Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:00, 29 January 2012

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.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

	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.

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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hubler quote

Hubler (2007) is quoted multiple times in the existing article, using the same quote, but I have some concerns. First, it isn't presented as a quote, and is therefore copyvio, but that isn't difficult to fix. The main problem is that the quote is used without context. The quote in question states:

"Unable to achieve high loading, and, therefore, excess heat, most researchers declared that heat production in Fleishmann and Pons cells is not a real effect and ceased working on the experiments."

This quote seems to lay the failure of the researchers who followed Fleishmann solely on their inability to achieve sufficient loading. It reads as if the Fleishmann experiment works, and if set up properly it will be fine. However, in the rest of the paper Hubler is much more circumspect. Just prior to that, in the same section, he states:

"One reason that most researchers were unsuccessful in achieving heat production may have been at least in part due to the lack of understanding of how to achieve H/Pd ratio of > 0.90."

Throughout the paper, the argument is that loading may be a cause of the failure of experiments, and that there is sufficient evidence of excess heat to warrant further examination using Pd–H foil materials with reliable loading. But that's not the same finding as that quote seems to suggest. Accordingly, it appears to be cherry picking, and I've tried to reduce the strength of the wording used in the article. - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits. Regarding the loading issue it is not cherry picking by the WP-editors. The cold fusion field have brought up this point numerous times as THE main reason why most replication attempts failed in 1989-1990. I agree that the papar uses the wording "may". According to sources a high loading is NOT a guarantee for success, but a loading below 0.80 is seen as a clear indication of why the experiment didn't produce heat. Other blocking point would be the Pd-material surface condition.

Using the attributed version that you reverted should be perfectly OK. It is a direct quote from a paper and it does not inappropriately overemphasize the loading, as the loading is emphasized by the cold fusion field as the main issue. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it makes Huber's claim appear stronger than it is. The focus of the paper is that reliable high loading may be a significant factor in the production of excess heat, and that there is a means of achieving the loading required, so using that means the experiments may prove more fruitful. This is fair enough. However, the quote makes it look like the paper found that the was the cause of the failures - even though Huber only attributes it as a possible cause. On those grounds the quote is misleading, as it drops the "may" and represents a finding that Huber didn't make, and misrepresents Huber. Attribution isn't the problem. - Bilby (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a analysis done by Dennis Cravens and Dennis Letts which they presented on the ICCF-14 in 2008 . They identified 4 "enabling criteria" for successful replication. Loading was part of criterion #1. Overall, we are not misleading if we arguably "highlight" the loading. There are other possible causes for failure, that's why Hubler uses the wording "may". But, it is a direct quote, it is what Hubler wrote, we are not misrepresenting or misquoting him. And as far as I read the sources, it is in line with the "prominence" of the loading issue. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We are misrepresenting him if we cherry pick the one quote where he doesn't use the qualifier, when the rest of the article does. I'm happy to accept that other people make stronger claims, but we shouldn't be attributing that same strength to Huber, as the "may" is either implicit or explicit in his statements in the article, as recognised above. - Bilby (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with either the weaker or the stronger form as long as the gist is well-represented in the article. A few weeks ago Hubler was cited in support of a very different, contradictory statement. Also, per above nobody seems to know of any alternative theories in reliable sources. The still very popular "measurement error" hypothesis hasn't appeared in the primary peer reviewed literature any time in the past 17 years, except in the work of Shanahan, which has been answered, and it certainly doesn't exist in the peer reviewed secondary literature. I'm not sure the Cravens and Letts criteria are operational (many of them refer to whether certain things were specified in the publications; I wonder how they were derived.) So Hubler at present is the only thing we've got to explain the fiasco in Misplaced Pages articles. Selery (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Shanahan's work has not been answered, unless you think representing my systematic error explanation as a random one is 'answering' it. My explanations (note plural) still stand unchallenged. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your help will be very useful here. I saw you in the talk page archives and hoped that you were still active. My understanding is that your most recent publication has been answered in and on page 11 of . Could you please elaborate on the issue with those that you mention? Also, would you please point us to any other recent peer reviewed and secondary sources citing your work? It might be best to make a new talk page section below as this one is already quite cluttered. Selery (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I intend to keep this short as my help is usually abhorred by the majority of cold fusion editors. To put it simply, the 10 authors of your ref completely misrepresent my proposal as one based on random behavior, where I state in ALL 4 of my publications that it is systematic or non-random. Putting up their own strawman regarding my proposal and then 'destroying' it proves nothing except they can't understand what I write. (actually, in a convuluted sense, they prove my point for me.) Since they can't understand it, they can't refute it, and any competent layman would know this from their interpretation of my work as 'random'. There is only one point left from my recent publication when you disregard their 'random' arguments, that of the EDX spectrum where they point to the two peaks for tin (Sn) as proof that 'new' elements are present. Unfortunately, the two peaks for Sn are also the single peaks for sodium and potassium, which are listed contaminants of the starting materials. Thus nothing has been refuted, even though they love to say it has because it relieves them of the duty to report the data necessary to judge whether a calibration constant shift could be the cause of their excess heat data. Personally, I doubt this confusion is accidental. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That is very helpful. Two more questions, please: (1) In laymen's terms, what are the differences between the random error described in the answers and the systematic error you describe? (2) Does your calibration analysis apply to the gas loading experiments? Selery (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) I have no idea. They invented this 'random' proposition. As it has no relation to anything I said but was offered as a rebuttal to my points, I was satisfied with noting their staart point was wrong (and thus their whole argument). I had no need to understand their strawman presentation. (2) I analyzed specifically F&P cells, but I found a generic problem, i.e. they did not take into account calibration constant variation (i.e. 'error'). I have not seen ANY CF paper do so, so I would consider any calorimetry in a gas-loading paper to be suspect until proven otherwise. To resolve the issue, they must publish calibration results, paramter spans, and error estimates from those, which no one has done TO DATE. Also, if you refer to the Arata/Kitamura experiments, those are interpretable in terms of standard problems one faces when dealing with these kinds of materials, no nuclear stuff required. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. A link or cite to the standard problems you mention would also help tremendously. Selery (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Huber doesn't explain the fiasco with Misplaced Pages articles. I'm not quite sure what you are saying there, I'm afraid, and although it has become a cliche, it is understandable that a theory believed to have been discredited no longer receives active criticism. But Huber's point is a valid one, and is worth covering - if the conditions in the original experiment are reliably replicated, then it is unsurprising if the results are not reliable as well. I have no problem at all with using Huber to make that point, especially in regard to loading. What I'm uncomfortable with is using Huber to claim that one condition is the core reason why the replications failed, and therefore asserting that meeting that condition would result in accurate replication, as that isn't what Huber is saying. Perhaps if we used the earlier quote it would be better. - Bilby (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean, Hubler is the only source explaining the cause of the fiasco within the scientific community which is reliable enough to use in a contentious Misplaced Pages article. Shanahan has been active with peer reviewed critiques within the past three years, but he's the only one left. The 2009 SPAWAR video explains that metal properties, cell configuration, and experimental protocols can affect the loading ratio. Dr. Gordon gives the example of a cathode which is not fully immersed in electrolyte causing the deuterium to escape through the top. (Presumably this can happen even through a non-palladium wire made of most metals which aren't specifically alloyed for hydrogen containment -- high pressure hydrogen tanks have to be very special alloys.) So I think it's fair to say that there are a lot of things which can contribute to insufficient loading, and even though I don't have a problem with saying the loading ratio is the root cause, I do see your point that from an operational perspective it's not the only reason that experiments fail, so we shouldn't be absolute about it. Selery (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I am fine with whatever you do with the Hubler sentence, as long as it is clear from the article that the loading issue is often put forward as a very important if not THE most important reason for failed experiments. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please make sure that the article does not claim that the loading issue is the probable reason for the failed demonstrations of nuclear reactions. Keep in mind that if it is, someone will soon learn to produce nuclear reactions consistently, and that fact will be reported in reliable sources. Misplaced Pages isn't going away; we can afford to wait until that happens before changing the article in that way. Olorinish (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Only summarize the peer reviewed secondary sources once they have been applied in subsequent work? That's an even higher standard than only allowing them after they've received coverage in other sources, which seems to be the previous exceptional standard here. What's next? Only allowing sources after they've received celebrity endorsements? 67.6.135.192 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What's next ? Only allowing sources that follow the mainstream view, of course. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Loading is also mentioned by Huizenga (very shortly) and by Simon (4-5 pages). I rewrote that part. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Where are the peer reviewed publications from Huizenga? After reading his cruft it gets rather obvious he is one epic cold fusion troll. He is not even in science. So where are his peer review publications? Why would we attribute any value to this talking head? Surely if NASA may not be mentioned for lack of reliability the Huizenga trolling should go out the window long before that.

