Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Fact, fiction and pathology

• Initially considered a scientific fact, it has become perceived often as pathological science or as an element of science fiction. Scientists use cold fusion as a synonym of outrageous claims made with no supporting proof, and courses of ethics in science give it as an example of pathological science.

Who, besides a few journalists looking for headlines, ever considered the newly announced phenomenon to be a scientific fact? Is this how science usually works? Or is this how the media sells a story?

I thought the usual process was (1) a scientific team submits a journal article; (2) it takes a few months for peer review; (3) other scientists try to replicate the results, and either succeed (see reproducibility of results) or fail (see falsifiability); (4) as years go by, we either get an addition to science, or we throw out the hypothesis and go back to the drawing board.

I don't remember ever hearing about a scientific discovery that short-circuited this process. If there's a discovery that made it from initial announcement to inclusion in college textbooks in less than 3-5 years, I'd like to know about it! --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for this deletion. I didn't think it had been considered a scientific fact, no matter what the early press reports were saying. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(removed) POV tag

Given the current state of this talk page with new sources including the fact that MIT is offering a course, NASA has been doing research at multiple centers since 2009, and given the poor state of the Navy results in terms of how they are represented in the article, I'm going to add a {{POV}} tag until we can get some agreement on how to proceed with these improvements. Note that I don't intend to add anything about the E-Cat, but I do think that NASA's evaluation of it deserves some sort of a mention. Looking over the history of this article, it seems it's been a very acrimonious fight between very polarized camps in opposition to whether the subject is fraudulent or not. Is that a fair characterization? In any case, that is how it appears and under these conditions I'm not going to edit anything but add the tag -- except to add [citation needed] tags where I think there is bias -- until we can reach some kind of a general agreement on these sources. So, does anyone have any reason to not include:

1. that the U.S. Navy has been working on LENR continuously since 1989[1] and has never wavered from their claims of positive results;[2]
2. that NASA has been performing research on the topic since 2009[3][4][5] (besides a few investigations earlier with mixed results) and have been reporting positive results and optimistic expectations as described above; and
3. that he US Army has been doing LENR research since at least 2010.[6][7]
4. that MIT is offering a course on cold fusion?[8] [suggestion withdrawn; see below --Selery (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)]

Selery (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not characterize the two possibilities "fraudulent" or not. It is also possible that the researchers claiming positive results are mistaken. On the other topics, keep in mind that you should avoid including unpublished sources and that a series of lectures is not the same as a "course." Olorinish (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood. The question about publication is interesting. I see the DIA report discussed above wasn't included because it wasn't published, but are documents released under FOIA requests considered published? Selery (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these are primary sources, and that Wikipedia policy states that secondary and tertiary sources are preferred [9]. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a newspaper [10], so it is not a good idea to list all the news items supporting the existence of cold fusion. In fact, the article currently has lots of news items supporting the existence of cold fusion. Even so, all of those items are not significant enough to change the fact that cold fusion is still considered extremely unlikely by virtually all fusion experts. What is the motivation for including these new ones? Olorinish (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

To relate the fact that at least three US agencies, including multiple NASA centers, are not only working in the field (countering the several passages in the article which imply that most scientists think it's bunk) but have been getting positive results, and in the case of NASA at least, have been making explicit claims that, for example, "No other single technology even comes close to the potential impacts of LENR upon Agency Missions," and LENR might, "Replace 238Pu as power source in deep space missions," and, "Replace fission reactors as power source for human habitation missions." It isn't balanced to include several statements saying most scientists think it's mistaken, pathological, or worse, without including NASA's opposing point of view. Selery (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that NASA supported the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, and that what came out of that was very little. Cardamon (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• A couple of points. First, honest mistakes (whether in calorimetry or something else) are not fraudulent. Also, someone who is self-deluded is not a fraud. So, saying that "it's been a very acrimonious fight between very polarized camps in opposition to whether the subject is fraudulent or not" is not a fair characterization. Second, the course seems to be a non-credit engineering course with a total 10.5 hours of class time. To simply describe it as "course on cold fusion" at MIT would be seriously misleading. Cardamon (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A "non-credit seminar" is probably more appropriate, but MIT is in the top if not the top engineering school, so I think it would be biased to ignore their activity. Selery (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No. The MIT connection would be overplayed. All they are doing is letting one of their profs use a room to espouse on his interests. That doesn’t mean they endorse what he is saying at all. The whole point this is being raised is because the “MIT”-connection lends credibility to a field that has been tarnished by kooks while real researchers try to get to the bottom of this. It would be highly inappropriate and misleading and making much ado about nothing. If we want to make it truthful without bending the impression (*sound of audience gasp*), it would say MIT allowed one of its professors, who couldn’t get his work cold fusion work published in peer-reviewed journals, to use one of its rooms to give a non-credit lecture with open, unlimited attendance to whoever wanted to listen in. Factual? Yes. Makes CF sound like it has the backing of MIT? No. Are the POV-pushers here still interested? No? Greg L (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree to Greg's comment. It is interesting that MIT will allow one of it's prof to lecture this in the off hours. To me personally it is another (small) step to acceptance of LENR in the mainstream science world. It shouldn't be mentioned in the article, because most readers would misunderstand it that MIT endorses LENR, which is not the case. How MIT stands to LENR is completely unknown to us. btw. Greg, please cut out the "POV-pusher" phrase. Most of us are trying to represent the current status of cold fusion research in this article without selling any claims for facts. At least _I_ really try to do my best not to over do it. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well; I withdraw my proposal to include any mention of the MIT seminar in the interest of not derailing the discussion about the Navy, NASA, and Army ongoing work. Selery (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say Hagelstein can't get his work published in peer reviewed journals? I count nine articles authored by him in [11], from 1990 to 2010. Selery (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

While some was accepted, much is rejected. Greg L (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for that assertion? Selery (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Also note that MIT describes what Hagelstein will be teaching as an "activity" rather than a seminar. Cardamon (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Pole to see if the POV tag is appropriate

• Delete POV tags may be removed when there is a consensus to do so. They may not be used as a tool to force the community to deal with a hold-out editor; which is to say, the community is not required to retain these tags until the editor who put it there in the first place is fully content that his or her concerns have been fully satisfied.

  User:Selery’s arguments are not persuasive; his statement about the fact that MIT is offering a course is making too much of something because it implies endorsement by MIT when in fact all they are doing is allowing a prof to use a room to lecture about his area of interest to an open-enrolment class (fliers stapled corkboard-stuff).

  He also links to a notice mentioning NASA (an organization that also lends great credibility), but the document is hosed by New Energy Times and we need to first establish that it is an RS. Given what our article says about New Energy Times (one mentioning), it seems that there is healthy skepticism that it is anything but a club for the CF faithful. Accordingly, User:Selery’s objections do not strike me as being sufficiently grounded in the principles of technical writing nor Wikipedia’s principles guiding our reliance upon reliable sources. Greg L (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've agreed to call MIT's offering a "non-credit seminar" instead of a course, and I also think bias is evident from ignoring the Army and Navy, in addition to NASA. Selery (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The only thing we agree on so far is the Navy video. In #SPAWAR video, above, I expressed my opinion that it ought to be included in the article. In fact, I enthusiastically support doing so; that video made me realize that there might be LENR occurring and that genuine scientists are working on this stuff.

As for the MIT, the actuality would be properly written MIT has a professor who is investigates cold fusion. MIT consented to allow that professor to use one of MIT’s lecture rooms in which he can lecture on cold fusion to anyone interested in auditing the class as a non-tuition, non-credit course—just for fun—as a non-paid, unlimited-attendance sorta thing, where the class was advertised via pamphlets on cork boards. It fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:UNDO. Moreover, attempts to recast the facts and trump up the MIT connection to make it seem more than it really is, such as Students at MIT can attend a class… would be misleading.

As for any document hosted only on New Energy Times, the authenticity of such documents must to be authenticated with a link to a NASA (dot‑gov) or military (dot‑mil) website to weed out fabricated documents like this “report” purportedly by U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, from LENR‑CANR.org. No document from New Energy Times LENR‑CANR.org can be used as a citation in this article because those sites are not RSs and any documents or assertions made at those cites must be authenticated via a reliable secondary source (Nature or The New York Times) or a reliable primary source (NASA, U.S. Navy, etc.). Greg L (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf , http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm . Are those the links you are looking for? NASA has been working on LENR. I see no reason to hide this fact by excluding it from the article. I don't find the article too terribly biased (a bit maybe). I do find that the bar on what is acceptable as RS in this talk area has been set somewhat higher than for other WP entries. Especially if .gov sites are not considered RS. I am new though - so I am likely missing something.Prospero66 (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my proposal to say anything about the MIT seminar. I don't think "just for fun" is encyclopedic or even accurate in this case, but I don't want the discussion to lose sight of the fact that at least three separate US government agencies have been reporting positive results for years, or decades in the case of the Navy. What would constitute acceptable proof of the authenticity of the NASA documents with the FOIA cover letters and the Army agenda and slides? There should be a release register on a NASA FOIA web site somewhere, which we can probably find by emailing the NASA FOIA officer who wrote the cover letter. If they are authentic then they can be uploaded to Commons. Do you have any authenticity issues with the Navy slides as referenced in their video description? Please note that I don't intend to use these sources to say anything about LENR directly; only as primary sources to report facts such as "The Chief Scientist of NASA Langley Research Center says ..." and "The US Navy SPAWAR group reports ...." Selery (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that POVbrigand has added some of the details about NASA to the body and intro. If we can agree on whether to quote the statements from NASA above regarding their estimation of the prospects and from the Navy presentation about the fact that they stand by the positive results they have been reporting for decades, then I would agree that the bias dispute is resolved and the tag can be removed. Selery (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, I undid the deletions of the Bushnell quote and the "LENR @ Langley" talk. I edited in the "LENR at GRC" presentation, because two reliable secondary sources mention that presentation. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

NASA made only one "IPP" "Innovative Partnership Program" in 2009. Bushnell's statements are a Celebrity endorsement. Cold fusion has such endorsement from two Nobel laureates, and that doesn't make it more correct. The source is a powerpoint presentation and a personal interview for the chief of one of the laboratories. There is no RS saying that NASA funds cold fusion research, there is only a talk given at other institution. Let me state that again There is no RS saying that NASA funds cold fusion research, stop trying to insert that information until there is a proper official announcement. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the Cnews article, read the Gazeta article, read the peer reviewed paper "Progress in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" by XZ Li . Read the TM-102430 and TM-107167. celebrity endorsement is a weak argument, as it implies that any claim from anyone with status cannot be used on WP. Bushnell said that, you don't like it, but that is your problem. Nobody said that NASA is endorsing anything, those are your words. --POVbrigand (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Read User:Enric_Naval/pathological_science#sources_added_later. Cold fusion is still widely considered pathological science and incorrect. The article reflects current scientific consensus quite correctly. Bushnell is a celebrity endorsement, to try to counter multiple scholar sources. I still don't see any official announcement from NASA that they are funding any research. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The "work on LENR" by a handful of NASA scientists does not change the fact that "Cold fusion is still widely considered pathological science and incorrect." You say that you are not able to see an official announcement. I don't know of a WP-policy that requires "official announcements" before RS can be included in an article. I see plenty of RS that call for a mentioning of NASA in the article: 2 Technical Memoranda, A quote from a leading NASA scientist, 2 news articles, at least 1 peer reviewed paper mentioning the work (2006 XZ Li), a "LENR @ Langley" lunch break talk describing the work on LENR at Langley, a patent application for a LENR device, self published (on their website) presentation material from a NASA organized LENR workshop at GRC. And this list is not conclusive. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There are several reliable primary sources saying NASA funds cold fusion research, e.g.:

1. "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."[12]
2. "The Contractor shall investigate properties of electromagnetic materials (EM) in support of the LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) project."[13]
3. "Anomalous Heat Effect: De-hyping and Deciphering ‘Cold Fusion’.... Millis has been asked to lead Glenn’s research team this is investigating the viability of the anomalous heat effects for NASA applications."[14]
4. "In 1989, Pons and Fleischman made their infamous "Cold Fusion" announcement promptly ending their careers. Despite this the study of the Pons-Fleischmann Effect continues to this day. This talk will cover some selected historical highlights from the past 20+ years that gave rise to the emerging field called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). The body of evidence strongly suggest that the LENR effect is real, increasingly understood, and most recently, may actually be useful. The experimental approaches and evidence along with several theories will be presented. One theory, Widom-Larsen Theory (WLT), will be discussed in detail. The practical application of LENR to aerospace will transform virtually every aspect of system design."[15]

There are plenty more available from a simple search of the NASA website. Selery (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

1) the introduction to a powerpoint presentation, discussed in Talk:Cold_fusion#NASA

2) [16] one unassigned task inside a bigger contract for testing aircrafts. "in support of the LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) project". No reference number for such a project.

3) [17] a book presentation, makes a reference to a team researching LENR, might be a reference to the 2009 IPP partnership.

4) a LENR talk given by an individual scientist in a workshop.

Sorry, but these are all low-quality references. Saying that NASA researches LENR is an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary proof.

Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if you could source that individual researchers inside NASA have managed to force LENR into projects that are not about LENR. Or that there have been short-lived programs with no followup. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What would you consider a "high quality" source, and why exactly do (1) and (2) not qualify? (3) is not a book presentation. Selery (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources used to give cold fusion the smear of credibility seem undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way? The fact that a current NASA web site describing their work on it says LENR is gaining "mainstream respectability" would seem to imply that the sources from the early 1990s saying it lacks mainstream acceptance are the ones being given undue weight by inclusion in the article. Selery (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Selery, there are 3 books on cold fusion from Huizenga, Taubes and Close from the early 1990s that the anti-CF crowd thinks are the ONLY RS for the whole freaking article. Anything new they just won't accept, because it is not mentioned in those books. There are also pro-CF books published by reputable publishers (some of the authors are listed here User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers_.28work_in_progress.29). But the anti CF crowd argues that, as those books are written by "adherents of fringe" those books are not RS. It is a perversion of WP-policy. But keep cool, don't give them an opportunity to have you blocked. Keep cool, make small edits, stay out of trouble and enjoy the ride. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• This article is an embarrassing steaming pile and I can see why it has proven to be essentially impossible to improve it over the years. I think I’ll follow the lead of other wise editors like EdChem—who is obviously deeply discouraged—and find more sensible places. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems the possibility of some admin involvement so I wouldn't give up quite yet. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

US Army?

