Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:01, 9 August 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cold fusion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48Auto-archiving period: 21 days

	Cold fusion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted January 6, 2006 Featured article review Demoted June 3, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 7, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 19, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted December 26, 2006 ] Not listed May 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed November 23, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Former featured article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

An editor has been banned from editing the Cold fusion article, for a period of one year.
	Pcarbonn has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the Cold fusion article. The user is additionally prohibited from discussing or proposing changes to the article, on this talk page. Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details.
This notice was posted by Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Energy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Stephen Foley (Tuesday, 3 February 2009). "So is Misplaced Pages cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Misplaced Pages is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web?". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Invention Reaction

The title of this section is a bit of a play on words, because of the previous section, and because of what I actually want to talk about here, which is in the second-to-last paragraph of the "Reaction to the Announcement" section of the article. This particular sentence seems to me to have a one-word flaw in it (stressed): Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.

The flaw that I perceive has to do with the fact that if CF is happening, then the way it happens is a Natural thing, not something that Man actually causes, and therefore not an "invention". Properly, all we can do is figure out or discover the details of a Natural event. I remind you that even though we discovered nuclear fission and thought ourselves mighty clever to build reactors that used that discovery, Nature was first: Natural nuclear fission reactor. So I submit that the word "invention" should be replaced with "discovery", in that sentence. V (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the intent of the sentence is to say that it would require the invention of a new theory describing this as of yet misunderstood nuclear process. I agree that some wordsmithing is in order. (For what that's worth.) --GoRight (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I see there haven't been any other comments for a while about this. Taking into account what GoRight wrote, I propose this version of the questioned sentence: Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and, if verified, would require theory to be extended in an unexpected way. I'm choosing this phrasing because it is exactly descriptive of what happened when muon-catalysed fusion was discovered/verified. Also, it seems to me a bit rash to assume that "an entirely new nuclear process" is required to explain Cold Fusion, simply because we do not know. While I understand that at least one such has been proposed (involving a Bose-Einstein Condensate of deuterium inside palladium), in one sense even that is still an extension of existing knowledge (merely extended to encompass nuclear events) --and other proposals (such as electron catalyzed fusion) are indeed merely quite straightforward extenstions of existing knowledge. If someone could point out a CF hypothesis that is not some sort of extension of some branch of existing knowledge, I'd like to know! V (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've applied the change to the article. V (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Defining the low temperature fusion reaction as a discovery instead of an invention is both biased and paradoxical. The paradox is that if this is a natural process, then cold fusion is a reality. The bias is to define this as a natural process so as to diminish the achievement and deny the invention. There is no requirement in patent law to define or describe the theory. The only requirement is to show best practice to cause the reaction, for example the reactants, concentrations, temperatures, choice of catalyst, etc. A proper analog in conventional catalytic chemistry is Ziegler-Natta production of polyethylene using TiCl4 as a catalyst. . Even though the mechanism is not well understood, it is an invention and a Nobel Prize was won.

IT is not at all obvious from any example in nature how to effect cold-fusion. The fact that so many could not reproduce the results early on is a testament to the fact. However, competent experimentalist did reproduce the results. Examining the literature, there were 90 reproduction from individual scientists in 1989, and the number are in the thousands now. The references are just to many to name.

On the other hand, hot fusion is not an invention, since high temperature fusion attempts to mimic the sun. Also, a theory is not an invention and can not be patented.Minofd (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

need help with sources

Can someone with a subscription to these magazines open them and send me a copy of the text by email? (I'm trying to get better sources for the patent section in the article, and I would like to use these) Nature Science. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, although I couldn't access one Science article, as it was outside of the database's range. - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Another one, this time a Simon article from Social studies of Science , it talks about europan patents, and appears to give a world-wide view. Someone with a subscription to JSTOR can send me the full text by private email? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I just noticed that I can read from my university :) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

SPAWAR neutrons but not charged particles?

Why does this article discuss SPAWAR's detection of neutrons but not their detection of charged particles? Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Gordon FE (2007) Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd–D lattice: emission of charged particles. Naturwissenschaften 94:511–514 ?