Just because he is a troll he doesn't require reliable sources?84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

He is a nuclear chemist, see Talk:Cold_fusion#Thousands_of_atmospheres.3F.

I rewrote another loading bit. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

NASA states: "it works"

In a recent video, NASA confirms its research in LENR / cold fusion, and states that it works:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3384163.ece

--79.16.129.215 (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, another sensationalistic non-news, another journalist exaggerating stuff to make a headline that will attract eyeballs.

This individual scientist is talking about his application for a patent. It was made via NASA only because he works there and it's standard to do it that way. NASA regularly patents everything, just like big companies. If the patent is successful then NASA gets part of the money, if it is not, then they only lose a bit of money for filing the application. The patent was already dismissed at Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_40#US_patent_on_LENR_by_NASA.

Technology Gateway is a portal for technology transfer. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But what does Zawodny mean with "demonstrated ability" when he say "It has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amount of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation"? To me it sounds like he claims to have reproduced this in practice. --Twilek (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

See slides 7-9, 17, 20-24, and 27-30 of his presentation. Selery (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get it though. Does he or does he not claim that NASA has reproduced this in practice? Or does he just refer to other non verified reproductions? --Twilek (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, yes. That thing on slide 20 is a 49-element experiment for high pressure hydrogen on different textures of nickel surfaces, showing the differential heat output when run in the apparatus on slide 23. However, the most important parts are probably on slide 24, "Despite claims to the contrary, devices that can be turned ON/OFF not yet demonstrated" and slide 30, "Current devices tend to self destruct. Need to engineer the materials for both composition and structure." In other words, it's still hit and miss, and you don't want to be too close for some of the misses. Selery (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Here he explain himself http://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/2012/01/14/technology-gateway-video/ He "believe excess power has been demonstrated", so it sounds more like personal speculations rather than claims. Case closed ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilek (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to use any wording from Nyteknik to make a mention of the NASA video. NASA states that research is ongoing at NASA Langley. They don't state verbatim "it works", maybe Nyteknik thinks that "it works" is implied in the video, but apart from stating that research is ongoing at Langley, they state that the ability has been demonstrated. They don't mention where, when and by whom. OTOH, NASA filed a patent on this very subject, so they certainly have a device of some sort and "it works" might relate to some device at NASA that has demonstrated something. But NASA didn't say that in this video. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet we have nothing from NASA. Claims should be attributed to the claimant. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the person in the NASA video feels his words were twisted: While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. also:

