Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 13

message: Hi, folks.  A little disambiguation question:  there's a Doctor Who novel called Cold Fusion (page at Cold Fusion (Doctor Who)).  It's pretty insignificant, but there should be some pointer here towards it, for general disambiguation purposes.  Do you think it's better to add it to the existing hatnote, like this:
Or should we create a disambiguation page and just have a standard  or  hatnote?  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone here have a preference about this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest to add it to the "Cold fusion in fiction" section of the article. My second choice would be to use the "two other uses" tag.  I would certainly not go for a disambiguation page.Pcarbonn 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the "two other uses" tag on, since the novel isn't really about the scientific concept of cold fusion: although there are "fusion bombs" in the story, the title is really more of a play on words with the story's themes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation hatnote 

message: Scienceapologist wrote: "New Energy times is not a reliable source for who is and isn't working on Cold Fusion. Sorry.)"
That's an unsubstantiated, libelous and POV statement. You should be informed of a few facts.
It's editor, Steven Krivit, has attended and reported from the last three international conferences in Cambridge, Marseilles and Yokohama, respectively. From what I read in the New Energy Times magazine, Krivit and the other reporters who have written for New Energy Times, Lietz and Daviss, seem to know just about everybody involved in the field. Krivit's book explains, on page 162,  how he collected the data for that chart. His book also provides additional evidence that he knows who's who in cold fusion, through the many personal communications he has had with these researchers.
In addition, New Energy Times has copies of the most recent abstracts from most of the major conferences. If you look through them, you will see the names and affiliations of the researchers who are contributing papers. So you really needn't even rely on New Energy Times if you would care to take the time and the diligence to go through the abstracts yourself.
Krivit has participated in the scientific process - he has presented in multiple science conferences and will be speaking at the APS conference in March. So go ahead and demonstrate the foundation for your assertion that New Energy Times is not a reliable source. 
STemplar 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who the editor is of the magazine is irrelevant. What abstracts the magazine contains is irrelevant. New Energy Times is not a reliable source for reporting how many cold fusion researchers there are. Read the linked policy to see why. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the clarity of the argument, please state which section of the WP:RS policy you believe is not satisfied by New Energy Times.  Another good way to count how many researchers are working in a field is to look at the associations representing them. This is the rule that would be applied in any other field than CF, I believe.  If you think otherwise, let me know what is a reliable source for counting researchers, whatever the field.  The International Society of Low Energy cold fusion has 175 members.  You can see the list here.  Yet another alternative would be to say "Many researchers are contributing..."; however, this is not very informative to the reader, so I would recommend to be more precise.  Pcarbonn 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enumerating researchers is highly problematic and has been discussed in other articles on controversial subjects. In particular, it is impossible to determine the status of the researchers and most lists/membership roles are self-reporting. This is not reliable. --ScienceApologist 18:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I fully agree. --ScienceApologist 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept the arguments.  After all, it is not the number of researchers that matters.  It is the fact that replications have been reported in peer-reviewed journals, in accordance with the scientific method recommended by the 2004 DOE panel. I'll be happy when the lead section presents that point. Pcarbonn 09:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Energy Times 

message: I dispute the following lines: "A 1989 panel organized by the U.S. Department of Energy concluded there was no convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion, but was sympathetic to careful funding of additional research to resolve the controversy. A second DOE panel, convened in 2004, reached similar conclusions to the prior panel."
Because the 2004 DOE panel is cited quasi-verbatim in a different context, these sentences imply that the 2004 DOE panel concluded that there was no convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion.  This cannot be true, because the question was not asked to the panelists, and that the summary report does not mention this issue anywhere.  In my view, the "reached similar conclusions to the prior panel" sentence in the 2004 report must be understood as refering to the 3 questions asked only. Pcarbonn 11:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't look at me. I prefer: In 2004, a specially convened DOE panel reported that "the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review." When asked about low energy nuclear reactions, only one member of the panel felt that the evidence was conclusive. --ScienceApologist 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how this would solve the problem I raised: please explain.  The problem is that we say "similar conclusions to those found in the 1989 review" right after saying "no useful sources of energy from CF". One option I see would be to remove that last phrase from 1989.  Another option would be to not say "similar conclusions to those found in the 1989 review", but to clearly state what those conclusions are. Pcarbonn 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I find that reasoning way too nitpicky to be able to evaluate it. --ScienceApologist 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement in Overview seems to clarify (correct) what the initial statement implies. "Some researchers believe that the experimental evidences are sufficient to establish the scientific validity of the effect, but others reject those evidences, and the 2004 DOE review left the panel evenly split on the issue (a significant change compared to the 1989 panel which rejected all evidences)." -- Guest, 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I dispute the following lines, used in the overview to describe Mosier-Boss and Szpak's results: "In 2006, these experiments have produced evidence of high-energy nuclear reactions concentrated near the probe surface.[2] Based on this work, two other teams have reported similar findings at the American Physical Society meeting of March 2007 (sessions A31 and B31) although interpretations vary.[3]"
The definite phrasing of the first sentence, combined with the offhand phrasing of "although interpretations vary" at the end of the second, suggests that high energy nuclear reactions are a generally accepted fact.  However, if you go read the four references (WP's [2], APS A31, APS B31, and WP's [3]) you get a very different picture.
If I may summarize the four references a little glibly, they say:
:: 1. We see charged particle tracks.
:: 2. So do we.
:: 3. Us too.
:: 4. Hey wait a minute.  Those don't look like charged particle tracks.  They look like chemical etching.
If Mosier-Boss and Szpak have eliminated the possibility of chemical etching, then those results should be referenced.  If not, then the issue is much more in dispute than the article's phrasing would suggest.
JohnAspinall 16:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I found this which I thought might be interesting to use: , scroll down to no. 13. --Guinnog 17:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Scientist link 

message: A spin-off article Cold fusion history was created back in August but it seems to be less developed than the history section of this article. So it might make sense to merge it back in. The alternative would be to really exploit the spin-off article. (note also that History of cold fusion would be a more appropriate title) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pascal.Tesson (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: ScienceApologist, you say that "According to Wikipedia, however, it is definitely under the purview of WP:FRINGE." as a justification of your deletion of "Articles on cold fusion have been published in peer reviewed journals such as Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of Fusion Energy.".  Please provide a clear justification to this.  Which criteria for fringe do you think cold fusion meets ? And, assuming that cold fusion meets the criteria, please explain why this sentence would have to be removed according to WP:FRINGE Pcarbonn 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is cold fusion a "fringe" theory 

message: *http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0303057 ( http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:1koUR-YFdUMJ:arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0303057+%22Mossbauer+effect%22+%22cold+fusion%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us&client=firefox-a) Kevin Baastalk 20:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of good sources 

message: it seems to be a prominent cold fusion theory.: www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAtheionband.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Baas (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why no mention of ion band state theory? 

message: from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cold_fusion
*The whole first paragraph is awkward and leaves out a basic definition of cold fusion.
*Per WP:LEAD, please cut down the introduction a tiny bit (to 3 paragraphs would be nice).
*"The special ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized in the nineteenth century." By who? Maybe a reference or footnote.
* "This was due not only to the competing results and counterclaims, but also to the limited attention span of modern media."  Is this sentence necessary?  It seems like a cheap shot. 
* "and was held out as a prime example of pseudoscience."  Really?  I'll believe it, but it seems to me like there is a difference between pseudoscience and fraud/error.  Is there a cite for this?
* It's nice to see all these details on the topic. I only really had negative impressions of the first sentence. I have the strong impression that it is misleading to a nonscientific reader. It makes the categorical statement that "Cold fusion IS a nuclear fusion reaction that takes place at or near room temperature..." (my emphasis) This give the implicit but strong impression that it is real, confirmed, and uderstood to actually be nuclear fusion. Not just an interesting topic to investigate. It's like writing "Planet X is a planet beyond Pluto", "UFOs are alien spacecraft", "Tachyons are particles that travel faster than light", "Fortune telling is predicting the future", etc. After the first two paragraphs, it becomes clear what the deal is, but first impresions last.... Deuar 21:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The first sentence is really a definition only.  Cold fusion has been achieved in muon-catalyzed fusion, so the definition holds.  I think the problem comes later when we present condensed matter nuclear science as (real) cold fusion.  How to rewrite this is debated on Talk:cold fusion Pcarbonn 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that the comments above refer to an old version of the article. More recent comments can be found at: Talk:Cold_fusion/Comments Pcarbonn 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer review checklist 

message: The American Physical Society's March 13–17, 2006, Baltimore, MD session on cold fusion had 13 presentations.  Does anyone know how many this year? James S. 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I counted 19 of them in 2007. See  and . Pcarbonn 10:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right!  I hope we're under the cusp now.  Let me know when someone demonstrates something which might be commercially viable.  It's good to see some real robust theory and replications being advanced.  I hope that helps them tune. James S. 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also found 6 presentations at the American Chemical Society meeting end of March:  Pcarbonn 11:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  APS March meetings 

message: A few months back, I suggested that the image of the CR-39 be promoted to the top of the article given it's significance. The consensus was to wait until the research had been formally published in a reviewed source. That has now happened. Any objections? Ronnotel 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Research has indeed been published, and it is good news.  I'm not convinced that the image should be promoted though: I'm not sure how the occasional reader will understand it, and the fusion cell picture seems more illustrative to me.  Furthermore, I heard that CR-39 detectors have never been used in a liquid before, and some wonders what is the impact of this on the interpretation of the traces.Pcarbonn 08:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See also here for further discussions on CR-39 analysis.  Shouldn't the scientific debate fully take place before we promote the image ? Pcarbonn 11:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a huge deal for me either way, I just think the existing picture is rather boring - something you'd see in any chem lab. In my mind, the lead picture should help a reader understand what's unique about the article.  I'm not wedded to the CR-39 picture, but surely there's a better way to compel the reader further into the article - perhaps a (not overly complicated) diagram illustrating the effect? Ronnotel 13:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the infrared picture be a good choice ?  It makes it pretty clear to everyone that heat is generated. Pcarbonn 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would work. I'll make the change. Ronnotel 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The caption of this picture in the cold fusion article is "An infrared picture of hot spots on the cathode of a cold fusion cell".  Do you have a problem with this caption, or with an image with such a caption in the article ?  It should be clear that this picture is in a cold fusion cell, i.e. a cell to study "effects which could be nuclear fusion reactions occurring near room temperature and pressure using relatively simple and low-input energy devices".  The very first sentence of the Szpack article talks about excess heat in Pd/D-D20, the central focus of research in "low energy nuclear reactions". Furthermore, Szpak is a cold fusion researcher, and he presented this picture at an international Cold Fusion conference. Pcarbonn 08:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We agree on many things: indeed, the authors do not say that nuclear reactions are taking place; and the image on top of the article should be linked to cold fusion and should be informative.  As explained above, the image is strongly linked to cold fusion. It is also informative : it shows evidence of excess heat, ie. of the effect that started this field of scientific inquiry.  On the other hand, an image of an electrolytic cell would be "rather boring - something you'd see in any chem lab", as Ronnotel said above.  He also suggested that "the lead picture should help a reader understand what's unique about the article".  I agree with him.  Excess heat certainly is unique about cold fusion, and the current picture clearly illustrates it. An electrolytic cell could just as well illustrate the article on electrolysis.  Pcarbonn 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, now I understand where you see an issue.  You say: the referenced article does not talk about nuclear reactions, therefore it is not about cold fusion.  So, you take "cold fusion" literally.  However, look at the definition of the first sentence of the article: "cold fusion is the name for effects which could be nuclear fusion reactions occuring near room temperature and pressure using relatively simple and low-input energy devices."  One major manifestation of this effect is the excess heat, as has been recognized by the 2004 DOE review.  Your position would hold if 2004 DOE panel did not review excess heat effects, but they have.  With the definition of cold fusion as per the article, there is a consensus that the image does show "cold fusion" in action.  However, there is no consensus that it has nuclear origin, as you rightly point out.  The caption does not say that either.  Pcarbonn 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, please explain how the image of a cold fusion device would be better than the current image. As far as I know, the image you propose would not be more illustrative of any nuclear reaction than the current one. Pcarbonn 09:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe the way out of this would be to replace the infrared picture by the CR-39 one on the right, as Ronnotel suggested. Pcarbonn 10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The image of CR-39 detector has been presented by Mosier-Boss et al. at the APS meeting in March.  I have updated the reference accordingly.  Let's hear what others think of this issue. Pcarbonn 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see 209.253.120.205's point. However, I agree with Pcarbonn that the CR-39 image is more illustrative and, IMHO, more aesthetic. It literally shows the unique product of a cold fusion reaction - i.e. what makes cold fusion interesting as a topic - while the electrochemical cell could be any experiment in any chem lab. And regarding consensus - I haven't heard much from the skeptical POV lately regarding Mosier-Boss, et. al. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but are things turning a corner since the announcements at the March meeting and the Naturwissenschaften article? Ronnotel 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the skeptical point of view would be that there are reasons to question whether the CR-39 image shows charged particle tracks.  http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html  JohnAspinall 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the original suggestor, I would tend to agree that the new evidence tends to cast more doubt than otherwise. Clearly more work remains to be done. Ronnotel 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK Pcarbonn 11:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Promote CR-39 image?

message: The following postulated reaction has been posted as fact that it doesn't emit any EM-radiation: d+d+d+d -> 8Be -> 2 4He.[33]
Is there any credible proof that such a reaction could even in theory not emit any Gammas? I find that extremely hard to believe, since all nuclear reactions emit EM-Radiation of one or the other form and energy level. And [33] is no credible source. It's just painting in the sky of what might be happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dio1982 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Reference 33: Multi-body interactions and no gammas? 

message: Maybe we should have an article on Szpak and Mosier-Boss's codeposition technique, since it was really the turning point for reliability and replicability. They've produced a ton of stuff at SPAWAR/SSC, and it's all on lenr-canr.org.  75.35.79.57 20:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codeposition 

message: I would agree with User:67.188.7.78's removal of the pop culture section. It was becoming undue weight. If someone wants to resurrect, I would suggest breaking it out into a separate article and linking to it. Ronnotel 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section was recreated, I moved it to a separate list and linked to it from See Also section. Ronnotel 11:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold fusion in pop culture 

message: The hoax tag that just appeared seems somewhat disingenuous. It was added by a new account with only two other edits. The call for reliable sources is at odds with the copious references to reliable sources cited in the article. I'm going to remove this tag. Before re-adding it, please provide more evidence that this page is a hoax, including why you think that the supporting literature is inadequate. Ronnotel 18:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing hoax tag 

message: I removed this recently-added paragraph:
:However, recently an entity called D2Fusion claims to be ready to turn cold fusion into commercial products soon. Speculations that cold fusion might be true had stired up investment interest in palladium, the metal involved in cold fusion experiments.
The referenced article does not talk about "commercial products soon".  If it did, some people knowledgeable in the field would have strong reservation (see New Energy Times' investigation about previous claims of D2Fusion).  You may also want to know that D2Fusion is being sold to Enwin Resources Inc. 
The second sentence would need a reference, as there are many other possible reasons for the increase of Palladium price.  Wikipedia is not a place to distribute speculative rumors. Pcarbonn 09:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed recent developments 

message: A recent anonymous commentator has added a paragraph in the theory section about "the Little effect", and references a US patent issued on April 25, 2005.  Will that commentator please supply the patent number so we can reference this properly?  Using the US Patent Office's search engine, I am unable to find any matches on patents issued on 4/25/2005 to inventor "Little". JohnAspinall 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not find the patent either.  A patent is not a proper way to publish a theory anyway.  I removed the whole paragraph until more info is provided (anonymous edit because I was not logged :-( ). Pcarbonn 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent number needed for the Little effect 

message: To User:Pcarbonn... apart from assuming good faith, you would know that I wasn't using "tactics" if you had read my edit summary. 
The original text read "More claims of experimental success were reported, primarily in non-mainstream publications" until User:Donreed changed it to "More claims of experimental success were reported, primarily in non-mainstream publications: that is, not in refereed physics journals" here. That User has now been blocked due to hundreds of unhelpful edits. I was simply returning the text to what it originally said.
You, in fact, have strengthened the cold fusion case by changing it from "some researchers reported successes - mostly in non-mainstream publications" to "some researchers reported successes in peer-reviewed journals."
I have reverted your change. In-line citations should be provided to back up the statement that any of those successes were reported in peer-reviewed journals. In that case, I think that the most informative wording would be "some researchers reported successes - mostly in non-mainstream publications, with a few in peer-reviewed journals."    --David Broadfoot (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please accept my apologies for wrongly assuming bad faith.  References to peer-reviewed journals were already cited elsewhere in the article, but I have now repeated them. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. Good to have the references next to the claim.   --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "No strawman tactics on Wikipedia please" 

message: *Oppose. Most people recognise the term cold fusion but only those with specialised knowledge would know what an LENR is. There's also some suspicion that LENR is a politically-motivated neologism, and as such may have or develop a subtle but deliberately different meaning to cold fusion. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The following bibliography entry has been removed, on the ground that it is not a reliable source:
* Mizuno, Tadahiko. Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion. Concord, N.H.: Infinite Energy Press, 1998. .
Presumably, it is on the ground that it is self-publishing.  Yet, WP policy says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Mizuno meet this requirement: he has published relevant work in the peer-reviewed Jpn. J. Appl. Phys: 
*Mizuno, T., et al., Neutron Evolution from a Palladium Electrode by Alternate Absorption Treatment of Deuterium and Hydrogen. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2001. 40(9A/B): p. L989-L991 
I therefore propose to add it back. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. A self-published book should only be included if it has notability. There is another self-published book which is established as notable since it is (supposedly) a prime example of  pro-cold fusion account of the early controversy. This book has no assertion of notability. Let him publish it at a respectable scientific publishing house and we'll include it here. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The WP:Fringe policy would apply if cold fusion were a fringe theory.  Please provide a quote supporting that view.  2004 DOE panel certainly did not consider it as such, as it recommended further research in the field. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the notability that you refer to is about wikipedia article on books, not on books in bibliography.  It is thus irrelevant.  Pcarbonn (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of sources in the article that indicate that cold fusion falls under the general umbrella of fringe science. Also, the notability guidelines are a good way to figure out how to evaluate sources in terms of reliability. In particular, self-published sources need to be justified before included so as to avoid soapboxing and original research publications. See also external link guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please find a quote of fringe science that is post-2004.  Cold fusion was certainly fringe science in the 90's.  The 2004 DOE review clearly changed this.  The wikipedia article should represent current view, not the 90's. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So according to you, anything published before 2004 should be treated as representing a fringe view? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what I meant is that CF was wrongly considered as fringe science in the 1990's. It has now become a valid subject for scientific inquiry, to help resolve the scientific controversy (and is thus similar to many other mainstream scientific controversies). Pcarbonn (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't recommend these books because they are self-published and you have not answered the substance of my complaints. I will now revert your action which I take to be roughly inconsiderate in light of the controversial nature of this subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The "pro-cold fusion community" would be the group of enthusiasts including a few scientists who believe that there has been successful reproduction of cold fusion experiments. Most of these people do not publish consistently in peer-review journals (thus the problem with a number of the websites listed) and many of them are rank amateurs in the field. Even the professionals are often marginalized in the sense that they are clamboring for mainstream recognition. We should focus on sources that have seen impact beyond this particular community. This would include mainstream journal articles, publications from respectable scientific publishing companies, and self-published works that have received recognition from people who dispute the grander claims of cold fusion advocates. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just being published in a peer-reviewed journal does not automatically mean that everything else the person does should be included at Wikipedia. We need to take each source individually. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I argue that Mizuno hasn't been established as an expert in the topic because he hasn't been recognized as such by someone who is outside of the pro-cold fusion community. We should have an extremely high standard for including self-published sources, and I don't think having a single peer-review article on a related subject qualifies. Simply having a single article published doesn't do the trick when the person is ostensibly writing a review. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: They don't seem to lend the rhetorical oomph I would like to see for someone self-publishing a book that reviews an entire subject. He seems to be interested in confirmation of cold fusion, but he hasn't, for example, been recognized as a reviewer by anyone outside of the pro-cold fusion community. If he had been asked by a mainstream publishing company, mainstream periodical, or a respected science review journal to write something along those lines, then I could see an argument for including a book he wrote reviewing the status of cold fusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's put it this way: Has the book received any notable reviews that would lend support to your desire to include it as a reliable resource for our readers? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is patently not how to apply undue weight. Just looking at papers published about cold fusion shows a deliberate publication bias since negative results rarely get published. Most of the time, the scientific community doesn't take the time to write papers challenging the existence of an idea they find to be dubious, even if they people who support it have managed to publish their "results" in out-of-the-way journals and periodicals. It is plainly fact that cold fusion is not considered viable by the vast majority of physicists, for example. Thus it is a distinct minority opinion in science and emphasizing "positive results" is the actual violation of undue weight. ScienceApologist 16:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you to Ronnotel for reinserting Mizuno's and other books in the bibliography. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a deal: could we add Mizuno, in view of his many publications in scientific journals, and remove the others ? (I don't know who has reverted your edit). Pcarbonn 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't had "many publications in scientific journals". I don't think that this reference is good at all since it is published by a very questionable publishing press. If you can find a publication by him in a more respectable outfit then that would be great to include! If you cannot, then why hasn't he published there? ScienceApologist 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have forgotten his bibliography: he has published many papers on cold fusion, some in non-mainstream papers, others in neutral peer-review journal.  He has not one but several papers in Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and one in "Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources", titled "Confirmation of the changes of isotopic distribution for the elements on palladium cathode after strong electrolysis in D2O solutions".  See bibliography here.  This shows that he is seen as an expert "by someone who is outside of the pro-cold fusion community". Pcarbonn 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Publishing papers on a subject does not mean that a book published by Infinite Energy Press is suddenly worthy of inclusion in our reference section. These journals he published in only establish that the reviewers of those journals thought his papers worthy of inclusion: it does not say anything about his status as an expert in cold fusion or that this particular book is a reliable source. Again, you need to come to terms with the fact that this book is not published by a mainstream company. There has to be a damn good reason to include such a text. That the author published some related papers in some obscure journals is not a good enough rationale. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Although the popular media have referred to it as Pons-Fleischmann for quite some time now, it seems that very few people realize that there was a third author (Hawkins). Perhaps luckily for him, his name was left off the original paper, but this was corrected in the errata. See page 8 of this document. I believe Hawkins should be discussed in this article, alongside Pons and Fleischmann. Thoughts? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created an article for Marvin Hawkins but have had difficulty finding out much about him. It turns out he was a graduate student at the time the paper came out. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I had noticed his name on the paper, I have no information about him.  I don't think that Hawkins should be discussed in this article: it would be giving him a notability that no reliable source has given to him.  Pcarbonn (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wouldn't mind, could you look at the Marvin Hawkins article? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info.  I would then suggest you to mention Hawkins in the history section of the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawkins (the third author) 

message: 1)  Cornell collection on Cold Fusion.
2) Above reference has Steven Jones research on muon-catalyzed fusion which causes the deuterium nuclei to approach the neutron capture radius of deuterium and fuse. 
"submitted their proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy, which asked nuclear physicist Steven
Jones at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, to review it. Jones had been one of the
leaders in research on muon-catalyzed fusion (the "well-known" form of room temperature fusion)
throughout the 1980s, but he was now working on new ways of creating fusion through
electrolysis--what he called "piezonuclear fusion."
Though Jones had been working on piezonuclear fusion since 1986, only by the fall of 1988
had his team developed a neutron detector sufficiently sensitive to measure the low levels of
neutrons produced by his experiments. Pons and Fleischmann, who said they had begun working
on their electrochemical experiments around 1984 and had been funding the research from their
own pockets, also reinvigorated their research program in the fall of 1988, hiring one of Pons's
graduate students, Marvin Hawkins, to design, build, and run new cells and to begin to study the
nuclear aspects of their apparatus."
3) My experience ranges from Contract Testing Lab to Plating Chemist.
Occam's Razor. The conditions of reaction contradict intent. Common plating problem is hydrogen injected into metal lattice weakening it. 
High hydrogen ion concentration, pH=-2 (dilute sulfuric acid), is most favorable for generating hydrogen. Lithium Hydroxide solution, pH=14, has very low hydrogen concentration. Raising cell voltage to create the "required" minimum Deuterium flux at the Palladium surface would actually drive Lithium into the Palladium. Lithium 6 isotope has a neutron absorbtion radius much larger than Deuterium. The reaction product Li 7m (metastable, excess energy) gives alpha plus Tritium (this is DOE breeder reactor formula for tritium production). Li 7 + neutron > Li 8 > (Be 8) > 2 alpha.  The Deuterium reaction is reported to work with Lithium Hydroxide but not Sodium Hydroxide, although Borate (Boron 10 has a huge neutron capture radius) improves the reaction? 
4) Palladium disks used to purify hi pressure hydrogen for GC-FID analysis. Palladium disk is alloyed with 5% Silver because pure Palladium shatters after reacts with Hydrogen with acompanying phase change.
5) By the way Be 8  decomposition does not generate a gamma because the alpha are emitted in opposite directions therefore all the energy of reaction.
Shjacks45 (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful reference, missing information, and wrong electrochemistry 

message: From the requested move discussion section above:
:Please have a look at the discussion below where I threatened to delete unsourced comments (which I didn't do), and the context in which I did it (in particular ScienceApologist' comments to whom it was directed) and let me know what you think in view of the rules I quoted above.   Pcarbonn (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I have not deleted any comments from editors. Here are the rules that I find relevant to your question: there is a policy allowing one to "Delete material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection)" See here. This directly links to a section that includes this: "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)." As a consequence, I infer that one is allowed to delete material from the talk page when editors spontaneously recognize that this is their own points of view, and do so despite warnings to stop doing it. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that I did not say that your vote should be ignored unless properly sourced. I asked that the arguments be ignored unless properly sourced. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The arguments in question appear in the survey section and are part of the vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This does not invalidate what I said: I did not say that your vote should be ignored.  Pcarbonn (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your opinion.  I'm glad that you recognize that I did not invent any rule, and that deletion of others comments is allowed in some circumstances.  I agree that the tone of the discussion with ScienceApologist was more heated than it should have been, but I did not start that (I agree that I was quick to react though, with the purpose of stopping it early).  Pcarbonn (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I think you are misquoting me here. But what's the point? Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key question is this: Did I invent new rules ?  Is deletion of other comments allowed when a user repeatedly insert his opinion without sources, acknowledge doing it, and ignore requests to stop doing it ?  I'd like to know your opinion.  It could help make wikipedia a more reliable source, and save a lot of time to a lot of people.  Pcarbonn (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me rephrase a bit: Is deletion of other comments allowed when a user repeatedly insert his opinion without sources, acknowledge doing it, refuses to offer sources when requested, and ignore requests to stop doing it ?  I'd like to know your opinion. In my view, this is a direct consequence of this: ""Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)." Pcarbonn (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the key question is: Where do we go from here? Did I invent new rules: Let's agree to disagree about your behavior up to this point. Is deletion of other comments...?: I probably don't have enough information there to form an opinion as to whether or not it's allowed. But either way, it's probably not helpful, particularly when you're one of the parties involved in a vigorous discussion. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your opinion.  Pcarbonn (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have now started a new thread in the talk page of WP:TALK to help resolve the issue.  Pcarbonn (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrewa is surely understating the case - it is positively unhelpful to everyone trying to follow a discussion in a talk page if one party to the discussion deletes another's comments. LeContexte 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page rules

message: I dispute the presentation of the Widom Larsen theory as using conventional quantum mechanics.  In mainstream physics, so-called heavy electrons appear in the theory of heavy electron superconductors.  I believe (but I welcome expert guidance here) that the "heavy" electron is a calculational artifact, designed to express the dynamics of the collective motion of electrons.  In some ways it is similar to the reduced_mass of classical dynamics.  I do not believe that any mainstream physics publication has ever suggested that a single electron, the particle that would participate in Widom and Larsen's proposed reaction, ever gains mass.
JohnAspinall 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainstream physics says that electrons gain mass when they become relativistic and in no other way ('electrons have no hair'), but that is not what is being proposed.  I've removed the section, since it seems overly laudatory to something that is to all appearances just another hodge-podge of algebra and selective use of data. Michaelbusch 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right : the statement that WL theor is compatible with conventional quantum mechanics was not properly sourced. I removed it from the paragraph. Thanks for identifying this issue.Pcarbonn 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the entire section, for the reasons given.  Please don't put it back without a complete re-write for NPOV and acceptance of the scientific consensus - and also please explain why this particular set of ideas is WP:N. Michaelbusch 16:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Please accept my apologies for responding too quickly.  We should just mention this theory, with appropriate links.  Pcarbonn 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Widom Larsen theory and "heavy" electrons

message: Information and relevance of nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been suppressed in this article. There are other problems I will address over time.
Ron Marshall
:Please provide specific examples of suppression and please explain why 'nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios' is relevant to the article.  When you have done this, the tag can be convincingly added. Michaelbusch 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide links to the edits showing suppression and your claimed 'self appointed censors of science', and citations for your statements above - and I'm removing the NPOV tag again because you need evidence.  You may find it useful to examine WP:CABAL.  Re. 'transmutations' - give cites for that too - although I deem your statements nonsensical at the moment, because the presence of radioactivity in an experiment in no way implies fusion.  And sign your posts. Michaelbusch 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV of article

message: Nuclear transmutations have been reported in many cold fusion experiments since 1992.  These reactions (which may be a nuclear fusion or nuclear fission reaction) result in the transformation of a chemical element into another. If one accepts that nuclear transmutations are in fact observed in these experiments, he would have to accept that nuclear reactions take place in cold fusion experiments. He would also have to accept that an apparently enormous Coulomb barrier can be overcome, and that the released energy can be converted to heat.
Tadahiko Mizuno is a prominent nuclear transmutation experimenter, and was among the first to contribute several papers and a book on the subject.Mizuno, T. "Experimental Confirmation of the Nuclear Reaction at Low Energy Caused by Electrolysis in the Electrolyte".  Proceeding for the Symposium on Advanced Research in Technology 2000, Hokkaido University, March 15, 16, 17, 2000.  pp. 95-106Mizuno, T., "Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion". 1998, Concord, NH: Infinite Energy Press 
Nuclear transmutation experiments have been reviewed by Dr. Miley.Miley, G. H. and P. Shrestha. "Review Of Transmutation Reactions In Solids". in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA., a recognized researcher in "Hot Fusion" for his contributions to Inertial electrostatic confinement. Tina M. Prow, "Harnessing fusion as an energy source", University of Illinois   He reports that several dozen laboratories are studying these effects.  Some experiments result in the creation of only a few elements, while others result in a wide variety of elements from the periodic table.  Calcium, copper, zinc, and iron were the most commonly reported elements. Lanthanides were also found: this is significant since they are unlikely to enter as impurities. In addition, the isotopic ratios of the observed elements differ from their natural isotopic ratio or natural abundance. Many elements have multiple isotopes and the percentages of the different isotopes are constant on earth within one tenth of one percent.  In general it requires gaseous diffusion, thermal diffusion, electromagnetic separation or other exotic processes of isotope separation or a nuclear reaction to change an element from its natural isotope ratio. The presence of an unnatural isotope ratio makes contamination an implausible explanation. Some experiments reported both transmutations and excess heat, but the correlation between the two effects has not been established.  Radiations have also been reported.  Miley also reviews possible theories to explain these observations. Miley, G. H. and P. Shrestha. "Review Of Transmutation Reactions In Solids". in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA.Ron Marshall (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuclear Transmutations

message: We need a cite-able reference for the Mitchell Swartz theory.  The reference given is to a 1955 Phys Rev article.
JohnAspinall 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference for the Mitchell Swartz theory

