Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:14, 20 April 2008

Template:Mediation

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.

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: 28 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 Good article nominee Not listed 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.

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 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Template:Conclusion

new lead: "other scientists failed to replicate the results."

I suggested the statement "Cold fusion gained a reputation as a pathological science after other scientists failed to replicate the results." be made more accurate, without offering an alternative. Just to throw a possibility out there to give an idea of what I'm thinking:

• ""Cold fusion gained a reputation as a pathological science after attempts to replicate the experiment produced mixed results."

Kevin Baas 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• • PF claimed heat, tritium, and neutrons from a single setup and claimed that fusion was taking place. No other group has claimed heat, tritium, and neutrons from a single setup, and no group has convincingly demonstrated fusion produced by electrolysis. That means that the statement that other scientists have failed to replicate the results is correct. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    I believe you are confusing "results" with "claims". you said "PF claimed ... and claimed ... No other group has claimed ... replicated the results ..." results and claims are two completely different things. Besides, you've got your history wrong: PF never claimed tritium or neutrons. They tried to measure neutron count and tritium production and didn't find amounts commensurate with the heat production. Thus, they concluded that if the excess heat was caused by a nuclear reaction, it was not the conventional reaction pathways probabilities (which produce a lot of helium3, tritium, and neutrons), but rather that d+d->he4 was strongly favored. Their measurements agreed with this (they measured a lot of he4, and a little n,t, and he3). So you see, no group AT ALL has claimed heat, tritium, and neutrons from a single setup, including PF. The "results" referred to are "excess heat", which was reported by other scientists in the time period in question. And finally, with regard to your statement: "no group has convincingly demonstrated fusion produced by electrolysis": that is what's called a "straw man argument"; nobody is suggesting that any group has convincingly demonstrated fusion via electrolysis. That's a very difficult thing to demonstrate, and everybody here agrees that no group has done so. What is being claimed is that some scientists reported excess heat in their experiments that attempted to replicate a PF cell, which is much easier to demonstrate. That is what the sentence is talking about. Kevin Baas 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the early FP article (J. Electroanal. Chem. 261, 301 (1989)), Fleischmann and Pons do indeed claim to have observed heat, neutrons, and tritium. On page 305 they state that "2.45 MeV neutrons are indeed generated ". They state on page 307 that " accumulates in the cells." On the topic of other researchers observing excess heat in the similar electrochemical cells, it is true that some have reported excess heat. However, considering the complexity of the calorimetry and the unimpressive data I have seen, the data would have to be much more convincing before I would agree that the article should state that other researchers reported "mixed results." On a different topic, "pathological science" might not be the best label. Perhaps it should be changed to "voodoo science or bad science" since there are books by Park and Taubes which use those labels. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend that you have a look at the 2007 book from Ed Storms : it does a good job of reviewing the literature, and discusses excess heat, neutrons, tritium and helium4 production at length. The word "pathological science" has been used first at the 1989 APS meeting, and many times afterwards. It is a better defined concept than voodoo science, which only Park uses, as far as I know. As a personal opinion, even if the experimental data is not bullet proof, there is enough evidence to justify more research, in a world where energy becomes a critical issue. Such science should of course be conducted with very high quality standard. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote: "PF never claimed tritium or neutrons.", I was over-simplifying. What I meant, made clear by the next sentence: "They tried to measure neutron count and tritium production and didn't find amounts commensurate with the heat production.", was that they never claimed measuring an amount of tritrium and neutron production that explained the excess heat via conventional fusion reaction pathways. Rather, when they found that the neutron production rate was much too low, they proposed an alternative theory, that the lattice-structure of the palladium somehow favored a d+d->he4 reaction. In addition to missing this, you also missed my point: "What is being claimed is that some scientists reported excess heat in their experiments that attempted to replicate a PF cell". And thsi is verifiably true. Whether you are convinced by these reports or not is quite irrelevant, as it is your personal opinion and thus constitutes original research. Kevin Baas 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not miss your point at all, I just thought it was irrelevant that they had stated their neutron and tritium numbers were inconsistent with their heat numbers. What is relevant is that their claims of neutrons and tritium played a big role in bringing attention to the field, and the subsequent lack of confirmation played a big role in the field's negative reputation. Also, my opinions matter a great deal since they determine what I write on wikipedia edit pages. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't miss my point than perhaps you should have responded to it in your first reply. Their claim of excess heat and that its origin was nuclear is what brought the attention to the field, and it was the lack of consistent reproducibility that played a big role in the field subsequently losing that attention. Your opinions may matter a great deal to you, as they are your opinions, but encyclopedias are not an appropriate place to express them. Your recent edit summaries for this talk page can be construed as personal attacks, baiting, and trollish behavior. Kevin Baas 16:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that, while the emission of neutron or tritium is found to be inconsistent with heat numbers, they are often reported at level significantly above background, indicating that something nuclear is happening. I can try to find sources for this if needed. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

