Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48



JzG - - I assume that you will be here in person rather than in 'bot', since you have been forewarned on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ‎ (→‎Cold Fusion: new section)

   "There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and 
   our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)"

You (JzG) eliminated a sentence "In 2007 they established their own peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.[1] " based on its link to a "not reliable secondary source" (your claim). If there were a link to a commercial advertisement in the NYT about the JCMNS, instead of the ISCMNS link, would that be acceptable to you?

You are wrong on several counts that betray both your POV or carelessness. Assuming that cold fusion is "fringe" today (with over 4,000,000 hits on Google) and stating that a peer-reviewed journal (JCMNS) is "not reliable" is purely POV (yours or that of those you are supporting). Stating that the link is to the journal rather than to an organization's website (ISCMNS, a reliable secondary source for this purpose) is carelessness. Deleting important material, which had been discussed previously, with only a cryptic and invalid comment is not appropriate: 4 April 2014‎ JzG ... (they created a journal, source: link to the journal. Which is not a reliable secondary source.)

I went through the anti-fringe argument 1.5 years ago in this talk area and no one could come up with a valid reason for maintaining CF as a fringe topic. The topic could be considered "WP:controversial"; but, despite the major effort of the anti-CF group to keep documentation of mainstream research and publication out of the article, considering it to be fringe is untenable. It is only the unwillingness of that group to allow sufficient post-2000 publications to remain in the article that they can convince themselves (and certain administrators) to maintain the charade of their fringe argument. Aqm2241 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion is considered fringe "today" for reasons that should be obvious once one reads over WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and, of course, WP:FRINGE. As such, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is as reliable as any "journal" published from within the walled garden of astrology, homeopathy, etc. I.e., Regardless of the number of Google hits produced by the endless number of blogs and websites devoted to the topic, or the number of self-published papers its devotees can produce, without mainstream support, fringe is still fringe. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
ArtifexMayhem - do you consider the CF article to be anti-CF (and therefore mainstream) or neutral, but specific to the topic? If the former, then it should be clearly identified as such. In that case, only a few exceptional articles could be allowed to support the minority view. Since there are mainstream anti-CF views, this would be a legitimate position. However, there are few mainstream descriptions of, or experiments on, the topic (perhaps none since 1991). If this article is a specific article on CF, not 'views on CF', then the balance shifts the other way. The anti-CF references are then the minority and must be held to the higher standard.
If the anti-CF crowd is treating the CF article as a minority and fringe position relative to a mainstream "view," then it needs to be retitled. Are you, or is anyone, authorized to speak for the anti-CF club, to decide what the article is. I would be happy to retitle it, if the decision is that it is a view of, rather than an article on, CF. Too much time and energy has been expended on trying to create an article that must meet different standards from the editors' viewpoints. Aqm2241 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqm2241 (talkcontribs)
Aqm2241 your instance on labeling other editors must stop. You have absolutely no idea what my personal views on the topic are. If you believe I or any other editor is acting in bad faith, as your use of "anti-CF" implies, the take it to the proper venue. Personal attacks, thinly veiled or otherwise, do not improve the article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
ArtifexMayhem Forgive me if I have misjudged you. You consider yourself an 'honest' skeptic and I can respect that. However, your apparent turning a blind eye to the overt removal of pro-CF mainstream references and external links from the WP:CF article certainly pointed to acceptance of the anti-CF position and actions. Everyone has a POV and I believe few men would object to being labled (women don't seem to like it). There is nothing wrong with being pro- or anti-CF, as long as it does not detract from the article. I see no evidence of bad action in your case (but, to be honest, I haven't looked very hard). I had asked you a question that I thought would clarify some of the problems. If people see the article from different viewpoints, then they will have different expectations.
An earlier discussion had asked whether the article was a 'history' of the Fleischmann Pons effect or more. Was it resolved? If not, we could be having the same problem now. My question was whether CF was considered to be a mainline topic or a fringe topic. The header on the CF talk page says that it is controversial. 'Controversial' requires an attempt at equality. It also requires the controversy to be described. There should be a section in the article devoted to the controversy. If editors perceive the article as fringe, then they should treat it differently than if it is fringe in a mainline article (e.g., a nuclear physics topic) or controversial. What is proper or acceptable editing on one case is vandalism in another. Thus, actions and perceptions unnecessarily polarize the editors. I still have not heard anyone address what they consider the article to be in those terms. The anti-CF group appears to consider CF to be fringe, but the article to be a mainstream subject. I have a problem with that. Maybe it can be resolved.
From WP:PARITY - "Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects." I do not believe CF to be a mainstream subject (yet). This article is specific to a non-mainstream topic. Therefore, I consider blocking and deleting of pro-CF views and references (particularly high quality ones) to be vandalism. If you still consider CF claims of excess heat and nuclear reactions to be extraordinary and the CF article to be a mainstream article, then you might even consider arbitrary deletion of pro-CF mainline journal articles to be justified as fighting WP:Undue, because the referenced journals are not 'extraordinary'. While I doubt that I could convince you about the claims, particularly if the appropriate references are 'not allowed', we might come to some agreement about the nature of the article. If all editors came to such agreement, the article could be made 'whole' and perhaps a second one, or second part, could also be agreed upon. Aqm2241 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Still considered fringe in 2013.
I recall that the journal is published by the organizer of the annual CF conference? It should be given preferential treatment among proponent sources. I find it natural to mention the most influential journal in a fringe field, when speaking about publications. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
How about: no. We know they publish journals for each other, but unless you can find reliable independent sources that establish the significance of these journals, then citing the existence of the journals to the journals themselves is WP:OR and discussing them at all is WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Guy - You clearly seem to think that Cold Fusion is a mainstream article on the subject and therefore pro-CF views and papers are a minority position and fall under the WP:undue ruling. Would you care to defend the title of the article if it considers the cold fusion research to be a majority activity? If CF is a majority activity, could you quote some majority-position research in this area in the last decade? Two decades? If the title were "Cold Fusion in the 20th Century", I would give you a bit more slack. "Cold Fusion in the 21st Century" is a whole new ball game. You say that you have learned about CF from a friend who worked in Fleischmann's lab. If he was not the janitor who cleaned up after one experiment burned its way thru the lab bench and part of the floor, then I would be interested in what he had to say. Perhaps, you could write a letter on what he had to say to the editor of Nature and have it, as a tertiary source, become an acceptable reference for the CF article?
You suggest that I am advocating pathological science and that the scientific community considers that is what CF is. I publish and communicate with physicists and engineers in 3 different fields. Most are surprised that CF is still active and are generally interested in the positive results. A few do have the closed mind and POV that you seem to enjoy. For the most part, they are not the ones doing active research. On the other hand, perhaps you have data and many physicist friends that are both knowledgeable on the subject and agree with your POV. Since you are so set against CF and want to eliminate any positive references, why don't you just leave the title and eliminate all but one line, "bullshit", and save us all a lot of grief. I'm sure that you can find a reference for that. It expresses your POV, your OR, and all of the other excuses that the anti-CF club has been using over the years to deny evidence and to convince themselves of their rightness and righteousness. Aqm2241 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
See the arbitration case linked at the head of this page. The world views cold fusion as pathological science, it is not Wikipedia's job to fix that for you. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's still considered fringe science. See for example page 176 of the recent book "Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem", where cold fusion is cited as an "example of institutionalized fringe science" and where the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is specifically mentioned as part of this institutionalization. --Noren (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are the authors of this recent mentioned book? This labeling "example of institutionalized fringe science" is just rant.-- (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Noren, your reference is very interesting. Note that the author described CF as "institutionalized fringe science." The book is a collection of 24 essays by various experts seeking to identify the distinctions between science and pseudoscience. The essay you referenced is titled "Belief buddies versus critical communities." I find it very interesting that her description of "belief buddies" (p 169, many with "little relevant scholarly training," p. 177, and as a marker for pseudo science, p 179) seems to fit the anti-CF crowd very well. Her description of CF as institutionalized and composed of self-critical, communicating, credentialed, individuals (characteristics of science) gave it "borderline legitimacy" (p 176). Since the anti-CF crowd often takes quotes from pro-CF author's introductions to identify problems with CF research or data, you may as well also. Please put it into the article text, so that we can add a legitimate CF reference (see my comments below). Aqm2241 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not a Wikilawyer and sometimes am somewhat slow (naive?). I just realized that the reason that the anti-CF club must remove legitimate sources that are pro-CF is that they have to maintain the fiction that CF is fringe. Then, to show that they are 'neutral', they can allow as many pro-CF as anti-CF references. Thus, they play the game.
We can help them play their game, and still improve the article, by finding as many anti-CF comments as possible. Since the anti-CF crowd would allow (and claim) even blogs as strong tertiary sources (if they fit the proper POV), the pro-CF group could play along just to permit additional legitimate CF-documentation to be referenced in the article. Of course, the discerning reader would see the difference in quality of the references, but the anti-CF crowd is not trying to convince a discerning reader. Since it cannot 'kill' CF, it only wants to preserve the fiction that CF is fringe-science. Furthermore, some of the anti-CF group are less than honest and know that periodically, they can bring in a 'big gun' and just arbitrarily 'erase' many of the pro-CF references to maintain the appearance that CF is still only "fringe" and no real work or progress is happening. For example, I note that all of the Forbes references are now gone. Some sources that are 'legitimate' when publishing anti-CF articles would be labeled as fringe and/or worthless and not be allowed, if publishing non-anti-CF articles (e.g., However, the anti-CF articles from these same journals must still be retained to keep the WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe charade intact.
Speaking of WP:Fringe, within their own definition, they violate the Wiki tenets: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." Clearly the anti-CF group will not allow "more extensive treatment" under any circumstances. (They may even deny the notability of CF, since they apparently believe it is fringe. Apparently, they consider the article to be about the failure of CF - a majority viewpoint? - thus they can claim that they are only suppressing "undue weight.")
I also note that there is no section in the CF article on why people should be interested in the success of CF (cheap energy, little or no radioactive waste, reduction in green-house gases, no concern about strip-mining or fracking, off-grid living) and no figures indicating demonstrated levels of power and energy generation (e.g., last figure in Aqm2241 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
That's covered in commentaries, but you can't say there would be little or no nuclear waste because it's pure conjecture, there's no actual evidence of a nuclear process at all so conjecture about the level of waste is not going to fly. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A major argument against CF (based on the assumption that CF must follow known high-energy D+D fusion patterns) is that there is no proton or neutron radiation commensurate with the heat produced in the claimed D+D => 4He fusion reaction (see note 4 in the article). The fact that nuclear ash (protons, neutrons, tritium, 3He and 4He at very low levels) has been observed & reported repeatedly in numerous laboratories proves the nuclear process(es). Aqm2241 (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Problem was, they didn't detect all at the same time. One lab detected ash A but not B, the other lab detected ash B but not A, etc. I read this in a source, but I don't remember which one......
Even when detecting the same ash, the ash/power ratio was different. I am not sure if I read this in a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This fluctuational behaviour seems to be a defining feature of chaotic systems where the same initial condition does not produce the same effects.-- (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It's also consistent with random experimental error. Don't forget old William and his useful cutlery. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
In such case, the same group would detect different ashes on each one of their cells, right? And the same ash would be detected at different ratios on each cell.
Instead, each group is detecting the same ash in all their cells, which have the same initial conditions. That's suggestive of problems in procedures: group A uses a method that overcounts background-levels of ash A, group B doesn't realize there is contamination from ash B in one step, group C measures ash C with an uncalibrated or inadequate measurers, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Once the finding can be replicated independently without the need for True Believers taking part, I am sure it will be published in the peer reviewed journals. Until then... Guy (Help!) 09:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Replication has not have to be 100%, it can have a frequency distribution like other stochastic and processes such as earthquakes occurrence, wind intensity, composition of fission products. A statistical replicability seems to be an experimental fact that needs to be considered as intrinsic feature of the phenomena.-- (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It has to be consistently reproducible, or a compelling argument has to be made as to why it usually fails. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
100% reproducibility seems an excessive demand. There are stochastic phenomena like wind intensity distribution and earthquakes frequency which have an intrinsic random occurrence. To give an additional example of a more similar nature to cold fusion namely nuclear, the composition of nuclear fission products at a given momemnt is not reproducible for two nuclear fission reactors operating simultaneously at the same time or for the same reactor successively. The composition of nuclear fission products is the statistical averaging of individual fission events of single nuclei. No one is insisting that the composition of fission products should be reproducible.-- (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
See my comment above....... Each cell is an independent reactor. If your theory was correct then each cell would be giving different products. We wouldn't have each group reporting that all their active cells give the same products. Products would be different for each ell, not for each group. (This has derived into unsourced comparisons of personal theories, and talk pages are to discuss changes to the article, not for discussion of the topic, etc., etc.. It has been good, I can't encourage this behaviour by continuing the discussion. These discussions belong to the vortex-l mailing list and other such forums, not to wikipedia's article pages. Please go there to find people interested in discussing this, and forums that welcome this type of discussion). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Nobody needs to do anything to maintain the impression that CF is fringe: it is fringe. A very good friend of mine worked in Fleischmann's lab back in the day, I am quite well informed on this. You are advocating pathological science, and Wikipediua is not the place to fix the fact that the scientific community in general considers you to be doing this. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know the name of your friend and whether he has published some articles on some (negative) results.-- (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
He has never published anything on this, as far as I know. I know he did some work for Fleischmann (I remember the jokes about the "thermonuclear shield", a ceramic basin covering the apparatus in case of boiling water ejection) but his publications are primarily on biosensors. Oh, and the current standard undergraduate text on analytical chemistry. You can Google him: Professor Séamus Higson. I bet him a fiver he'd be a full professor before the age of 40 and I collected it at his inaugural lecture :-) I also showed him our FA version of this article; he said it was a fair and accurate. A lot of special pleading has been added since. I haven't asked him recently, but he shakes his head ruefully when the topic is mentioned: he liked Martin Fleischmann and largely blamed Pons for the science-by-press-release fiasco and the race with Jones, which trashed a formerly very sound career. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I see that there is a Séamus mentioned in Archive 5 of this talk page, but not his full name.-- (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Specialised journals

This should be mentioned and detailed. The article mentions them as a cluster of specialized journals like International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Journal of Physical Chemistry, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful to know many articles on CF have been published in each journal mentioned here.-- (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Huizenga quotes

I see that there are a quite large number of quotes in the article from Huizenga's book. I think those quotes are insufficient to establish the context and validity of Huizenga's statements. The quotes should be more detailed. Those w'editors that have access to the book are asked to provide more details.-- (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you apparently don't have access to Huizenga's book, could you please explain specifically why it is that you believe his work has been misrepresented? Or if you don't believe that there is any misrepresentation, why it is that you would like to send the other editors of this page on an extensive scavenger – or snipe – hunt? Beyond the bare fact that you don't like what he has to say, I mean? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I have already explain what is the misrepresentation in a section that has been hastily archived. I'll explain shortly. The main misrepresentation is that related to Nernst equation.-- (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Or...not. You've been bringing out the same stuff from the archives on a semi-monthly basis since at least August 2013. Most of the time, you copy-paste it out, maybe add a comment, then it gets archived again after a month or so of failing to gain any traction. Seriously, there are four copies of the section "Huizenga's reasoning to Nernst equation missinterpretation" in Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 45, and one more in Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 46. Please stop cluttering this talk page and wasting the time of other editors. You obviously don't have anything new to add this time around, either; stop beating the dead horse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A quote/excerpt about unfounded cluttering allegations from WP:TE is useful to be mentioned in this context:

  • One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors
No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor, but simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e. g. "You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors. (end of quote)

In addition to this quote the requests for facts and reference check are compliant with WP:V#Accessibility, WP:REREQ and WP:REFCHECK.-- (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Taubes quotes

I also notice that there are many quotes from Gary Taubes's book? More details should be added to establish the context and validity of his statements.-- (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you apparently don't have access to Taubes' book, could you please explain specifically why it is that you believe his work has been misrepresented? Or if you don't believe that there is any misrepresentation, why it is that you would like to send the other editors of this page on an extensive scavenger – or snipe – hunt? Beyond the bare fact that you don't like what he has to say, I mean? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There are here also several mispresentations that now I have not enough time to explain in detail.-- (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
So you're expecting other editors to go through every reference on the page, since you won't say which ones you have an issue with (or explain why), and guess at the type and amount of additional detail will satisfy you? Not cool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
My time schedule does not allow for the moment further explanations.-- (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Well then get around to it when you can, don't expect others to do it for you. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It is claimed by Taubes that the claimed excess heat in CF is due to ohmic heating due to a isotopic effect of lower conductivity (electrolytic) of heavy water lithium salts solutions compared to those of light water. This has to be verified with tabulated numerical values of conductivity for these solutions, if available. Taubes claims that some values are available for lithium heavy water ionic solutions.-- (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about that if I were you. Most of the isotopic effect is accounted for by using the different thermoneutral potentials for H2O and D2O. Slight differences in Li salt solubilities would only be small effects on top of that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that the concept named thermoneutral potential requires further details. Are there somewhere data tables to illustrate the smallness of the isotopic effect in conductivity? If the isotopic effect is indeed small, then the source Taubes is not to be considered very seriously as a usable source.-- (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
See page 6 for a quick description. The TV for H2O is 1.48 and for D2O is 1.54V (as I recall). That means for a given electrical input, a larger fraction of the power will be used for the electrolysis with heavy water. This is a good illustration of why H2O is not really a good control for D2O. Other chemical properties vary as well. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am copying the following here to allow other cold fusion skeptics to reply below closed copy:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi! I've noticed your comments from here and your invitation to ask questions regarding the aspects presented there. Could you please explain what is the essence of DS (Discretionary sanctions)? Also is there any potential interference with improvement of content of articles by DS?

Another question refers to your notification of some disruption. What is exactly is the nature of the disruption? I haven't understood very well. Is somehow the use of word disruptive disruptive and should it have been replaced with word less insinuating? An objection to a objectionable (dubious) archiving can't reasonably be considered disruptive/obstructive (or some other strong word).-- (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I will reply here, since your IP address keeps changing. First, since your IP address keeps changing, it would be useful to create a registered account. Second, for a description of discretionary sanctions, see discretionary sanctions. Second, you ask whether there is any potential interference with improvement of content of articles due to discretionary sanctions? That depends on what you mean by improvement of content. Discretionary sanctions provide special remedies for POV-pushing, incivility, etc., in contentious areas. This facilitates the NPOV improvement of content. It is meant to prevent the imposition of non-neutral POV on articles. In the case in point, it will slow down efforts by believers in cold fusion to demand changes that present cold fusion as mainstream science, when it is Wikipedia consensus and scientific consensus that cold fusion is fringe science. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
In order to prevent the imposition a non NPOV, firstly the NPOV must be determined, not assumed from start in order to prevent possible error of stating inaccurately NNPOV as NPOV. You seems to have the impression that the scientific consensus is that CF is fringe and some users are POV-pushing the contrary. One can certainly say that CF is controversial, the fringe status is to be verified based on sources.
This assertion as CF being fringe cannot reasonably accepted as an axiom, it has to be based on sources whose accuracy must be verified to prevent misrepresentation from insinuating. The requests from CF talk are intended to clarify some problematic aspects from some sources. These requests surely are for the improvement of the article and are reasonable and labeling them disruptive is objectionable (not to say obstructive because I understand using this word is not considered appropriate).
If you want to provide us with reliably sourced information indicating that cold fusion is not considered fringe by a large majority of the scientific community, you are welcome to do that, as long as demands are not made to edit the article, and as long as there is no edit-warring about what is included on this talk page. That doesn't change the fact that the scientific consensus is that cold fusion is pathological science. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
If [cold fusion]] does happen under nearly normal conditions, why hasn't it been observed in non-laboratory conditions? What is the theoretical explanation of when it does and does not happen? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Have you considered the possibility of a misrepresentation of consensus? Any reasonable editor should consider this and should not impose a certain POV by default.-- (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Therefore I ask you politely to stop labeling as disruptive reasonable requests for clarification of content of sources and what these sources really support.-- (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion is considered fringe by the large majority of the scientific community, and so is considered fringe by the Wikipedia community. As to the feasibility of using cold fusion as a source of energy, I will note that hot fusion is universally accepted (just step outside during the daytime), but that fifty years of research and development have not brought us much closer to using it practically. Fusion is difficult to achieve even under extreme laboratory conditions, and there is no good theoretical explanation of why cold fusion should be achievable under "relatively normal" laboratory conditions. The difficulty of achieving practical hot fusion under extreme conditions is another reason why cold fusion is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I continue here a discussion which I see has been moved from user talk.
Large majority of scientific community is a vague attribution that should be objectively determined. Secondly, it should not be assumed that hot fusion and cold fusion must necessarily share the same mechanism or other entailments like this.-- (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
If you want to provide us with reliably sourced information indicating that a significant minority of scientists accept cold fusion as sound science, then you are welcome to do so, provided that you do not provide demands to edit the article and do not edit-war over the contents of this talk page. The demands were disruptive, and the edit-warring was disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
If cold fusion under nearly normal laboratory conditions exists, why has it not been observed outside of laboratories? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not a place to debate whether cold fusion is real, it is not a forum. (that goes for you too Robert as per your last comment) Find reliable sources and come back. The scientific community must change its mind before this article can. Sadly % wise weight must be given due to CF proponents and opponents, based on the amount of consensus in the scientific community. In this article it pretty much is. Whether the article is well written and wether the CF sources are the best ones available is another matter of discussion. I'lI reiterate, this is not a forum to discuss whether CF is real, I know it is, you know it is, but the scientific community has its head up its ass so wikipedia must report on what the majority believes. nothing you can write here will change that fact. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The main aspect involved here I was trying to underline before the intervention of Insertcleverphrasehere is the wikicolaborative courtesy of providing quotes from sources for clarification by users who can access the sources containing the required quotes. I think there is some wikirule in this regard.-- (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the comment about a rule of providing sources for clarification. You acknowledge that providing quotes from sources is a courtesy and not a requirement. So what rule do you think you are referring to? Some of us have tried to collaborate and cooperate, but have tried to explain to you that the fringe status of cold fusion is an established scientific consensus, and that if you disagree with that, the burden of proof is on you to provide contrary evidence from reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The rule seems to be mentioned in WP:V WP:SOURCEACCESS supplemented by WP:REREQ and WP:REFCHECK.-- (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Also I think we should keep two aspects which should not be interfered separate. These aspects are the request for sources clarification and the status of CF. Trying to imply equivalence between them is not reasonable.-- (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Another aspect is that the burden of improvement of the article by clarifying requested aspects should be on all users who edit (or propose edits), not just on some editors.-- (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I am satisfied that the article reflects scientific consensus. The burden is on those who wish to change the article to find reliable sources and to show that those reliable sources represent the scientific consensus, or at least to show some academic support for cold fusion. I do not see the need to reply to further requests for "clarification", let alone to further demands to change the article or "improve" the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Please stop conflating two different aspects. If you are satisfied and consider that there is no place for improvement by requesting clarification then you should not impose your opinion to others.-- (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Is there a compelling reason why the supporter(s) of cold fusion have to post from (shifting) IP addresses? Why not create an account or accounts? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of a compelling reason why the supporter(s) of cold fusion have to post from (shifting) IP addresses, rather than creating accounts, I am even further disinclined to respond to further comments from shifting IP addresses. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This seems like discriminating unregistered users by forcing them to register where there is no compelling reason to register.
What shifting IPs are we talking about? From I what can see in this talk page, beside dynamic IP edits, there are also static IP's who have edited. Is somehow suggested to further discriminate dynamic IPs from static IPs. Even the slightest suggestion to discrimination of IP vs registered users is contrary to wikirules and should be avoided.-- (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Another annoying assumption is that editors who request clarification of sources must be necessarily CF supporters, other variant being excluded by default.-- (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The difficulty presented by dynamic IPs is one of communication. The only effective way to discuss anything with these editors is in article talkpages. That means that the talkpages become cluttered with discussion of user-specific issues, disputes between specific editors, attempts to assist or coach those editors, and other things that would better be done on a user talkpage. In some cases, there is even cause for confusion between dynamic IP editors from similar ranges. A stable static IP does not present these problems, nor does a registered username. Robert asked a simple question, which has met only evasive answers. So again, is there a compelling reason? Or can you just not be bothered? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I can propose compelling reasons, but they would be inconsistent with the policy to assume good faith. If there is no reasonable answer, I may offer any of various unreasonable answers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, is there a compelling reason why supporters of cold fusion post from shifting IP addresses rather than registering an account or possibly accounts? As LeadSongDog observes, the use of dynamic IP addresses makes it hard to hold discussions of specific issues on user talk pages and clutters this talk page with IP-specific issues. I will also point out that in closing the RFC, the closer will undoubtedly treat all of the IPs as a single person. If there actually are two or more humans behind the IPs, they are discounting themselves by posting anonymously (rather than pseudonymously). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand from this discussion that static IPs can be considered as good for not cluttering as registered users as LeadSongDog explains. It seems reasonable to treat dynamic IPs from the same range as single persons even though this could not be the case. Regarding closure of RFC, this being not a vote counting it is rather indifferent whether IPs are the same person or not. Speaking on my behalf (and not of other IPs) I also have a registered account U18827.., so I consider that this aspect is clarified. Other shifting IPs may not be forced to register, although this could be recommendable.-- (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

NASA Article

What about this article? Should be meantioned I think that NASA is working on it: (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

We have already discussed Zawodny in this talk page. Please check this discussion. I understand that NASA's Langley Research Center has been making some LENR stuff. But we only got a powerpoint about a "NASA-IPP sponsored effort" without details. I would like to include this research, but it's a bit difficult with this kind of source. Can we get a source on how much was spent by Langley, an outside source, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That's nonsene. Why is it difficult with that source? NASA is working on it without a doubt, so just write it in the article and point to that source. Nothing wrong with that. What is your problem? It is the freaking homepage of NASA. What does one have to show you that you would accept this source in the article? Greets-- (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Mitsubishi Patent

The recently granted Mitsubishi patent: "Nuclide transmutation device and nuclide transmutation method" should be added to the patent section. (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

link please? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
For those who may not believe Google, . Seems to have been originally a Japanese patent filed for in 2000. As I can't read Japanese, I'm not sure whether that patent was granted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will replace the 1993 patent in the article wit the Mitsubishi one. (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Two questions:
  • Just add the Mitsubishi patent to the article. If the 1993 patent is redundant, it will be obvious to other editors.
  • is there any secondary source saying that this patent is important? There are many patents issued every year by many big corporations, and most of them amount to nothing. We shouldn't making big lists of patents, without any secondary sources.
--Enric Naval (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
First point is not a question.. please elaborate. The second point.. this is the one I found: a report from a large Japanese media corporation. Are there any secondary sources referencing the patent in the existing article? (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not entirely clear what part of the article you're referring to as the '1993 patent'. If you mean the University of Utah action, there's a citation to Lewenstein in the article, are you challenging that? I guess one could argue that's a tertiary source and follow it down to its secondary source, in this case Lewenstein refers to a news story by Constance Holden, "Utah Puts Fusion Out in the Cold," Science 262 (10 December 1993), pp.1643. --Noren (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the Cannon patent from 1993 that is mentioned in association with the European patent office. (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
There is also a 1993 patent by Canon, but it's clearly sourced to a New Scientist article.
That Japanese source is published by Nihon Keizai Shimbun, right? I think that's enough to get mentioned in the patents section. Why not add it right next to the Canon patent? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

US Navy Patent

This US Navy patent granted in 2013 heavily references "cold fusion" and Pons and Fleischmann. The language in the patent section needs to be revised to reflect the fact that the USPTO does apparently grant "cold fusion" patents. Link to relevant patent: (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's original research. The USPTO manual says they don't accept cold fusion patents, and there are other sources saying so in the article. The patent reviewer might be sloppy, or the patent was carefully crafted to avoid rejection. Our own article explains that a "cold fusion" patent was approved by muddling the links to cold fusion and getting different reviewers. This doesn't mean that the USPTO now accepts cold fusion patents. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Please provide a link to the part of the patent manual that deals with cold fusion. I can't find it. The linked patent was examined for 6 years and directly references cold fusion 12 times. The only reference in the article to the patent office's policy is a 1 sentence quote from patent office official from a decade ago. (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There is some evidence that the USPTO is changing its position. But it's not been reported in wiki-reliable sources, so it doesn't exist. eg see David French's lead-in statement for a seminar he chaired at ICCF-18 (there's a youtube video of the seminar). Alanf777 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Correction -- the ICCF seminar was a general "what next" session, though it covered patent issues: French made a specific patent presentation at the MIT colloquium Alanf777 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this section C II? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
That section explicitly states: "These examples are fact specific and should not be applied as a per se rule. Thus, in view of the rare nature of such cases, Office personnel should not label an asserted utility “incredible,” “speculative” or otherwise unless it is clear that a rejection based on “lack of utility” is proper." It does not state that the USPTO does not accept cold fusion patents. (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
From the cite LeadSongDog mentioned, 2107.01 section C II: "Situations where an invention is found to be “inoperative” and therefore lacking in utility are rare(...)Examples of such cases include:(...) a “cold fusion” process for producing energy (In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703 (Fed. Cir. 2000))..." --Noren (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The next part of the section is the part I quoted. Where it says that the patents must be examined on a case by case basis (i.e. should not be applied as a per se rule). This section of the patent manual in no way states that cold fusion devices are rejected as a class of applications. (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As a side question: what is this "US Navy Patent"? The Navy neither grants nor claims patents, and the specific patent linked above does not mention the Navy, so I am a little perplexed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The first 3 authors of the patent were employed in the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), which is owned by the US Navy. I understand that authors Mosier-Bos and Spazk carried all their research in SPAWAR, and they received funding even in difficult times. Not sure about Gordon.
  • But all 3 SPAWAR researchers are retired! They no longer work at SPAWAR!
  • And the patent is not assigned to US Navy's SPAWAR, it's assigned to "JWK International"! This company is the employer of the fourth and last author.
  • Of course, it's getting spinned as "US Navy gets a cold fusion patent". --Enric Naval (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The patent is assigned to two entities. JWK international, a military contractor with a long history related to the navy, and the United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. This is clear from the above link. (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Not entirely clear; I had to click on "More" to find mention of the Navy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Clear enough to anyone familiar with the use of 'more' on web pages. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No need to get snarky. The "More" was at the end of the line of "Original assignees" and ran off my screen, and until I found it and clicked on it the information was not visible to be seen. All this being so, I wonder why this patent isn't called by the first assignee, Jwk International Corporation. For sure, it appears to arise out of work funded by the Navy. (Then why is Jwk the lead assignee? Does such funding constitute waste and abuse of government funding?) Or perhaps, as Enric Naval suggested, there is a bit of spin to associate the patent with stolidity and credibility of the U.S. Navy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
To those who actually read the above link, it is quite clear that Enric was correct in his statement about the current ownership of the patent and the IP was mistaken to claim that it currently has two owners. The "LEGAL EVENTS" section on that web page makes it clear that in March 2013 the entire patent was assigned over to "JWK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, VIRGINIA". --Noren (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Please clarify what you mean. The only legal events I see are the assignment of Forsley's interest to his employer JWK International. My understanding is that this is a common practice and does not change the Navy's status as assignee. (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the US Navy was an original assignee, but it was dropped in the final assignation for some reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
So this patent is more properly named after "JWK International" than "US Navy". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The string "cold fusion" does not appear anywhere in the abstract, the description, or the claims of that patent; in fact the word "cold" appears nowhere in that patent other than names of some of the citations, and the word "fusion" only appears once in the body, in the phrase "in laser fusion experiments" which clearly does not refer to cold fusion. How do you figure that a patent that never uses the phrase is evidence that the USPTO is intentionally accepting "cold fusion" patents? If the USPTO has no problem with accepting "cold fusion" patents, why does the phrase "cold fusion" not appear in the patent proper? I'm not aware of anyone making the claim that the USPTO rejects patents simply because they refer to papers with "cold fusion" in their titles.--Noren (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion this patent, which, was reviewed for almost 6 years, describes nuclear emissions from an electrolytic system, and heavily references cold fusion literature reports, necessitates a re-evaluation of the language of the patent section. The statement: "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion" is based on a one sentence quote in a decade old article and should be examined by editors to assure that it accurately reflects the current situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The patent you refer to does not claim cold fusion, it does not even use the phrase. --Noren (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly true. It describes nuclear emissions from an electrochemical system and heavily references cold fusion. The fact is that few modern claims use the term cold fusion because the term tends to send some literal minded people into a recursive loop. I don't think that these authors made any attempt to disguise the active principle of their device. And I don't believe that after a 6 year application process a patent examiner would be unable to determine that the device operated by the principle of cold fusion. The patent section, as written, needs stronger sourcing to justify the language stating that the USPTO does not grant patents that operate by the principle of cold fusion. (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The patents section as written does not have language that states that. What it actually states is that the USPTO rejects patents claiming cold fusion, and it has a source. The patent you cite does not claim cold fusion- in fact, the authors deliberately avoided using those particular two words in reference to their claim. The patents section of the article goes on to state that "A U.S. patent might still be granted when given a different name to disassociate it from cold fusion" which this particular patent would appear to be a prime example of. The scenario under which this patent was accepted is already neutrally described by the current article verbiage. --Noren (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


What is the scientific plausibility of Storms's mechanism of hydroton? Should it be mentioned in article?-- (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a forum. Propose a specific change to the article or move on. What you are doing there is a complete waste of everyone's time.--McSly (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop the use of questionable forum cliche. I've already proposed/asked whether it should be included (with ref of course) in the article, in case you haven't noticed. Are you against suggesting content addition to article? It seems that you are and use questionable pretexts to hinder useful discussion in order to improve the article.-- (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
What is hydroton? Where is the reference? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just been informed on the concept. I'm not sure about its validity but it seems to have been described on wikiversity : [1].-- (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikiversity Cold Fusion has been taken over by the fringy fringe. Most of what appears there seems to a good target for post-modernist deconstruction - it has words, but no meaning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
188.27 - Please do not waste our time asking us about a possible mechanism for cold fusion when you can't even provide the details. Either provide a reference for what hydroton is, or stop wasting our time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop making unfounded accusation of time wasting. It seems that you are against the improvement of the article. Discussing possible mechanism(s)/details to add to the article and what sources to use is not time wasting but legitimate productive wikidiscussion. I've just asked whether this should be mentioned or not in the article. This has to be determined, not excluded ab initio.-- (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the general problem in cases of this types is who decides what to include or exclude from article(s) and based on what criteria/sources. Assessing this kind of situations can only be done by discussion (of possible sources) which must not automatically be considered time wasting by some wikipeople who seem to prefer that some aspects should not be discussed.-- (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
(EC) I think your comment above "I've already proposed/asked whether it should be included (with ref of course)" means should it be included with a ref, not that you've already provided a ref supporting its inclusion. It's confusing, and that's where Robert has made an erroneous assumption. However, his second comment is definitely valid - if you wish inclusion find a reliable source (preferably several,) of which Wikiversity is not. Also, as you're the only person advocating the insertion, it's up to you (and you alone - so far) to find aforementioned sources. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You've also got another inadequate assumption. I'm not advocating necessarily the inclusion, I said this potential inclusion has to be determined by discussion, one cannot know if it is worth including without discussing it. I do not necessarily want to be included if it is not worth. People should check their tacit assumption before using excluded middle where it is not appropriate.-- (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
We cannot address the question of whether hydroton should be included without knowing what it is. It is not helpful to ask a vague question of whether hydroton should be mentioned and then ask us to do research to find it. Maybe I did make an erroneous assumption in thinking the could provide a description of hydroton. If she can't, then that is even more of a waste of our time. As to the claim that I am against the improvement of the article, I have no idea what improvement of the article is being proposed, since 188.27 won't even say what hydroton is. Either provide a reference, or stop asking questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I have NO IDEA what the fuss is about. I googled Hydroton and it is perfectly simple. Hydroton is a hydroponic clay bead preparation. Obviously its adsorptive capacity is just what one needs to hold the hydrogen atoms where they can coolly tunnel into mutual fusion propinquity. Now get busy you lot, and write a nice new section explaining all that to the clueless! JonRichfield (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, let's back up a step then. Due to the fringe nature of Cold Fusion any suggestions of inclusion - or even potential inclusion - really need to be backed up by solid refs and sources, otherwise to keep things simple most editors will not entertain the suggestion.
This is not due to any inherent laziness or negativity on the part of those who seem against the inclusion, it's just simpler on everybody's part. If the proposer cannot begin the conversation with reliable refs as to the validity of inclusion - or even a list of refs and be prepared to discuss whether they're valid in the first place and can support inclusion - then the suggestion is a non-starter, and should be identified as such.
So you want to know if it should be mentioned in the article. Well, fair do's for bringing it to the talk page before insertion, but quite logically the first question regarding whether it should be mentioned is "Are there any reliable sources that support this aspect of Cold Fusion", and if you can't provide them, then the answer would seem to be "Nope, it shouldn't."
And just to clarify an earlier post, while I do maintain that Robert may have made an understandable error regarding refs first time round, he's also correct in that your original post was formed as if you were posting a question to a forum, implying that the onus is on us to do the work. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not implying anything re onus probandi. I was not aware that my request would be interpreted this way. It would be reasonable that people verify their (tacit) assumptions before commenting/stating them. I just wanted to ask the wikicollaborators if they are aware/know if any sources on this aspect are available and secondly if they could be considered reliable. I agree that I should have phrased the question more explicitly like "Are there any (reliable) sources that support this aspect of Cold Fusion?"-- (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are implying it. Asking a question that requires data - but not supplying the necessary data either means you don't expect a valid answer, or you expect us to find the information for you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No, (I have to repeat) I'm not implying anything. I'm just asking if some wikieditor happens to know some sources on this aspect. Either, or reasoning is based on bivalent logic and excluded middle and does not apply here. You seem to set on bivalent logic reasoning which I've already explained it does not apply here. Are you not sufficiently familiarized with these logical aspects? If so, please familiarize yourself with non-bivalent logic.-- (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am thanks. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policy of wp:burden? Whilst not literally applicable, using your vaunted powers of logic it should be apparent that the burden of providing such sources when questioned also lies with the editor who wishes (or suggests) the insertion of data. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If are indeed familiar with rigorous logic please try to avoid conflating two different aspects: a) analysis of the opportunity of including some aspect and awareness to (non?)existence of sources and b)the suggestion of analyzing the opportunity vs the wish to include. I repeat that I asked a simple question about the opportunity and awareness to existence of sources that should have been given a straight answer like We don't know any sources on this topic or we don't consider worth to include.-- (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, here are simple answers to your two simple questions: Nil, and no. Any further questions before we move on? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that Storms published the Hydroton theory in The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship Between Observation and Explanation, published by Infinite Press, in June 2014?

A book published by one of the advocates of the theory, on a press created to publish advocates of the theory when their material is rejected elsewhere.... This would work in topics where you can count the notable advocates with the fingers of one hand and there are very little independent sources, such as Expanding Earth. Then you can pad the article with this stuff to give some pointers to the readers.

In cold fusion there are enough secondary sources giving descriptions about the theories put forward by advocates. And way too many competing theories to list them all. Theories get mentioned when independent sources pinpoint them as important for the field for a specific reason. (for example: the "loading ratio" explanation is reported as used by many researchers, the "electron screening" explanation made it to the 2004 DOE report, if the NASA gets around to budgeting LENR then we could mention their explanation, etc.). In other places, we simply say that there are many competing explanations, and none has achieved a place of prominence. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Clarification Request, and IP Addresses

ArbCom Clarification Request

A request for amendment or clarification was filed with the ArbCom, requesting a clarification that cold fusion is not pseudoscience and so not subject to discretionary sanctions. Since a Request for Comments is currently open on this page, the ArbCom request appears to be an effort to bypass the consensus process. The proper vehicle for determining whether cold fusion is, within Wikipedia, considered pseudoscience is the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk)

The question of pseudoscience is irrelevant to the question of whether discretionary sanctions apply to this article. The Committee has ruled that "The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions." That ruling does not require cold fusion to be pseudoscience for sanctions to be applicable. --Noren (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Robert.
The Arbitration is here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision. It was merged with the more general fringe and pseudoscience ruling here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience
What is referred to as Cold Fusion by this article includes the topic "Low energy nuclear reactions", the topic "the field Condensed matter nuclear science" as well as the topic of "all of the experiments involved", including the experiment by Pons and Fleischmann.
The scope of the article is very broad. You can try to make a synthesis between those things but it won't be very objective. The article mentions that the P&F related research in the 90's is referred to as fringe by Bart Simon in 2002, on pages 183–187 of the book "Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion". And we have it in the fringe category, which seems ok.
The synthesis of "pathological science" is sourced on:
  • The 1993 Book by Huizenga: "Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century"
That describes the P&F situation -- at the time.
That describes the ongoing research -- at that time
Describes government funded work in Italy, by a Nobel Physics Laureate in the name of a government agency. It also refers to the Energy Catalyzer as a kind of Cold Fusion, which is an undisclosed technology. (if any) Wikipedia skeptics tried their best to source the synthesis.
The Sanctions apply to Finge articles as well as pseudoscience. Fringe things can still be scientific, pseudoscience is not. I find combining the 2 labels confusing, editors (like yourself) tend to assume the Fringe physics topics are now instances of Pseudoscience.
Investigations by both Japanese and Italian government funded agencies involve their most prominent scientists and report positive results. To argue those are institutions of pseudoscience would mean there is no science in those countries. Results are not even required in science, hot fusion consumed many billions before results were produced. Some research never produces anything usable. That doesn't mean it is pseudoscience. The guideline argues: "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods."
You can believe what you like of course, at this stage I don't really care what you write in the article but do I think you would want to provide sources before you apply the label to peoples work.
My request for clarification tries to (but fails) to explain that the Arbitration page is not very helpful explaining what is going on.
Hope this makes sense. (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

IP Addresses

The IP editor who filed the arbitration clarification request states that he or she has an account but edits from the IP address. There is no requirement to create an account in order to edit Wikipedia (except that editing semi-protected articles such as cold fusion requires an auto-confirmed account). However, Wikipedia policies do state that intentionally editing logged out is inappropriate, as it avoids scrutiny, and may be a means for topic-ban evasion or block evasion. I will ask a two-part question. First, do any of the IP addresses editing this talk page have accounts? If so, why are you editing logged out? Second (as I have asked before), is there a good reason why any IP addresses who do not have accounts choose not to create accounts (which would permit editing a semi-protected article)? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Who is that IP who filed the arbitration and what is his IP? -- (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (talk · contribs) at WP:ARCA (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
On further reading, the IP says that he does not have an account. He also says that he is not a new user (although he is a new user). I will still ask whether there is a reason why any of the IPs on this talk page do not create accounts, which would permit editing the semi-protected article. Also, the request for clarification, asking to have cold fusion declared not to be pseudoscience, is off the mark for two reasons. First, the ArbCom explicitly ruled that cold fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions (regardless of whether it is pseudoscience). Second, since an RFC is in progress on the pseudoscience status of cold fusion, the IP was attempting to game the system by asking the ArbCom to bypass the community consensus process. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Because they don't have to. It's as simple as that. They get to choose the trade-off of not registering and being an IP editor against not being able to edit certain articles.
If they don't want to create accounts we are in no position to criticise or force actions upon them - however they are also in no position to whinge about being unable to edit some pages. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
They likewise have no right to whinge about delays in having their questions answered and edit requests and edit demands addressed (by volunteer registered editors). In short, they are acting irrationally. They have a right to act irrationally, but no right to any consideration for that irrational action. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There are at least two parts to this RFC. If other questions are proposed, they can be added. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments other than !votes that are made in the Survey sections will be deleted or moved. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Pathological science

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article state that the experiments reporting cold fusion are widely considered to be pathological science?


  • Yes - Generally non-reproducible, probably due to questionable experimental conditions, similar to polywater. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No - One has to consider that there are also other inherently non-reproducible phenomena which are not pathological science like wind distribution, fission product yield. These examples due their non-reproducibility to statistical nature.-- (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
That's about the silliest choice of counter-examples you could have used. Those areas are classic fields where the statistical predictions, and only statistical predictions, hold up. While one can't say what the product of a single fission event will be, the probability distribution for large numbers of fusion events is very well understood. Similarly hurricane track forecasts vary based on different model's response to limited input data, but they are sufficiently accurate to predict two days in advance of landfall that it will occur in a certain area and timespan, saving thousands of lives by doing so. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, because it's considered so in reliable sources, and it was added to Langmiur's classical list by Denis Rousseau (the debunker of polywater). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No. CF is controversial science, not pseudoscience: it is the interpretation of the experiments where there is dispute, not the character of the methods applied, which are regular science. Rousseau's ascription quoted above may have had some sense to it in 1992 when it was published, but the field has moved on since then, and at present cold fusion hardly fits any of Langmuir's criteria for pathological science. 'Questionable scientific conditions' is mere speculation, not backed up by proper science. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes - Primarily because of the unwillingness of the proponent researchers to accurately engage with their critic and their tendency to resort to 'name-calling' instead. Kirk shanahan (talk) Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes - The lack of full disclosure by experimenters precludes any meaningful validation of results. If there is any real phenomenon at work, it remains obscure after a quarter--century of study and will continue so unless that behaviour changes. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. CF meets the criteria for pathological science. See below. Roches (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No - it is controversial science, which is hampered by the ongoing: lack of funding, lock-out from major journals and career-killing. But there are still researchers at well-qualified laboratories. The lack of an agreement on theory is by no means unique (high-temperature superconductors?), and using that to deny acceptance of experimental results is a reversal of science. Alanf777 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No - CF, LENR, LANR CMNS, whatever its called is controversial science many researchers that delved into it to 'debunk it' either came out as supporters or closed up their mouth as to not lose credibility. Science has a bad reputation anyway as far as 'consensus' being a good way to judge controversial or revolutionary science. See Louis Pasteur or Alfred Wegener. unsigned edit by Insertcleverphrasehere at 20:29 24 June. -JJ
  • Yes, pathological science, for the reason initially stated, and as supported by reliable sources. Also because of the nature of the counter-arguments, which tend more to rhetorical than scientific. (E.g.: "career-killing", and "Wegener!") ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes It fits the definition and is sourced. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Clearly pathological science. I hesitate to say pseudoscience, because it's not clear the fraud is always on the part of the experimenters; fraudent design may produce false positive results. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, follow the best reliable sources' description. Enric's list is excellent. --Noren (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely, given that it can be sourced. Although the phrase "widely considered to be" or something of that sort is an important caveat. Anaxial (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, given that it can be sourced and the statement has due weight, Second Quantization (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. I.e., It is well sourced and well weighted. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. That "widely considered" qualifier is very important, because a minority of scientists do consider some of these results to be valid. If you had left it out I would have voted No. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

It isn't at all like polywater. With polywater a source of error was identified, realised to be the explanation for the claimed results, and very soon no-one worked on it any more. With LENR, it was rather the reverse in that reasons for failure were identified (e.g. insufficient loading). And with LENR people did not give up: a number of reputable people persevered and eventually achieved reasonable success rates. It is a fact of life that, in materials especially, because one does not have complete control over the conditions it may be hard to reproduce claims, so difficulty in reproduction should not be a reason to class claims as errors or pseudoscience. People should study the literature, e.g. the book of Storms, to get a clearer view of the situation, rather than take books written by deniers as gospel truth. And beware of taking lack of publication on the subject in journals such as Nature as indicators of whether or not the phenomena are genuine: some journals automatically return papers on the subject, so the fact that no published papers appear in them implies nothing. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Um, if journals are automatically returning papers on the subject, isn't that an indication that the journals in question don't consider LENR research as valid science? Remember, we aren't being asked whether the science is 'genuine', we are being asked whether the relevant sources consider it genuine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Um, again. Not a good argument IMHO, because there are reputable journals that do publish in this field. If journals such as Nature were to send papers on LENR out to referees as the journals I mentioned do, your claim would have some merit. But really all it shows is a policy adopted by the editors of such journals. We should not presume to know what they are thinking, as there may be other factors underlying what they do. For example, these editors are aware that their journal has a high reputation to keep up, and are probably fearful that they would be attacked for publishing papers on a subject that its readers might consider pseudoscience, and this may well be their primary motive. Editors of more ordinary journals don't have to worry so much, and are likely to feel they have an adequate defence against criticism if they have followed the usual procedures (which editors of journals such as Nature do not) of sending out papers to referees, and going by the judgments of referees who have studied the papers submitted in detail. It is also relevant that Nature and Science accept only a small proportion of papers that they receive, so rejection is not such a big deal for them and they may well adopt a rather kneejerk approach: there are almost certainly other papers that they don't send out for refereeing. Nature is a commercial operation and so all sorts of factors may influence their decision. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I would love to see someone try to make the case at wp:RSN for discrediting the positions of Science and Nature on this, in favour of the collection. I don't really expect it to succeed, though. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
And LeadSongDog seems to be confusing cold fusion research generally, where experimental details are published in the usual way, as has enabled replication by others on numerous occasions (admittedly not with 100% success), with the Rossi reactor, where for commercial reasons there hasn't been full disclosure. His vote seems to be based on a misunderstanding and he would benefit from studying actual research in the area, as for example collated in the library.
I might add, since people seem to be very slow in picking up the point, that lack of 100% success in replicating a claim doesn't mean there isn't a real effect: take cloning for example, where in the original animal cloning experiment eventual success was preceded by very many failures, and I should imagine LSD would have difficulty replicating the effect even if given full facilities. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The sordid history of link spamming to by its proprietor, leading up to blacklisting, is in the archives if you choose to read it. "The usual way" as you put it is marginally better for CF than for BLP or eCat, but still has all the walled garden problems it ever did. We have to base our content on reliable, independent, secondary sources. It is that simple. My lack of skills in microbiology has no bearing on the matter, though I am puzzled why you might think it does. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, cold fusion (CF) should be described as pathological science (PS). Irreproducibility is but one of the traits of PS. What makes an idea PS is wishful thinking leading to experimenter bias. The fact that CF would mean cheap, safe, unlimited energy leads the experimenter to discard or explain away undesirable results, so it is PS. The fact that it gets any funding is, I think, a little like betting on a long-shot in a horse race. Some funding sources put some money into it, even though it's unlikely to 'win', because the return (if it does 'win') would be staggeringly huge. Roches (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing this comments and YES/NO answers in the survey subsections I have to ask how is the procedure operating: by counting votes or analyzing arguments?-- (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

> No. CF is controversial science, --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

> No - it is controversial science Alanf777 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's pseudoscience. There is nothing controversial about it. Criticisms have been leveled at the field and the cold fusion community does not address them, they just start name-calling...that is not acceptable behavior for scientists. Avoiding the issues at all costs is a clear sign of pseudoscience., and I will guarantee you that mainstream has NOT accepted LENR in any form. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It is controversial science. Many qualified researchers (a minority but significant number) remain convinced of its credibility lay weight to it being controversial science. Pathological science tends to have less qualified proponents (not that CF doesn't have its share of wackadoo's its just that there are lots of credible researchers convinced of its validity, and lots of others are afraid to speak out). Lack of a mechanism delayed lots of revolutionary theories for decades, despite good evidence, so saying that 25 years of research hasn't convinced the scientific community is stupid. Examples include; germ theory, plate tectonics, powered air flight, semiconductors, superconductors, heliocentricity, genetics, evolution, dark matter, quark theory, etc. All of which were delayed due to 'consensus' were controversial science with well qualified proponents and opponents. Mainstream non-acceptance is a symptom of BOTH pathological AND controversial science. you say that CF researchers resort to name calling, but what of CF opponents who do the same? CF opponents often publicly deride the entire field while citing dated papers from 1989 or 1990 that were themselves proven incorrect years ago (in other words, opponents often don't do any research to back up their claims of pathological science-a symptom of controversial science). Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No Insert..., in Langmuir's famous talk on pseudoscience he discusses a person named 'Latimer' who was a well-qualified scientist who got sucked into supporting a pseudoscience proposal. Afterwards, he was embarrassed to talk about it. BTW, the main chemistry building at Berkeley is Latimer Hall...

The key giveaway that you are dealing with pseudoscience is the massive level of denial shown by the CF researchers when any non-nuclear explanation is proffered. They resort to misrepresentation (strawman arguments), personal attacks, and just plain ignoring the facts to maintain their fantasy of a 'nuclear' cause of the effects they observe. Those tactics are not ones accepted by mainstream science, and their belief that those tactics prove their point is the final evidence that they are practicing pseudoscience. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What misrepresentations are alluded here?-- (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I have published 4 papers in the field. In all 4 I refer to a systematic effect/error I call the Calibration Constant Shift (CCS) as a probable root cause of apparent excess heat signals. In a reply to the last publication, 10 CF authors conclude my objections to their excess heat interpretations are wrong because the 'random Shanahan CCSH' {calibration constant shift _Hypothesis_) is _clearly_ wrong. I never provided a random cause, but that doesn't stop them from claiming I did. That's misrepresentation. My 3rd publication was a response to a 2006 Comment from Dr. E. Storms on my 2002 original paper. I addressed each of his supposed points and showed how they were incorrect or irrelevant in a back-to-back publication with his Comment that he was clearly aware of. In his 2007 book, Storms claimed he had addressed all the issues I had raised, and he failed to reference my reply to him, while referencing my original paper and his comment. That's misrepresentation. Kirk shanahan (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
This would appear to be the semi-official response from several long-time participants in the ICMNS/LENR community : [2]. Alanf777 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC) idea what you mean here. There is no 'official', 'semi-official', or 'unofficial' involved here, except that published papers and books are certainly 'official' representations of the authors' position at the time. In that sense the papers are totally 'official'. And since in the prior comment I was addressing the actions of one person, who are the 'several'? Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"I was addressing the actions of one person"--my mistake! I understand now! group of 10 is definitely several...sorry Alanf. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Having just read that report, Shanahan's CCSH was basically torn apart on every point, and given the vitriol that he just spouted in his previous comments, seems a little rich to me. Shanahan, did you respond to the aforementioned article? If not then you are guilty of exactly what you just accused Storms of having done. (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well 75..., obviously you completely missed the point. Let me make it clear. I have NEVER proposed a 'random CCSH'. Yes, the 10 authors DID tear the 'random Shanahan CCSH' to pieces...that's the point of a strawman, to set up an easily defeated proposal, defeat it, and then pass it off to observers as the real thing. ( My CCS is a SYSTEMATIC effect, i.e. NON-random. The fact that the 10 authors have to resort to a logical fallacy to address my criticisms is extremely revealing. It means they have no other arguments against it, but they are so desperate to put me down that they invent nonexistent proposals, attach my name to them, and then denigrate their own invention while claiming it is mine. It ain't. So, as is the point of a strawman, my original criticism remains unaddressed. As far as responding, the journal editor wouldn't allow me to. Re. 'my vitriol'...I am always amused how pro-CFers go ballistic whenever any criticisms are leveled against their pet beliefs. Stating the facts as I did is not 'vitriol', it's just laying out what anyone can see by reading _all_ of the papers involved, not just one side's POV. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The comment from JJ is intriguing and generates a question. Has some statistical analysis of statements of reliable sources been done in order to asses labeling? And stylistic effects cannot be regarded as belonging to arguments.-- (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Have the supporters of low-energy nuclear reactions provided an explanation of how the high potential barrier is lowered, that at the same time explains why it happens under nearly natural conditions but doesn't happen in nature? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Larsen (of Widom Larsen) claims it happens naturally. eg Lightning (and exploding wires), bacteria ...[3]

Career-killing (see comment in vote above) is well documented. And even covered in the article. eg Melvin Miles [4] and "Hagelstein begins the first day of this year’s course with a warning: this field can be dangerous for your career."[5] Alanf777 (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

* Comment The water here is by now so muddied that I cannot vote one way or the other in good conscience. What Brian Josephson says is well based and reasonable and I agree strongly enough that I do not think that the term pathological science should be used, but I hesitate to use the term controversial science without qualification, and I am uncertain that this article is the right place to discuss such fine distinctions. On the basis of no special skills or qualifications I personally doubt that there is any merit to the basic theses of CF, but that is not relevant. Looking at the some of the most professional work in the field, I still am not moved to change my mind about the proposed physics, but I also don't feel justified in painting the associated science as pathological on principle. However having seen accounts of great deal of the kind of "work" done by zealots (as opposed to enthusiasts), some of them grossly unable to inspire confidence, I do not see how to draw line between the undeniably pathological attempts (most of them informal and IMAO incompetent) to prove the reality of the class of effects, and the reasonable (but perhaps arguable or controversial?) research attempting to investigate it. Sorry, I hate doing this, but I abstain on the grounds that I cannot see a reasonable context being established. JonRichfield (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Jon, your comment above about being uncertain how to qualify the field is typical of the nonspecialist in a field when presented with pseudoscientific results. The presenters seem legit and sound very scientific, and the talking heads or stuffy establishment dudes don't sound any different to you, or perhaps even worse as they often seem a bit strident. This is the problem with pseudoscientists...they sound like real ones. But they are always making some sort of fundamental mistake that invalidates their conclusion(s), and they refuse to deal with it in a truly scientific manner when that is pointed out to them. That's why you have to be alert to the invalid logical argument tactics they use, like strawman arguments, calls to authority, or personal attacks, to identify them. If you are looking at a real scientist with real data and a valid explanation, you won't get a lot of this (you can get some, especially if the reals guys are dealing with the pseudos). So when I point out for example the use of a strawman argument by the 'group of 10', that's what you need to note. You need to assess what I am saying, are they really doing that, etc. If they are, you should lean towards the pseudo- or pathological science designator for the CFers work. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Kirk, I am sure your encouragement is kindly intended, but I suggest that if you still are interested, you re-read what I wrote and do so more carefully this time. In my career I have actually read a few papers in a range of fields from time to time and refereed some too, both formally and informally, some of which I bounced and some that I supported. Cold fusion is a field that I independently rejected as mistaken in terms of its original rationale some twenty years ago, and soon abandoned pending the proponents meeting certain criteria, which they have not as yet achieved. My recusing myself from this discussion had to do with my unwillingness to brand the field of study as pathological science or controversial science, where I find myself more in tune with BJ's views. But your advice on "invalid logical argument tactics" certainly is trenchant. JonRichfield (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anaxial: That equivocation could only be used if the sources do. Otherwise you are hedging an unambiguous statement from the sources for no obvious reason, Second Quantization (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft Count

At this point, the count of properly placed !votes appears to be 13 Yes, 4 No. There are also some improperly placed !votes in Threaded Discussion. Since closing is not a vote but a function of strength of arguments, I have requested an uninvolved closer. Anyone who has misplaced their !vote may add it to the Survey before the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ARBPS Category

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To which of the four categories defined in WP:ARBPS in principles 15 through 18 should the article say cold fusion is considered to be? 1. Almost universally considered pseudoscience. 2. Generally considered pseudoscience, but with a following, such as astrology. 3. Widely accepted, but considered by some to be pseudoscience, such as psychoanalysis. 4. Alternative scientific theories or formulations.


  • Category 2 - Generally considered pseudoscience, but has a following. (If it didn't, this talk page would not be contentious.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 3 - The definition of this category in the link given says about the typical example of psychoanalysis that only critics consider it pseudoscience. These seems to be the case with CF, only critics consider it pseudoscience. (This also can explain the contentious nature of this talk page, it has not to be pseudoscience in order to be contentious.)-- (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 2, per general scientific consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 2, it still has a few important followers in important places. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 2 - Generally considered pseudoscience, but has a following. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 2 - Has a following mostly because of wishful thinking. Roches (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 4. Regarded as erroneous science by many, but recognised as valid science by those who have made a proper study. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 4 Note : Changed from: 2 -- but mostly because the universally-believed debunking was itself based on faulty or fudged (MIT?) experiments, which failed the now-known enabling criteria (See P&F and Storms[6] guidelines, Craven & Lett's statistical analysis[7], and Hagelsteins reviews of calorimetry[8]), and the hot-fusioneer's belief that head-on collisions are the only theoretical way through the coulomb barrier (Cold fusion is not hot fusion : think lattices, tunneling, screening, phonons, quodons, plasmons, discrete breathers ...) Alanf777 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC) (Spelling correction) Alanf777 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 4 Alanf777 hit the nail on the head in his above comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insertcleverphrasehere (talkcontribs) 20:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 2 This is the closest of the four options—it is presented as science but cannot be reproduced. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 2 by process of elimination: it's certainly not universally (even modified by "almost") considered pseudoscience, but neither is it widely accepted. In fact the description of 2 is rather a good characterization of cold fusion. --Dailycare (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 2. Clearly the best choice. It's considered pseudoscience by all but (a few) active researchers and their followers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 2 This is how it is described by the best reliable sources and in the mainstream. However, the question of whether ARBPS sanctions are applicable was already argued here (at very great length), and was eventually rendered moot by the subsequent Abd-WMC case. Sanctions are applicable to this article independently of the ARBPS case. --Noren (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 2 We wouldn't be having this discussion if it didn't have a following, but there's no evidence that it's "widely accepted" in the scientific community. If it ever becomes so, then we can change it to category 3 or 4, and add this as a historical perspective, but not before. Anaxial (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter. The arbitration committee has no capacity to decide any issue of policy nor do they have the capacity to provide guidelines. There is no reason we need to adopt their operating principles from several years ago, Second Quantization (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 2. The cold fusion conventions are well attended, there are researchers in this field. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Category 2. Although much work is either bad or pseudo science, some is reputable and not wholly damning. The theory remains just about alive. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I really didn't find a category that fits. Category 5 -- it is widely regarded as pseudoscience, but may, like continental drift, eventually be proven correct. Alanf777 (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I changed my vote from 2 to 4 -- because the description here "2. Generally considered pseudoscience, but with a following, such as astrology." doesn't include the phrase "... may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.", which leaves 4 as my only choice. Alanf777 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
And it seems to me that many of the 2 supporters stopped at "2. Generally considered pseudoscience, but with a following". I suggest they too reconsider option 4 as a better Hobson's Choice. Alanf777 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this procedure operates, if it is consensus probing it should work on analyzing arguments rather than counting votes.-- (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, neither of the four categories presented as options fit. Perhaps another category should be created Controversial science.-- (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

While editing I initially put for my category the one that is said to be quite popular during elections: none of the above. But then I decided perhaps category 4 with its word 'alternative' was meant to occupy that role, so changed to that before posting my edit. But it seems to be an excellent idea to have a category controversial science.
Now the thought has occurred to me: there exists a process that might be called 'manufacturing truth', and w'pedia plays an important role in this process. This is not the place to enlarge on that, so I'll write something about it on my own talk page when I get the chance. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: 'cannot be reproduced'. No, this is not so. What you mean is 'cannot be reproduced at will'. There may be some factors that influence the phenomenon at hand and which are not subject to precise control, and in such situations it may not be possible to reproduce the phenomenon at will (the length of time that a tungsten light bulb will last before it fails may be an example). It may be however that the probability of success is a function of parameters that one can adjust, and in such conditions one may be able to find the 'optimal operating point' (a strategy to which Mitchell Swartz has drawn attention). This is a nice idea as it explains why perseverance can lead to success while others, perhaps less dedicated to the work, fail. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
When there is no reproducible experiment that demonstrates a claim, the correct description is "cannot be reproduced". A claim might be that some outcome occurs 10% of the time if a certain procedure is followed, but even that cannot be done for cold fusion. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and that's how articles on scientific topics are treated in reputable journals as well as Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Even in well-established fields like semiconductor manufacture, following rigorous procedures, the yield on large circuits can fall below 10% ( hence the high price). As I point out in another reply there are now multiple reports of 100% success. Alanf777 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems that one cannot exclude statistics and probability from playing a key role in this phenomenon.-- (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, stats and prob are definitely involved, but there is a more general meaning to 'reproducible'. It is used both in discussing experimentation and in patents. It means that a worker (scientist) skilled in the art should be able to obtain substantially similar results from a described experimental protocol (minor variation is allowed). But to my knowledge that state or condition has never been obtained. Typically people who try to replicate get no measureable effect and have to tweak the provided recipe substantially to get any signal. Then, their new protocol fails to work for the next worker. The most recent case of this that I am aware of is the description in Hagelstein's 2010 progress report (Chapter 48. Fleischmann-Pons effect studies, RLE Progress Report 152, p 6-7 of 17 - click on the link for Chapter 48) where he describes the problem in reproducing what was thought to be a fully reproducible protocol. This illustrates the problem, people seem to get reproducible results in their own work, but it isn't translateable to others skilled in the art, thus full reproducibility has not been obtained. Partial reproducibility yes, which tends to suggest that there is a real effect of some sort that is not well understood at all. My contention has always been that this effect lies in the realm of normal physics and chemistry, no new nuclear reactions needed. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
How can the two mutually exclusive assertions of factors (nuclear vs non-nuclear) be discriminated against each other by the rules of the scientific method? I think that this is an important aspect. As Brian Josephson pointed out somewhere (in september 2013?) the skillfulness of each experimenter can be compared to that of an technological process supervisor when he is in vacation and other less skilled employees cause perturbation to the technological process.-- (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
By producing an experimental protocol that is fully reproducible which either uses principles aimed at eliciting the proposed nuclear reactions or principles which use mundane but possibly unique and interesting forms of physics and chemistry (especially). In other words, the proof is in the pudding. Until such time as full reproducibility is obtained, researcher's suggestions as to causes are just that suggestions, and should be viewed as quite possibly incorrect, since they didn't give the desired results. The argument about who is skilled in the art and who isn't is a perennial one, and rarely adds value. When an experiment is fully reproducible, a broad range of workers/scientists will be able to do it to some level or the other. Then, the skill level will likely be reflected in the degree of adherence to the maximal effect noted by the recipe's originators. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand this insistence on fully reproducible results. How this request for full reproducibility is going to help the discrimination of factors? Is it reasonable to demand full reproducibility on this phenomenon when it is known that material science offers examples of partial reproducibility and the processes of the same considered nature like nuclear fission is not fully reproducible?-- (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If the results are not fully reproducible with the same conditions, then how can the "discrimination of factors" be studied? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
In the process of reaching a fully reproducible formula or recipe for demonstrating an effect, you propose hypothetical control factors, and then run experiments designed to show clearly that those factors have a specific and quantifiable (even if it's off/on) impact. Note that early on, this might even be reversed, i.e. you run experiments, observe what is happening, and try to identify factors from the recorded data. But eventually, you should be working with some reasonably well understood factors that just need a bit of refinement. Once you have enough of the controlling factors defined, your residual error will constitute less than some percentage of the total undifferentiated variation. Typically for research purposes, the percentage is higher than for developing a chemical process that employs the effect under study. As a ballpark figure, 80% is probably good for early R&D, but you need to approach 95% or greater for process design, otherwise your process tends to be very wasteful, i.e. expensive. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Clarification...the 80% above is the fraction of total data set variation explained by whatever quatitative model you are using. In statistics, it typically is the multiple R^2 value, which for linear models is the square of the correlation coefficient. In other words, for R&D you want correlation coefficients of 0.89 or greater (recognixzing the correlation coefficeint is only defined for linear models). Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is indeed a good question which requires ingenuity and possibly factorial experiment design to various recipes with differential control experiments.-- (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't explicitly state it above, but the most efficient means to do what I describe is via statistically defined experiments. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Are there any experiments designed and reported to see the influence of the nature and composition of electrodes (pure metal or alloys) on triggering the phenomenon? Also have different discriminating conditions, like alternating current frequency variation experiments in ionic solutions to exclude electrolysis, been tried?-- (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Alanf777 re: faulty or fudged MIT experiments...they weren't. There is a big hoopla in the CF field about the MIT experiments because Eugene Mallove made a big stink over them at the time by resigning his position in the MIT Press Office. Gene claimed the data were 'altered' to cover up real cold fusion results. He even wrote an article on it for his magazine (Infinite Energy, Issue 24, 1999, p.2). However, what that article shows is that between the original data collection and final presentation, the MIT authors chose to alter the appearance of the data plots, which is entirely normal and within the purview of every author. They apparently did two things. First they changed to plotting time window averages of the raw data instead of plotting the raw data -which is not an issue. Second, they suppressed (by not plotting) parts of the raw data that showed large baseline shifts. This is most likely due to the fact that everyone realizes the baseline isn't supposed to shift (just as remarked upon by Dr. McKubre in his 1998 EPRI report), and thus just confused the issue from their viewpoint. The issue being that they ran for many hours and got no peaks like they were supposed to get. (This showed that full reproducibility had not been obtained.) What they didn't know back then was the shifting baseline can arise from a CCS. The calibration equation was of the form y = mX + b, and changing b shifts the baseline. I believe Mallove considered the baseline shifts to be evidence of CF, while the MIT people were looking for peaks. Mallove thought an upwards shift in baseline meant excess heat was being produced, which it does in theory, but the CCS problem means it is not real heat. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I put a question mark after "fudged?". Failed : Craven and Letts [7] "Two failed experiments that mattered" (table 3) shows that one of the key "debunking" experiments met NONE of the now-known four enabling criteria, and the other met only one. Alanf777 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Neither of which is the MIT experiment. The overarching observation is that you don't always get apparent excess heat. If my CCS mechanism always predicted excess heat, it would be wrong. It also requires a 'special active state'. See my comment below for more details. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Reproducability and statistics (see Craven and Letts): the exact criteria for inter-group reproducability are not yet known, but many experiments run multiple cells, which is a form of self-control (accidental blanks). More recently, several reports show that all the cells were active, and as part of SKINR working cathodes from one lab have been used successfully in another (unpublished, but presented at an EEC meeting). Edit: Also, McKubre, in a recent interview said that his lab at SRI had completely replicated (building from scratch) several experiments. Alanf777 (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Godes..McKubre Abstract—We have run over 150 experiments using two different cell/calorimeter designs. Excess power has always been seen using Q pulses tuned to the resonance of palladium and nickel hydrides in pressurized vessels. Excess energies of up to 100% have been seen using this excitation method. (my emphasis)[9]Alanf777 (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
A quick look at this paper shows they are making the same mistakes with regards to differentiating between CF and CCS. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
SKINR/EEC : Huber Presentation one slide extracted : -- cathodes manufactured by ENEA, used in other locations. eg COP 3000 for 960 hours. Alanf777 (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The 12th slide has the conclusion that CCSs are avoided because they register a big signal and then it goes is this any different from any other closed electrochemical cell 'excess heat' event? Answer: It isn't, ergo, this work does not distinguish between a CCS and a CF event. This is what you get when, as a pseudoscientist, you ignore a keep repeating the same error pointed out by the critic. More proof of the pseudoscientific nature of this research. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Alanf777 re: criteria - You list 3 sources (but only reference 2) - Re: Hagelstein - he is one of the 10 authors who failed to understand my CCS proposal, therefore I doubt his comments on calorimetry will contain anything relating to my work, therefore his comments are likely irrelevant. If you care to reference what you're talking about I may be able to check that.

Re: other two – The speculative CCS mechanism includes the formation of a surface active state. It serves as a way to cause H2+O2 bubbles to combine and adhere on the electrode surface long enough for combustion to occur. The SAS most likely involves impurity adatoms of some sort. The identity and configuration of these are unknown. Storms' criteria and the Cravens and Letts criteria are similar. The criteria can be simplified to 'loading ratio', 'impurities', 'high current density', and 'triggering'. 'Loading ratio’ is a red herring, and is one of those spots where CFers ignore the facts. The Storms data I reanalyzed were collected from platinum electrodes, no palladium present. Platinum does not absorb any appreciable amount of hydrogen, so it never develops any loading to speak of. Big problems with Ni too. The probable impact of loading ratio on Pd is the surface structuring that arises from dislocation loop punching during loading. 'Impurities' is of course important. 'High current density' would favor observing the effect via CCS since it would increase the number of bubbles resident on the electrode surface at any given time. 'Triggering', i.e. inducing non-eq conditions seems pretty vacuous to me. I mean they consider flipping a nearby resistive heater off and on a 'trigger'. You have to be more specific in order to contemplate how it would affect the CCS mechanism. In other words, the criteria proposed also fit the CCS mechanism as far as we can tell right now. When you have two equally-valid alternative explanations for a set of data, you can’t just pick one and ignore the other. That’s pseudoscience. I recommend you go back to a ‘2’. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Triggering: you really need to read up on plasmons, quodons, phonons and the like. I'm not a science historian, but I'm sure there are plenty of documented feuds in well-established fields. So I don't see your personal experience as particularly illuminating. Alanf777 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
As it turns out I have been doing just that. The idea that phonons couple to form standing 'rogue waves' which then go on to create heavy electrons is extremely highly speculative. The energy differences are just too great to make it probable. But that really has no bearing on this discussion and your comment is just another attempt to denigrate my position by inferring that I am 'not up to speed'. A) I assure you I am, and b) if I were to be wrong on the details of various triggering methods, that would not invalidate any comments on anything else. But, this is another of the common pseudoscience tactics I jokingly call 'throwing out the baby with the bath water'. They want the observer to believe that making mistakes is strictly forbidden in science and anyone who does so should be ignored. Too bad they never apply that logic to their heroes who are claimimg to do LENR. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hagelstein and MIT : "Additional information about the MIT calorimetry has allowed a more detailed analysis. The major new finding is that the walls of the MIT calorimetric cell were so well insulated with glass wool (2.55 cm thickness) that the major heat transfer pathway was out of the cell top into the room air rather from the cell into the constant temperature water bath. This helps to explain the reported sensitivity of 40 mW for the MIT calorimetry versus the sensitivity of 0.1 mW achieved for the Fleischmann–Pons Dewar calorimetry. The evaluation of calorimetric designs, accuracy of temperature measurements, electrolyte level effects, calorimetric equations, and data analysis methods leads to the clear conclusion that the Fleischmann–Pons calorimetry was far superior to that of MIT. Therefore, the results of the MIT calorimetry cannot be used as a refutation of the Fleischmann–Pons experiments"[8]
I suggest you take this part of the discussion to a science forum, or respond to that article in the customary manner. Alanf777 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Then you really should stop posting links to bogus papers and talks. But don't worry, I don't anticipate there is anything in any of the other links you've posted that I haven't commented on, so I am done with this specific effort. My point here was that every time someone throws a paper out that claims CF is 'proved', I find that it is full of flaws, the most common being they ignore the CCS problem. As I said above, this just proves the pseudoscientific nature of the research. You really should change your vote to a '2' Alanf... Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Just for completeness...looked at the Miles and Hagelstein JCMNS paper...good points made, but no inclusion of a two-zone model of the calorimeter, therefore no way to evaluate the impact of a expected, since Hagelstein doesn't seem to believe I made any worthwhile contribution based on the video of his 'Cold Fusion 101' course (at 8:12, 1st video at Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Miles also analyses the Harwell, MIT and Caltech "disproof" experiments. "...The isoperibolic calorimetry reported by Caltech, MIT, and Harwell neglected important power terms leading to large errors. [10]. Shanahan's draft paper is at [11] and the Storms-Shanahan-Storms-Shanahan dialog is at [12]. The reply-by-10's comment "Shanahan's random CCSH", is perhaps just a semantic interpretation that his CSH formula results from (his words) "some variation", "small natural variation" and "statistically determined". In any event, I think I have made my case that the main "debunking" experiments, which resulted in the cut-off from funding and the outlawing of the field, were themselves deeply flawed. Alanf777 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No, they know that my proposal is non-random because my other two publications after the original were replies to people who essentially said the same thing (that I was discussing a random phenom.). My replies then made it clear that I said I was discussing a systematic effect. The literature is perfectly clear on this. W.r.t. Miles - he also does not fold in my concerns. His comments may apply to the 3 labs' work discussed or not, it is irrelevant here. Here we are concerned with where to apply the designation 'pathological'. Miles ignoring my work is another example of why the label goes to the pro-CFers. The other document you bring up is a copy of an open discussion on the old Usenet group sci.physics.fusion (spf). It is very illustrative of the pseudoscience approach to my work. I recommend you all read it. The randomness-related comment therein by Mike Staker also shows how they weren't willing to understand what I was saying to any appreciable degree. My CCS is not random, and it is not required to have equal manifestation in the positive and negative senses. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This looks to me like a trick survey, through the lack of an option 'other'. It is clear that because people consider they have to choose among options 1 to 4 they are being forced into an option with a description that they don't completely agree with. It is well known in the world of surveys/polls that you can steer people in particular directions by choosing the right questions and one has wonder what lies behind this choice of questions. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
As Arthur Rubin points out, they do have to choose among options 1 to 4 because those are the categories that were defined by WP:ARBPS. The choice of those categories was not a trick nor an effort to steer the result, because it is exactly what is defined by ARBCOM. (What else would there be anyway?) If you don't like the categories, you can !vote Other, but that will probably be ignored by the closer, because the purpose of the RFC is to decide, in accordance with Wikipedia principles, which label should be used in the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Those who think "Category 2" doesn't fit because of the mention of astrology, should realize that category 4 does not fit at all....and the categories are selected on the basis of WP:ARBPS for determining what should be said about it. If you don't like the categories, request clarification from ARBCOM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm having problems seeing why that page is relevant. All the discussions on that page seem to relate to previous disputes. Whoever initiated the cold fusion issue obviously looked on that page to find categories in order to create the survey, but there's absolutely no reason why the present case should be treated identically to previous ones and I can't see anywhere where it is stated that that list is binding. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the question isn't well posed. If part of the question is to determine which label should be used in the article's lead, then I included a !vote above to register an opinion, but it makes no sense to me to want to reference an arbcom case in article space. If, instead, this is a question intending to determine to what extent the wikipedia arbcom Pseudoscience case applies to Cold Fusion then the question is pointless as that very argument has already been heard by the Committee back in 2009- I think a wiki-history lesson is in order. The pseudoscience case was decided in 2006, and soon after the arguments on this page began as to whether and to what extent that case applied to the topic of cold fusion. Many of the same arguments appeared on both sides of the question, and things got heated. In 2009 this and other issues on this page heated up enough for Arbcom to take a new case, the somewhat less than perfectly named Abd-WMC case. Of course the arbitration committee did not express an opinion as to whether or not cold fusion is pseudoscience as that is a content question. They did remove any possible ambiguity as to the application of the prior pseudoscience case by directing therein that discretionary sanctions are applicable to this article.--Noren (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment to Arthur Rubin. Regarding Rubin's statement (It's considered pseudoscience by all but (a few) active researchers and their followers.) I think that he, as a professional mathematician, should be very cautious using the generalized quantifier all in his statement as it is not clear who are these all and what is the statistical weight that should be given to a vague, statistically unspecified 'all. Also it is not clear whether the few active researchers mentioned by A Rubin are really that few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft !Vote Count

I count 12 !votes for Option 2, 1 !vote for Option 3, and 3 !votes for Option 4. Because this is not a numerical vote but an assessment of strength of arguments, I have requested an uninvolved closer. If there are any misplaced !votes not in Survey, they should be moved before closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Counting

Kirk shanahan is (has been) an active player in the field, and seems to be basing his objections largely on a feud with other researchers. I think this rises to the level of a conflict of interest, so his votes should be disqualified. (I admit that I have been following this field closely and have been convinced by the "preponderance of evidence", if not quite by "beyond reasonable doubt" that CF is real, and is backed by legitimate, though outlawed science.) Alanf777 (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But the 'evidence' is flawed, and that brings on 'reasonable doubt'. I am active in the that disqualifies me? I think it makes my opinion more valuable! I don't have a 'feud'. I presented a reanalysis of data that drew an opposite conclusion about CF and twice responded to derogatory comments on that work. Then I commented on another paper, and was answered with a paper that proves way beyond a shadow of a doubt that the commenters (who are 'names' in the field) didn't even understand the basics of what I had done. If there is a feud going on, it is all one sided. I just want to see the CF article reflect the current status quo (which it does not), so I posted a current reference to how the mainstream views CF and responded to the RFC and comments within. But, claiming that I have some nefarious reason to slur CF is a typical 'personal attack' tactic. Just more proof... Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The closing of an RFC is not limited to the counting of votes, which are anyway referred to as !votes. It is also based on the strength of arguments. This sort of Wikilawyering is unhelpful and is not conducive to obtaining consensus or getting clean closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I see from wikidefinitions that consensus and RFC are not by counting options expressed (aka votes) but by analysis of arguments . I consider Kirk's arguments worth to consider, as he has shown technical expertise/understanding. Regarding options to ignore in analysis of arguments, the ignorable comments should rather be those by Roches, JJ, Johnuniq, Andy, Enric Naval which have less argumentative value, sounding rather like repeated buzzwords/clichés than real arguments.-- (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Kirk shanahan that the allegation of a feud comes close to a personal attack. Any further personal attacks may be taken to arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Then I'll withdraw my classification of "feud", and just point out that he makes ELEVEN references to other CF researcher's rejection/misunderstanding of his CCS theory (the paper is behind a paywall). And classifies my references as "bogus papers and talks" Alanf777 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The 'group of 10' paper: If you go to that site and search on my name you will find the original manuscript describing the data reanalysis and the CCS that was submitted in 2000 to a journal that eventually rejected it because of reviewer commenting. It was slightly modified and published in Thermochimica Acta in 2002, but the original is probably >95% identical. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I looked them up, and commented in the previous section. Alanf777 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(Belated comment) states that "ignorable comments", having less argumentive value, should include mine, presumably my comment at #Survey that the counter-arguments tend to be more rhetorical than scientific. I beg to differ. I was commenting on Insertcleverphrasehere's reference (unsigned edit) to Alfred Wegener (notable re his Theory of continental drift), and implicitly to Alanf777's subsequent invocation (24 June) of "continental drift" as an example of something eventually proved correct. The implicit argument is that "mainstream science is wrong to reject cold fusion, just as it was wrong to reject continental drift." But as I have commented, to claim a parallel circumstance by invoking Wegener (or Galileo, Prusiner, etc.) is not a scientific argument. (That is, not about the scientific evidence itself.) Whether the scientific establishment has properly evaluated the scientific evidence is, at best, a meta-argument. Which can be valid, but is at a different level. It is my observation that proponents of pseudoscientific topics tend towards such meta-arguments, as we have seen here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with any argument that mainstream science was wrong to question continental drift. They were right to question it until a mechanism was found. However, there were reasons why Wegener proposed it, as there were reasons why Galileo supported the heliocentric theory, that did not involve questionable experiments. The "jigsaw puzzle" effect, in which South America fits so well with Africa, was a reason in itself why it was worth looking for a mechanism. There was also paleontological evidence that was supportive of continental drift. However, mainstream science, in the absence of a mechanism, was right to question it. Likewise, the acceptance of the heliocentric theory depended on a mechanism, Newtonian gravitation. In the case of cold fusion, there are both questions about the experiments (and there were no questions about Tycho's observations) and the mechanism. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting point mentioned by JJ. I'll stricken my mentioning him in the list.-- (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A helpful analogy

A previous case from the annals of science may help people clarify their thinking in regard to the cold fusion case, and it is perhaps more relevant than the case of low production success making chips that someone cited above. I refer to my own 1962 prediction that a superconducting tunnel junction could carry a current at zero voltage. Soon after I had published my calculation, Nobel Laureate John Bardeen, one of the discoverers of superconductivity, categorised it as erroneous science, saying the calculation was wrong as the electron pairing it assumed did not extend into the barrier (Bardeen was wrong in this respect, it turned out). The interesting thing though was that experiment seemed to confirm it being a non-effect: John Adkins and I found no supercurrent through our junctions down to 1nA (nanoamp), even when we compensated the Earth's magnetic field in case that was suppressing the effect. It was not till 9 months after that confirmation was obtained by Anderson and Rowell. But the point was that there were great difficulties at first in getting good junctions, because if you make the oxide layer thin enough to get supercurrents you are liable to get short circuits, so it isn't tunnelling. Adkins and I found great variability in I-V characteristics from one junction to another. There is a story of scientist A asking scientist B "how do you manage to get good junctions?" and being told "we mix in a little of the vapour from X brand of hair oil". He thought scientist B was joking, but when he visited his lab he noticed to his surprise a bottle of brand X hair oil sitting on the shelf. Such experimental difficulties, airbrushed out of published science, are what real science is about.
I was lucky in that methods for making good junctions reliably were found, so there was no dispute about the reality of the phenomenon. But it could quite conceivably have turned out that only a small proportion of people were lucky and the reality of the supercurrents would still have been a matter of dispute. But if the experimenters concerned used good methodology it might have been accepted that the effect was real. However, people have actually to visit the labs concerned to get a clear idea if experiments are being conducted properly, and the people who make up the consensus that CF is not real never do this. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, cold fusion may be a real phenomenon, and great results may be obtained in the future. But the same could be said for hundreds of other topics which proponents would like favorably treated at Wikipedia. The only practical approach for articles like this is to rigorously insist on accounts of results from reliable sources—not dreams of what may occur. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly! There are plenty of positive results published in what I (and other scientists) regard as reliable sources, no dreaming required (no need to waste time and effort telling me that w'pedia has a different definition of reliable to the real world definition, I already know that). -- Brian Josephson (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The real problem is that there are conventional, everyday chemistry and physics explanations for the observations. The problem comes from the CFers refusal to consider them, and the extent that they go to to avoid dealing with them. I mean how often do you see a group of 10 authors repeatedly resort to a logical fallacy to try to defeat a proposed explanation that they don't like? Not very often. And it is this massive effort at not dealing with criticisms that labels their work as pathological and makes it extremely difficult to believe they really have found anything of great importance. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there a specific proposal somewhere? If there is a suggestion for additional text, please keep it simple by proposing just one addition, with source. However, any addition has to avoid WP:SYNTH—text should not describe esoteric details near the limits of experimental procedure with a hint, for example, that any day now cold fusion may be proven. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not going waste my time doing that, as experience shows that the cabal will immediately find some guideline that will give them an excuse for not including it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
However, I will go as far as suggesting that you look at my letter published in Nature to see if you find any acceptable references there. But you will no doubt say the links are a primary source so not reliable, and not allow my letter to be considered a reliable source, despite it having been published in Nature, for all sorts of reasons. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
In the McKubre, et al (McK) paper you reference, it can be seen that they use a slightly different calibration equation than usual. However, it can be reduced to the same form via a little algebra, so this paper does essentially the same thing as Storms did with the Pt electrodes in 2000. In the McK paper, propagation of error theory is applied to compute uncertainties, BUT under the assumption that k’ is a constant. However McK also say that k’dT was 2-4% of input power, so it is a variable and should have been considered in the uncertainty calculation. As I showed in my first paper, a 1%RSD variation was able to produce at 780mW signal for Storms. McK report excess heat signals of ~1W, indicating that their results are in the same region as the Storms 2000 results. In my mind at least, that leads me to believe a full error analysis by McK would have shown likewise that the observed signals were artifactual. Perhaps they could have even beaten me to the ‘CCS’ postulate had they done so.
In the Storms 1990 paper, only tritium is measured. The measurement technique is a standard one, 1 ml of sample is mixed with 10 ml of scintillant solution (i.e. standard LSC analysis). However, Fritz Will reported that this approach is susceptible to error due to dissolved Pd, and further developed an alternate method that microdistilled the sample to theoretically remove the Pd. Storms and Talcott mention that some corrective actions were taken in the LSC method they used, but do not elaborate on the details, a typical CF action which is insufficient in this case. The independent observer needs to be able to assess how well the dissolved Pd problem was handled. It is also of interest to note that Will remarks in the second paper that there may be interfering effects, even in his microdistilled samples, from dissolved or suspended nanoparticles and/or other things. So, here we have again insufficient information to assess the reliability of the T results. Certainly not a definitive paper. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
First who exactly are you responding to here? Second I think I need to remind you that this page is not a forum for you to spread the word of your hypothesis, that should be done via peer reviewed science, just like other 'CF' researchers' works. What do you hope to gain by convincing people here? I know very little about calorimetry, certainly not enough to judge your hypothesis on its own merits most others here are the same. Others knowledgeable in the subject have rejected it, perhaps for personal investment reasons, perhaps for valid scientific ones. There does, however, seem to be little support for your CCS hypothesis by... well... anyone (if there is, please CITE it). If you are trying to drum it up here, you are in the wrong place. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Who? The person immediately above my comment, who suggested papers listed in his reference be included in the article. My comment is to point out that there are significant problems with those refs, making them not acceptable for use. I note that that may not be obvious to a layman, but Brian should have no difficulty understanding the points. Hopefully he would withdraw his suggestion after verifying my comment. What do I hope to gain? A fair and balanced article that gives the Wikipedia reader the current state of affairs in the cold fusion arena. If what I have been posting seems new to you, then my point about the article being incomplete is accurate. Re: my CCS postulate - I believe it has been established that pointing out blatantly obvious problems in sources is not OR, as anyone with some knowledge should detect this. I believe that using strawman arguments in a literature paper is one of those obvious things. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent Reports on Restarting Cold Fusion Research

These have not been covered in mainstream US media yet, but Bill gates visited ENEA (reported in Italian media as a possible $1B investment), the Indian Government is being urged to restart research (eg BARC), and the Chinese may already have done so (Rossi/Industrial Heat). Note : I am also providing links to "non" reliable sources, as they have translated the italian, and in some cases got further information. I do not expect these to go into the article. Original Comment: Gates Foundation Close to a $1 Billion Agreement to Fund ENEA for Fusion Research [Update: Human Translation into English] <> Official statement from the University of Verona : "Gates, accompanied by Head and scientists of the center, wanted to find out the research activities of the institute in the field of low energy nuclear reaction, LENR, better known as “cold fusion, (fusione fredda)”. The center ENEA Frascati is, in fact, considered to excellence in the world in this area. Thanks also to the presence of scientists among the most qualified in the field of cold fusion such as Vittorio Violante. This is why the United States has involved ENEA, the only non-US agency, a research program of great scientific importance in the field of LENR." Comment :

Secondly, the Indian government is being urged to restart cold fusion research : Business Standard (Reliable regional print newspaper, reprinted by Gulf News) This specifically mentions Rossi, and that the Chinese (through Rossi/Industrial Heat) may already have started research : I have already proposed adding to the Energy Catalyzer article. "Some top nuclear scientists are urging India's new government to revive research on "cold fusion", saying it has the potential to provide answers to the country's energy problem." .... " According to Srinivasan, research on cold fusion needs to be revived now since "very interesting things are happening in this field" and people like Bill Gates -- who Nov 12 visited the Italian laboratory to observe LENR experiments being carried out there -- were "seriously considering funding cold fusion/LENR". Srinivasan said that recent technological breakthroughs had resulted in the development of suitcase-sized LENR reactors that can be mass produced.".

I'm not sure where in the article to put these. Possibly in a new section "Commercial Cold Fusion". Alanf777 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Indian stuff could go under "India" : Gates? Alanf777 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page Contents Index

This seems to be missing. Can somebody fix it? Alanf777 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I put this section in and the contents showed. I took this section out and the contents disappeared again. W7/Chrome Browser. So I undid the deletion. Alanf777 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Table of contents only show up when there are 4 or more headings. With your contribution there are 4 headings so the TOC appears. Removal of the section means 3 headings, ergo no TOC. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. There are only three sections, but they're very long and hard to scroll to. I'll leave this in until there's a real section. Alanf777 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Current Science Journal Has Special Section on LENR in upcoming issue

Current Science has a special section dedicated to LENR in their upcoming issue. The full list of 12 LENR-related papers can be found in the below link.
As the top multidisciplinary journal in India, this represents a HUGE change of stance and should be reported in the article.
This also impacts the recent choice to reclassify the CF WIKI article as Pathological Science, as Pathological Sciences tend not to have large sections dedicated to them in high profile journals long after they have been 'debunked'.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The "top multidisciplinary journal in India" isn't very good, is it? Sub-unity – 0.833 and declining – impact factor? Jean-Paul Biberian's "biological transmutation" nonsense?
This "special section" says very little about the way cold fusion is seen by the scientific community, and much more about the quality and relevance of Current Science. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see. So anyone who actually looks at the evidence and publishes real science based on this is disreputable? Sorry mate but your personal opinion matters, in this case... not at all. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a Peer-Reviewed journal going out of its way to put CF forward as a special topic that demands consideration. i don't feel that us at Wikipedia can ignore that.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Does "multidisciplinary" mean "fringe"? It seems to in the US. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Science (Journal) is multidisciplinary, and Nature (journal) is 'natural sciences' which covers almost all disciplines. So no multidisciplinary does not mean fringe. And even if it does, you have lent support to my suggestion that this article be moved back to 'fringe science' rather than 'pathological science'. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

In "Cold fusion: comments on the state of scientific proof" [2] by Michael C. H. McKubre (published in the section mentioned above) McKubre argues that:

If pressed the authority of experts in the fields of nuclear or particle physics are invoked, or early publications of null results by ‘influential laboratories’ – Caltech, MIT, Bell Labs, Harwell. Almost to a man these experts have long ago retired or deceased, and the authors of these early publications of ‘influential laboratories’ have long since left the field and not returned. The issue of ‘long ago’ is important as it establishes a time window in which information was gathered sufficient for some to draw a permanent conclusion – some time between 23 March 1989 and ‘long ago’. Absurdly for a matter of this seeming importance, ‘long ago’ usually dates to the Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) on 1 May 1989. So the whole matter was reported and then comprehensively dismissed within 40 days (and, presumably, 40 nights).

This tells volumes on our approach here at this Wiki page, where we also focus heavily on those 40 days and those labs (Caltech, MIT, Bell, Harwell)

I would argue that the condition of certainty is approached asymptotically – we achieve the comfortable condition of ‘knowing’ by painstaking repetition and accumulation of knowledge over periods of years, decades or generations. Very few people ever attempt this exercise – those that do are called experts – those who do not look to these experts for answers. What is sought is not fact, but patterns and consistencies of behaviours. In his most recent book7, Ed Storms reviews over 900 publications sorting through these patterns in the attempt to create systematic order for those of us with less time, talent or devotion. By any standards Storms is an expert on the subject of cold fusion – one could argue that he is the preeminent expert on this topic. But where does one go to get a countervailing ‘expert’ opinion? I would argue that there is no such place or person and has not been for more than two decades, and that this is a problem. Individuals selected to evaluate the accumulated evidence or some subset of evidence with an open mind invariably come to the conclusion that the case for cold fusion is not disproven (the experience of Rob Duncan and 60 min comes to mind8). To hear a counter argument one must approach experts in related fields and ask their opinion about matters that they have not studied. Of course, all one can expect is an intuitive, emotive or self-serving response.

Which again speaks volumes that Ed Storms is consistently regarded on this talk page as being a disreputable source, (failure to be allowed to cite his work even when published in peer reviewed journals) despite being the preeminent expert on the topic. And that other so-called 'experts' are consistently cited despite not actually being involved in, or having studied, the field of cold fusion at all.

McKubre concludes:

From what we know today, and Figure 1 clearly illuminates, none of the cells in any of these early cited null studies would be expected to produce any excess heat. Not only for the reasons of a loading deficiency (as stated explicitly); the durations of the experiments were wholly insufficient. The Caltech work13 was completed and conclusions made public within 40 days of the Fleischmann and Pons public announcement. None of the Caltech experiments was operated for the 300 h (12.5 days) that was the minimum initiation time observed at SRI for bulk Pd cathodes and the entire set of Caltech experiments was complete well within the 1000 h (42 days) established as the minimum time of observation at SRI (see note 6). In addition, the current density stimuli used in these early null experiments were too small to reliably produce the effect and the deuterium flux was not measured. None of the criteria of eq. (1) was shown to be met, at least three demonstrably were not. In hindsight it is evident that the authors13–15 were victims of ‘unknown unknowns’, and perhaps ‘undue haste’ – but this is understandable in the frantic circumstances of 1989. What is important is that these experiments be recognized for what they are, not what they are not. They are important members of the experimental database that teaches us under what conditions one encounters FPHE. They are not any part of a proof of nonexistence of the phenomenon and cannot be used to support such a conclusion; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

in other words, pretty much all of the citations that we are using in this wiki article that were negative have been proven to have been victims of Unknown Unknowns, and do not now meet the criteria as reputable sources for determining the validity of the CF effect, except as a historical perspective on what was done wrong . from the now known criteria necessary for the production of excess heat, they would never be expected to work.


Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The LENR-related material in that issue is confined to the "Special" section, the other sections being "General Articles", "Review Articles/Research Articles/Research Accounts", and "Research Communications". The page on editorial policies says all those sections are peer-reviewed except for the "Special" section, which goes unmentioned. Even putting other concerns aside for the moment, it is not clear whether these papers are peer-reviewed. If they are, then I don't understand why that wouldn't be made apparent. Manul ~ talk 01:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems quite common for this journal to use the heading 'special section' [3] for example in the last issue there was a special section on Geochemistry [4]. In the editorial section it clearly shows that ALL sections of the journal, and all categories of article are peer reviewed [5]. It does not state which category special section articles belong to, because they don't all belong to one category, (i.e. some might be 'review articles' and some might be 'research articles', others might be 'research news').
in the Peer Review section [6] however, it clearly 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.

In other words (as you might expect of a peer reviewed journal) EVERY paper, once assessed and approved by the review editor, is sent for detailed review. The special section is just a way of organising the journal, all the articles that are part of it are still peer reviewed. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes I read the link that I supplied, including the part you quoted which is under "Peer Review Process". If something is peer-reviewed, then that is the process. But it isn't clear that these papers are peer-reviewed in the first place, for the reasons I gave. This is just one problem among others. Manul ~ talk 02:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless you are suggesting that all the other special sections on this list [7] are not subject to the normal peer review process (frankly ridiculous), i think you'd better move on to your 'other problems'. The editorial clearly states that all papers are peer reviewed, and then goes on to describe that process. The peer review section states that all papers in the journal are peer reviewed, not that all papers that are subject to the peer review process are subject to the peer review process. To try to imply that the journal would regularly include articles that aren't peer reviewed at all is pure delusion. Stop wasting my time and contribute to some meaningful discourse. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
If every article is peer-reviewed, then what's with all the "Peer Reviewed" check marks under the specific sections given? You have to admit that makes no sense. And why would they leave out the "Special" section? As I said, the LENR papers may be peer reviewed, but it isn't entirely clear. It may just be that their website is screwy. Manul ~ talk 03:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you can't understand the clear wording given in the 'peer review section'. All papers are subject to peer review dude, its a fucking journal. Like I said earlier, 'special section' does not refer to a TYPE of article, (the check marks you mentioned are given for these), but rather is an organisational structure for the journal. I admit that it could be made more clear, but there is no doubt about the peer review of the articles. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It also states under the Author Guidelines [8] that all submitted articles are subject to peer review.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This is your first and final warning about making personal attacks.
You are latching onto the phrase "All articles" that appears in the section "Peer Review Process". That may well mean "All articles that are part of the peer review process". Suppose for a moment that there exist some articles that are not peer-reviewed, as implied by the check marks if we assume the check marks aren't totally worthless. The "Peer Review Process" section would still make sense, and the "All articles" phrase would still make sense. The section wouldn't be describing articles that aren't under peer review.
I had seen the Author Guidelines page as well. That also doesn't say that all articles are peer-reviewed. It says that all articles are reviewed. Every journal (except the ones we don't care about) has editors that review articles. That's not the same as peer review. Maybe "sent for detailed review" means peer review. It's not entirely clear, just like it's not entirely clear what is meant by those "Peer Reviewed" check marks and the missing "Special" entry that may or may not have a check mark if it were there.
I have not been saying that the LENR articles are not peer-reviewed. I have been saying that it's not entirely clear that they are. There is a difference between those two claims. Manul ~ talk 05:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Considering that it references that articles are 'sent for detailed review' in the Peer Review Process section i think it is safe to assume that this statement means that the papers are sent for peer review. It is a peer reviewed paper, and although the guidelines may not be as clear as they could be, I admit, nothing on the editorial pages at all suggests that any papers that are published in Current Science are not peer reviewed. Given this information, if you want to argue that the LENR papers cited above that are to be published in the paper in the next issue are not part of the normal peer review process I'm afraid that the burden of proof is on your side, until evidence suggests otherwise we can safely assume they are part of the normal peer review process.
I apologise for getting personal but this is taking way too much of my time and we haven't even talked about the subject matter. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll preface my remarks by reiterating my original observation that this is largely a moot discussion, as Current Science is not a high- (or medium-) profile journal, it is not widely cited, and it is not known for publishing groundbreaking new work in physics or any scientific field.
That said, I find it suggestive that the regular articles in the journal have "Received" and "Revised accepted" dates at the end of each article – as is typical for peer-reviewed articles in most journals – whereas this information is missing from the articles in this "Special Section". Actually, doing a very quick spot check of the last half-dozen Special Sections, it looks like this information is absent from every Special Section article. At the very least, this implies a rather different route to publication for these special articles. (It's an open non-secret that, for example, editor-"invited" manuscripts tend not to be subject to the same scrutiny as the unsolicited slushpile submissions; even if external – rather than just editors-around-the-table internal – review is involved, editors certainly know how to select friendly reviewers. Or they could be handled like conference proceedings, where 'peer review' tends to mean that someone looked to see that most of the words in the abstract were spelled correctly.)
Honestly, this Special Section just strikes a very odd note in general. Current Science – including its Special Sections – is predominantly a publisher of work by Indian authors, employed at Indian institutions. (Indeed, I saw no obvious exceptions in the last dozen Special Sections.) Given its historical collaboration with the Indian Academy of Sciences and the journal's overall low profile in the scientific publishing world at large, this isn't particularly surprising. It's just plain weird, then, that a dozen fringe papers by (apparently) an entirely non-Indian cast of characters with no obvious connection to Indian science would suddenly appear in their pages. How on earth did they get there? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Silly me. This special section in a small, unimportant journal, is of interest only to a small, unimportant population of scientists in a small, unimportant country. Alanf777 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The articles are very short: just a review of some of the things happening in various fields and countries. All the citations are to peer-reviewed papers. I don't see why extensive peer review is required for these summaries ... this is well within the scope of the editor in charge of the section, who presumably has the permission of the editor in chief to include the section. I suspect that if (hypothetically) Nature or Science were to write an editorial on the subject you would reject it because it wasn't peer reviewed. Alanf777 (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a rumor that Science Journal was hacked by North Korean activists to discredit a leading science nation. Its quite logical that all these CF fringe scientists get funded by North Korean government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That is an incredibly unfounded and ignorant assumption. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't feed the troll, Insertcleverphrasehere. The IP above is a cold-fusion believer like you; he just likes to do "social experiments" to get a reaction. He previously trolled you at Talk:Energy Catalyzer. I would block him, but unfortunately if I did so people would shout "censorship!" and "admin abuse". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not attach the title of 'believer' to me, belief has no place in science. There is only evidence. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite Appalling Article, have these people never head of NPOV ?

[Edited] I just typed LENR at the prompt and was redirected here. LENR is quite clearly not cold fusion, the theory is totally different, and unlike cold fusion LENR seems to be based (at least partly) on real and rigorous science and scientific theory. This article was published on a NASA site - Note that LENR is a speculative theoretical field - looking at potential future mechanisms for low energy nuclear reactions for energy production, it is not about validating or proving existing experiments. Without such research science would barely be able to progress at all, so attacking it by labelling it as pseudo-science beforehand is particularly annoying.

As for the article itself parts of it are totally non-NPOV and aggressive bordering on rude. It is also far far too long. In articles dealing with subjects labeled as pseudo-science or fringe science care needs to be taken - especially as supposedly neutral and scientifically trustworthy sources quite frequently abandon all neutrality and scientific principles in order to make stronger arguments. Sceptics are often no better at science than the people they criticize and this does not help the real debate. Two classic examples of subjects that were heavily attacked and debunked for decades as pseudoscience were manned flight and rocketry, but really the examples from history are almost endless...
Its almost certain that cold fusion is a complete fantasy and that either the reaction was not fusion or there was some kind of experimental error or fabrication, but the proof is not 100% absolute. Disproving negatives is very difficult especially in areas where the scientific base is not 100% complete, which is most of science.
Perhaps the real crime lies with the media, who always jump on every small discovery or idea and then blow it completely out of proportion, and then once bored jump the other way and attack it like a pack of hyenas - wrong both ways... Lucien86 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

“Several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted,” according to Dennis Bushnell, Langley’s chief scientist... "Blown up", "melted"? From nuclear energy from LENR? I've never heard of that. Got a source for that? JPL Falls For LaRC Cold Fusion / LENR Story Jim1138 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is true that labs have blown up. Which is totally unsurprising, since many of these experiments have involved substantial quantities porous or finely powdered catalytic metals, hydrogen under pressure, and electricity. If you're not extremely careful, it's very easy to inadvertently catalyze an explosive recombination of hdyrogen with oxygen; lots of labs working with that stuff catch fire and blow out windows, no nuclear reactions (cold, low-energy, or otherwise) required. The most famous "cold fusion" case is probably Andrew Riley, who was killed while working with Michael McKubre back in 1992: [9]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not clear what the original poster, User:Lucien86, is saying is "appalling", since he or she acknowledges that cold fusion is probably a "complete fantasy", which is consistent with what the article says. If the OP agrees that cold fusion is a fantasy, then what is "appalling" about the article? Its failure to provide false balance? If the research being done by Zawodny is significantly different from Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion, then an argument can be made for disambiguating "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" and "LENR" to this article and another article. Cold fusion, as normally reported, strongly appears to be pathological science. Research into low energy nuclear reactions in general can reasonably be reported separately, although it may be appropriate to label it as fringe if it also has little support in the mainstream scientific community. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
As TenOfAllTrades points out, finely powdered catalytic metal is dangerous. All sorts of materials in labs are dangerous. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I think its a matter of tone rather than content. Thinking about it maybe NPOV isn't appropriate for a subject like this. Maybe the problem is that LENR redirects here - I started by reading the LENR section which is extremely dismissive in a way I wasn't expecting. The great problem with pseudoscience is that it can appear about any subject, and equally that areas that begin surrounded by pseudoscience or labelled pseudoscience can just as easily end up as real science. Early rocketry is a great example - where the idea of travel into space or to the Moon was utterly lampooned. Nano-technology 'assemblers' are another example, where the hyperbole (early 1990's) reached a point where much it pretty much became pseudoscience. Despite being quite possible theoretically, today assemblers are definitely what might be called scientifically 'toxic'. Then there is a depth of the 'pseud' in the pseudo - the deepest pools probably surround stuff like the 'psychic', 'government brainwashing', 'flying saucers' - compared to them cold fusion almost looks sensible..
I personally take an interest in quite a few areas that might be labelled fringe science. One is gravity engines, an area where if you read the literature is absolutely enmeshed and drowning in pseudoscience - but this definitely doesn't mean that a rigorous and scientifically robust and 'useful' analysis isn't possible. The problem is that the pseudoscience stops any discussion being taken seriously, and actually makes it very difficult for the scientific community to even look at the subject. - Real things may one day emerge from gravity engine research, for instance an answer to the question of which model of gravity is correct; ether - quantum force carrier, general relativity, super symmetry, Heim theory, string theory, m-theory, etc, or something new..
Oh and BTW the article is very long .. maybe a briefer synopsis article, with a more in depth article about the history and individual projects.. Lucien86 (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess the point is that we have to do SOMETHING to improve the quality of this article. It was formerly featured, and is not even a 'good article' any more. It is too long, which generally implies simplification or splitting. As no one can agree that a substantial portion of the article is unnecessary, splitting seems to be the logical conclusion, and in fact, there seems to be a logical place to split the article. I've always thought that the article should be separated into at least two articles, one surrounding the Pons/Fleischman debacle up to the point when CF was declared 'dead' (which I believe could be concise and perhaps make it back to featured article status, as the material is well documented), and one of "LENR", i.e. the body of current research being conducted on low energy reactions that produce excess heat, and especially the controversy, etc. The new LENR article could be labled pathological science if you like, and the pons/fleischman article would take a more historical approach. A small section at the start of the LENR article would be a summary of the Pons/Fleischman story and link to that article. Surely this has been suggested before? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for the sarcasm, but I suppose the "LENR" article would be named "Nuclear reactions that involve fusing nuclei at low temperatures, which is totally not cold fusion"? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it would be named... cold fusion! as the current one is, it is still a convenient shorthand for the phenomenon, even if few current researchers believe actual fusion of nuclei takes place and prefer different designations, (LENR, CANR, LANR etc). All I am suggesting is removing the material from this article directly related to the Pons/Fleischman experiments and making a new article for that material which is linked to in this one, perhaps called Pons/Fleischman 'Cold Fusion' experiment. as Lucien86 pointed out, current LENR research is not in the business of trying to 'replicate' the pons/fleischman experiments (except in rare examples), but often use completely different materials, entirely different (and equally unfounded) theoretical frameworks, and make entirely different claims on how excess heat is produced. While related by a shared 'nuclear origin of excess heat' postulate, the Pons/fleischman experiments and aftermath were far more focused. Attempting to pare down various elements in the article to reduce its length has only reduced the flow of the article until it reads as a disjointed mess.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I hear what your saying, but my impression is that Pons/Fleischman received by far the most attention in the RS's, and that not presenting it prominently, but spinning it off in a separate article, this article would not give due weight to the main focus of the subject as covered in the source material. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
As to the article's formerly-Featured status; has there been a substantial decline in the quality of the article, or has there been a significant increase in the expected quality of Featured content? (Scratch that; I already know that the latter has taken place, but has the former played a role as well?) That is to say, when was this article Featured, when was it un-Featured (de-Featured? disenFeatured?) and what did it look like at each point, what changed between those two points, did those changes make the article worse, and has that trend continued? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It was named featured back in 2004. It roughly looked like this back then. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
So that shows pretty clearly what I meant about much lower expectations when this article was originally Featured. Virtually no citations (definitely nothing resembling proper footnotes) even on some of the more wildly 'interesting' statements. The article has five 'references' in its References section, but it's really a (very lightly annotated) bibliography. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Back in 2004 the article focused almost entirely on the Pons/fleischman experiments and later replication of electrolytic cells.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It was fixed by glowing sceptics afterwards. Splitting would be a nice feature. Anyway, there is at least a section which differentiates LENR and friends from P&F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple meanings?

Are there more meanings to the term cold fusion? This phyiscist Robert Smolanczuk has an article with cold fusion in title Smolanczuk, R. (1999). "Production a mechanism of superheavy nuclei in cold fusion reactions". Physical Review C. 59 (5): 2634–2639. Bibcode:1999PhRvC..59.2634S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.59.2634..-- (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFORUM - This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. If you wish to suggest an edit such as an addition of a claim such as above, please use a wp:edit request. Make sure to use the proper method. If you wish to discuss aspects of fusion itself, I would suggest finding a forum elsewhere than Wikipedia. Claimants have described many supposed fusion mechanisms. See Cold fusion#See also. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I see this discussion and I think it would be an improvement to the article to specify if the term has other meanings beside the main one presented here. If there are multiple meanings, perhaps a link to cold fusion (disambiguation) is useful. So the WP:NOTFORUM aspect has no place here.-- (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that there are indeed multiple meanings as the disambiguation page says. Perhaps an article cold fusion (superheavy nuclei) should be created.-- (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

New Patents

What concerns the patent applications, there is probably a pending german application from Airbus describing an LENR reactor. Its not granted yet, but quite noteable. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the following content regarding patents is relevant to the patent section and should be included because it could be one reason why some patents related to LENR/Cold Fusion have been rejected:

A patent law firm in Silicon Valley, California that represents at least one LENR firm sued the USPTO using the Freedom of Information Act procedure to uncover a secret program for delaying patents called the Sensitive Application and Warning System (SAWS). Once subjected to scrutiny the USPTO agreed to cancel the SAWS procedure. [10] (Climate Challenge (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

This link does not discuss SAWS. Jim1138 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed link Climate Challenge (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to USPTO explaining SAWS / STATUS

And some supplementary link:

I think mentioning the saws program in the patents section is mandatory as there is lots of reliable source out there - and CF is covered by SAWS with TC2800.

Link to the FOIA Response: (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Patent authorities do not validate the claims in the patents, nor do they attempt to replicate the claims. Given that, patents are a primary source and therefore not WP:RS as far as the claims in the patent actually having been tested, let alone validated by the claimant. See WP:PATENTS. So patents should not be added to an article to "prove" that the technology works or is even feasible. One can patent some rather strange things: Jim1138 (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
You did not get the point. Apart from WP:RS and WP:PATENT - the fact that patents are not granted is used to support POV that a technology is not valid or fraud. Because of the SAWS procedure in place - there are obviously other reasons thinkable why a certain patent isn´t granted. If a patent does not validate a claim - a not-patent does not invalidate a claim. (talk)

Moving on from RFC

The two-part RFC has now been closed. Cold fusion, or reports of cold fusion, may be said to be considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. Cold fusion may also be categorized in Category 2 as defined by the ArbCom in WP:ARBPS, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience but have a following. Any edits that differ with those conclusions are against consensus, and so are disruptive. Any questions that do not contain sufficient to be answered, or any edit requests that do not contain sufficient detail to be understood, may be ignored, but, if persistent, are disruptive editing, and can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement.

Now that the RFC has been closed and consensus is established, I will be requesting that this talk page, but not the article page, be unprotected, to allow comments by unregistered editors. However, any disruptive editing of this talk page (which has happened more than once) will either result in its semi-protection again, or in Arbitration Enforcement, or both.

Now that the RFC has been closed, we can move on.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what this is all about, but you certainly do not have my agreement to the proposition that CF is considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. The fact that papers on the subject have been published by regular peer-reviewed journals disproves the proposition. This whole business has the air of a coup and smells distinctly nasty. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

At least a part of CF is definitely mainstream, as it is mentioned on the cold fusion (disambiguation) page. The interesting aspect is the exact relation between the two cold fusions.-- (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Certainly RFC could have lasted longer than the default duration (30 days) and not necessarily needed an explicit closure. In cases with obvious lack of consensus like this an explicit closure that just count votes and not !votes is not needed.-- (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
N-rays and polywater were also published in peer-reviewed journals. Perpetual motion machines are still occasionally patented (see to 1999). Being published means next-to-nothing. It is the scientific consensus that is derived through discussion of such publications that brings validity, and when the cold fusion researchers deliberately misunderstand critics and refuse to answer them, they prove they are pathological scientists. Invoking conspiracy theories doesn't help either. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Those mentioned topics have been falsified quite rapidly.-- (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Which doesn't change the fact that pseudoscience got published before, and probably will again. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Once falsified, the topics disproved like poliwater have never been investigated and published.-- (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean that ANY addition to the article supporting the proposition that Cold Fusion is real, and that its investigation is legitimate, if controversial, science, is against the "consensus" and will be regarded as disruptive? Alanf777 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that additions to article should be based on reviews articles in journals.-- (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It depends on what sources support the statement, and how the statement is presented. Compare these two statements:
  • "Cold fusion is real, and most scientists agree with this" (link to the self-published website of a supporter)
  • "According to historian of science X, cold fusion is currently not considered real by scientists because of Y and Z. But it should be considered real because of R and T." (cite to a scholar book, the author is a guy who specialized in history of physics and has good reviews)
--Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
In the latter case, the opinion of historian of science X may be cited with the reference to reasons R and T as the opinion of historian of science X. All statements made in the voice of Wikipedia should be avoided, regardless of what side they are on, because Wikipedia's job is to present the divided voice of mainstream science. Reliable quotes are permitted in the voices of their authors, not of Wikipedia. Quotes that give undue weight to the idea that cold fusion is mainstream should be avoided. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems reasonable that statements in Wikipedia voice should be avoided. Selection of quotes however isn't a clear cut issue and it can easily be abused. There is no consensus in reliable sources about CF status as fringe or not and Wikipedia should reflect this lack of consensus in sources.-- (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would think this article needs to be revisited as pseudoscience: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The entire point of the discussion above was that we shouldn't change the article every time some blogger comes up with a new screed claiming that this time it's real and not just a scam. That website post is more obvious pseudoscience. For example, on page 28 we find the sentence "In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5%." What would any rational scientist think after measuring the same physical property with two methods and finding that these two measurements contradict each other by far, far more than the accuracy they expect? I'd expect them to investigate to find out how one or both of those contradictory measurements is flawed, or to otherwise explain the discrepancy. These authors reported this obvious contradiction but instead of science their very next sentence is, "This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place." --Noren (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You obviously have not any experience with mass spectrometry to support your statements.-- (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I noticed that the authors of that 'independent' report thank Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for financial support. That's the company who owns the patent rights to the E-Cat.--Noren (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't violate independence, companies pay people to independently to verify stuff all the time. Its practically the norm in everything from pharmaceuticals to engineering. If you had any experience with SIMS or ICP-MS (which i do) you might know that they don't work in the same way (measurement affects results in some cases). The difference between SIMS and ICP-MS measurement here could actually help explain whats going on. The important point was that both were lower than originally, even if different samples had slightly different results (grains that were in different places in the reactor interior). My point really is that you shouldn't be so quick to judge someone's findings unless you are an expert in the field. Thats why we source stuff and don't just use OR.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed the mass spectrometry analysis is very sensitive to the skills of the analist.-- (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't like to say whether there is anything to the LENR claims, but I do think that the downright condemnatory tone of this article clashes with the ecstatic, advert-like tone of the write-ups on other renewable energy topics. We know that other renewables promoters have made some serious exaggerations of the performance of their products, possibly more serious exaggerations than some claims made for LENR. If claims of neutron radiation were unfounded, then disproven claims that for example 'wind power will be continuous because the wind always blows somewhere' should be given the identical condemnatory treatment. There is after all no such thing as 'quack science' -there is just accurate science which precisely describes the behaviour of a system, and inaccurate science which does not. The fact one sounds more plausible than the other does not exclude either from scrutiny as inaccurate science.
Whilst we are told that we may not quote claims for success with LENR made by organizations with vested interests, there seem to be no compunctions whatsoever about basing claims for other renewables on self-quotes from their sellers and promoters. Witness for example the header of the renewable energy page, pulled straight from REN21, and filled with unverified claims for the products listed.
There would seem to be a strong editorial bias here, something which is supposed to be a no-no on Wikipedia. Let's keep things on a level footing.--Anteaus (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The very short response I could make is just a link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—the mere existence of some other articles which handle a topic badly doesn't mean that we should corrupt this article to match. (That said, I think you overstate the issues with renewable energy.) Still, if you want to compare apples and oranges anyway, I'd say that the most fundamental difference is that there is no doubt about the existence of working wind turbines and photovoltaic panels. The underlying physical principles are well-understood, thoroughly-tested, and extensively and credibly published and patented. Individuals, corporations, and national governments can buy and build these devices and structures from numerous commercial entities, and get real, measurable amounts of electricity from them.
The arguments about whether and how to deploy renewable energy technologies variously involve political and philosophical questions, economic questions, balancing environmental concerns, and engineering/efficiency issues. You can argue that a wind-turbine salesman is scamming you by underestimating the lifetime of his turbine or its maintenance requirements. You can argue that the wind-turbine salesman is scamming you by overstating the performance of his turbines under particular local wind conditions, or even by underestimating the number of likely bird strikes. But nobody – well, no reasonable person, and certainly no scientist – can credibly argue that wind is an imaginary phenomenon resulting from the salesman's wishful thinking, selective observations, and imagination. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Windmills have existed since the Middle Ages, or earlier. In 1952, fusion was used to blow a hole in an island. Both undoubtedly exist. There are nevertheless doubts as to whether fusion can be perfomed in a test tube, and there are doubts as to whether wind turbines can replace fossil fuel power stations. Interestingly, the issue of intermittency figures in both. LENR experimenters do not seem to be able to achieve repeatable or consistent results. Presently, we do not know why that is. By contrast, the intermittency of wind is well understood by meteorological scientists, and if they had been asked about this aspect they would no doubt have pointed out the errors in the assumption that geographically wide-scale deployment would eliminate the intermittency of wind energy.
The nonrepeatability of LENR results has been attributed to poor experimental technique, although there does not seem to be any concrete proof of this attribution. If this nonrepeatability can be understood and resolved, then LENR may possibly be a viable energy source. By contrast, we know that the intermittency of wind (and solar PV) is a fundamental property, and cannot be resolved. Wind energy marketers have responded by claiming that advanced energy storage technologies will resolve the intermittency -A claim for which there is no more scientific basis than the claim of test-tube fusion, since the touted energy storage technologies do not yet exist, and may never exist.
It might be added that failure to successfully repeat an experiment does not constitute disproof of the original result. That amounts to argument by way of ineptitude - 'Because I cannot do this, it follows that nobody else can.' Possible reasons for the failed replications have been discussed elsewhere -Contaminated cathodes through reusing old palladium, rushing to meet publication deadlines, etc.
Anyway, I digress. The key point here is not whether other poor articles exist, but that a consistent policy ought to exist with regard to cyclic references, that is, quoting from an organization's PR material when that same organization has most likely paid you to write the WP article. As suggested above this practice is not always bad, but in some circumstances where heavy WP:PROMOTION is involved, it is reprehensible.--Anteaus (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, we'll agree to leave aside your rather dubious analogies and stick to your "key point"—can you identify the articles where there are editors with a conflict of interest, and go through the appropriate processes to clean them up? If editors with a clear COI have been editing renewable energy articles in a misleading, deceptive, or otherwise-suboptimal manner, then that's a potentially-serious problem in those articles, and something that you should definitely raise on their talk respective talk pages and the relevant noticeboards. Nothing you have said suggests to me that it would be a good idea to puff this article up with pro-cold-fusion material from fringe proponents. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that the 'magnet motor brigade' be let loose in here. However, to take just one example, this list seems fairly convincing. I guess it could be fake, and the way to find that out would be to ask a few members if they gave their permission to be included. I'm sure you are aware that NASA has published articles on the subject, suggesting that it merits further research.
BTW I have in the past suggested that independent citations be required for claims made of renewable energy technologies. Doing so doesn't seem to achieve much. --Anteaus (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, the place to discuss problems with other articles is on the talk pages of those articles. Encouraging the importation of poor practices from other areas here is a non-starter.
Name-dropping for the sake of name-dropping from that list (or any other) is a dubious approach. For almost any fringe position it is possible to find a scientist who will endorse some portion or another of it; saying "Wow! There's two PowerPoint slides' worth of scientists who endorse this (or at least some part of it)!" is just another way of writing "There are hundreds or thousands of scientists who aren't terribly impressed." This type of tactic has been regularly use to give a false impression of the scientific view of topics like creationism and climate-change denial; it's also a recurring problem when news outlets always present – and give equal time and credence to – one expert from each 'side' of an issue, regardless of how the topic is actually treated within the scientific community.; not a good approach here either.
At this point, since you haven't actually been suggesting specific article edits and it seems unlikely that any plausible ones will be forthcoming, I'm going to disengage; I don't have the time to get sucked into endless back-and-forth for the sake of back-and-forth. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, well, I think you've shown your hand with the invocation of climate change denial. There is no point in attempting any kind of rational discussion where that odious paradigm dictates what may be said, and what might be heresy. Nor of offering any real science for the article. Bye. --Anteaus (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if I would consider a list of names something crediting a claim like, "Hundreds or thousands of scientists don't believe in x y or z." It's dubious only in that there would need to be some kind of source for each scientist to which the list refers. I want to call attention to the perception of false attention. Obviously we can't really use names as a source for something being believed, but what's the real point there? Aren't we wanting to use articles or research for that? The name might come in way of the author who wrote whatever it is we're reffering, but having a list of names doesn't really say much, even if a slide says they "endorse" it. If it's a provable theory that is in discussion, whether or not people believe in it or endorse it will matter. Here's 30 scientists who endorse gravity. That doesn't mean there's hundreds who don't. Maybe a little farfetched, sure, but you get where my angle is. The articles and sources are above all the most important for any article, and not who is represented in the spearheading of a belief or operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talkcontribs) 22:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The research of Steven Jones at Brigham Young has not been vetted in this article. It is very significant and peer reviewed in Nature. Also, the back-stabbing, slanderous activity of competing physics labs is significant, especially when they all secretly patented their unique versions of the experiments. Most of the recent patents do not say "cold fusion". They say "muon catalyzed", "piezonuclear" or "plasma" experiments because the patent office would summarily trash can anything that said "cold fusion". This kind of sophomoric playground nonsense always occurs in scientific organizations prior to paradigm shift (the rush to publish, own and monetize). CF is recognized as occurring at atomic levels, just not at practical energy-producing levels, yet. I think I know what they are doing wrong, and I am not talking. I need a couple hundred thousand dollars to prove it.


