Talk:Cold fusion

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)

"it cannot explain a meltdown or vaporisation" I have to disagree. Pd is a ductile metal, and the shock wave from a D2+O2 explosion occurring in the cell could easily deform the material. It could also literally 'blow away' some of the material, which some people would interpret as 'vaporization'. There is no reason to believe that what happened in F&P's lab is anything other than a common D2+O2 explosion occurring in an apparatus that may have focused the shock wave downwards. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As explained above, open cells used by F&P do not allow the accumulation of gas, and thus cannot create an explosion. Fleischmann is a respected scientist, and could certainly distinguish a meltdown from an explosion. You may as well say that he made the whole story up. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

_In principle_ open cells do not allow for the accumulation of gas. In fact numerous problems can lead to plugging or flow restrictions that do allow for such to occur. You may recall the ongoing discussion about measuring recombination. In Fleishmann's case, he plumbed up several cells to a common measurement point. That kind of plumbing is suceptible to plugging.

Your second sentence is what is known as a 'call to authority'. Fleishmann is 'respected' so whatever he says must be true, right? No, not at all. Does Fleishmann have any expertise in explosives or demolitions? If not, then he is not an expert in making that kind of call. Instead what we have is a prime example of the endemic problem of cold fusion: Something happens, and it forcibly interpreted to support the nuclear explanation, instead of the conventional one. So no, he didn't make it up, he just jumped to a predetermined conclusion without cause. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:04, 3 November 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)

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)

OMCV: I don't edit the main article, that would be OR. As a journalist that specializes in this, I perform OR, that's pretty much all I do; I'm well aware of WIKI:OR. That being said, I had just popped in here and saw a lot of confusion. I thought I would try to help. I happen to have a fair amount of familiarity with the topic. Sometimes the current editors at Wikipedia appreciate my help, sometimes they don't. With a rebuke like yours, I'm content to leave well enough alone for the time being. Feel free to contact me (anyone) if I can be of any assistance in the future. If I see any obvious errors, I'll be back to notify you here. Other than that, I'll let you all sort it out as best you can. Good luck.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:41, 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)

May I ask that proper sources are provided when new content is added ? Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You may ask for proper sources by adding {{cn}} tags or by mentioning them explicitly on the talkpage. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I also support your efforts Kirk. As for Pcarbonn I was wondering if you could explain the citation requests I assume you added. This intro material is not an especially controversial historic perspective. It seems to be a fair overview that treats CF with far more respect than I would offer for reasons that I can cite. But there is no need for me to lamblast Bockris for being a nut job or P&F for a predilection towards press conferences. The point is the current intro is fair and discusses a social split that is real regardless of whether there is substance in cold fusion research. I would imagine the information is covered in any number of the books already cited in the surrounding sentences. The more detailed and technical perspective based on the peer-reviewed papers can go into the body.--OMCV (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You say : "I would imagine the information is covered in any number of the books already cited in the surrounding sentences". So it should be easy to provide a source for it. We should work towards the highest verifiability on such a controversial topic. Using the precise word from the source is often necessary. As I said below, I challenge the exact role and notability of the books that the lead mentions. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support OMCV, and welcome to dealing with the editing style of Pcarbonn. Anything he finds negative towards cold fusion, he attacks with full guns. He always starts with the 'sourcing' ploy. However, as you have noted, there are numerous articles and references, and trying to work that into the lead is unnecessary. Pcarbonn brought up several other refs in the section below that also substantiate the historical situation. This is all well known and equates to saying "2+2=4", i.e. it does not require a source. So, I have no intention of engaging in another drawn out debate with Pcarbonn on this. I will not supply a source for the "a position which is still held by the majority of scientists today" statement. That is a valid summary of the current state of affairs. Regarding the "Some of the criticisms put forth in these sources were ill-founded" and "some direct charges of fabrication on the part of one of the authors" statements: these were added to partially justify the CFers position, as there were some positions taken by skeptics in the early days that were not really supportable. If you all don't like them, drop those parts of the sentence. Re: "allowed cold fusion researchers to discount their overall validity" The idea that this needs a source is ridiculous. But I don't care, drop it as well if you like. Re: "with the result that they have formed a core group that still pursues proof of cold fusion to this day", why would anyone think that needs a source? Isn't the fact that a select group of researchers have continued to do the research and put out publications (in various places, including Proceedings) patently obvious from this whole article? The whole 2nd sentence here was pro-CF in the sense that there are reasons to pursue research, but not to the exclusion of conventional explanations. As noted above, there is nothing wrong with these statements as I added them except to cold fusion fanatics. We need to come to a consensus on this now, as Pcarbonn has used this tactic repeatedly on my additions in situations where I am just stating the obvious. The only problem is always that they can be interpreted as anti-CF by a fanatic. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Kirk, I've got you covered with sourcing. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that your realize that I defend wikipedia's policies of verifiability to the point of supporting the removal of pro-CF statements. I do believe these statements should go until properly sourced. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]SA, it's not that I can't source, it's that I feel the supposed requirement is inappropriate. Start going through the newspaper articles from recent times. The Wired 2007 report _starts_ with "to discuss a phenomenon that allegedly does not exist. Despite a backdrop of meager funding and career-killing derision from mainstream scientists and engineers, cold fusion is anything but a dead field of research." Note the 'alleged', 'derision from mainstream scientists', and 'dead field'. Then there's the Biberian 2007 "review", in its Abstract it says "the scientific community does not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme". The 2004 Physics Today article says "The cold fusion claims made in 1989 by B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann didn't hold up. But they did spawn a small and devoted coterie of researchers who continue to investigate the alleged effect". All that took me about 2 minutes to find. What I wrote is the current consensus position and is well known to all who know _anything_ about the cold fusion issue. It does not need to be sourced because everyone realizes this, except Pcarbonn. This either means we have a person editing a technical article who has zero knowledge about the field, or we have a biased advocate who is trying to suppress _individuals_ from contributing. Either way, Pcarbonn should not be editing this article. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the sourcing requirements are a level of absurdity that is almost ridiculous. Unfortunately, since Wikipedia is not written by experts but instead by anonymous editors, the sourcing requirements on this encyclopedia are absurd. At first, I thought it was a problem, but after years of working around these problems I've learned how to essentially work around the absurdity. Pcarbonn is essentially POV-pushing on a grand scale here. He is technically right that the standards of Wikipedia are such that nearly every assertion needs to be cited, but he abuses this rule as a bludgeon. Including sources as footnotes on every sentence removes the tactic completely. I agree with you that Pcarbonn should be banned from this article. We'll see if that happens. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but… The problem is that if I source these statements properly, it would look like: “a position which is still held by the majority of scientists today[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17…99,100,101,…].” which is utterly ridiculous in this case. It literally took me about two minutes to check the first few references on the reference list and identify the phrases that supported the statements I made. With a larger time investment, I’m sure I can get further support from many articles just in the references we already have. We need to keep in mind what we are trying to communicate to the Wiki reader who comes to this article. An uncluttered general overview of the field is what we are seeking I’d think. When the referencing gets so deep, the reader looks at it and thinks that they can’t handle the silliness of this article and leaves. If instead, he/she is enticed by the lead-in to read further, then specific sources can be given, and the whole idea that CF is a fringe field will become readily apparent, confirming the general overview if the reader had any doubts. (And note that even reading proCF reports will still confirm that the field is fringe.)

The reason I am banging on this is that when I tried to write a general description of the criticisms against heavy metal transmutations, Pcarbonn pulled the same tactics out. He refused to recognize that when you deal in trace level impurities, contamination is always as issue. That’s just basic chemistry, yet P insisted I ‘source’ that. I don’t even think that’s possible, since it is an underlying theme to chemistry that isn’t even explicitly stated in freshman or high school chemistry texts, yet everyone knows that ‘A’ and ‘B’ won’t react with ‘C’ the same way, so that if you have a mix of A and B, you will get different results than if you used separated components. Why would this need to be sourced? It makes no sense. Furhter, in my discussion of the literature discussion revolving about my work on the calibration constant shift problem, I cited all the relevant papers and then discussed them. But P again whipped out his ‘sourcing’ flame thrower and trashed the whole discussion. In normal scientific discussion, you cite the work and discuss it. As long as you don’t shift away to something else (which should then be referenced) the context remains the same and repeating the citations every time you mention a point is redundant and confusing. I would think the same standards would apply to an encyclopedia.