Is anyone opposed to mentioning the Army's conference and researchers?[18][19] Selery (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw this because the Litz and Merkel work is not public, so I'm removing the POV tag. Selery (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Biberian's 2007 secondary source is also misrepresented by the article

If statements in individual sources require that the introduction says cold fusion researchers are "a small community" and that "mainstream scientists" perceive the field as the remains of controversy, without specific quantification or any of the abundant opposing points of view, then why aren't we required to report the conclusions of Biberian 2007 which says, "proof that nuclear reactions not predicted by current theories occur ... has been established"? Selery (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Primarily WP:UNDUE. The "proof" has no support in mainstream sources. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Which aspects of the evidence of nuclear reactions do you think don't appear in mainstream sources? Evidence of excess heat, helium, tritium, neutrons, transmutations, and x-rays all occur in established peer reviewed journals. Excluding the statement biases the article violating WP:NPOV. Selery (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A giant stack of "evidence" does not make a case and a high number of miscellaneous sources claiming excess heat, helium, tritium, neutrons, et al. is no different.

Getting "proof that nuclear reactions not predicted by current theories occur ... has been established" or the like into this article requires more than Biberian and Hubler. Much more. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Artifex: "..The "proof" has no support in mainstream sources.". The problem with a fringe article is that you won't find many explanations in mainstream scientific sources to support the fringe side. That why it is fringe ! WP policy does not prohibit representing the fringe side in an article about a fringe topic. We can write, by careful attribution, that the scientists within the fringe field claim that the effect has been reproduced many times and that many peer reviewed papers describe such experiments. As verification we have a peer reviewed paper in a non-fringe peer reviewed journal Int. J. Nuclear Energy Science and Technology. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cold fusion is hardly a "fringe topic" in need of special pleading. The claim made in the OP's opening statement needs more than an attribution for inclusion. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The article already says that nuclear reactions not predicted by current theories occur, according to multiple reliable sources. Other sources disagree, but the idea is already in the article, as the central point on one side of the controversy. 67.6.132.34 (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That what I like about pathological science. One side thinks there is a controversy. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

One side of what? 67.6.132.34 (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, you are saying there are two conflicting sides but no controversy? Reliable sources on both sides explicitly refer to the controversy. 67.6.146.20 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Artifex, haven't you read any of the sources ? We are talking about the controversy that Michael J. Schaffer mentions in [20]. I bet there are many mainstream scientists that talk about "cold fusion" as a controversy. Maybe you should just read some sources first. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In the same sense as Creation–evolution controversy; not controversial in the sense there is any real debate in the scientific community about it anymore. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Creationists don't regularly get published in reputable academic journals or university publishing houses. Nor do they have dozens of government scientist advocates. There are no reliable sources which agree with this absurd characterization. Selery (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a similar number of scientists who believe in creationism. i.e 700 signed a petition in favour of creationism. There is no controversy in the scientific community on cold fusion. Dozens of scientists, even if true, is a pitifully small amount. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There are dozens of peer reviewed sources which refer to the controversy as real and as yet unresolved. Are there any reliable sources which agree with your opinion that there is actually no controversy? Selery (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

How about, "In 2007, nuclear physicist and engineering professor Jean-Paul Biberian published an update surveying the previous 15 years of work, saying that nuclear reactions not predicted by current theories have been proven."? Selery (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Claims of working devices

Mark Gibbs article in Forbes is used to verify the line "Several entrepreneurs and scientists claim to have a working cold fusion energy generator. No such device has ever been proven to work.", but fails to verify this.

Instead Gibbs asks a question "If an experiment that demonstrates cold fusion has really been replicated in the real world by real scientists then why would the scientific community ignore something so profound? Everyone agrees that cold fusion would be a game changer and in itself would be a hugely important scientific discovery so why would anyone in the scientific community ignore an important, successful, and replicable experiment?"

Arata is a real scientist and his experiment has been replicated by at least Kitamura who is also a real scientist. So Gibbs cannot be used to comment on Arata's experiment.

Originally I put the section in with the title "Claims of commercialization" to split between scientific efforts and entrepreneurial commercial devices. [21]. I still think that would be a good idea and Arata should not be put in the same section as Rossi. Aratas "device" is a scientific experiment, Rossis device is a commercial product. They are two totally different things. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:54, 13 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

[Copied from WP:FTN#cold fusion: Selery (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)]

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 Wikipedia.

Look what I did to the lede: [22]. 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"; Wikipedia 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 [23] and [24]. 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) [25] Impact factors lists are copyrighted and not available online, but you can see for example the topic ten physics journals in 1999[26]. 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 [27]. 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[28], 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 [29] (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)

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.

“ Dennis Bushnell, who previously has expressed support for LENR, but he declined to give any official comments on the video or to NASA’s research in LENR (...)

Dr. Bushnell’s only comment was:

“The video pertains to the potential tech transfer aspects of the Zawodny LENR Patent.”

”

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: [30] 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.[31]. 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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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 [32]. 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 Wikipedia 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 [33] has been answered in [34] and on page 11 of [35]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)

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 10³ atmospheres (15,000) [36] --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 [37] Selery (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This file [38] , 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[39]. --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 [FLE] 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 [BARO] 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)

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" - Wikipedia is NOT the right place to promote the view that ONLY mainstream science exists. You have a serious misconception about Wikipedia. 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)

Yes, REAL scientists who DO get involved in LENR/cold fusion immediately cross the line and become crackpots. REAL scientists like George H. Miley, Robert Duncan and many others. What do "physicists" really KNOW about LENR ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:02, 29 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)

I think the conspiracy idea is better covered in the article Free_energy_suppression. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems the most relevant place. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Josephson video from Cambridge University

Has the video at http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1150242 from about a year ago, already been considered here? It's a commentary on Rossi's eCat by Nobel laureate Cambridge Physics Professor Brian Josephson, who I believe has been neutral and uninvolved on the topic previously. It includes a transcript. SqarePeg (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Josephson himself comments on the video and its relation to Wikipedia at Talk:Energy Catalyzer#Regrettable state of wiki page. Much discussion but nothing very clearly for or against having the video in the article about cold fusion. If the video were shown to be useful in some article, it seems most appropriate to the E-Cat article. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 6 February 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: [40] 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, [41], 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 [42] 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)

What purpose does it serve to withhold this information from article readers? 67.6.156.62 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 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)

Would someone please explain in why we can't quote NASA's official website to say: "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." 67.6.167.65 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Because John D. Wrbanek is not a reliable source for the claims. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He is a reliable source for the fact that NASA makes those claims on their web site, which with attribution is all that's necessary to include. And for what reason is he not a reliable source for the claims themselves? 67.6.175.149 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Tests made in 1989. There were hundreds of test in 1989, and reliable sources say there were zero experiments that could replicate CF reliably. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And other reliable sources say that many experiments reported excess heat. So we have conflicting sources. As WP is not about truth, but all about NPOV thus both views can be mentioned. The weight should be on the mainstream view, but as per WP:FRINGE applying correct WEIGHT does not equal censoring the non-mainstream view. Even if you dislike it. Enric, the way I see it, you are dismissing from the article an attributed quotation from a reliable self published source by an expert of the field on the grounds that it conflicts with the mainstream view. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we have some proponents of CF claiming that they have reliable replication, some other proponents saying that they are working towards reliable replication but still not quite there, and mainstream saying that there is no reliable replication.

And, again, here we have only the personal opinions of researchers who work at NASA, not the official position of NASA. And the patent video is being hyped. See again Talk:Cold_fusion#NASA_states:_.22it_works.22. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not know the official position of "NASA as an institution" on LENR. And that means both ways, not pro, not contra. Of course we must avoid giving the impression that "NASA as an institution" states that "it works" and "endorses" LENR. However, not mentioning anything about LENR research at NASA in order to avoid giving the wrong impression, to me, is an overreaction and not distinghuishable very similar to censoring. Casual WP-readers might find it very useful to find answers to these questions:

• Did NASA file a patent on a LENR related device ? (yes/no)
• Does NASA host a video on their servers discussing the topic of the patent and in which a NASA researcher depicts LENR in a positive light that is contrary to the mainstream science view ? (yes/no).
• Has NASA performed LENR research in the past ? (for secondary RS see also the mention in the peer reviewed paper from Xing Z. Li - 2006, Journal of Fusion Energy Volume 25, Numbers 3-4, 175-180, DOI: 10.1007/s10894-006-9023-8) (yes/no).
• Has a chief scientist from one of NASA's research centers lately discussed LENR in a positive way contrary to the mainstream view ? (yes/no).
• Does NASA mention LENR on their Draft Launch Propulsion Systems Technology Roadmap ? (yes/no)

We have reliable secondary sources, reliable self published sources and reliable primary sources mentioning LENR research at NASA.

We have FORBES mentioning the freaking video [43]. I think the "hype" is only in the heads of those who don't want to hear about it.

We have discussed NASA and LENR at length on these talk pages: Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_40#NASA_research_deleted_with_WP:WEIGHT , Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_41#NASA , Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_4#NASA_interest

Let's work towards a reasonable mentioning of LENR research at NASA in the article, thanks. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have put NASA back in with slight rewording --POVbrigand (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

More news coverage on NASA and LENR "The dawn of the energy age" - SouthCoastToday.com --POVbrigand (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove Sentence from Conferences Section

The following sentence from this section 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,[29] (second part of sentence) and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences.[97]

I have deleted the first version of my edit proposal after feedback from the following folks who were kind enough to comment after reading it.

The first version can be viewed at the edit history.--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Your comment here seems like a stream of conciousness, can you please state what text or sources you have issue with. Then can you show what changes you propose and based on which reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences" should be sourceable to several RS. There was this scientist Douglas Morrison who went to the conferences to make questions and ask for a cup of tea heated with a CF cell, and he is cited as the last critic who persisted in going until he died in 2001. I can't search sources right now, have a Discovery article[44] --Enric Naval (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you are trying to achieve --POVbrigand (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC) More input please...--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Does this help clarify POVbrigand --Gregory Goble (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Your input has helped me realize the need for a clearer revision. --Gregory Goble (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A few of you have commented. From this I've learned some things... thank you. I will collapse my earlier introduction to my edit request in a few days. Here is a revision. I hope it answers some of your questions and concerns.

Conferences

The following sentence from this section 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,[29] (second part of sentence) and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences.[97]

Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. 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,[29] and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences.[97] With the founding[98] in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science—an example of the approach the cold fusion community has adopted in avoiding the term cold fusion and its negative connotations.[73][75][99] Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[100] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[73]

The third 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,[29] and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences.[97]”

This sentence conveys that the conference:

• Allows a proliferation of crackpots and hampers serious science due to the lack of criticism and review of papers and experiments, which is lacking due to fear of external critics.

• Is where only these crackpots attend. (the sentence isn’t really clear on this)

• Has no critics or skeptics attend.

I would like to see the sentence removed. It confuses the article lending a lot of weight to discrediting these conferences in the mind of the reader. The sentence, constructed as it is, misconstrues both authors intent.

The first half of the sentence is constructed from, "Whatever Happened to Cold Fusion?" by David Goodstein.

His paper contains no footnotes that I can use to verify his claims or opinions, though it is a good paper full of insight about what went wrong during the early development of the field of cold fusion. He is a qualified physicist with a deep understanding of cold fusion research.

The paper has 41 paragraphs which I note as reference points.

This sentence is put together from paragraph (2). Letters footnote the pertinent reference points from paragraph (2). As found in wikipedia the beginning of the sentence is, “By 1994 attendees offered no criticism...” This is a definitive no, meaning none.

While the author uses “almost never”(a1) or “”there is little”(a2) or "tend to be"(a3) or even “don’t receive the normal critical review.”(a1) (perhaps they receive abnormal critical review)

Clearly here the authors words are taken out of context and this needs correcting.

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

• (a1) almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires

• (a2) there is little internal criticism.

• (a3) Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value

(2)Contrary to appearances, however, this was no normal scientific conference. Cold Fusion is a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between Cold Fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. (a1)On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, (a2)there is little internal criticism. (a3)Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, (b)for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. (c)In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making (d)matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here.

Besides the conflict of this contextual error perpetrated on Wikipedia; we have the following conflict in the authors paper in regards to criticism and reviews going on from these conferences.

The first third of the paper is mainly about Cold Fusion as a field cast out by the scientific establishment, a pariah field. The author is explaining the consequences of an erosion of the boundaries of experts, intermediaries, and the layman in regards to the failure of science.

In the rest of the paper the author mainly speaks of cold fusion research, nuclear theory, new theory, etc.

This is where he makes numerous contradictions from his second paragraphs statements in regards to healthy criticism and its attendant benefits in regards to cold fusion research.

These are 12 examples of the author referring to criticism, review, and or responses to review and critique within the field of cold fusion.

These contradictions show perhaps a conflict within the incomplete understanding of "news room science" and its affect on failure, as seen by others in the scientific community and eyes of the public.

Either way it weakens the argument for taking the authors words out of context for the use found here in wikipedia.

