User:Gregory Goble
The Cold Fusion article links create a reverse relevance problem. The links progression should go forward in time from Cold Fusion to the present state of affairs for this subject. LENR and the Widom Larson Theory, and works known as Condensed Matter Nuclear reflect a deeper contemporary understanding of these phenomenon. The NASA patent for a device based on LENR Science provides a clear pointer that Wiki links should progress forward on this subject. Cold Fusion was a historical birth of this initially misunderstood science. The links should progress forward into the Science of LENR. For this to be allowed by Wiki the Wiki Forum needs to: 1)Recognize it as a Science. 2)Recognize quality Peer Review Journals used by department heads of universities and researchers in this field.
My hope is to improve the article Cold Fusion.
Therefore over the next few weeks I will solicit views of the deans of physics departments of universities.
LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear 1) Is this science or quackery? 2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information. 3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it? 4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?
P>S> A) Any suggestions before I move forward with this? B) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wiki Forum may value?--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
A bit of input from a few editors has helped me in this endeavor. To date, here are my (perhaps final) edits to the questions and a bit of the input.
input> As to your “B” question, above, yes; I should think your poll would be valuable… if you received a response. I should think that you would also need to validate the authenticity of your response by having it vetted by one of our ‘crats. Some will argue that the results of your poll are Original Research but I don’t think that would be a genuine shortcoming. By definition, O.R. is …facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. The deans of science and engineering departments are reliable; the only trick is in establishing that their conclusions are somehow published, and it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how to accomplish that. The whole point of OR is to ensure that the point is being made by a reliable expert and is not the work product of a mere wikipedian. <end input
I hope for a high percentage of responses and am basing that on an assumption that most directors of physics departments are following this closely. The published Widom Larson Theory has elevated the theoretical science of LENR such that it should be on their radar.--Gregory Goble (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
input> As to your “A” question, I would suggest calling the secretaries for the department heads to solicit who exactly you should direct your emails to. Also, I suggest the following tweaks to the wording of your poll:
1) Is the discipline of cold fusion, in your opinion, generally regarded as having a “pathological science” nature to it? 2) Does your university offer cold fusion as a for-credit class? 3) Are you developing a curriculum focused on cold fusion? If so, when will you offer it? 4) What respected, peer review journals do you source in this field?
other input>While surveying department heads is an interesting exercise, since Wikipedia discourages original research [34], it is very possible that the results will not be very useful for improving the article, unless you publish the results somewhere, preferably in a reputable publication. Good luck! Olorinish (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC) <end input
other input> > LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear, historically misnamed "Cold Fusion" > > 1) Is this science or pathological science?--- People will be confused because pathological science is also science. It would be clearer to ask "Is this good science or pathological science?"
> 2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.--- > 3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?--- They look like good questions.
> 4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?--- I don't understand this last question. Instead of "do you source" it should be "do you see as good sources"? And there are also books, consider "What books or peer reviewed journals do you see as good sources for this field?"
> > Enric, > P>S> > 1) Any suggestions before I move forward with this? > 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value?
The people on the Vortex-l mailing list will be very happy of seeing the results of this query. But, in wikipedia, the articles are based on published sources. The result of this query ought to be published on some source that we could quote.<end input
Thank you for your good suggestions. Implimenting elements of them will improve the correspondence. This is not research. I am not going to compile results or do an analysis. It's copies of individual correspondence that I will post, Someone sends a letter to me and I post it with contact info for your verification. A list of classes offered would be considered published. I will make sure to include a link to the published catalog the class is found in. --Gregory Goble (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Asking for an "opinion" is not research. Looking for classes offered or curriculum being developed is not original research; it's called investigative reporting. Compiling correspondence for posting is allowed, I hope. I imagine the Directors of Departments of Physics of Universities have done their research and have informed opinions on this subject. I will post their correspondence, positive or negative. I am sure I will be better informed on this subject after this query, quote "interesting exersise". Do you consider it "interesting" enough to see copies of my correspondence? With further effort you could verify each to see if I've been honest? >>> "Wikipedia discourages original research [35], it is very possible that the results will not be very useful for improving the article."<<< I'll keep this in mind though. Thanks! --Gregory Goble (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. After consideration I have edited accordingly...