I found its erratum amusing: Navy Physics Geek (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Because, unlike the neutron detection, the charged particle detection wasn't reported by lots of mainstream new news sources including popular science magazines, and didn't appear in an ACS press release. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to mainstream "new" sources or mainstream "news" sources? I was under the impression that peer reviewed literature was considered more reliable than news stories or press releases. If that is not the case, please let me know where it's documented. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)(sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, I meant "news". You should know that one paper in a journal is nice, but it's not nice if there is no reply from other scientists, and if other sources say that the field is fringe. The reason is that, like the neutron detection paper, this is a primary source, and we can't really know what impact it has had in the field until it get replies or it starts being cited, or some scientific magazine comments on its impact. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The SPAWAR charged particle detection paper is discussed in Kalman P, Keszthelyi T, Kis D (Dec. 2008) "Solid state modified nuclear processes" EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL-APPLIED PHYSICS, vol. 44(3) pp. 297-302. This is the abstract:

It is theoretically shown that an attractive effective potential is generated via optical phonon exchange between two quasi-free, different particles in deuterated Pd which, in turn, enhances the probability of their nuclear fusion reaction. Mechanisms that may be responsible for extra heat production and nuclear isomer formation are also discussed. Creation of 4 He pairs due to the significantly increased probability of the p + Li-7 -> 2(4)He + 17.35 MeV and d + Li-6 -> 2 4 He + 22.37 MeV nuclear reactions is predicted. Some of the basic questions of fusion reactions in solids seem to be successfully explained.

The theory paper cited in SPAWAR's erratum (Widom A, Larsen L (Apr. 2006) "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C, vol. 46(1) pp. 107-111) is cited in Hagelstein PL, Chaudhary IU (2008) "Electron mass shift in nonthermal systems" JOURNAL OF PHYSICS B-ATOMIC MOLECULAR AND OPTICAL PHYSICS, vol. 41(12) and the April 10, 2008 Current Science by Krivit. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Hum, can someone familiar with these journals comment on this? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the term 'ultra-low momentum' is applied to the neutrons postulated by Widom and Larsen (W-L). This means they are extremely reactive, very very high cross section for reaction in the solid state. That means that essentially none will escape at all, and this fact is noted in the W-L article cited above. That means that the 'neutrons' supposedly observed by the SPAWAR group _disprove_ the W-L theory. Further, the W-L theory does not say anything specific about charged particle generation, it predicts transmutations in the solid state which may lead to tritium and He formation in some cases. However, they point out they are not excluding anything by making that prediction. In other words if someone can come up with a nuclear decay chain initiated by a neutron capture event that would emit charged particles, they would love it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the source allegedly claiming that SPAWAR results disprove Widom-Larsen theory. The SPAWAR group is clearly under the impression that W-L is the most congruent theory to their experiments. There are still transitions which are not yet clear, but those exist in standard physics as well, which is why we are always building bigger accelerators, so that we can fill in those blanks.

And the stated criteria that all three of the works in question (neutron detection, charged particle detection, and congruent theory) have been discussed in other peer-reviewed literature has been met for half a year now. I should point out that EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C and JOURNAL OF PHYSICS B are two of the most reputable physics journals. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

So NPG, let me understand this. Theroists X propose Theory Y which states that the occurrence of Z is a "rare event", i.e. has a nearly zero probability of occurring. Then Researchers A report that Z was observed multiple times and in strength enough that a "5% of Z" observation is used to prove Z has occurred. Of course, both X's and A's results are published in peer reviewed journals. So just to summarize: X says Y proves Z doesn't happen, buy A says they have proof Z occurs easily and with significant strength. Then I say that A's results disprove Y, and you need someone else to tell you it is true? I think we are looking at a case of 'pathological skepticism'. I seem to run into that a lot whenever I point out the internal inconsitencies of the cold fusioneers position. I'm not going to argue basic logic with you NPG. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the figures "nearly zero" or 5% being used. The theory was selected to match empirical results. Do you think that the SPAWAR claim that charged particles come from the same source of neutrons should be included in the article? Navy Physics Geek (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Hmmm…what do you consider to be the numerical equivalent of “These will rarely be experimentally detected.” (Widom, Larsen, Eur. Phys. J C , 46(1), (2006) 107)? Typically a ‘rare’ event will occur at less than 1 in 1 million probability, i.e. “nearly zero”. But, I suppose you could wiki-lawyer that, so let’s discuss the other big problem on top of the fact that there should be nearly zero neutrons detected. I already mentioned this, but to explain further… The W-L neutrons are ‘ultra-low momentum’. Since momentum is mass times velocity, and the mass is not changing much, if at all, this means the velocity is ultra low. That translates to ”very, very slow”. However, the claim by Szpak, Mossier-Boss, et al, in Naturwissenschaften 96(1) (2009) 135, that the ‘neutrons’ are of >= 9.6MeV marks these ‘neutrons’ as fast neutrons (look up ‘fast neutrons' in Misplaced Pages). Thus there is a fundamental disagreement between the W-L theory and reported observations. The data in fact offer no support for W-L theory, and point to another as-yet-to-be-determined mechanism for ‘neutron’ production.