I. (31)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. (criticism from review)

II. (31)No one could accuse them any longer of being unsophisticated about neutron work. (infers others review and pass judgment)

III. (32)The lack of this kind of control experiment had been one of the points of criticism of Pons and Fleischmann. (not counted/prior to the first conference)

IV. (34)Nevertheless, his message was an optimistic one for Cold Fusion. In essence (although Franco didn't say it in these words) each of the criticisms that Nate Lewis had correctly leveled at the experiments of Pons and Fleischmann had been successfully countered by new experiments reported at the conference. (“successfully countered” infers response to others review and judgment)

V. (35)One of the criticisms that Nate had used with telling effect is that local hot-spots often develop in electrolysis experiments (Nate is himself an electrochemist, and a consummate experimentalist). (criticism from review)

VI. (35)To counter this argument, Franco could point to the design of the cell used by his own Frascati group, which carefully averaged the temperature of the entire cell, rather than measuring it at a single point (Many other groups had introduced mechanical stirrers into their cells). ("to counter this argument" and “could point to” infers response to others review and judgement)

VII. (35)That would be true, the critics replied, if the chemicals were being generated at the same time as the heat. (at the 1993 Maui conference)

VIII. (36)Finally, one of the most damaging criticisms of Pons and Fleischmann was that they had failed to do control experiments. (not counted/prior to the first conference)

IX. (36)Franco dutifully reported these results at the Rome seminar, expressing only muted disapproval ("In my opinion, these results have not been consolidated," he said). (example of a report of a review and critique delivered by a conference attendee)

X. (39)The audience at Rome, certainly the senior professors who were present, listened politely, but they did not hear what Franco was saying (that much became clear from the questions that were asked at the end of the seminar, and comments that were made afterward). (infers senior professors criticized the report from IX )

XI. (40)However, I have looked at their cells, and looked at their data, and it's all pretty impressive. The Japanese experiment showing that heat nearly always results when x is greater than 0.85 looks even more impressive on paper. It seems a particularly elegant, well designed experiment, at least to the untutored eye of a physicist (what do I know about electrochemistry?) (author reviewing data and papers presented at a conference)

XII. (40)What all these experiments really need is critical examination by accomplished rivals intent on proving them wrong. (author is helping in this regards)

Whatever Happened to Cold Fusion? by David Goodstein

(12) The Cold Fusion story seemed to stand science on its head, not only because it was played out in the popular press without the ritual of peer-review, but also because both sides of the debate violated what are generally supposed to be the central canons of scientific logic.

I will finish this when input and time arrives.--Gregory Goble (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I seriously suggest you shorten your argument. Over 10,000 words is extremely long for an article discussion thread. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC) THANKS--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think my argument is valid and that I should remove the sentence now?--Gregory Goble (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reported this edit war and Gregory Goble's WP:3RR violation here. Others are welcome to comment in line with that noticeboard's standard practices. EdChem (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC) THANKS my bad--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

THANKS for posting the following on my talk page:

This is your talk page. Enric Naval may not see your comments here. Are you a native english speaker or are you making use of a service such as google translate? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)---- THANKS--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your contributions on the talk page are incoherent ramblings. It is impossible for other editors to understand your wish to delete the text you keep removing. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)---THANKS--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Gregory, I have reported your WP:3RR violation here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gregory Goble reported by User:EdChem .28Result: .29 You are welcome to post in that section should you wish. EdChem (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)---THANKS--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I can not find it at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Can you help me locate it?--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It was archived here. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Enric Naval, EdChem, Binksternet, IRWolfie, POVBrigand, and all other editors on this site. What I want to know now is, does anyone have an objection to my deleting this sentence? Please state your objection. I will respond, to the point, and in a timely manner. --Gregory Goble (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have only addressed the first part of the sentence (the predicate). If the predicate of a sentence is fictional or false that which follows usually follows as such. I have prepared to reason the grounds for the dismisal of the second part of the sentence. Please read on this talk page -Add to: In popular culture - Cold Fusion-. There is an interlapping relevence to the subject line of the second half of the sentence I just delete edited.--Gregory Goble (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

EarthTech Technologies source

In reference to "added some debunking as per parity of sources. it's SPS, but it is attributed and adds to the NPOV of the "ongoing" section.":

Replication attempts were made for several different experiments at a privately funded research organization. Although some experiments did produce the originally observed behaviour, conclusions were made that they were caused by mundane, non cold fusion effects.

[x] Replication attempts at ETI

As for the reputation of source itself, EarthTech was founded by Harold_E._Puthoff#EarthTech. It is dedicated to studying fringe science. It does not have a reputation of being reliable and it doesn't have a history of being published in reliable sources, as WP:SPS recommends. Its founder has a reputation of badly-preformed research in fringe fields.

As for the significance of the particular experiments, there are no independent sources saying that they are more significant that other experiments in the field since 1989, and they don't appear to have had a significant repercussion inside or outside the field. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that if you are going to state these kinds of possibly personally damaging opinions as fact, you should provide more resources to support what you are saying. Puthoff has published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and I was not able to see any place that says he is not reputable - in fact the opposite in specific fields. The worse thing I saw was actually on his Wikipedia page that mentions he made some rather outlandish statements concerning his religious beliefs. A religion he disavowed decades ago (although, having religious beliefs does not mean one is scientifically unreputable). I'm not arguing if the source meets WP requirements - but the rhetoric is a bit over the top. 70.173.128.75 (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Prospero

I don't know enough about EarthTech nor Puthoff to feel comfortable defending my edit. The basic idea was that some private research center DID NOT find evidence for the cold fusion effect, even when they let the original claimants help them set up the experiment. To me it seems that the mentioning in one tiny sentence adds value to the WP-reader. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I do know that I am easily obfuscated... because of this I tend to look for the cause of such. The Earth Tech staff link is non-operative. Is there some way I can look into this further? I would also like to see the following statements supportive facts referenced and dated, especially in regards to definative, quantitative, and comparative analysis. "Replication attempts were made for several different experiments at a privately funded research organization. Although some experiments did produce the originally observed behaviour, conclusions were made that they were caused by mundane, non cold fusion effects." Detailed support for this statement would ease my troubled mind and help erase the questioning look from my face. As it is presently presented it is not worth consideration. By the way... who posted this talk section?--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

several replies:

I started this section.

Puthoff tested Uri Geller for physics abilities, James Randi said that the testing protocols were awfully inadequate[45] and Ray Himan said they were "sloppy and inadequate"[46]. When Puthoff published his paper in Nature, the editors put a note criticizing the research methodology, and other comments.[47].

Puthoff then went to investigate Remote viewing, as a part of the Stargate Project. According to the review made at the end of the project, the experiments were full of holes. Now Puthoff is investigating ZPE as a power source (see Zero-point_energy#Free-energy_devices).

Mentioning every experiment on every research center detracts value, specially if we can only cite their own assessment of their own experiments, and we have no secondary source saying if it's really notable/relevant and why. The value is added with a sourced summary of what all the experiments have amounted to over the years. Individual experiments should be mentioned when:

a) sources say that they are notable of their own for whatever the reason

b) you need to mention a certain experiment to tell the story

c) you really need to mention examples of something and you pick the most notable ones from sources

d) other reasons based on sources.

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

All mention of NASA has been deleted from this article

How does this help readers? This article is about, in part, a controversy. The fact that NASA is working on it is controversial, and there are several reliable NASA sources saying so, including their own public web site. What are the arguments for and against deleting all mention of NASA from the entire article? 71.33.169.12 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

see Talk:Cold_fusion#Workshop_this_before_replacing_it. The deletion of all mention of NASA was done by User:Hudn12 - Special:Contributions/Hudn12. It seems that 2 editors support this act of, what I think can be described as, censorship. Completely irrational and conflicting with WP policies. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WOW For how long? Odds are... see the latest. Wiki AbCom discussion Special Contributions. Intetesting.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you referring to? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

NASA don't seem to take it too seriously: [48] IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That is dated November 12, 2009. This statement is dated December 16, 2011: "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." What purpose does it serve to withhold this information from article readers? 67.6.156.62 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, IRWolfie draws his conclusion to support his prejudiced POV. "NASA don't seem to take it too seriously" is a weasel phrase, what does "too seriously" mean ? It is not a direct quote and from the full quote there is nothing that supports: "NASA don't seem to take it too seriously", on the contrary.

"What about Cold Fusion? - First, this effect should NEVER have been dubbed "cold fusion." It should have been called an "anomalous heat effect." That means you don't know what's going on, but it involves heat. The part about "we don't know what's going on" is still very true. - Most evidence points to this being a dead end, but not all the evidence. If I recall correctly, about 30% or the replications for producing heat work, and 70% do not. The evidence also does not indicate that a normal nuclear reaction is occurring. Heat?- maybe, sometimes. Nuclear fusion as we know it?- no. - It is not being studied very seriously in the US, in fact it is generally frowned upon, but some countries like France and Japan are still looking into it. - If it is real and if it is useful, then someday, someone will make a practical and unambiguous device out of it. If it is not real, you're still probably going to be hearing lots of stories about it for years to come -- an "Elvis sighting" phenomena." "--POVbrigand (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you keep your personal attacks to yourself. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack. Stop with your baseless accusations. Other editors have noted before that you don't know what a personal attack is. [49] --POVbrigand (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack IRWolfie but an observation, you are blatantly biased on this topic and might consider recusing yourself. I appreciate the efforts to hold the article to a high standard, but not the attempt to shape the article to a particular POV by removing verifiable fact.Prospero66 (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have put NASA back in with slight rewording --POVbrigand (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is it??! I can't find it... and I just gave a positive appreciation of this article, as it overall gives a fair impression. Looks like I must either alter my appreciation or fix the omission... Harald88 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Yes NASA is certainly a reliable source for a claim about ongoing research at NASA, it is obviously notable and that fact is definitely interesting. Harald88 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted again for dubious reasons. There are numerous primary and secondary RS for the fact that NASA researchers are working on LENR. Deleting it is not in line with WP-policies. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It could be a matter of neutral presentation of facts (for some reason I have a problem with reviving old versions, so I can't know)... OK I'll try to do something about it, and else I'll revise the rating that I gave. Harald88 (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

More news coverage on NASA and LENR "The dawn of the energy age" - SouthCoastToday.com --POVbrigand (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PSTS seems to forbid the kind of sourcing User:Harald88 was attempting. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, your edit is uncalled for as already explained even on this page. WP:PSTS explains: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". Moreover, my edit is based on the general consensus here and it appears that deleting reference to NASA is against WP:NPOV which is the main policy of Wikipedia. Please refrain from deleting other people's edits without first discussing it. Harald88 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I undid your edit again because it actually violates the policy you yourself cite. The webpage cited is a repository of presentations about research that has been done at NASA over the years. There is no indication that the publications are supporting the claim that ongoing research is happening under the aegis of a NASA-funded research program. The closest you can come to is the statement: "The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR." This could simply mean, "read about what we did in 1989 if you think cold fusion works." We are not empowered to interpret anything beyond this and the presentation itself is clearly in violation of the PSTS guideline which is restricting the soapboxing happening: trying to convince the world that NASA is supporting cold fusion in order to gain a leg-up in E-cat marketing, for example. iIn light of the ample evidence found in, for example, this blog commentary, that the advocacy of certain NASA employees does not an endorsement make, it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to promote this alternative reality where NASA is competing with Rossi. Wait for a proper press-release from NASA. If it happens, then we'll change the page. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but again your action was completely uncalled for: you could have rephrased the sentence in order to avoid an imagined misunderstanding that you apparently fear could arise from my citation of facts. And you seem to ignore the factual statement itself. This is a wiki encyclopedia and its purpose is to provide information, not to delete it. However, whatever you write must correspond to the sources and your suggested interpretation here is in conflict with the facts, as everyone can easily verify by downloading the reference from the NASA site. Also, you may add a reference to an equally reliable source in the way that you suggest here; as a matter of fact, you could already have done that! Thus you make me waste my time for nothing. Persistent deletions of facts are not constructive but hindering the development of the page to a good article and by now we could have already finalised the text together. Please cooperate in a constructive way to make the article again a good article that is not disputed. The only remaining cause of dispute - and which will alter my rating of this article if it persists - appears to be the unwarranted omission of facts. Perhaps people will agree to remove the tag after we add the lacking facts. Harald88 (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands of websites which contain presentations on LENR. Devoting an entire paragraph to an obscure NASA website is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. The Forbes blog is not a reliable source for anything but the opinion of the blog author and per WP:BLOGS should not be used here since there are plenty of other sources that are far better and deserve more attention. Finally, please keep in mind WP:RECENTISM here. There is nothing to indicate that in the grand scheme of things that this will be remembered as important at all. This topic which has been around for some twenty-two years has had supporters arguing every few years that a new breakthrough or new notice has happened. Wikipedia needs to wait before advertising this "NASA source". There seems to be no indication or argument made that this is WP:WEIGHTy enough to include an entire paragraph in a top-level article about cold fusion. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Crystal reminder

Please re-read WP:CBALL. Wikipedia has all the time in the world. If and when LENR breakthroughs happen, we are empowered to change Wikipedia accordingly. If and when this happens, expect a flood of Wikipedians with a lot of experience as well as interested and more expert outsiders. Until then, please stop trying to force one-off sources into the article. For decades the cold fusion community has been claiming that the next big thing was just around the corner. So far that hasn't panned out, but no one knows the future, so I withhold judgment as to whether it will happen. Until then, we shouldn't be trying to force Wikipedia into coverage of these stories which may or may not amount to anything. See WP:RECENTISM. Think years down the road. Will this one obscure website, blog, small newspaper story, you tube video, etc. be remembered as the make-or-break cold fusion source? Probably not. Let the researchers convince the scientific community in the appropriate venues and when there is actual evidence that the community accepts the reality of cold fusion by means of this or that mechanism we will modify the article. Until then, we need to make sure that we are not carried away by the passions of those who are convinced that this one idea is going to save the world. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.. WP-CBALL does not quite address my interest; yet I have a lot to learn from studying... WP-CBALL and WP:RECENTISM. See my recent edit workings and chime in with a suggestion, commentary, or direct observation. The team improving this article is not quite an editorial 'team'.... yet. Individuals visiting a... battleground.... for pertinent info do not ask me yet or again or never. Knowledge is always unfolding (opinion)--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) ooops I meant to include this; which is so pertinent from WP-CBALL: "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." ... (either negative or positive) --Gregory Goble (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

LENR is in mainstream science

This is worth noting. I recommend that all the editors here at Cold Fusion watch the webcast.

