Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Nuclear Transmutation

I added a nuclear transmutation section. I want to know who deleted it and what justification they think they had. If nuclear transmutation evidence is suppressed I will dispute the article.--Ron Marshall 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC) I found Pcarbonn's comment in the page history. " nuclear transmutations are not relevant for the cold fusion controversy. Move the new content to "condensed matter nuclear science" article". My question is how nuclear reactions can not be relevant? And also what "condensed matter nuclear science" article? My position is that nuclear transmutations prove nuclear reactions take place and therefore are completely relevant and that the article would be with out merit if the evidence is suppressed. --Ron Marshall 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The document presented by the cold fusion expert to the 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion says: "Although there appears to be evidence of transmutations and isotope shifts near the cathode surface in some experiments, it is generally accepted that these anomalies are not the ash associated with the primary excess heat effect. The focus of attention has been on helium as the primary nuclear reaction product.". Helium is already discussed in the article's section on "Relation between excess heat and nuclear products". Because the cold fusion article is already large, it is best to discuss transmutation in the condensed matter nuclear science article. Trasmutation does not deserve a full section in the controversy part; instead, I would be ready to add the DOE sentence quoted above in the section "Relation between excess heat and nuclear products". Pcarbonn 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pcarbonn. Take care not to collapse the disinction between "science" and "science politics." The whole DOE matter was the latter, with specific goals and agendas from all parties, and the inevitable, underlying issue was money. The proposers who took the lead on the content for the review elected not to introduce transmutation because it was more controversial than the other claims and they did not want to take on the extra challenge. As well, the best transmuation work came from offshore and that may not have looked good for them. Take a look at the abstracts for all of the recent ICCF, JCF and RCCNF&BL and you'll see that low energy transmutations are fully within the field of CMNS. I posted a while back that CMNS has two branches; one which favors heat, the other which favors transmuatations. This is clearly accepted and understood within the field. Somebody challenged it and removed it. I didn't nor do I still have the patience to research this fact and replace it. Part of the problem is that this distinction is relatively new. Corey from Sandia is one of the first to have explicitly distinguished the two branches and then Krivit expanded on Corey's idea in his book, and his paper presented at ICENES, Figure 1, http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Paper.pdf. Takahashi also shows more or less the same thing in Table 1 of "Condensed Matter Nuclear Effects," Proceedings of International Meeting on Frontier of Physics, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, (2005)

The fact is, nobody really knows *exactly* what cold fusion or CMNS is, they just know, empirically, it's characteristics. D+D>4He represents the "heat" branch, but it is still a low energy transmutation. The other work, referred to as low energy nuclear transmutation generally involves heavy elements, rather than H or D.

STemplar 04:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

STemplar, I'm not disputing your statements, but many would, so they would need to be backed up by secondary sources (in addition to the primary sources that you cite). If cold fusion experts consider transmutation as controversial and "do not want to take on the extra challenge", why should we think differently, and put transmutation as a prominent argument in the article ? Again, I agree that we should talk a little bit about transmutation, but not give it a full section. Pcarbonn 10:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no thread in cold fusion papers that tries to isolate nuclear transmutation from heat, rather it is accepted as a normal part of almost any cold fusion experiment and taken as a sign that the experiment worked even if heat measurements were not taken. That the DOE did not consider nuclear tansmutation is a serious flaw in the review which should be pointed out. The review was very limited in scope and I do not think it was a serious attempt to get at the truth for that and other reasons. Some cold fusion scientists may be so fixed on the deuterium to helium and heat idea that they don't want to deal with nuclear transmutations. However the skeptics have claimed lack of proof of a nuclear reaction time and time again. Now that there is experimental proof of nuclear reactions (i. e. nuclear transmutations) skeptics try to deal with nuclear transmutions as if they do not exist. This is supposed to be a science article and experiment is the reality check of science, not perceived expertise or authority. Let the experimental evidence be presented and stop trying to supress it with the political method. My position is enough of a description of nuclear transmutation and other experimental evidence needs to be present so that the reader can understand what the experimental evidence for cold fusion is. I do not have a problem with seeing the establishment position stated, but the experimental evidence must also be present.--Ron Marshall 17:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to say whether or not helium reactions are the primary source of heat since the steps in a transmutation reaction are not as clear. However some proposed transmutation reactions would genrate heat comparable to the helium reaction. Whether or not the tansmutation reactions generate a lot of heat they are still nuclear reactions and therefore central to the nuclear ash debate.--Ron Marshall 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Found on Wikipedia:reliable sources: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material"; "Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles"; "The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true"; "Significant-minority views should be reported as that, and should not be given the same amount of space in an article as the majority view".

Could you find a secondary sources for your statements on transmutations ? I sincerely wish you can, and I encourage you to spend time searching for it. If not, I'm afraid that wikipedia policy prevents us from giving a prominent place to the transmutation view. You may not like wikipedia's policy, but that's what it is. Wikipedia prefers to err on the safe side, rather than take a chance. Pcarbonn 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it in another way. I share your opinion on transmutations. Unfortunately, our opinion cannot be published on wikipedia, because it does not matter. Wikipedia reports the published opinion of reliable sources only. Until we find a reliable secondary source for transmutation views, we cannot publish it on wikipedia.Pcarbonn 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Found on Wikipedia:reliable sources: "Just because something is not an accepted scientific fact, as determined by the prevailing scientific consensus, does not mean that it should not be reported and referenced in Wikipedia." If we only have a primary source in a peer reviewed journal it does not become an unreliable source, particularly in the case of a credible experimental procedure.