You are correct that “The theory was selected to match empirical results.”, but the empirical results matched were ‘no neutrons (or other radiation), only He atoms produced’. This points out again the problems with most CF theories, they ‘cherry-pick’ the data they use to base the theory on.

Regarding the “5%” number, I admit I was grossly overgenerous there. The actual number should be about 0.1%. Using Fig. 2 of Phillips, G.W, et al, Rad. Prot. Dos. 120(1-4) (2006) 457, we can round up to see that it takes about 10e4 neutrons to produce one recoil track (average, energy dependent), and using Al-Najjar, S.A.R., Nuc. Tracks 12 (1986) 611, Fig. 5 and 6, we can likewise see that one gets about 10 triple tracks per 10e8 neutrons (on average, energy dependent). Thus the ratio is 1e-7/1e-4 = .001 or 0.1%. By the way, this is still over-generous, because that does NOT fold in the 1 in 1 million probability of actually ejecting a neutron from the solid state that can be potentially detected by the CR39. When I used the phrase “5% effect” I was using chemical jargon that points out the size of the effect is consistent with Langmuir’s Pathological Science criteria, as 5% is where most chemists start getting nervous about reliability, i.e ‘working in the noise’. Less than that of course is progressively worse. Both references cited above were cited by Szapk, et al in their ‘triple-tracks’ article.

Getting back to the point of the original discussion here, I also need to clearly correct a prior statement of mine (correction was noted above already). The Szapk et al results do not ‘disprove’ the W-L theory, they simply offer no support for it for the reason noted above _and_ point out that it is incomplete since it does not predict the formation of fast neutrons. However, the erratum to the 2007 Natur. paper does clearly attribute the mechanism proposed in that paper to W-L. Thus Szpak, et al have actually proposed this mechanism in slightly diffrerent terms in their 2007 paper. However, as noted above, the energetics are completely off for this to be true. So, we are left with several reports of ‘neutrons’ and ‘charged particles’ that seem inconsistent with the W-L theory, and we have no alternative mechanism to consider except ‘mundane’ D-D and D-T fusion, which most people agree is not happening for the usual reasons. In other words, there is no mechanism for the formation of these supposed particles extant. _And_ we have Szpak, et al apparently not realizing what their results mean (otherwise one would expect some comment on this in their 2009 article that presents the energies determined from the tracks). Unfortunately this is an all-too-common situation in the CF field. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

arbcom case on banning from this page

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#William_M._Connolley_.282nd.29 --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the case which has been renamed to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

patents in Europe and Japan

See one granted to Canon in Japan, and one granted to University of Utah (description says clearly "cold fusion", not sure if it has been granted, Britz's patent list should give some clues on this). This last one also reported in CF newsletter saying that Toyota tried to adquire it. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A Uranium-Platinum Key to CF?

The August 2009 issue of Scientific American has a very interesting article in it on superconductivity. I haven't looked yet to see if the article is on-line; I'm looking at a paper copy as I write this. The title of the article is "An Iron Key to High-Temperature Superconductivity?"; it starts on page 62. On page 66 is a small "side-bar" titled "Material Progress", with the blurb "In the 98-year history of superconductivity, researchers have discovered a diverse assortment of materials that superconduct." Then there is a list of dates and types of materials, the first being elemental mercury in 1911. The most interesting one, because of possible relevance to Cold Fusion, is this:

1979 Heavy fermions -- Heavy-fermion superconductors such as uranium-platinum (UPt3) are remarkable by also having electrons that effectively (my emphasis) have hundreds of times their usual mass. Conventional theory cannot explain these materials' superconductivity.