As for what people are trying to read into this video, specifically my use of the word “demonstrated”, it is my professional opinion that the production of excess energy has been demonstrated when the results of the last 20+ years of experimentation are evaluated. There has been a lot of work done in the past 20+ years. When considered in aggregate I believe excess power has been demonstrated. I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable. any of those other terms were applicable I would have used them instead. If anything, it is the lack of a single clear demonstration of reliable, useful, and controllable production of excess power that has held LENR research back

(Edit: I just noticed someone beat me to it) IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we add the link to the blog entry from Zawodny as an additional reference to the video ? --POVbrigand (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems like his words are being twisted in the article to say something that he isn't saying. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Forbes, Zawodny has clarified in his blog that he was still skeptical, that there was still no extraordinary evidence to back the extraordinary claims, and that no public demonstration had reunited all necessary guaranties.. Forbes also says that this was blown out of proportion. Zawodny's own blog says, among other things "Nothing I say should ever be construed as anything other than my personal opinion. (...) There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works.".

So, Bushnell has declined to comment on NASA's official position regarding CF, and Zawodny says that he doesn't represent NASA. Soooo, NASA still doesn't seem to have any official position regarding cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

2007 US DTRA High Energy Science & Technology Workshop assessment report

I can't believe the Pentagon released general plans for low residual radiation and "4th generation" nuclear warheads, but here they are, with their LENR assessment meeting notes from June 2007. It says the DTRA advisory panel decided there was "good evidence" for LENR and recommended expanding theory and experimental work (page 32.) Add or ignore? Selery (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

scribd.com isn't reliable. The pdf doesn't seem to add anything new. The panel seems to consist of people who already work in the area of cold fusion and some who seem to sell cold fusion related products (JET Energy). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The panel of experts consists of The Honorable Dr. H. Smith, Dr Jack Davis, Dr. Fred Wikner, and Dr. Gerald Yonas. NONE of these "already work in the area of cold fusion...". In the panel of experts' feedback on LENR the findings were: "there is good evidence of excess heat and transmutations; New theory by Widom shows promise; collective surface effects, not fusion; Low energy implantations of ions" and the Recommendations were:"careful experiments confirm and expand data base; Expand theory field with more participants; other experiments included"

The sourcing from scribd might be a problem, but the authenticity seems to be perfectly OK and verifiable for those who bother to request the document. Sources do not have to be available online. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting a document via freedom of information act and then using it as the basis of text in the article sounds like original research to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The FOIA release is a "publication," the lack of which is apparently why editors were not allowed to use the leaked Defense Research Agency assessment in the article. Selery (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

From fringe theories noticeboard

People need to look out. The article on cold fusion contains a significant amount of undue weight including claims referenced to primary sources, cold fusion conference proceedings, and other violations of sourcing guidelines on Misplaced Pages.

Look what I did to the lede: . This needs to be done for the entire article. Look for special pleading, promotional writing, etc., and balance or get rid of it!.

Hudn12 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. Please see WP:BRD. Your user page seems a little problematic: like your account, it was only created a few minutes ago. Mathsci (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to understand what you found objectionable about the material you removed, because it was discussed in detail on the article's talk page well beforehand. Are you aware that two of the statements you removed were from peer reviewed secondary sources? The other material includes a list of the organizations which are currently working on LENR. Do you think it would help readers more to learn about such things? If you believe they are false, you should try to find similarly authoritative sources which agree with you and include them alongside the material to which you object so our readers can get both sides of the story. That is what our WP:NPOV policy is all about. Selery (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the lede was overloaded and does not conform to the Manual of Style. I agreed with the pruning and reverted Mathsci's revert per WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Which particular part of WP:LEDE do you think supports the deletion? A new user just split a paragraph, but you left five paragraphs anyway. And removing the only peer reviewed secondary sources which indicate positive results and the work ongoing at e.g. the US Navy and NASA, along with the only available explanation of why the controversy occurred (Hubler 2007) completely biases the article. It's already under sanctions, don't you think it would be a good idea to discuss changes on the talk page first? I'm copying this discussion there. Selery (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