other kinds of fusion - polywell and dense plasma focus are missing

polywell fusion (an extension of the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor idea) is absent from the "other kinds of fusion" section, and so is focus fusion (a.k.a. dense plamsa focus or DPF). Kevin Baas 20:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See Also

Why are Alchemy, Pathological Science, Protoscience, and Transmutation linked to Cold Fusion here? Wouldn't Nuclear Fusion, Nuclear Fission, and some other kind of energy production linked to this article? They seem almost unrelated to this article, other than the fact that most of those require a fusion of some sorts (namely alchemy and transmutation) and that this is a new science (protoscience). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cold Fusion isn't protoscience so much as it is pathological science, hence the links. I have no idea on Alchemy or Transmutation, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion was considered pathological science in the 90's, but it isn't anymore: the 2004 DOE was evenly split on the evidence of excess heat, and identified several areas of research to resolve the controversy. You would expect such an assessment for a protoscience, not for a pathological science. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that the field's reputation has improved since the 90's. According to the Physics Today 2005 article, cold fusion is still in a state of "disrepute." Therefore, the link to pathological science should probably stay. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny enough, the title of the Physics Today article you refer too is "DOE Warms to Cold Fusion". That article does not talk of "pathological science" at all. Actually, I do not think that there is any post-2000 source presenting cold fusion as pathological science. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Physics Today April 2004 article is titled "DOE Warms to Cold Fusion" while the Physics Today January 2005 article is titled "Cold Fusion Gets Chilly Encore." The former states that the scientific community "shuns" cold fusion, while the latter states that "Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing than they were 15 years ago." Physics Today is the principal magazine published by the main association of American physicists. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the numerous recent articles on cold fusion would present cold fusion as pathological science if that's the proper way to present it. None is doing it. Pathological science is a a clearly defined concept: a science in which "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions". None of your statement nor your sources supports that view. Instead, they are consistent with a new field of study trying to establish its legitimacy. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They recommended against giving it any federal funding, and considering some of the things the federal government HAS sunk money in (the infamous telportation report, the remote viewing program, ect.) I don't think that's exactly a vote of endorsement. They listed some very basic stuff which cold fusion has ultimately failed to answer; I think calling it pathological science is justified given it seems more that people WANT to believe in it rather than actually having solid evidence for it. The whole thing reminds me strongly of polywater. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken : the 2004 DOE DID recommend giving federal funding (but not in a focused program). Here is a quote from the 2004 DOE report : "The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV."

Polywater has been shown to be pathological science, not cold fusion : small impurities were invariably found to explain the polywater phenomena; many experimental reports of cold fusion have no satisfactory explanation at this point. If some people want to believe in CF, as you suggest, others chose to show "pathological disbelief" towards cold fusion, only on the basis of their belief system. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A general principle on controversial articles is to keep the See also section quite short and not to use it to introduce aspects of the controversy that should be dealt with in main article space. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant scientific literature does classify Cold Fusion with Polywater. See "Indicators of failed information epidemics in the scientific journal literature: A publication analysis of Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion", E. Ackermann, Scientometrics 66, 451-466 (2006) --Noren (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't conclude that cold fusion should be considered pathological science from that paper, only that it should be considered as a failed information epidemics. The definition of failed information epidemics given in that article is distinctively different from the definition of pathological science. I would have no problem tagging the cold fusion article as a failed information epidemics, but it would require this topic to be presented in the article (as itsmejudith explained). Pcarbonn (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages; we report from a NPOV and use RSs. RSs say that cold fusion is a pathological science, and indeed it is more commonly thought of as a pathological or pseudoscience than as an actual science by scientists. Hence, we MUST state that it has a reputation as being such; it would not be neutral for us to do otherwise. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then please provide a reliable source, among the many published since 2000, that say that cold fusion is pathological science. Wikipeida policies require that any challenged statement be backed up by a reference. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

hatnote

The hatnote is unorthodox and contains a word which has a pejorative meaning. This is unneccesary and reeks of battles behind the scenes which should not be reflected in article space. If we cannot do better, we should simply remove the attempt to distinguish this subject from others and simply leave the second sentence, directing people to Adobe ColdFusion if they come here expecting an article on software. 86.44.26.69 (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is fixed in the draft version coming out of the mediation. You can find it here. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but since the mediator had copied over a version of a lead, it seemed he had neglected the hatnote. Defeats the purpose of starting at the top if you don't actually start at the top ;) 86.44.28.245 (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I fully agree: mediation has been going on for a very long time, and seems to be dwindling. The current mediator's version should be copied into the article, including the hatnote. 76.225.156.160 (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, sort of. I copied over the hatnote from the mediation draft. I did not copy anything else. Although the mediation draft version seems much better. (Just took a quick look at it.) So, are there more people that think that the mediation draft should be copied over here? --David Göthberg (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I planned on copying it over a day or two ago, but I've been out of town a lot and haven't been able to do so. But I see no reason why it cannot be copied over, and if it's not done by the morning, I'll do it myself. If there are no objections. It's always open for discussion post-copy, so it's not one of those "finalized forever" versions. seicer | talk | contribs 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As discussed here, there is still one major issue to be mediated. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "proposed" should be inserted in the hatnote. The current hatnote version does not communicate the level of disagreement in the field. Does anyone object to that? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Palladium

There needs to be a mention early on that palladium electrodes were used by Pons and Fleischer and by most? nearly all? all? researchers since, as well as the fact that palladium combines with hydrogen in electrolysis. I'm not sure of the best way to do this. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, as palladium was as essential of an ingredient as heavy water was in the original cells. Not all of the researchers since have used palladium. Other metals have been used with positive results. Interestingly, at least one experiment claimed a positive result with light water using - if i recall correctly - a silver cathode. This is hard to believe. But it is actually predicted by a theory proposed by a reputable scientist whose name i unfortunately forgot - hsi theoryhad something to do with the periodicity of the lattice. But to answer your question, I would say most, not all, experiments used palladium as the loading material. Scientists have experimented with different cathodes, with some success using cathodes other than palladium. Kevin Baas 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-2004 literature reviews

There were some recent peer-reviewed literature reviews mentioned during mediation which were published after 2004 (which is where the "History" section currently ends.) They are here and here. I think a summary of their abstracts and conclusions should be included in the article. What do other people think? Wide and Slow (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I fully support it (but don't have the time to do it). Pcarbonn (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to add this 2002 report: Szpak, Stanislaw & Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., eds. (2002a), Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system - Volume 1:A decade of research at Navy laboratories, Technical report 1862, San Diego: Office of Naval Research/Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.Pcarbonn (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org

No thanks. It's not a reliable source, and most of the links to it were blatant copyright violations (hint: when you cite the international journal of so-and-so, the url is not lenr-canr.org). Also, it has been shown to editorialise rather than simply republish material. It is a ocmpletely inappropriate source for this or any other article.

As a side issue, the bibliography is a laundry list of "see? we are right!" papers by cold fusion advocates and needs to be massively pruned. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What were the opinions on excluding lenr-canr.org during mediation? I am inclined to say that they should only be included in the article if a source meeting the reliable source criteria has described them. --Why? (Why not?) 10:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I do know that no amount of mediation will ever allow us to link to offsite copyright violations. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• 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
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists