if the .8W came from a 3 sigma shift). (Szpak, et al, report an ~0.3W excess with what looks like ~4.5V at .3 and .4A. P=IV so that is 1.35 and 1.8W, so that means the excess is 16.7 and 22%, right in the ballpark of where the Storms excesses were.) The point is I address these comments in my rebuttal, and point out lots of problems with them. With respect to the 1.0% comment, the question is now where it comes from. Is it even real?

However, more to the point, would a measurement of FE accurate to 1.0% suffice. The answer is that it depends on several things. First, what is the excess being claimed and how does it relate to the input power (see above, where a 1-2 sigma of 1-1.5% CCS would explain the observed excess heat). Second, when was the measurement made. CFers have a bad habit of measuring FE when no CF event is active, and then just saying that value applies when a CF event is working. That is clearly bogus, as the contention would be that the FE measured in the open cell _would_ show the CF event is recombination. But nobody ever does this well. Instead I get a 6.5% error (the wrong way!) on an .3W signal that is ~20% of the input, right in line with Storms’ data. If I could get a 1% accurate/precise FE I would probably be happy as that tends to be about as accurate as a chemical measurement gets. It would need to be made during a CF event, and it would have to be much less than expected by the size of the CF event. Also note, there needs to be some method refinement on the part of Szpak, et al, to be able to prove they can do this, assuming they were actually referring to some other work they did somewhere else. Otherwise, the 6.5% is probably a good estimate for 1 sigma on their FE measurements. All of this would have to be published of course, as no one is just going to take their assertions as fact. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered telephoning Pam Boss and asking her whether the measurements are the same during CF events? IwRnHaA (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note that you removed the words "Cold fusion skeptic" from before your name.[1]. Would you please elaborate your thoughts on that matter? IwRnHaA (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I took that out because it was a label that triggers a knee-jerk response in CFers. It goes like this: "skeptic"="pathological skeptic"->'illegitimate skepticism'->'safely ignored'. This comes about because the field has been highly polarized to the point where the participants are usually incapable of making graduated decisions, gravitating instead towards absolutes, i.e. "You're either for me or against me." (This is one reason why the label pseudoscience is applicable to the field.) I'd prefer not to label anyone if possible, even to the point that if I slipped up and somehow triggered a similar response in the CFers mind about the opposite phrase "True Believer", then that phrase ahould also be deleted. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. I thought we had skeptics and proponents. IwRnHaA (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Shanahan's non-electrochemical recombination

Kirk, I want to thank you for trying to express your views. I know it can be exasperating here. Especially since trying to write in a tertiary source about one's own work is very hard even for the most prominent experts -- like trying to perform surgery on oneself, is one analogy I've heard. While that is clearly hyperbole, you don't have to look around Wikipedia too hard to find plenty of examples which support it. The fact remains that yours is the leading alternative hypothesis explaining cold fusion data, so we should be supportive of your attempts to contribute here, not dismissive. The encyclopedia will suffer if we don't support both sides of the argument as well and as fairly as possible. I'm not at all sure that people who are predisposed to reject your work are any better at summarizing it. I don't yet have enough subject matter understanding yet to say whether Pcarbonn's rewording of what I thought was my neutral summary of your recombination idea and its rejoinder was done fairly.

I'm also very concerned that statements about recombination are being convolved too closely with statements about the calibration constant shift. If the former can cause the latter, then they both deserve separate descriptions followed by an explanation of their relationship, along with the rebuttal from the other side, when it exists in the literature.

So, my question to you from the above section: What is meant by "non-electrochemical recombination"? Do you mean catalytic and/or some other form of spontaneous recombination? IwRnHaA (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I'd like to repeat a couple of things that I've said in case you haven't caught up on the last 50 pages or so of this talk page.  ;-) I think the Wiki article is best served by having 3 major sections: a historical account of the field, which should be pretty neutral; a presentation of the claims of success, which people like me will have trouble with; and a presentation of the primary criticisms, which people like Pcarbonn will have trouble with. I proposed that those of us who edit either the claims or criticisms be required not to edit the other part, just to comment on the Talk page. Also, I proposed that the criticisms section mirror the claims section in that it should also have short sections on excess heat, He, heavy metal transmutation, and theory (and note that the excess heat part has a couple of different subsections). My intent was always to provide the balance to the article that would explain to the reader why the vast majority of scientists are justified in considering cold fusion unproven at this time. However, my attempts at this have been subverted by Pcarbonn's selective application of what he considers to be Wiki policies. So I agree with you comment above on that subject.

The convolution that you see occurring is a standard tactic of the cold fusioeers. Their response to criticism over the years has been to withdraw from the standard scientific process. Instead of listening to their critics, discussing their criticisms, and then folding in what survives that process into their theories on what's happening in an F&P cell, they find what they consider a flaw anywhere in the proposal, and trash the whole thing so they don't have to deal with any good parts of the criticism. In my papers, I clearly proposed 3 things. The first is the CCS, that's just mathematics at work, and that has never been challenged. Second was the fact that one way to get a CCS was to have the heat distribution in the cell/calorimeter change. That also is simple math and has never been challenged. Finally, I proposed a possible chemical/physical mechanism to get this heat distribution shift. The point in that was to give the CFers something to go and test. However, they settled on the third point, which was admittedly the most speculative, disagreed with it, and without considering my objections to their objections, declared _all_ of what I proposed invalid. Clearly this is not right, and I agree with your comment above about separating out the two. The fact is that wherever a CCS comes from, it has great potential to explain apparent excess heat. Really, after that it's up to the CFers to figure out how to improve their experiments to eliminate a CCS problem. But instead, they just want us to accept what they say, no questions asked. That is _also_ a criticism of their work and behavior, above and beyond the CCS itself.

Recombination is the reburning of the H2 with O2 to make water. It can occur by two mechanisms (at least). The first is electrochemical, where the reaction that results in net water formation is driven by the electrolysis power supply. In other words, electrons from the power supply run the reaction. The second way is simple 'burning', i.e. H2 gets together with O2 in the presence of an initiator (like a recombination catalyst, which is just a metal surface) and 'burns' to form water, just like carbon (logs) burn to form CO2. That requires no external power supply, etc. The recombination I propose to be the cause of the CCS in F&P cells is the second type. The only wrinkle that I introduced was that this has to occur at the electrode while it is still submerged in electrolyte, but therer is good evidence from Szpak, et al, that this is possible. So in the end, yes, this is catalytic, spontaneous recombination. The key point is that the electrochemical recombination has been studied and I agreed in my papers that it was not relevant in most CF studies, yet since I use the word 'recombination', the CFers say "Oh, we've taken care of that." to get to the point where they can do their block rejection (just like Pcarbonn and his block deletions). Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

For your information, the summary I wrote is largely based on Shanahan's (see 2nd paragraph here). Pcarbonn (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You say: "The fact remains that yours is the leading alternative hypothesis explaining cold fusion data". I'm curious to know what makes you think that. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is the only relevant explanation out there that has not been shown to be unimportant maybe?? Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Kirk, thanks again for a detailed explanation. I want to direct your attention to my questions at the end of the previous section, please. IwRnHaA (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's edits and others' conflicts of interest