Because this has resulted in at least three undiscussed reverts, I have replaced the {{POV}} tag. Please see above for why I believe it's against WP:NPOV to remove the statements from secondary peer reviewed sources and ongoing work examples on only one side of the controversy from the introduction. Selery (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You seemed to be on your way to an edit war, reintroducing junk that is WP:UNDUE for the WP:LEDE. Scientific consensus is very clear: we looked at it, and there is nothing there. The field is outer fringe and dominated by people like Andrea Rossi, who has had serious problems with the justice system. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the five edits in question at present have been by the same person. Is there a source which agrees with your opinion about "outer fringe"? The source summaries you removed included two secondary sources from mainstream peer reviewed journals, along with primary source proof that research is being conducted by the US Navy and NASA. Do you have any evidence that any of those sources are incorrect? Your attempt to smear decent researchers with shady characters has no bearing on whether the sources you removed were reliable. They were, however, all from the same side of the dispute, in blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Selery (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The US Navy and NASA have done lots of junk science. The subject is outside the field of expertise of NASA and in the military there is always some general who orders the scientists to look into metastable Hafnium or stuff like that. It does not trump scientific consensus, which is evident by being silent. WP:LEDE says: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." Advocacy for fringe stuff is obviously not reliable and unsuitable for the lede. Stuff published in Italian or links to videos is just plain junk. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So there is in fact no evidence that the sources you deleted were unreliable. You certainly are putting a lot of effort into an attempt to smear by association. Do you also advocate removing the story about the military from the Hafnium controversy article? Moreover, there is no reason that the only explanation of the inability of most researchers to replicate the experiment (Hubler) or the mainstream peer reviewed journal's secondary source report that nuclear reactions not predicted by theory have been proven (Biberian) should be hidden in favor of the opposite POV. WP:LEDE is a guideline subordinate to the NPOV policy being violated, and it says that the article should be summarized. Why did you remove the summary of the ongoing work? Selery (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Lede already mentioned that there are ongoing research done. It would be WP:UNDUE to add the details of this research there per WP:LEDE. We have an "ongoing" section in the body of the article. Feel free to add that information there it is where it belongs. --McSly (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some pruning is not a bad idea for the lede. As a compromise I have added back in the research centers. The line "Research continues in Japan, the Italian ENEA, the US Navy SPAWAR and NASA." is certainly not a huge clutter for the lead. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You restored Joseph Zawodny's video - videos are not the way real scientist communicate. And the link in Italian - it was long ago that important scientific results were communicated in Italian. It is junk and rubbish. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources say that CF is discredited, see User:Enric_Naval/pathological_science. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Which of those are at least as reliable as the multiple peer reviewed secondary sources which say that new reactions are proven (Biberian) and there is a relatively simple explanation for the controversy (Hubler)? Your sources are mostly monographs and op-eds which don't even qualify as secondary news sources. Which of them are even peer reviewed primary sources? Selery (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple scholar books by academic presses, on topics of fusion, chemistry, electrical science, philosophy of science and history of science are relevant to show the relevance in a field. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The question was, are any of them peer reviewed? Selery (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any requirement anywhere that all sources must be peer-reviewed? Do you realize that you are asking to discard all books from university presses and academic publishers? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Inspired by that thought, what about all of the textbooks that do not teach about cold fusion? If the textbook authors, who we can assume have excellent reputations, thought electrochemistry-assisted fusion was real, they would include it. I don't know how many are like that, but I imagine the majority are. Olorinish (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand NPOV, it does not mean the mainstream view and the fringe view must be treated equally on the "controversy"; Misplaced Pages should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view.. Also the text in the lede does no adequately distinguish the minority view from the mainstream view as per WP:NPOV: In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If we were to follow your advice here, then we would remove the denials because there have been none other than Shanahan published in even the primary peer literature for the past eight years. Selery (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hubler and Biberian are minority sources publishing out on the fringe with zero mainstream support. They practically define WP:UNDUE. What denials are you referring to? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hubler and Biberian are both cited in mainstream peer reviewed sources such as and . By denials, I mean that there haven't been any peer reviewed publications in the past eight years complaining that cold fusion results are merely measurement error or otherwise mistaken except for a handful of papers by Shanahan, all of which have been answered to the satisfaction of the secondary sources which say he's wrong. I.e., none of the secondary sources agree with Shanahan, and all of them mentioning him say he is mistaken. Do you know of any that I'm missing? Selery (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The silence is eloquent. There is nothing to talk about. Some stuff in Italian or in Swedish, that is about it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Three or four odd cites in low-end journals pretty much means...Crickets. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say that The European Physical Journal Applied Physics is low-end? Selery (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It had only an impact factor of 0.899 (in 2010) Impact factors lists are copyrighted and not available online, but you can see for example the topic ten physics journals in 1999. This journal wouldn't have made it into the list. You can see a list with factors of 2002-2004, the applied physics journal had 0.683 in 2002, out of a total of 75 journals it would be in position #70, with only 5 journals ranking lower . I would call that a low-end journal. Now, let's remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The article in question was published in 2010, but thanks for going into detail about when the journal was new. What was its ranking in 2010, and where did the International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology rank last year? Selery (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

In 2010 the IS Iranking was still only 0.899, so it would still be among the low-end journals, assuming the other journals haven't changed. There is a 2010 list, but it doesn't group by categories (search "EUR PHYS J-APPL PHYS"). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology
• 2010: 32/38
• 2011: 31/38

—ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

(Just noting that this is the SJR ranking, not the ISI impact factor. There are several competing rankings)

• 2011: 67/204 Search "EPJ Applied Physics"