Almost every item in the cold fusion article is from a primary source. By Pcarbonn's argument almost the whole article is invalid. I do not see the DOE report as a scholarly review because it was only a shallow reporting of the opinions of a committee and very limited in scope, having not considered nuclear transmutations for example. Usually the only secondary sources available are editorial opinions or news reports which are not scholarly reviews. The only scholarly reviews I know of are from people like Ed Storms or George Miley. The cold fusion controversy is not a normal situation. The problem is it was a scientific question that was settled by the political method rather than the scientific method. If the article is to be scientifically valid it needs to present scientific evidence and arguments for both points of view. The establishment point of view that there are probably not nuclear reactions occurring in cold fusion experiments and the experimenters point of view that there are nuclear reactions occurring. I purpose the article be split into two sections, an establishment section, and an experimenters section so that we don't have a dispute over every line. The reader can read both sections and understand the scientific case for both sides. Then we will have a neutral point of view.

The giving less space to the minority statement seems unreasonable in this situation. However it does not say the minority cannot be given enough space to get their case presented. As long as the majority gets one more word I suppose the criteria is met.

I have to say once again if the experimental evidence is suppressed the article will be disputed. I find it hard to believe the Wikipedia rules prevent a scientifically accurate article.--Ron Marshall 17:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I accept your argument that the "second source" goal is an ideal that cannot be reached on the cold fusion topic, and that many statements made in the article are primary source. So I'm OK to have a separate section on transmutation. However, we'll need to be very careful about what we say: present arguments against transmutation, if any, include the statement to the DOE, ... Another risk would be to go too far: should we talk about reports of biological transmutations ? I do not think so.

I'm not naive about the politics of DOE. Still, I find it hard to believe that they would make such a negative statement about transmutation if they don't believe it. They could have said: "they are reports on transmutation, but we have not tested this in our experiments, so we do not feel qualify to comment on the subject". If they were qualified, why would they not use the transmutation argument to address the question asked by the DOE: "Is there evidence of low energy nuclear reaction". Instead, they said: "they appear to be evidences... CMNS researchers generally consider that these anomalies are not the ash associated with the primary excess heat effect". How can you explain that they said this, if they considered it false? I don't see a reason to believe that their statement is inaccurate.

I'm not in support of having 2 separate sections, one about the establishment view, the other about the researcher's view. I find it important to put the pro and con argument on each specific question next to each other. Also, I'm against the idea that each side would have his own section where they could say what they want: this would block the exchange of idea that is so valuable with wikipedia. Pcarbonn 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the current text in the section on transmutation is in a different style and tone than the rest of the article. I propose to improve it in the following way (I'll work on it in the following days if you're OK):

• explain how transmutations are related to cold fusion claim, in terms understandable by non-experts
• shorten the section a bit by summarizing its main points and avoiding repetition.
• add links to transmutation, isotope,..

Pcarbonn 10:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebirth of Cold Fusion, page 217 "According to a 2003 survey performed by Miley, nuclear transmutations have been observed in 15 separate laboratories worldwide (See Appendix B) in both H2O (light) and D2O (heavy) water experiments."

ICCF-12 ABSTRACTS http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/ICCF12/ICCF12-Abstracts.pdf The following topics will be discussed at the conference: • Excess Heat and Related Nuclear Products • Nuclear Processes and Transmutations • Materials and Condensed Matter Conditions • Analyses and Diagnoses Techniques • Innovative Approaches • Theories on Condensed Matter Nuclear Effects • Engineering, Industrial, Political and Philosophical Issues

STemplar 00:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know precisely how the scope of the DOE review was determined. I expect there was some negotiation between DOE and the experimenters to limit the scope of the review. It looks like transmutation, light water experiments, and non electrolysis experiments were left out. I would argue the use of the term “some experiments” versus “many experiments” is inaccurate. I know McKubre has admitted to being reluctant to deal with transmutation, but I thought he had gotten over that. I suspect that there was not much transmutation expertise in this group. I know Chubb has some, but he was probably the only one. One of the bad ideas that skeptics push is that experiments don’t count if you don’t have a theory to go with them. Mizuno was denied publication on this basis. Since they thought they had a plausible heat and helium theory they may have to decided to go with that. So it may have been a political decision. If so it was a mistake. I don’t know if Mizuno or Iwamura speak English. Miley could have spoken for transmutation even though a lot of his work has been with light water. I don’t know how much these five scientists were acting independently or tried to reach a consensus with other scientists.--Ron Marshall 22:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron, I appreciate all your thoughts here but I want to caution you about 1)spending much time posting your speculations, it doesn't appear to serve a clear purpose. 2)making guesses about other people. You may wish to know that English is generally specified as the universal language for science, particularly in international conferences. And yes, I have spoken many times with Iwamura and Mizuno and they do speak English. I do not know that either of the Chubbs have any experience with heavy-element transmuation. Neither of the Chubbs or Miley were involved in the DOE review, to my awareness. If you want more info on the review, be sure to go here http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/DOE.htm although I can tell you that McKubre, like every one of us, has his self-interests and that what he officially says about the review does not completely match with what I have heard from others.

STemplar 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I general I don't disagree with Pcarbonn's suggestions for editing Nuclear Transmutation. I will edit it in that direction. I don't trust Pcarbonn's editing. I am not favorably impressed by the tone and style of the rest of the article.

For example take this line: "Articles have been published in specialized peer reviewed journals such as Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, and Journal of Fusion Energy. After the initial interest, the only prominent general science journal to publish a cold fusion paper was Naturwissenschaften, in 2005.[2]" This was debated, but it still comes across as political spin. Why is it important to suppress the number of cold fusion papers? Why is a general journal so important?

Ron, I was largely responsible for the current text to which you refer. Yes, you are correct, it does reflect somewhat of a cynical view. This tone was not my doing, this is a carry-over from the previous version which looked like this:

"Some CMNS researchers say that they have been shunned by the scientific establishment. More than 1,500 of them have published scientific papers, often in peer reviewed scientific journals specializing in related fields, but none have published in major scientific journals such as Nature or Science after the initial controversy."