message: There are a lot of problems with the following text:
:Cold fusion theoreticians have thus proposed explanations of the reported observations based on other mechanisms than plain D-D fusion.
:To address the Coulomb barrier issue, some researchers propose that nuclei absorb neutrons, not deuterons; because neutrons have no charge, they are not affected by the Coulomb barrier.   Widon and Larsen propose that heavy electrons react with protons to create neutrons.Widom, Larsen, "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces."
Cited by New Energy Times, "Widom-Larsen LENR Theory"
See critique in   John C. Fisher proposes a theory based on hypothetical polyneutrons.  Mills proposes a theory based on hydrino, which assumes that the electron in a hydrogen atom can reach an energy level below the ground state permitted by quantum mechanics. These theories are contrary to conventional physics.''
These theories are not only "contrary" to conventional physics: there are observations available which show them to be incorrect. In particular, the idea that a neutron with its extremely short lifetime can be involved in low-density fusion at low temperatures is easy to refute with a back of the envelope calculation where you take the fusion cross-section as roughly that of the nucleus, multiplied by the density of the material (assuming it to be all neutrons and nuclei) and multiplying that by the velocity of the particles (assuming roughly that v is on the order of kT/m) doing this yields about one contact per 105 seconds which is much larger than the hundreds of seconds that neutrons can survive. Polyneutrons have zero mainstream support and energy levels below ground is patent pseudoscience. Why are we including such garbage in the article? 
:To address the nuclear products issue, and because transmutations products have been reported, it has been suggested that fusion occurs between one or more deuterium and palladium, and is followed by a fission of the resulting nucleus.  The observed heat is difficult to reconcile with the observed transmuted products though.  Others propose multi-body interactions: the following reaction, if proven to exist, would not generate gamma rays: D+D+D+D -> 8Be -> 2 4He.Storms E., "Cold fusion: an objective assessment", 2001   However, in order to offer an explanation of the absence of gamma rays, a theory would also have to propose a mechanism that would suppress the more probable 2-deuteron reaction.  Mitchell Swartz and others have theorized that the lower angular momentum of less energetic, cooler deuterons might affect the initial conditions required and the branching ratios of fusion reactions.Swartz, "Phusons in nuclear reactions in solid", Fusion Technology, Vol 31, p 228, March 1997
This paragraph is at least slightly more plausible, but still suffers from presentation of ideas that are really far out there without proper contextualization.
:To address the conversion to heat issue, researchers have proposed a Mossbauer-like effect: in the Mossbauer effect, the recoil energy of a nuclear transition is absorbed by the crystal lattice as a whole, rather than by a single atom. However, the energy involved must be less than that of a phonon, on the order of 30 keV (50% chance of phonon excitation), compared with 23 MeV in nuclear fusion.
The only source for this is from Infinte Energy magazine (not a reliable source). I suggest removing the entire speculative paragraph as it represents original research.
In fact, all these paragraphs are very close to original research and I have therefore removed them from the article.
ScienceApologist 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologist, I concur with this removal - it seems we have a problem with some editors blindly accepting marginal data, followed by scrambling to fit that data with one particular interpretation. Michaelbusch 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That list is full of nonsense, and you will find my detailed analysis of many individual cases here on this talk page. JohnAspinall (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on a quick reading of the article, I've flagged it as needing further cleanup.  I'm afraid cold-fusion enthusiasts have been having far too much fun here, and the scientific and logical accuracy of the article has suffered greatly.  As examples, Apologist's large removal, and the paragraph I just removed - which claimed that an electrolysis patent was related to cold fusion. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And quoting (with my emphasis) from the very link you provide: "characterized by a large effective mass", which is exactly the point I was making above. JohnAspinall (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cold fusion theorizing

message: The article contained a sentence 'the US Patent Office has approved a patent relating to cold fusion'.  The patent cited is about an improved electrolysis device.  It is not related to cold fusion, and so I have removed the reference.  User:Pcarbonn has disputed this based on his reading of the patent (here).  While the patent description references various cold fusion articles, the term 'fusion' occurs nowhere in the patent itself, which refers only to electrolysis.  Claiming that this is the Patent Office approving something related to cold fusion is like saying that patenting a better magnetic alloy is related to perpetual motion. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may think so, but that is not what PhysicsWeb and others are saying, as shown in the quote for this statement.  So, please stop removing statements that are properly sourced and notable.  Pcarbonn (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text of the patent makes several references to cold fusion and if you read the entire patent you see that it is talking about a nickel hydrogen cold fusion device.
Sample text: "2. Description of the Related Art
Since 1989, scientists have demonstrated that liquid and gaseous electrolysis processes, though not yet completely understood, may be able to address future heating and electrical power requirements. For example, it has been readily demonstrated that electrolysis of many fluids results in heat generation that can be employed for other purposes, e.g., heating or generation of electricity.
A growing need has developed for compact, reliable, rugged and self-contained power sources providing heat and/or electricity in applications such as mobile vehicles, trailers, and equipment support units. There is a concurrent need for reliable, rugged and self-contained power sources providing heat and/or electricity for larger stationary power requirements. A sense of urgency for such new power sources has resulted from the realization that fossil fuels are in limited supply. It will be appreciated that nuclear fission power plants are not an acceptable alternative due to the dangers associated with uncontrolled releases of fission products and the enormous environmental and political problems associated with waste disposal.
Early attempts to develop the needed energy production apparatus focused on energy production using nuclear batteries. See, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,290,522; 3,409,820, and 4,835,433, which patents are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. A radiation source was required, and radiation from this source which was absorbed in a potential barrier, e.g., p-n-p junction or metal-semiconductor contact, gave rise to electron-hole pairs that flowed as electricity due to the beta voltaic or Volta effect. Efficiencies on the order of about 25% were demonstrated.
In their now famous (or infamous) paper, Pons and Fleischmann reported excess heat in heavy water, palladium apparatus. See Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium," submitted to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Mar. 11, 1989. Due to the amount of heat produced per unit volume of cathode material, the energy measured in these types of apparatus has generally been considered to be from a nuclear process. Measurements of helium and tritium produced have given credibility to methods where heat is produced.
Recently, engineered devices based upon these results have been built with the objective of investigating the production of heat and by-products over extended periods of time. For example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,273,635 and 5,318,675, which patents are incorporated herein for all purposes, as well as Great Britain Patent No. 2 231 195, EP 0 568 118 and WO95/20816 have been granted for or described such devices, respectively. As a result, problems with the state of the art of methods of liquid and gaseous electrolysis have begun to be addressed by investigators with improved consistency. It will also be appreciated that problems associated with such systems include: hydrogen recombination with oxygen, with the potential for explosion; the relatively slow loading of hydrogen into cathodes; inefficient designs; and, the potential dangers of loaded, pressurized bulk material."
Ron Marshall (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I fail to see the relevance of the patent office's granting such a patent, whatever the proper interpretation of the patent itself.  All that shows is that a researcher patented his methods, nothing more.  Someguy1221 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that PhysicsWeb is talking about the cold fusion patents in one of his article: "In contrast to Pons and Fleischmann, who were not able to gain patents in the US, CETI has been granted a number of patents for its devices."  The sentence in disupte thus meets the WP:notability requirement. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability does not equate relevance.  I still don't see what this has to do with anything.  Someguy1221 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Cold fusion' patent