I undid these edits made by ScienceApologist. The statements he removed are well sourced from peer-reviewed scientific journals. Since cold fusion is not pseudoscience, it deserves fair representation. This is what the ArbComm unanimously said about significant alternative to scientific orthodoxies : "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." See also the recent comment of another editor that the DOE is notable, but not reliable because not peer-reviewed. Wikipedia policies is to base articles on peer-reviewed journals when possible. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Since cold fusion is pseudoscience, it does not deserve a fair representation. Arbcomm never said that cold fusion was not pseudoscience. It isn't a significant alternative to scientific orthodoxy because too few researchers work in cold fusion. There is no legitimate scientific disagreement since cold fusion is generally ignored. Peer-review is not the be-all and end all of reliability and in fact, we can only verify that it is the opinions of the authors subject to some oversight by editorial boards. Pcarbonn is shilling for his cold fusion interests in which he has money invested (he has invested in a cold fusion startup) and so should recuse himself from editing this article due to his conflict of interest. Therefore, I will be fighting him consistently here on out: here is the new case on the matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How many researchers work on cold fusion? How many is too few? Since Kirk Shanahan and Pierre Carbonnelle are both editing, I think the conflict of interest tag should stay. Deleting sourced statements about the state of the peer-reviewed literature, however, is abominable. A declaration that one will "be fighting him consistently here on out" is contrary to the core policies of Wikipedia, and will be until Wikipedia:Hold grudges is approved. ScienceApologist has been involved with reverts back to a featured version that would never pass featured muster because it is so out of date, which led to the mediation of this article. I think all three parties should not edit this article: Science Apologist, Pcarbonn, and Kirk Shanahan, but they should be welcomed on this talk page as long as they can stay within the norms of acceptable behavior here. IwRnHaA (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I accept your proposal. I'm ready to refrain from editing the article if ScienceApologist and Shanahan refrains from doing it too. I believe the article stands on its merit, and I believe that the wikipedia community recognizes it.

If we think that the ArbComm should decide on Cold fusion status as pseudoscience, which I don't believe it should, I can accept that too. In the meantime, we should request ScienceApologist to show a source saying that cold fusion is pseudoscience. Failing to do that, we should remember that a majority of editors did not want cold fusion to be placed in the pseudoscience category. (see RfC)Pcarbonn (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Would anybody be willing to remove the COI tag, please. The COI request has been rejected. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see this edit stand until its section is archived before doing so. It seems to me that there has certainly been COI editing on one side if not both. However, I see the point that people generally do not have conflicts of interests with entire fields. I wonder if anyone will challenge that view. IwRnHaA (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept that for the moment. However, at the end, I'd like the record to be clear on whether I have POV-pushed anything, and whether the COI accusation stands. (I guess that expecting a thank you for my dedication at improving the article would be asking too much). Pcarbonn (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The COI has been rejected. All the controversial edits that I defended still stand. So, I'm vindicated. I don't see any reason for me to stop contributing to the article. Does anybody have a problem if I contribute again ? If so, please explain. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy link for Hubler paper

I want to provide this courtesy link for Hubler's 2007 review and the slides that accompany Hubler's corresponding lecture in the article text. Neither are registered with the Internet Archive yet, and so I am stating my intent to do so here in advance, because there is no way to tell whether the publisher has given redistribution permission under a nondisclosure agreement.

If anyone has questions about whether they are faithfully-reproduced copies, please raise them with the reasons so that if necessary, the documents can be authenticated by Hubler or a neutral third party. IwRnHaA (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction inclusion of recent developments

Recently, IwRnHaA placed these sentences back in the introduction: "In 2007, a peer-reviewed literature review[7] and update[8] concluded that cold fusion has been demonstrated by experiments that result in excess heat production and nuclear reaction products such as helium-4. The reviews stated that although many explanations have been proposed, several of which do not use new physics, none is yet satisfactory. The author of the review has proposed a series of experiments to resolve the controversy.[9]"

These sentences are true, but they are not notable and reliable enough to be in the introduction. They are described in very minor journals compared to the main journals in the field (Physical Review, Science, and Nature). Placing them there implies to wikipedia readers a legitimacy that is not justified considering the current reputation of the field. If at all, this information should be placed in the "Recent Developments" section. Does anyone disagree? Olorinish (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

IwRnHaA recently posted the question: "Olorinish: if these are the views of a very small minority, why hasn't there been any peer-reviewed opposition since Shanahan's"? My response is that scientists very rarely write articles criticizing other scientists. There was some of that just after the 1989 announcements because cold fusion was such a special case, but very little since then. I have inserted a few comments along those lines in the article which show that the reputation of the field among professional scientists remains low. The absence of peer-reviewed criticism since 1989 DOES NOT mean that the reputation of the field has improved. Olorinish (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are two independent peer-reviewed reviews of the scientific literature on the subject, one by an author who had already published a review (thus it's an "update") and one who hadn't done any work on cold fusion before in his long career at the Naval Research Laboratory. They present both sides of the issue faithfully. There is no evidence of peer-reviewed opposition to cold fusion since Shanahan's work from 2006. The Hubler work explains why reproduction was so difficult early on: most people weren't able to achieve high deuterium loadings within paladium. Have you read the review or the update? Are you familiar with the current and former state of opposition in the field? IwRnHaA (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"They present both sides of the issue faithfully." No, they don't. Check the reference lists. There is no mention of my criticism of apparent excess heat, or of Clarke's criticism of experimental caliber in He detection. Both are published, key criticisms. If both sides were presented fairly, these publications and their implications would be discussed. Further, the Biberian paper has 16 refs, and the Hubler one has 23. These are not 'reviews' in any real sense of the word. What Storms did in his 2007 book was an attempt at a review (with hundreds of refs), but he failed to do so in an unbiased fashion. Reviews usually have many references, not just the handful B and H give. Good reviews review the criticisms also.

"There is no evidence of peer-reviewed opposition to cold fusion since Shanahan's work from 2006." And there is no evidence the applicable criticisms have even been noted by the CFers. Criticisms don't have an expiration date on them. If they are valid, they stand forever. If not, CF researchers should show how they are invalid and we'll all move on.