I would strongly encourage you to go back in this talk page and carefully read the discussion I participated in regarding Nature and Science. Once you get the sense of how this evolved, perhaps it may give you some insights as to how to carry this further and make an improvement in what I wrote that is acceptable to all.

One more thing, and please don't feel that I'm trying to give you a hard time -- honestly, I think you and I share a POV that is quite close. But you're going to get into trouble if you make derogatory, possibly defamatory personal comments about other people. This medium is about intellectual, factual discussions and debate. Publicly, it is of no consequence whose editing you or I trust. Privately, of course, we are fully entitled to our opinions about others.

STemplar 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the papers in 2001 and 2002 in the Japanese Journal Of Applied Physics? Is this provable? This looks like original research that is wrong? Every one agrees that the number of papers has declined. However, are we trying to prove the field is dying. The quality of experiments has gone up. With experiments like the Iwamura experiment it is likely to continue. All this work and the line still lacks merit because it is one sided.--24.1.151.250 23:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

--Ron Marshall 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)== Muon Catalyzed Fusion ==

"The original cold fusion, muon-catalyzed fusion, takes place at room temperature. However it uses muons which require to much energy to create and which have to short of a half life to make the process practical for energy generation. Neither pyroelectric fusion or muon-catalyzed fusion are presented further in this article."

Ron, The first four words that you added here can cause confusion. While the term "cold fusion" was first used in the scientific literature by others, "cold fusion" has come to be known, by and large, as that which was claimed by FP. It was indeed unfortunate that the Wall Street Journal associated the term "cold fusion" with the FP work on March 23,1989, however, this is the term that has become associated with the FP work. So I don't see how those four words help, and I do see how they can confuse things. Please let me know if you disagree. STemplar 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

STemplar, I think the article as written causes confusion. If you want to clarify things in the mind of the reader you can say things like "The popular press sometimes use the term "cold fusion" to describe "globally cold, locally hot" plasma fusion that occurs in table-top apparatus such as pyroelectric fusion or bubble fusion or whatever so they are not confused with PF cold fusion or muon-catalyzed cold fusion. However for scientific and historical reasons muon-catalyzed fusion deserves more attention. Steve Jones did not invent muon-catalyzed fusion or the term cold fusion. There was a Nobel prize given in 1968 for experiments that included muon-catalyzed fusion and it was called in the press cold fusion. I remember because I was an adult in 1968. The muon-catalyzed fusion article the last time I looked did not include anything about the Nobel prize. I also recall reading about other cold fusion theories like cold fusion inside Jupiter to explain the excess heat balance problem with respect to solar radiation which has the conventional explanation of gravitational collapse. The term was around along time before FP and used in a lot of different ways. But muon-catalyzed fusion had the best claim to name until FP when it became muon-catalyzed fusion. The other reason why muon-catalyzed fusion should not be swept under the rug is the scientific one. It shows that with ingenuity fusion reactions can take place at room temperature. I cannot offer my memory as a scholarly resource, but I know what I know.

My initial reason for changing the wording was the terms "locally cold" or "locally hot" are meaningless in muon-catalyzed fusion.--Ron Marshall 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

STemplar, we could try: "Historically the term cold fusion was originally applied to what is now called muon-catalyzed fusion. However when the Fleischmann-Pons experiment occured it became known as cold fusion and muon-catalyzed fusion was no longer referred to as cold fusion. Muon-catalyzed fusion takes place at room temperature. However it uses muons which require to much energy to create and which have to short of a half life to make the process practical for energy generation. Neither pyroelectric fusion or muon-catalyzed fusion are presented further in this article."

Or you could write something else. I am just going with what I see as the facts. I do not see this as a do or die issue.--Ron Marshall 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ron, what you say makes sense and seems logical, even if you can't point to hard references. So I'm good with this as it is. Eventually it would be very helpful for the public to have full clarity on the distinctions between muon-catalyzed fusion and the Pd/D fusion of Fleischmann and Pons. I think part of the history of mcf is related to Sakharov (sp?)

STemplar 04:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

List of papers in "further reading"

I removed the list of papers in the "Further reading" section, because choosing some papers over others would be considered as Original Research when the reports and reviews include such list. In other words, the secondary sources should be preferred on this topic, and readers are invited to consult them. Pcarbonn 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a bogus excuse and it looks like censorship.--Ron Marshall 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron, this may be new to you, but original research and point of views ARE censored on Wikipedia. We must always prefer secondary statements to the opinion of wikipedia editors, and in that sense, yes, editors can be censored. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia principles. Pcarbonn 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Length of the "Nuclear transmutation" section

This section is getting too big compared to others. The "Cold fusion" article is already longer than the Wikipedia standard (we are not writing a book on cold fusion !). If we were to expand on the calorimetric details or other fine points of the controversy, the article would be losing its impact. Let's try to focus on the main elements that are relevant to the cold fusion article, and let's avoid repetition, or definitions that can be found in related articles. If needed, a secondary article can be written. What do you think? Pcarbonn 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cold fusion is a controversial subject. The most important thing is that both points of view are fairly represented, that we have a neutral point of view. I do not see any dying trees. The overall article is still to one sided. It looks to me like efforts to shorten the Nuclear transmutation section or the entire article are just another attempt to censor out the experimenters point of view.--Ron Marshall 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the points of view must be fairly represented (as defined by secondary sources whenever possible), and I'm sure that nuclear transmutations can be presented fairly in a short, to-the-point way like the other arguments in the controversy. This article has had the POV tag for a long time, and, after much discussion, the article has been improved, and the tag removed (I invite you to read the archive of the discussion, and you'll see that I've been on the pro-cold fusion side more often than not). If you believe that the article is one-sided, please explain clearly what you see wrong, so that it can be improved. I disagree when you say that keeping the article short is a way to censor one point of view. Are you suggesting that we extend the sections on "Measurement of excess heat" and "Relation between excess heat and nuclear products" too ? Surely they are many more things to say there too, and many experiments to describe. Still, I'm convinced that this would be wrong for readability reasons (see WP:SIZE). Are you suggesting that these sections must become longer to be able to present both points of view fairly? If so, please elaborate. Then, why should "Nuclear transmutation" be different from the other sections? (We probably need some additional opinions on this issue, so everybody is more than welcome to join). An option would be to write a more detailed article on the scientific controversy (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Pcarbonn 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron, please reply to the questions above. I have reverted your last changes while waiting for your response. This article was recently declared a Good Article after an extensive peer review : let's keep it that way until we agree on how it can be further improved. Pcarbonn 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron, let's avoid an edit war here, and let's try to resolve the dispute. According to policies, the first step is to talk to the other parties involved. Could you answer the questions above, or do you have other questions or comments to make ?