D8. Publishable results obtained in 1988-1989

In August 1988, we did gamma-ray studies, using the sodium-iodine detector easiest set up. As before, we saw only non-significant hints of gamma production in our 3 inch sodium iodide counter, so we decided to concentrate on using the neutron spectrometer, which was fully conditioned for use in late 1988. Our first studies with this spectrometer were done using titanium, palladium, tantalum, nickel, aluminum, iron, and lanthanum. We also used several methods of loading deuterium into metals, including the original electrochemical method. Thus, we performed anew the experiment which we had started in May 1986, namely electrolytic infusion of deuterium into metals, but with a much-improved neutron detector. Of these experiments, Paul Palmer records: "Steve [Jones] and Bart [Czirr] have set up experiments exactly as we did a year or so ago and looked for fusion-generated neutrons in Bart's liquid-scintillator, low-resolution spectrometer.....As in the previous work, the results were tantalizingly positive." Within a few weeks, the results had reached a statistical significance of over five standard deviations. We also found correlations between tritium detected in Hawaii and volcanic eruptions there, in agreement with expectations that piezonuclear fusion occurs in the earth. We decided in early February to publish our results. ........

It is noteworthy that our paper to Nature was published (April 1989, 338:737)

Danarothrock (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Thats soo oldschool. Nowadays, truth is democratic ;-)). If nobody reads your papers - they are fraud. Even the attached handwritings are highly suspicious. Everybody knows that serious science involves the usage of computers. lol. "The two-part RFC has now been closed. Cold fusion, or reports of cold fusion, may be said to be considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. Cold fusion may also be categorized in Category 2 as defined by the ArbCom in WP:ARBPS, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience but have a following. Any edits that differ with those conclusions are against consensus, and so are disruptive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the larger point here is that ArbCom have ruled. Since they are, essentially, the "supreme court" here at Wikipedia, we really have to follow their ruling. Arguing about whether it's a valid ruling or not doesn't belong here - it belongs with ArbCom. Even if you have a completely convincing argument and swayed the opinions of all of us here - you'd STILL have to take that to ArbCom in order to get their ruling reversed. So, honestly, the debate should be over and done with in this forum - and continuing to push it is disruptive editing - which can get you in trouble here. We're going to call Cold Fusion 'a pathalogical science' - we're not going to call it 'good science' and we're probably not going to call it 'pseudoscience' either. Debate is therefore closed until/unless ArbCom are presented with new evidence and persuaded to reconsider. SteveBaker (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
They have not ruled anything. Content aspects are not in their domain. They have only defined general categories not specific to CF.-- (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I respect roles and processes. Cold Fusion in its original physical sense is "dead". The article covers this issue with "There are many reasons why known fusion reactions are unlikely explanations for the excess heat and associated claims described above." This means that a (known) fusion reaction has to have properties like production of deuterium and gamma radiation. But the decision if this article deals with low temperature effect with known fusion reaction characteristics - or anomalous heat generation without known fusion characteristics isnt taken. Its well mixed up - and even the move to relable anomalous heat generation without known fusion characteristics as "LENR" is misinterpreted as synonym for cold fusion - instead of a clear new generated category in physics. So there would be some need to differentiate between CF in physical and common sense - as well as a differentiation with LENR - which is definitely something different as CF. Does ArbCom decision apply to all this 3 different items ? Thats the primary question. Does ArbCom decision covers these aspects ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.
  2. ^ A New Look at Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Research: A Response to Shanahan
  3. ^ Slide 62
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^ How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect
  7. ^ a b Page 71 : The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt
  8. ^ a b New analysis of MIT Calorimetric Errors Miles & Hagelstein
  9. ^ Controlled Electron Capture and the Path Toward Commercialization
  10. ^ Examples of Isoperibolic Calorimetry in the Cold Fusion Controversy Miles 2012
  11. ^ A Possible Calorimetric Error in Heavy Water Electrolysis on Platinum
  12. ^
  13. ^
You make some good points there. The naming of the phenomenon as 'Cold fusion' was by the press, not by researchers, and was perhaps unfortunate as the name itself creates presumptions, perhaps unjustified ones, about what properties should be observable. The accusations of 'junk science' stem from two sources: Inability to replicate the results, and inability to observe the byproducts of nuclear processes. The former would seem to be have been a consequence of rushed and inept replication due to a presumption that the work was a waste of time, whilst the latter arises from taking the press-given name of the process literally. At present, all that is definitely known is that certain processes produce more heat than the law of energy conservation would allow. Exactly how this arises, is not known. --Anteaus (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Since there is a dearth of references in this article on the subject since 2011 (and only a very few from 2000, relative to the number of research articles available on the topic), it might be worthwhile adding a reference and link ( to the 25 Feb 2015 issue of Current Science that has a special section on low energy nuclear reactions. It contains 30 peer-reviewed papers (theoretical and experimental)on the subject and they are all available online for free. Most of the papers are of a review nature (with references to prior work) and new research results were not encouraged by the guest editors, so there is only a very few cases of previously unreported research in the papers presented. Since I am one of the guest editors, I am not allowed to contribute this information to the Wiki article. I hope that someone else will do so. Aqm2241 (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2015

Requesting, for more parsable grammar, a change of

Although details have not surfaced, it appears that the University of Utah forced 23 March 1989 Fleischmann and Pons announcement to establish priority over the discovery and its patents before the joint publication with Jones.


Although details have not surfaced, it appears that the University of Utah forced the 23 March 1989 announcement by Fleischmann and Pons to establish priority over the discovery and its patents before the joint publication with Jones. (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Good catch.  Done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be missing an explanation of LENR!

Search Wikipedia for LENR, and you get redirected to this page, which is all about the discredited Fleischmann–Pons experiment.

There is a mention of LENR, it suggests that it's an alternative name used by a small group of researchers who are continuing to attempt the Fleischmann–Pons experiment.

I was trying to find out more information about LENR research which has gone well beyond this, essentially not doing traditional fusion of deutrium to Helium but from Nickel to Copper, or Carbon to Nickel. This page seems irrelevant to the subject.

Here is a paper illustrating a typical contemporary LENR experiment:

And here is an interesting article from NASA:

I do hope you gentlemen can stop squabbling about a 25 year old experiment and get on with explaining what is happening with contemporary LENR research.

Either that or stop redirecting LENR here because it's very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Irwin (talkcontribs) 14:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed this article seems rather hanged in the past and based on quite very old sources from the beginning of the 1990's to establish/asses feasability like this.-- (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This source has(d) a significant assessment : Harvard scientists have also expressed skepticism about cold fusion.-- (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it is about Soviet Harvard scientists, as described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. There is also a reference to Soviet embassy in Washington in this link including Harvard scientists.-- (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It is mentioned in a lower section that Nickel is often used in experiments as well. The lugano report is not a reliable source (not peer reviewed and a primary source). A specific LENR article is not advised, as LENR is not a universal tagline for the field (some prefer LANR CANR etc.) Cold fusion is still a convenient tagline for the field, and will likely continue to be so until/unless a verifiable theory comes up to explain the effect. There has been some discussion about splitting Cold fusion and the Pons/Fleischman Experiment into separate articles however. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roger Irwin, did you read the section directly above this one yet? It seems to be about the same subject. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't. I started reading this (rather long) talk page at the top, but after reading about 10 minutes of FP bashing and naval gazing I gave up. In effect at the bottom the discussion does get more to the point.

But the real issue is that the caboodle (including talk page) really could be condensed more than a zip file full of spaces:

1) What is Cold Fusion (Fusion reactions achieved without artificial sun like conditions)

1) Summary of PF, problems with results and non repeatably; Link to a specific article about the experiment and the controversy etc (it is relevant to science history etc).

3) A brief paragraph for each of the hypothesized or attempted methods, citing experimental work in course, or linking to specific articles for more detailed experiments such as NIF's lasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this format would be better than what we have now, which is a bloated and unfocused article. I believe that a splitting of the article could be achieved without changing any of its content and result in two articles that are both superior to the one we have now. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I am troubled by attempts to stretch the definition of "cold fusion" to include inertial confinement (as is involved at the NIF, for instance). Inertial confinement is definitely a "hot fusion" method, relying on extraordinarily high temperatures and pressures (albeit for very short periods of time)—and also relying, not incidentally, on widely-accepted physics. Yes, the fuel is 'cold' when it goes into the chamber, but it's damnably hot before anyone expects it to fuse. (This sort of semantic reframing and redefinition is kind of like what happens when homeopaths try to suggest that what they're dealing with is actually a form of hormesis, to try to add a gloss of credibility to what is otherwise scientifically implausible.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Roger Irwin: Energy Catalyzer is an article. E-Cat has been around for a long time without producing any creditable results. They won't let any credible group test the process on that group's own terms. It would appear that the above NASA article was poorly researched nasa watch, using a single bad source. I would really, really like to see a Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor. Scams, an energy source, do not make. Jim1138 (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
That route is very susceptible to giving undue weight. Pons-Fleishman has by far received the most coverage in reliable sources, and our article should reflect that. This is similar to the situation described in WP:GEVAL. Pons-Fleishman is simply the most noteworthy instance of LENR/cold fusion research as reflected by reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an external link to [[11]] but perhaps a better link might be:

which is a php generated table which can be sorted by publication date and author name. Most of the pdf links on the site go to the site anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This list seems extensive enough to warrant a revision in this outdated statement in the article: "Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals, they do not attract the level of scrutiny expected for science.[14]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Publications like Infinite Energy aren't really peer-reviewd mainstream scientific journals. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, though we should look at this list in more detail. How about Journal. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a dedicated cold fusion publication down to Fleischmann-Pons apologism. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Not a serious journal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
How do you know that it is not a serious journal? What are some objective criteria?-- (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The reference to is just as non-mainstream as an external reference to which went unchallenged. But the page has some advantages over the other external references. If somebody wants to read some LENR papers and let the authors speak for themselves, they ought to have ample external references. I just wanted to add the link. (Entropy7 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC))

Since there is a dearth of references in this article on the subject since 2011 (and only a very few from 2000, relative to the number of research articles available on the topic), it might be worthwhile adding a reference and link ( to the 25 Feb 2015 issue of Current Science that has a special section on low energy nuclear reactions. It contains 30 peer-reviewed papers (both theoretical and experimental)on the subject of cold fusion and they are all available online for free. Most of the papers are of a review nature (with references to prior work) and new research results were not encouraged by the guest editors, so there is only a very few cases of previously unreported research in the papers presented. Since I am one of the guest editors, I am not allowed to contribute this information to the Wiki article. I hope that someone else will do so. Aqm2241 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This "special section" was previously discussed on this talk page at Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 47#Current Science Journal Has Special Section on LENR in upcoming issue. Frankly, it looks like something weird happened with Current Science. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

An interesting link [12]. The first paper mentioned in the list addresses theoretical perspective on CF/LENR/CMNS.-- (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The authors of the review are from a mathematics department which is very suitable because the theory in CF as well as in conventional nuclear physics is/must be undoubtedly mathematical belonging to mathematical physics.-- (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

'Cold Fusion' was a fusion of hydrogen atoms to produce helium using a lattice to reduce the required energy. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions use an as yet unproven technique (Muon like catalyzed fusion perhaps, or other theories like Widom Larson or quantum tunneling have been proposed) to slip a proton-electron hydrogen atom into a much larger metal atom like Nickel or tin or iron, then there is radio-active decay that releases energy, an electron released or the proton and electron in the nucleus collapse onto a neutron. A redirect from LENR to cold fusion is like redirecting from Quantum Mechanics to an article on gambling. The net effect is that about five years of peer reviewed material and break through science are being entirely ignored and not reported on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Tohoku University CMNS research program

I think this should be mentioned in article: the launching of a CMNS research program at Tohoku University

Any thoughts/comments to this news suggestion/addition to article?-- (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The above links to a blog post that in turn links to a press release. Neither appears to be an appropriate source for this article. --Noren (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
What would be an appropriate source if a press release does not qualify?-- (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is a link to the official homepage of the related Tohoku University institute with the same press release in Japanese.
By means of google translate - it should be easy to verify that this press release is legitimate.
What else needed ? (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Eurekalert -

AsianScientist -

...To sum it up - we have the original press release on the homepage of the involved institute - ...And we have 2 serious sources which comment that in english. ...That should be enough to add this information. (talk)

Sorry, which of these is it that you thought was an independent source? Eurekalert simply reissued the press release from the university, doing so without any additional fact checking (as per normal for Eurekalert). Ecatworld is, well, Ecatworld. AsianScientist at least took care to explicitly disclaims the content: "This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of AsianScientist or its staff." LeadSongDog come howl! 19:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that Tohoku University is a reliable source - if they state something in an official press release. Do you send an independent peer review squad to cern every time there is a cern press release ? (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, Tohoku University's press release is a reliable source for what research programs the university plans on starting. I'm not sure what these other wikipedia editors are thinking. Concerning if this information should be added to the article I have no opinion. Guest2625 (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
..there is a growing serious interest to increase funding in this area, and the Tohoku press release is just another sign that research in this area is progressing.
Thats contrary to the picture WP or the editors in charge are proposing. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
One type of suitable source would be when the mainstream press takes an interest and reports on it, for example this story in the New York Times. As to your claim that research in this area is progressing, this Tohoku program appears to be smaller than that one more than twenty years ago, and you may be aware of how that program ended. --Noren (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple meanings?

Are there more meanings to the term cold fusion? This phyiscist Robert Smolanczuk has an article with cold fusion in title Smolanczuk, R. (1999). "Production a mechanism of superheavy nuclei in cold fusion reactions". Physical Review C. 59 (5): 2634–2639. Bibcode:1999PhRvC..59.2634S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.59.2634..-- (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFORUM - This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. If you wish to suggest an edit such as an addition of a claim such as above, please use a wp:edit request. Make sure to use the proper method. If you wish to discuss aspects of fusion itself, I would suggest finding a forum elsewhere than Wikipedia. Claimants have described many supposed fusion mechanisms. See Cold fusion#See also. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I see this discussion and I think it would be an improvement to the article to specify if the term has other meanings beside the main one presented here. If there are multiple meanings, perhaps a link to cold fusion (disambiguation) is useful. So the WP:NOTFORUM aspect has no place here.-- (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that there are indeed multiple meanings as the disambiguation page says. Perhaps an article cold fusion (superheavy nuclei) should be created.-- (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is important that article specify if there is a connection between the two meanings by, say, nuclear structure and reaction mecanisms details.-- (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

factual errors in Cold Fusion

There are many factual errors in your biased piece. One that is fairly easy to prove concerns the early failures to replicate Fleichmann and Pons. The peer reviewed paper by Dr. McKubre in Current Science explains why those efforts at replication were doomed to fail and gives examples of how to replicate the effect.

That Current Science published a special section on LENR in February gives lie to your published forecast that the E-Cat would be shown to be a fraud by 2012. In fact there is a 1 MW plant built by Industrial Heat LLC that has started running a one year trial - for several months now. Mats Lewan reports that it is working well. (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

I consider that although there is no accepted theoretical explanation of what has been called cold Fusion, now often called LENR, Low energy nuclear reaction, There are a number of theories and the "FACT" of the phenomena with hundreds of papers, tests and patents can not reasonably be refuted. The wikipedia page needs to be re-written to reflect this. Please initiate a discussion about this with authorities in the field. Sources are too many to list. Inteligent searches can reveal them. They may well be covered in part on other Wikipediav pages. Richard Wells, email. rich (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm closing the edit request because you did not ask for a specific edit to the article. In fact, you have already initiated your request for more discussion by starting the discussion.
If you want to have any leverage on this article you must point to very reliable sources discussing it. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo palladium tests in CMNS

I think that the article should specify if there are some reported results in peer-reviewed journal articles from European Physical Journal, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy or other (mainstream?) journals on using pseudo palladium in CF experiments.-- (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I see no reaction to this edit suggestion.-- (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I see no actual edit suggestion, just a vague request that someone else should go looking for sources that may or may not exist, for a concept that may or may not be important. (It's questionable, honestly, whether or not pseudo palladium warrants an article, or whether it's just another one of thousands of short-lived, overhyped nanotechnology buzzwords.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Buzzword? Wikipedia has articles on various alloys. As it is asserted to mimic Pd's properties, I think it would be extremely useful to add to the article some reported results (if they exist) on CF to test its properties in particular use in comparison to palladium. This can be done by users who may have spotted the results in peer-review articles by others or by them like user Aqm, for instance. This is a aspects to add to article suggestion that would improve the scope of the article.-- (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that is possible that the idea of using pseudo-palladium in experiments have not occurred to people in the field.-- (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)