Talk:Cold fusion

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

Current Science

Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

For reference, their official webpage[1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Current Science has an editorial board [2]. It is a science magazine published by the Current Science Association along with the Indian Academy of Sciences. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal's 2009 impact factor of the journal is 0.782. Deleting this for not being RS is not OK. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Current_Science --POVbrigand (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The paper by Krivit was accepted in two days and is obviously only reliable for the opinions of Krivit. I see no reason to waste time arguing with your POV pushing and stone-wall tactics for weeks on end at another board. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Also 0.782 is a low impact factor. They have an editorial board but as the paper was not reviewed I think this shows a lack of quality control. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also not a magazine, it identifies itself as a journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Not a reliable source for science-related topics. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree - there is no way that they could do an adequate peer-review in two days - this is a clear bust. It's not a RS. SteveBaker (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Received on a Saturday (9 Feb 2008) and accepted on Sunday (10 Feb 2008)? That's quite odd. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"It is clearly not a peer-reviewed scientific journal" That is a very ignorant and arrogant and completely false statement. Look at the journal and reevaluate your conclusion, thank you --POVbrigand (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually serious; Where on the site do they mention they perform peer review? Legitimate Peer review never takes a single day. Perhaps you are unaware what peer review is. Peer review is where experts in the same field review the paper and then submit their comments to the editors; the editor is not the peer. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Perharps you are unaware how the real science publishing world ticks "Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal and therefore research and review papers of general significance that are written clearly and well organized will be given preference. All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision or rejection of the paper. It may be noted that papers once rejected cannot be resubmitted. Illustrations and other materials to be reproduced from other publications must be properly credited; it is the authors’ responsibility to obtain permission for reproduc- tion of figures, tables, etc. from published sources (copies of letters of permission should be sent to the editor)." [3] --POVbrigand (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will say it in bold so you can read it more clearly; peer review is not an editor reviewing the paper, it is one of the peers of the applicant in his respective field. An editor looking at a paper is merely a review. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Claiming "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal." is complete nonsense for several reasons: 1) in Wikipedia statements must be verifiable. IRWolfie's personal requirement that peer reviewed grade proof is needed to verify the line in question: "In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat." is absurd. Any verifiable source can be used to describe what Oriani reported. We are not claiming that he succeeded in getting excess heat, we are writing that he reported excess heat. 2) IRWolfie did not provide ANY reliable evidence that "Current Science" is not peer reviewed. He took one single artifact regarding submission and acceptance of one single paper and used his personal OR to come to the conclusion that the whole journal "Current Science" is not peer reviewed, he even continued to lecture how peer reviewed works and how in his vision peer review is something completely different than what is stated on "Current Science's" own website. 3) IRWolfie statement that Current Science is a "low grade" journal is simply wrong, "Impact Factor" is not the one and only info to use. One must take into consideration that the journal is copublished in India, by the Indian Academy of Sciences. Simply dismissing the whole journal the way IRWolfie does here, is madness. Trying to wrestle an argument by claiming utterly wrong things is a very unscientific approach. Using bolded text won't make it better, you might impress some inexperienced editor and that's about it. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You attempted to find evidence that Current Science is peer reviewed and failed utterly. The onus is on you to show a source is reliable. Please stop wasting our time rehashing previous arguments;

1. Peer review can not occur in 1 day. Editorial review can not occur in 1 day. A journal that engages in these practices can not be reliable. It is not my vision of peer review; it is self evident as others have agreed to above.

2. You have consistently failed to demonstrate that Current Science is peer reviewed. They don't claim to be peer reviewed on their website.

3. Consult WP:SCIRS

4. You have not provided any evidence that Current Science is reliable. The Indian academy of sciences is not a large group, compare it to the IOP. That the journal is run by the Indian academy of Sciences does not automagically make it reliable.

5. I am not demanding peer reviewed grade verifiability for the text, as it stands there is already an existing source(s) used to verify the statement "In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat.". Adding an unreliable source does not help verify the statement.

6. You do realize that wikipedia does not use the scientific approach? The scientific method is for working on original research within science not for writing wikipedia articles. Also, what exactly is your scientific background to tell me what a "very unscientific approach" is?

stop Flogging a dead horse. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Current Science" is listed on Science Citation Index as one of "over 3,700 of the world's leading scientific and technical journals across 100 disciplines.". You cherry picked one article to come to your conclusion "...some low grade non-peer reviewed journal". Current Science is one of 3769 scientific journals indexed in Science citation index, thus the journal is not "low grade". On the contrary, it is evidence of the journal's reliability.

The dean of the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries [4] put "Current Science" on a list of "peer-reviewed open access journals".

I consulted WP:SCIRS, it reads: "This page does not address reliability in context of the social sciences, biographical detail, social or political impact or controversy, or related non-scientific issues, even when these are presented in the context of a natural science article.".

WP:SCIRS nevertheless had some interesting infos: "Journal articles come in many types, including: original research, reviews, expert summaries, news, editorials, advocacy pieces, speculation, book reviews, correspondence, biographies, and eulogies." According to Current Science they indeed have a long list of different article categories. Not all of those article categories go through peer review. The article in question is in the "General Article" category. Looking at several other "General Articles" it seems they have a much shorter review (1-2 weeks) in comparison to "Research Articles" where the review takes up several months.

So from this we can conclude that: 1) current science is on of 3769 leading scientific journals. 2) the "Research Articles" undergo peer review that takes up to several months 3) the "General Articles" mostly undergo a review that normally takes 1-2 weeks. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the specific source article we are discussing here? [update: found it.] Krivit is an established tertiary source author with Oxford University Press and the American Chemical Society if I recall, so I'd like to see what he wrote. Selery (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie - you claim to be a physicist. You are not! You are still in training. That can perhaps excuse your arrogance and un-self-challenged assurance; but, please don't embarrass an honorable profession by claiming to be a physicist already. You and Vobisdu have also libeled an honorable institution (Current Science) and defamed the editors who, if you are actually as good as you think you are, you might aspire to emulate.

"Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2012

"It's clearly not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Not a reliable source for science-related topics. Dominus Vobisdu : (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)"

Since I have a paper presently under technical review at Current Science, I knew that you were lying. Your statement: "Where on the site do they mention they perform peer review?" betrayed you. The only comment about peer review on the American Physical Society journals are for their on-line journals. Would you make a similar insinuation about Physical Review? However, for your information, in the INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS (http://cs-test.ias.ac.in/cs/php/pdf/publish2011.pdf), Current Science states: "All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision, or rejection of the paper." (My emphasis)

Your concept of the review process indicates how naive you are about the politics of publication. The editor has the power to reject papers out of hand. (However, they can be over-ruled by their employer. As has been recently demonstrated by the AIP, when an editor was going to publish proceedings of the LENR Sessions at an ACS conference.) An editor can send a paper to reviewers that he knows will reject it. Likewise, he can call up peer reviewers and get 1-day turn-around for acceptance or rejection to meet a deadline. I can generally review an eight-page paper in 3 hours. I could get an emailed paper in the morning and have the comments and recommendations back to the editor before lunch. I generally do it on the weekends; but, it can be done rapidly.

Many journals today ask the authors to submit several names as reviewers and allow rejection of some names for that role. The editor can choose to use the recommendation or not. This can speed things up immensely.

In summary, your and DV's comments and attitudes are so clearly POV, when you are willing to say what you have, that it should be sufficient to have both of you permanently banned from the article. I will be willing to support anyone who would start the process. Aqm2241 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am bringing things to ANI as it seems to be increasingly focussed on making claims against me and others. [5]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, am learning alot from this discussion about the editorial process and catagories for peer review. Separate from the publishing world (although not apart) is the important scientific review process which is the attempt to further a body of knowledge by replicating a published experiment; improving instrumentation and addressing possible errors in order to verify or refute published observations (scientific method). Most referenced statements found in this article are from the publishing world. The peer reviewed work may have had, a cursory examination if an op-ed piece by a professor, or a detailed technical examination if a submitted techinical scientific paper. Weight is given accordingly. This part I am not to clear on. Is information from a second or third laborotory scientific review of an experiment a new document (primary) or a secondary source as it is a review (scientific review) of a previously published work?--Gregory Goble (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Current Science shows an impact factor of 0.782 (2009). Is there any conceivable reason we should treat it as worth paying attention to, when clearly authors in other journals systematically choose not to? This is a journal which headlines its website with "All articles published in Current Science, especially editorials, opinions and commentaries, letters and book reviews, are deemed to reflect the individual views of the authors and not the official points of view, either of the Current Science Association or of the Indian Academy of Sciences." One can admire the spirit of openness, but it does nothing for assurance that there has been adequate fact checking, let alone systematic review of methods.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

LSD ... On the 2011 SJR rating, Current Science is in the top 1/3 of all rated journals (nearly 19,000 of them). Based on the H index, it is in the top 1/10. You have made assumptions, innuendo, and statements based on conjecture and no apparent knowledge. Is it intentional or just Hubris? Aqm2241 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, there's the rub. You are looking at a different criterion than everyone else. You could simply have said so, rather than engaging in counterproductive personal attacks. Indeed, amongst journals calling themselves "multidisciplinary" Current Science H-index of 55 ranks 7/77 [6] and its SJR of 0.053 ranks 18/77. [7] These are certainly respectable values, though still far below the top-ranked (by IF, SJR, and H-index) Nature, Science, and PNAS. With that information, I would agree that the journal is not so obscure as to be a reason to question the reliability of the paper. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

LSD Sorry to get 'personal. However, I am tired of the mindless efforts of the anti-CF crowd to keep out any positive information on developments in CF. You were kind enough to provide a link that actually showed Current Science to be ranked higher than Naturwissenschaften. Yet the issue will soon be lost and the positive references will again 'disappear' from the article. I worked 2 weeks to get this group to accept a positive comment from Scaramuzzi's year 2000 paper. There were 9 negative quotes from him about CF referenced at the time. Finally, I was allowed to include a single positive statement from a 'major' source of negative quotes in the article (rather than deleting his reference entirely as I had suggested). If one reads the article, it is obvious that Scaramuzzi is a proponent of CF. A good scientist always includes the references that he is arguing against. That single positive statement has now been deleted from the article and 8 of the negative statements remain. Is it a surprise that I ask about some of the editor's POV, purpose, or source of paycheck?Aqm2241 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about with paychecks. Removal of this reference did not lead to the removal of any article content. The reference is not reliable but we have other references for the text for where it was used. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, I wonder if User:IRWolfie- and User:Dominus_Vobisdu are going to agree with you on that, after all they concluded that: "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal." and "It's clearly not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Not a reliable source for science-related topics.". --POVbrigand (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The papers used in the article were not peer reviewed. 1 day of editorial review also suggests little editorial control. The references aren't even used for any particular content that isn't covered by another source so I don't see why you are so vehemently pushing this. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that you deleted two (2) papers [8] with the edit comment "bot in the same journal,, unreliable for the same reason"

One was the "General Article" paper by Krivit with 1 day between "received" and "accepted".