--Enric Naval (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's all over the map, then. But it doesn't matter, because the reliable source criteria state that peer reviewed publications outrank non-peer reviewed monographs and op-eds, even if they have the lowest impact factor in the field. Selery (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hummm, it doesn't say such a thing, peer-reviewed articles are one of the available types of sources. Please re-read WP:SCHOLARSHIP (it's part of the Reliable Sources guideline). It's also in the verifiability policy "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources (...)" (P.S.: it's the short form of "academic publications and peer-reviewed publications") --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I see that the {{POV}} tag has been removed by an experienced user, with the edit summary "nah," even though it is entirely obvious that the dispute has not been resolved from both the recent article history and this talk page. There are several editors on each side. Therefore, I intend to report this to the dispute resolution noticeboard unless we can agree to replace the tag while the dispute is still ongoing. Is there any reason to request mediation instead? My understanding is that all parties would have to agree, and the previous mediation for this article was decided in favor of the primary sources instead of the denier absolutists. Selery (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it is just you. Maybe there are a few more dissidents. And you can keep dreaming but you must realize that the scientific consensus is against it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not. You claim that the lack of reliable sources which agree with your predisposition indicates that it must be true, even though all of the most recent secondary sources strictly disagree. What reason is there to believe that a neutral third party would agree with you? Selery (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a physicist. I know what physicists in general think about this stuff: crackpot theories. Even the crackpots tend to believe that the other researchers in this area are crackpots. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that really the entire extent of what you want people to base your credibility on? Why do you think we require published, reliable, secondary peer reviewed sources instead of people who simply make claims of authority? Do you believe that all electroweak interactions are already known in their entirety? If so, on what do you base that belief? Selery (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It is easy to verify that researchers in this field are generally dismissive of the results and theories of others in this field. You yourself called the currently most successful one of the them, Andrea Rossi, "a shady character". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that Andrea Rossi was the most successful, and that certainly remains to be seen, but I'd be happy to wait for reliable sources on the topic before pontificating. What do you think of the reputations of Graham Hubler and Jean-Paul Biberian, the secondary source authors of the bulk of the deleted material in question? And again, do you say all electroweak interactions have been discovered and there will be no further changes to electroweak theory? Selery (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Since wikipedia is based on sources, I'll point out again User:Enric_Naval/pathological_science#sources_added_later. Scholar sources overwhelmingly consider cold fusion unproven. A handful of sources written by long-time supporters don't make a new consensus. Cramming low-quality sources in the lead only serves to give the false impression that the field is proven and accepted. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that if you escalate this matter your own behavior will also come under scrutiny. For example, characterization of other editors as "denier absolutists" is likely to be viewed unfavorably. Indeed, there are strong arguments that you already have run afoul of the general sanctions regime that applies to this topic area. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that everyone's behavior is already under scrutiny because of the sanctions, and I don't think trying to make sure the article follows the peer reviewed secondary sources instead of some list of non-peer reviewed monographs and op-eds is anything to feel ashamed about. What do you think a better characterization would be for those who so strongly disbelieve that they insist we not mention the reliable sources which contradict their opinions? Selery (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"Fellow editors" has a nice ring to it, I think. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You might also avoid applying "disbelieve", "insist", "contradict", and "opinions" to your fellow editors. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate the civility (note "crackpot" and "dissident" above), so, how would you phrase the question? Selery (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

How about "Editors who remove reliable sources with which they disagree"? Selery (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The major issue for me is that the sources in favour of cold fusion have been cherry picked. Overwhelmingly sources dismiss cold fusion and the scientific concensus is very much against it. Indeed, I doubt NASA, for example, is of much relevance to the field of fusion in general. Also; the lede should be relying on broader sources than peer-reviewed papers to discuss cold fusion for the lede (the lede should be more general than the actual article and give an overview of the article). Overwhelmingly the opinion of reliable sources is not favourable of Cold Fusion, it is not a violation of NPOV to make that clear in the lede. It is undue to give more weight to ongoing "research". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment of the balance of sources, let alone your assertion of consensus. However, I would like to hear from Dr. Shanahan to whom I have replied above before going into any further details. Selery (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to give my feedback to the comments from User:Pieter Kuiper in this section and the section above:

• "You seemed to be on your way to an edit war, reintroducing junk" - that seems like war talk to me
• "The field is outer fringe and dominated by people like Andrea Rossi," - You have no idea what you are talking about. The field is dominated by highly credible scientists like George H. Miley (Miley is Guggenheim Fellow and Fellow of the American Nuclear Society, the American Physical Society and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. He was Senior NATO Fellow from 1994 to 1995, received the Edward Teller Medal in 1995, the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Science Award in Fusion Technology in 2003 and the Radiation Science and Technology Award in 2004.).
• "The US Navy and NASA have done lots of junk science." - That's just silly rhetorical argumentation. What are you trying to prove with that ? The US Navy uses nuclear submarines and NASA put men on the moon.
• "outside the field of expertise of NASA" - NASA is looking into this for spacecraft propulsion, that is very much within their scope.
• "Advocacy for fringe stuff is obviously not reliable and unsuitable for the lede" - You cannot just call any mention of a fringe point of view "advocacy" in order to dismiss and delete it, that's ridiculous. Not in line with NPOV.
• "Stuff published in Italian or links to videos is just plain junk" - You haven't got a clue about what WP:V is all about, do you ?
• "videos are not the way real scientist communicate" - The Zawodny video is hosted on a NASA server. It is a verifiable source and it is a RS for stating that research at Nasa Langley is ongoing. see WP:SPS
• "it was long ago that important scientific results were communicated in Italian. It is junk and rubbish" - Misplaced Pages is NOT the right place to promote the view that ONLY mainstream science exists. You have a serious misconception about Misplaced Pages. POV pushing works BOTH ways.
• "The silence is eloquent. There is nothing to talk about. Some stuff in Italian or in Swedish, that is about it." - You haven't read ONE SINGLE SOURCE - forget about Rossi, forget about all the Youtube videos with "working" over-unity free energy stuff. Read the peer reviewed sources on LENR and discuss about THAT. Ask Robert_Duncan_(physicist) what he thinks about the scientific value of your attitude.
• "And you can keep dreaming but you must realize that the scientific consensus is against it." - And you can keep dreaming that you "know it all" about this topic.
• "I am a physicist. I know what physicists in general think about this stuff: crackpot theories." - Woohoo, we have a physicist on board. Hurray. From your comments on this talk page you have made clear that you have not read any source, not primary, not secondary. You don't know anything and the way you are commenting here is not scientific at all. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is still junk. There is no way nuclear transformation could not be accompanied by ionizing radiation, which is the easiest thing to detect. That is why physicists do not accept this stuff. And the participants in the charade do not believe eachother's data and/or theories. Nothing is reproducible. Zawodny cannot get this stuff of his published in a physics journal. Of course it is fascinating and notable that for example NASA lets their former ozone instrumentation guy use the NASA video people and patent staff to publish his dabblings in fusion. It just shows that NASA has too much money, money that would be better spent on educating Americans about basic laws of physics. I am not proposing to delete the article, but ordinary wikipedia standards for science articles should apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You have not read any source on the subject. You are completely ignorant. Read up on the topic first. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

But wait, this is fascinating:

• "I know what physicists in general think about this stuff: crackpot theories."