I suppose we could take the quotes I gave in my comment above and put them into the lead with citation, but that may not give the reader the impression that there is consensus view of the field A flat-out statement to that effect is both true and more direct. What do you think? Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just glancing through your comment right now, I saw the statement "He refused to recognize that when you deal in trace level impurities, contamination is always as issue." Firstly, I think this is disingenuous. I'm pretty sure that Pcarbonn recognizes this. And I know that the people who did the transmutations experiments certainly do, as they took the liberty of bringing that up in their report (or a response to a criticism of it?). And they said that the discovered elements were unlikely to be contaminants because 1. they are rare isotopes of rare elements and 2. they were not present (in any detectable quantity, at least) in the material prior to the experiment. So not only did they acknowledge the possibility of contamination, but they went even further and assessed the probability of contamination for the specific elements, in addition to testing for contamination prior to the experiment. And if I'm not mistaken, that material's still in the article and Pcarbonn's perfectly fine with that. Kevin Baas^talk 19:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, you’re confounding two things here. First there is the issue of whether or not CFers have adequately dealt with the contamination issue. Second is whether or not Pcarbonn is maliciously applying Wiki policy when it is clearly not relevant. Bottom line, contamination at trace levels is ALWAYS an issue. This is a given in chemistry. It HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE a problem in CF research. CFers CLAIM they have dealt with the issue, but in fact they HAVE NOT. These facts need to be in the Criticisms section. I hope to get them in when we decide to work on the section in the near future. But Pcarbonn chose to block their inclusion previously, and will probably do so again. Hopefully, the new eyes participating now will see through his charade, and we will get a fair representation of current criticisms into the Wiki article. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not CFers have adequately dealt with the contamination issue is not ours to decide. When there is a notable, verifiable dispute, we present both sides per WP:NPOV, and do not take a side. As to "whether or not Pcarbonn is maliciously applying Wiki policy when it is clearly not relevant.", the simple answer is of course not. If you really think about it, that's not very likely/reasonable, though I understand how those feelings emerge. Bottom line is you need to remember to assume good faith. Kevin Baas^talk 15:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "In normal scientific discussion..." perhaps that's precisely the problem: by "normal scientific discussion" I presume you mean "research papers" and the like. But wikipedia is not a research paper and writing in the article as if it was is the very definition of putting original research in the article. And I don't think anybody's asking you to repeat citations over and over again. But yeah, if two different parts of the article cite the same source, they both get a cite and that cite points to the same reference at the bottom. Usually just about every single sentence is cited to at least one source. But I suppose if two adjacent sentences cite the same source, you only need a cite at the end of the second one and it's assumed to apply to the previous sentence, also. But yeah, we cite just about everything. He's not making that up. And there's no need to teach textbook physics in the article. For instance, instead of explaining what contamination is and how it's usually dealt w/in experiments, one would find reputable sources that discuss contamination in regard to a particular C.F. experiment. If you're still really concerned that people don't know what contamination is in regard to scientific experiments and all the subtleties thereof, you can (and should) wikilink it. (contamination). That's the convention here. As we say, wikipedia is not paper. (And on a side note, if you find the article on contamination lacking, feel free to improve it. It looks (to me) like it could use some meat.) Kevin Baas^talk 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said 'normal logical dissussion'. The idea that references cited once in a paragraph are potentially active throughout the paragraph is standard writing. Sometimes, they even cross paragraph boundaries if it is clear that that has happened. I did Wikilink my additions, and, for fun, try checking the revision history of the contamination page.

To my knowledge at this time there is no peer-reviewed criticism of heavy metal transmutation claims. There is the claim by Iwamura to have detected isotopic anomalies in Mo (cited in our article I believe) that has been countered by Miuno, et al, in one of the ICCF conference proceedings, but supposedly I can't cite that. There is also the excellent example self-published by Scott Little showing that most of these observations can be could arise from concentration of trace contaminants, and the subsequent tracking down of those he had a chance to detect, but supposedly I can't even use that as an example. And then there is the clear bias in CF papers against molecular ion explanations, which can be illustrated easily, but is OR. What's a guy to do? Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What's a scientist to do ? Write a paper in a scientific journal to explain his arguments and go on the record, so that others can respond to it. That's what. That's how Science is conducted. Self-published website are not peer reviewed, and do not allow responses.

Iwamura does discuss molecular ions, and reject that explanation, so please find something better. And what about the energetic neutrons found from SPAWAR and reported in Natuurwissenschaften ? Do you have an explanation for that too ? Pcarbonn (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Various sources are being discussed. I know it is a quick and easy route out of a dilemma to identify that a source is not reliable, but we can't pick and choose on the basis of content. Best sources for this article: overviews and reviews of the literature, e.g. DOE reports. Next best sources, books from good publishers. Next best sources, articles in academic journals. Finally, articles in the non peer-reviewed science mags. Top-notch journals better than medium or low status ones, but all academic journal articles are OK so long as the journal's status is not dubious or disputed (e.g. Journal of Scientific Exploration). Some of these reliable sources are pro-CF others anti. Get over it (as I believe the young people rather rudely say). We are all going to work together to make a neutral article out of these sources. If that's not your agenda then there are plenty of other articles that need attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing you miss in your analysis is an evaluation of authorship which is important as it relates to WP:PSTS. To this end, I recommend considering a weighting based on authorship as follows: 1 (primary source) if the author is directly associated with/has materially supported or conducted cold fusion research, 2 (secondary source) if the author is not directly associated with/has not materially supported or conducted cold fusion research, 3 (tertiary sources) if the author is summarizing expert opinion either as a journalist for popular audiences or as a neutral third-party presenter. I think that overviews and reviews from the DOE are great because they are essentially tertiary sources of the "best source" variety you list. However, books from good publishers can be ranked according to authorship. A book by Storms is manifestly NOT as good as a book by someone who isn't a cold fusion proponent. Whether Ed Storms' book is better than a secondary/tertiary article in an academic journal is up for debate. But we always must assume that third-party criticism is better than primary source advocacy. That's the case across the board, but especially when dealing with fringe articles like this one. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't reconcile your logic with sourcing policy. Whatever criteria we use to evaluate sources must be independent of the author's conclusions. Otherwise our arguments become circular. I do accept that author is important alongside publisher. There is a threshold requirement for this article that an author must be a qualified scientist, probably a physicist, who has published in a relevant sub-field. Storms meets that. Itsmejudith (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that weighting based on conclusions is being proposed, only authorship. The WP:RS of a secondary analysis by someone who does not conduct cold fusion research should be based on its independence, not its conclusions. Storms has well and truly drunk the kool-aid, which must color our reporting. The DOE tertiary analyses are both independent and thorough, and should form the pillars around which we build the rest of the article. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

AFAIM, you can be as tough as you want on the selection of sources, as long as you apply them equally to both sides of the controversy. For example, by your rules, we need to consider Shanahan's work as primary source. I support the use of the DOE reports, as long as they are properly and neutrally quoted. I believe that the current version does a decent job of reporting them. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Shanhan's work is independent of cold fusion researchers, for the most part, which means that according to WP:FRINGE#Independent sources, we can use Shanhan's work can act as "a guide for describing the relationship of the fringe idea to the mainstream viewpoint." ScienceApologist (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "Shanahan's work is independent". He has analysed data, and published a theory to explain it. That's what scientists do. Are you saying that theoretician, because they don't conduct experiments, are independent of researchers ? Would you consider that theoreticians favorable to cold fusion would be also independent, on a par with Shanahan ? They would not be difficult to find, Hagelstein, of MIT, being one of them.

