Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 48

hit-or-miss reaction

I agree with Enric that something about the reliability (or repeatability) of the experiments should be mentioned in the lead. I am not sure if the proposed wording is perfect. [1]

Is it correct to say that:

• The minority view: ""The success rate is about 20 percent, so we know the conditions must be very specific. It's a hit-or-miss reaction, ..." Physorg ?
• The majority view: "The experimental observations are mere mistakes" (Labinger 2005) ?

Maybe we can address the minority-majority problem with a "simple" wording like:

"Many scientists were not able to replicate the experimental results and it is generally concluded that the reported observations are caused by mistakes. Other scientist think that it is a "hit-or-miss" reaction and repeatability is indeed problematic, but that many positive replications cannot be attributed to mistakes."

It is more text, but this would summarize the whole controversy right from the start.

Of course the wording of my proposal is completely open for discussion.

What do you think ?

--POVbrigand (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the "simple" wording proposal. Olorinish (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lovely [2] --POVbrigand (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing

Is this relevant to ongoing funding or research?

This work is supported by a grant from the New York Community Trust http://www.iscmns.org/iccf14/ProcICCF14b.pdf#page=103

Nuclear Transmutations in Polyethylene (XLPE) Films and Water Tree Generation in Them Hideo Kozima and Hiroshi Date* Cold Fusion Research Laboratory (hjrfq930@ybb.ne.jp) 597-16 Yatsu, Aoi, Shizuoka, 421-1202, Japan

• Recruit R&D Staffing Co., Ltd

. Abstract An explanation of the nuclear transmutation (NT) observed in XLPE (crosslinked polyethylene) films is presented based on the neutron-drop model used in the theoretical investigation of the cold fusion phenomenon in other cold fusion materials (CF materials); transition-metal hydrides/deuterides.

The NT’s, K → Ca, Mg → Al, 56 26Fe → 57 26Fe and Fe → Ni, are explained by a single-neutron absorption with or without a succeeding beta-decay to get final nuclides.

On the other hand, the NT’s, 56 26Fe → 64 30Zn and 56 26Fe → 60 28Ni, are explained by an absorption of a neutron drop

8 4Δ and 4 2Δ, respectively, in the cf-matter formed in CF materials.

Production of extraordinary elements Li, Pb and Bi is discussed from our point of view. Thus, we concluded that the generation of water trees in XLPE samples is caused by nuclear reactions induced by cold fusion phenomenon at around spherulites. The NT found in XLPE may have a relation with the NT’s found in biological bodies (biotransmutation).

1. Introduction We have tried to explain the wide-spread experimental facts in the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) from a unified point of view using a phenomenological models, the trapped neutron catalyzed fusion model (TNCF model) at first [1] and then the neutron-drop model (ND model), a generalized version of the former [2]. It should be remembered here that the development of the model demands an explanation for NT’s with large changes of the nucleon and proton numbers observed in the CFP. In the process of verification of the basic premises of these successful models, we have developed a quantal investigation of the CF materials such as transition metal hydrides/deuterides composed of a host lattice of transition metals and interlaced lattice of interstitial protons/deuterons [3]. It was shown that it is possible for cf-matter to exist when it is composed of neutron drops A ZΔ with Z protons, Z electrons and (A – Z) neutrons in a dense neutron liquid at boundary /surface regions of the crystals.

This work is supported by a grant from the New York Community Trust 1469 18th Street [3] Perhaps a source for Wiki info about natural and unnatural cold fusion... i,e, transmutation... (or not)?--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Such is Science... (or not?)--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oriani

I intend to properly punctuate note 5 and delete the last sentence and associated references since the assertion is patently false.

^ In January 26, 1990, journal Nature rejected Oriani's paper, citing the lack of nuclear ash and the general difficulty that others had in replication.Beaudette 2002, p. 183 It was later published in Fusion Technology.Oriani et al. 1990, pp. 652–662 Oriani stopped after his calorimeter exploded and hurt a student, and he never resumed his research.Taubes 1993, pp. 364–365 and Close 1992, p. 94

This should become: ^ In January 26, 1990, the journal Nature rejected Oriani's paper, citing the lack of nuclear ash and the general difficulty that others had in replication, Beaudette 2002, p. 183. It was later published in Fusion Technology.

The claim in the deleted references is countered by Oriani's presentations of his recent work as late as 2010. The anti-CF people will defend and claim that the deleted references are valid and the recent publications of Oriani's work are primary references or not in acceptable (by their definition) journals, newspapers, or magazines.

This is, of course, an example of why the anti-CFers are so afraid of recent publications and try to delete them as often as possible (ref Current Science debate). They cling to the pre-2000 'documentation', even when it is clearly false. Since it appears that is almost all they have, they defend it any way they can. Aqm2241 (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK with that deletion, I see that in his 2008 paper "Reproducible Evidence for the Generation of a Nuclear Reaction During Electrolysis" he is working in a laboratory.

(please assume good faith, not everyone is aware of every active researcher. Maybe he resumed his research after 2003.) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this article has a time relevance problem? LENR cold fusion may no longer be the environment of simple electrolysis with palladium. I will not assume good faith where the capacity of assuming good faith is not demonstrated. End of discussion,--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

support edit--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminder

Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight

"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth."

--POVbrigand (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

MIT progress report again

Discussed already in:

• Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_40#MIT_progress_report
• Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_42#MIT_progress_report

This is a primary source with little editorial control. Stop trying to add it. Articles should be written with neutral third-party independent sources. ---Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please allow me to make some comments:

I don't think your argument "This is a primary source with little editorial control. Stop trying to add it. Articles should be written with neutral third-party independent sources." will stand the test of WP-policy.

I think that "neutral third-party independent sources" is not a requirement in the way you make us believe. We should strive to use them, yes. But you can add other sources too, for instance when secondary sources are not available to describe a minority view.

I have been around here long enough to know that any minority view publication will be contested exactly on these grounds:

• the author is not neutral, he is "one of them", a "crackpot believer", an "adherent of fringe" (please see comments in the ongoing dispute on "current science" that Krivit is an adherent and therefore unreliable is such way that the whole journal "current science" is suddenly deemed unreliable just because they published and article by him)
• the author is not third-party, same as above, once you're in, you're in.
• the author is not independent, again same as above the mere authorship of a fringe proponent makes the whole source unreliable and thus unsuitable for WP

If we would follow your idea of source selection, we would be left with only a few news stories and a book by Bart Simon that offered a more or less balanced point of view on the story to explain the minority view.

If I recall correctly this source was used in the article to show that the minority view asserts that there were many successful replications. It is a self published source by scientist who represent the minority view. The authors are experts within the minority view. So it is a perfectly valid source to show just that.

btw, that Hagelstein from MIT is working on this topic is noticed also by secondary sources [4]. The progress report also mentions a sponsor "Sponsors: "Nuclear Energy Release from Metal Deuterides", SRI International under subagreement #33-000075, Period: 3/23/09-9/27/11". Looking up that subagreement might show that the project was officially funded.

I find it interesting that while deleting this source you added another source (Reger 2009) and quoted from it: "After several years and multiple experiments by numerous investigators, most of the scientific community now considers the original claims unsupported by the evidence. [from image caption] Virtually every experiment that tried to replicate their claims failed. Electrochemical cold fusion is widely considered to be discredited."

You add a source which describes the majority view, on (at most) 1 page out of 1120 pages, recounting what happened in 1989/1990 while dismissing a source from 2010 which is used to describe the minority view position "that many replications were positive".

I fear that had I gotten banned in the recent Arbcom case many more minority view sources would get deleted until the article reflects only what is written in the majority view vintage sources Huizenga, Taubes, and Close, the books I assume you know by heart. Or the ones that echo these in restating the unchanged majority view, like your newly added Reger 2009 or any other of the huge list of more or less identical quotes you have collected.

--POVbrigand (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

LENR research at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

"Research Areas" include LENR

The LENRs group: "Part of the research in the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Lab consists of experiments that use either an electrolysis process, a high pressure, or an arc process to force hydrogen atoms into the lattice structure of a thin film (500-1000 A) of metal. A major goal of this research is to examine the metal before and after the experiment, to establish the signatures of LENRs by studying transmutation products. Another goal is to measure the energy output of the unit. If an ample amount is released, such cells offer an attractive small power source for future distributed energy systems."

This is a reliable self published source to say that University of Urbana-Champaign Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering (NPRE) has LENR listed as research area. Read WP:SELFSOURCE

Strange that the newly added source "Reger 2009" doesn't mention that anywhere in his 1120 pages thick chemistry book.

What does that tell us about the usefulness of the "Reger 2009" book as a source for our article ?

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection. Why would you expect a chemistry book to mention this University of Urbana-Champaign Department? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Italian DOE vs American DOE

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&tbb=1&twu=1&u=http://titano.sede.enea.it/Stampa/skin2col.php%3Fpage%3Deneaperdettagliofigli%26id%3D78&usg=ALkJrhiVL5-7OBHVOv49blhqFi8KCX2IbQ

The differences worth noticing.

• This is hosted on the official website.
• This is based on scientific investigation.
• Specific funding has been allocated in Italy by the Ministry of Economic Development (former Minister for Productive Activities).
• The lack of neutrality of the US DOE panel is easily pointed out. Jones was the first one to promote the idea cold fusion was a dead science. He was also instrumental in patent trolling Fleischmann into going public. We are not to accept his views uncritically nor should we present the extreme negative bias as if mainstream.
• The conflict of interest with hot fusion funding, mention of which is so carefully avoided in our article(?)

Of course to both applies, governments nor their agencies are peer reviewed journals. Therefore, as there is peer review literature suggests the exact opposite from the US DOE report it is not correct to give undue weight to the US DOE. The opinion might be highly note worthy it can not be used for anything more than the official position of the US DOE. The report clearly disclaimers the views as belonging to their authors, the views do not represent the US government. This is also confirmed by SPAWAR obviously.

With respect to our edit guidelines: At what stage do other editors believe American bureaucrats may overrule the global scientific community? Mind you, I didn't say their opinion isn't note worthy or that it isn't worth mentioning the review. It obviously is an important historic event. The part where you want the bureaucrates to overrule the scientists seems to be in violation of the edit guidelines that I am so familiar with.

The unscientific report has no place in the lead of the science article. It is just like we are not mentioning Thomas Graham in the lead. The usual explanation asserting how important the report would be doesn't apply. I'm not questioning the noteworthiness of the review. I'm objecting to the part where you want people like obvious patent troll Steven Jones to be considered the mainstream scientific community. Debunkers who are not involved in the scientific investigation like for example the obvious troll Huizenga should not to be equated with the global scientific community.

I don't care if you write whole paragraphs about the US DOE, their fringe views and their pathological denial, it may not be considered the mainstream scientific consensus per wp:synth. You are to attribute fringe minority views to their author rather than pretending they represent a global scientific consensus.

84.106.9.95 (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The conclusion of the US DOE had a significant effect on the whole story. The placement in the lead is absolutely unproblematic, on the contrary it is significant "milestone". The way I read the report there is nothing in there that is really worth an argument, even the ENEA source that you present here says that: "After several months of evaluation, the DOE issued the verdict, a significant number of referees believed that the phenomenon was considered a real effect, not the fruit of imagination or bad measures, and that the matter deserved to be studied neither more nor less like other scientific subjects. " Also in the concluding document of the DOE claims that one of the areas where we need to concentrate their studies in materials science." LENR research has possibly been hindered by intervention of influential scientists regarding funding programs, but I don't believe in any conspiracy theory regarding hot-fusion scientists or big-oil steering colf fusion into damnation.

If I understand your reasoning correctly, you are discrediting Huizenga et al as being unscientific and having a fringe minority view. I think that is very far fetched. If LENR is ever going to be proven and accepted by mainstream science then the minority/majority view will have changed accordingly and our article would be ripe for a complete rewrite. But for now the majority view is more or less still in line with Huizenga, although there are signs that that might be already changing, we can't really tell at the moment.

Instead of trying to discredit the majority view, I think it is more important for the WP-reader to explain that the minority view is not in the hands of lonely garage "crackpots" who post "free energy" youtube videos or of con-men who are cheating investors, but that the minority view is clearly driven by very credible scientists from several renowed institutions.

I agree with you that the WP-policies are regularly misused or even blatantly disregarded to keep minority view sources from being added to the article, going as far as claiming that peer reviewed journals are not reliable, or claiming that WP:SELFSOURCE sources are "low-quality", or that only "neutral third-party independent sources" can be used.

The next interesting dates will be Celani's speech at CERN on March 22 and Kim's and Miley's speeches at NETS2012 on March 23, both mainstream science venues. In comparison, we haven't heard from Huizenga, Close and Taubes for at least 20 years. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

the lack of nuclear byproducts

" ... and because there is no generally accepted theoretical explanation that accounts for the lack of nuclear byproducts. ..."

The lack of nuclear byproducts is not the only thing that fails an explanation, the mystery of the high coulomb barrier tunneling is the other.

Huizenga's 3 miracles:

• the lack of strong neutron emissions;
• the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetratedy;
• the lack of strong emission of gamma rays or X-rays.

I just wanted to highlight this, maybe we can rewrite the line somehow.

--POVbrigand (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

also i'd add that "the lack of nuclear byproducts" is grossly inaccurate. if anyone actually proposed that the total mass gets substantially less with out an increase in output energy e = mc^2, or that the full mass of the protons and neutrons are getting converting into energy... well that's just outright ridiculous.

what they really mean is lack of _expected_ nuclear byproducts given the theoretically predicted reaction pathways for high temperature plasma -- namely, way too few neutrons. one proposed possibility is that their nuclear byproducts might helium. that would not be a lack of nuclear byproduct, that would be a _different_ nuclear byproduct. Kevin Baas^talk 15:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

also huizenga's not doing his probabilities right. he seems to imply that the probabilities of his "3 miracles" multiply together. but he forgot to first look for conditional dependance; you have to establish the bayesian priors. what miracle 1) and 2) are saying is simply that they don't fit predicted reaction pathways for high temperature plasmas, which is unsurprising because, well, this is not a high temperature plasma. so really those 2 miracles are only 1 miracle, namely, the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated in a non high-density high temperature plasma. oh look, that's really the "2nd miracle". so really the "3 miracles" are just 1 miracle. and there's a pretty obvious solution here: the coloumb barrier is a classical physics construct, we should be considering this from a quantum physics perspective, and in the context that you're in a solid state crystaline metal. so where' in the context of "block waves" and so forth. very interesting. unfortuatley, also very difficult. in any case now we see there is only 1 miracle, attached to a very distinct and uncommon quantum-physical environment. okay, bayesian priors now established. go. Kevin Baas^talk 15:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the claim in the first paragraph is misstated. The generally accepted theoretical explanation for the lack of nuclear byproducts is no nuclear reaction occurred. What is instead missing is a generally accepted theoretical explanation for cold fusion as a reaction. 24.215.188.24 (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by reverting

I have no problem with people reverting. However, I have a big problem when people revert without discussing their reverts on the talk page. This is a requirement per WP:REVEXP.

See [5] and [6] for the reverts in question.

On principle, I reverted the user who has not contributed to the talk page.

If someone wants to discuss the changed I made above in regards to a revert they think would be appropriate, please do so.

24.215.188.24 (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed for discussion

I removed this sentence from the section on "Subsequent research programs"

In 2007, nuclear physicist and engineering professor Jean-Paul Biberian published an update surveying the previous 15 years of work, stating that nuclear reactions which are not predicted by current theories have been proven.

The sentence may be superficially true, but it is focussing on a singular review by a cold fusion experimenter who has an obvious point-of-view that is counter to that of the mainstream. The strong claim that "nuclear reactions... have been proven." deserves explication if it is to be believed, and there is no explication forthcoming. As the only sentence in that section, it is highly weighted towards a recentist perspective revolving around LENR of the fringe researcher rather than the historic position of cold fusion.

Please address these criticisms before reinstating.

24.215.188.24 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

first, to get clarity, I made a "half-revert" putting the Biberian part back in but leaving your edit in the lead.

Regarding your reasons for removing Biberian:

• Biberian has an obvious point-of-view -> yes, he is one of the scientists who holds the minority view. There is nothing wrong with using that in our WP-article as long as it is clear for the WP-readers that he is indeed on the minority view side.
• Biberian is stating the minority view correctly, again there is nothing wrong with explaining the minority view in our WP-article, provided we do not mislead WP-readers that the minority view is generally accepted.
• "nuclear reactions... have been proven" is in line with the conclusion of Biberian's paper:"After 15 years of intense work by hundreds of scientists in 15 countries, the proof that nuclear reactions not predicted by current theories occur in solids, during electrolysis, gas loading and gas discharge, has been established. This presentation is an overview of the field that gives convincing experimental data proving excess heat and helium production, tritium and neutron detection, X-rays and transmutation." I believe Biberian explains in his paper how he comes to that conclusion.

I don't think you can call this WP:recentism, the paper is from 2007. This WP-article tries to discuss both the "historical events" of the Fleischmann-Pons era and the ongoing research that continues until today and arguably seems to intensify lately. It has been noted before that maybe the WP-article should be split up between the "Cold fusion - historic view" and the "LENR - ongoing research". --POVbrigand (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand, there is a problem with including ONLY the minority POV which is what this particular section is doing. And I'm not sure he is stating the minority POV "correctly" as you say. The word "prove" is one that is fraught in science and is generally eschewed when talking about theories and observations. "Proving" that there were nuclear reactions would be something done in a court of law or in the context of mathematics. Finally, in a field that is 30 years old, 2007 commentary is pretty recent in comparison to when the major discussions about this (or even "subsequent discussions", as the session outlines) happened. I removed the sentence until someone can workshop a good balanced description of what the subsequent research programs involved and why (this sentence manifestly does not do that). 76.119.90.74 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not good style to present majority view / minority view comparison line by line. The minority view must be explained the to WP-reader, in order to do that we must spend a section on it. I already explained to you that there is no problem with that as long as it is clear that it is the minority view.

There is no need to post-review a peer-reviewed paper. Regarding the use of the word "prove" it should be noted that the paper was peer reviewed and that none of the reviewers objected to the use of "prove", so your understanding appears over stringent. Furthermore, other sources also use "prove" when explaining the minority view on the observations.

The field is almost exactly 23 years old and since that time research has been ongoing. The 2007 source is discussing the work up until 2007. That has nothing to do with recentism, sorry.

As other editors have noticed, there is no need to delete the line. Your request that "someone" provide "a good balanced description ..." is silly, why don't you do that yourself ? --POVbrigand (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear that the peer-reviewers were nuclear physicists who would be the ones capable of making the determination. No, we can't just rely on peer-review as magic pixie dust, and this source is clearly biased. I'll try to balance. Thanks for the green light. 216.217.157.4 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's also not clear that the peer-reviewers were not nuclear physicists, but it is fair to assume that peer-reviewers for the International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology will certainly have expertise in that field. It is not our job as WP-editors to question the expertise of peer-reviewers, that is the job of the journal's editors.

The source verifies that it is the minority view that proof exists. The source is not more biased towards the minority view than a mainstream source is biased towards the mainstream majority view. You cannot explain the minority view without making use of minority view sources. We are not claiming that the minority view is the correct one, we are just explaining what the view is. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the current location of the quote makes a whole lot more sense. Still, I wish we could clarify this a bit. I just reread the paper and am think we haven't done justice to the summary. Biberian seems to be saying that cold fusion community's results more-or-less guarantee that there is some sort of nuclear reaction going on. I would phrase the statement as such:

In 2007, nuclear physicist and engineering professor Jean-Paul Biberian surveyed the previous 15 years of cold fusion research and concluded that nuclear reactions that are not predicted by current theories were occurring in cold fusion reactors.