1) Is the discipline of LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear, aka historically inaccurately called "Cold Fusion", in your opinion: A) Good science, or B) Pathological science? A or B
If A... Continue...
2) Does your university offer instruction in this field as a for-credit class? As a not for credit class? If so. please provide class information.
3) Are you developing a curriculum focused on this discipline? If so, when will you offer it?
4) What peer review journals do you utilize or source in this field (for publication or review) and what books do you recommend for information?
I steer away from "cold fusion". This subject and article has a Wiki links reverse relevance problem. Cold fusion should link forward to LENR and the Widom Larson Theory which represents the "Current State of Affairs" for this subject.
I steer away from eliciting responses that are second person speculative such as " in your opinion, generally regarded" or " What respected, peer review journals do you source ". I want to know if the respondee thinks it's good science or not. I want to know what journals they utilize (for publication or review) and what books they have found to have pertinent information. I assume that their opinion (respondee) is the only one they are qualified to give. I also assume that they respect the publication if they list it as part of their "reading material" on LENR. Both assumptions seem sound to me.--Gregory Goble (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Room Temperature
LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and the Widom Larson Theory does not state "room temperature" as a parameter for experimental or observable phenomenon. It is incorrect to infer it does as in the first line of this article. "Cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR), refers to the hypothesis that nuclear fusion might explain the results of a group of experiments conducted at ordinary temperatures (e.g., room temperature)." The majority of LENR experiments require temperatures well above room temperature. Of course I cannot source the info because Wiki does not recognise the journals researchers in this field publish their works in. I am glad researchers do though. Otherwise none of these works would be published, or undergo peer review, no lab would attempt to duplicate and improve the experiments, and we would gain no further understanding of these phenomenon. No, LENR and the Widom Larson Theory is not Cold Fusion and an 'only in speculation' Cold Fusion Theory. Like apples and oranges. Or more like Copernicus and the Hubble Space Telescope. Since this is "pathological" science I guess these fine points aren't worth noticing. Or is it? Or are they?--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Truth be told... prejudgment and censorship based on misunderstanding is as harmful to the pursuit of science and understanding as prejudgment and censorship based on 'truths'. An example is the errors contained in the first line of this article. --Gregory Goble (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR), refers to the hypothesis that nuclear fusion might explain the results of a group of experiments conducted at ordinary temperatures (e.g., room temperature). Study the "banned journals" study the presentations and papers from the "banned conferences" and you will find that what I say about temperature is correct. I hope this heats things up a bit. I hear you get better reactions that way,--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Persecution complex doesn't help anyone with the article. If you have specific suggestions (with reliable sources) then make them, but do not accuse others of being prejudiced while you do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I do have a specific suggestion do not persecute me with an accusation of my having a persecution complex. Personal attacks are not allowed and I must report you. EDIT suggestion: The first line should read... 'Cold fusion' was the birthplace of research that led to the development of LENR. Various Low Energy Nuclear Reaction experiments using many different combinations of nano powdered metals, gasses, sound, radio frequencies, electrical currents, and light has led to a deeper understanding of the science of LENR. Further observation of phenomenon and analysis of data gained from these various Low Energy Nuclear Reaction experiments (most being much different than the early cold fusion experiment) led to the widely accepted Widom Larson Theory which explains the non-fusion nuclear reactions that take place. The name Low Energy Nuclear Reaction was not adopted to avoid the cold fusion stigma, but rather because the name reflects what is happening while 'cold fusion' does not. I will find sources that are not banned by editors. Off to the library to study and copy what each Encyclopedia (written by experts not amateurs) has to say on this subject. Perhaps all of us will gain a deeper understanding from my efforts. I will continue to address the prejudgment and censorship that I find in this article... step by step. Please do not accuse me of "accusing others of prejudice" or of "while you do it" thereby accusing me of prejudice. I was referring to the fact that stating LENR is cold fusion is prejudgment (just one example) and continuing to disallow journals or papers from conferences that LENR researchers utilize is censorship. I did not accuse an individual of doing that. Sorry if you felt that way but I must now bring charges against you for these unjustified accusations and your blatant attack against me.--Gregory Goble (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
CONTINUED...
