Talk:Cold fusion

An editor is banned from editing the Cold fusion article for a period of 1 year.
	Abd has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the Cold fusion article. This ban also extends to participation on this talk page, as well as articles or talk pages about any content related to cold fusion. Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details.
This notice was posted by Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

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

Another Proposal

In the "Further Developments" section of the main article is this: "The interest in cold fusion in India had been rekindled earlier that year by a demonstration in Bangalore by Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata." What I propose is that at the end of the "Experimental Details" section we add a couple of sentences.

First, we should add something to this existing paragraph: "The most basic setup of a cold fusion cell consists of two electrodes submerged in a solution of palladium and heavy water. The electrodes are then connected to a power source to transmit electricity from one electrode to the other through the solution." We should note that it can take weeks for anomalous heat to begin to appear, and this is known as the loading time, for the palladium to become saturated with deuterium released via electrolysis.

Second, we could mention the SPAWAR co-deposition technique for reducing the loading time; palladium is electroplated out of solution at the same time deuterium gas is being released, allowing the gas to merge with the metal without having to permeate the metal's volume.

Then we add something like this: "Yoshiaki Arata greatly reduced the loading time by demonstrating a new class of CF experiments involving direct pressurization of powdered palladium with deuterium gas, and others have tried this approach also." --and we use this as the reference for it: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 (This is an RS document which verifies that others have tried Arata's approach, and anyone who accesses that journal article should be able to find a reference to Arata's experiments; so far as I know there are no direct RS-good-enough-for-Wikipedia references for Arata's work, although another reference regarding this approach appears to be http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.surfcoat.2006.03.062 --#77 on the long list.) It appears that Arata had been doing it for a while, but didn't get widely noticed until 2008. V (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point I've only pulled up the abstract, but it seems clear that Arata is talking about excess energies of 2.4 vs 1.8 eV/atom for D2 vice H2 loading. This difference is plain electrochemistry. If it was any kind of fusion, we'd be looking for MeV, not eV. It is perhaps of interest to people making expensive batteries and fuel cells, e.g. for satellite applications. LeadSongDog come howl 17:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm...how is he calculating that? (Better question; how can it be "electrochemistry" when there is no electricity going through the palladium powder in a direct-pressurization experiment?) Could perhaps he be figuring total number of deuterium atoms pressurized into the metal compared to total anomalous-energy? The obvious simple interpretation of that would be, IF fusion is happening, that only a fraction of all the deuteriums were actually involved in releasing the energy detected. Also, what is the time-frame for deciding what "total" of anomalous energy has been released? If it can happen for weeks or months, then the total would grow.... V (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the word "fusion" even appear in the paper? It's not in the abstract. Electrochemistry involves processes that happen one electron at a time, including the simple ionization and recombination of H2. See doi:10.1021/j100155a010 for example.LeadSongDog come howl 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts to confuse the issue will get you nowhere. There is no water involved in the gas pressurization experiments. And the abstract does have this as its last sentence: "The sample charged with D2 also showed significantly positive output energy in the second phase after the deuteride formation." (my emphasis). Do remember that the title of the article mentions "anomalous effects", and that last abstract-sentence is precisely about an anomalous effect (energy production). That word "after" that I emphasized means that the chemistry is done. So, if not fusion (and of course the authors could not use that word; the article wouldn't have been published in that RS journal with that word in it, and you know it!), what other sources of energy would you care to propose, to explain energy that appears when deuterium is pressured into palladium powder, and not when ordinary hydrogen is used? 17:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This article should probably not be discussed in an article on cold fusion since the authors do not appear to be claiming that fusion is taking place. In other words, the word "after" does not clearly indicate that chemical reactions are done. In any event, Arata is not an author, so this article does not do much to document the Arata work. Olorinish (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Olorinish, your own feeble attempts to confuse the issue will also get you nowhere. I said nothing about Arata being an author of this article; I said Arata's work is REFERENCED by that article. Why do you suppose the authors of this article did that? Simply because Arata was first to find anomalous energy in that sort of experiment! This article's reference is the RS that Arata actually did earlier experiments along these lines. I don't care in the slightest that this article doesn't talk about fusion; Arata talked about it plenty, even if all such talk has been restricted to sources that Wikipedia calls "non-RS". How about we allow one of those references to Arata's work, if you don't like this one? (No? Fine; this one is still RS enough!) V (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not "attempting" to confuse the issue. In fact, I think it was impolite of Objectivist to suggest I was acting in bad faith. In any event, I don't see how my comments made anything more confusing. Authors hinting that they have produced fusion (by mentioning Arata's work) is far different from authors asserting that they have produced fusion. Since we are building an encyclopedia, we should be very careful about representing sources accurately. If a document link is inserted in a way that supports claims of cold fusion, whether the article "doesn't talk about fusion" is a big deal, at least in my view. Olorinish (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You ARE attempting to confuse the issue when you say nonsense like "this article should probably not be discussed in an article on cold fusion since the authors do not appear to be claiming that fusion is taking place" --and the reason I say that is simple: We have plenty of references in the article to things that don't talk about fusion taking place. Just look in the region of the very first paragraph in the main article and you will see links to heavy water, pathological science, calorimeter, electrolysis, neutrons, tritium, and US Department of Energy. It is not vital that something specifically mention "fusion" (or "cold fusion") to be relevant to the CF article! --and the proof is in that (easily extended) list I just presented. Next, the CF situation breaks down into two main parts. First, there are the reports of anomalous energy production in experiments that use deuterium instead of ordinary hydrogen. Second, there is the interpretation that fusion is responsible for the anomalous energy. This RS article in Physics Letters A is certainly about the first part of the CF situation. And the fact that it references the work of Arata, who has forthrightly connected pressurized-deuterium experiments to fusion, gives us an indirect link to the second part of the CF situation. That should be more than sufficient to any neutral Wikipedia editor. Arata's work is not "too recent to be mentionable"; this Phys Letters A article is appropriate secondary-RS for it, and that's the main reason for including it. V (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Facts can be supportive of a claim without the messenger having a bias either way. They can also be relevant, pertinent, significant, what have you, irrespective. Furthermore, references in wikipedia are used for the verification of pieces of information in the article, sentence by sentence. Unless the sentence is specifically about the opinion of the author referenced, the author's opinion -- or lack thereof -- does not determine -- or speak to -- whether said reference verifies the sentence. (Or, for that matter, whether it meets the WP:RS criteria for that usage.) That is what matters. Looking for opinions is not supported by WP policies and seems to me like it would unnecessarily introduce risk of bias to otherwise objective reasoning. In sum, I believe that V has made his point clear and is correct. Kevin Baas^talk 21:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Given that there have been no other comments in this section for more than a week, the changes suggested here will likely be posted to the main article in the near future. V (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The changes described above would give undue weight to the Kitamura link, considering that the link does not assert that fusion is taking place. Maybe if that line of research is on the increase, it would make sense ("At least 3 groups are currently investigating fusion induced without electrochemical implantation..."), but I don't see evidence of that happening. Keep in mind that we can afford to wait; if that method produces clear evidence of nuclear reactions, someone will report on it and at that time this article can link to it. Olorinish (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you claim "undue weight" does not mean the claim is true. Prove it --and please get over your silly notion that every reference of this article must mention "fusion". Please DO remember that the purpose of the link is to provide evidence that Arata's experiment actually took place. The text I proposed talks about others imitating Arata's experiment; even if Kitamura's group had not found anomalous energy, their experiment would still have been an imitation of Arata's! V (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason I said that it would be undue weight is that this article is titled "Cold fusion" and the Kitamura link does not provide any real information about cold fusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts; the goal is to help readers. You imply that it is important to inform readers about the Arata experiment, but I don't see why that is the case. He had a demonstration in front of some reporters, but didn't give any evidence that nuclear reactions were happening. As far as I can tell, he did not show an article with evidence for nuclear reactions yet. Has he done so? Olorinish (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The "evidence" you claim didn't exist was the production of anomalous energy. Arata claimed the logical source was fusion, and whether or not he is correct in that interpretation, it suffices to be relevant to this article (which mostly is about claims of production of anomalous energy and fusion-as-explanation), especially since the anomalous energy production was replicated by Kitamura's team. I see you haven't got over the silly notion that somehow everything relevant to cold fusion must actually talk about cold fusion. WRONG. According to you, then, we need to delete from the article references to such things as electrolysis and calorimeter. Wrong again. Background information is almost always about something other than the topic that needs the background information, and the two Wikipedia references just mentioned are appropriate background information for ordinary cold fusion experiments. But Arata has specified something altogether different, and therefore different background information becomes exactly as relevant, for his experiment. It would be Original Research or Synthesis for an editor here to come up with some alternate CF experiment and describe it, but Arata has already done that OR/S, and therefore we are free to report that. However, we are also limited with regard to Reliable Sources, and the only RS currently available, that Arata did his experiment, is this Kitamura article. (I find it humorous/ironic that the reference inside the excellently-RS Kitamura article, to Arata's experiment, is not considered RS by Wikipedia!) Regardless of whether or not Kitamura mentions fusion, he does describe the general kind of experiment that Arata performed (background information!) Finally, of the edits I proposed at the start of this section, only one sentence is about Arata's experiment. If that qualifies as "undue weight" in an article considered over-long by some editors, then you have a strange way of measuring "weight". V (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