This may seem stylistic, but I'd prefer this wording. But since this has been somewhat contentious, I'll wait for your green-light, POVbrigand. 71.174.134.165 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary style

I'm trying to summarize some of the longer sections in single succinct paragraphs. I may have done a bad job, but please edit rather than simply revert, I beg.

[7].

216.217.157.4 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your summaries are great, thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet

Personal attack with no substantiation. Not about article improvement. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Binksternet, with ~500 edits per week you are obviously a paid 'wiki-expert', a professional. I would like to extend to you the same invitation that was presented to me when I first edited the CF topic as a CF proponent. "Please identify yourself and your relationship to Cold Fusion and this article." Without any discussion (but with knee-jerk confirmation by naval), in a couple of quick edits, you casually discarded a year's worth of effort to introduce mainstream scientific articles (over the major efforts of the anti-CFers) that disproved the stories that the anti-CF editors have been trying to foist on the readers. Your rational was 'Wiki-proper', but entirely bogus. Based on the rational provided, you (and naval) apparently do not know: the difference between a citation in an original article and the original work in the article; the reference articles you deleted; or anything about the topic you are editing. However, I do not believe that the two of you do not know the difference between cited work and original content. Therefore, the 2nd and 3rd options appear to be the correct interpretation for your status. Naval's condition is different. I would suggest that as a professional (but one that has no Wiki-history of any contributions in science topics), you should be willing to disclose who is paying you to edit this topic or be labelled as being an 'expert of a different sort' and having POV that should immediately eliminate your destructive tendencies from the topic. I would suggest that you are not paid by wikipedia, unless you were specifically tasked to eliminate credible sources from the topic - regardless of the violations the rational entails. Unfortunately, the damage is done. You've done your job. I predict that you will leave the article soon; your position is untenable. (I do hope that you lose your autopatrolled rights.) Nevertheless, it will take weeks to re-establish the references and content that you deleted. You've also left the warning that no matter what the proponents do, you, or someone like you, will come by and erase their efforts with 30 second edits. Congratulations on a job well done. Aqm2241 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Accusing another editor of being paid to disrupt this page is a very serious accusation WP:CONSPIRACY. I suggest you remove your accusations that editors you disagree with are paid or substantiate your accusations at the correct venue WP:ANI i.e "put up or shut up". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC) What is this, throw mud at the wall and see what sticks? The accusation is ridiculous—nobody pays me to edit. Somebody once paid me $50 so they could use one of my images that I had already uploaded to Commons and thus donated to public domain, but that did not alter my editing style, it just made me think of the old saying, "there is one born every minute". Speaking of which, any editor reading the accusation by Aqm2241 would want verification through diffs, but the negative comments and attitudes that are ascribed to me are not true, so of course they cannot be represented through diffs. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC) He's accused other editors of being paid before: [8] and accused me and other editors of libel [9]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC) ...And nothing sticks, right? None of us would talk down about Aqm2241's accusations if they had a foundation in truth. All I can say to the insulting fishing expedition is "take it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and bring some evidence". Good luck with that. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Time

The US Navy nuclear research facility released a 2 hour video describing that this LENR cold fusion DOES work, as they had claimed. This was verified by labs around the world. How then does this article now have a disputatious tone? That is illogical. I don't have time to redo this whole page, but the time has come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.246.89 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

All mention of NASA has been deleted from this article 2

see also Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_42#All_mention_of_NASA_has_been_deleted_from_this_article.

There is another mentioning of NASA and LENR this time in wired.co.uk titled "Race for cold fusion: Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern peer through the keyhole"[10].

I think a lot of readers will wonder why there is no mention of NASA in our article. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The article says: "However, when questioned, a Nasa spokesman stated out that there was no Nasa cold fusion project, and no budget for it. The work appears to be carried out on the side by interested Nasa scientists", it also again takes the information from Dr Zawodny's blog where he downplayed the reproducibility etc of CF. No NASA project, nothing to see here, etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No official NASA project, but research nevertheless: "The work appears to be carried out on the side by interested Nasa scientists."

• A filed patent for a "cold fusion" device (mentioned in the wired article)
• A video explaining the patent (mentioned in the wired article)
• Self published presentations explaining the research (mentioned in the wired article)
• An interview with a chief scientists who gives his expert opinion on the topic
• A reference to an early NASA experiment in a peer reviewed paper
• 2 Technical Memoranda

From the wired article: "LENR tests carried out at Nasa's Glenn Research Centre "consistently show evidence of anomalous heat," indicating that cold fusion was taking place." --POVbrigand (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:SELFSOURCE the sources (video, Bushnell interview, presentation slides) are already sufficient to add that "Scientists from NASA are working on LENR"

What is happening here is simply refusal for consensus --POVbrigand (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You've tried other venues [11] but they disagreed as well: "NASA researchers are working on LENR" is not an appropriate claim to make because it misleadingly implies that NASA endorses LENR research. It seems best to give it a rest. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you really wish, do an RFC on it, that will at least settle the issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You are following me around, stop that. You have become totally obsessed with what I do around here after you failed to kick me off the project in the Arbcom case.

My discussion at [[12]] is aiming at improving the Verifiability page "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Verifiability page." --POVbrigand (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at your edit history when I made my reply, that's hardly "following you around". I have over 300 articles in my watchlist, take a look at my recent contributions, notice how little of it is for this article or is even distantly connected to you. Also, you choose to use your designated cold fusion SPA account, if it was a general issue you would have used your other account. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are following me around and misrepresenting my conduct to make a point.

I do not use my other account at the moment, at all.

Your tendentiousness is obvious, because you deliberately cherry picked only the bit that supports your view. The mentioned editor also said "It would be accurate to say that certain scientists who are involved with NASA are involved in LENR research in their spare time. The question is where you should say it: in the main cold fusion article or in a separate article about LENR? I would suggest the latter for the time being" --POVbrigand (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

George H. Miley (UIUC) is an expert in the field.

He will be speaking on the upcoming NETS2012 [13]

"A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)"

"Indeed, such applications have already been explored in conceptual design studies by scientists at NASA Langley assuming Rossi-type cell performance. Their extremely encouraging results support the game-changing advantages of developing this technology. While our present test units are at lab bench power levels (multi 100s watts), scaling up to RTG power levels seems quite feasible using larger amounts of nano-particles and an improved heat management de-sign." --POVbrigand (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf from [14] talks about work performed at NASA. I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned here yet. 70.58.13.84 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The amount of sources mentioning LENR research at NASA is overwhelming.

We have

• peer reviewed papers (Li 2006, Biberian 2008) mentioning the 1989 experiment from Fralick.
• a NASA Technical Memorandum (TM-102430) about that experiment and another one TM-107167 from experiments in 1996.
• a NASA website mentioning research at NASA
• a NASA video mentioning research at NASA
• a radio interview with chief scientist Bushnell mentioning research at NASA
• a NASA LENR workshop and its proceedings by NASA scientists mentioning research at NASA
• an invited talk by another NASA scientist about "LENR @ Langley" [15]
• conference proceedings from other scientists (Celani, Miley, ...) mentioning LENR research at NASA.
• a patent for a LENR device filed by NASA.
• secondary sources: two main russian news outlets mentioning research at NASA and a main UK news outlet mentioning research at NASA
• we have several news outlets commenting on the NASA video.

The straw man argument that "NASA is not endorsing LENR" completely misses the point, this is not about whether NASA is endorsing LENR, but what research is being performed at NASA.

The resentment against mentioning LENR research at NASA in light of this overwhelming amount of reliable sources which actually state LENR research at NASA as fact is one of the finest examples of POV pushing in wikipedia history. A consensus to deny.

--POVbrigand (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

In his talk at the LENR colloquium at CERN, Celani again mentioned the LENR work from NASA.

What a tremendous disservice we are doing the WP-readers by not mentioning the NASA LENR work in the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

"But deuterium nuclei inside a palladium lattice are further apart than in deuterium gas, and there should be less fusion reactions, not more."

sure, in the unlikely event that there is exactly one hydrogen isotope in each lattice cell. i.e. at low "loading ratio"s. But this is _obviously_ not what anybody is talking about. It obviously does NOT describe the situation in a "cold fusion cell".

Per theoretical explanation section: "Hydrogen and its isotopes can be absorbed in certain solids, including palladium hydride, at high densities."

Kevin Baas^talk 12:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

DOE 1989 also mentions this p. 7-8, and mentions it again saying that it takes into account high loading ratios p. 33. It has a long analysis in Appendix 4.A pp. 53-58

any reliable sources for "at high loading ratios, deuterium nuclei in palladium lattice are nearer than in deuterium gas"? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

P.D.: I added more sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean low ratios or high ratios? A 0.5 loading ratio means 2 Pd atoms per D atom. More deuterium is a higher ratio, isn't it? I'm not sure how much information there is about the statistical distribution of inter-deuterium distances when D is dissolved in Pd at any ratio. It is a very complex set of interlocking electron orbitals in there. 123.30.137.236 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this help?

"Dependence of the excess heat generation at the palladium cathode on the loading ratio as well as on the current density shows that the critical loading ratio and the current density to generate excess heat are ca. 0.83 and 100mA/cm2, respectively. The maximum D/Pd of 0.89 has been achieved in the present study, at which excess heat generation of ca. 35% with respect to the input electrolytic power has been observed."

• Kunimatsu, K., et al. Deuterium Loading Ratio and Excess Heat Generation During Electrolysis of Heavy Water by Palladium Cathode in a Closed Cell Using a Partially Immersed Fuel Cell Anode. in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion". 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan.

I know it is a Conference paper but it may help figure out what the numbers are. Also see graph on page 13.

Does it say what it appears to be saying?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

note that the loading ratio is an average. most of the lattices on the inside are probably empty. and palladium can be loaded until the pressure makes it crack. Kevin Baas^talk 02:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

sorry, but all of this seems to be already covered by appendix 4.A of DOE 1989. Again, do you have any reliable source for the distance of deuterium in lattice being shorter than deuterium in gas? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Deuterium#Ultra-dense_deuterium 142.58.24.215 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hum, but ultra-dense deuterium can only be achieved by pumping lots of energy via several lasers into one point of the deuterium? And it reverts back as soon as the laser stops? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No. The papers cited in the wiki article use pulse lasers to observe the existence of the material not to create it. There are a wealth of references on the topic that observe ultra-dense deuterium by other techniques such as SQUID. The extreme densities are achieved at defects in crystals, something that is absolutely not accounted for in the references from over 20 years ago you cite. As a material scientist I can tell you that the statement included in the article is dubious, as evidenced by the wiki article on deuterium itself. The notion that Deuterium in Palladium as it exists in reality (i.e. a defect laden polycrystalline material) is further apart than in gaseous deuterium is amusingly absurd, despite what your 20 year old source that was not peer reviewed or cited by any academic ever might suggest. 24.83.179.18 (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it already exists, they are checking for it. They are observing some energies that, according to them, can only be produced by ultra-dense deuterium.

But, in the papers cited in the wikipedia article, I can't find any mentions of defects or cracks or anything similar. Actually, I can't find any mentions of palladium, palladium cathodes, or electrolysis. How are these papers relevant to deuterium distances in a palladium lattice? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The line is put forward by mainstream scientists in order to "disprove" the D-D fusion theory. It is just another "theory says no" line. The line could be not true, but it is reliably sourced. Much is unknown about how particles behave within a lattice, see for instance the many reports about screening behaviour / increased reaction rate due to laser stimulation of deuteriated palladium that are also not predicted by the currently mainstream believed theory. We could attribute the line a little bit: "Scientists have noted that ...", but I think it is at the risk of the WP-readers to read about mainstream science beliefs that turn out to be completey wrong.

btw, should the section the renamed "coulomb barrier" instead of "repulsion forces" ? --POVbrigand (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

personally, i prefer repulsion forces. besides being esoteric (risking confusing the reader), "coloumnb barrier" is a bit of a misnomer. Kevin Baas^talk 14:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

try this one: for something to "crack", the pressure must be greater on the inside than on the outside. Kevin Baas^talk 13:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

read the doe appendix and i don't see any of what i said being covered. were you just betting that i wouldn't read it? Kevin Baas^talk`

i haven't found any source that look at the probability distribution resulting from the quantum mechanics. all i've seen are global averages from a classical perspective, which is altogether quite useless. it's easy to see that the probability distribution is going to be a lot flatter; the "tails" will be heavier due to the sub-fickian diffusion characteristics of the local permeation environment. unfortunately i haven't found any empirical studies confirming _or_ denying this theoretical result. Kevin Baas^talk 13:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

probably the best source i found was one did did an ab-inito simulation. it showed interatomic spaceing of 0.074 compared w/ 0.07 in gas. however, there are many problems with it:

• it's an spatial average
• it's a temporal average
• it uses classical physics
• it's an ab-inito simulation of a large system, which means the total sim-time's probably on the order of nanoseconds. conversely, anyone w/experimental results have reported that it takes hours.
• it doesn't account for or examine the effects of defects in the lattice. this is a big problem. a lot of research seems to indicate that defects are key; that the defects are the "activation" sites.

all in all, while the reference seems "verifiable" in it's very limited scope, it is at best a red herring. Kevin Baas^talk 14:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, on the contrary, I want you to read p. 7-8, p. 33 and Appendix 4.A pp. 53-58, and realize that a lot of people have already looked at this theory and that they have found it wanting.

And I am still waiting for a reliable source saying that distance in smaller in the lattice. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Then i recommend you re-read what i wrote above. the key phrase you may have missed is "i haven't found any". Kevin Baas^talk 00:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, Enric. I see, yes, that is much more on point. Kevin Baas^talk 00:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, none of the sources I checked felt the need to take into account quantum mechanics. So, I can't really on whether quantum mechanics could alter the distance. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

plasmons

"The science of tiny metal particles has perplexed physicists and engineers for decades. As metallic particles near about 10 nanometers in diameter, classical physics breaks down. The particles begin to demonstrate unique physical and chemical properties that bulk counterparts of the very same materials do not. A nanoparticle of silver measuring a few atoms across, for instance, will respond to photons and electrons in ways profoundly different from a larger particle or slab of silver." Science Daily

Widom and Larsen also talk about plasmons in their LENR theory.

--POVbrigand (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have highlighted that classical physics breaks down. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And NASA filed a patent about a "Method for Enhancement of Surface Plasmon Polaritons".

--POVbrigand (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of both of these for this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Trying to understand Nano Science, Quantum Physics, and Cold Fusion expands our knowledge in classical physics which has never been static. I love what other encyclopedias have to say about Cold Fusion. Let's all get together at the local library some day. It might be fun to meet each other.--Gregory Goble (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"a small community"

Regarding:

"A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion"

There are lots of sources that talk about a small group, a small community, a few researchers, etc. But none of them gives a exact number. I am not sure of how to address this. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I count at least 50 from reliable secondary sources and that list isn't near to complete (Russia is still not listed, India not completely). I always thought that "small groups of researchers" would be a good description.

The best way to get a verifiable number is to look at the group pictures taken at ICCF conferences. Anyone that wants to be on a photo from an ICCF conference is one of the community. So we can just count them out (counting is not synthesis) to get a validated lower boundary estimation. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Fields within Science are generally loosely organized and so an exact quantification is pointless. As an aside, I would be very surprised if it was anywhere near as low as 50 as that is an absolutely tiny number. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

initial cold fusion explanation

Regarding:

"The initial cold fusion explanation was motivated by the high excess heat reported and by the insistence of the initial reviewer, Stephen E. Jones, that nuclear fusion might rationalize the data."

I think F&P's claim of fusion was motivated by:

• explosion of one cell during the night, too powerful to be of chemical origin (F&P didn't provide enough data to calculate how powerful it was. One cell explosion was investigated in a later experiment, and it was found to be chemical in origin)
• apparent confirmation by Jones (Jones denied this)
• finding nuclear byproducts: retracted (He⁴), discredited (gamma rays), replications unsatisfactory (neutrons, tritium)

Our article doesn't even mention the cell explosion, but I think it was Fleischmann's main motivation? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In all those years of soap boxing here you didn't read Fleischmann's paper? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"I want to take on wikipedia"

Here. Well, at least he asks for “wikipedia grade” links..... Pity he doesn't ask for books..... --Enric Naval (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow... another source for info and discourse on the science of cold fusion. Good work Enric Naval. Thanks!--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm famous! Olorinish (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes... and I hope it helps in our endeavors here. Follow the source for information to improve any article on Wikipedia. The hope is to improve this article.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC) oops just remembered... With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. --Gregory Goble (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems like we can expect some WP:MEATPUPPETRY soon. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Soon? It has been interminable. The only variable has been whether the puppets know they're being manipulated. We should have a warning, to the effect that "If you came here from a discussion board or blog, please do not post here on topics related to what you read there." LeadSongDog come howl! 13:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That is actually a great idea, we should also have a warning, to the effect that "If you have been around here for several years fighting the "pov pushers" and still haven't got the faintest idea what they are talking about, please do not post here anymore on topics related to what you think you really know a lot about." --POVbrigand (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How about "Those who do not have a qualification in a relevant field but insist they know the WP:TRUTH and push it on wikipedia, should not post here"? Tongue-in-cheek. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

you imply that only those who have "a qualification in a relevant field" know the truth. Is that because they were taught what the truth is - which they proudly display here on WP - but have long since forgotten how to think for themselves to the extend that they will argue a reliable source is unreliable just because a minority view is presented in it ? (this is not a personal attack). --POVbrigand (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope I didn't imply that, you inferred it. Before making further derogatory comments about those who hold relevant qualifications please check this link Dunning-Kruger_effect, Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What exactly did you find derogatory about that ? Can you explain "relevant qualifications" ? Do you think George H. Miley, Yeong E. Kim, Francesco Celani or Yogendra Srivastava have "relevant qualifications" ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you claiming "but have long since forgotten how to think for themselves" applies here? This is getting far off track: it appears we may see an influx of meatpuppetry per the original post. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that you are confused over these rather simple questions. It appears that from now on any new editor will be labeled a meatpuppet and joint efforts will be made to convince noticeboards and arbcom that such editors must be blocked and banned. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you never got around to reading the page to which Enric provided a link on 31 March 2012. There is found more of the inimitable gibberish above. If it isn't one sort of puppet, it's another. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows that link was not a reliable source. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for source code.--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

McKubre photo

Recently, 84.106.26.81 inserted a photo of Michael McKubre into the article [16]. The photo does not indicate anything useful about cold fusion. Does anyone else think the photo should be in the article? If so, why? Olorinish (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "useful". I think that it is warranted to add a photo of an experimental setup of other researchers than Fleischmann-Pons to illustrate that research is still ongoing. The picture itself may not be the perfect one for that goal, but I guess better pictures may be hard to get. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It shows an example set up. It's nice to have a few images in an article (and he is mentioned in the text of the article). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

“Low energy nuclear reactions” or LENR is the name now given to what was initially and poorly called “cold fusion”. Over twenty years of scientific research on LENR have resulted in some instances of energy gains exceeding 10[17] "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: Exciting New Science and Potential Clean Energy" from the ANS - American Nuclear Society. The state of the art of this science includes gas loaded systems so a picture showing this is needed. I (subjectively of course) like it.--Gregory Goble (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the topic? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

MY WIKI WORKS AS DOES YOURS

Observed in nature... was flight.