Cold Fusion Talk - Remove Sentence from Conferences Section
sometimes a problem... "Editors' who believe a good day's work is to summarily delete other people's work (especially when they could spend time helping to expand the work). At worst, deletes should be preceded by talk-page discussion (prior to the RfD discussion).GFHandel ♬ " Hi, Thank you for advice given in welcome on my talk page. Is there a page I should study on delete? I've studied edit summary. I've posted my intentions on Cold Fusion Talk. No comments as of 24 hours; thinking of waiting another day or two, no objections and then delete? I would like to review the edit history that led to the posting of the sentence in question. Could you please explain how to study this? For the enjoyment of you and you'rn.... a poem to share. ALIGHTS The nest instinct thru True imaginings delight Leads to what's right
Color the lining new Tufts soft and light Bits shiny bright
Into completion it grew Winged creatures alight Home for the night
gbgoble'2008--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Remove Sentence from Conferences Section
The following sentence is a little confusing to me having read the paper and book referenced. It also confuses the article. (first part of sentence) By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science,[29] (second part of sentence) and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences.[97] Discourse part one: By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science,[29] From the paper: But they did also continue to pursue Cold Fusion. Reacting to criticism of the primitive technique they had used to detect neutrons, they purchased the best neutron detection system in the world, essentially identical to the one used by Charlie Barnes at Caltech. Going one better, they installed it in physics laboratories that had been excavated under a mountain called the Gran Sasso, a two-hour drive from Rome. Anywhere on the surface of the Earth, there are always some neutrons buzzing around due to cosmic radiation from outer space. This so-called "background" has to be subtracted from the neutrons produced by any other phenomenon such as Cold Fusion. In the galleries under the Gran Sasso, the shielding effect of the mountain reduces the cosmic ray neutron background nearly to zero. That's why the laboratory was built there. An automated system was set up to monitor the neutron counter while running the temperature of a Scaramuzzi-type deuterium gas cell up and down. Every week or so, a member of the group would have to drive out to the Gran Sasso lab, check out the counters, replenish the supply of liquid nitrogen, and bring back the data. No one could accuse them any longer of being unsophisticated about neutron work. However, this experiment, like their own earlier work and many others blossoming around the world, produced positive results, but only sporadically. There was no dependable recipe for coaxing bursts of neutrons out of the Cold Fusion cell. As long as that was true the world of respectable science was not going to pay any attention even to the "good kind" of Cold Fusion. Then they decided to pursue the "bad kind" as well. They built a well- designed electrolysis cell, capable of detecting excess heat if any were produced, while obviating some of the shortcomings for which previous excess heat experiments had been criticized. In 1992 and 1993, these experiments, too, gave positive results. The cell would produce very substantial amounts of heat (a few watts) for periods of tens of hours at a time. As in the neutron experiments, these episodes were sporadic, occurring seemingly at random, but at least they occurred only when the fluid in the cell was heavy water (containing deuterium), never when it was light water (containing ordinary hydrogen). The lack of this kind of control experiment had been one of the points of criticism of Pons and Fleischmann. However, by this time, the world of mainstream science was no longer listening. [29] ' I could post the whole paper but this example runs throughout; criticism and critiques, serious science, sporadic, reproducible, unexplained. To take part of a sentence from a paper and create the sentence found in this Wikipedia article may be taking the intent of the author of the paper out of context. Discourse part two:' and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences. [97] From the back cover of the book: 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… 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. {author} Bart Simon is an assistant professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. [97] Note that the author is an assistant professor of sociology not physics. To reference part of a sentence from this book may be taking the intent of the author out of context. I liked his book about the survival of cold fusion research because it touches nicely on disbelief, confusion, and misunderstanding as it occurs in science. Scientists from well-respected laboratories are critics, they critique each others work rigorously, and they attend these conferences enabling them to continue to produce new and rubust work. Bart Simon probably knows that. Amateur ‘garage’ cold fusion researchers are allowed to attend conferences and proliferate i.e. crackpots. Summary: To do justice to the two authors and to clarify the article I would like to see the sentence removed. The two documents referenced are full of great replacement sentences to use, in whole or in piecemeal. One suggestion is: 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[97]; for as long as that was true the world of respectable science was not going to pay any attention even to the "good kind" of Cold Fusion[29]. I hope there are other better replacement suggestions? Probably just removing it is best. An explanation that amateur ‘garage’ cold fusion researchers are allowed to attend conferences is needed. --Gregory Goble (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)