A complementary method is to get opinions from other persons. For their benefit, let's try to summarize the issues in various questions that I believe we would answer differently. Hopefully, some one will join in and help us.

1. does the article present both sides fairly?
2. can the article be made longer to better present arguments in more details, or should we strive instead to present the arguments in summary form in order to keep its current length?
3. in particular, can each section on the controversy arguments describe in detail the relevant experiments, or is a summary statement of the conclusion enough, with possible details in a secondary article or via a link to the original scientific paper?
4. should the acticle provide general information that can be found in other articles (such as the fact that the natural abundance of isotope vary by less than 1%), with the risk of increasing the size of the article beyond what is generally recommended?
5. should the nuclear transmutation section be longer than the sections on other arguments?

Pcarbonn 19:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, I try to respond as quickly as I can, but I have a life and my internet service was not working last night. I do not have much of a problem with what has been written. I have more of a problem with lack of detail about why these experiments could be correct. There seems to be plenty of room for statements about experimental error. It seems like the same DOE statement is repeated at least three times. There are also a lot of statements about pathological science and pseudoscience. It seems like that statements you want to delete in nuclear transmutations are the statements that make it appear like there is less likelihood of error.

I think it is telling about what has been going on in that there was not already a decent section on nuclear transmutations.

I am not eager to delete the work of others. I will list the points that should be addressed. I do not see how addressing these points could increase the text as much as 10%.

1. A statement needs to be made in the introduction that the experimental evidence found includes heat, nuclear transmutations, tritium, and helium, not just heat and nuclear transmutations.

2. A statement needs to be made about the limited scope of the DOE review.

3. Statements need to be added about nuclear transmutations of radioactive isotopes, both as experimental evidence and commercial applications to get rid of radioactive waste.

4. This sentence is confusing: “They explain that, in 1989, Fleischann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and has an accuracy of 1% or less.” Does this mean the equation have an accuracy less than 1%?

5. BlackLight Power does not do cold fusion work. They have their own thing going with hydrinos, which some have considered an explanation for cold fusion results.

6. Julian Schwinger died in 1993 and the tense of some statements needs to be changed.

7. The episode in 1990 when Gary Taubes and Science magazine made an accusation of experimental fraud at Texas A&M, which was proved false, needs to be covered.

8. A description of tritium results needs to be added.

9. Additional points need to be made in defense of the heat data like “heat after death” and localized melting of palladium implies a temperature of 1554.9 °C (2830.82 °F).

10. Description of helium experiments needs to include hollow cathode experiments.

11. The skeptics assumption of hot fusion results need to be put in clearer terms. --Ron Marshall 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

12. It needs to be pointed out in the commercial section that a theory that explains the experimental results is necessary before an accurate estimate of commercial potential can be made.--Ron Marshall 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron, many thanks for these many suggestions you make to improve the article. You certainly know a lot about the subject, and your input is very valuable. Thank you for accepting the concern that the article should not become much longer. I look forward to working together on the improvements you propose, of which I'm generally supportive. Please realize that the article has a strong history of controversy about POV, and that many people wanted it to reflect the "mainstream view" strongly, even if scientific evidences were against it. There was a lot of questions on what is a "reputable" source on this subject, and that has prevented us from moving forward. The article you presented in favor of nuclear transmutation certainly looks convincing: sorting out the best articles from the other ones require expertise like yours. So, thanks again. Let's make sure that all the improvements you propose are sourced like this one. Pcarbonn 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to pipe in to keep the article on the straight and narrow, the more "controversial" a claim may be, the more impeccable the source. However, it is perfectly acceptable to use less reliable sources to verify claims, as long as they are presented as such. I'll review the article a little later today and make some suggestions on talk for discussion. Jefffire 11:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just my thoughts - Intro needs a little works I feel, but is obviously a stickler so I'll think on it more before advocating changes. History section is fabulous as far as I can tell, so well done to contributors. Arguements section is a little biased in places, can we find a little more detail on some of the arguements against? Jefffire 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron, you say: "I am not eager to delete the work of others", and I believe that you resent whenever your work is deleted. Please remember that nobody "owns" anything on Wikipedia (see WP:OWN for details). So, feel free to edit or delete anything in the article, but do not expect it to remain as you last edit it. Below the edit form, wikipedia always says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." It may look chaotic, but that's the way wikipedia works. Pcarbonn 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, I have to say the only time I don't resent my work being deleted is when it is replaced by something better. I think that your changes in nuclear transmutation improved the flow of the article and I left them alone for that reason. My approach is to try to get important ideas down in a clear way. However, the prose is not always as polished as it could be. --Ron Marshall 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron, to come back to the length issue, the lead section need to be short (see WP:LEAD). I moved your statements on the limited scope of DOE to the history section, and kept a summary in intro. Pcarbonn 21:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the request from DOE was not limited; only the response from the CMNS scientists was. The final DOE report says: "[they] were asked to generate a review document that identified the most significant experimental observations and publications, and those areas where additional work would appear to be warranted." [1]. I'm still puzzled why these scientists did not talk about nuclear transmutations, but that does not seem to be DOE's fault. It would surely have been convincing, when you see DOE's recommendations to further study "material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterisation techniques" (ibidem, p.5). Looks like a pity to me... Or maybe the transmutation story has a big hole in it, that we do not know...Pcarbonn 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Iwamura is listed in the DOE review document (see n°'6, 47), and reviewer #7 makes a comment on it ("from a nuclear physics perspective, it is not to be believed"). So nuclear transmutations have not been entirely ignored by the DOE review. Pcarbonn 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