message: My quick glance at the article failed to find much significant information about what cold fusion is, which is not surprising since the DOE said:
:Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not,
stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.
I hesitate to call this a "controversy", although there is a certainly a scientific dispute. Perhaps this is merely protoscience; I hope so, because cheap energy would benefit the third world tremendously.
: The possibility that it's protoscience does not necessarily lead to cheap energy.  It is possible that the eventual benefit of the unknown effect or effects called "cold fusion" will be slightly better battery technology, or an alternative method of hydrogen storage.  Or an interesting laboratory demonstration with no practical application.  The personality clashes we see here, and the larger "controversy" are evidence that many egos, and much money, are being bet on the possibility that it has to turn out big, important and earth-shattering.  But it doesn't have to turn out that way. JohnAspinall (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: article names should cause the least surprise. I think Cold fusion is a better term and there should be a consensus before a new name is adopted. Ronnotel (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see that tacking the word "research" onto the title of this article achieves anything valuable. I oppose this move.  The rationale offered makes no more sense to me than would moving Dog to Dog information on the grounds that most people who try to go to Dog are looking for information. Cardamon (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved [[cold fusion]] to [[cold fusion research]] 

message: Okay, so we're looking at:
#Adding in-line references
#Adding commentary on 2004 DOE report
#Adding some findings on SPAWAR work
#Discussing the LENR sessions at ACS
#Reinclude the Taubes book (Bad Science)
Anything else?
ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add the research misconduct case at Purdue (), where Rusi Taleyarkhan has been charged with obstructing tests of his work.  Technically, this is bubble fusion and not cold fusion, but the distinction between the two is not clear to me. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the whole point of bubble fusion is that it is 'hot' - i.e. purportedly relies on conventional physics. I don't really see that as belonging on a page about low-energy phenomena. Ronnotel (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Bubble-fusion is contentious at best: Taleyarkhan claims to be able to force deuterium to fuse by forming bubbles in deuterated acetone under room conditions, but no one has validated this.  It seems like a cold fusion claim to me - fusion in the absence of high-energy radiation. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion about Taleyarkhan or the validity of bubble-powered nuclear reactions. However I disagree with your statement about absence of high energy. Bubble fusion is not theorized as fusion in the absence of high-energy radiation. It's theorized as fusion in the extremely hot interior of collapsing bubbles. Bubble fusion has never been on this page - I think we should avoid putting in new material that doesn't have consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will point out that since no-one really knows what cold fusion is, it is hard to make this distinction.  If, for instance, cold fusion were to turn out to be "crack generated" () then it would be "just as hot" as bubble fusion. JohnAspinall (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have been making edits for a while now, but this version is a huge improvement. I would freeze it for a year if that were possible. When it is reopened for editing, the discussion of SPAWAR results and "alternative" mechanisms should be kept short, and the Taubes book (Bad Science) should be put back in. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With a bit of luck, the to-do list above and a bit of polishing here and there will restore it to FA status. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current to-do list

message: JzG, please explain what do you think is "kooky" about a repository of articles previously published in other venues, mostly conference proceedings or peer-reviewed journals, and republished with permission of the authors. (That is, http://www.lenr-canr.org/) If you think that anything outside Nature and Physical Review Letters is "kooky", then we should just delete this page and be done with it. An encyclopedia writer should at least read things before passing judgement about them, and not follow his "nose" blindly. --81.208.60.199 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no reason to doubt it, but if you have a reliable source saying that they do, let us know.  Pcarbonn (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what they state on the home page, we have no reason to suppose that they lie. Anyway, it would be a problem much more for them than for us... I'm glad to see that you recognize that lenr-canr is an article repository and not a "kooky" blog --Holland-it (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kook"? 

message: There needs to be a link to go to Adobe ColdFusion. -- HAYSON1991 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can there be a disambiguation page link here? 

message: With due apologies to the few anonymous editors who have been thoughtfully contributing here, I have semiprotected this talk page to prevent the relentless self-promotion and abuse of Jed Rothwell.  I can't rangeblock due to likely collateral damage, and he's IP-hopping.  The whole talk page will be better off without him right now, I think.  Good faith comments for this page posted ot my talk will be brought here as soon as I have time, no doubt other eidtors will be similarly helpful.  Jed Rothwell should consider himself topic-banned for a month to let less conflicted editors settle the matter of what to do next. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page semiprotected 

message: I have reduced protection level on the article to semi. Let's all please renew our efforts to assume food faith on the part of our fellow editors. I think a very good place to re-start is discussing the To-Do list that was mentioned above. Ronnotel (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page now semi-protected

message: thumb|The electrolysis cell
When water is electrolyzed in a closed cell surrounded by a calorimeter, all energy transfer can be accounted for using the theories of electricity, thermodynamics and chemistry: the electrical input energy, the heat accumulated in the cell, the chemical storage of energy and the heat leaving the cell all balance out. When the cathode is made of palladium and heavy water is used instead of light water, the same conservation of energy should be observed.
;Comments
This seems to me to be a bit much for the article. Explanations of electrolysis should go on the electrolysis page and not on this page. Mentioning that cold fusion was electrolysis with palladium and heavy water should be sufficient. That would only require one sentence, not a paragraph. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Overview''

message: Others have tried to replicate their observations. Many failed, but some succeeded, using a variety of setups.
;Comments
Obvious POV. The idea that "some succeeded" is entirely arguable as seen in the 2004 DOE report, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. They did succeed in replicating their observations.  Whether this is proof of cold fusion is another story though, as the 2004 DOE report says.  So this is not POV. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to them. Of course, according to others there were problems. This is POV because it takes a controversial claim at face-value. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we then say "Many said they failed, but some said they succeeded" ? Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should try to see how many said they failed and how many said they succeeded, then we can apply the appropriate weight and determine whether the people who believe that success happened should be referred to in the same way as the people who believe that there was wholesale failure. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy: there are 200 reports of the generation of excess heat, as reported by Ed Storms.  How many said they failed ? Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Replication

message: They reported high power densities in peer reviewed journals such as the Japanese Journal of Applied PhysicsFor example those cited by LENR researchers in 2004 DoE review:
Y. Arata and Y-C Zhang, "Anomalous difference between reaction energies generated within D20-cell and H20 Cell", Jpn. J. Appl. Phys 37, L1274 (1998) 
Iwamura, Y., M. Sakano, and T. Itoh, "Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation". Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41: p. 4642.
Other:
Mizuno, T., et al., "Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis in Liquid," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39 p. 6055, (2000) 
and the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry.For example those cited by LENR researchers in 2004 DoE review:
M.H. Miles et al., "Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H20 electrolysis using Palladium cathodes", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99 
B.F. Bush et al, "Helium production during the electrolysis of D20 in cold fusion", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99
''
;Comments
Highly contentious. First of all, these peer review journals are, as has been said previously, somewhat out-of-the-way. More than this, we shouldn't be reporting only positive results lest we succumb to publication bias. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Wikipedia only requires scientific sources, not top-notch sources. Also, 1989 panel said "Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. "  So it is perfectly valid to report positive results.  Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and in the case of contentious claims WP:REDFLAG applies. This is a situation where we need better sourcing to come to the appropriate conclusions. These journals may not be good enough. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could now cite some more prestigious journals: the European Physical Journal - Applied physics, Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal A and C. Would that be OK ? Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a problem of us looking for only positive results. Finding more "prestigious journals" does not solve the problem of publication bias. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1989 report said : "Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary". So it is perfectly OK to look at positive results only, as long as they are valid.  That's what the prestigious journals seem to think.  Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Journals

message: In the most recent review of the field by the DoE, some researchers believed that the experimental evidence was sufficient to establish the scientific validity of the excess heat effect. Others rejected the evidence, and the panel was evenly split on the issue. This was a significant change compared to the 1989 DoE panel, which rejected it entirely.
;Comments
POV-interpretation. The majority of the DOE panel rejected the evidence. To say that "some believed" is to paint a rosier picture than the report gave. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simply not correct. Please go back to the 2004 DOE report.  Here is the full quote: "The excess power observed in some experiments is reported to be beyond that attributable to ordinary chemical or solid state sources; this excess power is attributed by proponents to nuclear fusion reactions. Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic." So you could also say : "the majority of the DOE panel accepted the evidence.  Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know very well that I have read the DOE report, Pcarbonn. While the reviewers were split evenly as to whether there was excess power, this is a technical iteration away from cold fusion, of course, and since systematics are not discussed explicitly in the DOE report it is contentious to include such a statement without the accompanying disclaimer that the DOE report rejected cold fusion interpretations. In effect, what this statement does is mislead the reader into thinking that this statement is something more important than a technicality. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, because cold fusion is about the generation of excess heat, this is more important "than a technicality".  The systematics are discussed in the DOE report: it explains the reasons for the rejection of the excess heat, as described in later section of the deleted version of the article (which I'm certainly in favor of including).  The disclaimer that the DOE report rejected cold fusion comes in the next sentence, so I don't see the issue with this sentence.Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, simply, that it is misleading to readers who are not reading carefully. We don't need a sentence that is that iteratively complicated. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish we could make it simpler, but that would be very difficult to do without introducing bias. What do you mean by "it is misleading to readers" ? Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of heat

message: In 2006, Pamela Mosier-Boss and Stanislaw Szpak, researchers in the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego, reported evidence of high-energy nuclear reactions concentrated near the probe surface. Based on this work, two other teams have reported similar findings at the American Physical Society meeting of March 2007 (sessions A31 and B31).  See also criticism: and response : Kowalski later accepted the nuclear evidence ()
;Comments
Problematic. First of all, why is a US Navy scientist reporting in a German journal? Seems supicious. Also, we should not user LENR-CANR: there are other neutral archive servers we can use. Finally, almost anyone can report conference proceedings which are not peer-reviewed and are only subject to minimal oversight. What's important is to document the response at the conference -- but this is almost impossible to do. So we should find a neutral third-party journalist who reported on the session if we want to discuss the APS meeting. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you have suspicion in a German journal? Please do not show American bias.  Feel free to provide other servers for papers, but that's not a reason to delete the statement.  Since when journalists are considered reliable sources on scientific subjects ??? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US Navy is an American institution. If this was the German Navy then I can see why they would publish in a German journal. Journalists are reliable sources when it comes to reporting on social events which is basically what a conference is. Conference proceedings are the opinions of the attendees and notoriously biased accounts. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The SPAWAR team also reported their results in the European Physical Journal - Applied Physics.  Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why didn't they get it published in an American journal? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  But this is not important to me. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Navy

message: The US Patent Office accepted a patent in cold fusion in 2001.Davis, et al. "Electrolysis apparatus and electrodes and electrode material therefor"", , cited by Infinite energy
;Comments
Trivia. The US Patent office accepts a lot of dubious patents. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this relevant, but won't make a big fuss about it. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patents

message: Still, current knowledge of the effect, if it exists, is insufficient to expect commercial applications soon. The 2004 DoE panel identified several areas that could be further studied using appropriate scientific methods.
;Comments
Again, POV. First of all, this is a POV explaining away one of the major criticisms of this endeavor: why isn't cold fusion making us energy right now if it exists? Secondly, the stock phrase about the DOE panels recommendation is throwaway and misses the point that the majority of the panel members were dubious as to the very existence of the effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The answer to "why isn't cold fusion making us energy right now if it exists" is that it would take $50 to 100 million only to test its viability and commercial applications, and that they did not get this money (yet).  (see Wired article) Pcarbonn (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are obviously a lot of people who disagree with this. What I'm saying is that this is serving the purpose of pandering to a pro-cold fusion lobby. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that there are some who will take this as meaning the Government is deliberately suppressing cold fusion research, and others who will apply occam's razor and conclude that nobody thinks this long-shot is worth the price of the research.  Given that such a budget would be peanuts to the rewards if it were real, and many companies have incredibly deep pockets, I think the lack of ongoing research is pretty significant, but that's just my supposition. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The DOE statement comes from the conclusion of the report: I find it hard to believe that you argue with its reliability, notability or relevance.  Pcarbonn (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, but it is iteratively irrelevant. The DOE panel was charged with answering the question as to what things could be funded. That they answered this question has no relevance to an article on cold fusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "the DOE panel was charged with answering the question as to what things could be funded".  Therefore, it should make sense to quote their answer to this question.  The answer is in the lead section, which says that the panel "did not find the evidence convincing enough to justify a federally-funded program, though they did recommend further research".  Which further research ?  "they identified several areas that could be further studied using appropriate scientific methods", as the deleted statement says.  When you consider the lead section and this overview section, I really don't see where the problem is. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an article on the DOE panel, it's an article on cold fusion. We should say what makes the source relevant to cold fusion. It's not the DOE's recommendations about how to fund specific research projects. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that whether cold fusion should be the subject of further research is not of interest to wikipedia readers ?  I would say it is.  So, if we find a reliable source answering this question, we should quote it.  Pcarbonn (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future studies