Or are you really saying that Shanahan is reliable because he dislikes CF ? In that case, I'd agree with Itsmejudith that your argument is circular: "He is reliable because I agree with him". Pcarbonn (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Shanahan is not actively promoting cold fusion. That makes him independent from cold fusion promotion. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

?!?!?!?!? Kevin Baas^talk 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when are books more reliable than academic journals? Since when are government reviews more reliable than peer-reviewed literature reviews? Those assertions are both contrary to WP:V and WP:RS. 69.228.83.5 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that. WP:V policy has precedence over the WP:Fringe guideline (where ScienceApologist has been a regular contributor, by the way. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all define our own, self-serving rules, in line with our stated goal on our user page ? )

Here is the order of precedence defined in WP:RS: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Pcarbonn (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Authorship is of the utmost importance. If you disagree with this point, I suggest you start a RfC. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing Biberian's update

I've proposed using Biberian's peer-reviewed update to represent the proponents in the introduction. I don't think its abstract does it justice, and I don't think our exsiting summary of it does, either. How would you summarize it? IwRnHaA (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to think it's necessary to present more than one side of the findings and recommendations of the DOE 2004 panel, either. I propose to extend your final two sentences on it to read, "They were nearly unanimous in their recommendation that scientists apply for research grants from funding agencies and submit their work to peer-reviewed journals. Several reviewers stated that the current lines of experiments are unlikely to advance knowledge, but about a third said they were somewhat convinced by the existing evidence."

Is that not more neutral? IwRnHaA (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's pandering and not summative -- unhelpful to the reader giving them an impression of something that is false per the discussion of what the report is saying "in plain English" above. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And this material you deleted is soapbox grandstanding? Both my expansions and that material you deleted are from the sources cited. You seem to be willing to discard WP:NPOV to fit into your absolutist version of WP:FRINGE even when 1/3 of the scientists polled by the DoE were "somewhat convinced" -- but in this case you are eliminating material sourced to peer-reviewed journals. Where do you draw the line? IwRnHaA (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think, if you read the top of my user page, you'll see exactly where I draw the line. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

For a supporter of WP:V, you seem to be fine with using government committee reviews while discarding peer-reviewed sources. I guess we all see what we want to see and ignore what we don't want to see, to some extent. IwRnHaA (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We certainly do. There are those who want to see the mainstream and those who wish to deny it. I am a member of the first group as far as Wikipedia is concerned. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you when it comes to articles about medical conditions like homeopathy, and subjects upon which people make everyday decisions like religion and spirituality (or would if agnosticism was in the mainstream.) But what is the benefit to excluding all non-mainstream views in electrochemistry articles? IwRnHaA (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not excluded, it's just covered according to our policies and guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

SA, please abide with WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." This applies to the lead too. If 1/3 of the DOE panelists were somewhat convinced of low energy nuclear reactions, and the panel evenly split on the evidence of anomalous heat, this deserves a mention in the lead. Your "no equivocation" principle stated in a previous thread is just yours, and contrary to the core policies of wikipedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". Cold fusion is rejected by the majority of the scientific community and is a minority view, and the reason this article is almost certain to be delisted from GA is because it doesn't comply with this aspect of the policy. The lead is meant to summarise the topic whilst keeping to this policy, and this purpose is not fulfilled by inserting lots of pro-cold fusion material. Hut 8.5 10:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How big is the majority ? That's the issue. WP:Weasel words won't help answer it. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Britz book review – “with most mainstream scientists refusing to accept the reality of cold fusion and a smallish band of researchers continuing work”

Beaudette Book (1st Ed.) – 1st line of book - “The topic called cold fusion has been dismissed, often derisively, by most scientists and the general population as wrong, a good example of bad science.”

Biberian 2007 – Abstract – “the scientific community does not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme”

Goodstein (1994) – “Cold Fusion is a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment.”

Wired 2007 – “a convocation of 50 researchers and investors gathered to discuss a phenomenon that allegedly does not exist. Despite a backdrop of meager funding and career-killing derision from mainstream scientists and engineers”

Physics Today (2004) – “The cold fusion claims made in 1989 by B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann didn't hold up. But they did spawn a small and devoted coterie of researchers who continue”

Seems to be "most, all, or nearly all" vs. a "small and devoted coterie". Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are accepting Biberian as a reliable source for the review of the field ? Journal of Scientific Exploration (and Britz paper) as a reliable journal ? Please be consistent when assessing the reliability of a source. As for News story, WP:RS says that scholarly sources are preferred over news stories for academic topics. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am accepting that when Biberian wrote his Abstract, he stated the obvious, that most scientitst don't accept cold fusion as real. Biberian's paper is hardly a 'review', and he doesn't call it that, he calls it an update. It has 16 refs, 8 of which are to ICCF Proceedings. He also doesn't discuss any non-nuclear explanations. Hardly a 'review'. I count this paper here for the purpose of determining the social context equivalent to a newspaper report.

Likewise, the Britz book review is counted as a newspaper report, not a technical source. One could cite the New Energy Times version of it equally well. It's a book review, not a paper.

And finally, what is your point in quoting policies to me again? If there had been a scientific survey conducted, do you think I wouldn't have used it? Get real. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Szpak and Shanahan on the volume of recombined gases?

What do other people think? Should we, per WP:LEAD, mention the specific controversy between Szpak and Shanahan concerning ruling out catalytic and other non-electrochemical recombination of the evolved gases by measuring the volume of water produced from recombined output gases? IwRnHaA (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to accomplish with this question? It looks a bit pointy to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the question as to whether the volume of the recombined evolved gases rules out in-cell recombination during excess heat events central to the questions of calorimetry or not? Shanahan thought it was important enough to rebut, and expanded on his rebuttal above. I'm a bit hesitant to ask whether you think it's as important as he does. IwRnHaA (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article lead? What wording are you referencing? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, include, "any notable controversies that may exist."

Kirk Shanahan suggested that a calibration constant shift could explain apparent excess heat signals, and that such a shift could occur by a redistribution of heat in a F&P cell. He further speculated that such a redistribution would occur if recombination at the electrode became active, but acknowledged that this is not experimentally proven. Cold fusion proponents say that such speculations are not supported by experimental results (in particular, that the measured volume of recombined output evolved gases does not allow for recombination within the cell), a statement that Shanahan later disputed.

Which of our controversies is more notable than that one? It's a nice conservation of mass argument: during the excess heat events, either the volume of recombined evolved output gases goes down, indicating in-cell recombination, or it stays the same, indicating no in-cell non-electrochemical recombination. Either-Or, and a point on which Shanahan has repeatedly contradicted Szpak (and his coauthors including Fleischman.) I would think that detractors would be jumping at the chance to expose the most potent criticisms. IwRnHaA (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The notable controversy is the fact that there are groups of people who disagree with the scientific consensus that fusion does not happen at temperatures suggested by cold fusion proponents. That's the only controversy that should be referenced in the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

By DOE's count, this group represents 1/3 of scientists. They deserve a proportional representation in the article, per WP:NPOV. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Our duty is to insure that the reader learns the proportions, not that one group or another is given space in accordance with those proportions.

Proponents do deserve at least three sentences in the lead, to the effect that: (1) Biberian is the most recent author of a peer-reviewed literature survey on the topic; (2) 1/3 of the 2004 DoE panel was somewhat convinced of the evidence; and (3) Navy SPAWAR researchers and Fleischman disagree with Shanahan about whether the volume of recombined evolved output gases allows for in-cell non-electrochemical recombination. IwRnHaA (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I challenge one thing you said : "Our duty is [...] not that one group or another is given space in accordance with those proportions." This is contradicted by WP:NPOV which says: "All Wikipedia articles [...] must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

For the rest, I agree. Here are some more arguments for including the pro view in the lead: (1) the DOE panel was evenly split on the evidence of excess heat; (2) WP:DUE says "In determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." It is not difficult to show that the prevalence of the pro-view in peer reviewed journals is far from insignificant as some like to think (see Dieter's list); (3) the fact that "most scientists are skeptical" is not relevant, because they are not reliable sources on this subject (they don't publish); (4) "most" is a WP:WEASEL word. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that the statement that follows "most scientists say" be much more clearly attributed. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(5) WP:RS - Scholarly says : "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources." (6) WP:V says : "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses". I have already cited the pro-CF book published by Oxford University Press in association with the American Chemical Society(ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8). Where is the equivalent skeptic book ? Pcarbonn (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, the "pro-view" is more than adequately covered in the current lead. I think that if either of you have an issue with the way this evaluation of what is the prominence/mainstream status of cold fusion, you should take it up at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN because I'm not budging on this point and I doubt the other editors who are not explicitly pro-cf will either. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What more does your introduction say about the views of the proponents than mentioning that they exist? Is there any reason that you are trying to shunt 1/3 of the 2004 DoE scientists' views down to a minimal mention other than (a) that you would then agree that 2/3 of the article should then be comprised of opponents views, and none have published in peer-reviewed journals since Shanahan, or (b) it opens the question as to whether the article should be apportioned congruently with some measure of the peer-reviewed literature, which would mean very much less than 2/3rds for the detractors? IwRnHaA (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

IwRnHaA, I find your comment difficult to understand. I think you want to say that there is very little skeptical papers worthy of inclusion, making the skeptics' case difficult to defend. Correct ?

SA suggests to raise our NPOV dispute to a noticeboard. Noticeboards can only address simple questions. WP:NPOVN suggests that we go for an RfC or mediation for complex questions. I would go for these options. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just ask to reopen mediation? If you do, you might want to ask for a different mediator. IwRnHaA (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you be ready to join us in mediation ? I believe you could significantly contribute to it. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If mediation is limited to a few central questions, like what proportion of proponents' and detractors' arguments should be in the lead, for example. IwRnHaA (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I welcome other opinions on the best way forward in this dispute. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In answer to IwRnHaA's original question, I don't think that the "specific controversy between Szpak and Shanahan concerning ruling out catalytic and other non-electrochemical recombination of the evolved gases by measuring the volume of water produced from recombined output gases" is notable enough for the lead. Kevin Baas^talk 17:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Do either of you care to share your reasons why? Here we have a disagreement about simple, measurable results of experiments. The theoretician who hasn't performed any actual experiments says that there is recombination going on inside the cell resulting in the excess heat. The empiricists who have actually been doing the experiments say no there isn't, because they've been measuring the volume of the recombined output gases. And the disagreement has taken place in the most reliable of all the sources in the article. (Peer reviewed journals with the greatest impact factor.) How is that not a far more notable controversy than the fact that there are still proponents (SA's example above of the "only" controversy) which is implicit in the results of the DOE 2004 panel? It's entirely inconceivable to me why anyone wouldn't think that this easily-answerable question about what happens during the experiments isn't at the crux of the whole matter. IwRnHaA (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You may have a point when you say that it's been published in a respectable peer reviewed journal. It would be nice to find a secondary sources that support the notability. Also, you are talking about the recombination issue, which is notable. I believe the CSS hypothesis is much less notable. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

sure, i'll give a few, but first some corrections/answers to what you wrote:

• "Here we have a disagreement about simple, measurable results of experiments." - we have that just about everywhere. There's nothing particularly outstanding about this one.
• "The theoretician who hasn't performed any actual experiments says that there is recombination going on inside the cell resulting in the excess heat." - well if one person has empirical evidence, and the other doesn't, than it's not much of an issue - then one of the viewpoints isn't significant. I.e. then it's not a "notable controversy".
• "And the disagreement has taken place in the most reliable of all the sources in the article. (Peer reviewed journals with the greatest impact factor.)" That's not relevant. The issue isn't about RS it's about notability, proportion, etc.; "Summary style".
• "How is that not a far more notable controversy than the fact that there are still proponents (SA's example above of the "only" controversy) which is implicit in the results of the DOE 2004 panel?" - what?! I don't understand what your're saying. maybe you said it wrong.
• "It's entirely inconceivable to me why anyone wouldn't think that this easily-answerable question about what happens during the experiments isn't at the crux of the whole matter." Well let me blow your mind then: the crux of the matter is two-fold: whether or not there is some new phenomena going on here or just some measurement error and or oversight, and whether or not it is worthwhile to continue investigating.

Now a few reasons why it's not notable:

• disproportiate to the space given in the article. The focus/space given to an item in the intro should be roughly reflective of that given to it in the body of the article. far from moving in that direction, the proposal is basically taking a microscope to one little aspect.
• It's not a "notable controversy". Does the average laymen who's heard of CF before know about this and think about it when they think of cold fusion? No.
• Way too specific. The intro is supposed to be a general overview
• The only thing, in fact, with any specificity;
  • the only experiment
  • the only proposed explanation
  • the only time any pro or anti cf person would be mentioned in the intro (save pons & fleishman), etc.

There are so many other proposed explanations, experiments, and the like, why this one and none other? It's arbitrary. Unless you're going to include the entire pro and cons sections in the intro... which then it would obviously not be an intro... which is exactly my point. It is not intro material. Compare it to everything else in the intro and it stands out like a sore thumb. Why? Because it doesn't belong. Kevin Baas^talk 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Precision and accuracy of calorimetry

On rereading the article today, I discovered that the referencing to my work in this section was messed up. I corrected that by rephrasing the last part about what my papers dispute, and correcting the references.

I also placed a cit. needed tag on the statement regarding the opposing view. Will someone please cite the paper or papers that specifically say that? Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In Szpak, et al. (2004) "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition," Thermochimica Acta, volume 410, page 101, on page 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])."

Maybe someone who isn't facing 3RR and understands the non-standard two-level references in this article can fix your citation needed tag. IwRnHaA (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

IwRnHaA, if you have not been blocked, and I believe you haven't, there is no reason why you could not make this edit at all. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would rather wait two days than risk violating WP:3RR. Also, I have become convinced that this controversy is intro-level material, because WP:LEAD specifically directs inclusion of controversies in the plural. IwRnHaA (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You only risk violating 3RR when you do a revert. When you do constructive edits, as this one, I don't see how you would take a risk. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed cit req by adding above paper ref link in Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How to determine the weight to give to the Pro-Cold-Fusion side in the cold fusion article ?

This thread may eventually become an open RfC, or a notice on WP:NPOVN

Comments are welcome on the above question in order to satisfy WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS policies, and associated guidelines. Among others, it has a bearing on the lead section (e.g. this disputed edit, but there are many more examples) and the body of the article (see full dispute above).

Here are some principles that have been proposed on the talk page, with a brief description of the arguments (this is not the place to develop the argument !):

Principle	Arguments in favor of this principle	Arguments against
1. "Most scientists say..." or "The majority of scientists say..."	Stated by several News organisations	WP:Weasel word. Does not indicate how many scientists disagree. "Most scientists" are not WP:Reliable sources for CF. Academic journals should be preferred over WP:RS#News_organizations
2. 2004 DOE panel conclusions:	WP:Notable source, meets WP:V Gives precise indication of how many panelists were favorable or not to CF	not peer-reviewed --> not as WP:Reliable as it should be
3. Preponderence in peer-reviewed journals or reliable books	Principle to be used per WP:NPOV
4. Hubler's published review of the field	Published in scientific journal.	Proceedings ==> not as WP:Reliable as it should be

A possible way for you to comment on this is to indicate the principle(s) you prefer, and why. You may also propose other principles, or improve the summary of the arguments. At this point, you should not discuss what the consequence of using the principles are. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Rule 2 & 3 & 4: not ideal, but DOE is the most precise we can find. Wikipedia should report what the most reliable sources say, not coyly say what our audience expects, as a news organisation would do. Our reliability is at stake. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Rule 1: (see Wikipedia:Weasel#Exceptions.) Kevin Baas^talk 15:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an excessive focus on WP:RS in the analysis above. The following is my interpretation of how various content policies play out here.

• Following WP:DUE, the coverage should be proportionate to the coverage in reliable sources. But of all the papers indexed by ISI (or whatever) in applied physics / condensed matter physics (or whatever), how many where about this topic? If this matter is broadly ignored by the scientific community at large, I worry that hand-picking a few peer-reviewed articles will skew the presentation.
• What are the most reliable sources on questions related to the politics of science? Answers to meta-scientific questions should not be mined from special purpose journals. Instead, the DOE report seems ideal for this purpose. Newspapers should not be ignored either. Wikipedia articles should not read like scientific papers: softer sources, newspapers and science magazines, may be the most reliable sources for high-level questions, e.g., "What do most scientists think about cold fusion?"
• Another way of insisting on the importance of higher-level sources is to ask to what extent the sources used explicitly and directly support the claims in this article, or whether there is some synthetic interpretation of primary sources involved here. For example, citing a bibliography to support the statement that cold-fusion researchers publish in peer-reviewed journals is not the same as citing a source that explicitly says "Cold fusion researchers have published in reputable peer-reviewed journals".

In conclusion, there may be many important questions, especially those related to political aspects of science, for which the most reliable sources are not found in peer-reviewed journals, but in newspaper coverage. The point is to ask what is the most reliable source that explicitly and directly supports a particular kind of statement. Vesal (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Please note that the issue is not so much on the sources supporting particular statements (they are good sources quoted verbatim, so no new synthesis), but rather how much space should be given to each side of the controversy, in the lead and in the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I will state my underlying concern more openly. I have only a fleeting interest in this question as I was lead here by the WP:FT/N postings, but I find this situation very complicated. On the one hand, I think you, Pcarbonn, are operating completely within Wikipedia policy; on the other hand, I sympathize with certain apologists of the scientific mainstream, even if they are resorting to quite heavy-handed methods to get their way.

Let me state the concern I have in more general terms. Consider another topic, say Bohmian mechanics. This obviously isn't as fringe as say intelligent design, neither as politically relevant to merit outright rebuttals, and there are decent scientists that publish about it in decent journals. For all I know, it may even be the theory that will win out; but currently it is a minority view. My worry is that the presentation can easily be skewed by hand-picking peer-reviewed sources in favor of Bohmian mechanics.

There seems to be a "bug" in Wikipedia's blind emphasis on peer-reviewed sources that can be easily exploited to over-emphasize minority (but not completely fringe) views. I admit, however, that it may not be an altogether bad thing: going with cutting edge, rather than the establishment; but it certainly makes conservative people like myself very nervous. Anyway, I'll leave this now for you all to decide what to do. It seems like a very difficult balance to strike. Best wishes to everyone involved, Vesal (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's funny that you take the example of Bohmian mechanics. That article does not have any disparaging statements from "most scientists". I wonder why, and why the cold fusion article must absolutely have them. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh? Did you read the section "Seen as isomorphic to many worlds" or the "criticism" section at the end?

Also, let's use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS properly. The Bohmian mechanics is a theory much less famous than cold fusion, and it doesn't have die-hard supporters popping up on the page and trying to trying to push the latest experiment, so it's watched by less editors and has suffered less improvements. Also, that theory has not had as much notable criticism in mainstream newspapers and scientific journals as cold fusion has had, so it's totally normal that it's not on the lead. Look for "Gibbzmann 03:20, 28 October 2007" on the talk page, and the comments below it, to see complaints of non-neutrality and re-write proposals. That article needs some third-party meta-review of quantum mechanics that provides a realitic view of its importance, just like this one. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Patching Up the Intro

I have made another attempt to add cited comments regarding the mainstream scientists' view of CF. I have attempted to fold in Pcarbonn's comments on what led to the consensus, along with what I also feel helped. I have also added quotes to show the actual state of affairs over the span of 1994 to present. Hopefuly this will be found acceptable. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to Kevin's tag line on his edits "what's with all the quotes?! a bit unneccessary. plead much?" and "let's not include dimunitive opinion in the intro..."

I am in basic agreement with what you have done. By way of explanation, when I wrote something similar without citations I was requested to cite. Also, extensive discussion has occurred on this Talkpage about _how many_ scientists feel CF is bogus. So, when I wrote the mods today, I tried to address all those points. By deleting the quotes, you have removed the answer to the question about 'how many are for and how many against?'. As I said, I don't care, it reads fine to me now, but others may still want some clarification. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for conflict reduction

How about we declare a temporary moratorium on edits to the lead (say for a month or two) and focus on fixing the article instead. The lead can then be rewritten from scratch to reflect the body at that time.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. See my comment in the previous section. I have been rechecking the references and their usage today, and have a couple of comments on that. Also, I think there are some improvements to the sections where the positive results are presented. And of course, my favorite, we still need to drastically fix up the 'Criticisms' section. I'll hold off on the last one for a bit, as it will be a biggie.

With regards to references, there are only a couple left from my prior post here on that. Thanks to all for cleaning it up. I will note that the Fleischmann refs to the Proceedings of ICCF9 and ICCF10 are still in (2002 and 2003). Since their use is historical in context vs. technical, I don't mind that. Hubler is now only referenced once, and I think it is actually unecessary at that point, so it could be dropped completely to conform to the 'no Proceedings' rule. I think the reference to Josephson's address (2004) is questionable. He does use the term 'pathological disbelief' but my question is: Is a physicist (even a Nobel winning one) a reliable source for a sociological term? The Hutchinson reference seems a bit strained, it only mentions CF in 1 sentence in an article on the sonofusion debate. The Rusbringer and Di Giulio ref links seem to be broken. The Storms 1990 ref is to a photocopy of a letter posted on a Web page. Does this meet Wiki standards? Also, I seem to recall the work referred to in that ref was actually published. If so, we need that ref, not the one currently in.

With regards to the other sections, I would like to consider the problem of 'name-dropping'. There are two places where lists are used for no apparent reason than to overwhelm the reader with the diversity of what's on the list. The first case is where the list of peer-reviewed journals is presented. This idea is redundant to the Britz bibliography and all the other refs in the article. As well, one could simply cite the Storms 2007 book here. Why do we need an exhaustive list? This list has two refs associated with it, a link to Krivit's Web page again (is this per Wiki policy?), and a singular ref to the Di Giulio paper, which seems out of place.

The second place is the list of researchers who have reported positive CF results in the "Excess Heat" subsection. Again, making a simple statement that "many have reported positive results, see Storms 2007" should be adequate. Name-dropping is an indirect 'call to authority', i.e. 'surely if all these people find excess heat (journals have CF papers), the field _must_ be valid'. In fact, simply accumulating numbers doesn't mean a lot, especially if they are simply making the same mistakes as their predecessors, as is the case with the CCS error. I vote for condensing the lists to simple cited statements. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one other problem. I noticed that the new book by Marwan and Krivit is already being worked into the article. Considering it just came out (as in a couple of days ago I think), I don't think its fair to be doing that. No one can confirm anything about it, and no reviews exist on it yet, etc. In other words, is it considered reliable or is it too recent? Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Marwan and Krivit's book is considered reliable because it is published by the American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press. For the rest, it is justified by the need to present all sides of the controversy fairly. What is fairly ? We need a principle for that, and I welcome comment in the thread titled "How to determine the weight to give to the Pro-Cold-Fusion side in the cold fusion article ?". Pcarbonn (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is how we know it is being used fairly. Like the Storms book where he fails to mention the Clarke work and my final paper that rebutted his comments. With the book being new it is going to be some time before I get it at least. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Is excess heat from in-cell recombination independent of calibration constant shift?

A question for Kirk Shanahan: Is a calibration constant shift a necessary result of excess heat from in-cell recombination? Or are they independent? I think the paragraph on this subject should be split into two or otherwise clarified if they're not interdependent. IwRnHaA (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A possible CCS occurs because something has changed in the apparatus between the time the system was calibrated and the experiment was run. Typically, that is how calibration is done, separately from the experiment. In the limited number of cases where the calibration is done on the fly at the moment of a cold fusion event, the CCS would be expected to show only if the calibration method used at that point is suceptible to the same thing that caused the CCS. In my papers, I proposed what seemed to me to be the most logical method one could get a CCS in an F&P cell, but that doesn't mean that is the only way to get one. I haven't come up with any other, but that just means I may not be creative enough.

In my proposal, heat (in the form of chemical bonds) that is either lost through a vent in the open cell case or is normally deposited at the recombination catalyst in the closed cell case moves in the cell (I think to the electrode, based on Szpak's photographs of it). So what needs to be done in calibrating is to set up for that possibility, i.e. they probably need to use two heating resistors and change the power distribution between tham. That has never been done.

So, to answer your question, the change in distribution seems to be what is required to get the CCS (unless someone can think of another way). So I guess technically they are independent, as in-cell recombination may be going on while you are calibrating. You actually need to be more specific about the time profile of when and where the recombination is occurring.

The real key to understanding the CCS is to realize that the real cells are not homogeneous, and the possibility of change is real if the particular heterogeneity present at one point changes later. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation style -- let's get rid of the two-level abomination

I have added citationstyle to the articleissues template at the top of the article after wrestling with the arcane and Byzantine two-level citation references in use in this article, which obscure the normal links from the references to the articles used in the text. I noticed that Paneth and Peters' original publications in English no longer appear in the article, but I'm not particularly inclined to replace them until there is consensus that we should move from this abominable two-level style of citations to the standard Wikipedia practice of one-level named references. Any objections to that? I'll hold off for a week to see if there is any opposition. IwRnHaA (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• The method is not arcane, being documented at WP:CITESHORT. I have seen it elsewhere at Sun Tzu, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This method is particularly useful when a source is repeated in several places, as in this article. I support keeping it. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's no better than normal footnotes for sources cited multiple times. On the other hand it takes twice as long to check an existing reference or add a new one, and very few articles use it. Hut 8.5 09:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is better when a source is cited multiple times on a page that is constantly changing like this one: either you have to insert the full citation in each reference, or you have to make sure that the first reference where it is cited in full does not get deleted inadvertently. Either way is worse than the system we use. This one also has the advantage that we can easily cite a reference in the talk page, eg. Storms 2007 : it is easy to find in the alphabetic bibliography. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed more POV-pushing

I go away for three days and come back to find a lead rife with POV-pushing and pro-CF innuendo. I removed it or changed it.

[1]

Issues:

1. Stop claiming that CF evidence have been published in "numerous peer-reviewed journals". We've already discussed the fact that they are unable to publish in the top-tier journals of their field which is far more relevant to this page than the fact that they manage to squeeze in to low-impact factor journals be they "numerous" or not.
2. Stop trying to segregate the journals, books, and conferences. They are all part of the same ploy; the same ploy that scientists have met with skepticism.
3. Stop inserting "conclusively" before the word "demonstrated". We discussed above how using the adjective "conclusively" makes it seem like it actually was demonstrated. The adjective as it is used here looks like it is being used to sow doubt in the reader's mind as to whether it was possible that the claim had been demonstrated, just not "conclusively". It's actually the opposite sense that works in science per extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This innuendo must stop.
4. Stop trying to cook up favorable statistics from the 2004 report. "A third of the reviewers found the evidence somewhat convincing". Or we can say, "Most of the reviewers did not even find the evidence to be somewhat convincing". Note that we've discussed the fact that the 2004 report did not vindicate cold fusion advocates, it explicitly was not in contradiction to the 1998 report. That's the sense that the reader must get. None of this "cold fusion is making progress! They convinced a third of the panel!" Bullcrap.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

1. As discussed above, CF papers have been published in the top third of all journals. Since when does wikipedia rejects these reliable sources ?
2. The skepticism of scientists does not justify the rejection that you actually do.
3. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is in no way part of the scientific method. Is the pioneer anomaly issue based on extraordinary evidence? Not at all.
4. Stop inserting WP:weasel words. The statement is verbatim from the DOE report : there is no reason to hide this from our readers, as it does represent what the DOE found. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Top third in a data-dump of journals, most of which are not even obliquely related to the topic. I suggest that only half of the journals in your analysis were relevant to the subfields which means that most of the cf-publications were in the bottom half of relevant journals in terms of IFs.
2. The skepticism of scientists is the majority opinion that must be respected as the majority opinion.
3. No one said it was part of the scientific method and this is a red herring on your part meant to obscure the fact that the article should not be advocating a positive treatment for cold fusion.
4. The verbatim statement is cherry-picked. There are no weasel words inserted.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We have plenty of references saying that the majority of scientists reject cold fusion. Nobody mentioned trying to "hide" the results of the DOE report from readers, but the lead should only be summarising the main points of the article and if the only thing it says about the 2004 DOE is "one third of the reviewers were somewhat convinced" this doesn't give an accurate impression of the full contents of the report. Saying "most scientists" doesn't violate WP:WEASEL, since that guideline explicitly allows uses "when the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion" and gives as an example "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth", so "most of the reviewers" or "most scientists" are acceptable. The Pioneer anomaly may not require any new physics at all to explain, so there aren't any "extraordinary claims".

Out of interest I had a look at what the online edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica had to say about cold fusion. They gave it only one paragraph (a lot less than muon-catalyzed fusion) and that paragraph consisted of a description of the Pons-Fleischmann experiment followed by "Efforts to give a theoretical explanation of the results failed, as did worldwide efforts to reproduce the claimed cold fusion". Note that this gives the pro-cold fusion side a lot less weight than this article does. Hut 8.5 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The references say that scientists are skeptical, not that they reject CF. That's what the scientists say, and we state it clearly in the intro already. The DOE, being another entity, said something different. The DOE said that they did not find the effect to be conclusively demonstrated, that 2/3 were not convinced, and that 1/3 was somewhat convinced. Let's not confuse the two different opinions. Let's not force the DOE to say what the scientists say, if the DOE did not say it. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They say things like "Cold Fusion is a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between Cold Fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all." That's a lot stronger than "skeptical". The current version of the lead (as I write this, anyway) is fine. Hut 8.5 07:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Current quote conflicts with WP:WEIGHT

Pcarbonn changed the quote to the conclusions of Charge Element 1 which is a quote which violates our WP:WEIGHT policy. In particular, it give equal weight to the minority view (one reviewer) as it does to the majority review (two-thirds of the reviewers). I recommend using the quotation from Charge Element 2 since it is more in-line with our policies. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Some quotes from WP:WEIGHT : "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them", "On such pages, though a view may be described, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant". I believe we are perfectly in line with that policy when we quote the conclusion of charge element 1 of the DOE report. Please note that the minority view include the 1/3 of reviewers who were somewhat convinced. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the issue. This is not a page on The minority view of the 2004 DOE panel. This is a page on cold fusion. As such, the minority view on the subject (the 2004 DOE panel) does not deserve more weight than the majority view. Right now, by using this quote we are weighted in terms of sheer amount of wording much more heavily toward the minority view of the panel than the majority view. It's not hard to see why a cold fusion proponent would want to weight the discussion in such a fashion, but we are here to write a neutral account, not an advocacy screed. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

When I count the amount of wording devoted to each views, I don't see any significant difference between the wording you propose and the one I propose. Both have a statement about the one reviewer who was convinced. The statement I propose has the advantage of being more precise and informative. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion - why not say "Of eighteen reviewers, twelve thought X, one thought Y and five were unconvinced." to remove ambiguity?LeadSongDog (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I support it. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. It gives enough weight to the skepticism by replacing "somewhat convinced" with unconvinced. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Pcarbonn has reneged on his agreement and has tried to push back repositioning the weight towards the cold fusion advocates again. I reverted, but we may need to go back to the drawing board. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I agreed on the use of 12, 5 and 1, instead of 2/3, 1/3 and 1. I still don't agree on the rephrasing of the DOE statements to align it to your skeptical opinions. This is as question simple enough to be addressed by WP:NPOVN or an RfC, so I'll raise it there when I have some time. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Change a direct quotation paragraph to a single sentence

I think the issue is that we use a direct quotation in the lead, which is something that we probably shouldn't do per WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY. My feeling is that we should simply summarize the report without pandering. There is no need to say who was "convinced by evidence". All we need to do is say that the report is in-line with the conclusions of the 1989 report and leave it at that. A single sentence will do the trick.

