Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 10

message: I removed the list of papers in the "Further reading" section, because choosing some papers over others would be considered as Original Research when the reports and reviews include such list. In other words, the secondary sources should be preferred on this topic, and readers are invited to consult them. Pcarbonn 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, this may be new to you, but original research and point of views ARE censored on Wikipedia. We must always prefer secondary statements to the opinion of wikipedia editors, and in that sense, yes, editors can be censored.  Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia principles.  Pcarbonn 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of papers in "further reading" 

message: SCOPE: http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/McKubreDOEReview.htm
METHOD: Somebody with the time, patience and motivation should probably consider author Charles Beaudette's question in http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005BeaudetteC-ResponseToDOE2004Review.pdf
"The DOE/OS accomplished the best peer-review evaluation that was possible under the difficult circumstances of CFR’s place in the professional community. Nevertheless, it is instructive to ask, What if the editor of an archival journal were to use a similar peer-review procedure by choosing reviewers who were not active in the field, did not know of its key experiments, and were ignorant of its literature?"
STemplar 17:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOE 2004 Review 

message: The article currently states: "However, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between the nuclei separated by several femtometres is greater than interactions between nuclei and electrons by approximately six orders of magnitude." I'm not sure what is meant by this, and how relevant it is in the discussion. Here is a possible rewrite: could an expert confirm it is better?
In order for fusion to occur, the electrostatic force (Coulomb repulsion) that repels the positively charged nuclei must be overcome. Once the distance between the nuclei becomes comparable to one femtometre, the attractive strong interaction takes over and the fusion may occur. However, bringing the nuclei so close together requires an energy on the order of 10 MeV per nucleus, whereas the energies of chemical reactions are on the order of several electron-volts; it is hard to explain where the required energy would come from in room-temperature matter.
Pcarbonn 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now made the change. Pcarbonn 05:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  relevance of the interactions between nuclei and electron ? 

message: I changed the word "accuracy" to "error".  I know the word accuracy was used in the original source, but way it was used was confusing.  If a measurement has a 1 % error then it is 99% accurate.
They explain that, in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an accuracy of 1% or less. Recognizing these issues, SRI International and other research teams used a flow calorimeter around a close cells: the governing equations become trivial, and the method has an accuracy of 0.5 % or better.
They explain that, in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an error of 1% or less. Recognizing these issues, SRI International and other research teams used a flow calorimeter around closed cells: the governing equations become trivial, and the method has an error of 0.5 % or better.--Ron Marshall 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Measurement of excess heat

message: Sorry, I noticed after I made a couple of minor changes that the summary had a caveat saying not to edit it without discussing it.
My main change was to edit the wording in the discussion of the DOE report.  The original wording said "CMNS researchers criticized the DOE report..", and I changed this to "Critics claim the DOE report..."   I made the edit because the original used an acronym (CMNS) that was frankly confusing, and I believe that acronyms should be deleted whenever possible to do so.  
Using the search function showed that CMNS was defined earlier, but since the sentence reads more clearly without the acronym, it's better deleted.
:OK. thanks for your contribution. Pcarbonn 07:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor changes to summary 

message: The article currently says : "Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is now called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), a subset of "condensed matter nuclear science"".  What are the other parts of CMNS ?  How do they differ from LENR ?  Do we have a source for this statement ? Because this is in the intro, we need to be absolutely sure of it, and avoid original research.  Pcarbonn 05:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is LENR a subset of CMNS ? 

message: I would think that we don't, as each statement is further described in the body of the article, with sources. Pcarbonn 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. Pcarbonn 06:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: References are not deleted, only deduplicated.  There is no point in giving references in the intro, as it is a summary of the body of the article, and all supporting sources are listed in the article.  The purpose is to improve the readability of the intro.Pcarbonn 07:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in fact, some were not duplicated, so I restored them all. Pcarbonn 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need sources in intro? 

message: Pcarbonn just because Dr. David Goodstein  uses derisive terms like “many scientists with a variety of credentials” does not mean you can.  Some insults against cold fusion experimenters are allowed because they are part of the history.  You can attribute derisive terms to people like Dr. Goodstein, but you can’t make them as an editor.--Ron Marshall 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derisive terms 

message: I think the author of this line has had a long enough time to supply a citation and that it should be deleted until someone provides a citation.--Ron Marshall 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: Ron Marshall is crying for more room to present the experimental evidences of transmutation in the argument section.  If we give more room for transmutations, we would need to present more experimental evidences for the other arguments too, for appropriate balance.  For WP:SIZE reasons, I have put a brake on this.  A way out would be to greatly summarize the history part, and move the current content to a separate "cold fusion history" article.  This would leave more room for the argument section.  The "cold fusion history" article has enough content to stand on its own, and most readers are probably more interested in the arguments than in the history. Does it make sense ? What do you think ? Pcarbonn 10:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move some content to a "cold fusion history" article ? 

message: Pcarbonn, I placed Mizuno at the front because he was work was first in chronological order.
--Ron Marshall 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, the chronological order would certainly be relevant in the history section, but less so in the argument section. I would propose instead to start by the most general statements and arguments, and finish by the more particular.  Thus: general introduction, review of the field by Miley, most significant experiment, then other experimenters of note. This is mostly what we have now, except for the Mizuno statement.  Pcarbonn 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pcarbonn, I was trying to summarize.  Mizuno did a lot of work on nuclear transmutation and a lot to bring attention to nuclear transmutation before Iwamura. In the original version I detailed his work, but you edited it out. I went along with it because I  thought the Iwamura experiment was sufficient.  However I think Mizuno deserves recognition for his contributions as well as being a source of a lot of information on the subject.  I did not think putting him at the end of the article accomplished that.--Ron Marshall 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  placement of Mizuno in Nuclear Transmutation 

message: The article does not mention the inventor who is perhaps the leader of the cold fusion field today.  The book "Making Waves" by science writer Roger Lewin recounts Dardik's life and work in areas as diverse as medicine and physics.   Because of Dardik, the DOE is beginning to get interested in the possibility of cold fusion again.  McKubre has visited the lab and said "It's the first clear indication that something practical might come out of all this effort."   I am not an expert in cold fusion, but it seems to me that if wikipedia is going to have an article on it - the article should at least contain the most promising results the field has to offer. RonCram 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RonCram, what you say may be true, however the references you give do not give us enough information to support your conclusions.  The article you referenced was published in November 2004, just before the release of the DOE report.  Although the DOE offered the possibility of financial support, none has been forthcoming.  We would need details of Irving Dardik’s experiments to make any judgments.--Ron Marshall 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Irving Dardik]]