New Peer-Reviewed Journal Paper Published

"A New Look at Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research," Journal of Environmental Monitoring, (Accepted for publication: 26 August) Vol. 11, p. 1731-1746, 2009, DOI:10.1039/B915458M

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EM/article.asp?doi=B915458M

StevenBKrivit (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Environmental Monitoring? For a controversial physics/chemistry topic? Our WP:RS guidelines say: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I'm sure the good folks at the Journal of Environmental monitoring are authoritative in environmental monitoring...fringe nuclear physics/chemistry might be a of a stretch though. :) Phil153 (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil, the environmentalists are interested in alternate non-polluting energy sources. Why shouldn't they be interested in finding out if CF has any validity? V (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in many things. That doesn't necessarily make me a reliable source on all of them. No doubt there exist a few people who are qualified to publish on both environmental and hypothetical non-polluting energy sources. But being A and interested in B doesn't make you B.LeadSongDog come howl 20:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We went through that idiotic argument over Naturwissenschaften. A journal that is RS for its normal subject matter does not suddenly become non-RS just because it publishes something a little off the beaten path. Peer-reviewed is peer-reviewed, period. Also, to the extent the particular article at issue in this journal is a review of the field more than it is an in-depth description of a single experiment, that is the extent to which we can treat the article the same as if it had appeared in, for example, Scientific American. V (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll not respond to that insult. If you think that nuclear physics is just "a little" off of the Journal of Environmental Monitoring's "beaten path", you are of course welcome to raise the suggestion at WP:RS/N. LeadSongDog come howl 05:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, you are insulting, too; environmentalists have been aware of at least some things about nuclear physics for decades; they made their objections quite well known after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl events. SOME of them are most certainly aware of hot-fusion research, if for no other reason that that research has been ongoing for the last 60 years or so, and promises to be more environmentally benign than fission. How dare you imply that there are no environmentally responsible nuclear physicists out there, who might publish an article such as the one under discussion here! Not to mention, who says the CF effect must be related to nuclear physics? Only those who observe more energy than they can explain by other means. Like the few who had their electrolysis experiments boil; not even Kirk Shanahan's CCS hypothesis can explain that away. Or the guys who published this, that we've discussed before: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 Now, I don't know what published-references-of-observations were chosen for the "Environmental Monitoring" article because I haven't seen the article yet, but to the extent it matches references accepted as RS in the main CF article here (as do some of the references in that DIA analysis discussed elsewhere on this page), you cannot use that as a basis to object to the publication of that article, no matter where it got published! V (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone has a proposed edit to the article I suggest we stop responding to users who are not interested in editing the article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. I'll take it.LeadSongDog come howl 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

