Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:22, 19 June 2014

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cold fusion. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Cold fusion at the Reference desk.

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.

The contents of the List of references to cold fusion in popular culture page were merged into Cold fusion. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 23, 2012 and March 23, 2014.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the original ruling, logging for which was later merged to here.

	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 Good article nominee Not listed May 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed November 23, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Former featured article

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. Skepticism 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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)

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, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Semi-protected edit request

3 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

New Publication on the website of the Board of Education and Science http://snto.ru/feedbacks?cid=8&item=56 New publication "Results " http://www.itogi.ru/paradox/2013/35/193536.html Hello could you mene help promote technology and can my film about cold fusion technology will help in prodvezhenii . Are you concerned about Rasulov Alexey, for what reason . I spoke at an international congress in 2010 http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/2 ... on the issue of cold fusion . Now published an article about cold fusion is in the WAC in the journal "Energetic" publication in May 2013 http://www.energetik.energy-journals.ru/content/2013/5-2013/. Could you assist me in advancing technology , to show interest in this technology , it's the same technology as nuclear fusion , ie project " ITER " , please give a note that a competitor tokamaks. here's another article in the papers on this topic for each other Kursk http://www.dddkursk.ru/number/895/pla ..., and red star http://www.redstar.ru/2012/01/21_01/ 3 .... As there is a publication in the Journal of the inventor and innovator in May article called lightning to nuclear power plants. Recycled paper for analysis attached. Also have a group on the website of the Russian nuclear community http://www.atomic-energy.ru/papers/24062. Waiting for a reply by email. My phone 89508760167 . Address Kursk, Kursk region , village Vorontsov , 68 305 501 Index . Sincerely Rasulov AV

109.127.181.110 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

To the IP editor from Kursk

Edits appear above from IP addresses 109.127.181.110 and 109.127.155.170 both with the same ADSL provider in Kursk. If they are for one person, would you please consider registering an account? Registration is free and actually improves your privacy. It is quite difficult to hold a real discussion with someone whose name and address keeps changing. Details are at wp:WHYREGISTER. If you prefer, you can register on the Russian-language Misplaced Pages, as accounts carry across between languages. Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Nehotela you Zalata fee izibretatelyu grief, and then here in Russia small fees or none at all, you can publish material after talks addressed alexras.82 @ mail.ru Rasulov A.V. Posmotrimte movie about cold fusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGrTWCcsYk8 In this article, you can take anything you publish yourself, http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/download/cong10% 2803% 29.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexras82 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is any of the preceding contribution by Alexras82, or the content of the previous section, anything to do with 'improving the cold fusion article', the purpose of the talk page? Just wondering. And did the editor's cat type a few extra characters while the editor wasn't looking? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's likely that Alexras is the IP. Alexras also seems to think that Misplaced Pages can promote the existence of a fringe journal by reference to a link to the fringe journal, which is of course not correct. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think this page is for profiling other editors in the negative sense. This is combative behavior that can not be confused for trying to work with other editors. 84.107.128.52 (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Publications

JCMNS

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

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

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

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

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

Cold fusion is considered fringe "today" for reasons that should be obvious once one reads over WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and, of course, WP:FRINGE. As such, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is as reliable as any "journal" published from within the walled garden of astrology, homeopathy, etc. I.e., Regardless of the number of Google hits produced by the endless number of blogs and websites devoted to the topic, or the number of self-published papers its devotees can produce, without mainstream support, fringe is still fringe. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem - do you consider the CF article to be anti-CF (and therefore mainstream) or neutral, but specific to the topic? If the former, then it should be clearly identified as such. In that case, only a few exceptional articles could be allowed to support the minority view. Since there are mainstream anti-CF views, this would be a legitimate position. However, there are few mainstream descriptions of, or experiments on, the topic (perhaps none since 1991). If this article is a specific article on CF, not 'views on CF', then the balance shifts the other way. The anti-CF references are then the minority and must be held to the higher standard.