"most people weren't able to achieve high deuterium loadings within paladium" Of course, Storms and Dash were able to get 'CF' with platinum, which does NOT hydride at any obtainable pressure, so the whole 'got to be greater than .9' claim is wrong and misleading. As Hubler is a 'newbie', his ignorance might be excuseable, but not so with the primary CF crowd. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only do with what is available. If you have a better source for an overview of the field, please provide it so that we can include it in the lead. In the meantime, we'll use the ones we have found. Its title says that it is a review. The abstract explains that it cites selected data to summarize what has been published, hence the limited list of citations. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have followed this topic closely for over a year, and have edited frequently as Olorinish, 209.253.120.204, 209.253.120.158, and 209.253.120.198. I have seen those reviews and have read about the deuterium loading issues. I object to including these articles being used as support of such a controversial claim in the introduction because they are published in very minor journals. One is in the "Journal of Science Coatings and Technology," which is not a normal venue for discussing nuclear reactions, while the other journal is only a few years old has nearly zero articles from american authors. On a more subjective note, I do not find them very convincing. We are here to discuss the wikipedia article on cold fusion, which means that when analyzing claims we should emphasize the plausibility that NUCLEAR reactions are present in the experiments. By that standard, these articles are not impressive enough for the introduction. Olorinish (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to say that you are objecting to them because of where they are published, not what they say. Do you believe that they present both sides of the controversy fairly? If not, why not? While the Journal of Science Coatings and Technology is not the usual venue for papers of this type, the emphasis in that journal on the analysis of electrolysis methods is clear. I disagree that we should try to emphasize the plausibility of nuclear reactions; that would not be neutral since whether there are or are not nuclear reactions is part of the controversy. We are here to write a tertiary source, and these reviews are the only reviews in the past several years. All of the criticism, the most recent of which has appeared in the peer-reviewed literature by Shanahan, has been directly addressed. For example, by measuring the volume of recombined evolved gases along with the other parameters of the cell to exclude the possibility of in-cell recombination. If detractors are claiming a violation of the conservation of mass, then they should say so. IwRnHaA (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia, which is a place that people with little understanding of a topic go to get a quick summary on a topic. We have a responsibility to those readers to filter the information, giving proper weight to sources according to notability and reliability. Of course reasonable people can disagree on the details. I am saying that since the scientific establishment has an extremely low opinion of cold fusion research, that should be reflected in the decisions we make about sources. The notability and reliability of these sources is not zero, but compared to the success of conventional nuclear physics (as demonstrated by the fission electricity we used today), the journal choices and the data shown do not present a very convincing case that cold fusion is taking place.

To put it another way, the people who run your nuclear power plants and scan incoming ships for radioactive weapons almost all believe the cold fusion researchers are incompetent. To show they are wrong would require some very impressive results. Olorinish (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we are talking COI, why the hell do you want to ask those who run nuclear power plants if cold fusion is real ? You should ask that to scientists. Why did you forgot to mention that the second review is from 'International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology'? And why did you remove a recent quote from Naturwissenschaften? Surely this is a reputable journal. The many other reputable journals listed in the article do show that this is a valid, if controversial, subject of science, not pseudoscience, and should therefore be fairly presented. Let the reader then make his own decision: you don't have to decide for him. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Which quote from Naturwissenschaften was deleted? IwRnHaA (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

this one. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of scientists or industrialists in the field should have no bearing on the sources we select, other than that we select the opinions from the most reputable sources. Reputability is, among other things, reliability. The reliable source criteria are part of WP:V and WP:RS. They indicate that reports in the peer-reviewed scientific literature are preferable to, for example, government technical reports, such as the 2004 DOE report. The U.S. government hasn't done any more work, except at the Navy. They are very interested and positive on the subject and have proposed a series of experiments to address the controversy and, with luck, resolve it. And at least the Navy researchers submit their work to peer-reviewed journals. If the DOE did, the 2004 review hasn't been accepted or published yet as far as I know. IwRnHaA (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Let the reader then make his own decision: you don't have to decide for him." My point is that we, as wikipedia editors, have an obligation to decide for him what is in the introduction and elsewhere. An encyclopedia has value because it does not leave all the decisions for the reader; it emphasizes the most accurate and useful information on the topic. Keep in mind that I am not proposing that the Biberian, Hubler, or Mosier-Boss articles should be removed from the article, I am proposing that they be given appropriate weight. Olorinish (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Situating a government technical report in a position of greater authority within the article than the most recent peer-reviewed literature reviews (e.g., by deleting the last paragraph of the intro) isn't letting the reader decide. It is deciding for the reader that the reliable source policies don't apply. There are occasional exceptions to the reliable source criteria, but which of them, if any, are justified here? IwRnHaA (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia page on reliable sources states: "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made..."

The 1989 and 2004 DOE conclusion documents satisfy all these conditions. This kind of document a special case because it is not published in a journal, but cold fusion is a very special case. Cold fusion was so important that the US government convened two expert panels to study the issues. Since the production of these documents involved many reviewers and government endorsement, and they satisfy the conditions above, they should be given more weight than a journal article. Olorinish (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to like the DOE report. The 2004 panel concluded that the field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with submission to archival journals. Now that it does, why don't you want to follow their advice ? Also, it can be concluded from the ArbCom decision mentionned above that cold fusion deserves a fair representation : it does not support obscuring relevant, well-sourced content. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The DOE technical reports are perhaps more reliable than an ordinary government technical report, but they are a long way from being a reliable source on par with peer-reviewed literature, because

• there was no "reliable publication process" -- both reports were ad-hoc, and poorly convened. The DOE didn't even bother to invite Navy researchers who were actively publishing in the field at the time;
• there was no independent fact checking. The reports are nothing more than the conglomerated opinions of the committee members, with nothing like the coherence of an independently reviewed literature review;
• there was no scrutiny prior to publication. Comments on drafts were not included in the final reports, nor did they even influence them; and
• there was absolutely no support of the DOE panelists' judgement from specific sources, it was just a judgment call in each of their cases.

Moreover, Olorinish, who claims to support the DOE studies, removed the summary of the 2004 report's conclusions which was approved during mediation. IwRnHaA (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand by the summary I gave when deleting those sentences: "These sentences do not contribute signifcant information to the introduction. The benefits of further study, peer review, and article publication apply to all scientific topics." Why should they be included? If they should, why should they be in the introduction? Olorinish (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You said it all. This sentence demonstrates that cold fusion is a scientific topic. Most uninformed people believe it is not. Our article says: "As of 2007, the scientific community did not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme." Hence, this well-sourced sentence from the 2004 DOE that you like is very relevant to the article, and informative to most reader. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody believes cold fusion is not a science topic, so including these sentences is not necessary. What most scientists believe is that it is a topic researched by incompetent scientists. I think what Pcarbonn and IwRnHaA want the introduction to say is that some scientists are still working on cold fusion after 2004. Therefore, I have added a relevant sentence to the introduction.

Also, "not a genuine scientific research theme" is not standard english phrasing, so including it just adds confusion. Therefore I have removed it.

I ask that people let this version stand for a while, while we discuss it here on the talk page. Olorinish (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny that you ask that this version be left unchanged, and then be the first one to change it. Could you reinstate the original version until we agree ? Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PCarbonn, I don't understand your comment. How am I "first?" What are you talking about? Olorinish (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken. When I access the history page of Cold fusion, I see a timestamp exactly 2 hours older than the timestamp of your post here. This is probably due to timezone differences. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why remove well-sourced statements from the "Recent development" section ?

Several well-sourced statements have been removed from the "Recent development" section (see the original here). Could they be reinserted ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some other statements that have been removed recently, although well sourced (except possibly for Mallove's.) Pcarbonn (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold Fusion is Neither

Cold fusion is not fusion. It's LENR. So many of you are arguing needlessly. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.htm#looklike StevenBKrivit (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. We'll report this when it is published in a peer reviewed journal. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Which best and most neutrally represents the reliable sources?

Here are two recent versions of the third and fourth paragraphs of the intro:

Cold fusion gained a reputation as pathological science after other scientists failed to replicate the results. A review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1989 did not find the evidence persuasive. Since then, other reports of anomalous heat production and anomalous Helium-4 production have been reported in peer-reviewed journals[α] and have been discussed at scientific conferences. Most scientists have met these reports with skepticism. In 2004 the US DOE organized another review panel (US DOE 2004) which—like the one in 1989—did not recommend a focused federally-funded program for low energy nuclear reactions. The 2004 panel identified basic research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field. It stated that the field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival academic journals. In 2007, a peer-reviewed literature review and update concluded that cold fusion has been demonstrated by experiments that result in excess heat production and nuclear reaction products such as helium-4. The reviews stated that although many explanations have been proposed, several of which do not use new physics, none is yet satisfactory. The author of the review has proposed a series of experiments to resolve the controversy.

Cold fusion gained a reputation as pathological science after the majority scientists to follow up the research failed to replicate the results and/or identified experimental/theoretical oversights in the original work that lead them to make different conclusions. A review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1989 did not find the evidence for cold fusion persuasive. Since then, other reports of anomalous heat production and anomalous Helium-4 production have been reported in many peer-reviewed journals[α]. Most scientists have met these reports with skepticism. In 2004 the US DOE organized another review panel (US DOE 2004) which—like the one in 1989—did not recommend a focused federally-funded program for low energy nuclear reactions. Since 2004, several articles and conferences reporting supportive results show that there is continued work in the field.

Which version best represents the current state of the reliable sources in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV? The longer version on the left or the shorter version on the right? Can you come up with a version which is even better? IwRnHaA (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If we say that the DOE did not recommend a focused federally funded program, we should also say that the nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain proposals to address relevant questions in this scientific controversy. Both sentences come from the same paragraph of the report, and they should both be included for proper balance. I would not understand why we would keep one and not the other.

I find the left version too affirmative of the reality of cold fusion. I find the "continued work in the field" in the right version too weak. I would propose something like this: "Since 2004, several articles[6][7] and conferences[10][11] reporting supportive results show that the accumulation of positive evidence is growing, although the phenomena is poorly understood." This would be in line with our "recent development" section. Wording may have to be adapted to avoid new synthesis though. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the less-affirmative, more detailed statement from the longer version on the left. However, I did not include "accumulation of positive evidence is growing" because that would need a time-frame, e.g., "in the last [how many] years." IwRnHaA (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I find the right version too weak to represent the current state, and I don't understand why it would need a time frame, nor why we could not give one (eg. since 2004, or since 1989). One option would be to revert to the sentence we had last week : "In 2007, a book and two peer-reviewed literature reviews presented the state of the research favorably." Pcarbonn (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On early criticism

I've altered the right intro (which I support) because not only did folks like Lewis fail to reproduce the original result they explained where Pons & Fleischmann made mistakes in theory and experiment. It wasn't "we're not getting the same result" it was often "we're not getting the same conclusion and here's why".--OMCV (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't you find strange that the article of NYT in support of this sentence said that scientists were ready to accept the claim of Jones to find neutrons, but not the claims of F&P ? Can someone explain this to me ? Fleischmann is a fellow of the Royal Society, and discoverer of Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering. One cannot say that he is incompetent. How can one attribute such simple experimental errors to him, in his field of expertise ?

Doesn't it say a lot about the frameset of the scientists at the time ? "It's OK to say it's nuclear, but not that it can be a source of energy". Where is the logic ? Pcarbonn (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The latest paper from SPAWAR are corroborating evidence of neutron emission (see Mosier-Bos 2008). I urge you to read it. I'm ready to share it with you if you send me an e-mail. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please send that (and any other stuff if you want to send) to bible_discussion@yahoo.com. Olorinish (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, Jones had observed nuclear products in his previous cold fusion work and described it in a believable way in Scientific American. FP had no obvious nuclear detection experience. Olorinish (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's no reason to reject Fleischmann's claim of excess heat, and explaining them with simple experimental errors that an electrochemist with his expertise would not do. Remember that his excess heat report was reproduced quickly by Bockris, who published it in Sept 89. He was also an expert electrochemist. He was accused of spiking by Taubes, then cleared by 3 professors. Why the smearing ? Why the need to close this opening scientific controversy so quickly ? Pcarbonn (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Taubes book? One of the very unique things about cold fusion is that respected scientists couldn't replicate the effects with reasonable amounts of effort. That basically never happens in science. The only other episode in physics I can think of is the case of Jan Schon, and he was a lying fraud. Olorinish (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not read Taubes book. I prefer to read books from scientists. Taubes handling of the Bockris case (described in our article) is enough for me to discredit him. I don't need to hear his fabrications, whatever his intent might be.

Bockris did replicate the F&P effect independently by Sept 89, and many others later. The fact that others could not replicate it with "reasonable amounts of efforts" only means that it was more difficult to replicate it than they anticipated, not that the initial report was wrong. Progress was later slowed by the unavailability of resources. As Hubler says in his powerpoint presentation: "These suggested experiments can not be conducted by individuals acting alone or in their garage or basement" It is true that the conditions for replication are not fully mastered yet, but that does not change the reality of the effect. Also, please read our section on reproducibility. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I read our article on Jan Hendrik Schön, and I see absolutely no similarity with the cold fusion case. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"I prefer to read books from scientists." Then that is another difference between us Pcarbonn. I learn from all kinds of sources. Olorinish (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bockris did replicate the F&P effect independently by Sept 89, and many others later." If they did, then it is very significant that there has not been convincing confirmation of nuclear products measured with traditional particle detectors (counting pits in plastic sheets is not good enough). Olorinish (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahah. LOL. This is ridiculously funny, and grossly misinformed. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my previous humorous post. Neutrons are indeed emitted at a much lower rate than expected by conventional fusion in view of the observed heat. Such low levels are very difficult to measure with traditional particle detectors, explaining why there has been no convincing confirmation of neutron detection. The advantage of using CR-39 detectors is that they are integrating, i.e. the longer you leave them in the experiment, the more tracks you can get. Such CR-39 detectors are routinely used by nuclear physicists, not just by CF scientists. And the number of tracks obtained by Mosier-Boss in 2008 is well over the background level obtained in control experiments. The radiation of neutron in such experiments cannot be explained at all by conventional physics. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example of fabricated criticism is Lewis comment on the meltdown of F&P's cell in 1985, as published in NYT (Browne 1989) : "My understanding," Dr. Lewis said, "is that Pons's son was there at the time, not Pons himself. I understand that someone turned the current off for a while. When that happens hydrogen naturally bubbles out of the palladium cathode, and creates a hazard of fire or explosion. It is a simple chemical reaction that has nothing to do with fusion".

Such explosion can indeed occur, as Dr. Riley unfortunately found out, in closed cells. However, it cannot explain a meltdown or vaporisation of the cathode. And more importantly, such an explosion cannot happen in an open cell. F&P used open cells, so the gas was constantly going out and its partial pressure was too low for possible explosion. Dr. Lewis must have known that for sure, as he had tried to replicated F&P's experiment... Pcarbonn (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Continued work in the field