New Energy Times article

Unless there is a way to prevent prejudiced fools (almost by definition prejudice is foolish) from deleting edits as fast as they are made, why bother? I see there is no Wikipedia article about the magazine called "New Energy Times", but there is an article about the "National Enquirer". Regardless of whether or not either or neither qualifies as a Reliable Source for information for other Wikipedia articles, it is a simple fact that both publications exist, and Wikipedia has no policy restricting the existence of articles about things that are known to exist. I find it difficult to believe that nobody has ever tried to create a Wikipedia article about the New Energy Times, which has been publishing issues for more than five years, so why doesn't the article exist? Are the anti-CF prejudiced fools even more fanatic than Kirk Shanahan claims are the pro-CF prejudiced fools? V (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There was an article on NET, PRODed in September per this. See WP:Deletion review if you think the deleting admin was in error. LeadSongDog come howl 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the so-called "rationale" given for the request for deletion. What does "establishing notability" have to do with the fact that something exists? What of the distinction between "notable" and "notorious" --I'm sure there are quite a few WP articles about things or people that are far more notorious (anti-notable!) than notable...the National Enquirer comes to mind as a specific example. Off-hand I'd say the NET qualifies as both, depending on the perspective: Notable because dares to publish things contrary to Orthodox Nuclear Science; notorious to anyone wedded to that particular orthodoxy. Was it deleted because the two cancel out, leaving a notability-level of zero? Stupid rationale, that would indeed have been! V (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see there currently exists an article about another pro-CF source, Infinite Energy (magazine), which includes a warning that it might be subject to deletion for "notability" reasons. Hmmm...do I sense a potential conspiracy-of-silence? Obviously if no Official RS Journal ever mentions the existence of this magazine (or NET), then the pretense that it doesn't exist can, per the "notability" rules, be converted into a rationale to prevent Wikipedia articles from existing. On the other hand, deliberate snubbing any sort can only occur after something has been noticed (achived a kind of notability)! Censors never win in the end, so why do they bother? (short-sighted selfish personal gain, usually....) V (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

New Energy Times has plenty of reliable citations establishing its notability. See their press room. 91.180.173.49 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, in the earlier page section here, regarding the DIA CF analysis, I mentioned the magazine "Electronics", which also seems not to have a Wikipedia article about it. I sort-of dare anyone to read this http://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Articles-Press_Releases/Gordon_Moore_1965_Article.pdf and claim that now-defunct magazine was not notable. V (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for Electronics (magazine)? LeadSongDog come howl 02:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, somehow I missed it in my looking. V (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If the article was deleted by PROD, there's no need for deletion review; if someone disagrees with the deletion they can ask any administrator to restore the page. See proposed deletion for details. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Quoting Phil:

Journal of Environmental Monitoring? For a controversial physics/chemistry topic? Our WP:RS guidelines say: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I'm sure the good folks at the Journal of Environmental monitoring are authoritative in environmental monitoring...fringe nuclear physics/chemistry might be a of a stretch though.

Note that reliable sources thus far deemed acceptable for the "cold fusion" article include:

The Guardian

Wired Magazine

New Scientist

Houston Chronicle

Philosophy of Science: Alexander Bird

CBS Evening News

New York Times

13 things that don't make sense,Brooks, Michael

GroundReport

Scientific American

Physics Today

Discover Magazine

IEEE Spectrum

Boston Herald

Chemistry World

StevenBKrivit (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd like to see some statistics regarding those sources, the extent to which each is used as a "pro" source and/or as a "con" source. Because I do wonder...if that article in "Environmental Monitoring" had been con-CF, how many anti-CF people would be objecting to it on RS grounds? V (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would. I objected to the use of some of Shanahan's work, which is as con as you get. A Journal of Environmental Monitoring is not capable of vetting controversial claims in nuclear physics or chemistry. This happens often in fringe fields and has been discussed before on the RS noticeboard: respectable on topic journals will not publish, so authors journal shop the thousands of off topic journals to find someone that will print it. Phil153 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two sides to that coin. We know full well that ONE reason many CF articles are not published in high-level RS journals is because of editorial prejudice --the editors have pre-judged CF to be garbage, and therefore won't publish even high-quality research (and yes, I'm aware that the field has its share of low-quality research). So, where should the researcher who actually did high-quality work get that work published?