If the anti-CF crowd is treating the CF article as a minority and fringe position relative to a mainstream "view," then it needs to be retitled. Are you, or is anyone, authorized to speak for the anti-CF club, to decide what the article is. I would be happy to retitle it, if the decision is that it is a view of, rather than an article on, CF. Too much time and energy has been expended on trying to create an article that must meet different standards from the editors' viewpoints. Aqm2241 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqm2241 (talk • contribs)

Aqm2241 your instance on labeling other editors must stop. You have absolutely no idea what my personal views on the topic are. If you believe I or any other editor is acting in bad faith, as your use of "anti-CF" implies, the take it to the proper venue. Personal attacks, thinly veiled or otherwise, do not improve the article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem Forgive me if I have misjudged you. You consider yourself an 'honest' skeptic and I can respect that. However, your apparent turning a blind eye to the overt removal of pro-CF mainstream references and external links from the WP:CF article certainly pointed to acceptance of the anti-CF position and actions. Everyone has a POV and I believe few men would object to being labled (women don't seem to like it). There is nothing wrong with being pro- or anti-CF, as long as it does not detract from the article. I see no evidence of bad action in your case (but, to be honest, I haven't looked very hard). I had asked you a question that I thought would clarify some of the problems. If people see the article from different viewpoints, then they will have different expectations.

An earlier discussion had asked whether the article was a 'history' of the Fleischmann Pons effect or more. Was it resolved? If not, we could be having the same problem now. My question was whether CF was considered to be a mainline topic or a fringe topic. The header on the CF talk page says that it is controversial. 'Controversial' requires an attempt at equality. It also requires the controversy to be described. There should be a section in the article devoted to the controversy. If editors perceive the article as fringe, then they should treat it differently than if it is fringe in a mainline article (e.g., a nuclear physics topic) or controversial. What is proper or acceptable editing on one case is vandalism in another. Thus, actions and perceptions unnecessarily polarize the editors. I still have not heard anyone address what they consider the article to be in those terms. The anti-CF group appears to consider CF to be fringe, but the article to be a mainstream subject. I have a problem with that. Maybe it can be resolved.

From WP:PARITY - "Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects." I do not believe CF to be a mainstream subject (yet). This article is specific to a non-mainstream topic. Therefore, I consider blocking and deleting of pro-CF views and references (particularly high quality ones) to be vandalism. If you still consider CF claims of excess heat and nuclear reactions to be extraordinary and the CF article to be a mainstream article, then you might even consider arbitrary deletion of pro-CF mainline journal articles to be justified as fighting WP:Undue, because the referenced journals are not 'extraordinary'. While I doubt that I could convince you about the claims, particularly if the appropriate references are 'not allowed', we might come to some agreement about the nature of the article. If all editors came to such agreement, the article could be made 'whole' and perhaps a second one, or second part, could also be agreed upon. Aqm2241 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Still considered fringe in 2013.

I recall that the journal is published by the organizer of the annual CF conference? It should be given preferential treatment among proponent sources. I find it natural to mention the most influential journal in a fringe field, when speaking about publications. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

How about: no. We know they publish journals for each other, but unless you can find reliable independent sources that establish the significance of these journals, then citing the existence of the journals to the journals themselves is WP:OR and discussing them at all is WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Guy - You clearly seem to think that Cold Fusion is a mainstream article on the subject and therefore pro-CF views and papers are a minority position and fall under the WP:undue ruling. Would you care to defend the title of the article if it considers the cold fusion research to be a majority activity? If CF is a majority activity, could you quote some majority-position research in this area in the last decade? Two decades? If the title were "Cold Fusion in the 20th Century", I would give you a bit more slack. "Cold Fusion in the 21st Century" is a whole new ball game. You say that you have learned about CF from a friend who worked in Fleischmann's lab. If he was not the janitor who cleaned up after one experiment burned its way thru the lab bench and part of the floor, then I would be interested in what he had to say. Perhaps, you could write a letter on what he had to say to the editor of Nature and have it, as a tertiary source, become an acceptable reference for the CF article?

You suggest that I am advocating pathological science and that the scientific community considers that is what CF is. I publish and communicate with physicists and engineers in 3 different fields. Most are surprised that CF is still active and are generally interested in the positive results. A few do have the closed mind and POV that you seem to enjoy. For the most part, they are not the ones doing active research. On the other hand, perhaps you have data and many physicist friends that are both knowledgeable on the subject and agree with your POV. Since you are so set against CF and want to eliminate any positive references, why don't you just leave the title and eliminate all but one line, "bullshit", and save us all a lot of grief. I'm sure that you can find a reference for that. It expresses your POV, your OR, and all of the other excuses that the anti-CF club has been using over the years to deny evidence and to convince themselves of their rightness and righteousness. Aqm2241 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

See the arbitration case linked at the head of this page. The world views cold fusion as pathological science, it is not Misplaced Pages's job to fix that for you. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's still considered fringe science. See for example page 176 of the recent book "Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem", where cold fusion is cited as an "example of institutionalized fringe science" and where the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is specifically mentioned as part of this institutionalization. --Noren (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are the authors of this recent mentioned book? This labeling "example of institutionalized fringe science" is just rant.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Noren, your reference is very interesting. Note that the author described CF as "institutionalized fringe science." The book is a collection of 24 essays by various experts seeking to identify the distinctions between science and pseudoscience. The essay you referenced is titled "Belief buddies versus critical communities." I find it very interesting that her description of "belief buddies" (p 169, many with "little relevant scholarly training," p. 177, and as a marker for pseudo science, p 179) seems to fit the anti-CF crowd very well. Her description of CF as institutionalized and composed of self-critical, communicating, credentialed, individuals (characteristics of science) gave it "borderline legitimacy" (p 176). Since the anti-CF crowd often takes quotes from pro-CF author's introductions to identify problems with CF research or data, you may as well also. Please put it into the article text, so that we can add a legitimate CF reference (see my comments below). Aqm2241 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not a Wikilawyer and sometimes am somewhat slow (naive?). I just realized that the reason that the anti-CF club must remove legitimate sources that are pro-CF is that they have to maintain the fiction that CF is fringe. Then, to show that they are 'neutral', they can allow as many pro-CF as anti-CF references. Thus, they play the game.

We can help them play their game, and still improve the article, by finding as many anti-CF comments as possible. Since the anti-CF crowd would allow (and claim) even blogs as strong tertiary sources (if they fit the proper POV), the pro-CF group could play along just to permit additional legitimate CF-documentation to be referenced in the article. Of course, the discerning reader would see the difference in quality of the references, but the anti-CF crowd is not trying to convince a discerning reader. Since it cannot 'kill' CF, it only wants to preserve the fiction that CF is fringe-science. Furthermore, some of the anti-CF group are less than honest and know that periodically, they can bring in a 'big gun' and just arbitrarily 'erase' many of the pro-CF references to maintain the appearance that CF is still only "fringe" and no real work or progress is happening. For example, I note that all of the Forbes references are now gone. Some sources that are 'legitimate' when publishing anti-CF articles would be labeled as fringe and/or worthless and not be allowed, if publishing non-anti-CF articles (e.g., http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.4.2409). However, the anti-CF articles from these same journals must still be retained to keep the WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe charade intact.

Speaking of WP:Fringe, within their own definition, they violate the Wiki tenets: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." Clearly the anti-CF group will not allow "more extensive treatment" under any circumstances. (They may even deny the notability of CF, since they apparently believe it is fringe. Apparently, they consider the article to be about the failure of CF - a majority viewpoint? - thus they can claim that they are only suppressing "undue weight.")

I also note that there is no section in the CF article on why people should be interested in the success of CF (cheap energy, little or no radioactive waste, reduction in green-house gases, no concern about strip-mining or fracking, off-grid living) and no figures indicating demonstrated levels of power and energy generation (e.g., last figure in http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/). Aqm2241 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's covered in commentaries, but you can't say there would be little or no nuclear waste because it's pure conjecture, there's no actual evidence of a nuclear process at all so conjecture about the level of waste is not going to fly. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A major argument against CF (based on the assumption that CF must follow known high-energy D+D fusion patterns) is that there is no proton or neutron radiation commensurate with the heat produced in the claimed D+D => 4He fusion reaction (see note 4 in the article). The fact that nuclear ash (protons, neutrons, tritium, 3He and 4He at very low levels) has been observed & reported repeatedly in numerous laboratories proves the nuclear process(es). Aqm2241 (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem was, they didn't detect all at the same time. One lab detected ash A but not B, the other lab detected ash B but not A, etc. I read this in a source, but I don't remember which one......

Even when detecting the same ash, the ash/power ratio was different. I am not sure if I read this in a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This fluctuational behaviour seems to be a defining feature of chaotic systems where the same initial condition does not produce the same effects.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's also consistent with random experimental error. Don't forget old William and his useful cutlery. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In such case, the same group would detect different ashes on each one of their cells, right? And the same ash would be detected at different ratios on each cell.

Instead, each group is detecting the same ash in all their cells, which have the same initial conditions. That's suggestive of problems in procedures: group A uses a method that overcounts background-levels of ash A, group B doesn't realize there is contamination from ash B in one step, group C measures ash C with an uncalibrated or inadequate measurers, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Once the finding can be replicated independently without the need for True Believers taking part, I am sure it will be published in the peer reviewed journals. Until then... Guy (Help!) 09:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Replication has not have to be 100%, it can have a frequency distribution like other stochastic and processes such as earthquakes occurrence, wind intensity, composition of fission products. A statistical replicability seems to be an experimental fact that needs to be considered as intrinsic feature of the phenomena.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It has to be consistently reproducible, or a compelling argument has to be made as to why it usually fails. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

100% reproducibility seems an excessive demand. There are stochastic phenomena like wind intensity distribution and earthquakes frequency which have an intrinsic random occurrence. To give an additional example of a more similar nature to cold fusion namely nuclear, the composition of nuclear fission products at a given momemnt is not reproducible for two nuclear fission reactors operating simultaneously at the same time or for the same reactor successively. The composition of nuclear fission products is the statistical averaging of individual fission events of single nuclei. No one is insisting that the composition of fission products should be reproducible.--82.137.9.236 (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

See my comment above....... Each cell is an independent reactor. If your theory was correct then each cell would be giving different products. We wouldn't have each group reporting that all their active cells give the same products. Products would be different for each ell, not for each group. (This has derived into unsourced comparisons of personal theories, and talk pages are to discuss changes to the article, not for discussion of the topic, etc., etc.. It has been good, I can't encourage this behaviour by continuing the discussion. These discussions belong to the vortex-l mailing list and other such forums, not to wikipedia's article pages. Please go there to find people interested in discussing this, and forums that welcome this type of discussion). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody needs to do anything to maintain the impression that CF is fringe: it is fringe. A very good friend of mine worked in Fleischmann's lab back in the day, I am quite well informed on this. You are advocating pathological science, and Wikipediua is not the place to fix the fact that the scientific community in general considers you to be doing this. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know the name of your friend and whether he has published some articles on some (negative) results.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

He has never published anything on this, as far as I know. I know he did some work for Fleischmann (I remember the jokes about the "thermonuclear shield", a ceramic basin covering the apparatus in case of boiling water ejection) but his publications are primarily on biosensors. Oh, and the current standard undergraduate text on analytical chemistry. You can Google him: Professor Séamus Higson. I bet him a fiver he'd be a full professor before the age of 40 and I collected it at his inaugural lecture :-) I also showed him our FA version of this article; he said it was a fair and accurate. A lot of special pleading has been added since. I haven't asked him recently, but he shakes his head ruefully when the topic is mentioned: he liked Martin Fleischmann and largely blamed Pons for the science-by-press-release fiasco and the race with Jones, which trashed a formerly very sound career. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that there is a Séamus mentioned in Archive 5 of this talk page, but not his full name.--82.137.8.198 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Specialised journals

This should be mentioned and detailed. The article mentions them as a cluster of specialized journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.53.199.249 (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Closure of some subsections

I notice this very interesting feature of closure of some subsection by JzG (see above at topic of current interest). He has no right of closure for unsettled topics just based on his personal opinion. His abusive closure will be undone.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your determination to continue grandstanding and POV-pushing is noted. Feel free to go away and find another project that is happy to promote pseudoscience, fringe science and pathological science: Misplaced Pages is not that project. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also your determination to promote your personal opinion that CF is fringe is noted. Please stop all this nonsense talk about fringe and pathological science which in case does not apply.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion, it's a verifiable fact well established in the arbitration case. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

One can wonder how well established is the fact of fringe labeling based on sources by top scientists that have a statistical relevance and exclude error propagation by persistent reuse of comments made by Huizenga and Taubes-like sources? Top scientists (Nobelists in physics like Gordon Baym) have been cautious from the beginning in asserting impossibility.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be impossible in order to be fringe and pathological science. Those require only a pathological belief in a single explanation of something, pursued to the exclusion of open testing to see whether it is real and if so what it might be. Science very rarely says that anything is impossible - even homeopathy, which is the most self-evident twaddle, is discussed in terms of the absence of evidence of effect, mechanism and basic science, rather than dismissed outright as the nonsense it is. Popular science books will tend to use informal terms like impossible, ridiculous or whatever, published science will merely say that after X years there has been no published proof of an effect that is reliably reproducible by independent scientists. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Absence of evidence or evidence of absence? Who says anything about a single explanation and who excludes open testing? I think the cautious language is preferable to judgement of value like dismissed outright as the nonsense it is.--82.137.13.159 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In science, the burden of evidence is very firmly on the claimant. They have failed to make their case. The court of science has recorded a verdict of "not proven". Nobody doubts that the faithful are sincere in their belief, but you know what happened to the boy who cried "wolf!". They are not going to get any significant traction until they have solid basic science showing a credible mechanism. It's like homeopathy in that respect: we know they can reproduce the result, albeit unbelievers seem not to be able to, but what grounds are there for believing that these results are anything other than chance? There are precedents, e.g.: Jacques Benveniste and his water memory, Prosper-René Blondlot and his n-rays. Science has learned a lot about the power of belief over the years. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you have partially misunderstood the modus operandi of science. Science and especially the scientific method operates by falsification/disproving which implies the evidence of absence and it has little if at all to do with belief. Even if an (imaginary?) court of science (who are the members of this is another question) may have recorded a verdict of "not proven" until the evidence of absence has convincingly emerged, there is no justification of categorical labeling. Even some theorems can be not proven at some moment and hold the status of a conjecture. A classical example of disproving is the disproving of the geocentrism. Search for mechanisms can be in investigation.--82.137.9.236 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The section will be restored. No one has the right to archive aspects whose inclusion needs to be discussed.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Those sections were meandering, with no improvement to the article in sight. e.g.: Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_46#Cited_excerpt was proposing a comment in wikipedia to counter a famous book, #Incompatibility_to_conventional_fusion had become a discussion about the general topic.

In WP:TALK#Others.27_comments "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article),(...)" (Personally, I would have preferred a "collapse" template) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

1) It is an improvement in sight because knowing exactly what has been quoted from Huot by Huizenga gives additional insight about the usability of Huizenga's book as a source.

2) WP:TALK#Others.27_comments's specification mentioned above do not apply here where aspects that should be presented in article require clarification.

As a general conclusion from the two aspects in reply to Enric Naval and other aspects mentioned in this section archiving is not necessary and the section Topics of current interest will be restored.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If the section is restored, the person responsible may be blocked for disruption. The only arguments for inclusion thus far are from people with no other interest in Misplaced Pages. We understand your passion but we're not here to play a part in rehabilitating the image of cold fusion within the scientific community or elsewhere. Cold fusion is regarded as fringe and pathological science, this is the consensus view of independent experts, we reflect that view per our foundational policies and specifically because of the arbitration case noted at the top of this page. Cold fusion is a walled garden and until it starts getting meaningful input fomr outside of the walled garden (which does not mean being allowed to talk among yourselves at meetings not devoted to CF), our article won't change.

Change the outside world first, Misplaced Pages changes later. That's the rule. And it's going to be applied with especial rigour here because of the past excesses of CF proponents on this article. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@188.27.144.144, You can check the reliability of Huizenga's book by the positive reviews it got. And by the times it has been cited by other authors. I don't see any source saying that Huizenga's book contains misrepresentations. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Citing by other authors does not necessarily exclude error propagation. The best check of reliability can be done by seeing what is the base of the assertions made by Huizenga based on some scientific article cited. This may involve specialized knowledge of physical chemistry and mathematics according to WP:CIR#Lack of technical expertise.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say that your arguments pertain more to the land of not providing reliable sources that directly support the removal.

In contrast, in the last thread, I managed to find a science educative book that takes Huizenga's analysis as a correct analysis that should be taken into account when doing experiments. And another source that makes a point similar to Huizenga's point. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to cite a source that says Huizenga's book is inaccurate if it is the case. Just analyzing the article(s) cited by Huizenga's and comparing to the full text of those article one should immediately see (although this may require specialized scientific expertise) if Huizenga's assertions are overblown or not and if there is a misquotation of articles or not.--82.137.13.159 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And then we're back to using unpublished original research of primary sources.... --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not OR, just immediate inference. No source is required to see if there is an error in some source similarly to seeing that 1+1=3 is false. Specialized technical expertise can and must be used if and where necessary.--82.137.9.236 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read Huizenga's source. But a primary source titled Electrolytic Hydrogenation and Amorphization of Pd‐Zr Alloys surely requires quite a lot of "specialized knowledge" to interpret, something that it discouraged by WP:PRIMARY. Especially when we already have an interpretation by a secondary source. You are unlikely to get anything done about this until you can provide more than unpublished research made by yourself. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reading and understanding (using technical expertise if it is required) (primary) sources is not interpreting them and is a necessary condition for those who want to have a say in shaping the content of the article. Checking for (and noticing) possible discrepancies and misquotations of primary sources must not be discouraged under the pretext that would be considered interpretation. A quote from WP:CIR says : ″Insufficient technical knowledge is not usually a problem, unless when adding, deleting, or changing technical content. Not everyone needs the same skill set—and as long as people operate only where they're capable.″ And those who say that haven't read a source that is discussed are in a not very legitimate position because of the WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT that forbids citing directly a source not read.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: I have read Huizenga. I have not read the source cited by Huizenga. In other words, I have read the secondary source, but I have not read the primary source cited by the secondary source. That should be OK by wikipedia standards.

We are talking about the interpretation of a complicated scientific equation that even trained people have problems getting right, and its application in a difficult environment with lots of confusing variables. That sounds to me like "technical content". I can't agree with you on this. Never mind that WP:CIR is an essay while WP:PRIMARY is policy. You are welcome to ask for uninvolved output in the reliable sources noticeboard or in the talk page of the "no original research" policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The equation is pretty simple and not needs a so-called interpretation. You should not try to obstruct the use of specialized expertise where is needed by opposing two wikirules. Without technical expertise you can't have a say in handling technical content and deciding what source is usable for what assertion. Every editor should wikioperate where he is capable. Perhaps an addition to WP:PRIMARY from WP:CIR should be made that emphasizes the necessity of technical expertise which is absolutely necessary in handling technical content. Editors who do not show enough understanding should stay out of topics out of their reach and not obstruct editors who have sufficient understanding for managing technical content/sources.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the book Understanding Voltammetry. Nernst equation seems to be quite complicated to calculate and to get right. Understanding this equation without specialized knowledge should be really difficult.

Book This educational book details explicitly what pieces of knowledge are needed to understand the Nernst equation. Almost a page and a half of explanations. After that, it recommends to "consult a college-level algebra book" if you don't understand the maths involved. The google preview ends there.

on college-level course "Fundamentals of Electrochemistry". Lots of maths and chemistry concepts are needed to understand the applications of the equation on different types of cells.

Please stop claiming that this equation can be understood without technical knowledge on the subject. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely one cannot reasonably expect that editors not or insufficiently familiarized with the concepts needed to understand the equation dictate or impose editing restrictions to editors who are familiarized and notice errors in quotation in a secondary source like Huizenga's and want to remove them without appealing unnecessarily to another source that would notice the errors in the first secondary source.--82.137.9.180 (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The unfamiliarized editors should firstly familiarize themselves with the necessary concepts and only then when they prove their familiarization exert to right to edit topics previously not understood.--82.137.9.180 (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely the secondary sources are clear enough on the topic, without need of specialized knowledge to understand them. And that's the best situation, according to wikipedia guidelines. We are only following wikipedia's guidelines about reliable sources. If you think that this is an imposition, then maybe wikipedia is not the right place for you. You will have to find a website that allows unpublished personal research. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Enric Naval One of the issues with this topic is that it is so little discussed outside of the waled garden of cold fusionists, and their followers are so determined to expand it ad infinitum, that each successive revision is proportionally more reliant on a tiny number of partisan sources. Much of it is really a rambling timeline of trivial events that manifestly failed to change anybody's mind. I guess this is inevitable in fringe and pseudoscience topics (homeopathy was the same for a long time, for example). Guy (Help!) 14:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you are referring to Cold_fusion#Subsequent_research, and some of the paragraphs at Cold_fusion#Reported_results? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

It seems that some users are making unfounded allusions of semi-protection of this talk page.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It will, however, be semiprotected if you insist on continually restoring the WP:FORUM cruft. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to obstruct legitimate comments under the impression/pretext/labeling that they be WP:FORUM cruft is disruptive.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Template Housekeeping

The template at the top of this talk page referring to sanctions linked to the wrong ArbCom case, which had to do with climate change. I have changed it to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, because cold fusion is considered by the mainstream scientific community to be fringe science or pseudoscience as usually defined. There was also an ArbCom case entitled Cold Fusion, but it was decided after Pseudoscience and resulted in a few editors being topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you parse the enforcement provision in the link you deleted "1) The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions." (the original ruling includes that wikilink to this article) as the wrong ruling having 'to do with climate change?' The Abd-WMC case was resolved years after the Pseudoscience case, and the arbitration committee found it necessary at that time to make it utterly clear that sanctions apply to this article whether or not someone chooses to argue whether or not this topic is pseudoscience. (In fact, you'll see from the current talk page that some still actively dispute this categorization.) It is therefore useful to link to the decision which specifically nails down that this particular article is subject to sanctions whether or not one considers it to be pseudoscience. Things get muddy because the committee decided to retroactively merge logging of enforcement with the earlier pseudoscience case for purposes of simplifying recordkeeping ( https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=484342294#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Discretionary_sanctions_in_cases_named_after_individual_editors ). However, I think there is value in maintaining the link to the Cold Fusion-specific ruling to avoid misunderstandings... after all, this article was problematic enough that the arbitration committee found it necessary to single this page out for sanctions years after the pseudoscience ruling had been in effect. Perhaps all three should be linked in the template? --Noren (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I had been looking at a different William M. Connolley case. My mistake. The case does indeed involve cold fusion, and explicitly states that cold fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions. The pseudoscience discretionary sanctions are also applicable. I agree that both cases should be cited, and possibly the Cold Fusion case, although it did not restate the sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretending something is pseudoscience while it is not is a great example of unacceptable behavior.

84.107.128.52 (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Obstructive archiving of discussion in progress

I notice on this page and from its history that attempts of obstructive ending of valid discussions by tendentious archiving and other means by some users (JzG, Binksternet, etc). This is an example of unacceptable behaviour.--193.254.231.34 (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that it has been suggesting that edits should be commented, not behaviour. A recent edit like that of McSly of trying prevent legitimate comments is unaceptable.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

just create a new section. That's very simple. Make sure it relates to a specific change request of the article.--McSly (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to create new sections since the name of section(s) in the archived fragment is appropriate to my comment.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The text has been copied there now, so it's too late to change it. Create a new section and add as much context as you like. Right now, the only thing you are doing is waste everybody's time.--McSly (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Copying to archive can be undone if it has been done prematurely. There is no such thing as too late to change it. Your insistence on a certain version of the archive is not reasonable and it is the origin of time wasting.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a forum. This page is for actionable proposals regarding improvements to the article, see WP:TPG. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Using forum as pretext to hide discussions that mention some objections to subtle tactics against improvement of the article such as the hatting just removed is not acceptable here. Also modifying wikisyntax to hide other users' comments and even an entire section that refers to content handling procedure is also not acceptable.--82.137.14.68 (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Objections to someone's edits should not be hidden.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Content handling

I also notice a suggestion by Enric Naval that is not complying with all guidelines, that technical content should be managed without understanding of topics edited. Insistance of editing certain topics with undestanding them is becoming disruptive and vandalism.--193.254.231.34 (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |}

Use of the archive

I see that there some aspects concerning the (re)use of the archive have been discussed here. I consider that some archived sections such as Edit requests can be reused adding subsections with date of request.

I also notice that there are some users who remove other editors comments or objections to their edits, objections that should not be removed.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I explained above the reuse of archive to add subsections when when a user (McSly) interrupts my subsections I was about to add.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

His interruption of my intended additions cause disruption to the flow of writing aspects to include in article and are not to be accepted.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Second DOE report

The analysis of the second DOE report should be more detailed in the article.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what specific change to the article are you proposing.--McSly (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the best proposal in this case is adding some details from the mentioned available sources like the report proper and Choi and Feder. Especially the paragraph 4 from Feder is interesting to cite.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Selected anniversaries (March 2012)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2014)
• Articles on probation
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• 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
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of High-importance
• Unassessed Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press