We are way beyond Orville and the "Wrights"

Truth be told the editors of WIKI 'knows'.

Thanks for the

Rich source code

from WIKI

Cold

Fusion

"History"

or

not

THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs) 07:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WOW--Gregory Goble (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)--Gregory Goble (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Easy there big fella. I warned you about taking more than two of the blue ones. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL

Binksternet (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about journals' handling of cold fusion submissions

Enric, I don't have a copy of "Undead Science." Could you, or someone else, post here the text about journals declining to review cold fusion papers? Thanks. Olorinish (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Olorinish: All cold fusion LENR science research papers are being published. If you study this Science, as do mainstream encyclopedia editors, you would know this to be true. The research papers, once published, undergo intense scientific review. This includes improved experimental environments, materials, sophistification of instrumentation, and advances in theory. (for cutting edge science the seeking approval for publication pre-publication peer review process hold little interest) Cutting edge science is advanced through publication and scientific review as part and parcel of the scientific method. Quantum, Nano, and LENR leads us closer to the application of a grand unifield field science. Einstein Smiles. Science is observation, imagination, and theory. Keep on working on it... till we fly... science--Gregory Goble (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Helpless, helpless, helpless. Why can't you just use google books, like the rest of us ? Search for "Undead Science rates declined" it's on page 180-181 --POVbrigand (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Simons' book "Undead Science" is about discredited science that is still very much alive. Ask Simon.--Gregory Goble (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I tried Google Books but they didn't show those pages. POVbrigand, please be civil. Olorinish (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange, searching google for "Undead Science rates declined" points me to page 180 of the book for me. Anybody else that doesn't get this result ? --POVbrigand (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting pirated content is not allowed. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that piracy is the issue. Olorinish didn't request to copy&paste whole pages of the book. Quoting a book is perfectly covered by fair use as far as I understand. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, here I would have to quote a page and a half, which I think is a bit excessive. Let's see if I can email Olorinish screenshots of Google Books (yes, I am too lazy to scan the actual paper book sitting in my shelves). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A page and a half ? why not just this bit : "Rates declined as scientists stopped their experiments and abandoned the controvery in 1990, but in addition the decline reflected decisions by journal editors (such as John Maddox, then editor of Nature) to reject or stop reviewing cold fusion articles" from page 180-181 Undead Science --POVbrigand (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Enric, thank you very much for the email, but I want to revisit this when I can check out the whole thing. By the way, even though I live in one of the 10 largest cities in the US, it has to be an interlibrary loan. Olorinish (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be less hassle to just buy a used copy from amazon. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE WEIGHT All WIKI references to Simons book "Undead Science" should be tagged with "beware of wikie editor slants and undue weight" BEWARE of words taken out of context. ASK SIMON I have.--Gregory Goble (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read the book ? Or are you just getting yourself worked up about your misunderstanding of the book's title ? --POVbrigand (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sections on "energy too large" and "small quantities of reaction products"

These two sections have had citation request and POV tags since December 2011, so it is time to address them. I say both should simply be deleted. It has not been established that the amount of energy produced is too large for chemical reactions, while the small quantities of reaction products are addressed in another section. What do other people think? Olorinish (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I also think that the article does not suffer when both section are deleted. The sections were meant to discuss two objections to the early claims by Fleischmann-Pons:

• Because the experiments had to run for a very long time before the effect would appear (dormant period) some scientists argued that the burst of energy could be explained by some chemical process that had accumelated energy during this dormant period.

This objection does not hold true for later (current) experiments because the "loading time" is greatly reduced, especially for gas loading experiments and cold fusion scientists made sure obvious chemical recombinations would not happen or would be calculable, would be discounted in the overall net energy calculation.

• The background level objection was made to the original Fleischmann-Pons experiments. LENR scientists have taken great care to make sure background noise or contamination do not influence measurements.

--POVbrigand (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are quite wrong. Excess heat beyond chemical and transmutation of elements is proven and replicated... look to the peer reviewed Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science to view data from mainstream cold fusion/LENR research. "Papers submitted to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science will be reviewed under the rules and guidelines associated with the review and appeals process adopted by the American Physical Review journals." [18] A good example of well-described excess heat results is SRI International electrochemist Michael McKubre’s graph on page 227 of the American Chemical Society “Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook."[19] Also pretty cool that the LENR device from the MIT seminar (cold fusion cell called the NANOR courtesy of JET Energy, Inc.) is still running... ask Senator Tarr. [20] With warm regards and electrifying anticipation.--Gregory Goble (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Perhaps I am confused?--Gregory Goble (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Further reflections are found from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory "The types of nuclear reactions that have been successfully used to produce new elements in the last decade are cold fusion reactions and hot fusion reactions." also "Cold fusion reactions have been successful in producing elements 104—112 and hot fusion reactions have recently provided evidence for elements 113—116 and 118."[21] --Gregory Goble (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Gregory, that's a different type of "cold" fusion. They use a cyclotron. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes laser fusion is very different, for those interested here are the main articles: National Ignition Facility, Laser fusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Gregory, those links do indicate that some people are convinced fusion reactions are taking place, they do not indicate that fusion experts are convinced. If there really are reactions, evidence which is far more convincing will soon be produced (CNN, WSJ, Science, Nature, ...). Olorinish (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Olorinish (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I propose a new section "Mainstream Science Cold Fusion/LENR"

LENR hob nobs with leading nuclear scientists. LENR scientists end the conference with this wonderful presentation of Cold Fusion Technology.

Presented at the "Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space 2012 Topical Meeting" [22] which includes the following (and more):

The Lunar and Planetary Institute – 43rd Lunar And Planetary Science Conference

ANST – Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology

USRA - Universities Space Research Association

ANS – American Nuclear Society

NASA

"A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)" Xiaoling Yang and George H. Miley, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 (104 S Wright Street, 216 Talbot Laboratory, Urbana, IL 61801 [23] --Gregory Goble (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Many attended the NETS topical meeting and heard the following presentation of theory developing from LENR science, which was delightfully billed as:

"Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics" [24]

"CRYOGENIC IGNITION OF DEUTERON FUSION IN MICRO/NANO-SCALE METAL PARTICLES" Y. E. Kim, Department of Physics, Purdue University

Physics Building, West Lafayette IN 47907. [25]

Being the final presentation on the Friday of this three day meeting infers significant weight to the attendees.

Cold Fusion/LENR is peer reviewed by the best and brightest, hence its' advancement.--Gregory Goble (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

LENR scientists are welcome in the most revered hallowed halls of physics. This is so worthy of posting in this section. Yea!!!

CERN Colloquium in Geneva, Switzerland

Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) [26]

Chaired by Francesco Celani with a presentation by Yogendra Srivastava Thursday, March 22, 2012 from 16:30 to 18:00 (Europe/Zurich) at CERN ( 500-1-001 - Main Auditorium )

Two Parts

ONE

“Overview of LENT Theory: Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations” [27] (LENR) by Yogendra Srivastava, Professor of Physics. INFN & Department of Physics University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

Summary clearly states that LENR is replicable science, “Theoretical know how and technology for LENT already exist.” [28] (See pg. 40)

TWO

“Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions(LENR)” [29] Francesco CELANI - National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Frascati National Laboratories. Vice-President of International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.

Encyclopedic works concerning science need be reflective of the present state of the art of the environmental, experimental, or observational element of science over the theoretical state of the art.

If you and others really really really see something that does not fit theory… theories change while all physical phenomenon are real.

The present state of the art for LENR/ Cold Fusion environments is explained in this presentation… “The use of nano material (powder and thin wires) makes evident the importance of increasing the surface exposed to the gas environment to enhance the effect. Arata (experiment) fully replicated by Mc Kubre (SRII- USA). Nano-dimensionality important by itself, as claimed by Y. Arata and B. Ahern?” [30] (from pg 11)

As this CERN presentation shows, “the quality of experiments worldwide performed is so high and the results obtained so widespread/reproduced” [31] (pg 32) we see the science has indeed advanced since the emergence of nano technology.

This litany of Cold Fusion/LENR Condensed Matter Scientific Works has been entered into the record of CERN. Both presentations were peer reviewed and approved months in advance and are now undergoing a more intense peer review as all published scientific works do. Everything in these presentations is WIKI WORTHY if presented in the proper light.

This article still has a bad bad time relevance and censorship problem compared to all of the recently published encyclopedias I just read. OH well what the ##### love keeps on going and going and going. We eventually figure it out.

With warm regards and electrifying anticipation.

So much of the WIKI article on cold fusion is focused way back in time because of the 10 year heavy edit battle.

We wonder (socialcencorshiporcorporate?hmmmm); private investigators are looking into this now. Grist for the film industry; now tracking all editor sources.

--Gregory Goble (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed section header: "Cold Fusion- Mainstream Science"

Proposed text:

Cold Fusion/LENR LENT is peer reviewed by mainstream science. "Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics" [11] "A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)" [10] "Cryogenic Ignition of Deuteron Fusion In Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles" [12] Presented at the "Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space 2012 Topical Meeting and concurrent 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference" [9]

Peer review at CERN cold fusion Colloquium, ”Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)(LENT)” [13] “Overview of LENT Theory: Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations” [14] Summarizes that LENT (LENR) is replicable science, “Theoretical know how and technology for LENT already exist.” [15] (See pg. 40) “Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)” [16] Here the description of state of the art LENR/ Cold Fusion environments is, “The use of nano material (powder and thin wires) makes evident the importance of increasing the surface exposed to the gas environment to enhance the effect. Arata (experiment) fully replicated by Mc Kubre (SRII- USA). Nano-dimensionality important by itself, as claimed by Y. Arata and B. Ahern?” [17] (from pg 11) and, “the quality of experiments worldwide performed is so high and the results obtained so widespread/reproduced”, [18] (pg 32) the art of this science has advanced since the emergence of nano technology.

End text So that's it so far. I will clear up the links (all are in the upper body of this section) and await delightful discourse and suggestions or objections. With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. --Gregory Goble (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This proposal would give far too much weight to those talks. We should be very careful about using any sources which are not from mainstream news outlets or nuclear science journals. Olorinish (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me Olorinish... "not from news outlets or scientific journals". What are you, completely unaware that CERN is AND NETS are both leaders in nuclear science peer reviewed presentations and publications. Clearly Wiki Worthy. Tell me why you think they are not or quit commenting on this subject. Thank you for obfuscation. --Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why only nuclear science journals ? Any respected science journal is appropriate. The SPAWAR papers (long list) are published in several journals like Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Fusion Technology, Naturwissenschaften, European Physics Journal of Applied Physics, Radiation Measurements. Yeong E. Kim's papers are in journals Few-Body Systems, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Naturwissenschaften, Physics Letters A, Physical Review A. I could go on and on. There are summary papers published in such journals too.

"Too much weight" is an argument used here to artificially put weight on mainstream science view. There is a significant number of scientific peer-reviewed papers supportive of the minority view. In comparison, rebuttals to these papers are non existent. Based on number of published papers on the subject the WEIGHT in this article must be totally on the minority side. The fact that some journals blatantly refuse publishing anything related to the field and the fact that there is very limited funding for research in the field is not at all an argument for WP-editors to decide where to put the WEIGHT in our article. And you cannot only rely on outdated 20 year old books by biased authors to decide where to put the WEIGHT.

When I use a source from a peer reviewed paper from a science journal, I get an avalanche of "I don't like it" arguments why it cannot be used: "it's a primary source", "it's a fringe author", "it's a non reliable source", "it's too much weight". Your argument that only "nuclear science journals" should be used is just one of them.

--POVbrigand (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey POVbrigand slow down. I understand your frustration. Just go to the local library and you can find very good encyclopedic information about present day LENR science,--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The mainstream secondary sources (many of them being quite recent) leave very clear what is the mainstream view. Also, giving lots of undue weight to conference talks. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The scientific work from these researchers is completely underrepresented in our article. None of the secondary sources in your collection - even the quite recent ones - mentions the current scientific work, they each spend at most half a page of several hundred pages thick volumes merely restating 20 year old views. Is that really all you have to show ?

The minority view on the other hand is represented by numerous peer reviewed papers in respected journals. And as informed observers of the field have mentioned, the minority view is getting increasing exposure at mainstream science venues.[32]

From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth."

From Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight: "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."

• Currently the minority view is not spelled out in great detail in our article.

From Wikipedia:Fringe#Peer_reviewed_sources: "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject." ... "Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact."

• The minority view is the minority view, we don't have to argue on that. But constantly editing the article to reduce the minority view or talk page arguing to deny additional details of the minority view is completely uncalled for.

--POVbrigand (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Enric_Naval I Can not understand you. Could you please elucidate further? Thank you for your obfuscation. I apologize for my inability to "GET" what you are saying. Please forgive me. Thank you very much, from the bottom of my heart,. I needed to painfully dredge that one up. Hack Hack.--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I now plead for a moderator to step in before I post this section to the article. A two day grace period is gladly given for substantative discourse. LOVE LOVE LOVE the ridiculousness of the ?Wiki? ?editorial? ?process? which I do not comprehend. In this context I might prevail... trust me on this one... or not. Hackers may be following this closely, or not. I do not know.--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC) It would be refreshingly refreshing if an honest idiot chimed in now with an innocent query seeking understanding for encyclopedic information on COLD FUSION and found Wiki sorely lacking on such. WHY? GUESS? this is undergoing deep obervational consideration.... trust me... us... them... OR NOT!--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a real secondary source in there somewhere, or is it all just more poster session presentations? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

LeadDogSong> I sing of secondary praises contained in this submission for consideration, Comprende?--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The list of presentations:

• Miley - NASA LENR Innovation Forum Workshop at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio - September 22, 2011
• Miley - World Green Energy Symposium in Philadelphia, PA - October 19-21, 2011.
• Miley - Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space in The Woodlands, TX - March 21-23, 2012

-> peer reviewed paper in preparation

• Kim - Asia Pacific conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics in Seoul - August 22-26, 2011

-> peer reviewed paper "Nuclear Reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles" published in Few-Body Systems journal

• Kim - Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space in The Woodlands, TX - March 21-23, 2012

• Celani - World Sustainable Energy Conference in Geneva - January 10-12, 2012
• Celani - CERN LENR colloquium in Geneva - March 22, 2012

• Srivastava - CERN LENR colloquium in Geneva - March 22, 2012

We do not need a secondary source to validate that these presentation have taken place.

We do not need a secondary source to establish notability of these presentation (Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article)

We have a secondary source Wired that has highlighted some of these presentations

We should mention that these LENR presentations have recently taken place in mainstream venues (8 presentations in 6 months time by 4 different speakers).

--POVbrigand (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see alot of agrument against what you are proposing POV Brigand, nor should there be, wikipedia is not a democracy, these presentations and their speekers can stand on thier own feet as reliable sources, write somthing up about all these talks and include it. I am personally shocked at how old all of the information in this article is, reading it is almost as if no new research at all has been done in the last 25 years... it's disgraceful. As an example: This line "However, they cannot explain these observations and have not demonstrated reliable replication of the effects" in the introduction seems to be a direct contradiction of the current claims of LENR scientists, (CERN coloquium and others, Widom-Larsden), specifically explainations that explain nearly all of the effects observed are discussed in Cern Talks, and it is also noted that a very high degree of reproducability is observed, this scentence is outdated... can it be removed and replaced with somthing more appropriately epresenting hat LENR Scientists currently claim?118.93.15.111 (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The presentations themselves aren't reliable sources for anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie I hope you go into the office of production of these presentations and get pie in your face for saying such a thing. You should be ashamed and never show your sorry face here again. Thanks for nothing and worthlessness stuffing head or give me something of substance to chew on. Sorry peace that I am. Get it?--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If nuclei really are reacting, then it will only be a short time until news organizations and fusion experts make statements that contradict that sentence in the introduction. We should be conservative and wait until that happens before changing the introduction too much. Adding one sentence in the "Conferences" section which describes post-2009 presentations would probably be enough. Olorinish (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Olorinish, can you make a proposal of what you would think is acceptable ? --POVbrigand (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be good to change the introduction sentence "A small community[quantify] of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion..." to something like "Some researchers continue to investigate cold fusion, reporting on their work in journals and at conferences [SPAWAR, Biberian, ICCF, CERN links]..." A sentence in the "Conferences" section could mention the post-2009 presentations. Olorinish (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminder that I like Olorinish's proposal, but I haven't gotten to it yet. :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have learned from what Iggy Dalrymple says, "In true science, theory always surrenders to the primacy of evidence. If observations are made that, after careful verification and theoretical analysis, are found to be inconsistent with a theory, than that theory has to go – no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is, how much mathematical elegance it contains, how prestigious its supporters are, or how many billions of dollars a certain industry has bet on it."--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

HEY WAIT A SEC HERE. This is about LENR being mainstream science and not "pathological" science or "quackery". Quit obfuscating the thrust of my work here. MY WIKI WORKS. Does yours help to improve this article? LENR now enters mainstream science so list this now or shut the ? up. Quackery or controlled obfuscation... ASK CERN and the NETS organizors.--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

MAINSTREAM SCIENCE COLD FUSION LENR is a section for such as CERN and NETS. This section can provide readers with similiar information as found in other encyclopedias. Wiki works for the discerning mind and should present current as well as historical perspectives. Thank you for considering this while analyzing the value of including this section.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything here ... all source... all contributions are being carefully (hack hack) considered for future clarification. Public record.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some consider the presumption of the superiority of consensus to be sheer idiocy. You can quote me as the source of this "saying from antiquity". How many lives old am I? As many as all of us. Thanks to the ancestors found in all <ROCK> and <ROLL>--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC) You might riddle that rock is solid and immoveable while roll is movement: which is in actuality only a vibration through the lattice of my poetic imaginings.--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything and all aside; consider the time relevance problem. In the past CERN pooh poohed cold fusion while NETS is comprised of leading nuclear energy physicists and has never embraced cold fusion; yet now both do. This section is a Wiki Worthy place for encyclopedic information from these organizations. --Gregory Goble (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gregory, please familiarize yourself with the contents of wp:PSTS, wp:RS and wp:TPG before posting again. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Gregory, the mainstream view on cold fusion (still) is that it was debunked in the early 1990s. I agree with you that after the recent presentations at mainstream science venues, the phrase "cold fusion is only crackpot" has clearly become laughable ignorant. We could say that there are signs that the mainstream view might be changing. However, I do not think that it is conducive to try to persuade the other editors here that the mainstream view on cold fusion has already changed.

I think that the minority view is still the minority view, but that mainstream science is more and more willing to listen to that view. That process started in 2006 with the ACS having cold fusion session in their annual meetings. Currently more mainstream science venues are willing to invite cold fusion speakers. We can say that mainstream science has accepted cold fusion as a topic, but mainstream science has not yet accepted cold fusion as a scientific fact.

In the mean time I believe that it is warranted and fully in line with WP policy to describe the minority view in greater detail in our article.

--POVbrigand (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's fun to read recently published encyclopedias for insight into writing a cold fusion science article. We could all work together on improving this one. Cold Fusion LENR Science. Not Quackery. Not Pathological. These researchers are not about to lose their jobs for doing this research. The cold fusion journals that publish their papers are peer reviewed and recognized as such by other scientists. The state of the art of the environment for LENR has advanced far beyond the first experiments setup with Nano and Quantum science, wave theory, string theory, new physics. While here we have a heavily censored Wiki article that does not want to allow the admission that this is good science. Go to a library grab a new encyclopedia and see what I'm talking about. With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. --Gregory Goble (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you share the title (or ISBN) of the recently published encyclopedias go we can all go and have a look ourselves ?

No. Best to go to the university library in your region that has a strong physics and chemistry program. Nuclear and physics science encyclopedias are best, 2008 or newer. This I can share though regarding the history of cold fusion as pathological science, "One of Park's other frequent targets is Eugene Mallove the former chief science writer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who wrote the first articles revealing MIT's reliance on doctored data in its key study that discredited the original Pons-Fleischmann cold-fusion findings." This is from, "Cold Fusion Rides Again - Science magazine publishes more evidence of tabletop nuclear reactions" - Hal Plotkin, SF Gate Monday, March 25, 2002 [33] Every moderator and editor here might be advised to read this article to understand the dynamics behind this Wiki battlefield article. No wonder it's so sloppy and bucks improvement. With warm regards and electrifying anticipation, your big money honey. We can improve this article with science. Takes time. Thank you for source code contributions... hacking wiki works... my following... handle warm regards and electrifying anticipation. --Gregory Goble (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That article is mainly about Bubble fusion --POVbrigand (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "crackpot", "quackery" and "pathological", mainstream scientists may have used these phrases in the past to describe the topic. Ignorant commentators (incl scientists) may still use them, but they simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and what has happened in the field the last 23 years. Many of the Rossi aficionados also don't have a clue and may believe that Miley, McKubre, Hagelstein, Celani, et al have just started their work recently after Rossi "showed them that it is possible".

Our article is full of content relying on 20 year old books that are good to describes the traditional view, but surely these sources should not be used to comment on developments from say the last 6 years.

Good content additions describing the minority view in detail have often been and still are deleted citing WP-policies or essays in most inappropriate ways like fringe, weight, npov, redflag, or, primary, recentism, synth, rs, notcrystalball, notnewspaper, notability. Frequently it looks like anything is thrown at it just to keep the minority view from being explained in greater detail. For instance, sometimes it is claimed that as long as a detail of the minority view is not discussed in a peer reviewed paper it should not be in wikipedia, but when a peer reviewed paper discussing that detail is added to the article it gets deleted because it is a primary source adding too much weight. This does of course not mean that all minority view additions are always good edits, some of the edits are indeed violating one of the above policies.

Unfortunately, some editors solidly believe that wikipedia should exclusively present the mainstream view, that "WP articles should not expound fringe theories", that any source "promoting" the minority view is an unreliable source, that authors of books or peer reviewed papers "promoting" the minority view are "adherents of fringe" and thus unreliable and that journals publishing peer reviewed papers about cold fusion/LENR are unreliable journals.

Editors who add details of the minority view are at risk of being denounced as a fringe POV pusher and crackpot promoter who deserve to be blocked or banned.

Please keep in mind that you are not here to convince other editors of "the truth", you are here to edit an article that will be read by many readers who expect a NPOV explanation of the topic.

Let the mainstream view be the mainstream view and the minority view be the minority view. But let's explain the minority view in greater detail, so that the WP-reader can understand the past and current developments better.

--POVbrigand (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

VERY nicely done, you help me realize the gist of it. The assumption must be that the Wiki reader is a discerning reader and not that we must discerne (censor) for the Wiki reader. Problematic is that here there is now the censoring of good science, CERN, NETS, and the premier peer reviewed scientific journal of Cold Fusion LENR science. This tragisty is certainly not Wiki Worthy; or is it all you wiki experts? With a lot of W.R. and E. A. --Gregory Goble (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Upon further reflection I applaud this as an a diamond cutting through to improving our article. Our article is full of content relying on 20 year old books that are good to describes the traditional view, but surely these sources should not be used to comment on developments from say the last 6 years. This bit of clarity from POV made smile and nod. I agree that this article has a bad bad bad time relevence problem. --Gregory Goble (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you share the title (or ISBN) of the recently published encyclopedias you mentioned previously so we can all go and have a look ourselves ? --POVbrigand (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

NOPE. Will Wiki pay the publisher to replace this article with theirs? NOPE. You like footwork anyways so why worry... libraries are awesome. I don't know... maybe Wiki would! Propositionally W.R. and E. A. --Gregory Goble (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you won't or can't tell us which encyclopedias you have found that represent the existence of cold fusion / LENR as being the mainstream science view then you should not complain when the editors here conclude that the mainstream science view has not changed yet. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my stubborness on this one. Wiki is a harmful competitor of traditional quality ecyclopedic publications whose editorial teams have done a better job on cold fusion than this Wiki "team?". You have misunderstood me it seems so I will clarify... my complaint is that the "mainstream view" is a bunch of old ambiguous opinions, many are opinions of 'hot fusion only' POV pushers, given undue weight in this Wiki article by some editors here. "Factual" statements in this article should not be based on opinions and opinions should not be peppered throughout an article giving it the flavor of a rag. I am not responsible for other editors shortcomings. I will continue making suggestions. I never stated cold fusion works. Facts state Cold Fusion/LENR is science, being done by respected scientists, in prestigious institutions. using increasingly sophisticated instumentation, working in increasingly improved environments, accurately recording and publishing their work, reviewing and improving each others work, following strict scientific method... CERN thinks so and so does the American Nuclear Society. Eventually this article will reflect this truth.--Gregory Goble (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Esteemed Professor Francesco Celani - National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Frascati National Laboratories. Vice-President of International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, not only just presented LENR science at CERN he also organizes conferences where cold fusion "crackpots flourish". Papers from these conferences are sadly not Wiki Worthy because Wiki thinks these conferences are filled with POV pushers... OH MY what a crock pot of crackpot slanderous statements. --Gregory Goble (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

WOW there is must be great data here (hack hack)of which I have no knowledge. The discourse is extremely interesting and contains useful information to include in the proposed suggestion. I will work on a revised title and proposed text to post here in a coupla days. Fellow editors may have a revision to propose as well. Suggestions to title and text of this proposed section are appropriate at this time. Two or three versions would be helpful. As a team we could glean from these that which would best improve the article with fact. With warm regards and electrifying anticipation.--Gregory Goble (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Which of these presentations are considered secondary source by discerning Wiki experts and why? Thanks for the material POVbrigand The list of presentations:

• Miley - NASA LENR Innovation Forum Workshop at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio - September 22, 2011
• Miley - World Green Energy Symposium in Philadelphia, PA - October 19-21, 2011.
• Miley - Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space in The Woodlands, TX - March 21-23, 2012

-> peer reviewed paper in preparation

• Kim - Asia Pacific conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics in Seoul - August 22-26, 2011

-> peer reviewed paper "Nuclear Reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles" published in Few-Body Systems journal

• Kim - Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space in The Woodlands, TX - March 21-23, 2012

• Celani - World Sustainable Energy Conference in Geneva - January 10-12, 2012
• Celani - CERN LENR colloquium in Geneva - March 22, 2012

• Srivastava - CERN LENR colloquium in Geneva - March 22, 2012

--Gregory Goble (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Anyone care to suggest other recent peer reviewed Cold Fusion/LENR works that have been entered into the record of recognized institutions of mainstream science?--Gregory Goble (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, CERN colloquiums are just "Non-technical talk[s] of general interest addressed to all people at CERN from all departments." [34], it's one of many "public seminars taking place at CERN"[35], and they can be about any science topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The intense peer review process at CERN ensures that quality science is found in all "Non-technical talk[s] of general interest addressed to all people at CERN from all departments." CERN has a strong reputation to stand on and MAINTAIN; does the editorial process here as well?--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please point out where it says that these colloquiums pass a peer-review process. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And there is no such thing as a "CENR LENR colloquium", what you have is two "CERN colloquiums" that happen to be about LENR. Only because someone proposed to make a seminar about LENR, and the organizer accepted. There have been many seminars in CERN about many topics, and it doesn't mean that CERN endorses every one of those topics. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Intense obfuscation or not by Mr. E.N.... I counter that every thing, and I do mean everything, entered into the CERN record first undergoes intense peer review. Cold Fusion/LENR science has new information entered into the CERN record for further scientific review. The fact that Cold Fusion/LENR is science you may dispute Enric Naval (YOU certainly are not CERN caliber nor am I); yet you can not reasonably dispute that Cold Fusion/LENR Science has passed the muster of CERN. OR DO YOU argue that CERN beds Crackpots, Pseudoscience, or BAD science? I do not bed bad editors.--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please point out where is CERN saying as an official position/statement that "Cold Fusion/LENR Science has passed the muster of CERN". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Distorting the importance of seminars is not helping your point. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Enric Naval for not distorting my point here. Topics at CERN colloquiums "can be about any science topic", the CERN review process shuns Quackery, Pseudo-Science, Bad Science or Garbage. Using this to argue that LENR/Cold Fusion is not science is not helping your point. (compost) My point is that Cold Fusion/LENR Research is Science; now bearing fruit of a deeper understanding of these misunderstood/little-understood phenomenon and the environments in which they occur. CERN reviewed, approved of, and allowed a presentation of such (Cold Fusion/LENR Science) to be entered into the record of CERN for further scientific review. Science not quackery. Can I speak Duck? Quack Quack.--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC) With warm regards and electrifying anticipation thanks for the source code. --Gregory Goble (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Think about it. If someone holds a seminar in an institution, inside a cycle of assorted seminars, does it mean automatically that the institution endorses a certain position about the topic of that seminar? Are you saying that the official position of CERN has to fully endorse the topics in every and all of those seminars, only because it was held inside CERN? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Obfuscatingly thinking about it. Are you saying that CERN "endorses" like NIKE? I will tell you this Mr. Enric Naval, CERN is meticulously professional when carefully reviewing publications that carry its' letterhead. Silly laugh do you?--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at that CERN colloquium page and I don't see any indication that colloquiums are carefully reviewed or that CERN endorses its contents in any manner. If you want to claim those things, you will have to provide some sort of proof. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

E. N. You can email this to folks at CERN for clarification, or call as I did. Sir, These presentations recently appeared at CERN. What review process by CERN, if any, did these works undergo before being presented? Do you know if a subsequent review of these works has been published? Please comment in regards to the state of the art of this science, if possible. “Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)” Francesco Celani, National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Frascati National Laboratories. Vice-President of International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science - CERN Colloquium - Geneva, March 22nd, 2012 http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=3&materialId=slides&confId=177379 “Overview of LENT Theory Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations” Yogendra Srivastava, Professor of Physics INFN & Department of Physics, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy. CERN Colloquium - Geneva, March 22nd, 2012 http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=1&materialId=slides&confId=177379 Thank you, (a Wikipedia editor) You may get good answers. With warm regards and electrifying anticipation.--Gregory Goble (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

CERN papers and presentations of science are reviewed for publication to any chosen media. In this respect CERN “endorses” LENR research as good science. Be sure to understand the meaning; never was it inferred that CERN “believes” in cold fusion. Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist at CERN, invented the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1989. [36] Info.cern.ch was the address of the world's first-ever web site and web server, running on a NeXT computer at CERN.[37] This important explanation helps one to understand how science is percieved at CERN Science:

A Subatomic Venture

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

These were the words of the famous physicist Albert Einstein, who went on to say that "Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

If you venture into the subatomic world in an attempt to unveil its inner workings, possession of all the knowledge in the world is not enough. Instead, invite your imagination to serve as a guide, because many rules as we know them no longer apply. Just like the story of Alice In Wonderland, this new world may look familiar but it is not fully comprehensible. Scales shift and matter transforms. Transitory twins appear and extra dimensions hide.

Nature has the ability to throw us the biggest surprises, so expect dramatic twists and unexpected turns; many before you have dreamed up mind–blowing theories and crazy concepts. Some of these have prevailed against the tests of time and armies of knowledgeable critics – thus far.

Someone, sometime, somewhere, may succeed in completing these unfinished mysteries, or even rewrite the chapters entirely. The book is by no means finished.[38]

This shows how CERN remains a leading science organization. The reputation of high quality science content at CERN is only maintained by its’ strong professional review process. I am in correspondence concerning the review of LENR prior to CERN publication. Logic dictates CERN didn’t just allow LENR publications wily nilly with only whimsical lackadaisical conCERN. You most likely would not Mr. Enric Naval and certainly not I. Now for proof… one moment please. W/WR and EA.--Gregory Goble (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow a prose wax second. Now is the time to solve this horrendous bad time relevance cold fusion problem. I am drawing a line here now. You are on one side or the other, no quarters or eighths drawn. The line drawn, the sands of time are ringing 2009. Thanks for the discourse and suggestions that have helped bring about this defining moment. Seriously, the article could be improved by this section. Revised proposal to the suggested Section title “Mainstream Science Cold Fusion/LENR” is as follows: “Cold Fusion/LENR - 2009” Nothing prior to 2009 is to be allowed in this section. This will help solve the time peppered problem that make the Wiki presentation of cold fusion/lenr so hard to read and understand. W/WR and EA --Gregory Goble (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, pure WP:SYN. "Cern is important"+"Cern does serious research"+"Cern held a colloquium on Cold fusion" => "Cold fusion is mainstream". Several problems here: Colloquiums at Cern does not equate mainstream (citation required for refutation). Implied here is also "Cern is mainstream" (which is wrong, since Cern does do non-mainstream research (example: Cosmic ray influence clouds?) - and that is their own research, not presentation of external res.). Sorry, but you are simply advocating your own interpretation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me... CERN is not important? CERN research? ie. Your question was passed on to me. This (LENR presentation) was part of CERN's very wide ranging colloquium programme that allows our scientists to keep abreast of developments across a wide range of physics. We carry out no research in this area, and so can not comment on the state of the art in this field. Dr James Gillies

Head, Communication Group CERN 1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland, Regards, James Gillies.

Non-mainstream research? Mainstream is the best? Or what?Cold FusionLENR LENT is otherwise known as cutting edge or 'fringe' science which is much much different than pathological or 'bad' science. One you lose your reputation over; the other obliterates concepts and gains fame, like Einstein. I advocate that CERN publications undergo intense professional scientific review; which is much much different than a pre-publication review(aspects of abuse thru censorship). Cold Fusion LENR LENT is and has always been about good science, never pathological... not bad... definately cutting edge... certainly recently fringe... soon to be? CERN has no pre-publication review process (disallowing CERN research). WHY? CERN has a strong professional scientific review of all publications by \\\\\\ WHO? Lovingly your scientific community. Lovingly your Wiki editors. Two different animals. Even you are not pureWP:SYNCERN is both cutting edge and mainstream silly and stupidness to think otherwise. Of course CERN has an awesome membership of which you are? or not? me? KimDabelsteinPetersonWho (hackhack) With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. Thank you for this clue. I often am clueless.--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream LENR presentations undergo scientific review at the American Physical Society. Session Y33: Cold Fusion APS Physics March Meeting 201, Volume 56, Number 1 Monday–Friday, March 21–25, 2011; Dallas, Texas. Justifying Condensed Matter Nuclear Phenomena Using Hot Fusion Data, Xing Zhong Li. Dimensional Symmetry Catalysts for A-Z Gas Loading Fusion, Talbot Chubb. Comparison of Calorimetry: MIT and Fleischmann-Pons Systems, Melvin H. Miles , Peter Hagelstein. Can LENR Energy Gains Exceed 1000?, David J. Nagel. Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions From Nanostructured Metamaterials Electrically Driven at Their Optimal Operating Point, Mitchell R. Swartz. The Use of SSNTD's in the Pd-D Co-deposition Experiment, Francis Tanzella , Michael M.C.H. McKubre. LENR BEC Clusters on and below Wires through Cavitation and Related Techniques, Roger Stringham , Julie Stringham. Use of Helium Production to Screen Glow Discharges for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), Thomas O. Passell. Conventional Physics can Explain Excess Heat in the Fleischmann-Pons Cold Fusion Effect, Scott Chubb. Electrochemical and Electron Probe Microanalysis Measurements on Nanostructured Palladium, Jan Marwan, Vanessa Rackwitz.[39] Good 'undead' science.--Gregory Goble (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

MAINSTREAM COLD FUSION/LENR RESEARCH Such as found in the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

Cutting edge science always has those who are in the forefront of state of the art research and advancement of theory. Little known or misunderstood by many scientists without direct involvement, leading cutting edge scientists are in the mainstream of their art. I expect papers published in this journal that are a review of works to date in the art of cold fusion as well as papers that are scientific review (secondary replication) of an experiment are source worthy for this section, Wikipedia Cold Fusion - Post 2009. The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science follows a well established peer review process, "PEER REVIEW PROCESS - Submitted papers will be forwarded to an Editor who will supervise the peer review process, and contact the authors in the course of the review process. Papers submitted to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science will be reviewed under the rules and guidelines associated with the review and appeals process adopted by the American Physical Review journals." [40] Papers from this journal are reverenced in quite a few other journals' papers. We could list all or some of these as well. With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. Tell me if you disagree, we'll discuss before I post. --Gregory Goble (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

LENR has acquired respectability

The Hindu Business Line writes that LENR is accepted by mainstream science: "Now that LENR and LENT are regarded as feasible propositions and have acquired respectability in the eyes of the research fraternity around the world, India's scientific and research establishments should take it up with full vigour so as to catch up with the advances made elsewhere." This is a reliable source, a mainstream newspaper, so we can use this in our article. We should clearly attribute the quote to the newspaper, because other newspapers might have a different opinion. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems I see in the source:

• Using a business newspaper as source for the opinion of the scientific community.
• Ignoring all the scholar/technological books and textbooks that contradict this claim
• painting this is the official position of the newspaper, when it's just the opinion of the reporter

• same source has recently published articles negative about LENR in its Industry & Economy section[41] and says "Ever since, the world has been cold towards ‘cold fusion', or nuclear fusion at room temperatures. Last week, Nobel laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, in a speech in Chennai — in the context of making a point that science is not infallible, but is self-correcting — described the Fleishmann-Pons fiasco, and this was reported in Business Line." in reference to ‘CERN experiment will be proved wrong'. It quotes a reply by Brian Josephson, followed by "Clearly, cold fusion has its supporters.".

• source contains gross distortions of facts: "It is currently the rage of research institutions all over the world":
  • someone fed the author a load of bullshit about many US institutions officially backing up LENR. As discussed in the lasts months: SPAWAR only has a small budget, the ACS only gave them space in their annual meetings and CERN only has a couple of colloquiums that were given among hundreds of public seminars on other topics[42].
  • While it's nice that Mitsubishi and Osaka University dedicate modest amounts to researching LENR, they have not been able to convince the Japanese government to budget a single yen for LENR since the failed $20 million program in 1992-1997, or to convince any other universities and companies. In particular, Yoshiaki Arata from Osaka Univ. claimed in 2008 to have a working LENR generator but he has never allowed anyone to make an independent test (I think).
• no sources are cited or quoted for the claim, neither scientists nor scientific institutions, not even Indian ones.
• source acknowledges that Indian scientific community has zero interest in LENR, but says that it's for some unexplainable reason, and doesn't ask any Indian scientist or institution about their actual reasons.
• opinion article. Author doesn't appear to have any expertise in science, philosophy of science, or science reporting [43]

--Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Funny, your first point is that the source is a business newspaper and you think it cannot comment on science. However, in your huge collection you have this source "2006 unknown author (2006), "unknown title", The Economist 378 (8467-8470): pp. 72, "Their work, however, was discredited and the field is now a no-go area for most physicists."" listed as proof.
• Furthermore the other recently published article you mention Cold is back as hot topic on the non-conventional energy front is not at all negative about LENR: "It look likely", "seems to be coming back". --POVbrigand (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Gross distortion of facts": that might be just your OR. Do you have current sources that contradict this source. And I don't mean 20 year old books or the recent ones that borrow from them. The author did not express that those institutions officially backed LENR, that is your interpretation.
• What you think about Arata's LENR experiment is based on your long list of books that state outdated claims as fact. Arata's LENR experiment was replicated and the results published in the peer reviewed journal Physics Letters A. None of the recent (post 2009) sources in your long list choose to mention this, therefore they are all clearly unreliable on the topic and are proof only of the ignorance and incompetence of its authors.

I do not see problems to use this source. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see the texts I quoted above. You are making a big jump from "cold fusion seems to be coming back" to "scientific consensus has changed and says that LENR is respectable". As for your article, it is still just the opinion of a columnist with no experience in science who had been fed distorted facts that have already been discussed here. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the problems with the source itself, there's also the question of cherrypicking. Why, for instance, would we favour the above "...have acquired respectability in the eyes of the research fraternity around the world..." over "Apparently, the initial interest shown by the Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, the BARC and the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research has since died down" which is perhaps the one snippet in the article that its author is best positioned to directly verify?LeadSongDog come howl! 23:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Time for each to submit a statement of intent.. I am here to improve this article by... Obfuscation is best. For encyclopedic info on cold fusion go to your local library... Time relevance is properly sorted elswhere... not yet yet soon here. End Wiki abuse. Spotlighting responsible parties is fun and easy (hackhack)--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@Enric, it is the opinion of an outside observer. I am not making a big jump, I am only referring to what the authors of the articles have written, without putting a tremendous dose of mainstream science interpretation over it. "distorted facts" are your words clinging on to the mainstream science world order and "no experience in science" is in fact very arrogant, you know that ?

@LeadSongDog, don't accuse me of cherrypicking. Read the article and convince yourself that the author expresses his opinion in that LENR has acquired respectability, and that he urges the Indian Institutes to restart LENR research pronto. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Read the article"? I did. Where else did you think the quote came from? What it convinced me of was that the author had little understanding of the topic. A quick google check for his publication history argues that his writings are general commentary, with no sign of anything to suggest any expertise on his topic. Is there some evidence to the contrary? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"the author has little understanding of the topic" seems to imply that you think you are knowledgeable of the topic. That is the rhetorical fallacy many editors resort to when faced with a source in favor of LENR: The author is either a fringe adherent or ignorant, in either case not reliable. That is a perversion of wikipedia policy. There does not exist a "knowledgable" post-assessment of minortiy view sources' reliability by editors who are mostly ignorant of the minority view (see Enric's comment above of what he "thinks" about Arata).

I assume you might be knowledgeable on the mainstream science view on LENR, but that is as far as your view on this topic goes.

As the author of the article relates in the first paragraph the has spoken to well informed sources "comprising reputed experts and professionals in various fields of activity, with special focus on the ever expanding frontiers of science and technology.", he is a columnist reporting about that in his column.

All I hear from Enric and you are arguments denying the article's first paragraph and adding a load of OR in order to dismiss this source. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof is on you. You have provided no evidence that the author has any expertise in any of the relevant fields. (We could look at his original sources, but "Friends On Similar Wave Length (FOSWL)" has exactly zero hits on google apart from mirrors of his article.)

You cannot just wildly claim that according to your view a source is unreliable and that therefore I must prove to you that it isn't unreliable. By your standard many of the authors (ie, most of the journalists) of sources currently in use in this article have a questionable expertise in the relevant field. All of the authors of your long list of mainstream view books have no expertise whatsoever on the minority view of the field in question. The article's author has at least the same amount of trustability and expertise that Mark Gibbs from Forbes has. It is laughable that this source is questioned merely because it holds a different point of view than you do.

The burden of proof for the line that: "B.S.RAGHAVAN, columnist of the Hindu Business Line, concludes in his column that LENR has acquired respectability in the eyes of mainstream science" is satisfied by the article.

btw, I do think there is a difference between LENR research being respected by mainstream science community and LENR being accepted as mainstream science.

For Arata, one team has claimed replication and published a paper, find the secondary sources saying that the replication is believable to other scientists and that it has been proven that Arata's generator works. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not required by wikipedia policy, it is an ad hoc demand by you just to keep this from the article. The peer reviewed paper is sufficient to add a line saying: "In a peer reviewed paper by Kitamura et al. the researchers presented experimental results of a successful replication of the Arata experiment". Above you admitted that you didn't know anything about Arata's experiment & its replication and when I present you one you demand a secondary sources that says other scientists think it's believable. This is not about what other scientists think is believable and it is certainly not about what YOU think is believable, this is about the verifiable & reliable fact that scientists have published a peer reviewed paper in a well respected scientific journal describing a replication of the experiment. I think you have a misconception about the Arata "generator". The Arata "generator" doens't exist, it is not a machine like Rossi's ecat. It is a scientific experimental setup and other scientists have repeated that experiment and published it in a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal.

I believe that even if I would present a secondary source discussing the replication, y'all would start arguing that the author "has no expertise" or that the source is unreliable for some other arbitrary reason.

It is truly sad that you seem to desperately cling to your collected stash of mainstream publications that merely restate 20 year old views and omit to mention anything about "recent" reports in the field like the Arata experiment and its replication. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is still on you, and you haven't provided any of the required proof yet. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No the burden of proof is not on me. You have a serious misconception about "the burden of proof". --POVbrigand (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to reread wp:BURDEN. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how this applies here ? The policy states that: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation" and that is what I proposed to do. Read the policy carefully, it does not state that the editor has the burden to satisfy arbitrary demands by co-editors. As I have explained before there are many authors of sources that could also be dismissed as having "no expertise", like for instance Randy Alfred or Mark Gibbs from Forbes. It is not a question of whether these journalists have a degree in nuclear science, it is a question if quotations can be verifiably attributed to them. WP-policy does not burden me with showing you that these authors "have expertise" of nuclear science. It is visible from the article that the author has spoken to knowledgeable scientists. A columnist for a major Indian newspaper is an opinion that can be used in our article to illustrate that mainstream science is starting to accept LENR as an emerging science. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds as if there's something malconfigured on your browser. That link should have take you to the specific section of wp:V entitled "Burden of evidence". Instead, you describe the nutshell at the top of the page.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Burden" is a sub point of "When_a_reliable_source_is_required" of which I quoted. Whatever it is that you think "burden" is about, the policy is actually very clear: the burden of evidence is about verifiability in the form of inline citation. Not about whatever arbitrary evidence you think you need to sustain your feeling of happiness. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What you seem not to grasp is that wp:BURDEN assigns the burden of responsibility for providing that evidentiary citation to the editor who adds or re-adds content. There is no corresponding burden on the removing editor. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The burden is on the editor who adds, that's clear. But what is this burden about ? That is something you fail to understand. The burden is to provide citation of the quotation. The burden is NOT about providing scientific credentials of the author. Therefore the "demand" that I have to provide proof of the expertise of the author is moot, it is not at all what WP:BURDEN is about. WP:BURDEN is not a stopgap to deny content into the article by demanding arbitrary "evidence" of the editor. For instance, I could think of other silly demands for evidence: that the author has the Indian nationality, that he is married, is over 18 years old, wears glasses, is not a convicted criminal, has done CF experiments himself, or has not done CF experiments himself, that he has published of the subject, or that he has no COI on the subject. These would all be absolutely insane demands that have nothing to do with WP:BURDEN and the demand for evidence of "expertise" is one of those too, see WP:SHRUBBERY. The only evidence that I must provide is that this columnist for a respected Indian newspaper has actually wrote what he wrote. That evidence is in the article.

I think it is interesting that some editors seem to completely misunderstand some of the main policies of WP. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A group of MIT researchers answered "questions about fusion power" in slashdot.org[44]. This is the only mention of cold fusion: "The (hot) fusion community is still living with the aftermath of the cold fusion scandal from a quarter century ago - so it’s very important for the proponents of these alternate concepts to push the researchers to publish their results in peer-reviewed journals." (emphasis in the original). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You know very well that LENR researchers actually do publish their results in peer-reviewed journals. This is proof of the fact that hot plasma fusion scientists are completely unaware of what is going on and thus have no expertise on the subject of LENR. Thanks for providing this insightful information. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it proves no such thing. It is at most weak evidence, in an unreliable source (although better than the usual slashdot content), that a few such PF researchers (the ones responding) state their opinion that too few of the CF researchers are publishing in peer-reviewed journals. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is more original than mine. I wonder why Enric wanted to share this information with us. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did engage in a little synthesis, but we have leeway for that here on a talkpage, not in articlespace. What I should have said is that "It is at most weak evidence for your assertion. It is in published on Slashdot. Slashdot is an open blog. Blogs are considered to be unreliable sources. My personal assessment of this particular blog post is that it is better than the usual Slashdot content. That assessment was confirmed by many of the other comments to that blog post. The PF researchers responding in that blog state the opinion that too few of the CF researchers are publishing in peer-reviewed journals. We should not generalize from the specific responding PF researchers to 'hot plasma fusion scientists'". But then again, I wouldn't want to be pedantic.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Slashdot is normally not RS, I agree. But this is an interview of MIT scientists, it is fair to assume that the answers of the MIT scientists are represented correctly by slashdot. Thus this text becomes RS for what the scientists answered to the questions. Please note that the answers were given jointly by Dr. Martin Greenwald, Prof. Ian Hutchinson, Asst. Prof. Anne White, Prof. Dennis Whyte, Nathan Howard, and Geoff Olynyk, all from MIT. It is fair to assume that, to a certain extend, their answer reflects the general understanding of cold fusion by hot plasma fusion scientists. I think that this piece of text clearly shows that these hot fusion scientist are completely ignorant regarding developments in cold fusion/LENR. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the rich source code found thruout the edit history of Wiki Cold Fusion (hack hack) Transactions of Fusion Science and Technology. Cold Fusion LENR science ANS.--Gregory Goble (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream LENR presentations undergo scientific review at the American Physical Society. (redacted copyvio-LeadSongDog come howl! 04:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)) Read this good 'undead' science. Session Y33: Cold Fusion APS Physics March Meeting 201 Volume 56, Number 1 Monday–Friday, March 21–25, 2011; Dallas, Texas. --Gregory Goble (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mister Lead Dog Song slow down your edit of my posts. I listed titles of presentations and authors that are publically posted. Listing titles and authors is a copywrite violation? Since when? Please don't erase it again... it's just more mainstream LENR science. Anyway I meant to post this under the LENR mainstream science section... which I will now... while this mistakenly posted here could be boxed up and discarded if ya want to.--Gregory Goble (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Claims of working devices

The experimental LENR scientists all have "working devices" of some sort, Arata is just one of them, Kitamura who replicated Arata also has "a working device" see his peer reviewed paper in Physics Letters A Vol 373 issue 35. McKubre also has "working devices", same for Storms, Miley, Celani, Di Ninno, Oriani, the SPAWAR / Navy scientists like Mosier-Boss, Nagel. The list goes on and on. Most of these have published their experiments in peer reviewed papers in scientific journals.

All references to "Pathological" or COLD FUSION "Discredited" Science is better placed in a "Historical Footnotes Section". This is a relentless constant attempt to improve the readabiity of this article.--Gregory Goble (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that these experimental setups are the same kind of "working devices" that Andrea Rossi is claiming to have. It is not neutral point of view to describe both of these in this way in one section. The scientific experimental setups should not be mixed with the claimed commercial machines. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK, we should definitely separate "experimental setup" from "commercial-ready generator". Arata claims only 1 degree of difference maintained over 300 hours. Maybe move Arata to replication section?

And change "working devices" to "commercial devices" or something? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I renamed the section to "commercial devices" a while ago, but it was reverted back. I think Arata should just go into the "ongoing" section, he was not really presenting a "working device", but much more showing the results of his ongoing research. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I separated them, I also added some easily verifiable fact (but without citation) about commercial devices not being available on the market.

It is actually important for the story of cold fusion that the scientific setups only produced tiny amounts of excess energy and that very unreliably. I think I read somewhere that this was one of the reasons the early funded research programs were stopped. Viable commercial grade devices were not "in sight". --POVbrigand (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please reference recent mainstream science presentations on the science of LENR and the associated theoretical ponderings. Such science.--Gregory Goble (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The distinction between scientific experiments and commercial viable devices was exactly what Joe Zawodny from NASA was talking about in his blog commenting on the NASA video. He said: "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." and "Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy.".

The status of cold fusion/LENR is that scientists working in field (incl Zawodny) are convinced that there is more than sufficient experimental evidence to conclude that phenomenon is real, while scientists not working in the field have never looked at this evidence (for various reasons, mostly not malice) and thus are led to believe that nothing has changed after 1990 when they last heard about it.

Lately there are indication that "scientists not working in the field" (ie mainstream scientists) are starting to have a look at the evidence, which does not mean LENR has advanced to mainstream science yet. It only means that mainstream science has stopped completely ignoring LENR.

But even if the scientific evidence demonstrates that the phenomenon is real this does not mean that there is scientific evidence that this phenomenon can ever be used to generate useful amounts of energy. Commercially viable (useful energy generating) devices have so far no published (peer reviewed) scientific evidence whatsoever, it is only hearsay and (mostly weak) claims. However, you cannot dismiss these on grounds that the claimed physics behind is proven to be impossible, you must see these claims in the light that there is currently simply no scientific evidence of a LENR experiment that is "reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable", which is again exactly what Zawodny said in his blog.

The WP-article of cold fusion / LENR is very difficult to work on with so many different beliefs on the topic. IMHO, fruitful cooperation on this article begins with the distinction between evidence of scientific experiments published in peer reviewed journals by credible scientists (working on low budgets) representing a minority view on the one hand and claims of commercially viable devices with lacking scientific evidence on the other.

--POVbrigand (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This article seems incomplete with respect to recent events and reports on LENR. Brillouin Energy has given an extensive interview on commercial plans, complemented by a paper with a theoretical explanation of the "Quantum Fusion" mechanism. Recently LENR has been demonstrated by Peter Hagelstein in his class at MIT (http://www.iscmns.org/work10/HagelsteinPdemonstra.pdf). He has invited the public to see his device in action. Is there a suitable way these new developments can be referenced? I think it's intriguing to know what types of experiments and commercialization plans are going on. The degree of confirmation could certainly be spelled out in the Wikipedia article to maintain objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.140.184 (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Recent reports are just as bogus as past reports. This article will not be a litany of press releases promoting cold fusion. Commercial plans are not helped by theoretical explanations if said commercial plans do not yield a commercial product. Objectivity is served by keeping trivial and unimportant stuff down. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. What report is bogus or not is not for Binksternet to decide (see WP:OR). Mentioning press releases in a NPOV way is not equal to promoting cold fusion. Please stop using this "promotion" argument, it is a red herring. Objectivity is served by NPOV and not by WP:OR defining things as trivial and unimportant. Be careful not to call the kettle black. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Article section

I suggest that following article subsection be changed from:

"Claims of commercial devices

In January 2011 inventor Andrea Rossi together with researcher Sergio Focardi from the University of Bologna claimed to have successfully demonstrated commercially viable cold fusion in a device called an Energy Catalyzer. Other inventors have made similar claims in the past, however commercial devices are not available on the market."

to:

"Claims of commercial devices

In 2011 there were a number of claims of success with Low Energy Nuclear Reaction devices and declarations of intention to produce commercial products. These came from Andrea Rossi's ECAT company with his energy catalyzer device, Defkalion Green Technologies company with their Hyperion device, scientist Francesco Piantelli's Nichenergy company and finally scientist Francesco Celani's Cold Fusion Energy Inc. In 2012 similar claims were made by scientist George H. Miley's Lenuco company and Ugo Abundo of the Leopoldo Pirelli School and his open source device. At this stage no commercial devices are on the market. ECAT and Defkalion have made claims their devices will be available this year. The Pirelli School is making details of their technology available to the public."

My reasoning: Sergio Focardi is not involved directly with ECAT by all indications and should be removed. Being specific as to scientists and the companies they have set up makes the reader more aware that it is not just Andrea Rossi making claims here - additional scientists have begun to make concrete claims and stated that they have set up companies and intend to have commercial products available. These groups generally describe their work as LENR not cold fusion. The names of the companies should be mentioned as this enables readers to do follow up in a controversial field.

As an aside, I would think the Energy Catalyzer page should be moved to this page, but given the unending flame wars between sceptics and proselytizers on that site nothing is going to happen until a commercial product appears on sale. I do not think that the name of a company product should be a Wikipedia page myself.

Thoughts anyone? A good idea?

Star A Star (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I made an altered version of the above. I kept the reference to Focardi (he's a nice chap). I deleted the Pirelli School as I saw objections to it above. I linked George Miley to his Wikipedia article. Lenuco was announced by Miley recently. Piantelli had patents prior to Rossi. The Focardi article "Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems" states that at the end of 1989, after Fleischmann and Pons, and dissatisfied with testing relating to cold fusion, it was Piantelli that made the initial guess. "[O]ne of us (FP[Piantelli])... suspected an irregular production of the heat involved" in their experiment involving low-temperature calorimetry (about 200K) on deuterated organic compounds in hydrogen. Over months they came to think this was due to the nickel support on which the organic material had been deposited.

I remain convinced that it is important to mention the names of respected scientists who have claimed concrete experimental results in real devices and the intention to begin commercial production. This shows that it is not just an inventor (Rossi) with some support from a scientist (Focardi) but a number of scientists: Piantelli, Celani and Miley: plus another commercial entity, Defkalion.

I hope these changes can be seen as relatively neutral. It is really important that readers understand that this is wider than just Andrea Rossi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star A Star (talk • contribs) 07:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems an original synthesis Synthesis on your part and not consistent with what reliable sources say. There have been numerous claimed commercial devices throughout the years. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, someone removed my edit. The Miley device is I believe technically somewhat different. However, Piantelli (who has worked with Focardi, as I mentioned above, before Focardi assisted Rossi) and Celani have worked on nickel-hydrogen systems. Professor Francesco Piantelli is at the University of Siena. His company website http://www.nichenergy.com/ has no information on it as yet. It co-sponsored the recent 10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals on 10-14 April 2012. http://www.iscmns.org/work10/

Dr Francesco Celani works as a senior researcher at the Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati (part of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Italy) http://www.lnf.infn.it/public/ Cold Fusion Energy Inc is in fact not Celani's company, although he is involved in it. http://cfeis.com/ So he has no company, though he is claiming to have a device with results equivalent to Piantelli and Rossi.

Defkalion has a website, you can look it up on a search engine, and it has been discussed endless times. At its press conference on 23 June 2011 among the 150 persons present was the then Greek Minister of Industry and Energy Mr Xinidis, for example.

If you don't want to include the Pirelli School, fine, it's too early perhaps. Celani too, fine, he has no official website or company. But Piantelli? Focardi claims Piantelli is the one who accidentally DISCOVERED nickel-hydrogen LENR (as I mentioned above). He has a company and plans for it and has claimed a working device though he has no active website yet.

I think you are being pedantic not including these claims, especially Piantelli and Celani, whose work relates to nickel-hydrogen: but fine. However, not including Defkalion (also nickel-hydrogen) is counterfactual. They have a website, office, staff, plans and press releases. They have generated (like Rossi) enough press to sink an encyclopedia.

LENR directs to Cold Fusion as an article: but the key current players doing work focussing on nickel-hydrogen LENR are omitted. Huh? Why is Rossi there but not them? Are they not academics? Do they not work in reputable institutions? They can't even get a sentence? The key thing being their common use of nickel-hydrogen.

All these major players know one another - look at Cold Fusion Inc - it includes Michael McKubre, Francesco Piantelli, Edmund Storms, Francesco Celani, Peter Hagelstein and George Miley. Some of these people have Wikipedia articles.

Come on, be serious! Yes, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Yes, information needs to be verified, and it's unfortunate that Italian scientists love blogs so much and make their announcements at Italian scientific conferences and don't write in English. But if nothing else I really think you can't include Rossi without mentioning Defkalion. And there should be a mention of those researchers claiming advances in nickel-hydrogen systems including Piantelli and Celani.

My apologies for thinking Celani had a personal company - I should have triple checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star A Star (talk • contribs) 12:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Star A Star (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

About Deflakion, I think they have not released any product yet. Rossi and Deflakion have some sort of complicated relationship. That level of detail would belong to article Energy Catalyzer.

About all those companies, Wikipedia is not a catalog of every company in a field. There are other websites more oriented to giving lots of details. (Right now I can only think of peswiki[45]) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Leopoldo Pirelli school

Binksternet and GFHandel deleted the mentioning of the Leopoldo Pirelli school.

• The announcement on the mainpage of the school's website is not equal to a blog ! - GFHandel's edit comment is not a valid reason for reverting.
• The entry on the schools website explicitely links to several mainstream news articles on the announcement: Repubblica, Corriere della sera, Radio Citta del Capo, DiRegiovani. The announcement is referenced by reliable sources.
• Whether this is an unimportant announcement which deserves no mentioning is something that would need consensus and not by decision of one editor.

I think it is remarkable enough that a school announces experimental success where mainstream scientists are not even aware of recent developments. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The information I reverted was based on the following URL: http://coldfusion3.com/blog/italian-high-school-students-build-cold-fusion-device. I hope you can appreciate how I came to believe that address to be a "blog"? Has this article really got to the point of reproducing untested, and unproven claims from a school (which publishes its untested and unproven claims via a "blog" URL)? GFHandel ♬  09:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"coldfusion3.com" is not a reliable source. The school's website however is a reliable source for the claim. --POVb

Sorry, I missed that. Your revert was indeed valid at that time. I agree that the school's claims are "unproven", but I have different thoughts about what "unproven" means. Fleischmann-Pons in 1989 claimed to show excess heat, it was rebutted by mainstream scientists. It has subsequently been replicated by many other high profile scientists who have published about it in peer reviewed papers. The excess heat effect has been replicated with different experimental setups over the years, and replications of those replications. For each of these experimental successes, again and again a replication "for proof" is demanded. So, with each new replication a new demand for proof rises for that replication and this goes on and on. It has become Unproven Ad infinitum and therefore "unproven" will always be true for every claim of cold fusion until the day that cold fusion becomes mainstream science. So "unproven" is a bit problematic as a reason for reverting. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree the first revert of my Pirelli entry is reasonable since a blog was cited. However the second revert is more questionable, since as mentioned I did put the main high school website there to improve the links. So who is to decide if it is "unimportant" or "firm"? I think it's enough to know that this is out there and hopefully further investigation of this development will ensue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.45.251 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you need secondary sources, I remember that I read the news on La Repubblica and on Il Corriere della Sera.

Just a moment... a quick search on the internet...

Here:

Corriere della Sera (PDF):

http://www.leopoldopirelli.it/documenti/articolo%20corrire%20della%20sera.pdf

La Repubblica (PDF):

http://www.leopoldopirelli.it/documenti/articolo%20repubblica.pdf

Corriere della Sera (from the newspaper's website):

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2012/aprile/20/Fusione_fredda_Acceso_reattore_fatto_co_10_120420106.shtml

La Repubblica (from the newspaper's website):

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2012/04/20/istituto-pirelli-crea-un-reattore-ecco-energia.html

ps

Primary source: this is the news from the website of the school: http://www.leopoldopirelli.it/index.php?menu=1&cont=1000

--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the secondary sources. I made a go of adding back to the article just the Pirelli High School section with three references so far. Please feel free to add to this if you think more would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.45.251 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So, the students at an Italian technology-oriented high school claim to have built a working cold fusion reactor. And it's currently powering the school's interactive blackboards ("con l'energia prodotta a scuola alimenteranno le lavagne interattive"[46]). And they want to patent it. And it hasn't been tested by any outside group. And the articles appear to be placed in the sections reserved for Roma's local news. Am I missing something? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah ah ah ! ! ! Last week I was reading La Repubblica, and in a small piece it was written "...and a school in Rome activated a cold fusion reactor..." I almost crumbled from my chair!

I just want to add some information: according to the school, the patent was filed only to prevent others to do it, ie in case a company would file a patent to put the reactor on the market. Therefore, independent reproduction of the reactor is fully allowed. Here the scheme of the reactor: http://www.22passi.it/downloads/athanor/pdf%20athanor.pdf

It is in Italian but on the internet someone has already translated it into English.

The school affirms they are ready to show the reactor while working (as they did to the journalists) and they are ready to allow independent calorimetric measurements.

They claim to reach and go beyond COP 4. They named the reactor "Athanor".

I hope to know more about it in the near future.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

ps

Photo gallery: http://roma.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/04/19/foto/il_reattore_costruito_dagli_studenti-33583028/1/

--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need to report on a high school project?! --Enric Naval (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Has this report been confirmed by anybody? The chance that high school students and teachers have succeeded when thousands of researchers around the world have failed is pretty low, lower than the other cold fusion claims in the article. Since this is an encyclopedia, we should be very conservative about claims like this. If it is real, someone else will confirm it soon and we can base the edits on those reports. Olorinish (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Many, many scientists have claimed succesful excess heat experiments over the years. Who are the thousands of researchers around the world that have failed ? Can you provide recent sources for that notion please, not the 20 year old ones. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Who are the thousands of researchers around the world that have failed ?" ALL OF THEM!!! All have failed to convince fusion experts that they have produced fusion. Olorinish (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

While I think the claim is funny I think adding this would essentially be ridiculing cold fusion further than necessary. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The claim is very interesting to show that a school level science project can replicate the effect. I don't think it is ridiculing anything, but certainly not cold fusion scientists, because many of those are making the same or similar claims. As far as I understood the school's experiment is based on previous scientific glow discharge experiments done by Ohmori and Mizuno. btw none of that is mentioned in our article, so I can't blame anyone for not being aware. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

one of the sources said it was based on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on Fleischmann-Pons in that it also produces excess heat ? --POVbrigand (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To Enric Naval:

Well, let's assume for a moment that in the past the first working nuclear reactor or the first working aircraft were developed during a "high school project": in this case the information needed to be reported.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So, once again, we're wasting our time discussing whether an unsubstantiated claim needs to be discussed on WP. We have wp:NODEADLINE, we can wait for substantiation of their results to appear in wp:RS.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

CRYSTALBALL does not apply here. We are not talking about the possibility that maybe or maybe not Pirelli high school is going to post a claim on their website and that maybe or maybe not news outlets will report on it. It is all fact based on reliable sources that it actually happened. Pirelli high school just did post a claim. And that is remarkable in a field which was so thought to be solidly debunked that virtually no nuclear physicist ever bothered to look into it. It would be CRYSTALBALL if we would now start implying things in the article based on this fact. We are not doing that, we are just stating verifiable facts. CRYSTALBALL does not apply suddenly because of a failing confirmation of the experiment. Even if a confirmation will appear you will just question that and you'll demand a confirmation again, repeat ad inf. From the article it is clear that a cross functional team of teachers has worked on this experiment. It is fair to give those professionals and their students some credit and I assume they are very confident of their claim to post it on their website. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You are speculating that the reactor works, that the work is important for the field, and that it will be confirmed one day. Otherwise, why mention a high school project that has appeared in the local section of newspapers? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE. You are speculating that the reactor cannot possibly work, that the work is irrelevant for the field, and that it will never be confirmed. I already explained why a claim from a high school is relevant for the article. NPOV is not equal to pushing mainstream science view beyond all reasonability. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. These claims have not been evaluated or independently verified by any reliable scientific process. Just uncritically including these unverified claims in this article is simply unwarranted, especially since this research area is littered with so many failures and false starts from academic research centres, let alone high-schools. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The first independent verification "by any reliable scientific process" will be questioned again, maybe not by you, but by another editor. There will always be a reason to delete content when it comes to pushing the mainstream science view. This is NOT about the experiment working or not, but about the high school making claims of success in a field that simply doesn't exist by the supposed mainstream science "standards". Claims of replication will always be questioned that's the nature of fringe science, we could delete the whole article because the whole subject is "not independently verified" in the eyes of mainstream science. Your reasoning doens't really work. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree when you say: The first independent verification "by any reliable scientific process" will be questioned again, maybe not by you, but by another editor. But at least the higher-grade verification has intrinsically more scientific value and currency/respectability than a mere high-school project. IMO, the level of article discourse needs to be maintained at some cutoff high enough as to at least be respectable. For the sake of everyone. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and I support the removal of the information. I will add that I find it suspicious that an editor (NUMB3RN7NE) pops up here for the first time with "sources", is supported by an IP, and then adds the information to the article. Is there enough evidence to request a sock-puppet investigation? GFHandel ♬  23:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Connecting IPs and usernames doesn't normally happen and in this case it may not be so disruptive as to warrant an SPI. But that's just my opinion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That's absurd. NUMB3RN7NE has edited on Energy Catalyzer before, my best guess is that the editor is from Italy, thus capable of reading Italian secondary sources and has the courtesy to inform the english WP-readership of what those reliable sources state. Stop waiving baseless SPI threats around, stay civil. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I am from Italy, and I am a usual contributor on Wikipedia (especially on the Italian Wikipedia). And yes, I know Italian. And I did not know that a Leopoldo Pirelli High School existed until I read the news on La Repubblica last week. I was unsure to edit the page, I just wanted to give the requested references (because they were in Italian I imagined that they were a bit hard to find and interpret for a non-Italian reader). I want to specify that I have no intention to push for the information. I felt obliged to edit the article just because the anonymous IP inserted the information in a "unfit" place. So, I reworded and moved that part.

For what I can understand, the cell/reactor is very similar to the one built by Tadahiko Mizuno (but Muzuno cell exploded), with the notable difference that in the Pirelli "Athanor" the metal is tungsten in a nanopowder form (like nickel in the E-Cat of Rossi and Focardi).

I hope to find more valuable references soon, because it seems that independent replicas of the "Athanor" are already being constructed.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add that an independent calorimetric measurement of the apparatus should be easy to perform, because the proponents claim a COP 4. I mean, this is not a COP 1.1 or 1.2 like in the past, therefore energy production should be easy to detect and measure.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

NUMB3RN7NE has edited on/about Energy Catalyzer since 31 October 2011 when his first edit was to do with the discussion about the article's deletion. So for the first 7.5 months of the article's existence, NUMB3RN7NE made no edit to it (or to any similar article or talk page to do with energy), and then appeared on the scene to resist the article's deletion? Sorry, but that doesn't exactly help to dispel my fears and concerns.

I only raised the notion of socks (and by the way, if you feel the need to attribute a descriptor to my actions, it's "waving") because I feel it's worth a gentle reminder that here (as for all talk pages), intellectual honesty must be practised by adhering to the policy of: one editor equals one !vote/comment (and there are relatively new editors here—who may not be aware of the policy). This is of course primarily to help protect and support the majority of editors here who are obviously doing the right thing.

Anyhow, I've said my peace, and I'm happy to move on. GFHandel ♬  21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

@NUMB3RN7NE, unfortunately next to nobody around here knows who Mizuno is, nor that he has published peer reviewed papers on cold fusion and also on non-fringe science topics, nor that he has published a book on nuclear transmutations in japanese published by Kougakasha, which was translated by Jed Rothwell.

@GFHandel, thanks for the waiving :-) You mentioned intellectual honesty. I think that knowing at least the names and the sources is the first step toward intellectual honesty on this topic. So a gentle reminder from my side to many editors here: The topic gets more interesting by the number of sources one reads and it would greatly reduce the length of pointless discussions on this talk page. To you personally I hope "moving on" for you means "reading up on". --POVbrigand (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Defense Intelligence Agency report 2009

In the April 18th issue of their news publication MizzouWeekly, the University of Missouri - which has recently received 5.5 Million to research LENR - mentions the 2009 Defense Intelligence Agency's report

.

I think our article should also mention this report.

--POVbrigand (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the U. of Missouri giving legitimacy to its own research (not an independent source), using an unpublished statement made by a group of scientists inside DIA that don't represent the agency's official statement. Still no replicated experiments, just more claims.

This is the network of cold fusion researchers, citing each other to build up legitimacy for their statements. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"network of cold fusion researchers" are you implying a conspiracy ? Many "regular" scientists who were skeptic at first, became convinced after they performed successful experiments themselves. Robert Duncan from Missouri University is one of those, he was introduced to cold fusion/LENR in 2009 because of the 60 minutes piece. He was a mainstream scientist until 2009 and became convinced based on the provided evidence that there is something to look into for which his university has recently received funding. And now YOU denounce HIM as one "of the network". You never will see a "non-believer" announcing that the effect is real, because once he does that he has suddenly become a "fringe adherent" in your eyes. Don't you see the logical fallacy you constantly fall for ? --POVbrigand (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Duncan's one of the "bend over backwards to demonstrate we gave it a fair hearing" school. He's also got irons in the far more mainstream Thorium cycle fire.[47] So far I don't see anything that says he is convinced there's actual fusion going on in these CF devices, but I may have missed it. But "network" does not imply "conspiracy". It only reflects the walled garden problem of self-referential publishing. To be taken seriously, CF publishing needs to happen routinely in mainstream physics journals. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Most LENR scientists are not really sure what it is that's going on in these devices. Duncan is not giving it just a "fair hearing", he was recently quoted saying Some scientists still scoff; others even get emotional about it, Duncan said. To them, he says: “Get over it.”[48].

You may not be aware that for instance George Miley also has "irons" in other forms of nuclear fusion processes. Your "revelation" here doesn't imply what you think it does.

You may also not be aware that LENR papers are indeed published routinely in mainstream physics journals. I think your walled garded is only due to the Idée fixe in the heads of the "I know all about this" ignorant pseudo skeptic pathological deniers. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We had an earlier discussion about them being published, where it was noted that the volume has decreased massively since 1989. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure and a reliable source calls it "the normal publication rate in a small field that has found its natural niche." But you probably haven't read any source, so you wouldn't know. "normal" == ""routinely".

Here is my observation of the chain of argumentation which is passed around between some of the editors:

• If there is a claim of a working experiment, demand a replication.
• If there is a claim of a replication, demand a peer reviewed paper.
• If there is a peer reviewed paper, denounce the author, the journal, the notability, whatever. Foremost demand a secondary source.
• If there is a secondary source, denounce the author, the magazine, the notability, whatever.
• If the seconday source is solid, argue with WP:UNDUE, with WP:FRINGE, not promotion, not news, not now, go away, "you're a POV-pusher", "I have a scientific education", imply sock-puppeting.
• Highlight often that adding content describing the minority view is POV-pushing and fringe promotion and illegal on wikipedia.

I assume good faith for this unfortunate chain of argumentation. It happens again and again. I got used to it. The article is not improving. This is not a personal attack. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@POVBrigand, that sentence is a paraphrase written by a wikipedia editor, the source is page 181 of Simon's Undead Science: "Data like these have lent support to the claims of the skeptics. Here we do not see life after death, just the dying gasps of the few remaining scientists blindly holding on to their belief in cold fusion. From another point of view, however, the publication data indicate not death or even life after death but rather research settling into a rather normal pattern for a small field. In terms of the overall ecology of science, CF research is simply finding its niche, with a few journals publishing a couple of dozen peer-reviewed papers a years. From this perspective the high rates of the early 90s become the anomaly. (...) Even though it is too soon to make a judgement about this, the publication rate may support the idea that some normalization of CF research has taken place. The cold fusion articles that appear tend to be published by a small cluster of specialized journals."[49] --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know, page 181, the paraphrasing is done very well I think. You are one of the few who actually reads (and knows) some of the sources: Huizenga, Taubes and Close (and Park?) for the anti-CF view and Simon for the pro-ish view. I suppose you haven't read Mallove. Have you read any of the more recent sources: Mizuno, Storms, Beaudette, Krivit, Marwan, Kozima ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read Mallove, but I have now ordered his book Fire from Ice from Amazon. I have read parts of Beaudette, Krivit and Storms. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You say it's "not a personal attack" but it appears to be an assertion that you view other editors who disagree with you in bad faith and you still have the battlefield mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that I assume good faith for this unfortunate chain of argumentation. I do not attribute to bad faith what can be attributed to sheer ... misfortune. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Many conferences

on May 4th 2012 in Turin we have had "The Atom Unexplored" where Peter Hagelstein (MIT) has spoken about the still running (ie heat producing) NANOR device. Piantelli also spoke about "anomalous effect in Ni-H systems", but at the same time mainstream ITER and Fission technologies were presented at the conference.

upcoming on June 18-21 in Santa Clara, CA "CleanTech 2012" where George H. Miley will speak about his Lenuco company commercial plans (Thursday June 21 2:00). Cleantech is a mainstream conference AFAIK.

so together with the already mentioned mainstream conferences and presentation, I think we should mention something about them in our article. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTCATALOG, no secondary sources explaining why readers need to know about these conferences in order to understand the topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not thinking of listing them of course, but a short line like Olorinish proposed: "It would probably be good to change the introduction sentence "A small community[quantify] of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion..." to something like "Some researchers continue to investigate cold fusion, reporting on their work in journals and at conferences [SPAWAR, Biberian, ICCF, CERN links]..." A sentence in the "Conferences" section could mention the post-2009 presentations. Olorinish (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC) "

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can understand the Politecnico de Turin conference. It does have some coverage, and it clearly states it's about LENR (under the names of "piezonuclear fision" and "Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions").

But why the CleanTech conference? It's about clean technologies, and the only relevant part is a half an hour presentation of Miley's company. And where is the coverage? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The point I want to highlight is that LENR talks are taking place on mainstream conferences. In some way that is a remarkable development for which we have remarkable evidence.

We know that we have a number of regular dedicated LENR meetings: the ICCF, the "hydrogen-workshop" in italy, in Russia, in Japan. We also know that the ACS and the APS have (regular ?) LENR sessions in the annual meetings. But lately LENR speakers are speaking also on non-LENR-dedicated conferences, like the CleanTech, the World Green Energy Symposium, World Sustainable Energy Conference. So a summary statement that that seems to be the case is justified. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

But the paper in CleanTech 2012 appears to be about the company and its business model - not the technology behind it. I don't think it's relevant - and it doesn't show that LENR is "mainstream" - only that discussing the nature of companies (that happen to claim to be using LENR) is mainstream. It's a tenuous link at best. SteveBaker (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to highlight one particular conference or sum up all the conferences and I am not trying to imply LENR is mainstream or proven. Just that scientists with a LENR technology are getting possibilities to talk about them at mainstream venues. In our article we have a section about conferences. Currently the reader is informed that there is a ICCF, and sometimes a session on the ACS and APS. We can bicker about the significance of each meeting separately, but the overall "picture" is that LENR is presented at far more venues than the ones currently mentioned in the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have a reliable source that states specifically that then it's original research (i.e an original synthesis). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Each conference or colloquium is a reliable source for the fact that a LENR talk was given there. It would indeed be OR if we would attach an interpretation to it, but we're not doing that. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A seminar on May 15 at INFN [50] looks very similar to the recent CERN colloquium. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a synthesis because you are arriving at a conclusion that is not present in any source. You are combining sources to try and arrive at a conclusion. We wait for sources themselves to state things. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no conclusion. It's a fact that LENR researchers are speaking at mainstream venues lately. Counting the number of conferences is not SYNTH. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Enough wikilawyering. We need a reliable source to show that such appearances matter. Is this hard to understand? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::Dense brains matter. Crackpot scientists, pathological science, not accepted by mainstream, loose your career and reputation; all falsehoods presented with regularity by tenacious editors here. We need a reliable source to show that such appearances matter. Why Mr. LeadSongDog do you think a reliable source is needed to show that many of the aforementioned falsehoods are based on old or uninformed opinions that are no longer relevant. Cold Fusion/LENR research is good science presented in mainstream venues by respected scientists; it is a fringe science experiencing robust scientific review of papers published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals.--Gregory Goble (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please make yourself familiar with wp:RS, it is a core policy. While you are at it you might want to read wp:CIVIL.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. You're a good wikilawyer. Enough wikilawyering. Such appearances (slander) matter. Is this hard to understand?--Gregory Goble (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We have [51] mentioning the NASA workshop, the CERN colloquium and the MIT short course "Cold Fusion 101." --POVbrigand (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Chemical & Engineering News article

in the May 14 issue of the Chemical & Engineering News published by the American Chemical Society there is an article of Cold Fusion titled "Reviving Cold Fusion".

Maybe somebody can get hold of this article, I assume it gives a good overview of the status of the field.

I think that the ACS is a mainstream science association and their periodical "Chemical & Engineering News" is an RS.

Before other editors complain about me "pushing POV", I would kindly ask them to read that article first. I believe it will make it much easier to understand the point I am trying to make.

Thank you --POVbrigand (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read it. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. It talks about some people who have founded companies in the area, mostly Rossi ("Rossi has been unable to patent the invention and he is reluctant to divulge scientific details. His actions are fueling speculation in some quarters that he is a con artist trying to pull off an elaborate get-rich-quick scheme."). Here is the link for those interested: [52]. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In Popular Culture - Cold Fusion

LENR Nonsense is Infecting More Respectable Educational Institutions [53] This is an example of a contemporary popular culture view on cold fusion. Perhaps it could be included in this section. --Gregory Goble (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to have actually suggested anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well now let's see... Perhaps it could be included in this section (In popular culture)--Gregory Goble (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What should be included exactly? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This:

Claims of cold fusion are popularly used as parody in regards to science on the web, "LENR Nonsense is Infecting More Respectable Educational Institutions". [54]

--Gregory Goble (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source, it's just what some guy said on a forum. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point Mr, IRWolfie... nothing under Cold Fusion - In popular culture is a reliable source for the person seeking encyclopedic knowledge on the art of cold fusion science and research. Such is crap of snake eyes silliness. Ya like TV and movies? Guffaw! Gotcha... ha ,,, ha,,. excuse me I choked. Hack hack... thanks for source code. Do you watch sit coms and movies to study science? So innapropriate.--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We have reliable sources. They are used in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Should we split this article?

(Note: I have added a {{split-apart}} template to the top of the article).

This article is way too long (per WP:SIZESPLIT) - so I think we're long overdue for a split. It also seems to me that we have two increasingly separate topics emerging in this article - suggesting that a split would be a good idea regardless of WP:SIZESPLIT:

• The classic (and more or less completely discredited) Fleischmann-Pons work and it's immediate consequences in terms of efforts to reproduce, etc.
• The more recent "LENR" efforts that may have been inspired by Fleischmann-Pons - but are heading off in different directions that are perhaps not totally discredited and maybe even gaining some mainstream traction.

This article was originally about the former - and was largely a discussion of the history of this - and the implications for the scientific method, peer review systems and so forth. However, the addition of the LENR stuff is definitely clouding the waters here - and I think this is largely to blame for the loss of FA (and even GA!) status for this article.

We have the difficult task of clearly stating that Fleischmann-Pons is discredited while maintaining NPOV for the more recent work. This results in a highly ambiguous story for our poor readers and a bunch of unnecessary contention here in the talk page.

So I wonder if it is time to split the article?

1. Called Cold fusion, discussing only Fleischmann-Pons and the immediate reactions to it and ultimate discrediting...with a brief intro into the LENR work of today.
2. Called Low energy nuclear reactions (perhaps) discussing the modern efforts to produce clear results (and controversies resulting) - with a brief "History" section referring to Fleischmann-Pons.

This article is now up around 60kbytes in length - right at the ">60kb - Probably should be divided" recommendation of WP:SIZESPLIT. That means that the article should be split - it's just a matter of deciding how. I submit that my proposal is probably the most fitting way to manage it since it looks like it would result in two article of almost equal length and clearly separate content.

Thoughts? SteveBaker (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps you counted all the citation data in that 130k, which we don't normally do. The text alone is 60k characters including spaces. So far as the fork goes, it appears to legitimize POV terminology. Is there anyone other than the true believers who refer to LENR, except to do so in quotations? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Argh! You're right - I did count the citations. Sorry! (I've fixed my proposal, above, to reflect this correction).

But even so, WP:SIZESPLIT says that at 60k: "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". The article ain't getting any smaller - so a split is going to be needed sooner or later.

I don't see my proposed fork as legitimizing anything - and I would certainly consider alternative titles for the resulting two articles (eg Cold fusion (Fleischmann-Pons) and just Cold fusion or something) - but I think there is a clear line to be drawn between the Fleischmann-Pons debacle and everything that's happened since using different experimental techniques. I don't know whether modern "LENR" stuff is true or bullshit (although I suspect the latter). But I do believe that it's genuinely a separate topic. The proposed Fleischmann-Pons article would be essentially historical - and this should reduce the number and complexity of edits to almost zero - giving us a shot at getting the thing back up to FA status. The proposed article about more recent efforts to demonstrate cold fusion is where the controversy always seems to be - and that's not going to end, but it doesn't have to drag down the Fleischmann-Pons stuff. SteveBaker (talk)

As usual, the issue is coming up with reliable, non-fringe sources that predominantly regard it as a distinct topic. From what few modern sources I've seen, they will usually refer to the terms as synonyms, perhaps also noting that the current seekers prefer the term LENR. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

LENR is not a sufficiently distinct subject that it deserves its own article. A better approach would be to create an article called "History of cold fusion" which would include the 1989 announcements and the recent work. The "Cold fusion" article would have a summary version of the history, and the technical discussion. Olorinish (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support a "History of..." article for the Fleischmann-Pons stuff and leaving everything about modern work where it is now. SteveBaker (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd also support splitting it into "Cold Fusion" and "History of Cold Fusion". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am fearful of supporting this. I am hoping it doesn't become a POV fork in the style of Condensed matter nuclear science. I guess I can support a "Cold fusion" and "History of Cold fusion" split. Always keeping in ming that reliable sources say CF = LENR, and LENR being an alternative name preferred by supporters. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If a "History of" article would include the history of the E-Cat; which has been so badly mishandled in the Energy Catalizer article then I'm all for it. That article needs an excuse to be deleted. Sphere1952 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I very much support SteveBaker on this issue and I also agree with LeadSongDog's and Olorinish's arguments. Cold Fusion and LENR are synonyms or completely different things depending on the view of the scientist. If we want to split the article, then before bothering about the correct title, we should get consensus on what the two different articles should be about. The secondary sources Huizenga, Taubes and Close only discuss Fleischmann Pons Cold Fusion and the immediate time after, including the response (=rebuttal) of mainstream science. The "later phase" LENR has several secondary sources by authors within the LENR community, but lacks any awareness of mainstream science. Maybe an evaluation of what the available sources tell us can shed some light on the content bounderies of the possible articles. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

How cold fusion is viewed by others or by mainstream scientists places undue importance on opinions. It's my opinion that the early cold fusion media fiasco was a social phenomenon that rushed the experimental verification process and led to a social environment hostile to science and easily affected by opinions. All said I agree the article is long and cumbersome. Almost everywhere there are references to someones' opinion. An example is the section In Popular Culture... nothing but opinions. Early cold fusion is science and continued works in this art show advancements in understanding physics. I think there should be one article Cold Fusion/LNR Science and a section History Cold Fusion the Sociological Phenomenon. The early works of cold fusion by Fleischmann and Pons has been instrumental to the advancement of this science and should not be seperated to a different article. Here is an example of what might be a time relevant point to split the article at: Cold Fusion/LENR Post 2009 The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science follows a well established peer review process, "PEER REVIEW PROCESS - Submitted papers will be forwarded to an Editor who will supervise the peer review process, and contact the authors in the course of the review process. Papers submitted to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science will be reviewed under the rules and guidelines associated with the review and appeals process adopted by the American Physical Review journals." [55] This cold fusion/LERN journal is a source for papers published that are a review of works to date in the art of this science as well as papers that are scientific review (secondary replication) of previously published experimental research and theory. Cold Fusion/LENR science, "Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics", March 23, 2012 at 3:30pm. Presented at the "Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space 2012 Topical Meeting and The Lunar and Planetary Institute – 43rd Lunar And Planetary Science Conference” Organized by ANST Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology, USRA Universities Space Research Association, ANS American Nuclear Society, and NASA. [56] "A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)" Xiaoling Yang and George H. Miley, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 (104 S Wright Street, 216 Talbot Laboratory, Urbana, IL 61801 [57] "CRYOGENIC IGNITION OF DEUTERON FUSION IN MICRO/NANO-SCALE METAL PARTICLES" Y. E. Kim, Department of Physics, Purdue University Physics Building, West Lafayette IN 47907. [58] Cold Fusion/LENR peer reviewed papers are presented for scientific review at the American Physical Society. Session Y33: Cold Fusion APS Physics March Meeting 201, Volume 56, Number 1 Monday–Friday, March 21–25, 2011; Dallas, Texas. [59] --Gregory Goble (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you not see the contradiction in stating your dislike for giving importance to opinions, and then immediately following this with your own opinion? Also, Note that serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work (per ArbCom). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mr. IRWolfe... just got back. To answer your question requires an answer... What opinion did I follow with? The media fiasco of 'cold fusion', the resignation of an MIT excecutive over falsification of data by an MIT hot fusion tech, a social environment hostile to cold fusion/LENR research, or my opinon that this is a social phenomenon (undead science). As early as November 1989 this was known, Essentially, the evidence indicates the so-called cold fusion phenomenon is not dead, http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/19/us/recent-tests-said-to-justify-more-cold-fusion-research.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Or my opinion that the early works of cold fusion by Fleischmann and Pons has been instrumental to the advancement of this science? Note how many times their cold fusion environment is mentioned in regards to this science within this article. Clearly LENR scientists see them (Fleischmann and Pons) as the early researchers in this art. My opinions on cold fusion/LENR science are based on the encyclopedic reading I have done at universities in the S.F. bay area and delving into the world of replicated cold fusion/LENR experiments. SEE: The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science follows a well established peer review process, "PEER REVIEW PROCESS - Submitted papers will be forwarded to an Editor who will supervise the peer review process, and contact the authors in the course of the review process. Papers submitted to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science will be reviewed under the rules and guidelines associated with the review and appeals process adopted by the American Physical Review journals." [60]

Where is the contradiction... Sir, this is a discussion! Quit obfuscating, please. I have a strong opinion that opinions should not be given undue weight in an article. Doing so is not in line with respected scientific thought. Do you think it is?

Thanks for sharing the Wiki aspirations with me... I feel ya. In line with respected scientific thought.

With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. --Gregory Goble (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to go through with the splitting, it seems we have a consensus to do so. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a split along a line within the article would be better. I disagree with splitting the article into two.

Cold Fusion/LENR

Clarify by separating the early Sociological phenomenon and subsequent Scientific phenomenon into clearly delineated aspects of the article

I have been studying encyclopedias on flight; early thought impossible though we saw proof daily. Birds and bees do it, why can't we. Eventually we flew to the moon.

Clearly cold fusion went under the radar after a media fiasco that included probable falsification of data by some MIT hot fusion tech, years of MIT internal grievance procedures, the resignation of high ranking MIT management, and a subsequent launch of strong underground interwoven in hallowed halls UNDEAD SCIENCE with a peer reviewed journal and conferences. Quality Cold Fusion/LENR research and 'scientific review' experienced strong prejudice, concerted slander, and little funding. All of this is a Sociological phenomenon. Reading 'Undead Science' by Bart Simon (and other reading within this article) lends insight to this. The Sociological Reaction to preflight research is hardly referenced in encyclopedias anymore;

In other words,,, Dis article ain't broke so far's I kin see. Jes yous' wait 'fo ya tries to fix it. Jes' give it 'lil mo' time. Time please to let this age a bit. Multifaceted heritage is the mark of the furtherance of knowledge.--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the best approach would be to create a history page and put all of the history section inside it, include a few images in that article, leave the main page text which is outside the history section untouched, keep all of the images which are currently in the main article in the new main article, and write a new history section which is only 3-4 paragraphs long and which mentions: pre-1989 work, the 1989 press conferences and multiple attempts to replicate cold fusion, the 2004 DOE review, ICCF activities, and recent reports such as SPAWAR and Rossi. After that, new unsubstantiated reports of cold fusion (Defkalion, etc.) would then be added to the history article, if at all, unless the news truly changed the reputation of the field of cold fusion. I worry that writing and maintaining the history section inside the main article could be difficult, since some people might want to add lots of less-notable reports to the main article rather than to the history article. Does anyone volunteer to actually perform this split? Olorinish (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that my proposal is not the same as putting the Pons and Fleischmann information in a history article and leaving the discussion of modern work in the main article. That would give too much emphasis to the recent work, especially considering the vastly higher notability the PF work had at the time compared to the recent notability of groups like SPAWAR and Rossi. In other words, the PF work and the 1989 reactions are not footnotes in the long and complex history of cold fusion; they are the main reasons cold fusion is notable. Olorinish (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I support Steve Baker's idea. The Fleischmann-Pons era goes in the history article. I do not understand why you would think that putting a report on Defkalion in the history article is a good idea. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

While I'm open to suggestions, I really think that splitting the Fleischmann-Pons (FP) story into a separate article is the simplest way forward - and I think we have enough support (above) to do it:

1. It is now a proper historical event. Everything surrounding it is now as well understood as it's ever likely to be.
2. It's a neat story with ramifications for the importance of the scientific method, etc.
3. It's now the realm of historians rather than physicists.
4. We'd stand a good chance of getting it back up to featured-article status since most of the changes that resulted in the loss of that status (and even the loss of "good-article" status for chrissakes!) were in the section about modern work.
5. Most of the edit warring and other nastiness that resulted in sanctions, de-sysopping and other ugly things has now calmed down. The Fleischmann-Pons article should be low-bandwidth and easy for editors to curate.
6. We have solid references for both the history and the science since much of this work happened in highly respected peer-reviewed journals.

What remains is still likely to be contentious and will be tough to polish - in part because of debate about which sources are acceptable - and in part because there are still so many people working on various off-shoots and variants. However, the debates and surrounding chaos need not infiltrate the Fleischmann-Pons part. I appreciate that titling the two branches is going to be a little harder to decide - but choosing this place to split the article really does seem to make sense.

Consensus !vote?

Proposal: To split this article into an essentially historical article that predominantly discusses the events and science surrounding the "Fleischmann-Pons" affair...and a second article that discusses the broader issues surrounding the cold fusion controversy following FP and up to the present day. The choice of names for the new article(s) will be discussed if/when we have consensus to do the split in this manner.

Please respond with a Support or Oppose and brief reasons below. SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - per self-nom above. SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the Fleischmann-Pons events in 1989-1990 are history, well documented in several secondary sources. Even if (if) the future would lead science to a different assessment than back then, it will not change what happened in those days. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I vote to not rewrite the article at this time. Commercialization seems relevant to an article split. Cold fusion was notable at the time of the PF announcement and subsequent reaction because of the potential for this scientific research to lead to commercial devices with 1,000,000 times the energy density and fractions of the costs (environmental and economic) of carbon based or present day nuclear power. Cold fusion/LENR is a notable science today for the same reasons and has robust scientific review leading to advances in our understanding of nuclear active environments. Fleischmann and Pons were notable forerunners of cold fusion/LENR science.--Gregory Goble (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  I understand the points you're making - but I don't understand why those facts would cause us to not wish to split the article as proposed. The proposed "History of..." article would contain much detail that is irrelevant to the story you are telling here - and having that separate article does not preclude us from writing a paragraph or two about FP in the main article to give context to modern work. I just don't see that the article on the modern stuff needs to go into all of those details of who wrote which papers and when decrying who's results. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. At 52,983 characters of readable prose, this article is not so big that it needs to be split, and it is not so much in need of expansion. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article doesn't _need_ to be split, but I see it as an opportunity to get the Fleischmann-Pons history part back to prime status. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is still an active battleground. Since POVbrigand has stated that he is dissatisfied with the article, I fear he will use the transition to shift the resulting articles to a more pro-CF position and away from NPOV. Olorinish (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  All the more reason to split off the non-controversial part. We don't need the battleground to spill over into the FP incident stuff and gives us a chance to get that back to FA quality. Keeping the article short makes it easier for editors to discuss - it simplifies the lede - it simply reduces the scope for debate. I don't see how this feared stealth change during the transition is likely - the article is pretty much already split into two main sections...the split isn't going to be hard or to create a prolonged transition. SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Separation into some form of "Cold fusion as a social event" and "Cold fusion as a theory" makes sense, but Separating it into Fleischmann-Pons and LENR does not. I'd agree with a "History of Cold Fusion" which would include current events (e.g. E-Cat) and a "Cold Fusion" which would discuss theory. Sphere1952 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

1989 MIT Patents - Cold Fusion

Proposed new section title - 1989 MIT Cold Fusion Patents

Shortly after the "claim by scientists from Utah and England that they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature" MIT filed patents for cold fusion in the U.S. [61]--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that a whole section on 1989 cold fusion patents would be undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The important thing to note about patents is that anyone can patent almost anything - they don't prove that something works or is somehow government tested or even that the idea is original or belongs to the author (patents are challenged all the time). From Wikipedia's perspective, just about the only thing a patent is useful for is as proof of it's own existence. It doesn't even (necessarily) show that the author of the patent believed what he/she was saying. So I agree with IRWolfie - going into any detail about them beyond a brief mention that they exist is to give undue weight to documents that don't really convey much information. SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a patent is useful as proof of it's own existence, but also as a reliable source to describe the patented device and the claims of the applicant, if this is useful in the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Goble's isn't suggesting using patents as sources but having a section on them. Note that patents themselves are viewed as primary sources on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Yes, a patent is a primary source and there is nothing against using primary sources as long as you don't make your own synthesis with them. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And as long as due weight is established. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