The other one was a "Research Article" paper by K.P. Sinha and A. Meulenberg - you may google the credentials yourself - that was "received" on 17 March 2006 and "accepted" 18 August 2006. That's five (5) months.

I think in this discussion other editors have pointed out - and found even more convincing evidence than I did - that "Current Science" is an accepted journal and ranks amongst "the top" multidisciplinary journals and as such cannot be dismissed.

My perception of you is that you are blatantly in the wrong, yet uncapable of changing your view and you're dragging me to Arbcom over it.

If you do see where you might have erred, I would applaud you and forget about the whole issue on the spot.

Please note that this is not a personal attack. Lot's of WP:wikilove, yours sincerely. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading the arguments I've decided to restore the sources.

I do propose their articles be searched for original content worthy of mention in our article.

After talking with some pathological deniers I think we should consider salting the source a bit to avoid giving the wrong impression. Namely: that the publication would be prominent enough to restore the damage done to the field. It might be a peer reviewed publication, it isn't "heavy" enough to convince our pathological deniers that anything is going on at all. Stranger things have appeared in journals.

It does however add to the growing body of evidence that we should be outlining here. Omission would make this complicated if not impossible.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is against the re-insertion, especially of the Krivit paper which was not peer reviewed and was only "reviewed" for one day. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, there is no consensus either way.

However, it has been clearly shown in this thread that "Current Science" is a reliable source. The editor-in-chief managed to get this "general article" paper accepted within a day. We are not editors-in-chief of scientific journals, we are simple wikipedia editors and it is out of our league to speculate on how or why the editor-in-chief decided to have this paper included. The assumptions and conclusions mentioned in this thread are WP:OR.

--POVbrigand (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That the editor in chief allowed it through in one day helps show that it is unreliable. It is exactly our job to speculate on the reliability of the sources. You brought this to RSN, you failed to convince people, people were not convinced here either, let it die already. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus on RS/N and there is no consensus here. Several editors are convinced it is reliable. Some of the early arguments against reliability of "Current Science" have been clearly rebutted. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

and who exactly is it that are convinced it is reliable? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just read the threads --POVbrigand (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Add to: In popular culture - Cold Fusion

I propose adding the following two sentences to: In popular culture - Cold Fusion

Popular opinion notwithstanding, researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work, even though the existence of the phenomenon is circumscribed by the widespread belief that the phenomenon is not real. [189]

The survival of cold fusion research signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and the lay public; and the conceptualization of failure in the history of science and technology. [189]

They are taken from the back cover of the book:

Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion, by Bart Simon.

Everything in the section, In popular culture - Cold Fusion, is from his book as is the following.

By 1990, the promise of an energy revolution died as scientific opinion favored the skeptics. Nevertheless, many scientists continue to do research on cold fusion, an instance of what Bart Simon calls “undead science.”

Simon argues that in spite of widespread skepticism in the scientific community, there has been a continued effort to make sense of the controversial phenomenon.

Researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work. In this manner, cold fusion research continues to exist long after the controversy has subsided, even though the existence of the phenomenon is circumscribed by the widespread belief that the phenomenon is not real.

Bart Simon is an assistant professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. --Gregory Goble (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Perhaps a full professor now? I'm not sure of his present title.--Gregory Goble (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this qualifies as popular culture. The paperback version is currently ranked #2,984,547 on Amazon and it is ranked in the Kindle store as #576,156. Olorinish (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read this from 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion' on Wikipedia? All of the following comes from the book you provide rankings for: Some scientists use cold fusion as a synonym of outrageous claims made with no supporting proof,[189] and courses of ethics in science give it as an example of pathological science.[189] It has appeared as a joke in Murphy Brown and The Simpsons.[189] It was adopted as a product name by software Coldfusion and a brand of protein bars (Cod Fusion Foods).[189] It has also appeared in commercial advertising as a synonym for impossible science, for example a 1995 ad of Pepsi Max.[189] In the 1994 comedy I.Q., Albert Einstein makes up a "cold fusion" science to help his niece start a romantic relationship.

The plot of The Saint, a 1997 action-adventure film, parallels the story of Fleischmann and Pons, but has a very different ending. The science is rejected by scientific skepticism in the US, but USSR scientists manage to build a working generator and start an age of "infinite energy".[189] The film might have affected the public perception of cold fusion, pushing it further into the science fiction realm.[189]^ a b c d e f g Simon 2002, pp. 91-95,116-118 Popular opinion notwithstanding, researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work, even though the existence of the phenomenon is circumscribed by the widespread belief that the phenomenon is not real. The survival of cold fusion research signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and the lay public; and the conceptualization of failure in the history of science and technology. You suggest I should not add the last two sentences from the same source on perceptions of cold fusion in popular culture. Why? Do you think that we (editors sourcing it) say the book is popular? No it's not very popular (low sales) but it is popular to source it on Wikipedia.(7 times here and many times elsewhere)--Gregory Goble (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This articles' history is rich and worth reviewing. "In popular culture" is a recent addition originally appearing 10:53 Jan. 4, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=469488903#In_popular_culture , posted by 79.181.36.116 (talk)‎ (130,206 bytes) (→Patents: Merge from List of references to cold fusion in popular culture) The original was a great list, lots'a fun to read and the page has this guideline -This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references- Four hours or so later it was completely changed to its present version here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=469515328 on 14:47, 4 January 2012‎ by Enric Naval (talk | contribs)‎ (128,867 bytes) (→In popular culture: rewrite using a reliable source) (undo) The two versions are worthy of a comparison or two.--Gregory Goble (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To:Olorinish (talk)

My bad... first appeared around 2007... then gone... now back... followed with the four hour quick change edit by Enric Naval to the version now seen on Wikipedia. Crazy edit history that I, for one, do not understand,,, yet! Help? --Gregory Goble (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Olorinish, You made a possibly negative comment to the talk on this proposed edit to cold fusion. I have asked for clarification. Do you care to clarify or comment now before I proceed? Posted to Olorinish Talk at right about this time... --Gregory Goble (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Other editors must have a thought or two... comments, objections, or better yet suggestions; how to improve this section of the article together. Please chime into: In popular culture - Cold Fusion.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If the question at hand is adding the sentences from the blurb from the back of

• Simon, Bart (2002). Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion. Rutgers University Press. p. p.49. ISBN 978-0813531540. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

to the article, I oppose. First, they are poorly written and they are a now ten year old observation made by an anonymous editor at Rutgers University press. They lack any timeliness and any authority. The Wikipedia editor has already done a good job of summarizing the relevant content of Simon's book in this section. patsw (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfounded

You think the text sourced is, “a blurb” and “are poorly written and they are a now ten year old observation made by an anonymous editor at Rutgers University press” and I say this is a groundless speculation. The most relevant statement found on the back cover is taken from the authors’ words found in the body of the book. You state, “The Wikipedia editor has already done a good job of summarizing the relevant content of Simon's book in this section” and I say he has taken the authors words out of context and that the most relevant point the author makes in this regard (popular culture) is, (Popular opinion notwithstanding) “researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work, even though the existence of the phenomenon is circumscribed by the widespread belief [popular culture] that the phenomenon is not real. The survival of cold fusion (research) signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and the lay public [popular culture]; and the conceptualization of failure in the history of science and technology.”

My mama said, “I buy you books and all you read is the covers”. I NOW MUST PROVE THAT WRONG ONCE AGAIN. Back to the library, copy machine, pencil=paper, and ultimately source a reference from the book that I know will be irrefutable by you.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I apologize for the delay, off to the library now. I will post an acceptable reference to the sentences in the next day or so.--Gregory Goble (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"The cold fusion controversy did not end because Fleischman and Pons were wrong; it ended because CF researchers found themselves lacking social and material resources to argue that they were right. Yet cold fusion research has continued after the generally acknowledged end of the of the controversy in 1990. So resources must be coming from somewhere. How researchers are able to work, what kinds of research, and how the research is collectively organized are the questions that motivate the argument of the next two chapters. In the first instance I am less concerned with making how post-closure research happens than I am with making the case that it happens at all.

As I argued in Chapter 4, cold fusion research as pathological science has become the normal explanation for post closure CF research. While this is an effective means of reproducing closure and reinforcing the epistemic boundaries of conventional physics. The prevalence of pathology talk has the effect of publicly eliding or suppressing a collective practice (cold fusion research) that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science. Because cold fusion is perceived as pathological science, it will require a little extra work on my part to demonstrate that their is nothing particularly pathological going on in laboratories of cold fusion researchers."[ISBN 978-0813531540]pgs 124,125 Undead Science, by Bart Simon

Undead Science is a term for mainstream science that is hidden from view due to sociological reasons. It replaces the term pathological science, in regards to cold fusion research, for reasons elucidated throughout the book.

The sentences I first proposed here from the summary on the back of the book are most likely the words of the author as is standard for an academic book. Not words from an "anonymous editor at Rutgers University Press" as is surmised by Patsw|talk. I also disagree that "a good job of summarizing the relevant content of Simon's book in this section" has been done for this article until we include a sentence or two that reflect the authors intent. Prior to the edit by Enric Naval I find this guideline: "This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references." Including either my first proposed sentences or the following two sentences (my second choice) would clarify the authors' argument as to the relationship between cold fusion and popular culture.

This following is my second choice for two sentences to add to Popular Culture - Cold Fusion. I have emailed the author Bart Simon for verification of the accuracy of the summary and his approval of referencing sentences (my first choice) from the summary as regards posting to Wikipedia.

The cold fusion controversy did not end because Fleischman and Pons were wrong, yet cold fusion research as pathological science has become the normal explanation for post closure CF research. The prevalence of pathology talk has the effect of publicly eliding or suppressing a collective practice (cold fusion research) that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science.

elide verb (used with object), e·lid·ed, e·lid·ing. 1. to omit (a vowel, consonant, or syllable) in pronunciation. 2. to suppress; omit; ignore; pass over. 3. Law . to annul or quash.

epistemic adjective 1. of or pertaining to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it. From pages 124 and 125 Undead Science.--Gregory Goble (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The other day I did add this content to the 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion' section and it was deleted a coupla' hours later with no discussion by: Olorinish (talk | contribs) with the following... "These do not describe the popular culture impact of cold fusion. Also, they contradict the Kean 2010 and Ouellette 2011 articles." I ask for an explanation of this train of thought, "These do not describe the popular culture impact of cold fusion". Olorinish what is your reasoning? Undead Science describes the effectual relationship of cold fusion research and popular culture. Olorinish could you please explain what you mean when reasoning that, "they contradict the Kean 2010 and Ouellette 2011 articles"? I have not been educated in this regard and would like a lead to your referenced materials (Kean 2010 and Ouellette 2011 articles) and a brief description as to their relevance to this editorial conflict. .--Gregory Goble (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The links for the Kean 2010 and Ouellette 2011 articles are in reference numbers 7 and 9 respectively in the current article. They, along with other documents such as those posted by Enric Naval, indicate that the cold fusion researchers are a minority group whose views about the existence of cold fusion are out of the mainstream. Therefore the comments about "well respected laboratories" and "rigorous work," and statements implying that Fleischmann and Pons were not wrong are contradicted by many reliable sources and should not be included in this way. Also, the sentences are not helpful in illuminating the effect of cold fusion on popular culture, which is what should be included in a section titled "In popular culture." Olorinish (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cold Fusion/LENR

Irrefutable observed anomalous heat in controlled environments.

The increased sophistication of: experiments/instrumentation.

Validity of the scientific query process argued out in “public”.

Continued advancement of Cold Fusion/LENR understanding.

Increased replicas ability parallels increased understanding.

Behold we have Cold fusion/LENR, an excellent example of a new trajectory of the sociological path of Science (that which furthers knowledge and understanding) called ‘Undead Science’, and the book by Bart Simon. Every editor here should read this book from cover to cover… twice!

Olorinish I hope you can advise me on this, specifically this, and only this… Concerning Bart Simon’s book ‘Undead Science’… Are selected sentences worthy and acceptable only if not contradicting a certain POV? (Contradicting Kean 2010 and Ouellette 2011) That is what you are saying in your argument for not allowing Bart’s words to be used here. Undead Science is clearly a book explaining the effect of Cold Fusion played out in (popular culture) public, and the public’s (mainstream) opinions effects on Cold Fusion science, continuing robust cold fusion research, AND “Undead Science” (NOT undead-pathological science). Ask Bart. ‘In popular culture – Cold Fusion’ Recommend that all of Bart’s words be taken out of the article or retract your objection to me using a few of them. As you most likely already know, ‘controversy’ and ‘contradictory views’ are sort of like synonyms. Thanks Olorinish! Direct and not oblique is Olorinish and me… No POV… hopefully. I will post all four sentences to the article once again (in a day or so) unless you (editors out there) convince me to do otherwise.--Gregory Goble (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Are selected sentences worthy and acceptable only if not contradicting a certain POV?" They are unacceptable because they promote a POV which is contradictory to NPOV [9]: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view."

According to the wikipedia page on popular culture [10], it refers to things that are "preferred per an informal consensus within the mainstream of a given culture" and that permeate "the everyday lives of the society." In contrast, those statements are about a topic which is not commonly discussed (cold fusion), in a venue that does not have wide distribution (like the movie "The Saint"), and state opinions that are inconsistent with the mainstream of opinion on the topic (that the work of cold fusion researchers and their labs are highly respected).

Also, if those sentences are copied word-for-word, or with very few changes, without in-text attribution, adding them may be a form of plagiarism [11] [12].

Please do not replace those sentences in the article. That would be a violation of wikipedia policy on consensus [13]: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making."

Fortunately, compromise also fundamental to wikipedia [14]: "The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible." Can you propose a compromise that addresses your concerns? Perhaps the Undead Science book should be included in reference 14 of the current article? Olorinish (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Undead Science by Bart Simon is already used multiple times as reference, look for "Simon 2002" --POVbrigand (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Storey argues that there is a political dimension to popular culture; neo-Gramscian hegemony theory "... sees popular culture as a site of struggle between the 'resistance' of subordinate groups in society and the forces of 'incorporation' operating in the interests of dominant groups in society."[15] Including the sentences would show the relationship between cold fusion and popular culture, As seen in the Wikipedia article on Popular Culture there are "struggles between the 'resistance' of subordinate groups in society and the forces of 'incorporation' operating in the interests of dominant groups in society" Olorinish wants to keep it simple and it isn't. The article remains neutral by stating it is controversial and presenting the whole of it. My use of Bart Simons words is not plagiarism, but used here would ensure that his words already found 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion' are read as in the context of the book which potrays the sociological forces influencing Cold Fusion research as Undead Science, i.e. hidden and interwoven throughout mainstream science. Sorry if this is not reality as you see it. It is as Bart Simon sees it and I will reference it from the book 'Undead Science' if Olorinish needs me to do so.--Gregory Goble (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A COMPROMISE (added text is in italics) In popular culture - Cold Fusion

In 'Undead Science', Sociologist Bart Simon references the following examples of cold fusion found in popular culture: Some scientists use cold fusion as a synonym of outrageous claims made with no supporting proof,[185] and courses of ethics in science give it as an example of pathological science.[185] It has appeared as a joke in Murphy Brown and The Simpsons.[185] It was adopted as a product name by software Coldfusion and a brand of protein bars (Cod Fusion Foods).[185] It has also appeared in commercial advertising as a synonym for impossible science, for example a 1995 ad of Pepsi Max.[185] In the 1994 comedy I.Q., Albert Einsteinmakes up a "cold fusion" science to help his niece start a romantic relationship. The plot of The Saint, a 1997 action-adventure film, parallels the story of Fleischmann and Pons, but has a very different ending. The science is rejected by scientific skepticism in the US, but USSR scientists manage to build a working generator and start an age of "infinite energy".[185] The film might have affected the public perception of cold fusion, pushing it further into the science fiction realm.[185] In his hypothesis 'undead science' Professor Simon further summarizes the relationship of cold fusion reasearch and popular culture, "The prevalence of pathology talk has the effect of publicly eliding or suppressing a collective practice that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science."[185]--Gregory Goble (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the addition of the last line like this: In his book 'undead science' Simon writes: "The prevalence of pathology talk has the effect of publicly eliding or suppressing a collective practice that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science.". It is an attributed direct quote from a source which is already used multiple times as a reference in this article. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I like your edit suggestion to my edit proposal for the last sentence, I will incorporate "hypothesis" into your edit proposal to ensure no 'undue weight' is given to the revised proposed edit.--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

While both of these one-sentence proposals by Gregory Goble and POVbrigand are accurate, I don't see how they improve the article. To me it seems obvious that labeling an area of science as incorrect and pathological will suppress interest by scientists to study it. Also, stating that cold fusion is science is not very helpful because pathological science is still science. Including a sentence like these is kind of like saying that two plus two equals four. Am I missing something? Are there other quotes from the book about the suppression process that are more illuminating (people worried about tenure, people talked into pursuing another area of research by more senior people, etc.)? Is there evidence that researchers are basing those decisions on popular culture rather than on other factors such as proposal review processes and article review processes? Olorinish (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

“Research in constructivist sociology of science has made great strides in illuminating the production of natural scientific and technical knowledge as a fundamentally social activity. One of the most fruitful areas of investigation has been the empirical study of scientific controversies. Empirical studies of controversies have helped show that what counts as truth in a given cultural context is dependent, in part, on the socially negotiated alignment or consensus of the beliefs, interests and/or practices of participants.” For a sense of Bart Simon’s history with the world of cold fusion research see the following:[16], “Dr. Simon’s new book, Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion (forthcoming in November from Rutgers University Press), expands his PhD dissertation about “one of the most famous scientific controversies of the last century.” However, adds the assistant professor of sociology, “I think I’ve got a different kind of story to tell about it.”” Also of interest is his dissertation, Post-closure cold fusion and the survival of a research community: An hauntology for the technoscientific afterlife. [17]

"Empirical studies of controversies have helped show that what counts as truth in a given cultural context is dependent, in part, on the socially negotiated alignment or consensus of the beliefs, interests and/or practices of participants.”