The sentence "Since 2004, several articles[6][7] and conferences[10][11] reporting supportive results show that there is continued work in the field." is clearly a new synthesis, not backed up by a source. I would much prefer "Since 2004, scientific journals and conferences have reported additional supporting results." (the CR-39 papers being some prominent ones). Pcarbonn (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, isn't this saying the same thing, but without giving specific examples to support the statement? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In my view, it's not saying the same thing, because the emphasis is not the same. If you are indifferent, then why not choose the one I propose. We would of course need to add the sources. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the context (I didn't look at it before, I just looked at the sentence itself). It's right after a sentence saying that the DOE does not recommend more federal spending into it. It's incoherent that the next sentence says "additional supporting results" when the former sentence talks about no such supporting results. The other wording connects with the former sentence by saying "there is continued work in the field [in spite of the DOE not recommending a federal-funded program]" --Enric Naval (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It says "additional supporting results" because the 2004 DOE review was prompted by earlier supporting results. This is explained a couple of sentences above that sentence in the lead section. As I said above in this thread, I support adding a sentence saying that the 2004 DOE reviewers nearly unanimously recommended further studies, although not in a federally focused program. So, it should not be a surprise that work is continuing. Hence, no need to add the connecting word that you propose. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, then the context is badly worded. I suppose that, for a person that read the whole lead in order, it's understandable. The new sentence looks ok to me, remember to specify that they recommended "well designed" experiments and that they were all under peer review (they must have found quite a few bad designed ones?). --Enric Naval (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Which series of experiment to cite in intro : DOE's or Hubler's

The current introduction says that Hubler identified a series of experiment to resolve the controversy. This can be said also of the 2004 DOE, who concluded : "The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field". Which one should we cite ? Or both ? I would tend to favor both. Any comments ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What experiments did the DoE propose? I don't remember anything in DOE 2004 beyond a recommendation that scientists continue to apply for grants and publication. Hubler, on the other hand, has several specific experiments, which are described textually in his review and diagrammed in more detail in his slides. IwRnHaA (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't miss it. It's right in their conclusion: "The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods." Pcarbonn (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro problems

I have removed references to review articles stored at LENR-CANR (a notoriously unreliable source) and pandering to Cold Fusion True Believers that has made its way into the Intro. Please do not revert without explanation for why we should include review articles by cold fusion advocates in the intro. I believe Pcarbonn's revert is an example of POV-pushing.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, other people's reverts always are aren't they? Reversion should only be used for vandalism or edits that are very close to vandalism. See Help:reverting for details. --John (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Please let Pcarbonn know. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The reversions I did are justified per WP:BRD. I don't mind removing the LENR-CANR links, but the original sources have no reasons to be deleted. They are from peer-reviewed journals. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean it belongs in a lead. I think that including reviews written by cold fusion advocates should not be included as neutral demarcations of the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

These reviews are written by CF experts, as would any other review. That they happen to promote cold fusion is not relevant: their papers have been peer-reviewed after all, by people that are obviously neutral to the subject. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

John, you may want to have a look at the history of this page, and of SA's involvement, here.

These reviews are written by people who do not have a very good reputation outside of the CF community. We do not need to include them in the lead, for godsakes. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source for "These reviews are written by people who do not have a very good reputation outside of the CF community." Pcarbonn (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a third-party source that is not a CF advocate who lists these reviews as "good". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, you may wish to purview the fact that Pcarbonn just blatantly violated 3RR and you didn't bother to warn him. Hmm. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had consensus not to link to LENR-CANR for copyright reasons? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to know whether anyone has redistribution permission under a nondisclosure agreement. We are allowed to provide such courtesy links when they appear in web.archive.org. I was using web.archive.org, and saw some recent work which seemed to me would make the encyclopedia better. Please see Talk:Cold_fusion#Courtesy_link_for_Hubler_paper. IwRnHaA (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The forth section of the intro should be moved to the recent development section. The intro could say "There have been more recent developments in cold fusion as discussed below." The two non-represent reviews should not be elevated on wikipedia. We are not trying to "brake" scientific news, we seek to represent consensus science. Problems begin with the "SURFACE AND COATINGS TECHNOLOGY" review, this journal has an impact factor of 1.68. This is compared to a serious review journal like "Chem Rev" which has an impact factor of 22.76. I'm not saying that an article in "Chem Rev" is about 20 times as representative as something in "SURFACE AND COATINGS TECHNOLOGY". Sometimes the article from the "lesser" journal is more important and sometimes its beyond inconsequential. I also don't want to imply that an impact factor of 20 is normal, perhaps the most important journal for original chemistry research is "J Am Chem Soc" which has a impact factor of 7.89. This 7.68 is still a huge leap over 1.68 but it gives the scale the proper context. Context and placement is also important, for example "J Am Chem Soc" publishes on everything related to chemistry but most journals are more specialized. "SURFACE AND COATINGS TECHNOLOGY" as the name implies is an example of a specialized journal and it doesn't seem the best place to get something concerning nuclear physics/electrochemistry reviewed or read. In fact Wikipedia has cited this paper before anyone in the scientific community according to "Web of Science" and "SciFinder". The value of that review is doubtful and not up to the standards for a wikipeida intro of such a heavily cited subject. In contrast the DOE reports are in the right weight class. Now the review in the "International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology" is published in the right place but its a young journal and so it doesn't have an established impact factor. Again here its just important to keep this articles perspective balanced against the literature as a whole. The minority does not get to choose the light in which its presented. The fact there is no timely responses countering this reviews most likely means these reviews don't deserve timely responses. The old critiques are still more than sufficient. My point is that this "recent" stuff shouldn't be mentioned in the intro. This would also be true if a review came out tomorrow discrediting cold fusion. Its too "new" for an encyclopedia.--OMCV (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to like the J of Am Chem Soc. How about a book that they published ? What do you think of Marwan, Jan and Krivit, Steven B., editors, Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook, American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8  ? Is that good enough for a mainstream source ? Aren't the Am Chem Soc and Oxford university Press notable and reliable enough for you ? Where is "the literature as a whole" that we have missed ? Would it be an option for you to replace the 2 reviews in the intro by a summary of the ACS book ? Pcarbonn (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that book has not been vetted nor has it received good reviews from anyone who is not a cold fusion proponent. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that the Am Chem Soc and Oxford University Press are CF proponents ? I would agree. Hence the need to represent their view properly. You seem to forget that they have a review process. This is not a self-published book. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Publishing companies are not the groups which have the opinions of the books they publish. Rather, the authors are. Publishing companies publish when they think there is a market. It doesn't matter if they have a review process if no third-party groups refer to the book. You have basically raised a primary source to the status of a third-party secondary source. Inappropriate and obvious POV-pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The American Chemical Society is not a publishing company, so what's your point ? If there is a market, it means that a significant share of scientists view CF favorably, so what's your point ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The American Chemical Society is NOT the author of the review so attempting to attach the positions taken by the author of the review to ACS is akin to attaching the positions of a speaker at a conference to the conference organizer. Poor form, indeed. I agree that there are enough people desperately trying to prove CF true that provide a market for pro-CF books, but this does not mean that such books are reliable, neutral, or anything better than opinion-written screeds by CF proponents. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything published by Oxford University Press is RS unless there is a very good indication to the contrary. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliabe source for what? I'm not saying it's a bad source for the opinions of the authors, but it is clearly not a neutral source. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right: we need to attribute the statement to its author. ACS / OUP bring it the notability you were asking. So, the way forward is to quote from that book, attributing statements to its authors. Agreed ? Pcarbonn (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is bald POV-Pushing since no one thinks these books represent anything other than the flights-of-fancy of cold fusion true believers. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see my concerns were addressed in the article. I would like to point out the above exchange doesn't address anything I said. My personal feelings about JACS were never an issue. JACS was only mentioned as an example in an attempt to explain the peer-review process to help laymen editors who most likely only have a theoretical understanding of the process. It would do everyone well to develop better understanding of the peer-review process if they are going to edit scientific subjects.

