Talk:Cold fusion

IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss your personal opinions of the merits of cold fusion research. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about cold fusion and the associated scientific controversy surrounding it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

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

available in the market

"working machine available in the market" Rossi is not taking any order from customers. You can only buy an E-Cat by contacting Rossi directly and negotiating a custom contract. Heck, he still has to sell (and deliver successfully and test that it works!) any unit to anyone in any market whatsoever. There is no unit "available in the market", independently tested or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Enric. We can rediscuss the "availability in the market" when Rossi has delivered a handful of devices to preferably several known customers. Until then, there is no need to change the wording, also because the status of the Rossi device is described in sufficient detail immediately following this sentence. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that in my "news" post above I neglected to think about the overall "reliability" issue associated with CF experiments. I know I've stated in several posts over several months that the pressurized-deuterium experiments seem to have had zero failures to produce anomalous energy (and so far nobody here has pointed out a case where such an experiment has failed). Rossi is obviously boldly assuming that his design is reliable enough to sell --which I'm sure is a primary reason the CF detractors have suspected him of being a charlatan. But if he is actually succeeding... then probably something about the reliability of the pressurized-deuterium experiments should be put somewhere in the article here. I know I'm still waiting for some relevant second- or third-party source to talk about this, so that the normal/formal rules here can be followed, but if Rossi is making Genuine News, then doesn't that open a relatively standard alternate route, for getting certain things into Wikipedia? V (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Heres a CNN report (an "ireport", less formal than most CNN reports): http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-696792 --it says that the Associated Press has a world exclusive on the formal news report. So far, though, I don't see such news at the AP website (conspiracy theorists, start your engines!). V (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Like most ireports, that one has not been vetted. The author, Joe Shea, has a long history of reporting fringe topics in less-than credible publications. This will do nothing to improve the article. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Try reading what I actually wrote, instead of what you think I wrote! Why doesn't "less formal" equate with "not vetted"? The report we need is the Associated Press report. But where is it??? V (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with you. See Talk:Blacklight_Power/Archive_4#Joe_Shea_socks...probably. and the subsequent section re ireports.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google search for "Associated Press" and "Andrea Rossi" yields a number of hits to sites that are talking about (as I write this) how 4 days have passed and the Associated Press either is sitting on the story, or has killed it. So, either of two Questions seems ask-able: "What do they know that we don't, which makes that story not-newsworthy?" or "Is AP under the influence of some organazation that wants to keep positive CF results quiet?" --In the meantime, we editors here get to feel a bit like the mythological Tantalus.... V (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

e-cat not room temperature

Some one suggested the cf article says LENR happens at room temperature being inconsistent with the e-cat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Cold_fusion_link_is_inappropriate

84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about the e-cat. At what temperature does it start to produce energy? I'm sure the temperature can be expected to go up if the reaction does indeed produce energy, but that doesn't have anything to do with the initial temperature. V (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

IT requires preheating. The only problem the article has is that it isn't room temperature.84.107.153.57 (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"At what temperature does it start to produce energy?" Nobody even knows if it produces energy. Until it is tested by qualified independent observers under properly-controlled conditions, there is no reason to think that it is anything than a figment of Rossi's imagination. Don't believe the hype... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you failed to read all of what I wrote. I'm quite aware that the claims of energy production are not independently verified. But I'm also aware that even a charlatan needs to make claims that are not self-contradictory. I said I didn't know, and it usually doesn't hurt to ask. Now, as to LENR and "room temperature", it happens that the e-cat isn't the only thing out there claiming to involve LENR. This is the first I've heard that any of them need to be warmed up first. Well, the article actually specifies "ordinary temperatures", and has "room temperature inside parentheses. We could prepand an "e.g." to the "room temperature" which would make it merely an example. After all, aren't "ordinary" temperatures found ranging from that inside the typical household freezer to that inside the typical household oven? If the e-cat operates somewhere in that range, then the slight modification just mentioned might be adequate. V (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you watch this video before doing any further editing. http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1150242

The cold fusion article primarily describes the P&F experiment which is inconsistent with the description of the Energy Catalyzer. It doesn't operate at room temperature but requires preheating, there is no deuterium or palladium but nickel and light hydrogen. Are we going to fix this or should we restart the LENR article? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This article describes many cold fusion experiments, including the Rossi devices. It puts greater weight on the electrolysis/palladium/deuterium approaches because that is what is emphasized in the literature.Olorinish (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying to broaden the topic would do harm to the explanation of the original experiment. The topic is already confusing enough. Trying to split LERN into a new article would require some serious work.84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So far the Rossi approach has had only a sprinkle of discussions in major news outlets, so it only has a paragraph in the current version. As the number and importance of the published discussions increase, this article will be changed to reflect that. Regarding the temperature of the Rossi device, its temperature of operation is much, much closer to room temperature than to typical fusion temperatures of around 1,000,000 degrees, so it is still accurate to call it cold fusion. Olorinish (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not correct, there are 40 000 news articles[1] 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And there are even more on Andrew Smith [2]. Have you ever pondered on the idea that more people might go by the name of Andrea Rossi ? --POVbrigand (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing the e-cat thing here? There is a separate article: Energy Catalyzer all about it - and we have a statement at the top of this article that says: "This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature. For the original use of the term 'cold fusion', see Muon-catalyzed fusion. For all other definitions, see Cold fusion (disambiguation).". SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

ignorance of physicist

Brian Josephson appealed at the meeting of the Nobel Laureates July 2004 against the ignorance of physicist to the phenomenon of cold fusion.

we should mention this.

Here is the peer reviewed source:

Supporting the Josephson Interpretation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Stabilization of Nuclear Waste F. Osman, H. Hora, X.Z. Li, G.H. Miley and J.C. Kelly [3]

--POVbrigand (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

He deserves mention but we shouldn't go into the endless insults to far. I've used the source already as: <ref name=pseudoskept/> but it lacks formatting. (just so that you know) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Describe modern meaning of "cold fusion" under "Before the Fleischmann–Pons experiment"

The current text:

The term "cold fusion" was used as early as 1956 in a New York Times article about Luis W. Alvarez's work on muon-catalyzed fusion. E. Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University also used the term "cold fusion" in 1986 in an investigation of "geo-fusion", the possible existence of fusion in a planetary core.

I tried to add this to that:

"Then the term was used strictly to refer to the Pons and Fleischmann experiment, today "cold fusion" is also used to refer to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions in general."

On my talk page User:MelbourneStar objected to this:[4]

I explained:

The cold fusion article describes a broad scope of low energy nuclear reactions. Historic use of the term should include the most recent change. Rossi for example doesn't consider his findings cold fusion but everyone else does. This is common knowledge to anyone who looked into the topic but the reader doesn't know this. His device also doesnt use paladium and requires just enough preheating to make the term "room temperature" dubious (see: #e-cat_not_room_temperature above). Changing the article as a whole to reflect this is never going to be accepted just like that so we have to do it one step at a time.

DVdm then came to my talk page to basically repeat the original statement about un-sourced material:[5] He says I need talk page consensus for the contribution.

Then SteveBaker came to my talk page as well to repeated the same thing for a 3rd time:[6] I need a reliable source and consensus on the talk page. I then moved the discussion to this article talk page and provided a source, because that is what this discussion is really about "the article". DVdm then told me this isn't allowed[7] and removed it.[8] He send me to the talk page guidelines where I found no such statement but ok...

If you would all PLEASE be so kind to discuss the article on the talk page we would of course have resolved this issue in 1 minute.

I was going to add this source: [9]

Does anyone object to explaining the historic meaning of "cold fusion" like this? It can probably be worded better than I did but I feel it should be made clear what the term means. Not just the first change but also the second.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If indeed that source backs the statement you want to add, then by all means go ahead. But make sure the statement is not something that you synthesise from the text, and do specify the exact page on which the statement is backed. - DVdm (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the naming Cold fusion vs LENR, I suggest you read this first [10].

To me it is a difficult topic to get right, as there are many possible rights. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And... Well actually no, it should be perfectly acceptable to have a seperate LENR article. Just like we have a Krusty Krab AND a Sponge Bob article. Just like we have a Quackwatch and a Stephen Barrett article. This guy has a wikipedia article for his website and the scientists of the world shouldn't be allowed to have a LENR article? We should force all scientists to point people to the cold fusion article when they are talking about LENR? The whole thing smells like Wikipedia amateurism.

Lets propose merging muon fusion into this article to! Surely that wont further complicate explaining the P&F controversy?

• Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR),

Could have it's own article.

• Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR),

Not sure, it probably means the same thing?

• Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR),

This describes a specific set of experiments?

• Cold Nuclear Transmutations,

I haven't seen this one before, it seems to suggest to require transmutation products so it would technically be a whole different topic? A much more specific term?

• Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions

I haven't seen CFNR either.

• New Hydrogen Energy

I can imagine the deletion debate for an article named like that. To much crusaders for alt energy fascism to even consider it. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Cold Fusion and LENR are basically the same thing. The different naming reflects the different understanding or different possible explanation of the observed effects. To me LENR, CANR and LANR are definitely 100% synonyms of each other. The name LENR was used because it was thought to be more appropriate for the observed effect. But as long as the theory of how this effect happens is not clear, we cannot decide which naming is the best. To me it's all the same. The infighting about "it's cold fusion"- "it's not cold fusion, it's LENR" is plain silly and very confusion for the casual reader. I don't think splitting up the article is such a great idea. I wouldn't be able to tell was goes to "cold fusion" and what goes to "LENR". --POVbrigand (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Cold fusion article should describe half baked science by press release with scientists failing to replicate the device from a photograph, without loading the palladium, then claiming it debunks the idea. This article will use all those silly media references, describe the abuse and the drama. It involves palladium, electrolysis and heavy watter and it occurs at room temperature.

The LENR article should be focused on the science. All the other energy producing chemical reactions. The Energy Catalyzer uses nickel and requires preheating. By what stretch of imagination is it the same experiment? Should we merge everything into Electrolysis perhaps? A LENR article will include debunkers who actually refer to LENR.

Debunking references from the 90's are perfectly valid reference material for the Cold fusion article. When applied to LENR they look completely silly, potentially offensive. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Look into the reason why the old LENR article was deleted for being a fringe-fork. Do you think we can argue this time that it makes sense. I think before we can do that we should imporve the cold fusion article "ongoing scientific work" section. Because if I understand you correctly the LENR article should be about the current scientific work right ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A 2010 Storms article

"Status of cold fusion" http://www.springerlink.com/content/9522x473v80352w9/fulltext.pdf The publication info is: Naturwissenschaften, 2010, Volume 97, Number 10, Pages 861-881. This article qualifies as secondary-source, not primary-source, and part of it describes some of the pressurized-deuterium experiments. V (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As I hinted on your talk page, I think this peer reviewed reliably published secondary source can be used to add a mentioning of replication of Arata's experiment in the Cold_fusion#Ongoing_scientific_work section. I was actually looking for a secondary source saying that Kitamura (and Kidwell) had replicated Arata like is mentioned here [11] --POVbrigand (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

non-fusion nuclear reactions

The current version has this sentence: "However some in the field don't regard it as just an alternative naming of the same field but as a more accurate description of a completely different phenomena, since they believe the reported effects cannot be explained by nuclear fusion but by other non-fusion nuclear reactions happening at lower energies." I don't have that book; can someone tell me what it says about non-fusion nuclear reactions? If it doesn't say much we should probably remove discussion of non-fusion nuclear reactions. Olorinish (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You can go here and do some snippet searches. It's not much —you get these tiny windows on the text— but perhaps it can do the job. The sentence does indeed sound a bit like wp:or or wp:synthesis. - DVdm (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We should be happy to have this. Basically the journalists are calling everything fusion now. lol 84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read about the proposed theory from Widom-Larsen which was published in peer review journal and is also included in the newly published Wiley encyclopedia of nuclear energy: [12] than you will see the sentence is not or nor synth. Storms (2007) in his book discusses several proposed theories. The peer reviewed paper by Storms (2010)[13] also gives enough info to support the line in question. see also [14] --POVbrigand (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know which researchers believe that non-fusion reactions are responsible? Maybe that reference could be placed near this quote. Olorinish (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I do and I have already given you a hint in my previous comment. You could also read neutron capture, proton capture, beta decay.

"We (NASA) now understand this theory"

Stanislaw Szpak, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss and Frank E. Gordon, SPAWAR

Terminology explained on the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science website:"As time passed during the 1990s, processes other than fusion of two deuterons were reported. These transmutation reactions involved and produced isotopes of nuclei with moderate and high atomic weights, that is, they are nuclear reactions not involving only two light nuclei, such as fusion."

peer reviewed paper stating the same

-- POVbrigand (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please try to actually cite papers, it does help to keep discussions clear. The latest paper you refer to was:

Steven B. Krivit and Jan Marwan (2009). "A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research". J. Environ. Monit. 11: 1731–1746. doi:10.1039/B915458M.

Despite the obscure choice of journal, it has had published responses:

• Kirk L. Shanahan (2010). "Comments on "A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research"". Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 12 (9): 1756. doi:10.1039/c001299h.
• J. Marwan, M. C. H. McKubre, F. L. Tanzella, P. L. Hagelstein, M. H. Miles, M. R. Swartz, Edmund Storms, Y. Iwamura, P. A. Mosier-Boss and L. P. G. Forsley (2010). "A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research: a response to Shanahan". Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 12 (9): 1765. doi:10.1039/c0em00267d.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

LeadSongDog come howl! 14:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Storms

I cant start articles. Storms has so many refs on wikipedia now. Isn't it time for him to get an article?84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

How does he stack up in terms of general notability? For example: I (personally) have about the same number of mentions within Wikipedia articles as Storms does - but there is no article about me because I'm not sufficiently notable. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability (people) both have to be addressed before we can write about a living person. Is this guy an academic? If so, then Wikipedia:Notability (academics) applies. Generally, we try to err on the side of NOT creating articles for living persons if there is doubt. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you are not notable. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

List of LENR researchers was "List of cold fusion researchers"

Is this perhaps a good idea to create some transparency? Like we have a List of Ufologists a List of cryptozoologists and a List of cognitive neuroscientists. I've seen people suggest the E-Cat should be merged into Cold fusion, seems the article failed to give it's readers an idea what is going on. We definitely don't want a section on each researcher in the article. How many are there anyway? I hear mention of 200, most wouldn't have article of their own so a list would be nice to have. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a great idea

How many ? Rothwell gives a good indication [15] --POVbrigand (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

He lists 350 authors. Could you make the article? I think this would be good enough for a start:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=459801767

84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, inclusion in such a list would certainly require either reliable self-identification by the researcher, or a clear statement in a reliable and competent source. Rothwell's self-published list does not qualify. Indeed, even if he were reliable, the methodology seems to be to include all authors of a paper tentatively connected to CF research. That's not useful - not all authors of a paper will contribute to all parts. Maybe someone asked a statistician for an analysis of data, or a physical chemist to help set up the calorimetry for an experiment. That does not make either of these people a "cold fusion researcher". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

insert: I only now realized you thought I was just going to turn the list into an article and be done with it. You need not worry, the documentation provided by Rothwell is a valuable resource for the raw names. Every entry should have sources. Both note-worthyness and activity in the field.84.106.26.81 (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan. The subject of cold fusion is a strong negative for most scientists and that (rightly or wrongly) has a strong impact on whether someone gets a job/grant/tenure/Nobel Prize or not. Labeling someone as a "cold fusion researcher" who isn't active in that field of research is the kind of thing that might well provoke such a person into suing Wikipedia for defamation. Since it's not unreasonable to assume that a potential job interviewer would do a quick Wikipedia search on a candidate for a job - that's actually a very significant risk. This list could easily wreck someones' career and get Wikipedia into deep trouble. So we would have to be super-mega-careful only to include people who wrote positively about research that they personally undertook in the actual field itself. I certainly couldn't support just dumping that list of 200 names into such a list without having individually justified the selection of every single one of them from sources other than Rothwell's list. I'm nervous about this proposal and will be forced to strongly oppose it if these issues are not comprehensively dealt with. SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to firmly endorse both Steves' comments above. As SteveBaker cautions, there are very serious potential BLP issues here. As Stephan Schulz notes, the methodology – listing all coauthors of 'cold fusion' papers? – is badly flawed. My own work is pretty multidisciplinary and involves some diverse collaborations, but a reasonable approximation would be to say that my research is in the field of biochemistry. If one were to look at my publication history (especially the middle-author stuff and first-author publications from my undergrad and grad-school days) I'm not entirely sure how many different areas of research a creative reader might link me to using Rothwell's methods. I believe my most recently-published paper (middle author) actually deals with numerical methods, but anyone drawing thereby a conclusion that I was a mathematician would be sorely disappointed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that researchers who publish cold fusion papers in peer reviewed journals or who present their work on the annual "International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" would oppose to being on a list of cold fusion researchers. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious this is a kind of clarity some people wouldn't want to see. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the above sent me looking at List of Ufologists, and as suspected, it is a BLP disaster area. Let's not make matters worse by using it as an example. Any such list would need crystal clear criteria for inclusion and referencing. Unless we can justify adding the statement "X identifies himself and is acknowledged by Y as a UFOlogist/cold fusion researcher/homeopath/etc." (with suitable citations) to the lede of the person's bio, we shouldn't be putting them in a list or category that so imputes. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is Rotwell's original list back when it included 4500 names.[16] We obviously don't have to "offend" everyone by mentioning their "shameful" cold fusion research.

BTW, most researchers are over 50 and have a full time occupation. They note: Young researchers would do best to ignore the field because of negative skeptical bias.[17] Further BLP violations are unlikely. The idea association with cold fusion would be offensive is frankly idiotic. Please make up something more silly while you don't help creating this list. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We can make "a rule" that only presenters at the "International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" and writers of papers for peer reviewed journals are included. So instead of "list of cold fusion researchers" it would be "list of researchers that are clearly active in the cold fusion field". --POVbrigand (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude note worthy dead people, like I said it is a field full of elderly scientists who have nothing to loose. But before we get to the questionable inclusions we should probably start by listing the most note worthy persona.

I've started something on Talk:List_of_cold_fusion_researchers, lets discuss while working on the list. We don't even know what it will look like at this stage, it might prove silly trying to source it, I have no idea. I would have to look first before making conclusions. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Note. I had tagged the talk page for orphan-SD. See also User talk:DVdm#list of cold fusion researchers. Further comments please overhere as opposed to overthere? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

THE PAGE GOT DELETED. THANK YOU FOR SAVING WP WITH YOUR TAGGING THE PAGE. THE DELETING EDITOR DIDN'T EVEN READ THE EXPLANATION. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• The list should be named "List of LENR researchers" or "List of CMNS researchers" because that is how the field calls themselves nowadays
• Criteria for inclusion:
  • Has published a peer reviewed paper clearly on cold fusion / LENR
    • Co-authors should not be included automatically, but can be if they have consistently co-authored similar papers by the author, ie are in his research group.
    • Rossi's blog obviously doesn't count as peer reviewed
  • or has submitted papers/presentations for the annual "International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" visible in the proceedings
  • or has authored a book clearly propagation the CF/LENR science.

--POVbrigand (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Journal of Nuclear Physics

I've been wondering what disqualifies the Journal. It not just publishes papers but they are actually reviewed by university professors. Not that I'm against your agenda of erasing all mention of cold fusion/lern from wikipedia. I just want to hear a valid excuse for it.

Something like: "All those university professors are not to be trusted because ........"

Is there any doubt the professors listed are actually reviewing papers? This weird claim it is a personal diary doesn't have any sources does it? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"University professor" is a very stretchable term, especially in Italy, which suffers from an inflation of academic titles. I've checked a few of the people listed, none seems to have left a reasonable trace in the literature. The journal is not recognized or indexed by any major (or, as far as I can tell, minor) science citation service. And if you look at e.g. this "paper", it's obvious that the so-called "peer review" does not even notice glaring grammatical errors. A blog does not become a proper journal because you list a couple of your bodies as "scientific advisors". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that,

You claim to have checked some of the people listed. That seems reasonable enough. Lets see, you provided an example to. Traces in literature is important, we do of course check beyond that.

• Dott. Giuliano Bettini Retired.
• Earlier: Selenia SpA, Rome and IDS SpA, Pisa
• Also Adjunct Professor at the University of Pisa
• Adjunct Professor at Naval Academy, Leghorn (Italian Navy)

Find a copy of the resume.[18] ... I'm not seeing what you promised.

• Chatzichristos Aris, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Athens, Greece.

He might not be that impressive it does seem a good school?

• Christos Stremmenos

"a retired Professor of the Department of Physical and Inorganic Chemistry of the Faculty of Industrial Chemistry in the University of Bologna. He has served as Ambassador of Greece in Italy (1982-1987), and has been awarded the title of “Cavaliere di Gran Croce al Merito” of the Italian Republic. In the University of Bologna, as well as in the Polytechnic of Athens (National Technical University of Athens) he has taught Molecular Spectroscopy, Applied Spectroscopy and Photochemistry."[19]

hahaha, I'm sure his mum would be proud Stephan Schulz. He got deep into all the cold fusion back in the days. Exactly the kind of scientists we want to hear about the topic. He has good credentials and did research himself. He knows more about the topic than all the NYT journalists combined and those of fox news. lol The hands-off opinion journalism is getting old fast.

But the actual review panel would matter most I suppose.

• Prof. Sergio Focardi, while Arthur Rubin hates him he seems to be doing fine?
• Prof. Michael Melich, nothing wrong here[20]
• Prof. Alberto Carnera, nothing wrong here either, publications are listed. [21]
• Prof. Pierluca Rossi (University of Bologna – Italy)
• Prof. Luciana Malferrari (University of Bologna – Italy)
• Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire – USA)
• Prof. Stremmenos Christos (Nomenclature – Italy)
• Richard Noceti, Ph.D. (LTI-global.com)

If those are your science bubbies you should definitely start a journal together. It doesn't say professor of skepticism at the James Randi Educational foundation University of Bologna and University of New Hampshire are genuine universities.

I fear we are left with an argument that tries to disqualify the professors because of the topic they are addressing. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You did read Bettini's CV? The man is a veterinarian, not a physicist, much less a specialist in nuclear reactions. Focardi has reasonable resume, but he is nearly 80. Melich is also likely 80 or over (his B.S. was 60 years ago), and his publications are on reverse engineering of software. Pierluca Rossi may or may not be Pier Luca Rossi, a medical doctor. The only notable George Kelly I can find has been dead for 40 years. Noceti works for Rossi... and so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again,

• In his resume we see Pierluca Rossi, is a medical physicist specialized in radiation protection.
• It is well known there are no young people in the field because if you don't have tenure the oppressors will destroy your career.
• This is also why the journal exists, because no one else dares to publish this stuff. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So we agree that Pierluca Rossi has no competence to review papers on nuclear physics? You do know that there are tenured professors in their 30s, and plenty more in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, right? You don't need a conspiracy theory with "oppressors" to explain why it's hard to find a real journal that would publish [22] - it's badly written, lazily edited, and without any scientific merit even if you buy the premise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless how Rossi names his blog it is not a journal in the same sense how WP refers to peer-reviewed journals. One simple question, who is the publisher of this "journal". You will see that all the other "real" journals have a reliable scientific publisher who publishes them.

I must add to this that the authors of the published papers on Rossi's journal seem to be perfectly credible scientist (see for instance de:Yeong E. Kim). So I think those authors use this as a sort of preprint publishing, like Arxiv. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

First, make that "some of the authors". Wladimir Guglinski, e.g., is definitely not "a perfectly credible scientist". I notice that Kim does not list his Rossi-publications among his papers.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some or many, but certainly not all. From Yeong E. Kim's website: Selected Publications: Y. E. Kim, “Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion for Hydrogen-Metal System”, Purdue Nuclear and Many Body Theory Group (PNMBTG) Preprint PNMBTG-6-2011 (June 2011). Word-for-word identical with the rossi published paper. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So he stands by the paper, but thinks it's more prestigious as a preprint than a blog post. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

issues section

Most of the issues section is indeed about the ealy 1990s and most (if not all) of these issues have been resolved and debunked. But to understand "cold fusion" and why it was debunked this is valuable information.

When I started editing here early this year I found numerous references from early 1990s used to make debunking comments on experiment from 2006. And some editors thought that was ok. The whole article is a mess and garbles together old stuff and new experiments. Deleting useful information won't solve it though.

The whole "current scientific work" section is desperately underdeveloped and in no way reflects the magnitude of the actual ongoing work. See this list (still in work, so feel free to add something to it) --POVbrigand (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I really did think about fixing it, as a section about the P&F effect it does seem to address the valid questions raised 20 or so years ago. Today however, in the context of lern the section is pure disinformation. So it should be deleted.

If you wrote the section today, it would be deleted immediately.

Or let me push it like this: Until the cold fusion troll parade on Wikipedia argrees there should be a seperate LENR article there should not be any intentional misinformation in the cold fusion article.

You cant have it both ways.84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If there were lots of mentions of LENR proposals that were separate from cold fusion proposals, then a separate article would be a good idea. So far that does not seem to be the case. Am I missing something? Olorinish (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats the whole problem in a nut shell, there are lots of LENR reactions (actual effects) and they aren't covered in this article the way they should.

However, if we try to do that the pons and fleischmann coverage is going to vanish. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me once more point everyone to the header at the top of this article. It says:

"This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature. For the original use of the term 'cold fusion', see Muon-catalyzed fusion. For all other definitions, see Cold fusion (disambiguation)."

This is intended to be about the original 'cold fusion' debacle. It's essentially a historical document. If the field of LENR and all that stuff is burgeoning - then we should certainly start another article. But this one is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims - that is a significant and notable scientific event because it beautifully illustrates the self-correcting nature of scientific research. Someone makes a wild claim, it gets published and peer-reviewed - then a bunch of people try to replicate it and fail - then that work gets peer reviewed - people try to understand why there might be this discrepancy and they try to find the flaw in the original experiment - more papers are written. Eventually we understand where the excess heat came from and nobody believes in the original work. Thus science moves on. That story is of huge importance - and needs to be portrayed in an undiluted, clear-cut manner. The fringe physics that spun off from it (which even has a new name) is a footnote and needs to be discussed someplace else. Article(s) about that new work need to stand or fall on their own merits and not screw up this article. SteveBaker (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, it's not as easy as you think. At the same time that the debunkers won their victory in the media in 1989, other scientists successfully replicated the excess heat. It is indeed a story of huge importance, but not in the way you are led to believe. "The fringe science that spun off from it" - sorry, but it is a completely different story.

"then a bunch of people try to replicate it and fail" and then in the eyes of mainstream science the claims were dead and they never looked back. "then that work gets peer reviewed" - that never happened, at least not in the mainstream science world. After the original debunking in 1989 everything else was labeled "pathological" and avoided. Read the sources and be amazed.

"people try to understand why there might be this discrepancy and they try to find the flaw in the original experiment " - on the contrary: the failed replications were analyzed and they found flaws in them explaining why those replication never could have worked. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And you have sources that explain all of this, right? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Plenty

Artifex, you are a self-proclaimed skeptic. You can't be skeptic and prejudiced at the same time. Turn your skeptic eye at the cold fusion detractors. What do they really have to show that they are right ? The preponderance of evidence is not on their side, even if they thought so back in 1989. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

We are suppose to write an article for other people to get an idea what is going on. Whatever it says, we shouldn't trust any article ourselves. I can easily write an article that would completely convince 99% cold fusion is fake, I could also write an article that would convince 99% it is real. It is as simple as it is sad: All you have to do is marginalize one side of the story. We cant blame Wikipedia for being a bit reluctant to change controversies into facts. This is a very good mechanism to have.

But consider this: The DOE said it was all not real 2 times but a "small" group of scientists claim to have replicated the experiment successfully. As of 2009, the "small group" includes U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center. It might be interesting to figure out when exactly the corps started twitching again but for now the zombie science is alive and kicking.84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Goodstein's paragraph has been quoted out of context

Hi Olorinish, this is just to follow up on your reversion of an edit I made recently in an attempt to provide additional context to a paragraph that I felt was being quoted out of context. The paragraph currently suggests that David Goodstein felt that the cold fusion community had no experimental basis for a quixotic quest that it was pursuing and that the people involved in cold fusion research were simply delusional. I think the point he was making here was that that's how they are currently perceived, and that the negative attention they've garnered has served to obscure the experimental phenomena they're pursuing. Towards the end of the same essay he goes into some impressive experimental results and then writes:

What all these experiments really need is critical examination by accomplished rivals intent on proving them wrong. That is part of the normal functioning of science. Unfortunately, in this area, science is not functioning normally. There is nobody out there listening.

In other words, there's neither corroboration nor refutation of the new experimental findings -- the results that are being reported are simply not being examined in an adequate way. An important point here is that the lack of mainstream scientific scrutiny is hampering an understanding of the results. Earlier Goodstein says he doesn't believe that cold fusion is possible. But he goes to the effort to describe what would be needed to show that something was going on here, and the essay strongly suggests that, while he's skeptical of the whole endeavor, he allows for the possibility that something surprising could turn up.

In short, I think the edit was just fine as it was, and without some additional context, Goodstein's paragraph incorrectly implies that he's less sympathetic to the work of his friend and others than he really is. modify 23:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Modify, would the point be made if the introduction line were changed to something like this? "In 1994, David Goodstein, a professor of physics at Caltech, advocated for increased attention from mainstream researchers and described cold fusion as:" Olorinish (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that would do the trick. modify 03:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

DOE

I propose we pass around the hat and collect enough money for the US DOE to be able to build their own table top cold fusion device. Until they do we shouldn't pretend their "review" has any factual meaning. The report is just that far below DOE standards we shouldn't pretend it is real research. Any of the hundreds of failed experiments is more credible than the committee and we cant list all of those either. Does everyone on this page agree science by committee is just as bad as by press release?

There are successful replications and there are many unsuccessful research efforts. At the time the DOE report was valuable but today the committee has no weight in this. On top of that the other statements are all combined from many sources.

I understand from the pons and Fleischman perspective this was an important historical bit but in the more general sense it doesn't tell us anything we need.84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

ehmmm hahah? I just noticed the source of the "some scientists" who claim to have successfully replicated the experiment seems to include the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems? The DOE report has no weight against that. I'm changing it into: "In 1989, and in 2004, the US Department of Energy (DOE) considered a special program." It is important that the DOE science didn't actually happen, they didn't contradict SPAWAR. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

84.106, your view on the DOE is not correct. Your edit makes it look like the SPAWAR experiments are directly linked to the DOE 2004 verdict. Maybe that is true, but we do not know this for sure, it is OR to imply it the way you do now. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The US government may be considered a single entity in many ways. The DOE report is from 2004, the navy research was from 2009. I don't see a conflict. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

objections

Enric Naval didn't agree with any of my contributions, the edit summary reads: "undo all the POV pushing by 84.xxx still considered pathological, still pursued only by small groups, Jones' experiment is was not "similar", *they* said that it could only be explained by nuclear reactions"

He also warned me on my talk page.[23] It seems a bit premature but he did disagree with all of them so I suppose it was appropriate from his perspective. I would much rather just debate the suggested changes. I did try to make sepperate changes in order to make it easier to revert those that require more discussion.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I welcome your enthusiasm, but I also think that some of your changes are a bit too pushy. Take it a bit slower and stay within the consensus.

Thank you for taking the time to present each change here so we can comment them one by one.

Why don't you get an account ? POVbrigand (talk)

Should we name the several entrepreneurs or just say they exist

[24] "Several entrepreneurs have claimed in the past that a working cold fusion energy generator is near to commercialization, yet so far no working machine is available on the market."

I added the "who" part. I claim this is perfectly appropriate because the text only talks about the E-Cat. Reverting this requires a better excuse than to call it POV pushing.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What we write should be verifiable. It is not a must to write down each verification. Surely you won't argue that several entrepreneurs have indeed claimed that they had a working machine. Adding them into the article (maybe somewhere else) is something that we can discuss. POVbrigand (talk)

The tag is arguibly correct. Tags like {{who}} and {{clarify}} are just requests to clarify confusing stuff. Physics world (free registration) explains the case of Petterson cells. Park explains it too in Voodoo Science. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues section violates scope

[25] I changed the section title from:

"issues"

into:

"Issues with the Pons and Fleischmann experiment"

While not a very elegant solution it appeared to me that all those sections apply to the Pons and Fleischman experiment. This is not the whole scope of the article.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this (even if not very elegant) will solve some of the problems of discussing old and new stuff. It adds clarity. POVbrigand (talk)

The issues apply to the whole field, not just the first experiment: why the fusion shouldn't be happening in the lattice, what byproducts should be observed according to theory, etc.

I will amend that somewhat. Because one of the issues is whether or not any CF experiment can actually produce so much anomalous energy that it cannot be explained without invoking a nuclear reaction. If that issue happens to one day get resolved positively --as far as I can tell, it is the most important issue that CF researchers should be focusing on-- then the theorists can argue the other issues regarding overcoming nuclear Coulomb repulsion, reaction pathways, and byproducts. V (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

DOE decided to leave research to undefined small group

[26] This should probably have been split over more divs.

I reduce this:

"In 1989, the majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive enough to start a special program, but was "sympathetic toward modest support" for experiments "within the present funding system." A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first."

Down to this:

"In 1989, and in 2004, the US Department of Energy (DOE) considered a special cold fusion program."

This is all they did. They considered researching it. It isn't even note worthy to be honest. I'm sure you wonder why, let me explain: The US DOE has an enormous budget. Cold fusion was not even significant enough to build one cell. To then jump to the conclusion they investigated the topic is nonsense.

DOE dismissal is non significant. While the sources may not be used many researchers attempted to contact the DOE in a fruitless effort to inform them. I will try find good sources but I think my motivation is clear? While I understand it might appear that way, it has nothing to do with my POV, I'm only interested in accuracy. Feel free to add 100 skeptics who actually tried to build a cell and transcribe exactly what they concluded. It wouldn't bother me at all. No actual work was done by the DOE. They chose not to.84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Symantics: "they considered" might be read as "they proposed". I don't support your change here. POVbrigand (talk)

removing the negative parts of the DOE review. Then you added the work of a group of scientists that happen to work in SPAWAR, as if it had been promoted by SPAWAR. And implying that the SPAWAR experiment revokes the DOE conclusions (and using a press release a go against the DOE report). And again trying to imply that the new experiments are wholly unrelated to F&P's experiment. I think that people in the talk page are asking you for sources for that change. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In the same edit I changed this: "A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion" into this "Researchers continue to investigate cold fusion."

We have no credible source for "small". What does small mean in this context anyway? Illustration: http://www.iccf11.org/index2.htm they might look small on your monitor, they are big names in science and they are many. You want to source "small" on this:[27] and this:[28] It looks to me like the sources only confirm there is actual research. The word "small" isn't on any of the pages. Small also suggests there is some appropriate size for such research effort? If the effect is that small we shouldn't expect large numbers of investigations? Are you suggesting there is a big effect?

It should be obvious removing it was not based on my POV. I actually bothered to open all those pages. What is actually going on is that the negative side of the argument has no sources (the small part) while the positive side (the research exists) is completely stuffed with them. If there is any unjust POV that would be it. I removed the unsourced part. If this means cold fusion now looks like something real then that would be something you will have to get used to. I'm very obviously just trying to write things as they are reported. No harm was done.

I do understand it might look that way. Just so that you know ;) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The "ongoing scientific work" section is hopelessly underdeveloped. But the community is small and we should state that. POVbrigand (talk)

Implying that it continues to be researched by a non-small group, against sources. [sources] don't say the word "small", because "a small community" is an attempt at summarizing them. It's not a word-by-word copy of one of the sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

heat after death

[29] here I change this:

"By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,<ref name="Browne_1989" /><ref name="most scientists">{{harvnb|Taubes|1993|pp=262, 265–266, 269–270, 273, 285, 289, 293, 313, 326, 340–344, 364, 366, 404–406}}, {{harvnb|Goodstein|1994}}, {{harvnb|Van Noorden|2007}}, {{harvnb|Kean|2010}}</ref> and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as [[pathological science]].<ref name="nytdoe">"

into this:

"By late 1989, many scientists considered cold fusion research [[pathological science]].<ref name="Browne_1989" /><ref name="most scientists">{{harvnb|Taubes|1993|pp=262, 265–266, 269–270, 273, 285, 289, 293, 313, 326, 340–344, 364, 366, 404–406}}, {{harvnb|Goodstein|1994}}, {{harvnb|Van Noorden|2007}}, {{harvnb|Kean|2010}}</ref><ref name="nytdoe">"

I wouldn't know why but if those should really be 2 separate statements the pathology should come before death. Maybe it is a bad idea to describe a controversial topic with a controversial term without attribution? May 3, 1989 Dr. Douglas R. O. Morrison said it was an example of pathological science[30]. The "subsequently" chronology doesn't work. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, after late 1989 cold fusion was considered dead, what happened after that until today was perceived as "dragging on" pathological science. I like the original way better. POVbrigand (talk)

Implying that CF was only considered pathological science by late 1989, against the sources in the paragraph (which are more recent than 1989). And implying by extension that it no longer is considered pathological. Also weakening the sentence by changing "most" to "many", against what sources say.

Jones faxed the paper to Nature

[31] I inserted: "In 1980, Dr. Steven E. Jones used a similar device, he did not claim excess energy was produced. But more neutrons were detected than could be expected from normal sources."

"Realizing their work was very similar, Jones and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day, March 24, 1989. However, P&F announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature." - Ludwik Kowalski (3/5/04)Department of Mathematical Sciences Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043[32]

Removing that bit was clearly vandalism Enric. :) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The "truth" is somewhere in the middle and we should be careful with the wording POVbrigand (talk)

under Cold_fusion#Repulsion_forces you can see an explanation of why Muon-catalyzed fusion is not relevant. This makes it look as if F&P's experiment was replicated by Jones. Jones' experiment is accepted by mainstream science as a correctly performed experiment with results that can be explained by current theory, as is accepted as replicated successfully. The NYT calls them similar, but more reliable sources that give more in-depth explanations. And, yes, as POVbringand says, there are a lot of caveats there.

uninteresting

[33] here I change: "and Stanley Pons in 1989 that they had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium."

into: "and Stanley Pons in 1989 that they had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") that would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes and that they measured small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium."

I thought that was an improvement.

In the original paper Fleischman says: "...the bulk of the energy released is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes"[34]

It is a matter of taste, I liked my own version better. I don't think it really makes enough difference to justify a debate. If you see something wrong with it I don't really want to hear about it. Just revert it. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the original version better. We should keep it POVbrigand (talk)

F&P said that it could only be explained by nuclear processes. Other said that it could be explained by flawed measurements, contamination, overlooked chemical reactions, unaccounted inputs, etc. Other cell exploded in other lab[35], and a investigation concluded that it was a chemical reaction (I think this appears in Huizenga). I think our article doesn't say it, but F&P thought that it could only be nuclear because of the explosion of a cell during one night. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)