CERN Colloquium - The European Organization for Nuclear Research Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) by Francesco Celani, Yogendra Srivastava

Thursday, March 22, 2012 from 16:30 to 17:30 (Europe/Zurich) at CERN ( Council Chamber ) Description An overview will be given on the main progress made –since March 1989- through experimental/theoretical studies on thermal/nuclear anomalies observed in forced interactions of Hydrogen isotopes (H, D), in non-equilibrium conditions, with pure or alloyed materials (mainly Palladium, Nickel).

Most of the experiments used electrolytic environments at moderate temperatures (20-50°C). More recently, gas environments have been used at higher temperatures (between 200-400°C and even temperatures between 500-900°C have been employed).

Specific nanostructures have begun to play a crucial role both in basic studies as well as in, recently claimed, technological/industrial applications.

A plethora of theoretical models have been proposed to explain several experimental anomalies in LENR. A brief description of a weak interaction model shall be presented that claims to explain almost ALL of the anomalous effects found so far. Webcast Please note that this event will be available live via the Webcast Service. Organised by Ignatios Antoniadis/PH-TH & Daniele Benedetti/PH-UCM...........................**Tea and coffee will be served at 16h00** [50]

Also at CERN is Experimental and phenomenological comparison between Piezonuclear reactions and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science phenomenology / Cardone, F ; Mignani, R ; Petrucci, A [51]--Gregory Goble (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be irrelevant for editors if certain research at CERN or NASA would be branded by some as "mainstream" or "fringe"; what matters is that research at such institutes is certainly notable and factual. Harald88 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2012

CERN - Does reviews as peers do review... extreme cutting edge (not established) and established physics... physics at its' best... one of the extremely mainstream physics organizations.--Gregory Goble (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That is nice; however, apparently you missed my point. In other words: Wikipedia demands WP:NPOV and rejects WP:Mainstream Point Of View (I'm sure it was proposed once but now I can't even find that proposal back). Harald88 (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:MAINSTREAM. This essay is indeed in direct violation of WP:NPOV. 81.240.139.239 (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes that essay is indeed in violation of NPOV. It was started by an editor who has since been banned. I think that essay should be deleted or rewritten so that is complies with NPOV. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Students can give a colloquium, it does not mean it has the blessing of CERN. Might be fun to watch the webcast, though - maybe the speaker will be chopped to mincemeat. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Straw man, nobody is claiming that CERN is blessing anything. The fact that CERN has decided to host this colloquium can be seen as mainstream science "warming up" to the topic.

Did you know that the University of Missouri just received a 5.5 million USD grant to research "cold fusion" properly and according to scientific method ? Do you know what Robert V. Duncan, MU’s vice chancellor for research has to says about scientists that are slow in grasping what is happening ? "Some scientists still scoff; others even get emotional about it, Duncan said. To them, he says: “Get over it.” " Columbia Tribune --POVbrigand (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thousand of experiments creating hundreds of LENR environments to initiate anamolous reactions have been performed in dozens and dozens of well respected laboratories following strict adherance to scientific method over the past two decades; replication attempts, improvements in the sophistication of instrumentation , and intense scientific review is rampant throughought. There are very few acceptions to this. What went wrong in the beginning is that the press, intermediaries (the hot fusion folks), and public opinion became involved... sparking debates similarly found in the early years of attempted flight.--Gregory Goble (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This was posted by me as an an example of LENR emerging as mainstream science; others are found throughout this field. Within this Cold Fusion article references to pathological or quackery perhaps belong in a historical footnotes section?

LENR is: Quackery. Pathological science, Phariah science, Fringe science, or part of Mainstream science?

Aviation is: Quackery. Pathological science, Phariah science, Fringe science, or part of Mainstream science?

Those who tried to fly were certainly considered Quacks for ages and part of raging popular debates at the time. Now well respected with thier own peer reviewed journals, conferences, and colloquiums. Early arguments for or against flight are hardly ever mentioned anymore.--Gregory Goble (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I already pointed you to User:Enric_Naval/pathological_science#sources_added_later. It is still considered pathological science. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Time to read wp:NOTBATTLEGROUND and wp:NOTFORUM? If at some time it turns out that sources for cold fusion come to be as routinely accepting as sources for manned flight, of course the Wikipedia article would reflect that. But to contend that is the present state of science would be grotesquely disingenuous. Indeed we still have authors complaining that they can only write about CF at peril to their academic credibility. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

To contend that research done in the early days of conquering flight was quackery or pathological is opinion and to state that LENR is considered pathological science is opinion as well. Thanks for the clarification here. Should we list the CERN Colloquium under the "pathological science uncovered and exposed"... section of "continued cold fusion quackery?" I guess it would be best to wait a bit and hear what comes of it first, maybe the speaker will be chopped to mincemeat.--Gregory Goble (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the excellent observation made here that sources of LENR qualifications may be reflected as that in Wikipedia when "it turns out that sources for cold fusion come to be as routinely accepting as sources for manned flight". Is this CERN piece source worthy now or better to wait till after it is held? When the time comes, should this CERN bit be listed under the "conference" section, the "ongoing research" section, or a new "mainstream science" section? As it may be notable, I will be watching the web broadcast to observe the progression of this field of science.--Gregory Goble (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was hopingLeadSongDog come howl!)would make a suggestion we could follow on this one. The article could be best improved with some help and guidance on how to proceed from here. SORRY if this is posted out of sequence. Is It? Let me know.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The best practice is to select sources based on their quality rather than their content. The model of wp:MEDRS is a useful one that should be more widely applied in areas where the science is both contentious and difficult for laypeople to understand. Accept that an encyclopedia will always be a bit dated (this isn't twitter) and use that as a quality advantage. If/when someone actually does succeed in getting substantial amounts of more-than-chemical energy from a simple fusion device in a well documented, reproducible way there is a Nobel Prize for Physics in it. It would likely meet some initial doubt give the history, but it's not something that could be ignored: it would fundamentally change energy economics. We'd see the demonstration repeated live on CNN. Leading journals such as Physical Review or Nature Physics would have single-topic issues, and most importantly there would be independent secondary sources written by previously neutral or opposed authors. Those are the hallmarks of what is mainstream science. We should, so far as possible, ignore primary papers that have not received serious secondary examination as wp:UNDUE. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As a heads up I will mention here that one section in this article, '3.2 Setup of experiments' seems out of date to me; lacking information regarding the state of the art of experiments in this field, i.e. gas pressure loading, nano-particles, and higher temperature environments. The CERN Colloquium on LENR summarizes experimental environments to include, "gas environments have been used at higher temperatures (between 200-400°C and even temperatures between 500-900°C have been employed). Specific nanostructures have begun to play a crucial role...". I only find talk of the original experimental environment which seems to me to be 20 years behind the times. Perhaps revision edits could be suggested addressing this. I hope you all will consider how to improve the '3.2 Setup of experiments' section when making future edits.--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

POV tag?

It's just a physical process, how can you fight about it and how can it be un-neutral? O.o

I couldn't find the reason that somebody put a POV tag in the article through a quick reading of the talk page, if there's no reason for it or section explaining why you put the tag then the POV tag should be removed, shouldn't it?-- Someone35  19:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You looked through this talk page, and you don't think there's a neutrality dispute? Maybe you should look again! I'm sure the tag should stay until one side of the dispute stops calling the other crackpots and cranks, and the other side stops getting reverted for inserting reliable sources about published government documents. 91.121.113.108 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The tag was placed by User:Selery, a sock of banned user User:James_Salsman (meta confirmation). He keeps coming back to wikipedia to POV-push his idiosyncratic views about stuff. The tag was placed in retaliation for getting his POV-pushing edits reverted. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag. The article is pretty darned neutral right now.

I talked to James Salsman on a Wikipedia meetup some years back and I think he is a good guy. However, I do not agree that his additions were appropriate to the article, and I do not think the POV tag that he placed was the result of a realistic assessment of the article. It clearly shows the mainstream scientific viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

He had previously removed the tag himself when he thought that the article was NPOV [52]. But he put it back in when content got deleted again, for instance by Special:Contributions/Hudn12. Funny is that the POV tag is frequently used to indicate that an article has too much minority POV, but Selery used the tag the other way around, that there is too much majority POV and that valuable content about the minority POV is constantly deleted from the article. Binksternet, you got it now :-) ?

He got banned over issues on the GNAA article. I think that over here he was fairly NPOV. But "NPOV" is itself a contentious topic, see for instance Enric's comment above. The wording "retaliation" clearly shows Enric's WP:Battleground mentality. By User:IRWolfie-'s standard Enric's comment is a personal attack and maybe Enric should be officially notified that this article is under Arbcom sanctions. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I was already notified when the Arbcom case closed[53] because I was one of the participants. This is considered enough notification.

Please, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium, Salsman was topic banned and put under probation for tendentious editing and edit warring. Then he was banned from one article for violating his probationUser_talk:Nrcprm2026#Global_Warming_article_ban. He kept violating his bans using sock accounts until he was community banned[54]. I think that his action can be described as "retaliation", since he keeps coming back to wikipedia to advocate content with undue weight problems, every time pretending to be a brand new innocent user, and dismissing contrary arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be very clear that with my comment above I in no way condone banned users violating their ban. I have had my own experiences with banned users and wikipedia is better of without them.

I do not think that your comment above is a personal attack, I was merely highlighting parallels. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

others have not been able to reproduce

I propose changing this:

Cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), is a type of relatively low temperature nuclear reaction reported to have occurred by some experimenters, but which others have not been able to reproduce.

Into this:

Cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), is a type of relatively low temperature nuclear reaction that some experimenters have not been able to reproduce.

The current text can be interpret as "all replications failed". That is not what we are trying to say here.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has been able to provide a formula for reliable replication, nobody has been able to predict the amount and timing of the outputs in their cells, or predict if any given cell will eventually give outputs or not, etc. Many experimenters tried to replicate the experiment back in 1989, and failed. DOE 2004 reviewed the new evidence since 1989, and still didn't find reliable replication. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that heat alone is not persuasive evidence for nuclear reactions. For the sentence you propose to be accurate, there should exist very solid evidence of nuclear products also. Olorinish (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable production of nuclear products would give an immense boost to the reputation of the effect.

But reliable production of excess heat would be enough to turn physics belly-up. After exhaustive replications, if there was still real excess heat with no nuclear products, physics laws would have to be re-evaluated to fit the new evidence.

Unfortunately, there is still no reliable production of anything. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

From Physorg:"In previous studies, scientists from the Naval Research Laboratory; ENEA, which is the National Energy Laboratory of Italy; and other scientific teams around the globe have reported observing excess heat effects when hydrogen or deuterium has interacted with palladium, nickel or platinum under certain extreme conditions. However, the researchers do not know how the excess heat is being created, nor can they duplicate the same, exact results on a consistent basis in some of these systems.

"This phenomenon – excess heat being observed during the interaction of these elements – is intriguing, but we don't understand where it is coming from," said David Robertson, professor of chemistry and associate director of research at MURR. "The success rate is about 20 percent, so we know the conditions must be very specific. It's a hit-or-miss reaction, which is the reason why we're trying to understand it, and we're using every tool in the toolbox to find the answer. "

The question is if this quote from Robertson represents the mainstream view, the minority view or something in between. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

From the Labinger 2005 reference in the article: "So there matters stand: no cold fusion researcher has been able to dispel the stigma of 'pathological science' by rigorously and reproducibly demonstrating effects sufficiently large to exclude the possibility of error (for example, by constructing a working power generator), nor does it seem possible to conclude unequivocally that all the apparently anomalous behavior can be attributed to error."

You can look in list of sources and search "repli" to find 5 or 6 more sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Labinger represent the majority view ? --POVbrigand (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Labinger's paper explains how cold fusion is perceived by the scientific community (aka, the majority view). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, so if Labinger's quote "...nor does it seem possible to conclude unequivocally that all the apparently anomalous behavior can be attributed to error." is also the majority view, then what view are people representing who claim that "it's all crackpot" ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have specified that this is the majority view on replication of experiments.

Labinger explicitly cites the view of "The majority of the scientific community" near the end (that the experimental observations are "mere mistakes"):

"with cold fusion there are essentially no theoretical frameworks among which to choose. Instead we have a set of observations that cannot be rationalized in terms of existing standard theory, and need to decide whether they (or some fraction thereof) are real anomalies that require new ideas, or mere mistakes. The majority of the scientific community has (explicitly or implicitly) opted for the second interpretation, just as the majority decided against phlogiston at the end of the 18th century. But the minority positions, then and now, were sustained for a considerable period."

Now, this talk page is for discussing changes to the article. The specific change proposed by 84.106.26.81 is not good because it does not agree with what sources say about replication of experiments. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Although this page should not become a forum on cold fusion, it is beneficial to also discuss what different views exists.

From your quote it is clear that Labinger describes the majority view as "The experimental obeservations are mere mistakes".

I also think the proposed change is not good and we should stick to the original version. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much open to suggestions:

• Cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), refers to a relatively low temperature nuclear reaction, some claim to occur, but others have not been able to replicate in a reliable way.

Doesn't that say what we want the text to say? Now how can we word it to avoid implying "all replications failed"? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To tell you the truth it will be very difficult to make an opening line that pleases everybody.

The cold fusion scientists themselves admit that their experiment is not reliably replicable. Even the latest info from University of Missouri says that there is a 20% success rate and that it's a hit or miss reaction.[55]

Another possible opening line could be:

• "Cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), refers to a relatively low temperature nuclear reaction that some claim occurs sometimes, but others have not been able to replicate at all.

Which is more or less exactly what is in the article opening line now, so we should just leave it as it is.--POVbrigand (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

removing Cartwright

[56]I've deleted Cartwright from the lead because the lead must be a summary of the article. This source does not appear in the article.

Their website miraculously stopped working just now.

http://www.groundreport.com/Arts_and_Culture/The-ghost-of-free-energy

RE: "you are not helping"[57]

• WP:LEAD: "The lead section of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."

There is no reasonable doubt the link is not part of the article body. You will have to introduce it there first before adding it to the lead.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding WP:LEAD. This source does not appear in the article. is not a reason to delete it from the lead. The whole article is about how cold fusion is perceived differently by mainstream science and by the minority view.

The article is now here http://www.groundreport.com/Health_and_Science/The-ghost-of-free-energy/2892069

have you read this article at all ?

--POVbrigand (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Cartwright has a master's degree in physics, making him an expert source on the general lay of the land, the attitudes of researchers, skeptics and the general public. Cartwright should not be denied a place in the article, conforming to all the various guidelines such as LEAD. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

An accusation that I wouldn't understanding the edit guidelines?

You are going to accept a summary using not just exactly the same sources as the body of the article but you are going to accept that the lead will also say exactly the same thing as the article.

If many scientists are not even aware there is ongoing research that is perfectly fine to say in the article.

You could create a whole section under "issues with the pons and fleischmann experiment". Lets call the section "Ignorance about ongoing research", that seems a rather major issue with the experiment.

You better not think I'm going to do that for you.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

To repeat my previous statement from before I identified the content as unique to the lead:

The article is a hilarious troll.

• "If you search on YouTube you can even witness some of those solitary cranks filming themselves."

Yeah, I've seen the nasa and spawar cranks on youtube filming themselves. This is the wikipedia standard for scientific investigative journalism? Excuse my sarcasm, this is the scholarly source you want to provide for me to learn things about condensed matter nuclear science? So that I don't have to read all those BAD peer review papers?

Don't make me laugh.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is NOT a hilarious troll. It is one of the best NPOV articles I have read. Read it again and maybe you will be able to recognize that the author is trying to explain the difference between non-scientist solitary cranks you can find on youtube and genuine scientists who work at credible universities. He says: "[Cold Fusion] conjures images of solitary cranks perched in the attic amid various bubbling chemistry sets and masses of spaghetti-like cables." And that this is the impression many people have about cold fusion. He continues to explain that the reality of cold fusion is different than that.

It seems that you yourself are unable to understand that there is a difference between the two views. This lack of understanding is what I regularly accuse the only-mainstream-POV editors of. Do me a favour and read the story and believe me when I say that Cartwright did his job well in describing the mainstream POV and minority POV in a neutral way.

The author did NOT refer at all to NASA or SPAWAR youtube videos, that is your understanding, but it is not correct. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Read it again"

I've been trying to for days.

edit: Ok ok, it isn't as trollish as I thought it was. It appears I scanned over the text to quickly. To be fair, if the article is a hilarious troll or not shouldn't make any difference.

It doesn't change the edit guidelines. Your argument still doesn't make sense. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What is bothering you about the sentences that you want to have it deleted ? Both sentences show that mainstream science have stopped listening (which is a fact). This shows that mainstream science believes that they have completely debunked the existence of the effect and have no interest in discussing it. This is what both the majority view and the minority view are saying, that a normal scientific discourse is not taking place.

Read "Whatever Happened to Cold Fusion?" by David Goodstein [58]. He mentions twice that mainstream science stopped listening "However, by this time, the world of mainstream science was no longer listening. ", "Unfortunately, in this area, science is not functioning normally. There is nobody out there listening. "

Anyway I have made a compromise and only put on of the two lines back in. OK for you ? --POVbrigand (talk) 10:18, 23 February 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[59]. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Current Science has an editorial board [60]. 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 Wikipedia: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)." [61] --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 Wikipedia 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)

You attempted to find evidence that Current Science is peer reviewed and failed utterly. The onus is on you to show a source is reliable. Please stop wasting our time rehashing previous arguments;

1. Peer review can not occur in 1 day. Editorial review can not occur in 1 day. A journal that engages in these practices can not be reliable. It is not my vision of peer review; it is self evident as others have agreed to above.

2. You have consistently failed to demonstrate that Current Science is peer reviewed. They don't claim to be peer reviewed on their website.

3. Consult WP:SCIRS

4. You have not provided any evidence that Current Science is reliable. The Indian academy of sciences is not a large group, compare it to the IOP. That the journal is run by the Indian academy of Sciences does not automagically make it reliable.

5. I am not demanding peer reviewed grade verifiability for the text, as it stands there is already an existing source(s) used to verify the statement "In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat.". Adding an unreliable source does not help verify the statement.

6. You do realize that wikipedia does not use the scientific approach? The scientific method is for working on original research within science not for writing wikipedia articles. Also, what exactly is your scientific background to tell me what a "very unscientific approach" is?

stop Flogging a dead horse. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Current Science" is listed on Science Citation Index as one of "over 3,700 of the world's leading scientific and technical journals across 100 disciplines.". You cherry picked one article to come to your conclusion "...some low grade non-peer reviewed journal". Current Science is one of 3769 scientific journals indexed in Science citation index, thus the journal is not "low grade". On the contrary, it is evidence of the journal's reliability.

The dean of the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries [62] put "Current Science" on a list of "peer-reviewed open access journals".

I consulted WP:SCIRS, it reads: "This page does not address reliability in context of the social sciences, biographical detail, social or political impact or controversy, or related non-scientific issues, even when these are presented in the context of a natural science article.".

WP:SCIRS nevertheless had some interesting infos: "Journal articles come in many types, including: original research, reviews, expert summaries, news, editorials, advocacy pieces, speculation, book reviews, correspondence, biographies, and eulogies." According to Current Science they indeed have a long list of different article categories. Not all of those article categories go through peer review. The article in question is in the "General Article" category. Looking at several other "General Articles" it seems they have a much shorter review (1-2 weeks) in comparison to "Research Articles" where the review takes up several months.

So from this we can conclude that: 1) current science is on of 3769 leading scientific journals. 2) the "Research Articles" undergo peer review that takes up to several months 3) the "General Articles" mostly undergo a review that normally takes 1-2 weeks. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the specific source article we are discussing here? [update: found it.] 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)

Wolfie - you claim to be a physicist. You are not! You are still in training. That can perhaps excuse your arrogance and un-self-challenged assurance; but, please don't embarrass an honorable profession by claiming to be a physicist already. You and Vobisdu have also libeled an honorable institution (Current Science) and defamed the editors who, if you are actually as good as you think you are, you might aspire to emulate.

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

"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)"

Since I have a paper presently under technical review at Current Science, I knew that you were lying. Your statement: "Where on the site do they mention they perform peer review?" betrayed you. The only comment about peer review on the American Physical Society journals are for their on-line journals. Would you make a similar insinuation about Physical Review? However, for your information, in the INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS (http://cs-test.ias.ac.in/cs/php/pdf/publish2011.pdf), Current Science states: "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." (My emphasis)

Your concept of the review process indicates how naive you are about the politics of publication. The editor has the power to reject papers out of hand. (However, they can be over-ruled by their employer. As has been recently demonstrated by the AIP, when an editor was going to publish proceedings of the LENR Sessions at an ACS conference.) An editor can send a paper to reviewers that he knows will reject it. Likewise, he can call up peer reviewers and get 1-day turn-around for acceptance or rejection to meet a deadline. I can generally review an eight-page paper in 3 hours. I could get an emailed paper in the morning and have the comments and recommendations back to the editor before lunch. I generally do it on the weekends; but, it can be done rapidly.

Many journals today ask the authors to submit several names as reviewers and allow rejection of some names for that role. The editor can choose to use the recommendation or not. This can speed things up immensely.

In summary, your and DV's comments and attitudes are so clearly POV, when you are willing to say what you have, that it should be sufficient to have both of you permanently banned from the article. I will be willing to support anyone who would start the process. Aqm2241 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am bringing things to ANI as it seems to be increasingly focussed on making claims against me and others. [63]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, am learning alot from this discussion about the editorial process and catagories for peer review. Separate from the publishing world (although not apart) is the important scientific review process which is the attempt to further a body of knowledge by replicating a published experiment; improving instrumentation and addressing possible errors in order to verify or refute published observations (scientific method). Most referenced statements found in this article are from the publishing world. The peer reviewed work may have had, a cursory examination if an op-ed piece by a professor, or a detailed technical examination if a submitted techinical scientific paper. Weight is given accordingly. This part I am not to clear on. Is information from a second or third laborotory scientific review of an experiment a new document (primary) or a secondary source as it is a review (scientific review) of a previously published work?--Gregory Goble (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Current Science shows an impact factor of 0.782 (2009). Is there any conceivable reason we should treat it as worth paying attention to, when clearly authors in other journals systematically choose not to? This is a journal which headlines its website with "All articles published in Current Science, especially editorials, opinions and commentaries, letters and book reviews, are deemed to reflect the individual views of the authors and not the official points of view, either of the Current Science Association or of the Indian Academy of Sciences." One can admire the spirit of openness, but it does nothing for assurance that there has been adequate fact checking, let alone systematic review of methods.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

LSD ... On the 2011 SJR rating, Current Science is in the top 1/3 of all rated journals (nearly 19,000 of them). Based on the H index, it is in the top 1/10. You have made assumptions, innuendo, and statements based on conjecture and no apparent knowledge. Is it intentional or just Hubris? Aqm2241 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, there's the rub. You are looking at a different criterion than everyone else. You could simply have said so, rather than engaging in counterproductive personal attacks. Indeed, amongst journals calling themselves "multidisciplinary" Current Science H-index of 55 ranks 7/77 [64] and its SJR of 0.053 ranks 18/77. [65] These are certainly respectable values, though still far below the top-ranked (by IF, SJR, and H-index) Nature, Science, and PNAS. With that information, I would agree that the journal is not so obscure as to be a reason to question the reliability of the paper. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

LSD Sorry to get 'personal. However, I am tired of the mindless efforts of the anti-CF crowd to keep out any positive information on developments in CF. You were kind enough to provide a link that actually showed Current Science to be ranked higher than Naturwissenschaften. Yet the issue will soon be lost and the positive references will again 'disappear' from the article. I worked 2 weeks to get this group to accept a positive comment from Scaramuzzi's year 2000 paper. There were 9 negative quotes from him about CF referenced at the time. Finally, I was allowed to include a single positive statement from a 'major' source of negative quotes in the article (rather than deleting his reference entirely as I had suggested). If one reads the article, it is obvious that Scaramuzzi is a proponent of CF. A good scientist always includes the references that he is arguing against. That single positive statement has now been deleted from the article and 8 of the negative statements remain. Is it a surprise that I ask about some of the editor's POV, purpose, or source of paycheck?Aqm2241 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about with paychecks. Removal of this reference did not lead to the removal of any article content. The reference is not reliable but we have other references for the text for where it was used. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, I wonder if User:IRWolfie- and User:Dominus_Vobisdu are going to agree with you on that, after all they concluded that: "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal." and "It's clearly not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Not a reliable source for science-related topics.". --POVbrigand (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The papers used in the article were not peer reviewed. 1 day of editorial review also suggests little editorial control. The references aren't even used for any particular content that isn't covered by another source so I don't see why you are so vehemently pushing this. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that you deleted two (2) papers [66] with the edit comment "bot in the same journal,, unreliable for the same reason"

One was the "General Article" paper by Krivit with 1 day between "received" and "accepted".

The other one was a "Research Article" paper by K.P. Sinha and A. Meulenberg - you may google the credentials yourself - that was "received" on 17 March 2006 and "accepted" 18 August 2006. That's five (5) months.

I think in this discussion other editors have pointed out - and found even more convincing evidence than I did - that "Current Science" is an accepted journal and ranks amongst "the top" multidisciplinary journals and as such cannot be dismissed.

My perception of you is that you are blatantly in the wrong, yet uncapable of changing your view and you're dragging me to Arbcom over it.

If you do see where you might have erred, I would applaud you and forget about the whole issue on the spot.

Please note that this is not a personal attack. Lot's of WP:wikilove, yours sincerely. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading the arguments I've decided to restore the sources.

I do propose their articles be searched for original content worthy of mention in our article.

After talking with some pathological deniers I think we should consider salting the source a bit to avoid giving the wrong impression. Namely: that the publication would be prominent enough to restore the damage done to the field. It might be a peer reviewed publication, it isn't "heavy" enough to convince our pathological deniers that anything is going on at all. Stranger things have appeared in journals.

It does however add to the growing body of evidence that we should be outlining here. Omission would make this complicated if not impossible.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is against the re-insertion, especially of the Krivit paper which was not peer reviewed and was only "reviewed" for one day. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, there is no consensus either way.

However, it has been clearly shown in this thread that "Current Science" is a reliable source. The editor-in-chief managed to get this "general article" paper accepted within a day. We are not editors-in-chief of scientific journals, we are simple wikipedia editors and it is out of our league to speculate on how or why the editor-in-chief decided to have this paper included. The assumptions and conclusions mentioned in this thread are WP:OR.

--POVbrigand (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That the editor in chief allowed it through in one day helps show that it is unreliable. It is exactly our job to speculate on the reliability of the sources. You brought this to RSN, you failed to convince people, people were not convinced here either, let it die already. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus on RS/N and there is no consensus here. Several editors are convinced it is reliable. Some of the early arguments against reliability of "Current Science" have been clearly rebutted. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

and who exactly is it that are convinced it is reliable? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just read the threads --POVbrigand (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Add to: In popular culture - Cold Fusion

I propose adding the following two sentences to: In popular culture - Cold Fusion

Popular opinion notwithstanding, researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work, even though the existence of the phenomenon is circumscribed by the widespread belief that the phenomenon is not real. [189]

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. [189]

They are taken from the back cover of the book:

Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion, by Bart Simon.

Everything in the section, In popular culture - Cold Fusion, is from his book as is the following.

By 1990, the promise of an energy revolution died as scientific opinion favored the skeptics. Nevertheless, many scientists continue to do research on cold fusion, an instance of what Bart Simon calls “undead science.”

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 to exist long after the controversy has subsided, even though the existence of the phenomenon is circumscribed by the widespread belief that the phenomenon is not real.

Bart Simon is an assistant professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. --Gregory Goble (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Perhaps a full professor now? I'm not sure of his present title.--Gregory Goble (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this qualifies as popular culture. The paperback version is currently ranked #2,984,547 on Amazon and it is ranked in the Kindle store as #576,156. Olorinish (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read this from 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion' on Wikipedia? All of the following comes from the book you provide rankings for: Some scientists use cold fusion as a synonym of outrageous claims made with no supporting proof,[189] and courses of ethics in science give it as an example of pathological science.[189] It has appeared as a joke in Murphy Brown and The Simpsons.[189] It was adopted as a product name by software Coldfusion and a brand of protein bars (Cod Fusion Foods).[189] It has also appeared in commercial advertising as a synonym for impossible science, for example a 1995 ad of Pepsi Max.[189] In the 1994 comedy I.Q., Albert Einstein makes up a "cold fusion" science to help his niece start a romantic relationship.

The plot of The Saint, a 1997 action-adventure film, parallels the story of Fleischmann and Pons, but has a very different ending. The science is rejected by scientific skepticism in the US, but USSR scientists manage to build a working generator and start an age of "infinite energy".[189] The film might have affected the public perception of cold fusion, pushing it further into the science fiction realm.[189]^ a b c d e f g Simon 2002, pp. 91-95,116-118 Popular opinion notwithstanding, researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work, even though the existence of the phenomenon is circumscribed by the widespread belief that the phenomenon is not real. 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. You suggest I should not add the last two sentences from the same source on perceptions of cold fusion in popular culture. Why? Do you think that we (editors sourcing it) say the book is popular? No it's not very popular (low sales) but it is popular to source it on Wikipedia.(7 times here and many times elsewhere)--Gregory Goble (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This articles' history is rich and worth reviewing. "In popular culture" is a recent addition originally appearing 10:53 Jan. 4, 2012 http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=469488903#In_popular_culture , posted by 79.181.36.116 (talk)‎ (130,206 bytes) (→Patents: Merge from List of references to cold fusion in popular culture) The original was a great list, lots'a fun to read and the page has this guideline -This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references- Four hours or so later it was completely changed to its present version here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=469515328 on 14:47, 4 January 2012‎ by Enric Naval (talk | contribs)‎ (128,867 bytes) (→In popular culture: rewrite using a reliable source) (undo) The two versions are worthy of a comparison or two.--Gregory Goble (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To:Olorinish (talk)

My bad... first appeared around 2007... then gone... now back... followed with the four hour quick change edit by Enric Naval to the version now seen on Wikipedia. Crazy edit history that I, for one, do not understand,,, yet! Help? --Gregory Goble (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Olorinish, You made a possibly negative comment to the talk on this proposed edit to cold fusion. I have asked for clarification. Do you care to clarify or comment now before I proceed? Posted to Olorinish Talk at right about this time... --Gregory Goble (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Other editors must have a thought or two... comments, objections, or better yet suggestions; how to improve this section of the article together. Please chime into: In popular culture - Cold Fusion.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If the question at hand is adding the sentences from the blurb from the back of

• Simon, Bart (2002). Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion. Rutgers University Press. p. p.49. ISBN 978-0813531540. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

to the article, I oppose. First, they are poorly written and they are a now ten year old observation made by an anonymous editor at Rutgers University press. They lack any timeliness and any authority. The Wikipedia editor has already done a good job of summarizing the relevant content of Simon's book in this section. patsw (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfounded

You think the text sourced is, “a blurb” and “are poorly written and they are a now ten year old observation made by an anonymous editor at Rutgers University press” and I say this is a groundless speculation. The most relevant statement found on the back cover is taken from the authors’ words found in the body of the book. You state, “The Wikipedia editor has already done a good job of summarizing the relevant content of Simon's book in this section” and I say he has taken the authors words out of context and that the most relevant point the author makes in this regard (popular culture) is, (Popular opinion notwithstanding) “researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work, even though the existence of the phenomenon is circumscribed by the widespread belief [popular culture] that the phenomenon is not real. 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 [popular culture]; and the conceptualization of failure in the history of science and technology.”

My mama said, “I buy you books and all you read is the covers”. I NOW MUST PROVE THAT WRONG ONCE AGAIN. Back to the library, copy machine, pencil=paper, and ultimately source a reference from the book that I know will be irrefutable by you.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I apologize for the delay, off to the library now. I will post an acceptable reference to the sentences in the next day or so.--Gregory Goble (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"The cold fusion controversy did not end because Fleischman and Pons were wrong; it ended because CF researchers found themselves lacking social and material resources to argue that they were right. Yet cold fusion research has continued after the generally acknowledged end of the of the controversy in 1990. So resources must be coming from somewhere. How researchers are able to work, what kinds of research, and how the research is collectively organized are the questions that motivate the argument of the next two chapters. In the first instance I am less concerned with making how post-closure research happens than I am with making the case that it happens at all.

As I argued in Chapter 4, cold fusion research as pathological science has become the normal explanation for post closure CF research. While this is an effective means of reproducing closure and reinforcing the epistemic boundaries of conventional physics. The prevalence of pathology talk has the effect of publicly eliding or suppressing a collective practice (cold fusion research) that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science. Because cold fusion is perceived as pathological science, it will require a little extra work on my part to demonstrate that their is nothing particularly pathological going on in laboratories of cold fusion researchers."[ISBN 978-0813531540]pgs 124,125 Undead Science, by Bart Simon

Undead Science is a term for mainstream science that is hidden from view due to sociological reasons. It replaces the term pathological science, in regards to cold fusion research, for reasons elucidated throughout the book.

The sentences I first proposed here from the summary on the back of the book are most likely the words of the author as is standard for an academic book. Not words from an "anonymous editor at Rutgers University Press" as is surmised by Patsw|talk. I also disagree that "a good job of summarizing the relevant content of Simon's book in this section" has been done for this article until we include a sentence or two that reflect the authors intent. Prior to the edit by Enric Naval I find this guideline: "This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references." Including either my first proposed sentences or the following two sentences (my second choice) would clarify the authors' argument as to the relationship between cold fusion and popular culture.

This following is my second choice for two sentences to add to Popular Culture - Cold Fusion. I have emailed the author Bart Simon for verification of the accuracy of the summary and his approval of referencing sentences (my first choice) from the summary as regards posting to Wikipedia.

The cold fusion controversy did not end because Fleischman and Pons were wrong, yet cold fusion research as pathological science has become the normal explanation for post closure CF research. The prevalence of pathology talk has the effect of publicly eliding or suppressing a collective practice (cold fusion research) that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science.

elide verb (used with object), e·lid·ed, e·lid·ing. 1. to omit (a vowel, consonant, or syllable) in pronunciation. 2. to suppress; omit; ignore; pass over. 3. Law . to annul or quash.

epistemic adjective 1. of or pertaining to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it. From pages 124 and 125 Undead Science.--Gregory Goble (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The other day I did add this content to the 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion' section and it was deleted a coupla' hours later with no discussion by: Olorinish (talk | contribs) with the following... "These do not describe the popular culture impact of cold fusion. Also, they contradict the Kean 2010 and Ouellette 2011 articles." I ask for an explanation of this train of thought, "These do not describe the popular culture impact of cold fusion". Olorinish what is your reasoning? Undead Science describes the effectual relationship of cold fusion research and popular culture. Olorinish could you please explain what you mean when reasoning that, "they contradict the Kean 2010 and Ouellette 2011 articles"? I have not been educated in this regard and would like a lead to your referenced materials (Kean 2010 and Ouellette 2011 articles) and a brief description as to their relevance to this editorial conflict. .--Gregory Goble (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The links for the Kean 2010 and Ouellette 2011 articles are in reference numbers 7 and 9 respectively in the current article. They, along with other documents such as those posted by Enric Naval, indicate that the cold fusion researchers are a minority group whose views about the existence of cold fusion are out of the mainstream. Therefore the comments about "well respected laboratories" and "rigorous work," and statements implying that Fleischmann and Pons were not wrong are contradicted by many reliable sources and should not be included in this way. Also, the sentences are not helpful in illuminating the effect of cold fusion on popular culture, which is what should be included in a section titled "In popular culture." Olorinish (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cold Fusion/LENR

Irrefutable observed anomalous heat in controlled environments.

The increased sophistication of: experiments/instrumentation.

Validity of the scientific query process argued out in “public”.

Continued advancement of Cold Fusion/LENR understanding.

Increased replicas ability parallels increased understanding.

Behold we have Cold fusion/LENR, an excellent example of a new trajectory of the sociological path of Science (that which furthers knowledge and understanding) called ‘Undead Science’, and the book by Bart Simon. Every editor here should read this book from cover to cover… twice!

Olorinish I hope you can advise me on this, specifically this, and only this… Concerning Bart Simon’s book ‘Undead Science’… Are selected sentences worthy and acceptable only if not contradicting a certain POV? (Contradicting Kean 2010 and Ouellette 2011) That is what you are saying in your argument for not allowing Bart’s words to be used here. Undead Science is clearly a book explaining the effect of Cold Fusion played out in (popular culture) public, and the public’s (mainstream) opinions effects on Cold Fusion science, continuing robust cold fusion research, AND “Undead Science” (NOT undead-pathological science). Ask Bart. ‘In popular culture – Cold Fusion’ Recommend that all of Bart’s words be taken out of the article or retract your objection to me using a few of them. As you most likely already know, ‘controversy’ and ‘contradictory views’ are sort of like synonyms. Thanks Olorinish! Direct and not oblique is Olorinish and me… No POV… hopefully. I will post all four sentences to the article once again (in a day or so) unless you (editors out there) convince me to do otherwise.--Gregory Goble (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Are selected sentences worthy and acceptable only if not contradicting a certain POV?" They are unacceptable because they promote a POV which is contradictory to NPOV [67]: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view."

According to the wikipedia page on popular culture [68], it refers to things that are "preferred per an informal consensus within the mainstream of a given culture" and that permeate "the everyday lives of the society." In contrast, those statements are about a topic which is not commonly discussed (cold fusion), in a venue that does not have wide distribution (like the movie "The Saint"), and state opinions that are inconsistent with the mainstream of opinion on the topic (that the work of cold fusion researchers and their labs are highly respected).

Also, if those sentences are copied word-for-word, or with very few changes, without in-text attribution, adding them may be a form of plagiarism [69] [70].

Please do not replace those sentences in the article. That would be a violation of wikipedia policy on consensus [71]: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making."

Fortunately, compromise also fundamental to wikipedia [72]: "The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible." Can you propose a compromise that addresses your concerns? Perhaps the Undead Science book should be included in reference 14 of the current article? Olorinish (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Undead Science by Bart Simon is already used multiple times as reference, look for "Simon 2002" --POVbrigand (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Storey argues that there is a political dimension to popular culture; neo-Gramscian hegemony theory "... sees popular culture as a site of struggle between the 'resistance' of subordinate groups in society and the forces of 'incorporation' operating in the interests of dominant groups in society."[73] Including the sentences would show the relationship between cold fusion and popular culture, As seen in the Wikipedia article on Popular Culture there are "struggles between the 'resistance' of subordinate groups in society and the forces of 'incorporation' operating in the interests of dominant groups in society" Olorinish wants to keep it simple and it isn't. The article remains neutral by stating it is controversial and presenting the whole of it. My use of Bart Simons words is not plagiarism, but used here would ensure that his words already found 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion' are read as in the context of the book which potrays the sociological forces influencing Cold Fusion research as Undead Science, i.e. hidden and interwoven throughout mainstream science. Sorry if this is not reality as you see it. It is as Bart Simon sees it and I will reference it from the book 'Undead Science' if Olorinish needs me to do so.--Gregory Goble (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A COMPROMISE (added text is in italics) In popular culture - Cold Fusion

In 'Undead Science', Sociologist Bart Simon references the following examples of cold fusion found in popular culture: Some scientists use cold fusion as a synonym of outrageous claims made with no supporting proof,[185] and courses of ethics in science give it as an example of pathological science.[185] It has appeared as a joke in Murphy Brown and The Simpsons.[185] It was adopted as a product name by software Coldfusion and a brand of protein bars (Cod Fusion Foods).[185] It has also appeared in commercial advertising as a synonym for impossible science, for example a 1995 ad of Pepsi Max.[185] In the 1994 comedy I.Q., Albert Einsteinmakes up a "cold fusion" science to help his niece start a romantic relationship. The plot of The Saint, a 1997 action-adventure film, parallels the story of Fleischmann and Pons, but has a very different ending. The science is rejected by scientific skepticism in the US, but USSR scientists manage to build a working generator and start an age of "infinite energy".[185] The film might have affected the public perception of cold fusion, pushing it further into the science fiction realm.[185] In his hypothesis 'undead science' Professor Simon further summarizes the relationship of cold fusion reasearch and popular culture, "The prevalence of pathology talk has the effect of publicly eliding or suppressing a collective practice that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science."[185]--Gregory Goble (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the addition of the last line like this: In his book 'undead science' Simon writes: "The prevalence of pathology talk has the effect of publicly eliding or suppressing a collective practice that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science.". It is an attributed direct quote from a source which is already used multiple times as a reference in this article. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I like your edit suggestion to my edit proposal for the last sentence, I will incorporate "hypothesis" into your edit proposal to ensure no 'undue weight' is given to the revised proposed edit.--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

While both of these one-sentence proposals by Gregory Goble and POVbrigand are accurate, I don't see how they improve the article. To me it seems obvious that labeling an area of science as incorrect and pathological will suppress interest by scientists to study it. Also, stating that cold fusion is science is not very helpful because pathological science is still science. Including a sentence like these is kind of like saying that two plus two equals four. Am I missing something? Are there other quotes from the book about the suppression process that are more illuminating (people worried about tenure, people talked into pursuing another area of research by more senior people, etc.)? Is there evidence that researchers are basing those decisions on popular culture rather than on other factors such as proposal review processes and article review processes? Olorinish (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

“Research in constructivist sociology of science has made great strides in illuminating the production of natural scientific and technical knowledge as a fundamentally social activity. One of the most fruitful areas of investigation has been the empirical study of scientific controversies. Empirical studies of controversies have helped show that what counts as truth in a given cultural context is dependent, in part, on the socially negotiated alignment or consensus of the beliefs, interests and/or practices of participants.” For a sense of Bart Simon’s history with the world of cold fusion research see the following:[74], “Dr. Simon’s new book, Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion (forthcoming in November from Rutgers University Press), expands his PhD dissertation about “one of the most famous scientific controversies of the last century.” However, adds the assistant professor of sociology, “I think I’ve got a different kind of story to tell about it.”” Also of interest is his dissertation, Post-closure cold fusion and the survival of a research community: An hauntology for the technoscientific afterlife. [75]

"Empirical studies of controversies have helped show that what counts as truth in a given cultural context is dependent, in part, on the socially negotiated alignment or consensus of the beliefs, interests and/or practices of participants.”

In order to address future charges of 'undue:weight' and to keep all things in context, please read and research the following: Bart Simon ACADEMIC DEGREES : Ph.D. (Sociology/Science Studies), University of California at San Diego (1998) MSc. (Sociology of Scientific Knowledge), University of Edinburgh (1990) B.A. (Cultural Studies), Trent University (1989) Profile: Bart Simon is Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of the Research Initiative in Technoculture, Art and Games (TAG) at Concordia University. His research focuses on the nature of digital gameplay, game cultures and user experience. He has worked extensively in the field of game studies and digital culture for the last seven years. He is a founding member of the international Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) and the Canadian Game Studies Association (CGSA), he has been the review chair for the culture stream for the last two DiGRA conferences (2007 and 2009) and sits on the editorial boards of the international journals; "Games and Culture" and "Game Studies". Bart has also established strong relationships with Montreal area game designers and has doctoral students working as researchers and consultants with Electronic Arts, Montreal. He recently completed two 3 year studies funded by SSHRC and FQRSC of the social organization of play in multiplayer online games and LAN parties and he is currently PI on a new SSHRC funded study on gestural games with partners at SFU and Bristol University, UK.

More broadly, Bart also teaches and conducts research in the areas of surveillance and information technology, science and technology studies, digital culture and material culture and new media.--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Gregory, why are you posting all this data about an author of a book ? Nobody here is interested in this information about Bart Simon. This talk page is not about Bart Simon. It is already established that the book "Undead Science" by this author is a reliable source and it is used as reference multiple times in our article. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to establish why Enric Naval lent so much weight to Bart Simon, who is an expert in the sociology of the development of scientific knowledge. i.e. I have given the credentials of the author,--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand, Thank you for your helpful observations (and support) concerning my edit proposal in this battleground Wiki article COLD - FUSION. Wikipedia is a relatively new sociological phenomenon.--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I just emailed this to Bart Simon, "Sir, Your background of research interests may make you someone who is qualified to research the following: See Wiki Talk Cold Fusion,,, edit proposals... Gregory Goble. Cold Fusion and Wiki has an interesting history, the edit history is huge and needs investigation to realize the underlying dynamics. My sense is that you may have a future interest in this; due to recent developments in cold fusion research and your understanding of the sociological stage played out concerning Cold Fusion Science. Respectfully. GBGoble"--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The starting sentence sounds OK.

The ending sentence is cherry-picked and removed from its original context. The word "scientific" was surrounded with scare quotes, the omitted first part of the sentence described some useful roles of "pathology talk", and the next sentence says that CF is not normal science even if it has nothing pathological. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Observations of "cherry picked" and "removed from its original context" may be wrong, I will address these concerns over the next couple of days, time permitting. Thank you Enric Naval for your approval of my sentence to be included preceding your cherry picked posting to, 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion'; whether you kept it in context or not. Fodder and food for thought is Wikipedia.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Study the edit history of 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion'--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval your concern that "The word "scientific" was surrounded with scare quotes" is misplaced. Scare quotes are used for varied purposes by a writer including, "The term scare quotes may be confusing because the word scare implies provocation, yet the term covers emotionally neutral usage as well. In many cases an author uses scare quotes not to convey alarm, but to signal a semantic quibble."[76] Thanks for agreeing to keep things in context.--Gregory Goble (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval, Your remaining arguments are poorly phrased paraphrases of yours showing a clear misunderstanding of the author's words. I should not have to reference them for you; next time include them in your arguments please.

Enric Naval's arguments are, "(1)the omitted first part of the sentence described some useful roles of "pathology talk"" and (2)"the next sentence says that CF is not normal science even if it has nothing pathological."

The author's words are, "As I argued in Chapter 4, cold fusion research as pathological science has become the normal explanation for post closure CF research. While this is an effective means of reproducing closure and reinforcing the epistemic boundaries of conventional physics. (1)The prevalence of pathology talk has the effect of publicly eliding or suppressing a collective practice (cold fusion research) that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science. (2)Because cold fusion is perceived as pathological science, it will require a little extra work on my part to demonstrate that their is nothing particularly pathological going on in laboratories of cold fusion researchers" As is clearly seen: Enric Naval's (1)"omitted first part of the sentence" is WHERE? and) Enric Naval opinions that (1)"some useful roles of "pathology talk"" are: reproducing closure, publicly eliding, or suppressing cold fusion research. I argue that is far from the the author's opinion and Enric Naval should explain how this possibly could be.--Gregory Goble (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I will address Enric Naval's remaining concern that, "The ending sentence is cherry-picked and removed from its original context", see(2) soon; too soon.--Gregory Goble (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Building consensus thru debate: Lack of rebuttal concedes consensus. Thanks for context.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) There is a comma before "the prevalence", not a period, you are cutting the first sentence in half. (2) you are omitting the end of the last sentence "(...) while at the same time arguing that CF research is not normal science."

And transcription errors that significantly change the meaning: you are still omitting the scare quotes in "scientific", you changed "or even suppressing" to "or suppressing".

Also changing "nuclear physics" to "physics", and "Because we live in a world in which cold fusion is generally perceived as being pathological science" to "Because cold fusion is perceived as pathological science".

(And "reinforcing the epistemic boundaries of conventional physics" should count as an useful role, I think.) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: lack of rebuttal may simply indicate that others consider the debate to be resolved, that further argument is unnecessary. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... I will respond in a few days... time permitting.--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Enric Naval et. al. Please simply post your 'correct' transcription for comparison. I may decide to suggest a different compromise upon reflection after your posting of the correct version, or upon your failure to do so. Bart Simon's words are numerous, rich, and elucidating in that which surrounds the contemporary world of the sociology of science.--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

I have filed an arbitration enforcement notice related to editors who edit this article. Please see [77]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I like where you say:

"I should mention that I have no interest in Cold Fusion and the Energy Catalyzer beyond ensuring the wikipedia articles do not expound fringe theories."

Could you now remove yourself from this article talk page?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I am on this talk page entirely for the reason I stated, to ensure that wikipedia articles do not promote fringe theories but instead maintain NPOV. Outside of editing wikipedia articles I have no interest in Cold Fusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Several years ago Wikipedia gave the ability to look up an individual's edit history. Based on that record, I identified 2 anti-CF editors who for several years had several edits a week and then, suddenly showed, 20 to 30 edits per day. The sudden increase and patterned nature of their topics strongly suggested that they had become paid site-sitters. I doubt that they suddenly 'got religion' and had no interests "beyond ensuring the wikipedia articles do not expound fringe theories." (Many of their 'suddenly new interests' were not CF and not fringe.) Wikipedia no longer provides that information publicly (indicating its involvement). However, I am sure that it is available and, unless the arbitration committee wants to lose its credibility, it should be able to access individual edit records.

I believe that those experienced site-sitters, now veteran Wiki-lawyers, have moved on to higher-priority (and perhaps better paying) 'targets'. They were not in the least embarrassed about their history (nor did they offer to explain it); but, they were clearly threatening about 'personal attacks'. However, since none of the pro-CF editors showed this pattern, it would be prudent to use it as a diagnostic in arbitration. IRWolfie, would your edit record betray you and show that you are what your 'name' implies? Aqm2241 (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

several proposed revisions

I'm removing poorly sourced nonsense from the article. At least that is what I think I am doing. It appears POVbrigand and Enric Naval have other ideas about my contributions. I don't remember anything about not being allowed to edit any articles on wikipedia so I think you should come up with some valid excuse why the poorly sourced nonsense needs to remain in our Condensed Mater Nuclear Science article.

But first I should obviously try to explain what I think I was doing.

In order of appearance:

---

• [78] section "Conferences"

Things removed:

• the start of the section: "Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences."

I would argue the conferences and the society exists to investigate Condensed Mater Nuclear Science. It isn't a shelter for cold fusion researchers no one wants anymore. The Un-sourced original research is hereby challenged.

The first source in the section about the conferences states:[79]

Why do we need a Society at all?

Good question! Experience shows that organizing any scientific initiative on an personal basis can place unreasonable burdens on the individuals concerned. For example, to organize a meeting, the organizers need to advance deposits on the conference hall, hotels and restaurants etc. Attendees benefit from discounts without taking any of the risks. It is not appropriate that these risks are taken by organizers who may be donating their time free of charge. Of course there are many other initiatives which the Society intends to take - organizing meetings is just one example.

The community needs an organization that is democratic and seen to be democratic. Democracies necessarily have to respond to their members and tend to provide better service. Because democratic organizations can claim to represent their members they are able to negotiate with other institutions including government from a stronger position.

It is difficulty for informal organizations to issue official invitations to foreigners for VISA purposes. There is no simple way for the authorities to check the validity of the invitation because informal organizations do not exist on the public record. As a result many foreigners are unable to travel to scientific meetings due to lack of a travel VISA. This problem is becoming more serious as a result of tightening international security.

A Society is accountable. Both attendees and sponsors of meetings like to know how their money is spent. Historically conference organizers have rarely published accounting records with the result that sponsors are now in short supply and attendees rightly or wrongly may consider the conference fees excessive. At many Cold Fusion meetings there has been no sponsorship whatsoever and we all pay the price in terms of high fees and declining attendance.

Formalizing a scientific society implies continuity. Many meeting organizations have a fleeting existence and lessons learned fail to get passed on to succeeding volunteers. Resources get wasted if there is no continuity. For example the ICCFs have registered and created their own distinct web sites.

I don't see anything about changing the name out of fear of pathological deniers. At least not in the context of the society.

After deleting everything I did again, this time including illustrations, Enric refers to the "ongoing" section[80], the "ongoing" section states:

• "Often they prefer to name their field Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), also Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR), Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) and Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions."

• "one of the reasons being to avoid the negative connotations associated with "cold fusion"."

• "The new names avoid making bold implications, like implying that fusion is happening on them."

For the conference this should be primary sourced as "statements by the subject" because the above appears to be directly contradicting the statements on the official website of the charity.

Of course in reality Undead science states: [81] "Mizuno's data joined similar reports from researchers in Russia, Japan, and the United States who were finding all sorts of strange isotopes of elements, and these reports have effectively expanded the field of research under the label of low energy nuclear reactions."

For as far as I may search Bart Simon's doesn't mention Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR), Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) or Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions.

As the book is from 2002, it can not overrule the motivations listed on the foundation website.

The "ongoing" section does also state:

• "Proponents see them as a more accurate description of the theories they put forward."

The reader is not informed which one of the 2 contradicting explanations applies to the foundation. The name change is not explained under "ongoing research".

Something like this:

The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. Because the organization deems it unlikely for the multiple anomalies involved in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science to be explained by a single class of nuclear reactions, in 2004, the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS) was renamed to International Society on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and the International Conference on Cold Fusion became the International Conference on Condensed Mater Nuclear Science.

Is more appropriate than:

Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. With the founding in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (the reasons are explained in the "ongoing" section).

This bad section was left the way it was:

• "Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR, but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field."

Honest objective readers can easily see that this has nothing to do with the Conferences section but I didn't want to change everything. It might fit better elsewhere in the article as:

• "Cold fusion research is often referenced as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR, according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field."

Then the section goes on to say:

• "Since 2006, the American Physical Society (APS) has included cold fusion sessions at their semiannual meetings, clarifying that this does not imply a softening of skepticism."

Which I changed into:

• "Since 2006, the American Physical Society (APS) has included cold fusion sessions at their semiannual meetings."

Because not every sentence of the article has to have a moaning skeptic on the soap box.

• Wikipedia says: "Bob Park of APS, when asked if hosting the meeting showed a softening of scepticism answered: "[Absolutely not]. Anyone can deliver a paper. We defend the openness of science"

If there really is a source for that then the article can just cite him? There is no need for creative interpretation like: "the conference does not imply a softening of skepticism." Personally, I think asking a person if he has gone insane shouldn't yield interesting replies.

The American Physical Society claims to be the leading professional organization of physicists, representing over 46,000 physicists in academia and industry in the United States and internationally. I propose changing it into this: (The context of the statement is cold fusion.)

"APS does not, as an organization, endorse particular experiments or their results. That can only be done through publication in peer-reviewed journals, and by independent replication by other researchers."[82]

Much more representative for the organization? Or is Bob L. Park (the pathological skeptic[83]) a better source for what the APS is all about?