Then there is a different coin altogether, as pointed out below: generic descriptions of experiments and experimenters don't need quite as high level of peer-review as specific descriptions of experiments and experimental techniques. Are you claiming that the article in "Environmental Monitoring" requires high-level peer-review? If so, why? V (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What is and isn't reliable depends on the context and what it's used for. It's not a binary thing. The New York Times is reliable for reporting on the attitudes of the scientific community toward cold fusion. The Houston Chronicle is reliable for reporting on the buzz prior to the DOE report.

It's not a difficult concept. A Journal of Environment Monitoring is not a reliable source for vetting claims related to fringe nuclear science/chemistry, especially when journals such as Nature, one of the highest impact journals in the world, won't even publish them (the same as they won't publish perpetual motion theories). The same would happen if disputed claims about fossil hominids being published in the Journal of Environment Monitoring - our paleontology article would pay it little mind. There is no conspiracy or double standard, although fringe promoters of all types believe there is (i.e. MSG,homeopathy, etc). WP:RS is worth reading, if you care. Also, please read WP:COI. You've brought your writings to our attention (it seems as if one of the authors of the article isn't even a scientist...), which is fine, but continually arguing for the inclusion of your own work is not good form. Phil153 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If the New York Times can be used to show the attitudes of scientists, then so can the Journal of Environmental Monitoring. While we may not necessarily use the article to establish facts about physics, it can nevertheless show, for example, notability of the various theories etc. (as theories and speculation). For example, it's interesting that certain secondary sources mention transmutation but not biological transmutation. This sort of thing can guide us as to what is worth mentioning in the article. It's not about "vetting claims" as if this were an article about a well-established topic in science, or as if it were up to us to determine whether claims were true or not: it's "verifiability, not truth". For example, we can verify that the article mentioned certain theories: that contributes to the notability of the theories. If we required that things be established as accepted physical facts before mentioning them at all, we would have no article on Flat Earth, no article on Cold fusion, and no article on any religious topic. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Steven Krivit, the lead author of the peer-reviewed review article, has been referred to as a "leading authority" on the topic in an article released by the American Chemical Society. ("'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source", Salt Lake City, 2009-March-23, Contact: Michael Bernstein, American Chemcial Society [1])

I may have missed something, but it seems to me that in recent years we now have three peer-reviewed review articles on the topic, all three taking a decidedly nuclear POV. (By nuclear POV I mean the point of view that there's good evidence that there's something not merely chemical happening in these experiments; as opposed to the non-nuclear POV, that there is no convincing evidence of such.) Other major categories of sources are books, government reports, and media; in each of these three categories both the nuclear and non-nuclear POVs are expressed: for example, in the 2004 DOE report, the reviewers were divided as to whether there was convincing evidence. It has become more difficult, though perhaps still tenable, to argue that the non-nuclear POV is to be presented by Wikipedia as the majority POV, but I think it's not currently tenable to argue that the nuclear POV is a "tiny-minority" POV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikipeople. Every once in a while I check in here and see how you are all doing. I noticed you had missed my review paper (wasn't someone searching for a recent review?) so I've informed you of it. Use it if you like. Of course I don't touch the main article and it is unreasonable for you (especially K.S.) to expect me to watch, reply to or comment on this page on a regular basis. And for full disclosure, I am involved in two other (print) encyclopedia projects so it would be somewhat of a conflict of interest for me to make any substantial contributions here.

I'd like to mention one thing to you - to try to help you keep your facts straight. I came into the field 10 years ago relatively ignorant of nuclear physics. In my ignorance, I was easily "impressed" by MIT's Peter Hagelstein, and Los Alamos' Ed Storms and SRI's Mike McKubre. And so I easily accepted what Gene Mallove critically called the "Mainstream Cold Fusion Hypothesis." http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/iccf10.html

But as many of you know, it does't add up - that is, "cold fusion" doesn't look like fusion. Never did. Gene knew it didn't add up, and along with his interests in fringe/esoteric physics, he saw the holes in the "Mainstream Cold Fusion Hypothesis," clearly and objectively. It took me a few years to figure out the holes for myself. Bottom line, I think there is something real, no doubt. Nuclear, yes, absolutely. Potential for energy, yes. But fusion? I can't know for sure, but at this point in time, I highly doubt it.

References:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET26.shtml#wl

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#FROMED

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2008/2008-Krivit-ACS.pdf

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.shtml#FROMED

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.shtml#24hagel

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.shtml#24xr

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.shtml#looklike

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/TheDecouplingOfColdFusionFromLENR.shtml

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2009/2009Krivit-ACS-1w.pdf

StevenBKrivit (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bose–Einstein condensation

What do editors here think of the Bose–Einstein condensate theory?

Recently, there have been many reports of experimental results which indicate occurrences of anomalous deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in metals at low energies. A consistent conventional theoretical description is presented for anomalous low-energy deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in metal. The theory is based on the Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) state occupied by deuterons trapped in a micro/nano-scale metal grain or particle. The theory is capable of explaining most of the experimentally observed results and also provides theoretical predictions, which can be tested experimentally. Scalabilities of the observed effects are discussed based on theoretical predictions.

-- Kim, Y.E. (2009) "Theory of Bose–Einstein condensation mechanism for deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in micro/nano-scale metal grains and particles," Naturwissenschaften 96(7):803-11. Dual Use (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning this one paper provides undue weight to a fringe theory. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Any one tree provides insufficient evidence for the forest. There are three possible positions a tertiary source can hold about a phenomenon: (1) the secondary sources say the phenomenon is not real; (2) the secondary sources say that opinion is divided on the matter; (3) the secondary sources say the phenomenon is real. If you were to plot actual secondary sources over time, you would see support for (1) peaked around 1991, support for (2) took off shortly thereafter and has dominated since, and support for (3) was losing out to (1) in the 1990s but is now completely trouncing it. The point is, there are three camps: those who want the article to take a stand pro-or-con, and those who want the article to reflect the actual uncertainty in the secondary sources. The best way to do that would be to continue the "proposed explanations" section at the end of the article where it leaves off in the 1990s. And the best way to do that would be to add experimental and theory papers like the experimental report of charged particles from the U.S. Navy SPAWAR center (how's their reputation in the physics community?) and a selection of theory papers such as these. Otherwise you're just trying to impose an absolutist pro-or-con point of view against the secondary sources which, in total, clearly indicate that opinion is divided. That's clear from the introduction; why isn't it clear from the end of the article? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Provide sources for any changes you would like to make. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it not clear that I did just that in the text above you replied to? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. Provide sources by referencing specific sources. Propose changes by stating what you would like to change in the article, and what you'd like to change it to. Provide sources for proposed changes. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

When I said "the best way to do that would be to add experimental and theory papers like the experimental report of charged particles from the U.S. Navy SPAWAR center" I was referring to Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Gordon FE (2007) "Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd–D lattice: emission of charged particles" Naturwissenschaften, vol. 94 pp. 511–514. When I said "and a selection of theory papers such as these" I was referring to Kim, Y.E. (2009) "Theory of Bose–Einstein condensation mechanism for deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in micro/nano-scale metal grains and particles," Naturwissenschaften 96(7):803-11 and others such as the paper immediately below this section, Collins, G.S., et al (1990) "Deuteron tunneling at electron-volt energies," Journal of Fusion Energy -- however, in theory papers I have to say I prefer the more recent, as they have had the time to build on the results of emperical studies. And as for reports of empirical studies, I strongly prefer academic journals to the popular science press, for what should be quite obvious reasons. It is disappointing so many editors prefer to turn their backs on peer-reviewed empirical reports. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Propose changes by stating what you would like to change in the article, and what you'd like to change it to. Please note that referencing those specific papers is likley providing undue weight to fringe sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I did that, when I wrote, "to reflect the actual uncertainty in the secondary sources. The best way to do that would be to continue the 'proposed explanations' section at the end of the article where it leaves off in the 1990s. And the best way to do that would be to add experimental and theory papers," above, didn't I? What would it take to convince you that the U.S. Navy SPAWAR center and Naturwissenschaften are not on the fringe? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're communicating. Why not submit the text you would like added or subtracted to or from the article now. Notation by multiple reliable secondary sources would convince me that something is not fringe. Could you list your prior accounts? Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I believe it would probably be removed by bullies who refuse to familiarize themselves with the peer reviewed literature, relying only on the popular press for their opinions which they express in the form of quick, undiscussed reverts. Are you willing to say, straight out, that the U.S. Navy SPAWAR center and Naturwissenschaften are or are not on the fringe, and give your reasons for saying so? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that this article has had a SPAWAR-generated image of pits for over a year, which shows that it is possible for well-documented and notable pro-CF information to be retained. Olorinish (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I certainly am not going to ask you to make the changes that would seem to be deserved by a source which has garnered such longstanding respect from the editors of this article, because I am sure someone would then accuse you of meatpuppetry-by-proxy or something similar. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out how sad it is that one actually has to "show that it is possible for well-documented and notable pro-CF information to be retained." Kevin Baas^talk 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I note with disgust that instead of responding in response to the question of whether the U.S. Navy SPAWAR center and Naturwissenschaften are fringe sources, Hipocrite has instead decided to file a checkuser investigation. Is that the sort of mindset you want from someone performing rapid reverts on this article without discussing them first? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026#Evidence submitted by Hipocrite explicitly states that Hipocrite thinks the sources I've been "pushing" from this IP are "fringe". 99.27.202.101 (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Deuteron tunnelling at electron-volt energies

There is another recent theory paper published in the reputable Journal of Fusion Energy : http://www.springerlink.com/content/q82817562k6n0185/ 80.201.49.54 (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1990 is not particularly recent; that's at the other end of this article's bibliography. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning this one paper provides undue weight to a fringe theory. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Hipocrite, if ALL the proposed explanations for cold fusion are mentioned, then none of them is given any more weight than any of the others. On the other hand, I suspect you are using "fringe theory" to describe the basic idea of CF, instead of any one particular proposed explanation for it. I take issue with that, on the grounds that it leaves you with a dilemma; how do you explain all the reports of anomalous energy production? There are too many for "fraud" to be true, since fraud requires secrecy and there are too many people involved for such a fraud to be kept a secret across 20+ years. There also appear to be enough careful researchers and different experiments that "experimental error" is becoming increasingly unlikely as the explanation (example, if Arata (one person) had committed experimental error, then Kitamura's team should have had more difficulty in also producing anomalous energy). In recent years reports of successful anomalous energy production far outweigh the failures and the experimental-hole-poking. So if we take this as evidence that something unusual has indeed been happening, that experimental error is not an adequate explanation, then it needs a different explanation. At the moment of this writing I don't care one whit if fusion is the explanation or not; I simply care that this production-of-anomalous-energy appears to be a real and not a fringe thing (it got reported in Physics Letters A, remember!). Which takes me back to the beginning of this paragraph; real anomalous energy production needs an explanation, and we agree that there is no scientific consensus regarding that. Which means that as many theories as possible need to be presented to scientists (they have journals for that), so that further experiments can sort them out to find the truth. Wikipedia need not report all those published theories as "news", but it can report them for historical purposes, kind of like reporting the history of the development of flight; a lot of blind paths were taken.... V (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The above phrase "committed experimental error" seems to misunderstand the usual meaning of "experimental error". While it could be interpreted by a casual reader as meaning the experimenter did something wrong in executing the experiment, it is normally read by scientists as a recognition that every measurement has an inescapable, characteristic amount of "imprecision" or "uncertainty" (part random and part systemic) contributing to an error in the result. LeadSongDog come howl 16:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If experimental error is at the root of a claim of detection of anomalous energy production, then the details of how the claim was reached, and the exact type of error, matter little. Not to mention, per Quantum Mechanics, the experimenter and the experiment are intertwined.... :) V (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy regarding that is (or if there is one), but as far as rational thinking is concerned, I beg to differ on this point: i could say of anything that their conclusion is the result of "experimental error" and dismiss it out of hand. but unless i provide some specific falsifiable empirical claim, such as "the temperature variation was net positive, but w/in the margin of error" or "the solution was contaminated with xx which when exposed to xx produces an exothermic reaction that accounts fro the discrepancy" or something like that, the claim is worth about as much as the breath used to make it, and arguably less. though that's not to say that saying something like "it is possible that there was experimental error." or even that it was likely, is objectionable -- statistical arguments for that are ready-at-hand. but to claim outright that there was without any knowledge or evidence to support the claim is just plain retarded. And I certainly won't consider some random unsupported assertion to be equal in value or weight to empirical evidence. They have places for people like that: they're called mental institutions. Kevin Baas^talk 18:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpreted what I wrote; see that "if/then" in there (OK I just added the "then" for clarity)? The "then" is simply a logical consequence of the "if". I could say, "If the moon is made of green cheese, then NASA should have been able to prove it." The "if" doesn't make any claim about the truth or falsity of the thing it precedes; it is merely a way of allowing us to say that such-and-such 'conclusion --the "then" clause--- depends on a certain thing being true. V (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see now. Thanks. I thought you meant that if error is claimed then the experiment is of little significance, whereas in fact you meant that if error is the true cause then the conclusion is of little consequence. I.e. the conclusion of an invalid argument is worth little. Subtle, but crucial difference. My bad. Kevin Baas^talk

my issue is much simpler: how do you write an article on a "fringe" topic if you can't include any papers that give weight to a "fringe" topic? E.g. how do you write a referenced article on cold fusion if you can't use any references about cold fusion. That seems very one-sided. Or no-sided, actually. Can't get any more specious than that. D.O.A. Kevin Baas^talk 15:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. To get material included in this article you will need to find reliable secondary sources for information. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

firstly, that's not the argument you made. which means it's not a rebuttle to my counterargument to it. secondly, whether or not you need a secondary source depends on the context and usage. Kevin Baas^talk 18:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. If the secondary sources say one thing, and a very small number of unremarkable primary sources say something else, Wikipedia disregards the primary sources until they are adressed by reliable secondary sources, to avoide providing undue weight to minority of fringe opinions, like I said the first and second time. If you gained a broader editing experience on the encyclopedia, this would not be surprising. Hipocrite (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Woa, now you are insulting my competence! Out of line. Per precisely what you cited: "Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources" primary sources are in certain cases acceptable. What I was saying was that you were creating a false dichotomy and I stand by my statement, and offer as evidence -- ironically -- the very same passage you offered as evidence. (It appears one of us should be reading more carefully!) In addition, I also refer you to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Sourcing_and_attribution.

And furthermore, regarding "Wikipedia disregards the primary sources until they are adressed by reliable secondary sources, to avoide providing undue weight to minority of fringe opinions, like I said the first and second time": you never said that; this is not the third time you said it, but the first. that's a matter of record. since the record on what you said in this section is pretty short, i'll save the unneccessary step of copying it for you. Now please remember the guideline that we discuss the article, not the editors. Kevin Baas^talk 18:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OR by SYNTH and undue weight

In this revert of two edits, is the charged particle report from 2007 OR by SYNTH or undue weight? It is unclear from the edit summary. That 2007 paper has been cited several times in peer-reviewed papers, so I don't think it's fallen out of favor. That would seem to put it beyond the bounds of OR by SYNTH. And what possible argument could there be in favor of saying that the detection of charged particle radiation is undue weight?

Is the attribution of the late 1990s sources to the late 1990s OR by SYNTH or undue weight? Again, I think it is neither. As the introduction indicates, the number of scientists involved with the DOE review who are in favor of more investigation has been growing. Therefore, it is an important fact about the sources cited. Omitting it implies, or at least strongly suggests, that most scientists still feel the same way. If we assume that most scientists will agree with the peer-reviewed secondary literature, then I don't think there are any sources supporting the idea that "most scientists" still hold a consensus viewpoint. On the other hand, I think almost everything published in the peer-reviewed literature since 2000 supports the opposite, that "most scientists" no longer hold any consensus viewpoint on the subject. Is there any reason to believe otherwise? Dual Use (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Feder, Kruglinksi, Hutchinson, and Anderson articles are strong post-2000 evidence that the cold fusion field is not respected. Also, the lack of pro-cold fusion results in the top journals (Science, Nature, Physical Review) is good evidence that the field is not respected by mainstream scientists. Olorinish (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have to say I think your edits over the past month have been really good. I took a closer look at those sources, and it appears that none of them are peer reviewed. Am I correct that they are all articles from the unreviewed popular science press? When was the last negative peer-reviewed report? Dual Use (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know when the last negative peer-reviewed report was. I do ask people to keep in mind this line from reliable sources: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." Olorinish (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, surely "60 minutes" would qualify. Here is what it said last April : "When first presented in 1989 cold fusion was quickly dismissed as junk science. But, as Scott Pelley reports, there's renewed buzz among scientists that cold fusion could lead to monumental breakthroughs in energy production." "Well, a funny thing happened on the way to oblivion - for many scientists today, cold fusion is hot again. " etc... 130.104.236.154 (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The charged particle report provides undue weight to a primary fringe source. The implication behind the 1990's statement is OR by SYNTH, and was rejected on this talk page recently. If you have reliable secondary sources that show there is a change in mainstream scientific opinion, feel free to provide them. Primary sources published by a few true-believer researchers will not result in changes in this article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone else has proposed attributing the 1990s sources to the 1990s belief? Not me. I have not seen that discussion. Dual Use (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This was adressed at Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_34#Synthesis.2C_again. Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, but am not at all convinced. As for the 2007 source on charged particles, how many years do you believe it should stand referenced without challenge by other peer-reviewed sources before you would consider it non-fringe? Dual Use (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

When it's referenced by reliable secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is that stance preferable to allowing material referenced by peer-reviewed primary sources? If the citations pass peer review, doesn't that make the references to them secondary? Concerning statements about the opinions of "most scientists," how evenly would opinion need to be split, and by what margin of error, before you would agree that "most scientists" no longer hold a consensus view? Dual Use (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources - papers by primary researchers in the cold-fusion field should only be referenced if they are mentioned by reliable secondary sources, lest they are provided undue weight. I don't have opinions on anything except that this article must be policy compliant. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I do have to correct this again, lest the error be indefinitely promulgated: While we should try to use secondary sources wherever possible, the above statement is not completely accurate. refer to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements, and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Sourcing_and_attribution. Kevin Baas^talk 19:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of primary sources from the popular press in the article, but they are almost all biased towards the 1990s consensus viewpoint. Why are current opposing primary peer-reviewed sources excluded? Have there been any peer-reviewed publications in agreement with the '90s consensus viewpoint since Shanahan's early '00s work? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper reports are secondary sources. Providing the viewpoint of any fringe primary source provides it undue weight. If a view expressed by a primary source were notable, it would be adressed by secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider newspapers more or less fringe than the academic journals? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the span of time between when it's published in a primary source and when it's published in a secondary source? Does it go from not notable to notable, without actually changing what it is? And in that respect, there are many things in secondary source that are not in the article because do not consider them notable. Are they wrong? what besides being published in a secondary source do they have to be to be notable? Kevin Baas^talk 14:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Why are current opposing primary peer-reviewed sources excluded?" This is not quite correct. The current article has pro-CF articles from Di Giulio, Biberian, Szpak, Mosier-Boss, and Iwamura, which are all published after 2000. Olorinish (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that trend continues to follow publications in the peer-reviewed press. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess the problem comes down to whether to ascribe a viewpoint to a lot of people who don't agree. How about if we follow the last sentence in the article "These reports, combined with negative results from some famous laboratories,[119] led most scientists to conclude that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion, at least not on a significant scale.[120][121]" with the sentence "However, peer-reviewed publicatinons on the subject since ____ (2000?) have been consistent with a positive result, and the number of Department of Energy reviewers in favor of more study has increased" -- is that a reasonable compromise? Dual Use (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No. That's OR by synth. No source says "peer-reviewed publications on the subject since xxxx have been consistent with a positive result." What you need to do is find sources that say what you want them to say, not cobble together disparate sources to imply what you believe to be true. Hipocrite (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Some RS and Non-RS news

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/update-from-latest-cold-fusion.html Just in case anyone around here wants to keep up on the latest claims made in the field, heh. I see on that linked page a comment by Jed Rothwell that permission has been obtained for the Kitamura paper discussed elsewhere on this page, originally published in Physics Letters A, to become available at his lenr/canr site. http://l...-c....org/acrobat/KitamuraAanomalouse.pdf (you will have to replace some of the dots in the link to get around the blacklist imposed by the anti-CFers.) I'm pretty sure that an article that is RS when published in Physics Letters A does not become less RS when legally posted elsewhere; perhaps a hole in the blacklist can be made to allow general Wikipedia access to this article? Anyway, I took the opportunity to look into it to see exactly how it references Arata's work (where did he publish his claims?) There appears to be a Japanese "Journal of [the] High Temperature Society" --does anyone know anything about the extent to which it qualifies as RS? V (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you saw it first: Almost 50 presentations at ICCF15 in Italy this year.

One way to cite the Kitamura paper so that the link is available on Wikipedia is: Kitamura, A. et al (2009) "Anomalous effects in charging of Pd powders with high density hydrogen isotopes" Physics Letters A 373(35):3109-12 doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061

I was particularly impressed with ICCF-15 presentations on the ENEA-Brookhaven-NRL x-ray diffraction study looking for phase changes but finding rapid loading-unloading at the cathode surface, Miles & Fleischmann's new fishtank calorimeter, and Hagelstein's outright admission that laser difference frequency controls excess power output. It was good to see Hagelstein collaborating with McKubre as well.