In order to address future charges of 'undue:weight' and to keep all things in context, please read and research the following: Bart Simon ACADEMIC DEGREES : Ph.D. (Sociology/Science Studies), University of California at San Diego (1998) MSc. (Sociology of Scientific Knowledge), University of Edinburgh (1990) B.A. (Cultural Studies), Trent University (1989) Profile: Bart Simon is Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of the Research Initiative in Technoculture, Art and Games (TAG) at Concordia University. His research focuses on the nature of digital gameplay, game cultures and user experience. He has worked extensively in the field of game studies and digital culture for the last seven years. He is a founding member of the international Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) and the Canadian Game Studies Association (CGSA), he has been the review chair for the culture stream for the last two DiGRA conferences (2007 and 2009) and sits on the editorial boards of the international journals; "Games and Culture" and "Game Studies". Bart has also established strong relationships with Montreal area game designers and has doctoral students working as researchers and consultants with Electronic Arts, Montreal. He recently completed two 3 year studies funded by SSHRC and FQRSC of the social organization of play in multiplayer online games and LAN parties and he is currently PI on a new SSHRC funded study on gestural games with partners at SFU and Bristol University, UK.

More broadly, Bart also teaches and conducts research in the areas of surveillance and information technology, science and technology studies, digital culture and material culture and new media.--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Gregory, why are you posting all this data about an author of a book ? Nobody here is interested in this information about Bart Simon. This talk page is not about Bart Simon. It is already established that the book "Undead Science" by this author is a reliable source and it is used as reference multiple times in our article. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to establish why Enric Naval lent so much weight to Bart Simon, who is an expert in the sociology of the development of scientific knowledge. i.e. I have given the credentials of the author,--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand, Thank you for your helpful observations (and support) concerning my edit proposal in this battleground Wiki article COLD - FUSION. Wikipedia is a relatively new sociological phenomenon.--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I just emailed this to Bart Simon, "Sir, Your background of research interests may make you someone who is qualified to research the following: See Wiki Talk Cold Fusion,,, edit proposals... Gregory Goble. Cold Fusion and Wiki has an interesting history, the edit history is huge and needs investigation to realize the underlying dynamics. My sense is that you may have a future interest in this; due to recent developments in cold fusion research and your understanding of the sociological stage played out concerning Cold Fusion Science. Respectfully. GBGoble"--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The starting sentence sounds OK.

The ending sentence is cherry-picked and removed from its original context. The word "scientific" was surrounded with scare quotes, the omitted first part of the sentence described some useful roles of "pathology talk", and the next sentence says that CF is not normal science even if it has nothing pathological. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Observations of "cherry picked" and "removed from its original context" may be wrong, I will address these concerns over the next couple of days, time permitting. Thank you Enric Naval for your approval of my sentence to be included preceding your cherry picked posting to, 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion'; whether you kept it in context or not. Fodder and food for thought is Wikipedia.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Study the edit history of 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion'--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval your concern that "The word "scientific" was surrounded with scare quotes" is misplaced. Scare quotes are used for varied purposes by a writer including, "The term scare quotes may be confusing because the word scare implies provocation, yet the term covers emotionally neutral usage as well. In many cases an author uses scare quotes not to convey alarm, but to signal a semantic quibble."[18] Thanks for agreeing to keep things in context.--Gregory Goble (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval, Your remaining arguments are poorly phrased paraphrases of yours showing a clear misunderstanding of the author's words. I should not have to reference them for you; next time include them in your arguments please.

Enric Naval's arguments are, "(1)the omitted first part of the sentence described some useful roles of "pathology talk"" and (2)"the next sentence says that CF is not normal science even if it has nothing pathological."

The author's words are, "As I argued in Chapter 4, cold fusion research as pathological science has become the normal explanation for post closure CF research. While this is an effective means of reproducing closure and reinforcing the epistemic boundaries of conventional physics. (1)The prevalence of pathology talk has the effect of publicly eliding or suppressing a collective practice (cold fusion research) that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science. (2)Because cold fusion is perceived as pathological science, it will require a little extra work on my part to demonstrate that their is nothing particularly pathological going on in laboratories of cold fusion researchers" As is clearly seen: Enric Naval's (1)"omitted first part of the sentence" is WHERE? and) Enric Naval opinions that (1)"some useful roles of "pathology talk"" are: reproducing closure, publicly eliding, or suppressing cold fusion research. I argue that is far from the the author's opinion and Enric Naval should explain how this possibly could be.--Gregory Goble (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I will address Enric Naval's remaining concern that, "The ending sentence is cherry-picked and removed from its original context", see(2) soon; too soon.--Gregory Goble (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Building consensus thru debate: Lack of rebuttal concedes consensus. Thanks for context.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) There is a comma before "the prevalence", not a period, you are cutting the first sentence in half. (2) you are omitting the end of the last sentence "(...) while at the same time arguing that CF research is not normal science."

And transcription errors that significantly change the meaning: you are still omitting the scare quotes in "scientific", you changed "or even suppressing" to "or suppressing".

Also changing "nuclear physics" to "physics", and "Because we live in a world in which cold fusion is generally perceived as being pathological science" to "Because cold fusion is perceived as pathological science".

(And "reinforcing the epistemic boundaries of conventional physics" should count as an useful role, I think.) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: lack of rebuttal may simply indicate that others consider the debate to be resolved, that further argument is unnecessary. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... I will respond in a few days... time permitting.--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Enric Naval et. al. Please simply post your 'correct' transcription for comparison. I may decide to suggest a different compromise upon reflection after your posting of the correct version, or upon your failure to do so. Bart Simon's words are numerous, rich, and elucidating in that which surrounds the contemporary world of the sociology of science.--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

I have filed an arbitration enforcement notice related to editors who edit this article. Please see [19]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I like where you say:

"I should mention that I have no interest in Cold Fusion and the Energy Catalyzer beyond ensuring the wikipedia articles do not expound fringe theories."

Could you now remove yourself from this article talk page?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I am on this talk page entirely for the reason I stated, to ensure that wikipedia articles do not promote fringe theories but instead maintain NPOV. Outside of editing wikipedia articles I have no interest in Cold Fusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Several years ago Wikipedia gave the ability to look up an individual's edit history. Based on that record, I identified 2 anti-CF editors who for several years had several edits a week and then, suddenly showed, 20 to 30 edits per day. The sudden increase and patterned nature of their topics strongly suggested that they had become paid site-sitters. I doubt that they suddenly 'got religion' and had no interests "beyond ensuring the wikipedia articles do not expound fringe theories." (Many of their 'suddenly new interests' were not CF and not fringe.) Wikipedia no longer provides that information publicly (indicating its involvement). However, I am sure that it is available and, unless the arbitration committee wants to lose its credibility, it should be able to access individual edit records.

I believe that those experienced site-sitters, now veteran Wiki-lawyers, have moved on to higher-priority (and perhaps better paying) 'targets'. They were not in the least embarrassed about their history (nor did they offer to explain it); but, they were clearly threatening about 'personal attacks'. However, since none of the pro-CF editors showed this pattern, it would be prudent to use it as a diagnostic in arbitration. IRWolfie, would your edit record betray you and show that you are what your 'name' implies? Aqm2241 (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

several proposed revisions

I'm removing poorly sourced nonsense from the article. At least that is what I think I am doing. It appears POVbrigand and Enric Naval have other ideas about my contributions. I don't remember anything about not being allowed to edit any articles on wikipedia so I think you should come up with some valid excuse why the poorly sourced nonsense needs to remain in our Condensed Mater Nuclear Science article.

But first I should obviously try to explain what I think I was doing.

In order of appearance:

---

• [20] section "Conferences"

Things removed:

• the start of the section: "Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences."

I would argue the conferences and the society exists to investigate Condensed Mater Nuclear Science. It isn't a shelter for cold fusion researchers no one wants anymore. The Un-sourced original research is hereby challenged.

The first source in the section about the conferences states:[21]

Why do we need a Society at all?

Good question! Experience shows that organizing any scientific initiative on an personal basis can place unreasonable burdens on the individuals concerned. For example, to organize a meeting, the organizers need to advance deposits on the conference hall, hotels and restaurants etc. Attendees benefit from discounts without taking any of the risks. It is not appropriate that these risks are taken by organizers who may be donating their time free of charge. Of course there are many other initiatives which the Society intends to take - organizing meetings is just one example.

The community needs an organization that is democratic and seen to be democratic. Democracies necessarily have to respond to their members and tend to provide better service. Because democratic organizations can claim to represent their members they are able to negotiate with other institutions including government from a stronger position.

It is difficulty for informal organizations to issue official invitations to foreigners for VISA purposes. There is no simple way for the authorities to check the validity of the invitation because informal organizations do not exist on the public record. As a result many foreigners are unable to travel to scientific meetings due to lack of a travel VISA. This problem is becoming more serious as a result of tightening international security.

A Society is accountable. Both attendees and sponsors of meetings like to know how their money is spent. Historically conference organizers have rarely published accounting records with the result that sponsors are now in short supply and attendees rightly or wrongly may consider the conference fees excessive. At many Cold Fusion meetings there has been no sponsorship whatsoever and we all pay the price in terms of high fees and declining attendance.

Formalizing a scientific society implies continuity. Many meeting organizations have a fleeting existence and lessons learned fail to get passed on to succeeding volunteers. Resources get wasted if there is no continuity. For example the ICCFs have registered and created their own distinct web sites.

I don't see anything about changing the name out of fear of pathological deniers. At least not in the context of the society.

After deleting everything I did again, this time including illustrations, Enric refers to the "ongoing" section[22], the "ongoing" section states:

• "Often they prefer to name their field Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), also Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR), Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) and Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions."

• "one of the reasons being to avoid the negative connotations associated with "cold fusion"."

• "The new names avoid making bold implications, like implying that fusion is happening on them."

For the conference this should be primary sourced as "statements by the subject" because the above appears to be directly contradicting the statements on the official website of the charity.

Of course in reality Undead science states: [23] "Mizuno's data joined similar reports from researchers in Russia, Japan, and the United States who were finding all sorts of strange isotopes of elements, and these reports have effectively expanded the field of research under the label of low energy nuclear reactions."

For as far as I may search Bart Simon's doesn't mention Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR), Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) or Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions.

As the book is from 2002, it can not overrule the motivations listed on the foundation website.

The "ongoing" section does also state:

• "Proponents see them as a more accurate description of the theories they put forward."

The reader is not informed which one of the 2 contradicting explanations applies to the foundation. The name change is not explained under "ongoing research".

Something like this:

The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. Because the organization deems it unlikely for the multiple anomalies involved in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science to be explained by a single class of nuclear reactions, in 2004, the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS) was renamed to International Society on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and the International Conference on Cold Fusion became the International Conference on Condensed Mater Nuclear Science.

Is more appropriate than:

Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. With the founding in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (the reasons are explained in the "ongoing" section).

This bad section was left the way it was:

• "Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR, but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field."

Honest objective readers can easily see that this has nothing to do with the Conferences section but I didn't want to change everything. It might fit better elsewhere in the article as:

• "Cold fusion research is often referenced as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR, according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field."

Then the section goes on to say:

• "Since 2006, the American Physical Society (APS) has included cold fusion sessions at their semiannual meetings, clarifying that this does not imply a softening of skepticism."

Which I changed into:

• "Since 2006, the American Physical Society (APS) has included cold fusion sessions at their semiannual meetings."

Because not every sentence of the article has to have a moaning skeptic on the soap box.

• Wikipedia says: "Bob Park of APS, when asked if hosting the meeting showed a softening of scepticism answered: "[Absolutely not]. Anyone can deliver a paper. We defend the openness of science"

If there really is a source for that then the article can just cite him? There is no need for creative interpretation like: "the conference does not imply a softening of skepticism." Personally, I think asking a person if he has gone insane shouldn't yield interesting replies.

The American Physical Society claims to be the leading professional organization of physicists, representing over 46,000 physicists in academia and industry in the United States and internationally. I propose changing it into this: (The context of the statement is cold fusion.)

"APS does not, as an organization, endorse particular experiments or their results. That can only be done through publication in peer-reviewed journals, and by independent replication by other researchers."[24]

Much more representative for the organization? Or is Bob L. Park (the pathological skeptic[25]) a better source for what the APS is all about?

The other source provided[26] explains the faulty reasoning of the critics: "Speaker George Miley says: "Much of the criticism has come from people who haven't worked in the field and much of it stems from the rather sad beginning. The ability to have nuclear reactions take place in solids is remarkable and it opens up a whole new field of physics.""

So in actuality the source quite acuratly captures the pathology of the skepticism - thank you very much. Or wait, only the pathological skeptics are allowed to use news articles, the believers must have top grade peer review papers. Not weblogs like current science and reviewing callometry must take more than 1 day or the source is disqualified. I keep forgetting how spectacularly neutral Wikipedia is.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• [27] here I remove the illustration for not being very illustrative.

No explanation for this should be required.

---

• [28] Here I included a new illustration of: Thomas Graham (chemist)

No explanation for this should be required. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• [29] Here I add a photo made by Steven B Krivit of Michael McKubre working on a deuterium gas-based cold fusion cell. (2007)

No explanation for this should be required. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• [30] here I delete some bullshit and break a ref that was kindly restored by Lothar von Richthofen 3 min later.

Forced to have another look at what I've done I end up actually reading the article. It turns out to be a hilarious troll.[31] Furthermore, the statements are not in our CMNS article. The non-source only exists in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the article, if you want this hilarious trash in the article you will first have to put it in some paragraph below.

I'm not going to use kind words to describe some one who writes: "If you search on YouTube you can even witness some of those solitary cranks filming themselves."

Yeah, I've seen the nasa and spawar cranks on youtube filming themselves. This is the wikipedia standard for scientific investigative journalism? Excuse my sarcasm, this is the scholarly source you want to provide for me to learn things about condensed matter nuclear science? So that I don't have to read all those BAD peer review papers? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• [32] Again I delete this for not having a source.

I should stop doing that while there is no reliable source?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A time to consider this from mainstream LENR/Cold Fusion Science:

(LeadSongDog come howl! 14:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)) --Gregory Goble (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)NONE of which is source worthy,,, or not?--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Gregory, but even on talkpages, copyvios are illegal. Just paraphrase and cite it.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, thanks so I think... there is this paraphrase and citation.

This work and similar ones might possibly not bring us closer to the grand unification theory… Einstein smiles.

As understanding about cold fusion phenomenon increases we see increased replicas ability.

Of particular interest from Sargoytchev’s work is the following concerning the proper environment for LENR/cold fusion:

It is more probable between a heavier and a light nucleus with a proper neutron to proton ratio being in a powder form in order to increase its active surface while a proper temperature is required and pressure of the light element gas is a prerequisite combined with a pressure pulsation, perhaps with acoustic cavitations in a liquid phase or a plasma arc or a strong EM pulse.[33]Considerations:
(from pgs 17 and 18) Probably not the best place here but perhaps under... suggestions from the Wiki Cold Fusion editorial team?--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Faster than the Jones

We have:

"On May 1, 1989, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion in Baltimore, including many reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion. At the end of the session, eight of the nine leading speakers stated that they considered the initial Fleischmann and Pons claim dead with the ninth, Johann Rafelski, abstaining.[6] Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann" which was met with a standing ovation.[46] Douglas R. O. Morrison, a physicist representing CERN, was the first to call the episode an example of pathological science.[6][47]"

Would it not be worth mentioning the meeting was organized by Steven Jones who was instrumental in forcing Pons and Fleischmann to go public with the "discovery".

When Jones found out about P&F's research he also started investigating electrolysis setups. Rather than fully cooperate both parties seemed ready to claim the art as their own. On March 6, 1989, Jones informed Fleischmann and Pons that he was going to announce his work at the May 1989 APS meeting. He was going to pretty-much announce their work as his own.

Fleischmann had been working for 40 years on this. He had no choice but to match Jones claims. Jones wrote Feb. 2, 1989: "We have also accumulated considerable evidence for a new form of cold nuclear fusion which occurs when hydrogen isotopes are loaded into materials, notably crystalline solids." (in an abstract of a paper he intended to present at the spring meeting of the American Physical Society.)

Clearly cold fusion doesn't need any enemies with friends like this.84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Section: Publications

Sentence about journals "categorically" declining to review cold fusion articles

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=478909855&oldid=478909447 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Recently, 84.106.26.81 added a sentence about journals refusing to review new cold fusion articles. My library does not have a copy of Undead Science, and Google books does not show the relevant pages. Could someone please post here sentences in the book which support this statement? Olorinish (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I also have doubt if the wording is correct. 84.106's edit makes it seem as if FIRST the journals started to refuse cold fusion paper and THEREFORE the number of papers dropped. I don't think that is correct. AFAIK the journals started refusing papers because the scientific community saw cold fusion as debunked and didn't want to be associated with it any more (except for the journal "Fusion Technology" of which George Miley was editor-in-chief). At the same time most of the scientists turned their back on "cold fusion" for the same reason. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is a big difference between "not reviewed" and "not sent out for review." Olorinish (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not see that "difference" in the actual edit.

I think that many editor refused to even consider looking at cold fusion papers. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Olorinish changed the intro of publications [34] from:

"The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines. The number of papers sharply declined after 1990 as scientists abandoned the field and journal editors declined to review new papers, and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts."

into:

"The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines. The number of papers sharply declined after 1990 as scientists abandoned the field and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts."

I propose also removing:

"The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines. The number of papers sharply declined after 1990 as scientists abandoned the field and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts."

So that we get:

"The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines. The number of papers sharply declined after 1990 and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts."

And I prefer "publications" over "papers":

"The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines. The number of publications sharply declined after 1990 and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts."

Now the sentence talks about the publications rather than the behavior of publicists and scientists. This is good because this is what the section Publications is suppose to be all about after all.

I have not implemented this change awaiting your comments. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Olorinish (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For now it is fine, however, if the pseudo-scientific denial in our article doesn't get reduced the categorical denial of papers does require some description. We cant have it both ways and pretend the coverage to be neutral. 84.106.9.95 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Julian Schwinger

We have this:

"The Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger declared himself a supporter of cold fusion in the fall of 1989, after much of the response to the initial reports had turned negative. He tried to publish theoretical papers supporting the possibility of cold fusion in Physical Review Letters, but the peer reviewers rejected it so harshly that he felt deeply insulted, and he resigned from the American Physical Society (publisher of PRL) in protest.[98]"

My proposed text:

[35]"August 1989, Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger tried to publish his theoretical paper "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis" in Physical Review Letters, but the peer reviewers rejected it so harshly that he felt deeply insulted, and he resigned from the American Physical Society (publisher of PRL) in protest.[98]"

Schwinger was awarded :

• The Albert Einstein Award (1951)
• The U.S. National Medal of Science (1964)
• Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 for his work on quantum electrodynamics (QED), along with Richard Feynman and Shinichiro Tomonaga

Which means it was not a problem with his credentials. The reviewers objected to his "assumption" that heavy water would always be polluted with light water. His argument that D + D wasn't the whole story but that D + d would logically be there was rejected because it didn't provide a theoretical explanation for underlying assumptions. To make it even more clear for us, one anonymous reviewer argued against publication on the ground that no nuclear physicist could believe such an effect exists. It means categorical denial started in August 1989. We can not expect any "lesser" scientist publishing in mainstream journals after this.

notes:

• I didn't write that Physical Review Letters pronounced it self as denier of cold fusion as early as Augustus. Or that the skeptics offer no theoretical framework for their skepticism. I wrote that categorical denial started in August.

• October 1989, Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung did publish the paper.

• Schwinger then went on to write three substantial papers, entitled “Nuclear Energy in an Atomic Lattice I, II, III,” to flesh out these ideas. The first was published in the Zeitschrift fur Physik D, where it was accepted in spite of negative reviews, but directly preceded by an editorial note, disclaiming any responsibility for the the paper on the part of the journal. They subsequently refused to publish the remaining papers.[36]

84.106.26.81 (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I do have to say I'm not happy with the syntheses either way. We can do this one word at a time if we must.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=479095285&oldid=478963954

Surely you are not going to argue about this I hope? O_O

84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to remove the first part of the paragraph. It removes the context. It no longer explains that Schwinger suddenly started supporting cold fusion, and why the circumstances made it strange to other scientists. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(the changes after "tried to publish" are OK). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Then the text becomes:

"The Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger declared himself a supporter of cold fusion in the fall of 1989, after much of the response to the initial reports had turned negative. He tried to publish his theoretical paper "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis" in Physical Review Letters, but the peer reviewers rejected it so harshly that he felt deeply insulted, and he resigned from the American Physical Society (publisher of PRL) in protest."

"August" is more accurate, "fall" sounds more poetic. Are we overly romanticizing our detective story?

Do we need to disclose and reveal the existence of documents I, II and III? What would Feynman do?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the fact that one of the top theoretical physicists of the 20th century chose to continue working in, and writing on, cold fusion even after the established journals tried to shut him up is indicative of the non-fringe nature of the controversial subject. Unless the anti-CFers can twist its meaning, I doubt that they will allow it to remain. As I noted in Current Science poll, in the next year or two they will just say it is not significant and delete it - if no one is watching. Of course, if we have commercial CF-power units by then, maybe they won't bother. Aqm2241 (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Current Science poll

I'm making this vote to try and gauge concensus to prevent any edit warring: Is the previously mentioned "Current Science" fortnightly journal suitable for use in this journal? Two papers in question: [37]. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Recap of issue: One of the sources was not being used for any text. The other was being used for the statement "In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat." but this is verified by another presumably more reliable reference. Using or not using the source does not remove any text. The issue is that the source used in the article is by the author the newenergytimes which is generally not considered reliable for wikipedia. The article does not appear to have gone under any substantial editorial review (1 day between submission and acceptance). The other reference was not used and so is essentially also pointless. Diff: [38]. That an article can get through in one day without raising questions leads to doubts about the reliability of the journal.

I've turned it into an RFC so we can get clear consensus one way or the other. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Recap of issue: It is explictly claimed that "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal." the use of any paper from this journal is dismissed. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• No It has no firm evidence that it engages in peer review. One of the articles in question was accepted the next day after submission. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• More information needed Forgive me, but what is exactly is the text in this article that is proposed/disputed? Whether or not a source is reliable depends on how it is used in the article. Olorinish (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the sources was not being used for any text. The other was being used for the statement "In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat." but this is verified by another presumably more reliable reference. Using or not using the source does not remove any text. The issue is that the source used in the article is by the author the newenergytimes which is generally not considered reliable for wikipedia. The article does not appear to have gone under any substantial editorial review (1 day between submission and acceptance). The other reference was not used and so is essentially also pointless. Diff: [39]. That an article can get through in one day without raising questions leads to doubts about the reliability of the journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for showing us that it is your assessment of the paper's author that leads you to conclude that the whole journal is not reliable. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. My point is that we require a substantial editorial review since if Krivit self publishes (like with newenergytimes) it is not considered reliable by wikipedia standards. That the editorial review appears to be insignificant/doubted we can not rely on the position of Krivit as an expert to justify inclusion of the reference. Anyway, this vote is to gauge consensus, not re-hash the same arguments. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes It is verifiable that the journal uses peer review. Just look at some published papers and note that especially papers in the "research article" category take several months between "received" and "accepted". I got further confirmation of "peer review" by direct enquiry of the journal. The journal is not obscure, on the contrary, its H-index ranks 7/77 and SJR ranks 18/77 of multidisciplinary journals. Regarding the the papers in question: the reason for deletion was that "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal." This is clearly rebutted. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Recap of issue: It is claimed that "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal." the use of any paper from this journal is dismissed. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• No - we have too many red-flags about their peer-review process. SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate on "too many" ? --POVbrigand (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• First, Sinha's paper (2006) is a primary source and there is no need to have it in the bibliography list.

Second, Krivit's paper (2008), is written by an advocate of the field. We should be wary of reviews written by advocates, they might be promoting it, or they might not to able to write in a totally detached way. We give preference to sources where the author/publisher is independent from the field (in all articles, not just in this topic). And we have other sources covering the facts it's sourcing (which, honestly, are not that notable to begin with, but they just sort of stuck there as an example).

Finally, in 2008 CURR SCI INDIA was 22 out of 42 in multidisciplinary science journals [40].+INDIA]. It's not like Nature has suddenly changed its opinion, and it seems that there is always some journal somewhere on the world ready to publish a given article. Let's remember that India has its own supporters of cold fusion. which migh have facilitated this publication. It speaks volumes that this was not published on a US journal of physics, chemistry or philosophy of science.

So, no. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As per your reasoning I have also deleted the primary sources from Shanahan from the bibliography list. Do you like it ?

please note that I have selfreverted. I think the point is clear, no ? --POVbrigand (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"The publication in mainstream journals has continued to decline but has not entirely stopped." Simon pp. 180–183 - I find it very strange that mainstream journals who do not decline publication are now deemed unreliable for WP. That is not in line with WP-policy. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• YES It is an indexed journal. This establishes reliability of the publication. The publication is not to be used to establish reliability of the journal.84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If an article from a journal is unreliable as you hint at then it reflects on the reliability of the journal as a whole. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• YES It is an indexed journal and acceptable as proven before. To deny it would be equivalent of stating that Irish poets can only write doggerel.

I can provide 1st hand proof of the Current Science review process. Enric's comment about Sinha's paper is only valid because, in December, he had supported removal of the context from the article. In the original context, it was used as a secondary source, not a primary one. Similarly for Czerski's and Hukes papers. His excuse is"

I removed the short paragraph because it was based on primary source research papers by Huke, Czerski, Sinha and Meulenberg which did not merit wider notice. If the papers were important they would have been described by secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

These are all primary sources. No secondary sources pointing them out as significant. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that he is assuming that citations in the literature are primary sources and their citation does not count. Very convenient. Aqm2241 (talk) 08:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

hit-or-miss reaction

I agree with Enric that something about the reliability (or repeatability) of the experiments should be mentioned in the lead. I am not sure if the proposed wording is perfect. [41]

Is it correct to say that:

• The minority view: ""The success rate is about 20 percent, so we know the conditions must be very specific. It's a hit-or-miss reaction, ..." Physorg ?
• The majority view: "The experimental observations are mere mistakes" (Labinger 2005) ?

Maybe we can address the minority-majority problem with a "simple" wording like:

"Many scientists were not able to replicate the experimental results and it is generally concluded that the reported observations are caused by mistakes. Other scientist think that it is a "hit-or-miss" reaction and repeatability is indeed problematic, but that many positive replications cannot be attributed to mistakes."

It is more text, but this would summarize the whole controversy right from the start.

Of course the wording of my proposal is completely open for discussion.

What do you think ?

--POVbrigand (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the "simple" wording proposal. Olorinish (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lovely [42] --POVbrigand (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

All mention of NASA has been deleted from this article 2

see also Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_42#All_mention_of_NASA_has_been_deleted_from_this_article.

There is another mentioning of NASA and LENR this time in wired.co.uk titled "Race for cold fusion: Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern peer through the keyhole"[43].

I think a lot of readers will wonder why there is no mention of NASA in our article. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The article says: "However, when questioned, a Nasa spokesman stated out that there was no Nasa cold fusion project, and no budget for it. The work appears to be carried out on the side by interested Nasa scientists", it also again takes the information from Dr Zawodny's blog where he downplayed the reproducibility etc of CF. No NASA project, nothing to see here, etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No official NASA project, but research nevertheless: "The work appears to be carried out on the side by interested Nasa scientists."

• A filed patent for a "cold fusion" device (mentioned in the wired article)
• A video explaining the patent (mentioned in the wired article)
• Self published presentations explaining the research (mentioned in the wired article)
• An interview with a chief scientists who gives his expert opinion on the topic
• A reference to an early NASA experiment in a peer reviewed paper
• 2 Technical Memoranda

From the wired article: "LENR tests carried out at Nasa's Glenn Research Centre "consistently show evidence of anomalous heat," indicating that cold fusion was taking place." --POVbrigand (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:SELFSOURCE the sources (video, Bushnell interview, presentation slides) are already sufficient to add that "Scientists from NASA are working on LENR"

What is happening here is simply refusal for consensus --POVbrigand (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You've tried other venues [44] but they disagreed as well: "NASA researchers are working on LENR" is not an appropriate claim to make because it misleadingly implies that NASA endorses LENR research. It seems best to give it a rest. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you really wish, do an RFC on it, that will at least settle the issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You are following me around, stop that. You have become totally obsessed with what I do around here after you failed to kick me off the project in the Arbcom case.

My discussion at [[45]] is aiming at improving the Verifiability page "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Verifiability page." --POVbrigand (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at your edit history when I made my reply, that's hardly "following you around". I have over 300 articles in my watchlist, take a look at my recent contributions, notice how little of it is for this article or is even distantly connected to you. Also, you choose to use your designated cold fusion SPA account, if it was a general issue you would have used your other account. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are following me around and misrepresenting my conduct to make a point.

I do not use my other account at the moment, at all.

Your tendentiousness is obvious, because you deliberately cherry picked only the bit that supports your view. The mentioned editor also said "It would be accurate to say that certain scientists who are involved with NASA are involved in LENR research in their spare time. The question is where you should say it: in the main cold fusion article or in a separate article about LENR? I would suggest the latter for the time being" --POVbrigand (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

George H. Miley (UIUC) is an expert in the field.

He will be speaking on the upcoming NETS2012 [46]

"A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)"

"Indeed, such applications have already been explored in conceptual design studies by scientists at NASA Langley assuming Rossi-type cell performance. Their extremely encouraging results support the game-changing advantages of developing this technology. While our present test units are at lab bench power levels (multi 100s watts), scaling up to RTG power levels seems quite feasible using larger amounts of nano-particles and an improved heat management de-sign." --POVbrigand (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing

Is this relevant to ongoing funding or research?

This work is supported by a grant from the New York Community Trust http://www.iscmns.org/iccf14/ProcICCF14b.pdf#page=103

Nuclear Transmutations in Polyethylene (XLPE) Films and Water Tree Generation in Them Hideo Kozima and Hiroshi Date* Cold Fusion Research Laboratory (hjrfq930@ybb.ne.jp) 597-16 Yatsu, Aoi, Shizuoka, 421-1202, Japan

• Recruit R&D Staffing Co., Ltd

. Abstract An explanation of the nuclear transmutation (NT) observed in XLPE (crosslinked polyethylene) films is presented based on the neutron-drop model used in the theoretical investigation of the cold fusion phenomenon in other cold fusion materials (CF materials); transition-metal hydrides/deuterides.

The NT’s, K → Ca, Mg → Al, 56 26Fe → 57 26Fe and Fe → Ni, are explained by a single-neutron absorption with or without a succeeding beta-decay to get final nuclides.

On the other hand, the NT’s, 56 26Fe → 64 30Zn and 56 26Fe → 60 28Ni, are explained by an absorption of a neutron drop

8 4Δ and 4 2Δ, respectively, in the cf-matter formed in CF materials.

Production of extraordinary elements Li, Pb and Bi is discussed from our point of view. Thus, we concluded that the generation of water trees in XLPE samples is caused by nuclear reactions induced by cold fusion phenomenon at around spherulites. The NT found in XLPE may have a relation with the NT’s found in biological bodies (biotransmutation).

1. Introduction We have tried to explain the wide-spread experimental facts in the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) from a unified point of view using a phenomenological models, the trapped neutron catalyzed fusion model (TNCF model) at first [1] and then the neutron-drop model (ND model), a generalized version of the former [2]. It should be remembered here that the development of the model demands an explanation for NT’s with large changes of the nucleon and proton numbers observed in the CFP. In the process of verification of the basic premises of these successful models, we have developed a quantal investigation of the CF materials such as transition metal hydrides/deuterides composed of a host lattice of transition metals and interlaced lattice of interstitial protons/deuterons [3]. It was shown that it is possible for cf-matter to exist when it is composed of neutron drops A ZΔ with Z protons, Z electrons and (A – Z) neutrons in a dense neutron liquid at boundary /surface regions of the crystals.

This work is supported by a grant from the New York Community Trust 1469 18th Street [47] Perhaps a source for Wiki info about natural and unnatural cold fusion... i,e, transmutation... (or not)?--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Such is Science... (or not?)--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oriani

I intend to properly punctuate note 5 and delete the last sentence and associated references since the assertion is patently false.

^ In January 26, 1990, journal Nature rejected Oriani's paper, citing the lack of nuclear ash and the general difficulty that others had in replication.Beaudette 2002, p. 183 It was later published in Fusion Technology.Oriani et al. 1990, pp. 652–662 Oriani stopped after his calorimeter exploded and hurt a student, and he never resumed his research.Taubes 1993, pp. 364–365 and Close 1992, p. 94

This should become: ^ In January 26, 1990, the journal Nature rejected Oriani's paper, citing the lack of nuclear ash and the general difficulty that others had in replication, Beaudette 2002, p. 183. It was later published in Fusion Technology.

The claim in the deleted references is countered by Oriani's presentations of his recent work as late as 2010. The anti-CF people will defend and claim that the deleted references are valid and the recent publications of Oriani's work are primary references or not in acceptable (by their definition) journals, newspapers, or magazines.

This is, of course, an example of why the anti-CFers are so afraid of recent publications and try to delete them as often as possible (ref Current Science debate). They cling to the pre-2000 'documentation', even when it is clearly false. Since it appears that is almost all they have, they defend it any way they can. Aqm2241 (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK with that deletion, I see that in his 2008 paper "Reproducible Evidence for the Generation of a Nuclear Reaction During Electrolysis" he is working in a laboratory.

(please assume good faith, not everyone is aware of every active researcher. Maybe he resumed his research after 2003.) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this article has a time relevance problem? LENR cold fusion may no longer be the environment of simple electrolysis with palladium. I will not assume good faith where the capacity of assuming good faith is not demonstrated. End of discussion,--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

support edit--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminder

Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight

"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth."

--POVbrigand (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

MIT progress report again

Discussed already in:

• Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_40#MIT_progress_report
• Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_42#MIT_progress_report

This is a primary source with little editorial control. Stop trying to add it. Articles should be written with neutral third-party independent sources. ---Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please allow me to make some comments:

I don't think your argument "This is a primary source with little editorial control. Stop trying to add it. Articles should be written with neutral third-party independent sources." will stand the test of WP-policy.

I think that "neutral third-party independent sources" is not a requirement in the way you make us believe. We should strive to use them, yes. But you can add other sources too, for instance when secondary sources are not available to describe a minority view.

I have been around here long enough to know that any minority view publication will be contested exactly on these grounds:

• the author is not neutral, he is "one of them", a "crackpot believer", an "adherent of fringe" (please see comments in the ongoing dispute on "current science" that Krivit is an adherent and therefore unreliable is such way that the whole journal "current science" is suddenly deemed unreliable just because they published and article by him)
• the author is not third-party, same as above, once you're in, you're in.
• the author is not independent, again same as above the mere authorship of a fringe proponent makes the whole source unreliable and thus unsuitable for WP

If we would follow your idea of source selection, we would be left with only a few news stories and a book by Bart Simon that offered a more or less balanced point of view on the story to explain the minority view.

If I recall correctly this source was used in the article to show that the minority view asserts that there were many successful replications. It is a self published source by scientist who represent the minority view. The authors are experts within the minority view. So it is a perfectly valid source to show just that.

btw, that Hagelstein from MIT is working on this topic is noticed also by secondary sources [48]. The progress report also mentions a sponsor "Sponsors: "Nuclear Energy Release from Metal Deuterides", SRI International under subagreement #33-000075, Period: 3/23/09-9/27/11". Looking up that subagreement might show that the project was officially funded.

I find it interesting that while deleting this source you added another source (Reger 2009) and quoted from it: "After several years and multiple experiments by numerous investigators, most of the scientific community now considers the original claims unsupported by the evidence. [from image caption] Virtually every experiment that tried to replicate their claims failed. Electrochemical cold fusion is widely considered to be discredited."

You add a source which describes the majority view, on (at most) 1 page out of 1120 pages, recounting what happened in 1989/1990 while dismissing a source from 2010 which is used to describe the minority view position "that many replications were positive".

I fear that had I gotten banned in the recent Arbcom case many more minority view sources would get deleted until the article reflects only what is written in the majority view vintage sources Huizenga, Taubes, and Close, the books I assume you know by heart. Or the ones that echo these in restating the unchanged majority view, like your newly added Reger 2009 or any other of the huge list of more or less identical quotes you have collected.

--POVbrigand (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

LENR research at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

"Research Areas" include LENR

The LENRs group: "Part of the research in the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Lab consists of experiments that use either an electrolysis process, a high pressure, or an arc process to force hydrogen atoms into the lattice structure of a thin film (500-1000 A) of metal. A major goal of this research is to examine the metal before and after the experiment, to establish the signatures of LENRs by studying transmutation products. Another goal is to measure the energy output of the unit. If an ample amount is released, such cells offer an attractive small power source for future distributed energy systems."

This is a reliable self published source to say that University of Urbana-Champaign Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering (NPRE) has LENR listed as research area. Read WP:SELFSOURCE

Strange that the newly added source "Reger 2009" doesn't mention that anywhere in his 1120 pages thick chemistry book.

What does that tell us about the usefulness of the "Reger 2009" book as a source for our article ?

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection. Why would you expect a chemistry book to mention this University of Urbana-Champaign Department? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Italian DOE vs American DOE

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&tbb=1&twu=1&u=http://titano.sede.enea.it/Stampa/skin2col.php%3Fpage%3Deneaperdettagliofigli%26id%3D78&usg=ALkJrhiVL5-7OBHVOv49blhqFi8KCX2IbQ

The differences worth noticing.

• This is hosted on the official website.
• This is based on scientific investigation.
• Specific funding has been allocated in Italy by the Ministry of Economic Development (former Minister for Productive Activities).
• The lack of neutrality of the US DOE panel is easily pointed out. Jones was the first one to promote the idea cold fusion was a dead science. He was also instrumental in patent trolling Fleischmann into going public. We are not to accept his views uncritically nor should we present the extreme negative bias as if mainstream.
• The conflict of interest with hot fusion funding, mention of which is so carefully avoided in our article(?)

Of course to both applies, governments nor their agencies are peer reviewed journals. Therefore, as there is peer review literature suggests the exact opposite from the US DOE report it is not correct to give undue weight to the US DOE. The opinion might be highly note worthy it can not be used for anything more than the official position of the US DOE. The report clearly disclaimers the views as belonging to their authors, the views do not represent the US government. This is also confirmed by SPAWAR obviously.

With respect to our edit guidelines: At what stage do other editors believe American bureaucrats may overrule the global scientific community? Mind you, I didn't say their opinion isn't note worthy or that it isn't worth mentioning the review. It obviously is an important historic event. The part where you want the bureaucrates to overrule the scientists seems to be in violation of the edit guidelines that I am so familiar with.

The unscientific report has no place in the lead of the science article. It is just like we are not mentioning Thomas Graham in the lead. The usual explanation asserting how important the report would be doesn't apply. I'm not questioning the noteworthiness of the review. I'm objecting to the part where you want people like obvious patent troll Steven Jones to be considered the mainstream scientific community. Debunkers who are not involved in the scientific investigation like for example the obvious troll Huizenga should not to be equated with the global scientific community.