What's more, including an entire paragraph devoted to the DOE report is overkill. We don't devote an entire paragraph in the lead to the 1989 report. I think that since we devote one sentence to the 1989 report, devoting one sentence to the 2004 report is fine.

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose that. That paragraph has been worked on by many editors in the last 2 weeks, and we were close to reach a consensus. The 2004 DOE provides the most notable and recent assessment of the cold fusion controversy, and the reader deserves to know more that just one sentence of it. That you do not like its conclusion is not a good reason for eliminating the paragraph. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with liking the conclusion or not. Right now we are focusing too much on one report at the expense of the subject material. We do not need an entire paragraph in the lead on the 2004 report, and the current lead makes it seem like a full quarter of the article will be about the 2004 report when that is far from the case. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Brooks' book

I'd like to get opinion on how to use the following sentence from Brooks' book : "13 things that don't make sense":

"In the years since the DOE report came out, there has been a further breakthrough, too. The cold fusioneers now have reliable evidence that, whatever the calorimetry considerations, some kind of nuclear reactions are definitely going on in their experiment." (p. 66)

He is referring to the CR-39 evidence from SPAWAR. Thanks in advance. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In a word, don't. My impression from the New Scientist article is that his level of understanding of physics is rather low. There is no reason to consider the book a reliable secondary source (like a textbook or review article) and it is certainly not even a reliable primary source (no peer review).

It's not our job to evaluate the content, but I would like to make the personal comment that I have trouble using words like "reliable" and "definitely" - much less "bulletproof" - when it comes to CR-39 detectors used by themselves. If the dozens of experiments with time- and energy-resolved neutron detectors didn't yield unambiguous results, then CR-39 can't either.

--Art Carlson (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should say that his level of understanding of physics is rather low : Michael Brooks (science writer) has a PhD in quantum physics. Also, please remember that CR-39 are routinely used as detectors in nuclear physics, and that they are very sensitive (thanks to their integrating nature) and straightforward to analyze, unlike time- and energy-resolved neutron detectors. The evidence presented in Natuurwissenschaften is "almost incontestable", as Brooks put it (and I agree, for what it's worth). Pcarbonn (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Brooks is certainly not a reliable vetter of SPAWAR's claims.He is a science journalist and cannot have a professional opinion on the subject since he doesn't work in physics any longer. His opinion is not encyclopedic on this matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Off topic

At the risk of getting off-topic (on-topic being whether Brooks is a reliable source): How does the sensitivity of CR-39 compare to a scintillation detector (or one based on neutron absorption)? How is etching and counting pits under a microscope more straightforward than analyzing pulses of light? Why is CR-39 not even mentioned in the Neutron detection article? --Art Carlson (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading this study correctly, it appears that CR-39 detectors are used to calibrate scintillation detectors. Is that accurate enough? Ronnotel (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice. What's more accurate, the guitar string or the tuning fork used to tune it? The thing about "integrating" devices is that they get more accurate by the second, quite literally. I imagine that property is very useful when sensitivity is an issue but time is not. Kevin Baas^talk 23:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a scintillation detector is, so I don't know. counting pits is more straightforward than analyzing pulses of light because it is easier to do, it doesn't require high-technology and there is less room for error. (Besides, as previously mentioned, it's natural integrating effect makes it tough to beat.) I don't know why it's not mentioned in said article. Kevin Baas^talk 15:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by "less room for error" I mean it's less prone to electromagnetic interference and things like that. It's more "robust", to put it in a word. Kevin Baas^talk 23:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is what Mosier-Bos (Natuurwissenschaften 2008) says on CR-39 : CR-39 is an allyl glycol carbonate plastic that has been widely used as a solid-state nuclear track detector. These detectors have been used extensively to detect and identify such fusion products as p, D, T, 3He, and α particles resulting from inertial confinement fusion (ICF) experiments (Séguin et al. 2003). They have also been used to detect neutrons (Phillips et al. 2006). When a charged particle passes through the CR-39 detector, it leaves a trail of damage along its track inside the plastic in the form of broken molecular chains and free radicals (Frenje et al. 2002). After treatment with an etching agent, tracks remain as holes or pits. The size and shape of these pits provide information about the mass, charge, energy, and direction of motion of the particles (Nikezic and Yu 2004). Therefore, CR-39 detectors can semiqualitatively be used to distinguish the types and energies of individual particles. Advantages of CR-39 for ICF experiments include its insensitivity to electromagnetic noise; its resistance to mechanical damage; and its relative insensitivity to electrons, X-rays, and γ-rays. Consequently, CR- 39 detectors can be placed close to the source without being damaged. Furthermore CR-39, like photographic film, is an example of a constantly integrating detector, which means that events are permanently stamped on the surface of the detector. As a result, CR-39 detectors can be used to detect events that occur either sporadically or at low fluxes. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There was an interesting study done over at earthtech, but unfortunately I'm not aware of this being published other than at that web page. They find that pits don't have the appearance of pits made from alpha particles. They were also able to make similar pits while electroplating other metals (including Cu and Ni), with pit formation depending on the anion plated as well as the metal. They conclude that "...chemical origin is a distinct possibility and therefore that nuclear origin is not a certainty."

Also see slide 22 of Ludwik Kowalski's APS talk on CR-39], entitled "Large pits we observed cannot be attributed to alpha particles or protons, or neutrons." --Noren (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Earthtech's criticism cannot explain the triple-tracks reported in the later paper of Mosier-Boss (2008), indicative of energetic neutrons. Furthermore, Earthtech's paper has not been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that they have not yet published this in a forum we can use in the article space, but this may just be a matter of time. I am hopeful that there will be discussion of the topic in the forthcoming book by some of the scientists at Earthtech, Frontiers of Propulsion Science, which is set to contain a chapter entitled 'Null Tests of “Free-Energy” Claims'. --Noren (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"Criticisms based on theoretical grounds have been contradicted by experiments"

What exactly is that supposed to mean? It's in the DOE 2004 section of the introduction, but none of the papers seems to discuss any of the theoretical objections mentioned in that report. The sentence is also extremely weasely. What criticism and which experiments? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If by "weasely" you mean "vague", then yes, it is vague. "It's in the DOE 2004 section" - do you mean that it's in the DOE report? "of the introduction" - the introduction is a summary of the body of the article and it is supposed to be vague. The body of the article should have the criticisms and the experiments. According to Wikipedia:Summary style. Kevin Baas^talk 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about anything being supposed to be vague. Vague is not the opposite of detailed. And the full section on the DOE report is not enlightening about this statement, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

True, specific is the opposite of vague. Kevin Baas^talk

I was referring to the controversy between the empiricists and the theoreticians described above. I remain astonished that this dispute based on conservation of mass from the most reliable of all the sources in the article according to the criteria in WP:RS and WP:V is not enthusiastically supported by everyone for inclusion in the introduction. IwRnHaA (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have re-inserted and expanded with clarification:

Criticisms based on theoretical grounds have been contradicted by experiments; for example, suggestions that excess heat is due to non-anomalous causes have been disputed by those who have measured the volume of recombined output gases; similarly, experimenters have denied theoretical criticisms of radiation detection and of results showing nuclear transmutation.

IwRnHaA (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you cannot say that. It's simply not neutral. There are many sources which cast a pall of doubt on cold fusion experiments and therefore it is questionable whether they "contradict" anything. Also, you are misusing the term "theoretical" when you probably mean "speculative" -- and even so, that the criticism is "speculative" or not is a POV that is held only by a tiny minority. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you summarize the same facts in a more neutral way? IwRnHaA (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While I believe that IwRnHaA is going a bit too far in terms of WP:OR in his latest edits, I strongly support his view that the article should represent the view of the most reliable sources. In fact, this is what wikipedia policies require. Here is what WP:NPOV says : "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. [...] Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.". Please note that the policy does not say that the article should represent the view of "most scientists", and for good reasons.