Does anyone believe those three sources are out of the mainstream? 99.55.162.180 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"I'm pretty sure that an article that is RS when published in Physics Letters A does not become less RS when legally posted elsewhere." Good luck convincing the anti-CF-ers of that. Kevin Baas^talk 18:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the goal here is to allow readers to access the body of the article, rather than only a mere abstract. That's where the background information I previously discussed is to be found, after all. What we could do is include both links, the first (to abstract) to show that the article is Reliably Sourced, and the second to allow access to its body. It would be interesting to see what sort of ridiculous objections might be offered in response. V (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation of neutrons with the CR-39 method was nice, as were all three of the opening presentations. It's also fantastic to see two days go by without anyone claiming any of it is out of the mainstream. I hope that holds up in edits to the article, but I'll leave that up to more experienced editors of the page, for now. 99.34.78.67 (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone pay that much attention? It's just a collection of primary sources: conference presentations.LeadSongDog come howl 18:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is filled with primary sources, from the popular press even, but only in support of the point of view that cold fusion is bunk. Sources suggesting it isn't have been blacklisted by administrators, and sources suggesting that there is still some controversy are not represented in this article anywhere near in proportion to the extent they appear in the popular and academic press. 99.34.78.67 (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

All the ICCF-15 abstracts (in one 9.6 MB PDF) are easier to text-search through. They indicate Fleischmann apparently approves of the Pd-B cathodes of Miles and Imam. Also, what does it mean that Hagelstein has been doing laser experiments for two years (p. 8)? 99.34.78.67 (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Elsevier considered a reliable source on Wikipedia ? I would think so. It has now published an encyclopedia of electrochemical power source, and Steve Krivit has contributed an article on cold fusion in it, another proof that he should be considered as a reliable source too. See his blog on new energy times.com Pcarbonn (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not reliable just because its from Elsevier - some Elsevier journals are RS, some are not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaked DIA document

I propose adding text from the leaked U.S. government secondary source Barnhart et al (2009) "Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance," Defense Analysis Report DIA-08-0911-003, U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, which has been verified as authentic by experienced editors of this article. In particular, I propose adding the material in the first yellow box, the first paragraph after the second yellow box, the bold statement on page 3, the contents of the third yellow box on page 3, the contents of the fourth yellow box on page 4, the entirety of page 5, and the first sentence at the top of page 6, all sourced to the DIA document. Any objections? 99.34.78.67 (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

According to [reliable sources], "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published sources..." Has this been published? Olorinish (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. 99.34.78.67 (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Has the 2004 DOE report been "published" ? It is used in our article, anyway, so I would say that we can use this DIA document too. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The DOE published it in its website with a press release[2]. The report and the comments of the director of the agency were covered by several newspapers and science magazines before and after the release. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

On page 5, it says Israel is one of the three most advanced countries studying the technology. The particular research facility specified has made claims of 2,500% excess power.[3] 99.191.74.146 (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Israeli company claiming these numbers are the same guys that attempt to cure HIV and other illnesses with cold fusion waves. See this article and this on Dardik. The fact that they use this source in their document is proof that the DIA report is poorly reviewed. What an embarassment. But that's beside the point. An unplubished DIA report is not RS. PCarbonn's point about equating this with the DOE review is missing the point on several levels; the DOE review was publicly published, widely anticipated and widely reported by the NYT, Washington Post and other highly reliable sources. It's not even the same class of source as the DIA document. Phil153 (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think any of the proposed additions from the document should be made, Phil? How about in the context of, "A 2009 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report said...?" 99.22.94.58 (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO, at most, we could use it to attribute an opinion/POV, and a fairly limited one as things stand - as lacking any evidence that it is out of the "draft" stage, we can only presume that the opinion is limited solely to the authors. Furthermore as I can tell it contains no verifiable quotes by any of the authors so even doing that would be sketchy. And when did we use "draft"s as sources? I can't think of a way to legitimately justify it right now. maybe when/if it gets published. Kevin Baas^talk 16:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are you seeing the word "draft"? Aren't leaks like this the only way any sensitive but unclassified DIA reports ever get published? Then again, I can't see why this one would be sensitive, unless the TSA is worried about people sneaking codeposition apparatus on planes, and that just isn't practical, even with 25x battery power. Shorting the batteries against something flammable would be more potentially damaging. 99.22.94.58 (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Is http://superwavefusion.com in New Jersey the same as, different from, or a part of Energetics in Omer, Israel? 99.22.94.58 (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I found the answer in a 2 second google search. Dardik is involved in both companies. The articles I linked above have further information. Phil153 (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nature Magazine finally acknowledges the possibility of low energy nuclear reactions

In this opinion, Nature magazine makes fun of the skeptics. It tells the fictitious story of a Professor Madeline Hou who tours the country with an experimental demonstration of the failure of cold fusion; the problem is, the last time she conducts the demonstration, it ends us with an explosion, releasing energy "orders of magnitude higher than the total from any previous ‘controlled fusion’ experiment." It concludes : "With new energy sources critically important, the Department of Energy has scheduled its attempt to replicate Hou’s demonstration at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. "

This echoes what the DOE said in 1989: "Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary." Our article would be better if it included this important statement. It could be inserted in the experimental section. Alternatively, we could add a specific section discussing replication, as this is a key issue in the debate, and often misunderstood. Comments welcome.

By the way, many researchers have reported explosions from cold fusion devices : Fleischmann & Pons, in their original paper; Mizuno, Biberian. Mizuno's explosion was from an open cell, excluding the possibility of gas build-up or catastrophic recombination. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)