I will also take a moment to clarify some of the misconceptions raised above. The conclusion, that texts (even specialty texts) should be attributed to the authors is a correct conclusion. The ACS is the "world's largest scientific society" to quote their web page is many things. They are involved in many areas related to chemistry including publishing as well as CAS (which it an interesting organization/system in its own right). Regardless, the editors of this article should know, the only acceptable venue for presenting original research in the current scientific community (especially chemistry and physics) is the article or communication (sometimes known as a letter) in a reputable peer-review journal. Books are often intended to be reviews that don't include any original research although some synthesis, word coinage, and editorializing (to put it in wp terms) can slip into the texts. Other texts are pure history or editorializing. Either ways these books are teaching instruments (indoctrinations devices) and not directly part of the research literature. I repeat, they not part of the scientific canonical of knowledge. This is a much longer explanation of what SA's succinctly stated as "(the) book has not been vetted". But since his point wasn't hear I feel the need to fully explain science and the scientific process especially while Pcarbonn and others attempt to misrepresent and subvert the process and results of science.

Finally, Pcarbonn, the fact that you thought SA implied the ACS is NOT a publishing group is very strange. You came to this conclusion when it was obviously not SA's point. You missed my point in a similar way. How these misunderstanding happened can be explained in two ways (as I see it). Either you are unable to keep up with the concerns raised by the other or you are willfully misunderstanding editors to manipulate the conversation. Either way you have no place editing this subject. To put it bluntly Pcarbonn your efforts to willfully misunderstand other editors and disrupting this talk page must stop.--OMCV (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite what is implied above, the peer-reviewed journals that have published favorable articles on cold fusion are not at the bottom of the Impact Factor list, but in the top third or better, overall or within their category. Here is what I found on the ISI website:

• Natuurwissenchaften: 7th among 50 journals in the MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES category. Impact factor: 1.955
• European Physical Journal C : 9th among 24 journals in the PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS. Impact factor: 3.255
• International Journal of Hydrogen: 8th among 32 journals in the PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL. Impact factor: 2.725
• Surface & Coatings technology: 31st among 94 journals in PHYSICS, APPLIED. Impact factor: 1.678
• Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry: 21st among 70 journals in CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL. Impact factor: 2.580

The lowest impact factor of these, 1.678, is in the 2291st place overall, just a shade below one third overall (6417 journals in total --> 1/3 = 2139) So, these journals should be seen as reliable and notable for wikipedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn just demonstrated that he does not understand the points about subfield management and how impact factors are ranked. The point that these are out-of-the-way sources stands and the POV-pushing by Pcarbonn is unacceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Plans to restore a better version

I fully intend to restore this version after a 24-hour-cooling-off period unless someone gives me a good reason not to. This version removes a lot of the WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE problems. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You have it wrong. This is a page representing the consensus. Many, if not all, of the changes you dispute have been done by others, not by me. YOU have to provide the arguments for your edits. YOU have to show that the article has POV or Fringe problems. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You are making false claims of consensus. Find me an editor who is not a cold-fusion supporter who thinks your activities here are above the board and represent the best policies of Wikipedia. Just one. I'll wait. In fact, what we have is a coordinated effort of ownership that you have been engineering over years to try to get Wikipedia to slant in favor of cold fusion proponents. It's outrageous and I'm tired of it. I have demonstrated what the problems are by presenting an alternative. I am saying that the article relies too much on cold fusion proponents to make claims about evidence and about acceptance. I'm simply trying to move the bar back toward WP:NPOV. Since you cannot understand that, I suggest you move out of the way and let people who do not share your pathological attachment toward violating Wikipdia standards and practices have a chance to edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, instead of personal attacks, you should provide evidence that the article has problems. Getting ownership of any controversial subject on wikipedia is impossible. Just look at how many archives have been written already. If there were real issues with my editing of the article, I would have been blocked or ejected a long time ago. I have never been. Others have judged the article to be a good article recently, further proof that it represents consensus. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I see this as more posturing without substance. The facts speak for themselves. I have provided an improvement to this article which you reject out-of-hand due to a dogged support for sources that are sympathetic to the position that cold fusion exists as an observed phenomenon. Your continued advocacy of this tack is not subject to blocking or banning simply because the enforcement mechanisms on Wikipedia have become more cautious in the last two years due to a lack of competence in positions of power and a crisis-of-confidence in administrators who have shown the resolve and the judgment to make difficult decisions. Don't worry, if you keep up your current practices, a bad end will result. It may take a while, but I've seen it happen across the board. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I really think we need to work line-by-line and not revert changes en-masse. Will be pleased to read any of your suggestions for how NPOV can be improved, SA. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my contribution which is my line-by-line suggestion. Do you think it's okay? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I thought you reverted to an old version? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposed edit obviously does not have consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are notoriously awful at judging consensus and when it exists. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have requested an WP:RFF and I myself will take a look.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• per RFF: looking at the diff of the two versions (what SA pointed to above, and the current version, if those are correct) it seems that the main difference is changing 'researchers' to 'advocates', changing additional supporting results in peer-reviewed journals to what they contend are additional supporting results including some in peer-reviewed , and adding a a skepticism disclaimer at the end. right? the first change seems clearly wrong (these people in fact seem to be professional researchers), and the second change is loaded with weasel wording. the disclaimer might be a valid point, if there's some sourcing that indicates it's true. 2 cents worth; I'll read a bit more deeply as I get the chance. --Ludwigs2 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of them are not "researchers" in the professional sense since they are not employed as cold fusion investigators but do their work independently. The second change is on-the-face correct and doesn't violate any part of WP:WEASEL whereas the previous version makes a biased claim that there exist supporting results which is denied by many independent evaluators. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that the DOE was evenly split on the issue of excess heat. So, if many denied that claims, many others did not. Our article should reflect that. My dictionary does not say that a researcher must be employed to do his research, but if you prefer, we could use "scientists". Pcarbonn (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

SA - cold fusion is not the kind of thing where some guy can whip together a bunch of tin cans and some tap water in his garage and do experiments. this 'working independently' thing can only mean that they are employed at universities or corporations and doing cold fusion research as secondary projects to their main work, which makes them researchers. I mean really: if some physicist were working on an unsolved mathematics theorem, would you call him an advocate rather than a researcher because he's not a mathematician? and the phrase including some in... is pure weasel, using the word 'some' to give an appearance of minimal support. If I said "Einstein's theory of relativity has what proponents contend are additional supporting results, including some in peer-reviewed journals", you'd scream weasel-wording at me; would you accept it if I said it wasn't weasel wording because it doesn't violate any part of WP:WEASEL? --Ludwigs2 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What is with this rhetoric, Ludwigs? Have you made a detailed investigation of the sources? Do you have a degree in physics or chemistry? What is causing you to be so didactic about this subject? Where are you getting your high-horse? If some mathematician had claimed to have solved Fermat's Last Theorem before Wiles but had been unable to get anyone to pay attention to him, we would definitely not be calling this person a "Fermat's Last Theorem Solution researcher". "Advocate" is far more appropriate. "Including some in...." is fact since most cold fusion claims happen in less than reputable locations (the F-P press conference, e.g.). Minimal support is exactly what cold fusion enjoys. I would "scream" weasel wording at you with respect to relativity because unlike relativity, cold fusion is fringe and marginalized: not accepted by the mainstream and we need to treat it differently accordingly. I am confident that weasel wording only makes sense when the wording falsely gives the impression of marginality or falsely gives the impression of greater acceptance. In this case the person advocating for weasel wording is manifestly you and the cold fusion proponents with whom you have unsurprisingly allied yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

SA - there are two error in logic in the above post:

• ad hominem arguments have no bearing on the discussion. in particular, two responses to an RfF do not in any way make me 'didactic'.
• arguing from consequents to antecedents is a nono. the fact that CF is fringe in no way reflects back on the subject or researchers who investigate it. it is fringe because it fails to produce consistent, usable results; it does not fail to produce consistent, usable results because it's fringe. I have no problem recognizing that the no useable results have been produced, but I see no reason to attack the status or professionalism of people who are earnestly involved in researching the topic. if they've been published in peer-reviewed journals, give them their props, and then point out that nothing significant has come of it. leave the task of judging them and their work to their peers. --Ludwigs2 20:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Which significant points of view are not represented?