I don't care if you write whole paragraphs about the US DOE, their fringe views and their pathological denial, it may not be considered the mainstream scientific consensus per wp:synth. You are to attribute fringe minority views to their author rather than pretending they represent a global scientific consensus.

84.106.9.95 (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The conclusion of the US DOE had a significant effect on the whole story. The placement in the lead is absolutely unproblematic, on the contrary it is significant "milestone". The way I read the report there is nothing in there that is really worth an argument, even the ENEA source that you present here says that: "After several months of evaluation, the DOE issued the verdict, a significant number of referees believed that the phenomenon was considered a real effect, not the fruit of imagination or bad measures, and that the matter deserved to be studied neither more nor less like other scientific subjects. " Also in the concluding document of the DOE claims that one of the areas where we need to concentrate their studies in materials science." LENR research has possibly been hindered by intervention of influential scientists regarding funding programs, but I don't believe in any conspiracy theory regarding hot-fusion scientists or big-oil steering colf fusion into damnation.

If I understand your reasoning correctly, you are discrediting Huizenga et al as being unscientific and having a fringe minority view. I think that is very far fetched. If LENR is ever going to be proven and accepted by mainstream science then the minority/majority view will have changed accordingly and our article would be ripe for a complete rewrite. But for now the majority view is more or less still in line with Huizenga, although there are signs that that might be already changing, we can't really tell at the moment.

Instead of trying to discredit the majority view, I think it is more important for the WP-reader to explain that the minority view is not in the hands of lonely garage "crackpots" who post "free energy" youtube videos or of con-men who are cheating investors, but that the minority view is clearly driven by very credible scientists from several renowed institutions.

I agree with you that the WP-policies are regularly misused or even blatantly disregarded to keep minority view sources from being added to the article, going as far as claiming that peer reviewed journals are not reliable, or claiming that WP:SELFSOURCE sources are "low-quality", or that only "neutral third-party independent sources" can be used.

The next interesting dates will be Celani's speech at CERN on March 22 and Kim's and Miley's speeches at NETS2012 on March 23, both mainstream science venues. In comparison, we haven't heard from Huizenga, Close and Taubes for at least 20 years. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

the lack of nuclear byproducts

" ... and because there is no generally accepted theoretical explanation that accounts for the lack of nuclear byproducts. ..."

The lack of nuclear byproducts is not the only thing that fails an explanation, the mystery of the high coulomb barrier tunneling is the other.

Huizenga's 3 miracles:

• the lack of strong neutron emissions;
• the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetratedy;
• the lack of strong emission of gamma rays or X-rays.

I just wanted to highlight this, maybe we can rewrite the line somehow.

--POVbrigand (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

also i'd add that "the lack of nuclear byproducts" is grossly inaccurate. if anyone actually proposed that the total mass gets substantially less with out an increase in output energy e = mc^2, or that the full mass of the protons and neutrons are getting converting into energy... well that's just outright ridiculous.

what they really mean is lack of _expected_ nuclear byproducts given the theoretically predicted reaction pathways for high temperature plasma -- namely, way too few neutrons. one proposed possibility is that their nuclear byproducts might helium. that would not be a lack of nuclear byproduct, that would be a _different_ nuclear byproduct. Kevin Baas^talk 15:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

also huizenga's not doing his probabilities right. he seems to imply that the probabilities of his "3 miracles" multiply together. but he forgot to first look for conditional dependance; you have to establish the bayesian priors. what miracle 1) and 2) are saying is simply that they don't fit predicted reaction pathways for high temperature plasmas, which is unsurprising because, well, this is not a high temperature plasma. so really those 2 miracles are only 1 miracle, namely, the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated in a non high-density high temperature plasma. oh look, that's really the "2nd miracle". so really the "3 miracles" are just 1 miracle. and there's a pretty obvious solution here: the coloumb barrier is a classical physics construct, we should be considering this from a quantum physics perspective, and in the context that you're in a solid state crystaline metal. so where' in the context of "block waves" and so forth. very interesting. unfortuatley, also very difficult. in any case now we see there is only 1 miracle, attached to a very distinct and uncommon quantum-physical environment. okay, bayesian priors now established. go. Kevin Baas^talk 15:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the claim in the first paragraph is misstated. The generally accepted theoretical explanation for the lack of nuclear byproducts is no nuclear reaction occurred. What is instead missing is a generally accepted theoretical explanation for cold fusion as a reaction. 24.215.188.24 (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed for discussion

I removed this sentence from the section on "Subsequent research programs"

In 2007, nuclear physicist and engineering professor Jean-Paul Biberian published an update surveying the previous 15 years of work, stating that nuclear reactions which are not predicted by current theories have been proven.

The sentence may be superficially true, but it is focussing on a singular review by a cold fusion experimenter who has an obvious point-of-view that is counter to that of the mainstream. The strong claim that "nuclear reactions... have been proven." deserves explication if it is to be believed, and there is no explication forthcoming. As the only sentence in that section, it is highly weighted towards a recentist perspective revolving around LENR of the fringe researcher rather than the historic position of cold fusion.

Please address these criticisms before reinstating.

24.215.188.24 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

first, to get clarity, I made a "half-revert" putting the Biberian part back in but leaving your edit in the lead.

Regarding your reasons for removing Biberian:

• Biberian has an obvious point-of-view -> yes, he is one of the scientists who holds the minority view. There is nothing wrong with using that in our WP-article as long as it is clear for the WP-readers that he is indeed on the minority view side.
• Biberian is stating the minority view correctly, again there is nothing wrong with explaining the minority view in our WP-article, provided we do not mislead WP-readers that the minority view is generally accepted.
• "nuclear reactions... have been proven" is in line with the conclusion of Biberian's paper:"After 15 years of intense work by hundreds of scientists in 15 countries, the proof that nuclear reactions not predicted by current theories occur in solids, during electrolysis, gas loading and gas discharge, has been established. This presentation is an overview of the field that gives convincing experimental data proving excess heat and helium production, tritium and neutron detection, X-rays and transmutation." I believe Biberian explains in his paper how he comes to that conclusion.

I don't think you can call this WP:recentism, the paper is from 2007. This WP-article tries to discuss both the "historical events" of the Fleischmann-Pons era and the ongoing research that continues until today and arguably seems to intensify lately. It has been noted before that maybe the WP-article should be split up between the "Cold fusion - historic view" and the "LENR - ongoing research". --POVbrigand (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand, there is a problem with including ONLY the minority POV which is what this particular section is doing. And I'm not sure he is stating the minority POV "correctly" as you say. The word "prove" is one that is fraught in science and is generally eschewed when talking about theories and observations. "Proving" that there were nuclear reactions would be something done in a court of law or in the context of mathematics. Finally, in a field that is 30 years old, 2007 commentary is pretty recent in comparison to when the major discussions about this (or even "subsequent discussions", as the session outlines) happened. I removed the sentence until someone can workshop a good balanced description of what the subsequent research programs involved and why (this sentence manifestly does not do that). 76.119.90.74 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by reverting

I have no problem with people reverting. However, I have a big problem when people revert without discussing their reverts on the talk page. This is a requirement per WP:REVEXP.

See [49] and [50] for the reverts in question.

On principle, I reverted the user who has not contributed to the talk page.

If someone wants to discuss the changed I made above in regards to a revert they think would be appropriate, please do so.

24.215.188.24 (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet

Binksternet, with ~500 edits per week you are obviously a paid 'wiki-expert', a professional. I would like to extend to you the same invitation that was presented to me when I first edited the CF topic as a CF proponent. "Please identify yourself and your relationship to Cold Fusion and this article." Without any discussion (but with knee-jerk confirmation by naval), in a couple of quick edits, you casually discarded a year's worth of effort to introduce mainstream scientific articles (over the major efforts of the anti-CFers) that disproved the stories that the anti-CF editors have been trying to foist on the readers.

Your rational was 'Wiki-proper', but entirely bogus. Based on the rational provided, you (and naval) apparently do not know: the difference between a citation in an original article and the original work in the article; the reference articles you deleted; or anything about the topic you are editing. However, I do not believe that the two of you do not know the difference between cited work and original content. Therefore, the 2nd and 3rd options appear to be the correct interpretation for your status. Naval's condition is different.

I would suggest that as a professional (but one that has no Wiki-history of any contributions in science topics), you should be willing to disclose who is paying you to edit this topic or be labelled as being an 'expert of a different sort' and having POV that should immediately eliminate your destructive tendencies from the topic. I would suggest that you are not paid by wikipedia, unless you were specifically tasked to eliminate credible sources from the topic - regardless of the violations the rational entails.

Unfortunately, the damage is done. You've done your job. I predict that you will leave the article soon; your position is untenable. (I do hope that you lose your autopatrolled rights.) Nevertheless, it will take weeks to re-establish the references and content that you deleted. You've also left the warning that no matter what the proponents do, you, or someone like you, will come by and erase their efforts with 30 second edits. Congratulations on a job well done. Aqm2241 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of being paid to disrupt this page is a very serious accusation WP:CONSPIRACY. I suggest you remove your accusations that editors you disagree with are paid or substantiate your accusations at the correct venue WP:ANI i.e "put up or shut up". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What is this, throw mud at the wall and see what sticks? The accusation is ridiculous—nobody pays me to edit. Somebody once paid me $50 so they could use one of my images that I had already uploaded to Commons and thus donated to public domain, but that did not alter my editing style, it just made me think of the old saying, "there is one born every minute". Speaking of which, any editor reading the accusation by Aqm2241 would want verification through diffs, but the negative comments and attitudes that are ascribed to me are not true, so of course they cannot be represented through diffs. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

He's accused other editors of being paid before: [51] and accused me and other editors of libel [52]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

...And nothing sticks, right? None of us would talk down about Aqm2241's accusations if they had a foundation in truth. All I can say to the insulting fishing expedition is "take it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and bring some evidence". Good luck with that. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)