When one considers something a crackpot theory one is not just unlikely to investigate the topic, chances for a person to fairly and objectively investigate something after the "crackpot theory" label is applied are practically non existent. One doesn't investigate crackpot theories because if you did then what would there be left for crackpots to do? The label didn't come from nowhere. 20 years ago it was much more obvious there was nothing going on than it is today. Today it doesn't matter if it works or not, you are still a crackpot. Thats not something that will just go away will it?

• "Even the crackpots tend to believe that the other researchers in this area are crackpots."

ha-ha, yes, and they tend not to read the work before they dismiss it. I've seen it many times. Rly funny. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

MIT progress report

"Fleischmann-Pons effect studies". This is a annual progress report at MIT. Each group at MIT submits a report and MIT publishes. This appears to be a primary source, with researchers presenting directly their own research. I see little editorial or quality controls.

Now, POVBrigand says that "The MIT progress report is a secondary source when talking about OTHER experiments". I am not sure that is coherent with the definitions at WP:SECONDARY. Thoughts? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"In this case, there are a number of experiments which have been reported for which the reproducibility is much better. For example, SRI reports excellent reproducibility of excess heat for cathodes that load well enough and long enough to satisfy the criteria they have established; Swartz has for years reported a very high reproducibility in his excess heat experiments with phusors; the Energetics group reported good reproducibility for moderate levels of excess heat in their experiments with Superwaves; Mosier-Boss reports good reproducibility in the case of low-level energetic radiation in codeposition experiments; and earlier in this report we discussed the two-laser experiment and the modified Szpak codeposition experiment, both of which were quite reproducible in Letts's lab."

It is not their own research they talk about here, except for the reproduction in "Letts's lab", because Denis Letts in part of the team. In much of the rest of the report they also talk about what others have done. see Misplaced Pages:1.5_sources --POVbrigand (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a progress report, as noted above it appears to have little or no editorial or quality controls; it's not a suitable source IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Current Science

Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

For reference, their official webpage. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Current Science has an editorial board . It is a science magazine published by the Current Science Association along with the Indian Academy of Sciences. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal's 2009 impact factor of the journal is 0.782. Deleting this for not being RS is not OK. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Current_Science --POVbrigand (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The paper by Krivit was accepted in two days and is obviously only reliable for the opinions of Krivit. I see no reason to waste time arguing with your POV pushing and stone-wall tactics for weeks on end at another board. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Also 0.782 is a low impact factor. They have an editorial board but as the paper was not reviewed I think this shows a lack of quality control. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also not a magazine, it identifies itself as a journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Not a reliable source for science-related topics. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree - there is no way that they could do an adequate peer-review in two days - this is a clear bust. It's not a RS. SteveBaker (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Received on a Saturday (9 Feb 2008) and accepted on Sunday (10 Feb 2008)? That's quite odd. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"It is clearly not a peer-reviewed scientific journal" That is a very ignorant and arrogant and completely false statement. Look at the journal and reevaluate your conclusion, thank you --POVbrigand (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually serious; Where on the site do they mention they perform peer review? Legitimate Peer review never takes a single day. Perhaps you are unaware what peer review is. Peer review is where experts in the same field review the paper and then submit their comments to the editors; the editor is not the peer. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Perharps you are unaware how the real science publishing world ticks "Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal and therefore research and review papers of general significance that are written clearly and well organized will be given preference. All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision or rejection of the paper. It may be noted that papers once rejected cannot be resubmitted. Illustrations and other materials to be reproduced from other publications must be properly credited; it is the authors’ responsibility to obtain permission for reproduc- tion of figures, tables, etc. from published sources (copies of letters of permission should be sent to the editor)." --POVbrigand (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will say it in bold so you can read it more clearly; peer review is not an editor reviewing the paper, it is one of the peers of the applicant in his respective field. An editor looking at a paper is merely a review. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Claiming "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal." is complete nonsense for several reasons: 1) in Misplaced Pages statements must be verifiable. IRWolfie's personal requirement that peer reviewed grade proof is needed to verify the line in question: "In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat." is absurd. Any verifiable source can be used to describe what Oriani reported. We are not claiming that he succeeded in getting excess heat, we are writing that he reported excess heat. 2) IRWolfie did not provide ANY reliable evidence that "Current Science" is not peer reviewed. He took one single artifact regarding submission and acceptance of one single paper and used his personal OR to come to the conclusion that the whole journal "Current Science" is not peer reviewed, he even continued to lecture how peer reviewed works and how in his vision peer review is something completely different than what is stated on "Current Science's" own website. 3) IRWolfie statement that Current Science is a "low grade" journal is simply wrong, "Impact Factor" is not the one and only info to use. One must take into consideration that the journal is copublished in India, by the Indian Academy of Sciences. Simply dismissing the whole journal the way IRWolfie does here, is madness. Trying to wrestle an argument by claiming utterly wrong things is a very unscientific approach. Using bolded text won't make it better, you might impress some inexperienced editor and that's about it. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the specific source article we are discussing here? Krivit is an established tertiary source author with Oxford University Press and the American Chemical Society if I recall, so I'd like to see what he wrote. Selery (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Workshop this before replacing it

diff I removed the following text from the article:

In a January 2012 video presentation on LENR, NASA spoke about ongoing research at NASA Langley Research Center. In April 2011 Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, had stated that LENR is a very "interesting and promising" new technology that is likely to advance "fairly rapidly." In a recent presentation researchers from NASA Glenn Research Center expressed a great potential for LENR.