New paper on transmutation listed http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/SelectedPapers.htm

Quantitative and Qualitative Measurements of Transmutation in LENR Experiments, Miley, G., et al.,"Use of Combined NAA and SIMS Analyses for Impurity Level Isotope Detection," Journal of Radiological and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 263(3), p. 691 (2005)

STemplar 17:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, the scope of the review was limited no matter who limited it. Your remarks do not define the scope. I do not think one dumb remark on nuclear transmutation constitutes a review. I don't mind leaving it in as long as we leave in the rebuttal. I think the remark is an embarrassment to the DOE. If someone has found a scientific hole in the Iwamura experiment I would like to know about it.--Ron Marshall 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, you seem to want to make everything a nuclear fusion reaction of dueterium. I agree alot of people are pushing that idea. However others take the position that we have experimental evidence of unknown nuclear processes until we have a theory that explains the experiments and makes the heat and other products easier to reproduce and magnify. The position of Fleischmann and Pons was an unknown nuclear source.--Ron Marshall 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to correct anything if you have sources to back it up. The reason I wrote that F&P is based on fusion of deuterium is that Miley wrote this in his review (see table 1), and that Miles reported Helium generation commensurate with heat generation in electrolysis experiment (as explained in the article), and that the report submitted to the DOE says that transmutation is not believed to be the main cause of heat generation. I'm just trying to report what the experts are saying, not what I personally think. I have no claim to be an expert in the field: I'm just a wikipedia editor reporting what others are saying (as any wikipedia editor should). (please stop believing that I have an agenda other than writing a good wikipedia article. I also wish you had the same agenda as I have, reporting both positions of the controversy in a summary style with links to additional information. A book would be required to analyse all the arguments in full. In real life, are you applying for funding in transmutation research?). If you have sources of experts saying that F&P is based on other nuclear reactions than deuterium fusion, please cite them and I'll be happy to see the article corrected. Pcarbonn 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, there is a semantic problem and I don't think I was as clear as I could have been. Charles Beaudette in his book Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, 2nd. Ed goes into great detail about what was initially said by F & P. They used the term deuterium fusion and also said it was an unknown nuclear process because it was short the hot deuterium fusion neutrons by a factor of a billion. Eventually the deuterium fusing to helium idea was developed. I objected to the term deuterium fusion being used as the explanation for nuclear transmutation. True the Iwamura experiment looks like fusion. However many of the other transmutations appear to be fission of palladium or trace elements. Takahashi pointed out that fission of palladium could be initiated by 15 MEV photons. Takahashi, A., Ohta, M., Mizuno, T., "Production of Stable Isotopes by Selective Channel Photofission of Pd". Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2001. 40(12): p. 7031-7046. So the palladium fission is not necessarily started by fusion between deuterium and palladium atoms. You can argue where do the 15 MEV photons come from? However if the photons are there a lot of the reactions fall into place. Peter Gluck believes it is a mistake to think there is only one process. But I think this gets back to more fundamental issues.

Experiment is the reality check of science. Experiment validates theory. Theory does not validate experiment. The only scientifically logical recourse that people have who object to experimental results is experimental error. Charles Beaudette points out that in 1906 Curie had only proof of anomalous heat from radium which we now know was from internal radiation. The problem was not dismissed because there was no existing theory. Right now we have anomalous heat, helium, tritium, nuclear transmutations, and some particle and ray evidence. If the experiments are correctly done then there is proof of an unknown nuclear process. The fact that does not conform to hot fusion is not proof against it. As Julian Schwinger pointed out at the subatomic level both energy and matter behave as particles and waves and cold fusion is most likely a wave effect. Requiring that experimenters present a theory and then poking holes in it does not change the fundamental experimental evidence. This why Charles Beaudette and others prefer unknown nuclear process.

This is why I think that careful descriptions of the experiments and statements about validity or error are the most important thing. If we want to trim something then we could move some of the political comments and history to other places. However if people cannot get a good grasp of the experimental evidence form both points of view in this article I do not think they will read on and there is no point to the article. Pcarbonn, there always seems to be room for the skeptics point of view. It seems like you want to summarize the experimenters point of view to nothing. I do not appreciate the cleanup tag.--Ron Marshall 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the argument of the skeptics (just as Storms and Rothwell have). Reviewer 7 does not challenge the observations of Cs decreasing, and Pr increasing. He challenges the theory put forward by Iwamura, ie that it is a nuclear transmutation rather than migration. He says that the conclusion "is not to believed", but seems to accept the observations. If the process is unknown, how could one say that it is nuclear ? What makes the "transmutation" story better than the "migration" story, when both are theoretically impossible ? Both conflicts with fundamental theory, so, how do you choose ? I believe everybody now accepts the existence of an "unknown process", but very few accepts the "unknown nuclear process", and the article should reflect that (including in the intro, with or without the DOE story. This will need to be fixed). In essence, that's what the 2004 DOE panel said too ("evidence of excess heat, but no evidence of nuclear reactions"). I'm no nuclear physicist: that's probably why I'm inclined to believe the nuclear transmutation story like you do. But as an editor, I feel compelled to correctly represent the point of view of the physicists, even if I don't share it. Removing the arguments put forward by Reviewer 7 to reject Iwamura's theory (no intermediate atomic mass, ...), like you did, removes fairness in the representation of the point of view, and I do not appreciate it. Unless we find a way out, I'll add the template:POV tag.

