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)

I've added the first parts of the proposed change; nobody posted any objections to them. The last part I'll hold off for a bit; the text I just added probably needs an associated reference and possibly a tweak. Unfortunately, my past attempts at adding references failed miserably; there is some trick to it that I don't yet know. V (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does need a link, and the "last part" you mention. Objectivist, in the future please make related edits at the same time so peoeple can evaluate the full point you are trying to make. Olorinish (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Even without the last part, about Arata's experiment, the text I added is relevant. There is no other place in the article that mentions "loading time" (not that uses that phrasing, anyway). Arata's experiment is, basically, an alternate route to reducing the loading time, so text about it can be added any time after the first part is stabilized with a reference (or even two!). V (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the added text is asserts the disputed claim of anomalous heat as fact, which is NPOV. The whole added text is completely unreferenced, which would need to be fixed. --Noren (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a point; I forgot that sometimes no excess heat ever appears in some of the experiments. Unreliable excess heat production has been, as we know, a major problem. Reliability has improved in recent years, but excess heat production is as yet still not a certain thing, in the typical electrolysis experiment. (On the other hand, the SPAWAR codeposition variation may in fact be very reliable, if they can claim excess heat observed after only a day.) I will tweak the added text. V (talk) 16:39, 29 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that does not count, alas. Your link does not show the DIA document was formally published by the DIA. It is merely a copy of an escaped/leaked document--essentially an informal publication. There is no way the sticklers-for-formality around here could accept that. V (talk) 16:12, 28 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[1]. 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.[2] 99.191.74.146 (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don'tknow about you, but i rarely bother to write "draft" on my drafts. nonetheless, o long a it is subjet to being edited before being published, i.e. o long as it is not published, it is a draft. ofcoursee many type of documents, such as minutes of meetings, are never edited and "publihing" amount to being ditributed to those in attendance. but this is not one of those type of documents. Kevin Baas^talk 14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you know you don't know about me? Leaked DIA documents often end up taking a special historical significance. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 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)

What do you think the actual answer is, then? Same organization, different organization, part (if part, which is the parent?), or some other form of merger? Are you going to answer the question above about whether the material should be included attributed to the DIA? 99.27.134.160 (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nature Magazine and the non-importance of failed replications

Introduction: 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.(...) any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons" 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)

Are you suggesting we should cite a fictitious story to demonstrate the validity of cold fusion? I'm confused. Apart from that, I don't understand why the DOE statement you quoted matters. Perhaps you can clarify. Of course a VALID demonstration of cold fusion would be revolutionary. That's like saying a VALID demonstration of perpetual motion or ESP would be revolutionary. The importance of a VALID cold fusion demonstration is covered in the article already, with text such as These reports raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy in the lead and the "Reaction to the Announcement" section. Phil153 (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't figure out what that Nature opinion piece is supposed to mean. As for validity, when do we get to add the pairs (and triples, etc.) of independent confirmations of various experiments from the peer-reviewed primary sources? Why have those been objected to? 99.38.149.213 (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Nature piece is from their recurring Futures section. It's a weekly one-page science fiction story, pure and simple: [3]. It's not an editorial, nor even an opinion piece. I would submit that "even a single short but valid observation of the Loch Ness monster would be revolutionary" — but as with cold fusion, the continued absence of evidence is entirely uninteresting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 09:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Related side discussion

I partly agree and partly disagree. Do remember that the CF issue has two components. The first is the generation of heat energy in quantities greater than can be explained by ordinary means. The second is the interpretation that fusion is the event yielding the observed energy. So, we have a great many reliable observations of the first thing. That by itself should be far from "uninteresting"!! It demands a greater depth of research! What we don't have is adequate reliable observations that fusion has been involved. Isn't it logical that if a greater depth of research is conducted, we could perhaps either verify or rule out the hypothesis of fusion-as-explanation? "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." --but what might be said about anyone attempting to interfere with gathering appropriate evidence? By, say, insisting that the two parts of the CF issue must be combined in such a way as to muddy Wikipedia reporting, and consequent communication with potential readers/experimenters? (you talked about "absence of evidence" of what precisely???) V (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the content of a Wikipedia article should interfere with experiments or evidence-gathering in the real world. In general, research programs and funding decisions are not governed by Wikipedia articles — and we certainly shouldn't be advocating particular research directions. Cold fusion advocates have had twenty years to verify fusion-as-explanation; 'absence of evidence' starts to look suspiciously like 'evidence of absence' after a couple of decades of failure. If they come up with something persuasive it will make it into Wikipedia, but until then it's not our role to Teach the Controversy. Meanwhile, excess heat that might not be from fusion looks to me like the cold fusion's world's answer to irreducible complexity that might not be from the Christian God. I really don't want to get into a religious argument with you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I shall be happy to explain it to you. Some of the people who read Wikipedia are bright young kids who will go on to do great things -- provided they have information to work with that is as complete as possible, and not stifled by chosen-to-be-ignorant/out-of-date POV-pushers (you, for example, prove yourself to be one of them, since you don't know that roughly the last five years of your claimed "couple decades of failure" has been full of successful replications of excess energy production, regardless of whatever has caused it). It is the future experiments of those grown kids that will be affected negatively by such inaccurate/out-of-date/incomplete reporting (kids do not normally have easy access to technical journals) -- some might not even bother to try. And as for your nonsense about "teaching controversy", it is exactly nonsense since this article is already about a controversial subject (therefore both sides need to be presented in excellent detail), and not about taking a well-understood subject and making it controversial. And no, fusion wasn't so super-well-understood that surprises such as muon-catalyzed fusion could not be discovered. How do you know for certain that no other surprises wait to be found? Something is causing excess energy to appear in various deuterium-saturated experiments, and not causing it to appear in equivalent plain-hydrogen experiments. That's the basic fact. Whether or not fusion is involved is unimportant compared to attempts to say, in effect, "The claim that fusion is involved means nobody should bother investigating the basic fact." <--THAT'S the prime stupidity about which I am most strenuously objecting! V (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; you were right. I didn't understand your point until you started insulting me. Clearly I agree completely with your Truth, and I know now that we need to protect the children. You don't need to argue any further to persuade me. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no insult in simple truth. You stated, and I quote, "...'absence of evidence' starts to look suspiciously like 'evidence of absence' after a couple of decades of failure." The statement is false, since the last half-decade has not been full of failed experiments. Now, either you didn't know that (in which case saying you were ignorant is simple truth and not an insult), or you were lying outright. If that was true it would technically not be an insult to say you were a liar. (Kind of like calling a female dog a "bitch" --it is precisely the correct terminology, regardless of connotations.) You can see which assumption I made, about your statement, in my previous post. Because I'm well aware that quite a few experts in the field of hot fusion, once they dismissed the idea of cold fusion, never bothered to keep up with experimental developments; ignorance is the more probable explanation for your statement. You are welcome, of course, to correct me by stating you were lying...but I will not stand still while you claim, in essence, that simple truths are inherently insulting. V (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I ignorant, or am I a liar? Mu. I hope that you someday learn how to interact with people who disagree with you. Until then, please find somewhere else to vent your spleen. (Incidentally, you also seem to be confused about the history of muon-catalyzed fusion. μCF had a sound theoretical basis compatible with existing nuclear physics, and was in fact predicted years before it was observed. You probably ought to be more careful about your research before making extraordinary claims.) I'm done with you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, your feeble attempt at a rebuttal does not change the fact that you made a false statement --and your failure to provide a third explanation for making that statement only reinforces the validity of the question ("mu" is thus not an applicable response --because if it was applicable, there would be a reason why, that could be explained). In my book, anyone who makes a false statement, and avoids explaining it, deserves short shrift in the politeness department. Not to mention that the people who actually discovered muon catalyzed fusion in action were not immediately aware of that dusty theoretical work; they were indeed surprised by the discovery (even if only temporarily). I do know some of the story, if not all the details. Next, are you not aware that Pons & Fleischmann conducted their original experiments on the speculative basis that perhaps a Quantum-Mechanical version of the classical multi-body-problem might offer another pathway toward low-energy fusion? In their minds, therefore, they had what they thought was a reasonable hypothesis to test. Was their hypothesis taken seriously enough to find theoretical flaws in it? No (nor has most any other proposed explanation). The evidence of the last twenty years suggests that the top theorists were so convinced that the claims were flawed, of excess energy production, that they didn't feel any need to bother with any proposal that fusion might be happening. Now it is of course possible that fusion is not happening in those experiments, but it is extremely improbable, now, that the experimental results, of excess energy production, are still flawed. (It even got published in Physics Letters A as experimental replication, a few months ago.) Some explanation for the phenomenon is therefore required. So, if not fusion, then what? Care to try again, regarding explaining your false statement? V (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for article: I'm not suggesting that we should quote the Nature story. I'm suggesting to include statements explaining that failed replications do not matter, as the Nature story illustrates and as the DOE said in 1989. Our lead section says that the early failures to replicate were key elements in casting cold fusion as pathological science in the 1990's: this was a wrong argument, as was the theoretical one, but it is still used today very often by unreliable sources. As for VALID experiment, what do you think of the American Chemical Society's statement in March 2009: "Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low energy nuclear reactions" ? (Their statement was reported in many other journals, giving it both the notability and reliability it needs to be included in the lead, in my opinion.) Pcarbonn (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 ACS meeting is already mentioned in three parts of the article: in the lead (in present footnote 11), in a later paragraph, and in a video link at the bottom. Even so, Pcarbonn wants to include more discussion of it in order to make the wikipedia article more pro-CF. For those who may not know, this is the kind of activity that led to his ban a year ago. Olorinish (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For those who may not know, Olorinish is right when he describes the ban as having been the result of a content dispute. Shame! When will the article reflect the fact that the peer-reviewed literature hasn't seen an article critical of cold fusion for over five years, and in that same span of time has seen dozens of independent replications and other articles from the same point of view that anyone who has ever been banned from this article tried to represent in the article? 99.25.115.5 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC) corrected by: 99.27.201.92 (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I right to conclude from the discussion above that the 2004 DOE quote ("Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons") is not controversial ? If so, I would propose to add it to the History section where the DOE is discussed. Comments welcome. Content dispute do not automatically result in a ban, if there are properly addressed using dispute resolution mechanism. By the way, the record shows that editors on both sides of the cold fusion debate have been banned in the past. If there is still a dispute on this article, it should be addressed by a DR process such as mediation. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the quote is not controversial at all; in fact it is so obvious that adding it to the article would add nothing, and instead would distract the reader. Olorinish (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ah, there you go: by that logic it fails the notability/significance test. i'd also add that it's a POV and thus if it were to be included it should be so as attributed opinion, which raises the notability bar. Kevin Baas^talk 14:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What the DOE considers "revolutionary" is not notable exactly why again please? 99.27.201.92 (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

it's not notable because the truth of the statement is fairly obvious. the strength/nature of the words in the sentence has no bearing on notability, it's the how improbable the assertion is. and in this case, the assertion is highly probable. i.e. no one disputes that IF there were a "short but valid cold fusion period" that would be "revolutionary", that is, it would call in to question much of what we take for granted about nuclear physics. that is really quite obvious. any particular source stating the obvious is really quite un-extraordinary. To put it more technically, "notability" means we want to have a high density of information in the article. And that is measured by "surprise", or, more formally, Kullback-Leibler divergence. And since that assertion agrees with most models of physics and scientific progress, the KL-divergence of it is nearly zero. I would be like saying, "Oh, and grass is green." (And adding emphasis, such as "Oh, and like the grass is TOTALLY green, man." doesn't make the assertion any less trivial.) Kevin Baas^talk 18:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How could the statement possibly be obvious to a non-technical reader, or even a technically literate reader unfamiliar with the field? Can you point to any other statement in the entire encyclopedia which has ever been excluded from a controversial article because it was obvious? 208.54.5.73 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything taht's been excluded on account of undue weight, lack of notability, or in certain caes, POV-porblem (e.g. repetition), was excluded for the same reason. Quite regardless of whether or not the article, or the material for that matter, was controversial. Kevin Baas^talk 13:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On furhter investigation, the policy - perhaps on account of it being written from a classical paradigm rather than a more modern approach - only mentions it briefly and vaguely (in WP:DUE): "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Here they use "significance", which is more complex, but include the aforementioned "surprise". Suffice it to say that my little KL-divergence note goes much deeper: the fact that we/speak or write at all presumes that we have information to convey; that there is KL-divergence between the model we communicate and the reciever's preconcieved model; i.e. that reading comprehension amounts to something of a "bayesian update". were this not the case our words might as well be a random combination of letters. fdgahfkghrdgiulrehlrehnvrevwrmvmer my point is that this is a fact inherent in language - and even deeper than that - in communication - whether between two humans, two computers, or two brain cells. You can't avoid it. But you can use it to write better articles. And it's pivotal for neutrality. For further clarification I guess you can read the neutrality ection of my user page. Kevin Baas^talk 14:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

An alternative proposal. I'm wondering why we say the following in the lead : "Enthusiasm turned to scepticism as replication failures were weighed in view of several reasons cold fusion should not be possible (...)". It is obvious that these two arguments cannot be recognized as valid by any scientists worth its salt, and the sources we provide don't explicitly say it either, as far as I can see. Shouldn't we remove it, in view of the discussion we just had ?

It is not obvious to me how the first argument (replication failures) cannot be recognized as a valid reason to become skeptical. It might be interesting if statistics could be gathered regarding the manufacturing methods used for the pieces of palladium used in each of the replication-attempts. There were not very many successful replications in the early days; some of the failures might be attributable to ending the experiment prior to adequate deuterium loading; most of the rest could be blamed on the bad luck of having a piece of palladium with an inappropriate microstructure. The few who were lucky simply got drowned out, which is not entirely unreasonable. Science depends on reliable replications of experiments, after all. The part that is not reasonable was the backlash about fusion being involved (obviously it could not be reasonably expected to be involved in any experiment that failed to produce anomalous energy! Not enough experimenters succeeded at the primary replication stage, for Science to be able to rationally proceed to the stage of trying to find out if fusion was causing the anomalous energy. Only in the past five years or so has the rate of replication-of-production-of-anomalous-energy become high enough for that second stage to become an investigation-priority. On the other hand, due to the overall controversy of the topic, it seems to me that the actual highest priority for people in the CF field is to get the word out, that now enough is known that most experimenters should be able to fairly reliably produce anomalous energy. Succeed at that, and nothing will stand in the way of serious investigation as to the source of that energy. Pcarbonn, I think your proposal below should be modified to retain the current text regarding early replicaton failures. V (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead would then say something like this: "Enthusiasm turned to scepticism when possible sources of experimental errors were discovered, and when it became evident that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected the expected nuclear reaction byproducts." Pcarbonn (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Krivit Elsevier Encyclopedia Articles Publish

Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources Five-Volume Set http://www.elsevierdirect.com/brochures/ecps/

Krivit, S.B, “Cold Fusion: History,” Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, Vol 2, Juergen Garche, Chris Dyer, Patrick Moseley, Zempachi Ogumi, David Rand and Bruno Scrosati, eds, Amsterdam: Elsevier; Nov. 2009. p. 271–276, ISBN 9780444520937

Krivit, S.B, “Cold Fusion - Precursor to Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions,” Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, Vol 2, Juergen Garche, Chris Dyer, Patrick Moseley, Zempachi Ogumi, David Rand and Bruno Scrosati, eds, Amsterdam: Elsevier; Nov. 2009. p. 255–270, ISBN 9780444520937

Notes:

1. These articles were peer-reviewed.

2. The articles were invited.

3. I believe the "Precursor" article may be the first comprehensive encyclopedia article on CF/LENR to publish in a PRINT encyclopedia. (Please correct if this assertion is wrong.)

4. Anybody wishing a complementary copy of the articles may send an email to steven1@newenergytimes.com.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Page 49 (PDF page 4) of http://www.elsevierdirect.com/brochures/ecps/PDFs/PowerTools_Batteries.pdf has a table which seems more useful than anything in battery (electricity), although we don't do too bad[4]. Do you have a plot of excess power along a Pd:B alloy ratio axis? 99.27.201.92 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Loading Time" discussion

In the "Another Proposal" section currently near the top of this page I described some edits, only the last of which was disputed in that section. The other day I decided it was time to start implementing the edits, and in doing so invited others to add appropriate references. Now Hipocrite has come along and deleted the text on the basis, apparently, that the references were not added. This is ridiculous! If references were not available, regarding the text I added, I would have expected Hipocrite to have raised that point in the original discussion above. This is the text that was removed (from the "Experimental Details" section, just before the "Excess heat observations" subsection): "Note that even when anomalous heat does appear, it can take weeks for it to begin to appear, and this is known as the "loading time", for the palladium to become saturated with deuterium released via electrolysis. However, in a significant advance, the SPAWAR team pioneered a "co-deposition" technique for greatly reducing the loading time; palladium metal 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. They report typically observing excess heat within a day."

I'm sure someone around here knows of specific RS references that support those statements. Especially in the case of the definition of "loading time" ---for example, here is a Non-RS link in which the phrase is used so casually the author appears to be assuming any reader will know what it is: http://amasci.com/weird/anode.txt --the text describes an experiment in which this is claimed: "2. It is *totally reproducible* -- at will -- with no loading time as in the Pd/heavy water experiments" (The text also mentions publication of the experiment in 1950 in the RS "Journal of the Electrochemical Society", but that's not really relevant to this particular discussion.) What is highly relevant is that the text refers to an "upcoming issue" of the non-RS magazine "Infinite Energy" as being issue #20 --that magazine publishes 6 times a year, and the current issue is #88, so this means that the text I've linked, that so casually talks about "loading time", is plenty old enough for appropriate RS sources to exist, regarding it.

My Google search that found the above linked text also found this item: http://www.springerlink.com/content/q05420j448382338/ --an RS article dated June 1990, about an attempted/failed replication of the original P&F experiment. The Google search found this text: "It is believed that the loading time scales with the thickness of the piece, squared. ... volved in the so-called cold fusion experiments." --which I think probably exists somewhere in the depths of the actual article, and not on the abstract page that Google presented. It's kind of interesting that this experiment was terminated after only 3 weeks of (possibly inadequate) loading time, while deuterium that had gotten into the palladium was still coming out 8 weeks later. Since it is now known that the microstructure of the metal (how was it fabricated?) plays a role, it is possible that no amount of loading time would have sufficed for that particular experiment. Again, though, this experiment isn't as important here as the fact that the report is more evidence that the phrase "loading time" has been in use for a long time in the CF research field! The article here should have this in it! V (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent data has shown that even something you think would be as simple as loading behavior is not well understood by the empiricists. That presents dim prospects for finding any source not recognizing the oscillatory behavior of loading which anyone paying attention would call reliable. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Search in all SPAWAR papers:

• "Characterization of Tracks in CR-39 Detectors Obtained as a Result of Pd/D Co-deposition," Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., (2009). It describes the charging procedure as follows: "Palladium is then plated out onto the cathode substrate using a charging profile of 100 μA for 24 h, followed by 200 μA for 48 h followed by 500 μA until the palladium has been plated out. (...) After the palladium has been electrochemically plated out, the cathodic current is increased to 1 mA for 2 h, 2 mA for 6 h, 5 mA for 24 h, 10 mA for 24 h, 25 mA for 24 h, 50 mA for 24 h, 75 mA for 24 h , and 100 mA for 24 h."

• Reply to comment on 'The use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments': a response to Kowalski," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, Vol. 44, p. 291–295 (2008) No comment on charging

• "Triple Tracks in CR-39 as the Result of Pd–D Co-deposition: Evidence of Energetic Neutrons," , Naturwissenschaften, 2008 : " Upon completion of the experiment, which typically run 2–3 weeks,(...)"

• “Detection of Energetic Particles and Neutrons Emitted during Pd:D Co-deposition", Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Source Book, American Chemical Society , Chapter 14, pp 311-334. (2008).

• “Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments”, EPJ Applied Physics, 40, 293 (2007). Same procedure as the first paper above

• “Further Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd/D Lattice: Emission of Charged Particles”, Naturwissenschaften,, 94, 511 (2007). No comment on charging procedure

• “Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd Lattice”, Naturwissenschaften, 92, 394 (2005). "For the present case, the cell current profile was as follows: 1 mA for the first 24 h followed by 3.0 mA for a period necessary to reduce all Pd2+ ions (i.e., when the solution becomes colorless). (...) The far from equilibrium condition is realized by increasing the cell current to 100 mA or higher."

• “The Effect of an External Electric Field on Surface Morphology of Co-Deposited Pd/D Films”, J. Electroanal. Chem., 580, 284 (2005). "1.0 mAcm-2 for 8 h, 3 mA cm-2 for 8 h and at 5.0 mA cm-2 until all Pd2+ ions were reduced, i.e. when, by visual inspection, the solution becomes colorless. Upon completion of the Pd deposition, the cell current was increased to a value needed to maintain a visible gas evolution (usually 30–50 mA cm-2) for the next 2–3 h followed by the cell placement in an electric field (500– 3000 V cm-1) with the cell current increased to about 100 mA cm-2 for the next 48 h or longer. "

• “Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes Prepared by Co-Deposition”, Thermochimica Acta, 410, 101 (2004). "No re-filling of the cells was necessary due to the short time period of these experiments (8 days) and the low current that were used for the first 5 days" The chart do show some temperature increase in the beginning of the experiment though.

So, experiments typically last several days, and a graph in the last document shows that thermal effects have been observed in the beginning of these experiments. However, I could not find any statement that could be quoted here. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)