Problems:

1. NASA does not speak and cannot speak and certainly a video that is hosted at TechnologyGateway: doesn't mean that the agency has somehow "spoken" on the topic. In particular, it is unclear whether any of the videos hosted there are subject to review by any NASA personnel.
2. The personal opinions of Dennis Bushnell on the "interesting and promising" new technology is not an indication of research and this statement probably does not belong anywhere in the article, but certainly is out-of-place in the "ongoing research" section.
3. The statement "In a recent presentation researchers from NASA Glenn Research Center expressed a great potential for LENR." is first of all ungrammatical but secondly is based off of a Russian news-media site and a primary source talk slides that do not indicate anything but the personal opinions of a particular person giving a talk. It certainly is not indicative of ongoing research that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article.

Stop hosting this kind of shoddily-researched promotionalism, please.

Shoddily-researched promotionalism sounds like an emotionally based ad-hominen attack to me, and not particularly professional or neutral, although masking as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybervigilante (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hudn12 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, I invite others to judge for themselves: NASA's first tech report on the topic, NASA LENR video, , Zawodny's slides, Bushnell's slides, Nelson's slides on the eCat, patent application, NASA's gas phase tech report, news from Russia, news from Sweden. Selery (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Cold_fusion#NASA_states:_.22it_works.22. Those were only the personal opinions of scientists Bushnell and Zawodny, who work at NASA. It was never the official position of NASA. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, personal opinions embodied in their official work product and technical memoranda? In any case we still have this on NASA's website: "Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR." Selery (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The deletion of any mentioning of NASA from the article is ridiculous. I recently moved the NASA paragraph back from the Publications section to the Ongoing section and also added the mentioning of the NASA video.

The wording "NASA spoke about ..." of my addition could be corrected, but completely deleting NASA from the cold fusion article is obviously POV pushing.

The section about NASA should not lead the reader to believe that NASA as an institution is endorsing LENR as being real, but should show to the reader that research at NASA is ongoing and that several researchers at NASA do not share the mainstream view on LENR. The statements are all perfectly attributed to the originators.

As I stated in the previous discussion Talk:Cold_fusion#NASA_states:_.22it_works.22 it would be a good idea to include Zawodny's explanation of how the video should be understood. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please find proper sources for your claims. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It is impossible to find sources that discuss LENR and at the same time appeal to you. Two articles in main russian news outlets, but you don't like them because they are russian ? A peer reviewed article mentioning LENR experiemtns at NASA, but you won't like them because .... the journal is .... let me think ... not science nor nature ? You keep accusing me of POV pushing, stop that ! --POVbrigand (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The deletion of any mentioning of NASA from the article does indeed look ridiculous. But ok, if those are our standards we should delete all skeptical talking points from our science article, unless they have been peer reviewed of course. For example the DOE report, that scores well below the NASA video. They chose not to do the science by a single vote majority. Definitely not something of a quality that is going to refute NASA or SPAWAR. It simply isn't worth mentioning they chose not to do the science.

Or am I wrong to think the same standards should apply to both kinds of sources? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if they did. Selery (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thousands of atmospheres?

The "Repulsion Forces" section states that palladium stores hydrogen "at several thousands of times the atmospheric pressure." This sounds high. Does anyone know if this is really true? Maybe that should be replaced by "density." Olorinish (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a meaningful way to measure gas pressure for hydrogen permeating a metal lattice? The degrees of freedom for each proton or deuteron are completely different. It sounds to me like a flawed concept from the '89-91 era. Selery (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

From Close 1991, page 257 "To achieve a ratio of one to one, which is typically what is measured by the test-tube fusion experiments, requires at room temperature a pressure of only some 10 to 20 000 atmospheres - which may sound large but is nothing unusual, certainly nothing like the billions of billions suggested in Fleishmann and Pon's paper."

Huizenga 1993 says that this is measured with Nernst equation, and that F&P misinterpreted the equation (page 33,47-48). He also cites the DOE 2004 report, end of page 33 and start of 34, that gives a figure of 15 x 10 atmospheres (15,000) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! That would be enough to support Frank Gordon's claim of escape through diffusion from the cathode through its lead (wire) out to the air. In fact they even use electrolysis to test hydrogen diffusion in metals, e.g. on p. 547 of Selery (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This file , which I believe is from the 1989 DOE report, describes "equivalent pressure." Enric, are you sure that really supports the present text? Maybe we should change it to say something about equivalent pressure. Olorinish (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Huizenga? Isn't he a journalist? I'm not aware of him doing any cold fusion research. Kindly show his peer reviewed publications if you plan to use him as a source. Something of a quality above the NASA video rather than his usual blabber mouthing. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

John R. Huizenga is a nuclear chemist. We don't have an article on him, but he is linked from List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (Chemistry), Ernest_Orlando_Lawrence_Award#Award_Laureates and List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1964. He headed co-chaired with Norman Ramsey the DOE 1989 committee that studied cold fusion. He wrote a book on cold fusion that got glowing reviews in Nature. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. How about explaining that pressure in electrolytic charging can't be measured directly: F&P calculated it via Nernst equation, while DOE looked at the pressures required for getting the same ratio via gas charging.