I wish that the experimental evidence put forward in the transmutation section could help clarify the underlying process. I'm afraid that it does not, whatever amount of current experimental information you want to put in it. That's why I'm in favor of reducing the amount of experimental evidence: too much details does not bring that much value in the debate, and they can be found via the sources. If one experiment clearly described the underlying process, then yes, I would describe it in full details.

By the way, have you found a source saying that the nuclear transmutations are a key part of the excess heat process in F & P experiments, rather than deuterium fusion that many secondary sources hypothesize? I would appreciate if you could share it. Without it, we'll have to write the article on the basis that they are not, and reduce the size of the section on transmutations (but not eliminate it). Or add a POV tag for misrepresentation of the importance of this topic. (I'm afraid I miss the point you make about the semantic issue. Could you relate it to the issue here).Pcarbonn 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Another POV issue is the removal of the 2004 DOE review from the intro by STemplar. This DOE review was a milestone in the history of cold fusion, and has been almost as much quoted as the initial F&P press release. Amazingly, it did recognize some evidences of excess heat. Unsurprisingly, the review did not satisfy everybody, but that's not a reason to remove it from the intro. To keep the intro short, the only solution is to present a summary of it, and provide details in the article.

Ron, thanks to your contributions, the article has improved: new transmutation section, and many other improvements through out. Unfortunately, I see 3 POV issues that have been inserted:

• unfair representation of the physicists point of view in the transmutation section
• inappropriate length of the transmutation section, in view of its importance in the debate
• removal of the DOE review from the intro

I wish that you'll address them, and help make "cold fusion" the greatest article on wikipedia. This will help make the "unknown process" better understood and accepted. Let me know how I can help. Pcarbonn 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, how can a nuclear transmutation not be a nuclear reaction? I think I have addressed these issues several times already. I agree it is more fair to put in the entire reviewer remark and I will do so. I did not move the DOE section, but I agree with the current placement and statement.--Ron Marshall 17:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are still missing the point on theory vs experimentation. Also, you have not addressed the issue of why the transmutation section is more important (and thus longer) than the section on "measurement of excess heat", to take an example. As far as I know, this is only your point of view, not supported by published statements. Also, I still object to the DOE missing in the intro, and I have explained why. Pcarbonn 20:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, you are the one missing the point on theory versus experiment. Also you are the one that has a problem with the neutral point of view. I have not tried to suppress the skeptics point of view, I have only tried to include the experimenters point of view. You have tried to suppress the experimenters point of view several times and you are doing so now. Nuclear transmutations prove that nuclear reactions are taking place and that cold fusion includes nuclear processes. Mizuno wrote a book about it "Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion". Takahashi points out that these reactions could generate considerable energy in Takahashi, A., Ohta, M., Mizuno, T., "Production of Stable Isotopes by Selective Channel Photofission of Pd". Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2001. 40(12): p. 7031-7046. . However whether or not most of the heat is coming from transmutations or helium generation is not relevant to the point that transmutations are nuclear reactions. --Ron Marshall 16:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron, I'm not missing your point that nuclear transmutations are nuclear reactions. You are missing the point of Reviewer 7 that an increase of Cs and an increase of Pr does not necessarily mean that a transmutation is occuring. Also, neutral point of view requires that all significant point of views are presented in proportion of the prominence of each, and that minority views should not be given undue weight (see WP:NPOV#Undue weight). So there is plenty of evidence to back my position on POV, and I'll stand by it whatever it takes, unless you can prove it otherwise with a reliable source. Pcarbonn 17:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, what you are saying is scientific nonsense. See Edmund Storms "A Response to the Review of Cold Fusion by the DOE".--Ron Marshall 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what is scientific nonsense: are you talking of the interpretation of the transmutation experiment, or the view that transmutation are not the primary cause of excess heat? In any case, I'm not saying any of this: prominent scientists are. This makes it scientific, and worthy of report in wikipedia, with the weight corresponding to its prominence. Whether it's nonsense or not is POV. Please stop believing that Science holds the unique truth: it disagrees with itself more than you seem to think, and is wrong every once in a while. So whether it's nonsense to you is irrelevant; it's clearly not nonsense to the scientists who are saying it. Pcarbonn 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the transmutation section in the Storms paper you mentionned. The observation of radioactive elements with a short half-life is indeed an additional argument for transmutations. I recommend that we report it in the cold fusion article, but briefly, eg. "Bush and Eagleton have reported the appearance of radioactive isotopes with a half-life of 3,8 days in electrolytic cells. This remains unexplained." No need to give excruciating details about the experiment though: a link to the paper will suffice. After quickly scanning the Storms paper, I still do not see a need to retract what I've said about POV (although as I said, I tend to believe in the transmutation theory, so no need to convince me). Did I use "believe" ? Yes, and you may want to read the demarcation problem, where you'll read that "all theories contain anomalies": we just choose whichever we find convenient, and that's a subjective choice. Our role is to inform the reader, so that he can make his own choice. Hopefully, this will bring some humility to your point of view, and lead you to accept that others have other respectable scientific opinions. Pcarbonn 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You may say that the "undue weight" rule makes wikipedia very conservative. I would agree. But that's the rule. If you want a more audacious site, please go to peswiki. (I'll be off for 3 days, but I'll come back) Pcarbonn 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, have you considered moving the section out to its own article, and then rewriting the current section in summary style? Of course this does not fix any concerns over accurancy - the new article will need to be referenced (WP:CITE, WP:RS). I agree that the more controversial the topic the more important it is to have good primary sources and if something is disputed to address both sides of the dispute. Thanks/wangi 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I have suggested using summary style. Secondary sources are even better than primary ones.Pcarbonn 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, as I stated before I do not accept your reasoning. It all seems to be about censoring a point of view you do not agree with.--Ron Marshall 17:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, I agree with the transmutation theory, so I'm not "censoring a point of view I do not agree with". I'm just abiding by the rule of Wikipedia. I wish you did too. Pcarbonn 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is an attempt to summarize the on-going dispute on the length of this section.

Reasons to present it in about 4 paragraphs (about 1 "screen"):

• Cold fusion is primarily about the potential energy source (otherwise we would need to talk about pyroelectric and muon-catalyzed fusion too), and much less about anomalous effects in condensed matter (for which a separate article already exists)
• According to the researchers presenting to the 2004 DOE panel (ie. not the panelists), "it is generally accepted that [ transmutations anomalies ] are not the ash associated with the primary excess heat effect". No sources have been produced by Ron saying the contrary.
• Still, the case of low energy transmutation must be made in the cold fusion article because it shows that cold fusion is possible. However, 1 screen is enough to present the main experimental results on transmutation with enough details for the cold fusion controversy.
• the cold fusion article is already large by wikipedia standard (see WP:SIZE). There is no reason to make the transmutation section longer than other arguments, such as the "measurement of excess heat" one (which is about 1 screen, although it is a critical argument in the "potential energy source" debate, and the dispute with Shanahan could be interesting to develop further). To keep an appropriate length, the WP:SUMMARY style is used in this and other sections. The low energy nuclear transmutation article gives plenty of room to further discuss the experimental results and theoretical proposals.
• the extra screen proposed by Ron Marshall is mostly made of 2 large quotes from a dispute published in non-peer-reviewed sources. A summary of these sources with a link to the source is enough in the cold fusion article. The full quote is also made available in the low energy nuclear transmutation article, so the information remains easily accessible in wikipedia.

Reasons to make it longer (about 2 screens):

• the experimental evidences must be presented in details, otherwise it's censorship

Pcarbonn 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

DOE 2004 Review

SCOPE: http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/McKubreDOEReview.htm

METHOD: Somebody with the time, patience and motivation should probably consider author Charles Beaudette's question in http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005BeaudetteC-ResponseToDOE2004Review.pdf

"The DOE/OS accomplished the best peer-review evaluation that was possible under the difficult circumstances of CFR’s place in the professional community. Nevertheless, it is instructive to ask, What if the editor of an archival journal were to use a similar peer-review procedure by choosing reviewers who were not active in the field, did not know of its key experiments, and were ignorant of its literature?"

STemplar 17:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

relevance of the interactions between nuclei and electron ?

The article currently states: "However, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between the nuclei separated by several femtometres is greater than interactions between nuclei and electrons by approximately six orders of magnitude." I'm not sure what is meant by this, and how relevant it is in the discussion. Here is a possible rewrite: could an expert confirm it is better?

In order for fusion to occur, the electrostatic force (Coulomb repulsion) that repels the positively charged nuclei must be overcome. Once the distance between the nuclei becomes comparable to one femtometre, the attractive strong interaction takes over and the fusion may occur. However, bringing the nuclei so close together requires an energy on the order of 10 MeV per nucleus, whereas the energies of chemical reactions are on the order of several electron-volts; it is hard to explain where the required energy would come from in room-temperature matter. Pcarbonn 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now made the change. Pcarbonn 05:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted from Good Article

I have removed Cold Fusion from the list of Good Articles for the following reason:

• it fails to stay NPOV (see also the discussion on the length of "Transmutation" section above), namely:
  • the 2004 DOE review is missing in the intro
  • the transmutation section is too long when considering its relative importance to "measurement of excess heat", for example
• it is not stable anymore
• quality of prose: the second part of the transmutation section consists of very large quotes which do not belong in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, they are poorly formatted.

Pcarbonn 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Pcarbon, A few questions please:

1. Why does the lack of the 2004 DOE review in the intro make it non NPOV?

2. Why should the article be expected to be stable?

Your other critiques pertain to the transmutation discussion. I have not paid much attention to the transmuation discussion - so I have no comment on those points.

STemplar 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This DOE review was a milestone in the history of cold fusion, and has been almost as much quoted as the initial F&P press release. For neutrality, we have to give weight to ideas according to their prominence WP:NPOV#Undue weight (this makes wikipedia very conservative, but that's the rule). For neutrality, we also have to use secondary sources whenever we have one. This is the most famous review in recent years. It's not because some disagree with it that we have to remove it from the intro. I propose to return to this version [2] Please see also the recent posts above on the demarcation problem of science: "all theories contain anomalies", we just choose whichever we find convenient, and that's a subjective choice. I believe that you would accept that the "cold fusion" theory also has anomalies, just as the physicist version has. Our role is to inform the reader according to prominence, so that he can make his own choice.

Concerning the stability of the article, it is one of the stated criteria of a good article (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?). Pcarbonn 04:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, you have interesting points. I'm at a momentary loss as to how to respond, but I do wish to say that I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions.

I'll say this, though, about the 2004 Review; I see that it can be interpreted as both a glass half-full or a glass half-empty - so from that perspective, I don't see how its abscence shifts the article to a more liberal view. While I am personally critical of the OES for using nonexperts, I still find it remarkable that so many of the reviewers found some compelling aspect of the research.

I'll have to RTFM on the stability thing. In my state of temporary ignorance on Wikipedia:What is a good article?I guess it seems unlikely to expect stability in a subject as volatile as this. I think it's quite remarkable that papers have started re-appearing in the last few years, and that for example, the Navy will be presenting new LENR research at a major science and technology conference in two weeks in DC.