The other source provided[84] explains the faulty reasoning of the critics: "Speaker George Miley says: "Much of the criticism has come from people who haven't worked in the field and much of it stems from the rather sad beginning. The ability to have nuclear reactions take place in solids is remarkable and it opens up a whole new field of physics.""

So in actuality the source quite acuratly captures the pathology of the skepticism - thank you very much. Or wait, only the pathological skeptics are allowed to use news articles, the believers must have top grade peer review papers. Not weblogs like current science and reviewing callometry must take more than 1 day or the source is disqualified. I keep forgetting how spectacularly neutral Wikipedia is.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• [85] here I remove the illustration for not being very illustrative.

No explanation for this should be required.

---

• [86] Here I included a new illustration of: Thomas Graham (chemist)

No explanation for this should be required. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• [87] Here I add a photo made by Steven B Krivit of Michael McKubre working on a deuterium gas-based cold fusion cell. (2007)

No explanation for this should be required. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• [88] here I delete some bullshit and break a ref that was kindly restored by Lothar von Richthofen 3 min later.

Forced to have another look at what I've done I end up actually reading the article. It turns out to be a hilarious troll.[89] Furthermore, the statements are not in our CMNS article. The non-source only exists in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the article, if you want this hilarious trash in the article you will first have to put it in some paragraph below.

I'm not going to use kind words to describe some one who writes: "If you search on YouTube you can even witness some of those solitary cranks filming themselves."

Yeah, I've seen the nasa and spawar cranks on youtube filming themselves. This is the wikipedia standard for scientific investigative journalism? Excuse my sarcasm, this is the scholarly source you want to provide for me to learn things about condensed matter nuclear science? So that I don't have to read all those BAD peer review papers? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• [90] Again I delete this for not having a source.

I should stop doing that while there is no reliable source?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A time to consider this from mainstream LENR/Cold Fusion Science:

(LeadSongDog come howl! 14:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)) --Gregory Goble (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)NONE of which is source worthy,,, or not?--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Gregory, but even on talkpages, copyvios are illegal. Just paraphrase and cite it.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, thanks so I think... there is this paraphrase and citation.

This work and similar ones might possibly not bring us closer to the grand unification theory… Einstein smiles.

As understanding about cold fusion phenomenon increases we see increased replicas ability.

Of particular interest from Sargoytchev’s work is the following concerning the proper environment for LENR/cold fusion:

It is more probable between a heavier and a light nucleus with a proper neutron to proton ratio being in a powder form in order to increase its active surface while a proper temperature is required and pressure of the light element gas is a prerequisite combined with a pressure pulsation, perhaps with acoustic cavitations in a liquid phase or a plasma arc or a strong EM pulse.[91]Considerations: (from pgs 17 and 18) Probably not the best place here but perhaps under... suggestions from the Wiki Cold Fusion editorial team?--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Faster than the Jones

We have:

"On May 1, 1989, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion in Baltimore, including many reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion. At the end of the session, eight of the nine leading speakers stated that they considered the initial Fleischmann and Pons claim dead with the ninth, Johann Rafelski, abstaining.[6] Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann" which was met with a standing ovation.[46] Douglas R. O. Morrison, a physicist representing CERN, was the first to call the episode an example of pathological science.[6][47]"

Would it not be worth mentioning the meeting was organized by Steven Jones who was instrumental in forcing Pons and Fleischmann to go public with the "discovery".

When Jones found out about P&F's research he also started investigating electrolysis setups. Rather than fully cooperate both parties seemed ready to claim the art as their own. On March 6, 1989, Jones informed Fleischmann and Pons that he was going to announce his work at the May 1989 APS meeting. He was going to pretty-much announce their work as his own.

Fleischmann had been working for 40 years on this. He had no choice but to match Jones claims. Jones wrote Feb. 2, 1989: "We have also accumulated considerable evidence for a new form of cold nuclear fusion which occurs when hydrogen isotopes are loaded into materials, notably crystalline solids." (in an abstract of a paper he intended to present at the spring meeting of the American Physical Society.)

Clearly cold fusion doesn't need any enemies with friends like this.84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Section: Publications

Sentence about journals "categorically" declining to review cold fusion articles

• https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=478909855&oldid=478909447 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Recently, 84.106.26.81 added a sentence about journals refusing to review new cold fusion articles. My library does not have a copy of Undead Science, and Google books does not show the relevant pages. Could someone please post here sentences in the book which support this statement? Olorinish (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I also have doubt if the wording is correct. 84.106's edit makes it seem as if FIRST the journals started to refuse cold fusion paper and THEREFORE the number of papers dropped. I don't think that is correct. AFAIK the journals started refusing papers because the scientific community saw cold fusion as debunked and didn't want to be associated with it any more (except for the journal "Fusion Technology" of which George Miley was editor-in-chief). At the same time most of the scientists turned their back on "cold fusion" for the same reason. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is a big difference between "not reviewed" and "not sent out for review." Olorinish (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not see that "difference" in the actual edit.

I think that many editor refused to even consider looking at cold fusion papers. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Olorinish changed the intro of publications [92] from:

"The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines. The number of papers sharply declined after 1990 as scientists abandoned the field and journal editors declined to review new papers, and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts."

into:

"The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines. The number of papers sharply declined after 1990 as scientists abandoned the field and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts."

I propose also removing:

"The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines. The number of papers sharply declined after 1990 as scientists abandoned the field and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts."

So that we get:

"The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines. The number of papers sharply declined after 1990 and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts."

And I prefer "publications" over "papers":

"The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines. The number of publications sharply declined after 1990 and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts."

Now the sentence talks about the publications rather than the behavior of publicists and scientists. This is good because this is what the section Publications is suppose to be all about after all.

I have not implemented this change awaiting your comments. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Olorinish (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For now it is fine, however, if the pseudo-scientific denial in our article doesn't get reduced the categorical denial of papers does require some description. We cant have it both ways and pretend the coverage to be neutral. 84.106.9.95 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Julian Schwinger

We have this:

"The Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger declared himself a supporter of cold fusion in the fall of 1989, after much of the response to the initial reports had turned negative. He tried to publish theoretical papers supporting the possibility of cold fusion in Physical Review Letters, but the peer reviewers rejected it so harshly that he felt deeply insulted, and he resigned from the American Physical Society (publisher of PRL) in protest.[98]"

My proposed text:

[93]"August 1989, Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger tried to publish his theoretical paper "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis" in Physical Review Letters, but the peer reviewers rejected it so harshly that he felt deeply insulted, and he resigned from the American Physical Society (publisher of PRL) in protest.[98]"

Schwinger was awarded :

• The Albert Einstein Award (1951)
• The U.S. National Medal of Science (1964)
• Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 for his work on quantum electrodynamics (QED), along with Richard Feynman and Shinichiro Tomonaga

Which means it was not a problem with his credentials. The reviewers objected to his "assumption" that heavy water would always be polluted with light water. His argument that D + D wasn't the whole story but that D + d would logically be there was rejected because it didn't provide a theoretical explanation for underlying assumptions. To make it even more clear for us, one anonymous reviewer argued against publication on the ground that no nuclear physicist could believe such an effect exists. It means categorical denial started in August 1989. We can not expect any "lesser" scientist publishing in mainstream journals after this.

notes:

• I didn't write that Physical Review Letters pronounced it self as denier of cold fusion as early as Augustus. Or that the skeptics offer no theoretical framework for their skepticism. I wrote that categorical denial started in August.

• October 1989, Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung did publish the paper.

• Schwinger then went on to write three substantial papers, entitled “Nuclear Energy in an Atomic Lattice I, II, III,” to flesh out these ideas. The first was published in the Zeitschrift fur Physik D, where it was accepted in spite of negative reviews, but directly preceded by an editorial note, disclaiming any responsibility for the the paper on the part of the journal. They subsequently refused to publish the remaining papers.[94]

84.106.26.81 (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I do have to say I'm not happy with the syntheses either way. We can do this one word at a time if we must.

• https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=479095285&oldid=478963954

Surely you are not going to argue about this I hope? O_O

84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to remove the first part of the paragraph. It removes the context. It no longer explains that Schwinger suddenly started supporting cold fusion, and why the circumstances made it strange to other scientists. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(the changes after "tried to publish" are OK). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Then the text becomes:

"The Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger declared himself a supporter of cold fusion in the fall of 1989, after much of the response to the initial reports had turned negative. He tried to publish his theoretical paper "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis" in Physical Review Letters, but the peer reviewers rejected it so harshly that he felt deeply insulted, and he resigned from the American Physical Society (publisher of PRL) in protest."

"August" is more accurate, "fall" sounds more poetic. Are we overly romanticizing our detective story?

Do we need to disclose and reveal the existence of documents I, II and III? What would Feynman do?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the fact that one of the top theoretical physicists of the 20th century chose to continue working in, and writing on, cold fusion even after the established journals tried to shut him up is indicative of the non-fringe nature of the controversial subject. Unless the anti-CFers can twist its meaning, I doubt that they will allow it to remain. As I noted in Current Science poll, in the next year or two they will just say it is not significant and delete it - if no one is watching. Of course, if we have commercial CF-power units by then, maybe they won't bother. Aqm2241 (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Current Science poll

I'm making this vote to try and gauge concensus to prevent any edit warring: Is the previously mentioned "Current Science" fortnightly journal suitable for use in this journal? Two papers in question: [95]. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Recap of issue: One of the sources was not being used for any text. The other was being used for the statement "In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat." but this is verified by another presumably more reliable reference. Using or not using the source does not remove any text. The issue is that the source used in the article is by the author the newenergytimes which is generally not considered reliable for wikipedia. The article does not appear to have gone under any substantial editorial review (1 day between submission and acceptance). The other reference was not used and so is essentially also pointless. Diff: [96]. That an article can get through in one day without raising questions leads to doubts about the reliability of the journal.

I've turned it into an RFC so we can get clear consensus one way or the other. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Recap of issue: It is explictly claimed that "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal." the use of any paper from this journal is dismissed. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• No It has no firm evidence that it engages in peer review. One of the articles in question was accepted the next day after submission. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• More information needed Forgive me, but what is exactly is the text in this article that is proposed/disputed? Whether or not a source is reliable depends on how it is used in the article. Olorinish (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the sources was not being used for any text. The other was being used for the statement "In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat." but this is verified by another presumably more reliable reference. Using or not using the source does not remove any text. The issue is that the source used in the article is by the author the newenergytimes which is generally not considered reliable for wikipedia. The article does not appear to have gone under any substantial editorial review (1 day between submission and acceptance). The other reference was not used and so is essentially also pointless. Diff: [97]. That an article can get through in one day without raising questions leads to doubts about the reliability of the journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for showing us that it is your assessment of the paper's author that leads you to conclude that the whole journal is not reliable. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. My point is that we require a substantial editorial review since if Krivit self publishes (like with newenergytimes) it is not considered reliable by wikipedia standards. That the editorial review appears to be insignificant/doubted we can not rely on the position of Krivit as an expert to justify inclusion of the reference. Anyway, this vote is to gauge consensus, not re-hash the same arguments. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes It is verifiable that the journal uses peer review. Just look at some published papers and note that especially papers in the "research article" category take several months between "received" and "accepted". I got further confirmation of "peer review" by direct enquiry of the journal. The journal is not obscure, on the contrary, its H-index ranks 7/77 and SJR ranks 18/77 of multidisciplinary journals. Regarding the the papers in question: the reason for deletion was that "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal." This is clearly rebutted. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Recap of issue: It is claimed that "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal." the use of any paper from this journal is dismissed. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• No - we have too many red-flags about their peer-review process. SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate on "too many" ? --POVbrigand (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• First, Sinha's paper (2006) is a primary source and there is no need to have it in the bibliography list.

Second, Krivit's paper (2008), is written by an advocate of the field. We should be wary of reviews written by advocates, they might be promoting it, or they might not to able to write in a totally detached way. We give preference to sources where the author/publisher is independent from the field (in all articles, not just in this topic). And we have other sources covering the facts it's sourcing (which, honestly, are not that notable to begin with, but they just sort of stuck there as an example).

Finally, in 2008 CURR SCI INDIA was 22 out of 42 in multidisciplinary science journals [98].+INDIA]. It's not like Nature has suddenly changed its opinion, and it seems that there is always some journal somewhere on the world ready to publish a given article. Let's remember that India has its own supporters of cold fusion. which migh have facilitated this publication. It speaks volumes that this was not published on a US journal of physics, chemistry or philosophy of science.

So, no. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As per your reasoning I have also deleted the primary sources from Shanahan from the bibliography list. Do you like it ?

please note that I have selfreverted. I think the point is clear, no ? --POVbrigand (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"The publication in mainstream journals has continued to decline but has not entirely stopped." Simon pp. 180–183 - I find it very strange that mainstream journals who do not decline publication are now deemed unreliable for WP. That is not in line with WP-policy. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• YES It is an indexed journal. This establishes reliability of the publication. The publication is not to be used to establish reliability of the journal.84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If an article from a journal is unreliable as you hint at then it reflects on the reliability of the journal as a whole. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• YES It is an indexed journal and acceptable as proven before. To deny it would be equivalent of stating that Irish poets can only write doggerel.

I can provide 1st hand proof of the Current Science review process. Enric's comment about Sinha's paper is only valid because, in December, he had supported removal of the context from the article. In the original context, it was used as a secondary source, not a primary one. Similarly for Czerski's and Hukes papers. His excuse is"

I removed the short paragraph because it was based on primary source research papers by Huke, Czerski, Sinha and Meulenberg which did not merit wider notice. If the papers were important they would have been described by secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

These are all primary sources. No secondary sources pointing them out as significant. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that he is assuming that citations in the literature are primary sources and their citation does not count. Very convenient. Aqm2241 (talk) 08:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)