The technical details are in chapter A of appendix 4, I think this is the critical part: "Concentrations of D/Pd = 1 are sometimes claimed in cold fusion experiments, and are often quoted as a necessary condition. It has also been suggested that the very high confinement pressures produced by electrolytic charging are necessary for cold fusion. Comparison of the D/Pd values attained by gaseous charging with electrolytic charging allows an estimate of these "confinement pressures" to be made. A concentration of about H/Pd = 1 requires a gas pressure of about 150k bars (about 15,000 atm.) at 300°K as deduced from Figure 4.3. Thus the effective pressure corresponding to the high fugacities calculated from the overvoltage during cathodic charging to the assumed D/Pd = 1 is equivalent to the very moderate gas pressures required to attain the same H(D)/Pd value." --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

lets do a section with "conspiracy theories"

I just noticed we didn't cover prominent cold fusion conspiracy theories in the article.84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Such as? Reliable sources? Selery (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many, it gets fairly silly. The DOE conspiracy to suppress cold fusion for example. People write about this all the time. It shouldn't be hard to source. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Or the conspiracy of hot fusion scientists who feared loosing the billions in funding for their "infinite energy source".84.106.26.81 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I will research obfuscate and how that pertains to disinformation and confusion used as a means of defense or attack; protecting or expanding established lines of power. Does this apply here? --Gregory Goble (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove Sentence from Conferences Section

The following sentence is a little confusing to me having read the paper and book referenced. It also confuses the article.

(first part of sentence) By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science, (second part of sentence) and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences.

'Discourse part one:

By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science,

From the paper:

But they did also continue to pursue Cold Fusion.

Reacting to criticism

of the primitive technique they had used to detect neutrons, they purchased the best neutron detection system in the world, essentially identical to the one used by Charlie Barnes at Caltech. Going one better, they installed it in physics laboratories that had been excavated under a mountain called the Gran Sasso, a two-hour drive from Rome. Anywhere on the surface of the Earth, there are always some neutrons buzzing around due to cosmic radiation from outer space. This so-called "background" has to be subtracted from the neutrons produced by any other phenomenon such as Cold Fusion. In the galleries under the Gran Sasso, the shielding effect of the mountain reduces the cosmic ray neutron background nearly to zero. That's why the laboratory was built there. An automated system was set up to monitor the neutron counter while running the temperature of a Scaramuzzi-type deuterium gas cell up and down. Every week or so, a member of the group would have to drive out to the Gran Sasso lab, check out the counters, replenish the supply of liquid nitrogen, and bring back the data.

No one could accuse them any longer of being unsophisticated about neutron work.

However, this experiment, like their own earlier work and many others blossoming around the world, produced positive results, but only sporadically.

There was no dependable recipe for coaxing bursts of neutrons out of the Cold Fusion cell. As long as that was true the world of respectable science was not going to pay any attention even to the "good kind" of Cold Fusion.

Then they decided to pursue the "bad kind" as well. They built a well- designed electrolysis cell, capable of detecting excess heat if any were produced, while obviating some of the shortcomings for which previous excess heat experiments had been criticized.

In 1992 and 1993, these experiments, too, gave positive results.

The cell would produce very substantial amounts of heat (a few watts) for periods of tens of hours at a time. As in the neutron experiments, these episodes were sporadic, occurring seemingly at random, but at least they occurred only when the fluid in the cell was heavy water (containing deuterium), never when it was light water (containing ordinary hydrogen). The lack of this kind of control experiment had been one of the points of

criticism

of Pons and Fleischmann. However, by this time, the world of mainstream science was no longer listening.

'I could post the whole paper but this example runs throughout; criticism and critiques, serious science, sporadic, reproducible, unexplained. To take part of a sentence from a paper and create the sentence found in this Misplaced Pages article may be taking the intent of the author of the paper out of context.

'Discourse part two:

and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences.

From the back cover of the book:

Simon argues that in spite of widespread skepticism in the scientific community, there has been a continued effort to make sense of the controversial phenomenon.

Researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work.

In this manner cold fusion research continues…

The survival of cold fusion {research} signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and the lay public; and the conceptualization of failure in the history of science and technology.

{author} Bart Simon is an assistant professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada.

'Note that the author is an assistant professor of sociology not physics. To reference part of a sentence from this book may be taking the intent of the author out of context. I liked his book about the survival of cold fusion research because it touches nicely on disbelief, confusion, and misunderstanding as it occurs in science. Scientists from well-respected laboratories are critics, they critique each others work rigorously, and they attend these conferences enabling them to continue to produce new and rubust work. Bart Simon probably knows that. Amateur ‘garage’ cold fusion researchers are allowed to attend conferences and proliferate i.e. crackpots. Science in its' broader (public) sense is the combined views of "experts, intermediaries, and the lay public"; as is exhibited in the edit history of the Misplaced Pages article on Cold Fusion.

'Summary:

To do justice to the two authors and to clarify the article I would like to see the sentence removed. The two documents referenced are full of great replacement sentences to use, in whole or in piecemeal.

One suggestion is:

The survival of cold fusion {research} signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and the lay public; for as long as that was true the world of respectable science was not going to pay any attention even to the "good kind" of Cold Fusion.

I hope there are other better replacement suggestions?

Probably just removing it is best.

An explanation that amateur ‘garage’ cold fusion researchers are allowed to attend conferences is needed. --Gregory Goble (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

1. NASA LENR video
2. Bushnell, Dennis M. (2011-04-23), "The Future of Energy (Interview with Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley)", EV World (audio), 04:24, retrieved 3 June 2011
3. NASA promises an era of low-energy fusion - Cnews.ru - 13 Dec 2011 (google translate from Russian)
4. "NASA once again promises a breakthrough in cold fusion" - Gazeta-ru - 14 Dec 2011 (google translate from russian)
5. "LENR at GRC" Presentation

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• 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
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press