STemplar 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Concerning DOE: it is important in the intro to say what is the mainstream view about Cold Fusion, and DOE is best at doing this. Therefore, I believe DOE must be in the intro. I'm not sure why you would like to have it removed. Length of the intro does not seem a sufficient argument to me, as other statements are less important and could be removed.

As you say, the DOE is very ambiguous about the effect. The cold fusion article has been written in such a way to reflect that ambiguity. However, Ron said that the article is biased, and I saw the removal of the DOE review as one more step towards more undesirable changes. This lead me to strongly oppose the removal of the DOE paragraph. I have now restored a previous version of the paragraph in dispute. Pcarbonn 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of stability: the article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not prevent the article from evolving over time, of course, but we have had edit wars recently, and I'm still bitterly opposed with Ron on the content of the transmutation section, so other edit wars are possible.Pcarbonn 20:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Measurement of excess heat

I changed the word "accuracy" to "error". I know the word accuracy was used in the original source, but way it was used was confusing. If a measurement has a 1 % error then it is 99% accurate.

They explain that, in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an accuracy of 1% or less. Recognizing these issues, SRI International and other research teams used a flow calorimeter around a close cells: the governing equations become trivial, and the method has an accuracy of 0.5 % or better.

They explain that, in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an error of 1% or less. Recognizing these issues, SRI International and other research teams used a flow calorimeter around closed cells: the governing equations become trivial, and the method has an error of 0.5 % or better.--Ron Marshall 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

minor changes to summary

Sorry, I noticed after I made a couple of minor changes that the summary had a caveat saying not to edit it without discussing it.

My main change was to edit the wording in the discussion of the DOE report. The original wording said "CMNS researchers criticized the DOE report..", and I changed this to "Critics claim the DOE report..." I made the edit because the original used an acronym (CMNS) that was frankly confusing, and I believe that acronyms should be deleted whenever possible to do so.

Using the search function showed that CMNS was defined earlier, but since the sentence reads more clearly without the acronym, it's better deleted.

OK. thanks for your contribution. Pcarbonn 07:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

is LENR a subset of CMNS ?

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

drop sentence on articles in intro ?

Unless someone disagrees, I would drop the sentences on published articles in the intro, so that the paragraph looks like this:

Many scientists with a variety of credentials have contributed to the field or participated to the International Conferences on Cold Fusion. Many have reported the generation of excess heat, the detection of nuclear transmutations, tritium, and helium at low temperature with a variety of methods. Articles have been published in specialized peer reviewed journals such as Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of Fusion Energy. After the initial interest, the only prominent general science journal to publish a cold fusion paper was Naturwissenschaften, in 2005.

This would bring the intro more in line with recommended length in WP:LEAD.Pcarbonn 06:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection. May I suggest that the second sentence be reworded to

"Many say they have detected the generation..."

Jefffire 11:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we need sources in intro?

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

Now done. Pcarbonn 06:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This deleting of references needs to stop. I do not know what purpose it is supposed to serve, but it does not serve the reader and destroys the creditability of the article.--24.1.150.218 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

References are not deleted, only deduplicated. There is no point in giving references in the intro, as it is a summary of the body of the article, and all supporting sources are listed in the article. The purpose is to improve the readability of the intro.Pcarbonn 07:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in fact, some were not duplicated, so I restored them all. Pcarbonn 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Derisive terms

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

Citation needed

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

Some claim that the results may be in error because the levels of excess heat reported are often small, 50 to 200 milliwatts (one thousandth of a watt).

move some content to a "cold fusion history" article ?

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

I did not know I was crying for more room, but I am not as concerned about the length of the article as Pcarbonn is. My position is the length is what ever it takes to get the job done right. I do not know how much more space is needed on such subjects as helium, heat, or tritium. I think a description of the experiments and the reasons or evidence why they might be correct or in error is the highest priority and as Pcarbonn says probably what most people want to know. I have said before the history is a lower priority than the current state of experimental evidence. I am okay with moving the history to another article if enough people think that is a wise choice.--Ron Marshall 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

placement of Mizuno in Nuclear Transmutation

Pcarbonn, I placed Mizuno at the front because he was work was first in chronological order. --Ron Marshall 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ron, the chronological order would certainly be relevant in the history section, but less so in the argument section. I would propose instead to start by the most general statements and arguments, and finish by the more particular. Thus: general introduction, review of the field by Miley, most significant experiment, then other experimenters of note. This is mostly what we have now, except for the Mizuno statement. Pcarbonn 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, I was trying to summarize. Mizuno did a lot of work on nuclear transmutation and a lot to bring attention to nuclear transmutation before Iwamura. In the original version I detailed his work, but you edited it out. I went along with it because I thought the Iwamura experiment was sufficient. However I think Mizuno deserves recognition for his contributions as well as being a source of a lot of information on the subject. I did not think putting him at the end of the article accomplished that.--Ron Marshall 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Irving Dardik

The article does not mention the inventor who is perhaps the leader of the cold fusion field today. The book "Making Waves" by science writer Roger Lewin recounts Dardik's life and work in areas as diverse as medicine and physics. [3] Because of Dardik, the DOE is beginning to get interested in the possibility of cold fusion again. [4] McKubre has visited the lab and said "It's the first clear indication that something practical might come out of all this effort." I am not an expert in cold fusion, but it seems to me that if wikipedia is going to have an article on it - the article should at least contain the most promising results the field has to offer. RonCram 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

RonCram, what you say may be true, however the references you give do not give us enough information to support your conclusions. The article you referenced was published in November 2004, just before the release of the DOE report. Although the DOE offered the possibility of financial support, none has been forthcoming. We would need details of Irving Dardik’s experiments to make any judgments.--Ron Marshall 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)