To help resolve the dispute, I would propose that we establish a ranking of the source per reliability, indicating wether they are favorable or not. To help rank them, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers".

So, here is a start according to this ranking and WP:PSTS:

1a secondary reputable peer-reviewed papers:

Favorable : Biberian, Jean-Paul (2007), "Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (Cold Fusion): An Update" (PDF), International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology '3 (1): 31–43, doi:doi:10.1504%2FIJNEST.2007.012439,

1b primary reputable peer-reviewed papers:

Too many to cite, even if we limit ourselves to the top third of journals by impact factor. Mix of favorable and skeptical articles. See bibliography in our article, or D. Britz bibliography.

1c books published in University press:

Negative: Park, Robert (2000), Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-513515-6

Favorable: Marwan, Jan and Krivit, Steven B., editors (2008), Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook, American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8

Favorable: Storms, Edmund (2007), Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations, Singapore: World Scientific, ISBN 9-8127062-0-8

2 university-level textbooks:

3 magazines published by respected publishing houses:

Negative : Feder, Toni (January 2005), "Cold Fusion Gets Chilly Encore", Physics Today 58: 31, doi:10.1063/1.1881896,

Favorable : Anderson, Mark (August 2007), "Cold-Fusion Graybeards Keep the Research Coming", Wired Magazine, retrieved on 25 May 2008

4 Government technical reports, including of panel surveys -- note: this might be higher if, for example, there had been some attempt at a comprehensive survey of researchers.

skeptical : U.S. Department of Energy (2004), Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy,

Favorable : Szpak, Stanislaw; Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., eds. (2002a), Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system - Volume 1:A decade of research at Navy laboratories, Technical report 1862, San Diego: Office of Naval Research/Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center,

5 books published by respected publishing houses

Negative: Taubes, Gary (1993), Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion, New York: Random House, ISBN 0-394-58456-2

Negative: Close, Frank E. (1992), Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion (2 ed.), London: Penguin, ISBN 0-14-015926-6

Favorable: Brooks, Michael (2008), 13 things that don't make sense, New York: Doubleday, ISBN 978-0-385-52068-3

6 mainstream newspapers

Too many to cite. See our bibliography.

7 academic conference proceedings

Favorable : Hubler, G. K. (5 August 2007), "Anomalous Effects in Hydrogen-Charged Palladium - A Review" (PDF), 'Surface and Coatings Technology '201' (19-20): 8568–8573; (slides accompanying author's lecture), doi:doi:10.1016%2Fj.surfcoat.2006.03.062, from SMMIB 2005, 14th International Conference on Surface Modification of Materials by Ion Beams

Please note that all the recent publications have been favorable. Also, the 2004 DOE report is hard to place in this ranking. I welcome contribution to this list, especially from the skeptical side. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course "all the recent publications have been favorable" (or at least most). The majority of scientists have satisfied themselves that cold fusion does not exist, and so they have no incentive to publish their views. Hence the only people publishing on the subject are the minority who think it does exist, and they inevitably provide positive coverage. (The only exception are historical works analysing the 1989 controversy, but the publications of this type you have listed above are negative.) Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) says that we should not give undue weight to minority views, and we've established that cold fusion is a minority view (otherwise "most scientists" would not reject it). Hut 8.5 13:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Our core policies does not mention the logic you propose at all. You have not demonstrated that cold fusion is the minority view in reliable, published sources. Please note the quality of the publishers in the list above. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't you following the same general lines as WP:MEDRS: meta-reviews > papers > media articles. It's not our job to interpret the trends on publications when there are already meta-reviews doing so. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Does it say that Wikipedia article should represent the view of "most physicians" ? That would be scary. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It sort of says that. Translate "the view of most physicians" to "the view of authoritative mainstream physics publications", and shorten it to "scientific consensus", and you get something similar. I quoth:

"Neutrality and no original research policies demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.)" (emphasis added) Wikipedia:MEDRS#Summarize_scientific_consensus

In short, wikipedia is a bad vehicle for challenging mainstream scientific views, as it's supposed to give a report of the current mainstream view (and then report on only the significant (=notable?) non-mainstream views, but always on the context of mainstream (=if mainstream rejects them, then we say that they are rejected (and we explain why))).

(change of topic) Another good thing of WP:MEDRS is that it says that all clinical trials are primary sources, while reviews are secondary ones. Translated to cold fusion research, it means that all experiments are primary sources, and reviews, like DOE's review are secondary sources. This allow to apply WP:OR directly when inevitabily someone appears with a cherry-picked list of clinical trials (current location), without having to argue for a month on "are clinical trials secondary sources?". Also, even if you only work with reviews you can't list every review, you need to pick the best ones, or you can get swamped by too many low-quality/not-really-reliable meta-reviews that contradict each other. Also, it leaves clear that media reports tend to cherry-pick clinical trials (primary sources). The list compiled above by IwRnHaA had all of those problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is what WP:DUE says : "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Why don't you do just that to defend the skeptical view ? Pcarbonn (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking for documentation that the existence of cold fusion is a minority view?! How about determining the top 10 textbooks and review articles on fusion. If they don't mention cold fusion, then we can say based on reliable sources that cold fusion is not considered fusion by the mainstream. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not "asking for documentation that the existence of cold fusion is a minority view". He is asking you to "substantiate [the majority view] with references to commonly accepted reference texts". Nobody is arguing that the viewpoint that cold fusion phenomena have not been satisfactorily explained is in the majority, so there's no need to consult the top 10 textbooks. Kevin Baas^talk 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As Dr. Shanahan points out above, Dr. Hubler's paper was not peer-reviewed. I've moved it to a new category 7, as it is fairly easy to get un-reviewed conference proceedings published. I've also renamed empty category 4 because that seems to me where the DOE panel surveys go.

Now, what do you think I added with WP:OR in it? IwRnHaA (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hubler is with Navy, so I moved it to category 4. Concerning OR, it's just a belief. Please check that you did not come up with new synthesis. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Being with the Navy does not make a conference paper into a government report. Moved back. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to the pioneer anomaly

I'd like to hear your view about how the pioneer anomaly compares with cold fusion. Is the pioneer anomaly a possible challenge to the mainstream view ? Is the view that it is a possible challenge a minority view ? How do you determine that ? What can be inferred from the fact that the pioneer anomaly is not discussed in book or reviews about relativity or gravitation ? How does all this differ from cold fusion ? Pcarbonn (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

For your information, ScienceApologist has again suggested that I be banned from contributing to this article, here on WP:ANI. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Storms on energetic radiation

ScienceApologist has removed well-source statements (see this diff), with the following edit summary "some fixes of POV-pandering to cold fusion believers." This is ignoring that cold fusion is an ongoing scientific controversy, as reported by the 2004 DOE (whose conclusion included specific suggestions "to resolve some of the controversies in the field"). Significant views in this controversy deserve a fair representation, according to ArbComm's decision. Any comments ? Pcarbonn (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely undue weight to rely so much on a single source by what seems to be an author with little impact in the field (Google Scholar finds a total of 4 publications, one self-published, two meeting contributions, and the book, and with none cited more than 3 times[2]). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Storms 2007 is one of the most reliable sources on cold fusion, according to Wikipedia policy. If you know of any better one, please tell us in this thread. Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not (currently) dealing with reliability, but with weight. It's a book by a barely published author and with very few citations. It has had nearly no impact (so far). As such, it might be mentioned, but it should not form the backbone of an argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The same logic applies for notability: do you know of a more notable source ? Please let us know. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a surprising comment. First, I'm not talking about notability, either, but about weight. Secondly, why do you think the same logic applies to notability as for reliability? And thirdly, why do you think that "being the least non-notable source" is sufficient to use it for sweeping statements? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You use Google Scholar to assess the impact of Ed Storms papers. Yet, Google Scholar lists only a couple of Ed papers, while he has written over 50]. I don't believe Google Scholar can be used reliably to assess his impact. That World Scientific is publishing a book from him, and that this book has had a favorable review published in J. of Scientific Exploration is evidence enough that he is a recognized authority in the field. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)