I just changed the "totally-disputed" template to "npov" because I couldn't find any examples of charges of factual inaccuracies here on this talk page. Have there been any lately?

I'm confused about which significant points of view are not represented. Which are they? IwRnHaA (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that SA's edit is vandalism, in view of his past contributions here. Besides your previous comment, I'd be happy to see any evidence or justification for :

• [The article] needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.
• Its quality may be compromised by peacock terms.
• Its introduction provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.
• It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
• Its introduction may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines.

Pcarbonn (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's vandalism. Who doesn't expect tags on controversial subjects? But you are right, the policy is that if there isn't a specific objection, then the tags can be removed. If there are specific objections, they need to be discussed. IwRnHaA (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If SA is unwilling to discuss the specifics of what he is wanting to convey through the mass-application of the tags, then the tags will be removed. The burden of evidence lies on the applicator -- SA, not others to guess at to what the issue is. seicer | talk | contribs 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We're well past the point to WP:MOVEON. Ronnotel (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done And this is not what I call giving rationale. seicer | talk | contribs 15:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Seicer. See your vendetta hasn't let up none. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected This is a snowjob false-claim-of-consensus by Cold Fusion True believers. When the cooling-off period is up, I will be reverting the tags back in as well as the edits above. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently not in the article is a good discussion of the criticisms of the supposed eveidences for cold fusion. I have atempted to add them in the past, but have had them block deleted by Pcarbonn with what I consider the flimsiest of excuses. For balance, something of what I added on Sept. 17 should be put back into the 'Criticisms' section. All the rationales are there in the Talk pages, and I am short on time to participate at this point. I won't be editing anymore, unless I see a problem with biased labeling such as my last edit, so it's up to you al;l to get the article balanced at tis point. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that cold fusion afficianados need to remember that cold fusion has not been proven, and at this point is tenuously called a "science". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, our article does not say that "cold fusion has been proven". For your second point, all the peer-reviewed papers published in reputed scientific journals say the contrary. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as I LOVE peer-review, it is flatly the case that cold fusion proponents publish in out-of-the-way journals and have been blacklisted from the major journals. More than this, the pro-CF case is not subject to independent review, something which we require per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. The continual insistence of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT is tiring to say the least. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the journal that publishes the studies really does matter. If a parpsycholgy journal publishes a study that is peer-reviewed by parapsyclogists ... well ... •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some journals that published several articles favorable to CF: Naturwissenschaften, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, and Journal of Fusion Energy. See the article for details. Not bad, isn't it ? Pcarbonn (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The impact factors for these journals are abysmal. Yawn. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the tactic currently in use by the CFers is to hop around to new journals (from their point of view) to get published since they feel they are barred from the traditional ones. What this does is present an editor with an unexpected article for his/her journal on what is known to be a controversial topic. In that situation, the inherent leniency of the peer-review system comes into play and the editor accepts the paper for consideration in order to not be too restrictive. Unfortunately, the editor then finds that there are no competent reviewers to pick from in his normal pool. Of course the CFer submitting the article is asked for suggested reviewers, but one has to wonder if any skeptics are ever submitted (since any skeptic is automatically 'pathological' to the CFers). In the end, the review obtained is either biased favorably or inadequate due to lack of expertise. The prime journals from the cold fusion field's history are Fusion Science and Technology (formerly Fusion Techology) and J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry. You should suspect an end run if the paper in question appears elsewhere. One journal that would be right on target but is never used is J. of Alloys and Compounds (formerly J. of the Less Common Metals). That is where the hydride chemists and physicists publish, and where an expert pool of reviewers exists, since they do related work to the things the CFers do, including electrochemistry (think nickel-metal hydride batteries). I wonder why the CFers never go there...NOT! Kirk shanahan (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC).

Beware, SA, a stalker is lurking ... •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Re EPJ: "During the early 20th century, it was considered one of the most prestigious journals in physics". This is the early 21st. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I also note that my point re "peers" was missed. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Tags

I've restored the tags, given that there is indeed discussion here on them. My take:

• Cleanup - The article is getting very large. I see only one sub-article at this time. Anyone see something that could be made into another sub-article? Pre-1989 DOE? --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Primary sources - Generally, I find that focusing on what's written in the highest-quality, independent, secondary sources resolves most content disputes. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Recentism - I think this tags sums up much of what's being disputed. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Intro - The last paragraph doesn't meet WP:LEDE --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph has now been moved to the "Recent developments" section. It should be merged in better, but at least it's out of the introduction. Are there any other concerns with the intro? --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the current intro, per my suggestions above. I've also removed some of the more pandering "results" that were found in the cold fusion evidence section. Kirk Shanahan's additions should be included in this article too. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• POV - Obviously, there's a great temptation to summarize and over-emphasize more recent and potentially more promising research. Best to follow WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE carefully. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• It urgently need demoting from "good article" as even the supposedly "good" version was a self-admitted POV-push. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

PhysicsWorld on pathological science

For those who like to qualify cold fusion as pathological science, I invite them to look at what PhysicsWorld said here in May 2008:

These days the mainstream science media wouldn’t touch cold-fusion experiments with a barge pole. They have learnt their lesson from 1989, and now treat “cold fusion” as a byword for bad science. Most scientists* agree, and some even go so far as to brand cold fusion a “pathological science” — science that is plagued by falsehood but practiced nonetheless.

[*CORRECTION 29/05/08: It has been brought to my attention that part of this last sentence appears to be unsubstantiated. After searching through past articles I have to admit that, despite it being written frequently, I can find no factual basis that “most scientists” think cold fusion is bad science (although public scepticism is evidently rife). However, there have been surveys to suggest that scientific opinion is more likely divided. According to a 2004 report by the DOE, which you can read here, ten out of 18 scientists thought that the hitherto results of cold-fusion experiments warranted further investigation.]

(His last sentence is not correct by the way: that conclusion was nearly unanimous. See the last page of the report). (Funny that he links to lenr-canr.org, and that we can't...) Pcarbonn (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have a problem with any of the following statements :

1. the pathological science tag is unsubstantiated (source: PhysicsWorld, numerous papers in peer reviewed journal)
2. cold fusion is a scientific controversy (source: DOE 2004)
3. WP policy says that all significant side of a controversy deserve a fair representation
4. therefore both proponents and skeptics of cold fusion deserve a fair representation

Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is blatant POV-pushing. You have removed a statement which had three references as "unsourced", and you propose here to replace it with a reference to a blog (blogs are not reliable sources). Wikipedia policies and guidelines say that fringe theories (such as cold fusion) should not be given weight which is disproportionate to their level of acceptance. Hut 8.5 11:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is this continual revisionist sentiment getting shoved down our throats through appeals to recentism (as though cold fusion research is on the cutting edge and the dotty old establishment scientists just have no chance of keepin' up.) We need to guard against these kinds of cheap ploys. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It Doesn't Look Like Fusion

Some of you seem to have a strong desire to see that the subject of "cold fusion" is relegated to the trash bin. However, you don't seem to have anything substantive to back up your position and opinions besides pejorative comments and an infinite amount of time for bitfu**ing. If you want to understand why "cold fusion" doesn't seem like real fusion, let me help you. I've made it easy (From my presntation at the ACS National Meeting, August, 2008 http://newenergytimes.com/Library2/2008/2008-Krivit-ACS.pdf):

Here are the reasons why "cold fusion" doesn't look like fusion:

1. Missing or suppressed gamma

2. Wrong neutron to tritium ratios

3. Wrong 4He to neutron ratios

4. Missing 1st branch of thermonuclear fusion

5. Missing 2nd branch of thermonuclear fusion

6. Weak data for 24 MeV energy (wide range of data, incomplete assay)

7. Heavy Z transmutations

8. Normal water and hydrogen experiments

Also see this article: http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.htm#looklike

P.S. The lead is incorrect where it states "Lacking an explanation for the source of such heat, they proposed the hypothesis that the heat came from nuclear fusion of deuterium (D).

It should read: "Lacking an explanation for the source of such heat, they proposed the hypothesis that the heat came from nuclear fusion of deuterium (D)" or a hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBKrivit (talk • contribs) 03:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

StevenBKrivit (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven wikipedia is not the place for something that wikipedia calls original research. Your PPT, book, web page, is firmly in the original research category when you present them. Even if another editor presents them they can only be considered your opinion. If you want to direct editors to significant peer-reviewed papers that would be more helpful and considered to be part of science (although only your opinion in the scientific community). Basically keep your professional discourse in the scientific community and once its incorporated there it will be incorporated here as part of that discourse. It sounds convoluted but the point is not. Simply stated, this is not the place for you to publish. In science (as with everything else) wikipedia has the responsibility to present the established understanding of the field as established by the available body of citation (peer-reviewed in the case of science). In the case of "cold fusion" that understanding centers around what happens with Fleischmann, Pons, and Jones and the mass of rebutting articles. Your more recent work is nothing more than a foot note compared to those historic events. I wish you all the luck in shifting the consensus understanding especially if you find phenomenon of value. I don't claim to understand the current state of "cold fusion" but I'll make sure to see your next talk if I'm at the same meeting. I'll also add that I'm shocked that you included Bockris as a supporting element in your field. The man may have been vindicated of fraud but only by being confirmed an imbecile. I hope this helps you understand wikipedia's policies.--OMCV (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This may not be quite the right place for this comment, but no other spot is good either. One current problem with the article is that is does not present the real state of affairs in the general scientific community. That state is that 'cold fusion' is a known example of pathological science. This reputation was gained early in the history of cold fusion, and I think it was promoted primarily by the book by J. R. Huizenga (Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY, 1992. ISBN 1 878822 07 1). (Huizenga was the head of the 1989 DOE review committee.) The books by F. Close helped a lot too (Close F; "Too Hot to Handle" WH Allen, London 1990; ISBN 1 85227 206 6 and "Too Hot to Handle. The Race for Cold Fusion" 2nd Edition, Penguin paperback 1992, ISBN 0-14-015926-6). The average scientist followed the 'fiasco' up to that point and then went on about his/her business, assuming the issue was settled. The publication rate began dropping off shortly after that point was reached (see D. Britz's Figures here http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/stats.html). However, a core of believers continued to try to figure the situation out, and they have continued to this day. By avoiding publication (by primarily only publishing in their own conference's Proceedings) they have lulled the average scientist further into that belief. So today, the Cfers are resurging somewhat because they have figured out ways around the system, and they have limited opposition. The article is written primarily (as far as what basic facts are contained in the article) from that closed mindset, where CF is opposed, barred, and suppressed. In fact, they refuse to participate in normal scientific channels by responding to valid criticisms, they just ignore them, hoping to continue to bank on the lack of interest of mainstream science. Their most recent tactic is to rename the field to something 'more respectable'. So from Wiki's POV, what is needed is to bring in the historical aspects of this, and then lay out the criticisms that they CFers avoid answering. Once that is in place, the article should be much more balanced. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kirk,

PLEASE edit the article. We are here to support you. Your understanding of the situation is far better than anyone else I have come across.

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. This article is absurdly POV. I'd also support you, Kirk, and hope you work on the article. Cool Hand Luke 14:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, since we now have other eyes on the problem, I have altered the first few paragraphs of the Intro to reflect what I discuss above. Have at it editors! (also added a couple of refs that are 2nd editions of books, should we keep both eds. or just the last?) I may add more later if this effort works out. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Bookkeeping

Someone removed GA from the articlehistory template,[2] without delisting the article at GA and recording the event correctly in articlehistory. I Don't Do GA: I do clean up the articlehistory error category. Please get a GA person to delist it correctly and update the Template:Articlehistory correctly, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't beeen delisted, just submitted for reassessment - the reassessment banner was placed in the wrong place on the talk too, so took a while to find.Yobmod (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent sources

I'm also concerned with the activities of CF proponents here, but I would actually like to know what the current state-of-art. In particular, I think it is inappropriate that we are relying on Wikipedia editors interpretations of technical articles rather than coverage in science magazines. So I wonder, what do editors on both sides of this debate think about the following article:

• Cold fusion rides again. By: Daviss, Bennett, New Scientist, 02624079, 5/5/2007, Vol. 194, Issue 2602

From the second paragraph:

Gordon's plastic wafer is the product of the latest in a long line of "cold fusion" experiments conducted at the US navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California. What makes this one stand out is that it has been published in the respected peer-reviewed journal Naturwissenschaften, which counts Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg and Konrad Lorenz among its eminent past authors (DOI: 10.1007/s00114-007-0221-7). Could it really be true that nuclear fusion can be coaxed into action at room temperature, using only simple lab equipment? Most nuclear physicists don't think so, and dismiss Gordon's pitted piece of plastic as nothing more than the result of a badly conceived experiment. So who is right?

As you can see, the coverage seems quite balanced. According to this article, there is a renewed interest in cold fusion as there does seem to some reputable labs coming up with anomalies, but the following is worth noting:

The science writer and debunker Shawn Carlson, who in the past has done research in nuclear physics, listened to Gordon and Mosier-Boss make their case at the National Defense Industrial Association conference in Washington DC last year. He was not convinced. "A collection of disjoint anomalies is more consistent with bad experimental technique than a great discovery," he says. "It would take independent verification from a number of labs to swing the tide in favour of cold fusion."

Anyway, it seemed like an interesting and fair article that should be used here. I wonder what the experts here think about Benett Daviss' article. Vesal (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)