Well, now! I never heard about THAT before! The superconductivity article in Misplaced Pages doesn't mention it (of course, 1979 was before the Internet). I'd most certainly like to know more about the circumstances in which electrons can "effectively" have hundreds of times their usual mass, and I don't care a whit about the superconducting aspects of the phenomenon (at this time!). Obviously if muons of 206 electron-masses can catalyze fusion, then so can electrons that "effectively" have hundreds of times their usual mass. In fact, an electron only need to "effectively" have about 50 times its usual mass, to be able to do it. YES, I'm fully aware that this is 100% pure O.R. and cannot go in the CF article at this time. That doesn't mean the editors here shouldn't be aware of it. And, of course, others will see the Scientific American article, and some of those may make this logical connection between HFSC and CF, too, and then it will get published.... V (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A Google search brings up a lot of references to heavy fermion superconductivity. Here's the first result: http://yclept.ucdavis.edu/course/242/HanOh_242.pdf The basic heavy-fermion phenomenon in those heavy elements seems to be this: "These are metallic materials with very large electronic effective mass, 100 or more times larger than the bare electron mass, arising from an antiferromagnetic interaction between conduction electrons and the local magnetic moments (Kondo effect) residing on a sub-lattice of atoms in the metal." Hmmmm....hydrogen with its lone proton has a magnetic moment, and a sub-lattice of bare hydrogen nuclei will be interacting with conduction-band electrons in palladium....  :) V (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Upon further study, it appears that the Kondo Effect, the cause of this unusual behavior of electrons, "only" operates at very low temperatures, within a few degrees of Absolute Zero. Are there any exceptions? Note there are speculations that metallic hydrogen would be a high-temperature superconductor. The article on metallic hydrogen indicates that an alloy such as highly compressed silane (SiH4, 80% hydrogen), can be a superconductor. Palladium normally does not become a superconductor, but when saturated to levels associated with cold fusion (perhaps 45% hydrogen), hmmmmmm.... V (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To-do list

The first item on the to-do list is, "Expand the Cold Fusion Research section to describe all types of experiments that reliable sources claim demonstrate cold fusion." But there is no "Cold Fusion Research section" so I propose the following:

1. Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Gordon FE (2007) "Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd–D lattice: emission of charged particles" Naturwissenschaften, vol. 94 pp. 511–514. should go in "Further developments" (just before the paragraph on India, 2008 or after the "Triple tracks" in CR-39 image) and "Reports of nuclear products in association with excess heat" in a new paragraph at the beginning, referring also to the neutron production described further in the article
2. Widom A, Larsen L (Apr. 2006) "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" European Physical Journal C, vol. 46(1) pp. 107–111. should go in "Proposed explanations" along with criticisms at the end of the second paragraph, and maybe "Further developments" after the discussion of the 2004 DoE report
3. Kalman P, Keszthelyi T, Kis D (Dec. 2008) "Solid state modified nuclear processes" European Physical Journal – Applied Physics, vol. 44(3) pp. 297–302. should go in "Further Developments" (before or after the "Triple tracks" in CR-39 image) and "Proposed explanations" at the end of the second paragraph
4. Hagelstein PL, Chaudhary IU (2008) "Electron mass shift in nonthermal systems" Journal of Physics B – Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 41(12) should go in "Proposed explanations" with a mention of the four contexts of the phrase "orders of magnitude" in that paper along with their parenthetical estimate in the third paragraph of Section 7 (on preprint page 18.)
5. Krivit, SB (Apr. 10, 2008) "Low energy nuclear reaction research – Global scenario" Current Science pp. 854–857. should go in "Further developments" (before or after the "Triple tracks" in CR-39 image)
6. "Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat" should be moved from "Experimental details" to "Proposed explanations" Navy Physics Geek (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for doing this work. I don't have time to look at this in detail at the moment. Maybe if you do it as an edit or show proposed text here on the talk page it will be easier to get an idea of what you're proposing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget my to-do list too, which was never acted upon. I mean, if you're really seeking consensus...

{unindent}Ok – suggestions:

A.) Include:

1.) that the CCs potentially increase ‘excess heat’ error bars tremendously,

a.) implying all known reports may be explained by it

b.) requires CF reearchers address the issue directly, which hasn’t happened

2.) that Clarke, et al 4He results, coupled with DOE report(s), and Paneth and Peters experience

a.) suggests all 4He results are potentially false

b.) requires CF researchers disclose all methods, calibrations, etc. for He measurements, which hasn’t happened

3.) that ‘contamination’ concerns extend to heavy metal transmutation claims

a.) note such in S. Little’s RIFEX report (single specific use, meets RS)

b.) note Mizuno replicated Iwamura, but identified S contaminant insetead of Mo

c.) note BHARC replicated Bockris carbon-arc results but showed they came primarily from dust

d.) note that SIMS, XPS, etc are being misused by CF researchers

4.) that light water cold fusion has been observed and is of the same magnitude as heavy water CF

a.) note that this negates the whole “D + D -> He + 23.8 MeV” limitation to CF theories (which should be obvious from D. below)

B.) Drop

1.) CR39 stuff, esp triplet stuff, as too recent, too suspect

2.) hydrino theory mention (hydrino theory is even wilder than CF)

3.) calling muon catalyzed fusion “cold fusion”

4.) legitimizing the name change to ‘LENR’, point out this is strictly to avoid ‘associations’ with CF

C.) Add section “Is it psuedoscience or not?”

1.) point out Storms omission of final Shanahan pub in his book

2.) point out Hagelstein, et al’s omission of Clarke et al 4He work on SRI samples

3.) point out conformances to Langmuir’s criteria

D.) Move stuff on conventional theory (the ‘miracles’) to a side article, noting that all sides agree CF is not constent with conventional theory Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Over in the Mediation discussion I mentioned that I would prefer the collection of proposed explanations to be placed in a separate article. It should be plain that there is a lot of material (just looking at the listings above), and the CF article would become significantly bloated by it. Certainly there should be mention in the CF article that there are a number of proposed explanations, with a link. I see Coppertwig suggested a brief description of each, also to be placed in the CF article. I'm not sure how to keep such brief statements from creeping longer and longer as other editors become involved, though.... V (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer essentially the exact opposite. I believe we (the editors of the CF article) have lost sight of what a Wiki reader would be coming to the CF page for – an explanation of what CF is and why it is either not being used everywhere today to solve the world’s energy problem or why it is still considered bad science, given the neutral to positive press coverage it has gotten recently. The history and ‘miracles required’ section are old news and could be summarized in a separate article for those interested, while the main article would address the current issues – what is cold fusion, what is the suppposed evidence for it, what is the supposed evidence against it, and why isn’t the issue gettting resolved after 20 years. To that end, I go back to my original proposal to have a 3-part article: a _brief_ history (with side article), presentation of the case ‘for’, presentation of the case ‘against’ with a comment on the psuedoscientific nature of the field included in the latter part or presented separately. The article we curently have is extremely POV, and the only person who has significantly tried to balance it (me) is routinely Wiki-lawyered to prevent any significant contribution. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You have pointed out the essence of the POV problems with the article. "an explanation of what CF is" --is what all the arguing is about. What it is PRESUMED to be is one thing; what actually is going on might be something else entirely. Any reformatting of the article should always start off by describing the initial P&F announcement. There is lots of RS about claims made at that time, both pro and con. The article can then state that many people formed opinions regarding the subject that they maintain to this day, with "con" outweighing the "pro". The result is its "pariah field" status.

This paragragh describes stuff that we as editors here may know about, without being able to say anything about it in the article. If the Washington Post counts as RS for claims, then there is the claim by Michael McKubre that the "con" people will be "scientifically dead" if CF ever proves to be as real as its presumed description. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54964-2004Nov16?language=printer --which is a potential explanation for the vehemence of the "con" group, such as was described by Robert Duncan in this video, at a presentation hosted by the University of Missouri: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nNRB0K_dw0 (verifiable CLAIMS, of course).

Partly because of the controversy it seems to me that the best way to present much of the data in the article is to present it as "claims made". It is a purely neutral POV to say things that way, regardless if the claims made by one side outnumber the claims made by the other side. After all, your own claims are such that the CCS could invalidate a huge number of other claims.... V (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

B.4 In the body of the article, under Further Developments, it already said "A number of researchers keep researching and publishing in the field, working under the name of low-energy nuclear reactions, or LENR, in order to avoid the negative connotations of the "cold fusion" label.". I just put it also in the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see that sentence was there on May 28 when I posted my list intitally. I agree with the change Enric made today. So, we can call Item B4 handled. Now on to the rest... Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

B.2 aka Hydrino theory, is under mediation at here. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to drop it entirely from the article. The hydrino theory proposes fractional quantum levels for H. Integer quantum levels come out of the solution to the particle-in-a-box problem, where the boundary condition is that the wavefuncion be zero outside the box (the box 'holds' the particle). It was discovered by examining H atomic spectra that the discrete line structure observed could be explained via a 'particle-in-a-box' type formulation, and all H atom wavefunctions were the solution to the p-in-a-b problem. Subsequently, it was found that within approximation, this also applied to all atoms, molecules, etc. To allow frational quantum levels is to allow nonzero wavefunction amplitude outside the box, which destroys the whole 'particle-in-a-box' problem (it isn't in the box anymore!), and necessitates a completely different way to describe interactions at the atomic level. The hydrino theory, to be able to do that, needs a whole lot more confirmation than it curently has (and I doubt we will ever get it), and so it is purely speculative at this time, and as such should not be advanced as an 'explanation' for an effect we don't even have control over yet. It is a humongous example of 'getting the cart before the horse', and Wiki shouldn't be in the business of promoting wild, unproven ideas. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources supporting any of those proposed changes other than A.3.a? Navy Physics Geek (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (sock of Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Goodness, James Salsman? James P. Salsman? He was posting to sci.physics.fusion in 2001 on the same subject (as was I). people didn't think much of his arguments there. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, the Wiki-lawyer strikes. I have decided that I am _not_ going to go through it once again. Go back and check the archives for all the recent discussion over the last year or so for details. The answer is that yes there is direct RS for some of the proposed changes, other parts (like dropping stuff) require no RS, and other parts are just standard knowledge in the science field. What your comment says to me is a) you didn’t understand what I wrote, and b) you haven’t done any research to see what has been going on for the last year on this page. As I said, I’m not going through it again, because it’s an infinite time sink. Every time a new guy who thinks he can ‘fix’ the article shows up, I always have to start over. And for some reason, most of the time the new guys end up as ‘pro’ fanatics like Pcarbonn, Abd, and V. No more, done with that. Time for somebody else to tilt at the windmills. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for name change (B.4)

About the reasons for the name change, Shamoo in pages 132-133 says " purposely tried to bypass the stigma (...) In many instances the labels can be more accurate descriptors for the phenomen, but there is no doubt that they may be also safer labels", and then he goes on to detail cases where researchers avoided to use the CF name not because it was less accurate but to avoid its stigma. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

They also avoid more critical peer review by doing this. Most mainline scientists know that 'cold fusion'='bad science', and are therefore more alert to publications promoting it when they are asked to review it. On the other hand, not all recognize 'heavy water electrolysis', 'emmission of charged particles', 'excess enthalpy', etc. as manifestations of the 'cold fusion' field. Then, when they (CFers) send their papers to journals who haven't been involved in the long running dispute, they have a much better chance of getting 2 of 3 reviewers to allow publication, simply because those reviewers are pulled from a pool of uninformed scientists. Most of my Internet comments back on spf were on published papers that really shouldn't have made it through review. The triplet thing is a prime example. Peer review is certainly no guarantee of correctness. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Shamoo ref

There's something wrong with the Shamoo ref. OK, I changed the ref in the lead from "shamoo132" to "shamoo13" because it was a red cite error; but there's another problem. The listing of the book Shamoo et al 2003 in the Bibliography section has a link to a Google Books page which goes to a different book: Undead Science by Bart Simon. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry, I keep mixing Simon with Shamoo. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem: I'm always mixing up people whose names start with the same letter. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources?

Where are the reviews? I can't believe there are so many papers and no reviews. Is Kalman et al (2008) a secondary source? 208.54.4.70 (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of two peer-reviewed review articles: Biberian (2007) International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, and Hubler 2007 (Surface and Coatings Technology). (I believe these are peer-reviewed papers in regular journals not devoted to cold fusion.) I think these are already listed as references in this article. There are also books, and the 2004 DOE report, among other secondary sources. (See Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 30#NPOV - Undue.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Articles on probation
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of High-importance
• B-Class energy articles
• Mid-importance energy articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists