Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 8

message: I made a minor change to the link to LENR-CANR. Someone had it:
". . . information and links from pro-cold fusion research, and an online library of over 450 full-text papers from the peer-reviewed literature and conference proceedings."
That's fine, except that strictly speaking, we do have some anti-cold fusion papers by Jones, Morrison, Shanahan and others. We have links to other anti-CF papers, including the 1989 ERAB paper, the recent DoE review, and so on. We would have more negative stuff but the skeptics have not published much, and I doubt that many of them would want to give us papers. (Everything at LENR-CANR.org comes from the authors, with their permission.) This is nitpicking, but I changed that to: 
". . . information and links on cold fusion research (mainly pro-cold fusion) . . ."
Does anyone know of an anti-cold fusion website that includes technical papers? I will link to it.
Hundreds of web sites mention cold fusion, either for it or against it, but only a few include research papers. I have links to all the ones I know about.
--JedRothwell 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any anti-CF web sites? 

message: I think these should be added to the references, for no other reason than to show that the subject has been accepted in the Western scientific mainstream through the years:
* McKubre, M.C.H. et al. (1994) "Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd Systems."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 368, 55.
* Szpak, S. et al. (1995) "Cyclic voltammetry of Pd + D codeposition."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 380, 1.
* Celani, F. et al. (1996) "Reproducible D/Pd ratio > 1 and excess heat correlation by 1-microsec-pulse, high-current electrolysis."] Fusion Technol., 29, 398.
* Storms, E. (1996) "How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect."] Fusion Technol., 29, 261.  
* Yuki, H. et al. (1997) "D + D reaction in metal at bombarding energies below 5 keV."] J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 23, 1459
* Aoki, T. et al. (1998) "Search for nuclear products of the D + D nuclear fusion."] Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources, 6, 22.
* Szpak, S. et al., (1998) "On the behavior of the Pd/D system: Evidence for tritium production."] Fusion Technol., 33, 38.
* Gozzi, D. et al., (1998) "X-ray, heat excess and 4He in the D/Pd system."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 452, 251.
* Zhang, W.-S. et al., (1999) "Numerical simulation of hydrogen (deuterium) absorption into ß-phase hydride (deuteride) palladium electrodes under galvanostatic conditions."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 474.
* Zhang, W.-S. et al. (2000) "Effects of self-induced stress on the steady concentration distribution of hydrogen in fcc metallic membranes during hydrogen diffusion."] Phys. Rev. B: Mater. Phys., 62, 8884.
* Cisbani, E. et al., (2001) "Neutron Detector for CF Experiments."] Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 459, 247.
* Zhang, W.-S. et al. (2002) "Some problems on the resistance method in the in situ measurement of hydrogen content in palladium electrode."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 528, 1.
* Li, X.Z. et al. (2003) "Correlation between abnormal deuterium flux and heat flow in a D/Pd system."] J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 36, 3095.
* Zhang, W.-S. et al., (2004) "Effects of reaction heat and self-stress on the transport of hydrogen through metallic tubes under conditions far from equilibrium."] Acta Mater., 52, 5805.
* Szpak, S. et al. (2004) "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition.] Thermochim. Acta, 410, 101.
* Szpak, S. et al. (2005) "The effect of an external electric field on surface morphology of co-deposited Pd/D films."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 580, 284.
* Szpak, S. et al. (2005) "Evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd lattice."] Naturwiss., 92, 394. 
* Storms, E. (2006) "Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion."] Thermochim. Acta, 441, 207.
Does that selection show convincing pertinent work in mainstream reputable peer-reviewed journals through the years? I avoided the more voluminous Japanese literature because understanding of the subject is apparently clearer in Japan for some reason. (Why is it?) --James S. 05:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fusion Technology is not a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal, it is a journal specifically created to publish credulous articles about cold fusion.  It is not even one of the 6496 scientific journals listed in the Science Sitation Index. --Noren 16:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, Fusion Technology changed its name a few years ago to Fusion Science and Technology, which is listed in the SCI.  You can tell from the volume numbers that it was established about 1967, 22 years before the controversy. --James S. 17:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream Western peer-reviewed papers through the years 

message: Why do we have a picture of Charles Bennet looking at cold fusion vessels? He's a computer scientist, not in any relevant discipline. Can we find a more relevant picture? JoshuaZ 21:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Bennet 

message: Please note that only sources meeting WP:V are acceptable. See WP:RS for more details. In specific, emails, blogs, forums, and the like are not acceptable sources. Personal knowledge is considered a violation of no original research. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: (1) Is a copy of a letter written by a prominent person in their official capacity "personal knowledge"?  How so?  I believe it counts simply as a primary source, to cite WP:NOR: "Primary sources: ... historical documents such as a diary..."  (2) What is the basis for your assertion that "Personal knowledge is considered a violation of no original research"?  Could you please quote an actual policy?  Even eyewitness accounts and the like may be considered reliable - to cite WP:RS, "Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.".  A copy of a document is a notch above an eyewitness account.  On the other hand, original research is anything which "proposes ideas or arguments".  I fail to see how a describing an official letter can in any way "propose an idea or argument". ObsidianOrder 11:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In specific:
#Is a copy of a letter written by a prominent person in their official capacity "personal knowledge"?  It is a primary source, unverifiable, unless published, and is not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions "The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." ObsidianOrder asserts that primary sources are acceptable per WP:NOR. However, clearly stated in WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources, we find the following: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." (emphasis added) Further, we find that " it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library." Hence, the stipulation that any letter be published. 
#Personal knowedge is covered under the above, as well as WP:NOR#The_role_of_expert_editors: "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. ... They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify." (emphasis added)
KillerChihuahua?!? 13:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "primary source, unverifiable, unless published" - correct.  It is, however, published on the web, which is an acceptable form of publication (as you quoted: "available to readers ... from a website").   "descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" - also correct, the descriptive claim in this case being that the Noninsky et al paper was sent for review to Lewis; it requires absolutely no specialist knowledge to verify this from a brief reading of the letter.  "personal knowedge is covered under the above" - you have still not explained how "personal knowledge" is a category applicable to a photocopy of a letter. ObsidianOrder 15:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the url? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go: www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/Lindley.jpg (this was also in the part of the article which was cut). ObsidianOrder 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, still a primary source so must be handled with caution. Is there commentary somewhere concerning the letter? It appears the url is to a library of primary sources, which does not meet WP:NOR. I Google searched but came up emtpy (I used nature "may 3" 1991 lindley letter as my parameters.) KillerChihuahua?!? 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your search is possibly too narrow.  Try Lindley+Noninski.  The same event is described in e.g. Rothwell, J., Introduction to the Cold Fusion Experiments of Dr. Melvin Miles. Infinite Energy, 1997. 3(15/16) which is an actual dead-trees source.  "must be handled with caution" - I agree that as it is, this is somewhat thinly sourced, but it is is a copy of the actual document and so I would consider it acceptable (heck, if that's good enough for CBS, it's good enough for me ;).  If I remember correctly the same is also described in Krivit (), unfortunately I really don't have time to look for a page number for you right now.  Also: "library of primary sources, which does not meet WP:NOR" - I think you may be wrong about what NOR means:  a new theory in physics would be OR, a first-hand report of an event would not be OR.  The distinction is that the former introduces new ideas or arguments.  Plain reporting of facts cannot be OR, by definition (although possibly it may not be considered reliable until confirmed by multiple sources and/or hard evidence).  ObsidianOrder 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "good enough for CBS" was just a humorous/snarky reference to the Killian documents; it's not relevant.  "Feel free to post one" - yes, I just posted three: Krivit's book (it's on pg. 99), the article in Infinite Energy 1997, and the copy of the letter itself.  Only the second one of these is new, the other two have been posted here since the beginning of this whole dispute.  Anyway, yes, I understand your position.  My point was that this is a case of needing a reliable/verifiable/etc source, fine, and I agree completely; but it has nothing to do with WP:NOR, since OR deals with theories, analysis, arguments and the like, and not with plain vanilla facts.  ObsidianOrder 07:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR also deals with items purported to be "facts".  Sourcing is required. In an article on the Spanish language for example, I could report that Spanish is among the top ten worldwide languages.  That would be a fact.  However, absent a source it is OR because I'm merely reporting a factoid from memory. •Jim62sch• 12:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim is absolutely correct. Facts are very much OR, unless completely acceptable as very common knowledge - and that list is a short, short list. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, I think you guys don't get the distinction I am trying to make, which is actually quite clearly made in the NOR article.  If I say I saw a UFO, for example, then I am a (possibly unreliable) primary source; all of the reasons to avoid primary sources in Wikipedia apply, but there is no OR issue.  If I say that humans are descended from aliens from Alpha Centauri because of (insert lengthy argument), then that is OR.  If I say that I had "read somewhere" (unspecified) that someone saw a UFO, that's also OR.  ObsidianOrder 21:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your example of the UFO is indeed OR, not primary source. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acceptable sources

message: The intro currently says: "Cold fusion papers are currently rejected by major scientific journals such as Nature and Scientific American".  I have several issues with this statement:
* I've not found any source for this.  Maybe some one can supply one.
* This is not developed further in the artical. Yet the guide for lead sections says: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article".  Maybe someone can develop what we are trying to say.
* As it is stated, I do not see how it can be verifiable.  Unless the editors of these papers actually say it in their published policy, we can only say : "papers HAVE BEEN rejected", but then it does not belong in the intro anymore.  Unless the editors say otherwise, we have no reason to believe that they would not accept a significant paper on the subject, now or in the future.  
* Therefore the generalisation cannot be justified.  We should list the journals for which we have enough evidence.
* How does the statement contribute to "a definition or clear description of the subject at hand", which is what the lead description should be.  The same argument to reject the DOE policy in the intro (see above) could apply here. By the way, this issue applies also to the statement "Cold fusion is currently not accepted by much of the mainstream scientific community". With the same line of reasoning, one could argue that this should be in the intro of cold fusion controversy, not of cold fusion.
One issue here is whether the intro should describe: "Reputable scientists dismiss cold fusion", or "Reputable scientists believes the issue is not scientifically settled".  DOE and Nature don't seem to agree on this (nor the editors of this article).  I do not see any reason to accept one more than the other: there are some reputable scientists who dismiss it, and there are some reputable scientists that believe it is not settled (as the DOE shows).  I would propose that, in the intro we say neither, or both.  Either we talk about both DOE and Nature policies, or we don't.  If you want to keep only Nature, please provide a justification for doing it, with sources. Pcarbonn 06:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One point - Nature and Scientific American carry vastly more respect in the scientific community than an eighteen man panel created by the US department of energy. Jefffire 09:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have debated that already, and I still disagree.  Until you can source this, we have to consider it as POV and OR, and ignore it totally when writing this article.  Again, DOE's point of view is quoted by many papers, including Nature , so we have plenty of evidence that its opinion on cold fusion is respected.   Pcarbonn 09:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But not as respected as Nature, which is considered by many to be the reliable source. Jefffire 09:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for the following statement : "DOE is not as respected as Nature (when talking about cold fusion)" ?Pcarbonn 10:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fairly common knowledge that Nature is the most respected, I'd say. Are you seriously suggesting that an eighteen man panel from the US department of energy is more respected? I hadn't hear of them until coming to this page. In any case it's irrelevent,I don't need to source stuff on the talk page.Jefffire 10:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm seriously saying this, and I have evidences to back it up.  The DOE report on cold fusion is by far the most quoted view on cold fusion, much more than Nature's view. It is so in general newspaper and in science journal, such as Physics Today.  So, unless you provide a source and you address the issues I listed above, I have enough justifications to delete the statement on Nature's policy in the intro.  Pcarbonn 11:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No where in the physics today article does it suggest that the DoE's panel is more respected than Nature. Quotes don't equate to respect. Jefffire 12:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you refusing to search for sources to justify your statement ? what do you propose to resolve the issue ?Pcarbonn 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am suggesting that you find sources to prove that this one time 18 person panel for a branch of US government is more respected than the major science journals that have established themselves as pillars of respectability and honesty and the benchmark of science writing. Jefffire 12:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Will you address the other issues listed above ? Pcarbonn 12:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature in intro ?

message: This is somewhat off topic, but I was surprised to discover that a person is not allowed to withdraw from Wikipedia or delete the contents of his own talk page. Apparently it is cybernetic tar pit.
Had I know it was against the rules to erase one's own talk page, I never would have talked there, since I frequently use it for things like unfinished manuscripts (which have embarrassing errors), jokes and so on, which were never intended to be permanent. Anyway, for the past day or so I have been trying to erase these comments without success. One of the Sysops here, Mr. Connolley apparently wishes to preserve this page because it includes proof that I have committed an egregious violation of the rules, by calling someone: “childish, boorish, pig headed [and] unreasonable” and earlier “an insufferable ninny.” The poor fellow was so overcome by grief & consternation, he felt compelled to report this outrage to the authorities. (I might also call him a crybaby or a tattletale, but he would die of shock. I have done enough damage already; I fear he may need long-term therapy.)
Anyway, I was banned for this unspeakable language, and Connelley will not even allow me to purge the evidence of my shame. I changed my description page and sent a message to Connelley with damning evidence for him to use in place of my talk page. I fear he may revert both, and delete this message, but before he does readers here may be amused by the new text here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JedRothwell I quote Schiller's warning: "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." ('Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.') (Maid of Orleans, act 3, sc. 6). Hence, the title of this message.
Thick-skinned readers here might also enjoy the egregious replacement insult I sent to Connelly:
:. . . If you would like a reason to block me, or prove that I have violated the rules, you need not preserve the talk page. Here is another deliberate & intentionally provocative violation of the rules -- an old-school personal insult:
:You are a loathsome, sanctimonious, hypocritical, ignorant twit. If you were in a state of uncontrolled combustion, I would not take the trouble to extinguish the flames by urinating on them.
:I hope that is satisfactory.
That goes for you, too, Mr. . . uh, Chihuahua – isn’t it? Bow wow! Ruff! Grrrrr . . . Consider yourself gravely insulted. If this were the 18th century you might challenge me to a duel, but since I am a craven bounder, I would, of course, run away instead of accepting. Believe me, I am trying to get away, without success so far. --JedRothwell 18:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a female, I would hardly challange you to a duel, whatever the century. Do you have anything to say about the article? This talk page is for discussion of the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jed, I for one hope you stay.  You have contributed a lot to this article.  I am sure I'm not the only person here who thinks that.  Take some time off if you need to, but come back, or at least stop by occasionally?  ObsidianOrder 19:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To remove yourself, contact an admin and ask that your account be deleted. •Jim62sch• 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, he has, only instead of making a polite request, he called WMC a "loathsome, sanctimonious, hypocritical, ignorant twit" and is now blocked for 48 hours for a personal attack. Also, your account cannot be deleted, even by a bureaucrat. GFDL, remember? Legal aspects, accountability, etc. The best we can do for him is delete his talk page, his user page, place a notice on each that they have been deleted at the user's request, and protect so no-one can post there. He has not asked for that. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WMC is anything but what Jed described him as.  BTW: I was merely being polite, as my thoughts would have led to a comment that would have been in bad form all around. •Jim62sch• 01:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rothwell struggles in vain to withdraw from Wikipedia 

message: Do we agree that it is our goal to remove the POV tag ?  Could we list the remaining issues, so that we have a view of what's ahead of us ? Pcarbonn 08:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite happy with the intro as it stands. How about everyone else? Jefffire 12:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The arguements section looks a little dodgy, and of course we have the link to the controvery article. Otherwise this is looking pretty good. Jefffire 14:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's list all remaining POV issues 

message: I do not feel that it is proper to have the "Other kinds of fusion" section in this article (except for muon catalyzed). No one doubts that pyroelectric fusion IS real fusion but it is not "cold fusion" the atoms themselves which are being fused are HOT. It matters not that the remainder of the bulk of the fusing material remains cold. The label of "cold fusion" which has been affixed to these new fusing phenomena has been applied (wrongly) almost exclusively by the news media. I do not recall ever seeing it used in the literature. I will split off this section unless someone can show that "cold fusion" is in fact the term being used in the liturature to describe these types of fusion.--Deglr6328 17:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Pcarbonn 17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle; but it may be problematic in practice.  Pyroelectric fusion has been added at least twice, in two different places, by editors whom I believe sincerely considered it to belong to the article.  You may be right that the literature does not refer to it as 'cold fusion', but mainstream press has- and even the AIP newsletter labelled it as 'Pyrofusion: A Room-Temperature, Palm-Sized Nuclear Fusion Device'.  There have been arguments here as to whether it should be considered cold fusion.  Given the confusion articles such as these create (and to prevent repeating a cycle of well-intentioned editors adding it) it may be justified to mention pyroelectric fusion, if only because coverage of it may be expected from those having read these sources. --Noren 22:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also see that the nuclear fusion template lists Pyroelectric fusion as a subset of Cold Fusion.  I'll see if I can fix that, though my wiki knowledge may or may not be adequate. --Noren 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other kinds of fusion

message: Hi.
(1) I can't find an "edit" tag on the introduction.
(2) I suggest we prefer the name order of Fleischmann and Pons.  Though as an American I might prefer the reverse (and Pons and Fleischmann even scans better), Fleischmann was the more senior and honored researcher and this is the order of their names in their initial paper.  Fleischmann also has continued research into CF to this day.
(3) "Scientific American" is not a refereed science journal; they do not publish original research.  The American counterpart to Britain's "Nature" is "Science", published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  There is also some rivalry between the two.  If you wish to mention "Scientific American" you might also mention its British counterpart, "New Scientist".  All four magazines currently have a negative editorial opinion of cold fusion.
(4) Instead of saying that "Nature", etc. reject cold fusion papers (which requires writing "cold fusion researcher say that..." since we don't have access to the rejection letters), it is sufficient to remark that (a) they have a negative editorial opinion of cold fusion, (b) they have not published any papers supportive of cold fusion, and (c) that such papers have been published in other leading science research journals (and you can name a couple).  Let the reader draw his/her own conclusions.
(5) The term "cold fusion" is possibly a misnomer based on the original research direction of F&P.  The current view of what is happening is quite muddled although nuclear fusion of deuterons continues to be one of the possibilities.  See the overview papers of Storms at www.lenr-canr.org.
(6) There is a wikipedia page on "hydrino theory" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrino_theory), which is generally considered some sort of cold fusion spin-off.  It ought to at least be referenced by this page.
Happy editing! -Wfaxon 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To edit the intro, click on "edit this page". As the intro has no separate sectionheading, it has no separate edit link. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various Issues 

message: The intro says: "Johann Rafelski and Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University were the first scientists to use the term "cold nuclear fusion" to describe their research in 1986. "  The article of E. Stoms at cold fusion/tmp says: "The term "cold fusion" was coined by Dr Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University in 1986".  Who's right ? Was this question addressed before ? Pcarbonn 15:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  who used "cold fusion" first ? 

message: Including this succesful replication reported in March 2006, which took place in Colorado, United States and replications reported in France by JL Naudin and researchers connected to his laboratory JLN Labs.
Were these results peer reviewed? If they weren't then they can't be considered reliable  and need to be removed. Jefffire 11:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, some time after your comments. Pcarbonn 06:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  These two links... 

message: Your input is more than welcome in the discussion page of Unsolved problems in physics. Pcarbonn 22:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is cold fusion an "unsolved problem in physics" ?