...which is the entire problem here. People are going to read this and assume that all of these devices exist, work, are based on sound science, that the people who own them are active in the field - whatever. In truth, the existence of a patent doesn't prove any of those things because just about anyone can patent just about any harebrained scheme - workable or not. So patents really don't tell us anything about cold fusion - and giving weight to them is dangerous. SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, first filing on a patent amounts to little; proof of concept is when a patent becomes notable. I posted this information to illustrate that the MIT hot fusion folks discredited cold fusion while at the same time MIT files a patent on the theory of cold fusion and the provost of MIT releases a statement in support of cold fusion research. " We are pleased to see Professor Hagelstein proposing an explanation for 'cold fusion' and we are encouraging investigators both here and at other research institutions to continue their work on this most surprising phenomenon. "[62] No wonder this article is in such a sorry state. At least now I can write a sentence "cold fusion/LENR science" and not get blasted with "It ain't science... just a bunch of crackpots practicing pathological science". Reference to opinions of cold fusion/LENR research not being science should be restricted to a history section. (opinions carry undue weight in this article) The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science should be recognized by WIKI as a quality, respected, peer reviewed scientific journal publishing papers in this art. Censorship should end and the discerning Wiki reader should be given reign instead of protection by editors. "don't tell us anything about cold fusion - and giving weight to them is dangerous." With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. Thanks for the source code.--Gregory Goble (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You are mixing the timeline. That NYT article is from April 13th. The Baltimore meeting that turned the tide of opinion was in May 1st. The negative results of MIT were presented in the Baltimore session, that's more than two weeks later "Among other major research groups that gave details today of experiments failing to validate the Pons-Fleischmann results were representatives of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (...)" [63]. Did they realize the experiments were negative during those two weeks? Did MIT keep pursuing patents after the Baltimore session? Did Hagelstein continue pursuing the patents all by himself? What happened to those patents? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, yet I think not. I believe the tests had run, the provost and the theorist heard of or saw the data, the patents were filed, the falsification of the positive results took place, the MIT hot fusion funding continued (no net gain yet... good science), an MIT excecutive resigned over the falsification controversy, and cold fusion research continued in many labs following the provosts' request. I could be wrong, I'll get back to you on this after I finish sourcing it all. Hack Hack... excuse me. Got to get over this cold F. On top of it all, I am busily engaged in a social phenomenon. My Wiki works, does yours?--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a very typical misunderstanding about patents here. Patents are very cheap to file (especially if you're MIT and have full-time patent lawyers on-staff) - and except under very special circumstances (eg Perpetual motion machines) you don't have to prove that it works - or even believe that it works. So if some idea has even a 1% chance of being earth-shatteringly important, a smart person should patent it. Even if you personally don't think it's going to work. If Pons and Fleischmann had turned out to be correct, then the patent could be worth billions, if not trillions of dollars. Against that, why wouldn't you spend a couple of hundred bucks to patent it - even if you considered the odds of it working were one in a million - and even if early verification experiments didn't show results? The patent office is littered with patents for things that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of working. This patent doesn't prove a darned thing about how anyone felt or what they believed and when and in response to what...it just shows that someone had a good understanding of economics and statistics! SteveBaker (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The third sentence in this article is out of date and erroneous - Let's fix it

What's wrong with this sentence?

It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no generally accepted theoretical model of cold fusion.

Actually after twenty + years of research both the controlled experimental environments and theoretical models (after analysis of experimental data) have been been progressing in sophistification, success, and accuracy during the past 20 + years. Clearly the effect is documented as replicable and theories are improving over time.

The fringe science of cold fusion/LENR is increasing it's visability in mainstream science as it matures. TRUE or FALSE?' What is your Editorial opinion'?

Every editor of this article should now endorse the sentence in question, or not. If the sentence is basically false... so are the editors that endorse it. The past is past... cold fusion/LENR science is presented in mainstream science now. The opening of this article should reflect this fact.

With warm regards and electrifying anticipation...--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

for thousands and thousands of years of science we had no accepted theories for flight... yet the fact is we saw bees, birds, and bugs flying all the time. "generally accepted theoretical models" are about theory... not fact. Let's not obfuscate the scientific process. Instead we fly to the moon and beyond.--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read some wikipedia's policies and guidelines that were pasted on your talk page: User_talk:Gregory_Goble#Welcome, particularly WP:OR and WP:V. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you're suggestion. I suggest nothing. Yet I hope your suggestions improve this article. I'm after you... wiki seniority... familiarity... and all. Still learning!--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement that you're complaining about is in the lede paragraphs of the article. In Wikipedia, we use the first few paragraphs of the article (before the first section heading) merely to summarize the remainder of the article. If there is something wrong in the lede - then either it fails to summarize what the article as a whole says (in which case, let us know that and we'll fix it ASAP) - or the article itself must be incorrect. In this case, that statement is a summary of several pages of information in sections such as "Issues" - and it's a good summary of that section. So rather than taking that statement at face value, please read the text that it's summarizing - and note that every significant fact that we state there is backed by reliably sourced, peer-reviewed, mainstream science publications - which you can find by clicking on the little blue numbers in square brackets after each statement of fact.

You may not feel that these are covering the topic the way you'd like it covered - but here at Wikipedia, we have standards for that.

• WP:V requires that we verify everything we say with third party documents.
• WP:RS sets standards by which we judge those sources of verification.
• WP:FRINGE sets out more stringent rules for the way that 'fringe' science topics are written about (sorry, but Cold Fusion is a fringe topic - only a very small percentage of scientists believe it's true).
• WP:OR says that it doesn't matter what you, personally, feel you know for a fact - we can only use things that have reliable sources.
• WP:TRUE points out that Wikipedia's standard for "truth" is not absolute truth - it's verifiable truth.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." - and that's possibly the most important lesson that new Wikipedians need to learn.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Poor sourcing on DARPA wild goose chase

DARPA is a fairly huge funding agency arm of the US Defense Department which has funded all manner of out there and not so out there projects. It is unsurprising that cold fusion fans dug around and began trumpeting its "quiet" funding of LENR. The inserted prose was like this:

Darpa, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, has been "quietly pursuing LENR for some years." and for 2012 plans to continue their collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy to "Establish scalability and scaling parameters in excess heat generation processes"

I removed this for two reasons: 1) The sourcing leaves much to be desired. Wired.co.uk is not a good source for what funding and collaboration is happening nor is there a good indication for the scale on which DARPA is involved (it seems to be minimal at best). The second source is a 300+ page document listing ALL the funding that DARPA gives. This doesn't so much support the claim of relevance to the parent topic of COLD FUSION as it does show that someone can use a search algorithm. 2) There doesn't seem to have been an editorial weighting of how important this DARPA funding has or has not been to cold fusion research. In any case, this is unimpressive and poorly vetted text.

Please workshop this before reinserting.

24.215.188.24 (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are a sockpuppet of SA / VanishedUser314159. You are banned from Wikipedia. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet. 24.215.188.24 (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You are now banned for being a sockpuppet --POVbrigand (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think these two apply:

Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources

Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_deletes_the_cited_additions_of_others

--POVbrigand (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources' reliability is not being disputed and the "cited additions" are clearly explained as to why they are no good.

If have a substantive critique of the analysis above, please offer it. You are under the obligation to per WP:BURDEN.

24.215.188.24 (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." the content is not lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. You should not remove it. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand is correct. You cannot remove the material based on WP:BURDEN. I have reverted the edit of 24.215.188.24. Johnnyc (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The source's reliability may not be at issue, but its application to the statement certainly should be. There's nothing I see in that 336 page linked DARPA budget that remotely resembles the statement it is being used to support. What am I missing? A page number might help.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, found the quote. It was at pp50-52/336, under the mission: "This project provides the fundamental research that underpins the development of advanced nanoscale and bio-molecular materials, devices, and electronics for DoD applications that greatly enhance soldier awareness, capability, security, and survivability, such as materials with increased strength-to-weight ratio and ultra-low size, devices with ultra-low energy dissipation and power, and electronics with persistent intelligence and improved surveillance capabilities." Is there anything about that which suggests CF/LENR/CMNS/whatever except that they mention palladium and deuterium? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

On page 52, "Continued quantification of material parameters that control degree of increase in excess heat generation and life expectancy of power cells in collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy. Established ability to extend active heat generation time from minutes to 2.5 days for pressure-activated power cells.". This seems to be a clear suggestion that DARPA is working with the Italian Department of Energy on CF/LENR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyc (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's what someone predisposed to find it sees, but to me, it just looks like they're pursuing the stated mission of ultra low dissipation electronics. To see LENR in those pages is purest wp:SYNTH. It would need something much more explicit to back that assertion. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that Wired's David Hambling saw it as such, which is probably the reason both the DARPA budget summary and the Wired article were used to support the statement. This is simply what was reported by Wired, and includes the source that Wired used for article. This is not WP:SYNTH from POVbrigand. It was the Wired writer's conclusion. Johnnyc (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog - Without some knowledge of the field you cannot see it, I agree. The author of the wired.co.uk article has done his investigation well. DARPA is funding work at SRI together with the italian ENEA. In his talks Mike McKubre (SRI) always shows where the funding comes from. see for instance [64] or in the slides he showed recently at cafe scientifique see youtube video at 5:49

Forgot to mention the ENEA book (page 16 and 51) --POVbrigand (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The ENEA book is already used as a reference for the ENEA paragraph. Should we also add its pages 16 and 51 as reference to the DARPA paragraph ? --POVbrigand (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask again. Where are the wp:reliable sources? Not blogs, not a banned user's website, and certainly not Youtube. Actual. Reliable. Sources.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources are the wired article and the book published by ENEA and the reliable primary source is the DARPA budget. The McKubre presentations are only for illustration here on the talk page. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The Wired.com source is not WP:RS for showing that DARPA is funding cold fusion. Nor is the 300+ page document good enough to show what the precise type of funding is going on. The original research by the wired.com writer is not vetted by third-party reliable sourcing and therefore is rightly excluded until we get verification directly from a DARPA spokesperson who is qualified to discuss the matter or from someone who received a DARPA grant in a reliable source like a published paper in a major journal or a government publication (not a youtube video or a personal website). Otherwise, this is just hearsay conjecture and poor sourcing. Removed. 209.2.217.151 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that the IP 209.2.217.151 has been banned for being a sock puppet --POVbrigand (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The budget is a primary source, and we have no idea of its relevance or importance; IMO it should be removed. If it didn't generate any secondary source, it's likely that it's largely irrelevant. It is certainly not a breakthrough that needs to be reported urgently. There is another Wired article about past DARPA budgets[65], please use that instead. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I do think it is relevant and important. ENEA is stating that they have done a lot of experiments which leads the president of ENEA to publicly endorse the phenomenon as a reality. Also according to the ENEA book they are cooperating with SRI which is funded by DARPA. One of the researchers at SRI is Mike McKubre and in his presentations he clearly mentions funding from DARPA. The DARPA primary source mentions, although obscured, them funding LENR. Luckily there are (now) two secondary sources that link DARPA to funding LENR research.

I think it is relevant, because funding is so sparse for LENR, funding from a governmental agency is interesting to mention.

Tell me, Enric, where do you see the weak point in my reasoning ? I am always open for your view, because you read the sources. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

DARPA fund some pretty way-out speculative work. It wouldn't surprise me if they threw a little money at this on a "just in case" basis - but that shouldn't be taken to mean that they fully support/believe-in the concept. Suggesting that they are funding major research in the area on the basis of a line-item in a budget would be an extreme case of WP:UNDUE. They throw tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars at some truly off-the-wall stuff - until they are spending tens of millions on something, it's not indicative of any actual support they have for the idea. They might (for example) fund a study to disprove cold fusion just to get the idea cleanly off of the table in future. SteveBaker (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure DARPA does fund weird stuff and LENR is arguably just one of that kind. Nobody tries to push the notion that DARPA believes anything, it shouldn't be implied by the content I added. I certainly don't want to imply that anybody believes in anything, so if you feel my wording does imply that, then kindly help with toning it down. In a field where there is virtually no funding a tiny funding is worth mentioning, it is not UNDUE. You simply cannot compare funding for LENR to funding for hot fusion or any other major funding topic. If we were talking hot fusion funding this would be undue to mention, I agree, but we are talking LENR. The biggest funding I have heard of recently is the 5.5 million from the Kimmel foundation to Missouri University. So while I agree that DARPA is not supporting the idea that LENR is real, they do spend some money on it, which enables SRI to do some work together with ENEA, according to the ENEA book. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the DARPA funding doesn't really add much notability to the topic. DARPA funds companies to do things as 'far out' as making software for writing comic books [66] to using ultrasound to make soldiers who never need to sleep! Not exactly mainstream science. We have to be careful not to imply that DARPA believes that this stuff works and thereby give credibility where it isn't due (hence WP:UNDUE). SteveBaker (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not about adding notability to the topic, cold fusion is notable enough by itself. I am not against taking great care so that the WP-reader is not misled. I do think that the funding needs to be mentioned. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the funding should not be mentioned since it is not reliably quantified. The amount of money that DARPA spent on cold fusion doesn't seem to be a known quantity, and I think we can all agree that if it was a small amount mention of it in this article would be undesirable. Since we do not know the actual figure, we are relying on our personal opinions as to its significance. I compare this to the Mizzou grant which is a substantial amount of money and backed up by great sourcing. So I removed the claim. Hudn12 (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We have the primary source stating the quantity of the Budget activity (in million $) on page 51 ; FY 2011 = 16.745 ; FY 2012 = 11.650 ; FY 2013 = 5.500. We have a secondary source mentioning it (the wired.co.uk article), thus establishing the significance. And we have another secondary source (the ENEA book) mentioning the Darpa funding several times. Your or my estimation of what is significant does not count, the estimation of the secondary sources is what counts. "small amount" is irrelevant, the secondary sources mention the funding. In a field where there is virtually no funding a couple of million $ is worth mentioning. I put it back in. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This primary source is really not good enough for this because it doesn't explain whether the funding was part of a research program for DARPA or whether it was simply a blank check. It may be part of a distributed grant which is basic research and has limited oversight in which case DARPA wouldn't be supporting the research program per se and instead would just be a funding agency akin to the MacArthur Fellows Program. The ENEA book mentions funding, but it is unclear as to how significant and what the parameters of its use were because we don't have coverage from people who aren't cold fusion advocates. The problem is that we are writing a neutral encyclopedia entry rather than doing investigative reporting. The best we have right now is a claim by David Hambling who is a sensationalist reporter for wired who likes to go out on limbs. It's hard to know what to take seriously when he himself admits he can't get a straight answer from DARPA. This is all fodder for good journalism but not really an encyclopedia article. In any case, if we want to keep it in, I think we need to at least make sure that we cite this to Hambling directly who is our best secondary source as my understanding of WP:SOURCES has it. Hudn12 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Undead science - Bart Simon page 142: McKubre's research ... was initially funded by EPRI and later by IMRA and most recently by DARPA. That was in 2002. So it is not just Hambling who is stating this now, he is merely restating was has been said before. I do not mind to shorten the DARPA mentioning to the current size, but the direct cite of Hambling is not justified. It is not a secret that DARPA is funding McKubre, several secondary sources mention it. McKubre puts his funding in every talk the presents. The fact that these sources choose to mention it means it is relevant enough for WP. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The section we're discussing is about "Ongoing Research Programs" and McKubre's program isn't mentioned which is probably an oversight that I'll go in and correct (he's connected to the Sidney Kimmel and Energetics Technologies, so I'll try to fit in into that paragraph). So now, on reading this and considering it, I think it may be more appropriate to mention DARPA subsumed into the section on ENEA and the section on the Michael McKubre/University of Missouri/Sidney Kimmel/Energetics Technologies groups. But this is getting a bit too investigative journalism for me. The fact that the 60 minutes spot inspired Kimmel to donate to the University of Missouri through Rob Duncan is pretty obvious, but I haven't seen any documentation that this is what happened. (Also, it is still not clear how Duncan ended up on 60 minutes in the first place. There is something strange that went on in that whole debacle since the APS stated explicitly that there was no connection). Hudn12 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing research

McKubre connected to Sidney Kimmel ? Are you sure ? As far as I know it's Sidney Kimmel/Robert Duncan/Univ. Missouri/Energetics/60minutes and it's DARPA/SRI-McKubre/ENEA. And then there is Miley/UIUC/Hora, Hagelstein at MIT, Yeong E. Kim at Purdue and there are the Navy labs. It think that more or less sums it up for the USA at least as far as universities are concerned. Did I miss any ?

Regarding Duncan ending up at 60 minutes. I think I read that he was indeed proposed by somebody "close" to the APS, but not by the APS as an institution. That caused quite an row when 60minutes worded it wrong in their first airing of the show.

But this Robert Duncan was a perfect outsider, a mainstream physicist with mainstream understanding of the topic. When he investigated the topic he recognized that his previous understanding was not correct. Now if you talk about Duncan, the mainstream view of him is that he is just one of the group of fringe adherents and that an outsider should have a look at it before it can be believed. Well that already happened, it was Duncan. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

NASA

Here is their 2nd self published source stating WP:ABOUTSELF they are working on it. It is funded by the "Center Innovation Fund" "The purpose of the Center Innovation Fund is to stimulate and encourage creativity and innovation within the NASA Centers in addressing the technology needs of NASA and the nation. Funds are distributed to each NASA Center to support emerging technologies and creative initiatives that leverage Center talent and capabilities." --POVbrigand (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

[67] "It is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at Langley." --POVbrigand (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NASA_work_on_Low_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions

I will add the line "The Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at NASA Langley Research Center" with the 2 sources as verification. --POVbrigand (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like just more WP:NOTEBYASS but if you must please attribute the claim to Bushnell... if you must. He is the one making it. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean with NOTEBYASS ? --POVbrigand (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Using sources to establish notability by association. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot help that NASA is working on this, to argue "notability by association" or "name dropping" here is unfair. NASA has made it clear, through publications that they host on their own websites, that they are working on it. Nobody is claiming that NASA endorses LENR, they are just working on it. Several secondary sources have noticed this and reported about it. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's reliable or not doesn't mean it has due weight for the article, that is a separate issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a separate issue, so if you don't like this bit of information to enter the article I suppose you work out a detailed argumentation of why this bit of information is in your eyes undue, instead of unsubstantiatedly raising the UNDUE issue again and again and again. (this is not a personal attack) --POVbrigand (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

For due weight, do you have an independent reliable source which verifies the statement (I note that it's in the section "futurism")? Also note that your current wording is a copyvio. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems like undue weight to me. This is an encyclopedia; we shouldn't be including every report of somebody researching something. Why is this particular report of someone researching something so important? Olorinish (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie - I do not need an independent reliable source to verify ! I have multiple reliable WP:ABOUTSELF sources. Verification is perfect, stop questioning it. Copyvio can be worked around easily, and I don't even think it is a copyvio. Formost, you still haven't substantiated your UNDUE complaint. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

On NASAWatch there is an explanation from Keith Belvin, the new Chief Technologist at LaRC. He says that this work by Joe Zawodny is funded through the Center Innovation Fund. "Center Innovation Fund projects are early-stage foundational research efforts that may or may not result in scientific breakthroughs." - "there is no official agency program for LENR and NASA does not have a LENR program planned." and that this is "early-stage TRL foundational research into an elusive energy source concept where sound scientific investigation in the lab may be the best way to prove, or disprove, the LENR hypothesis." --POVbrigand (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added one line at the Widom Larsen theory, explaining that "it is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at Langley" --POVbrigand (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

On the secondary source side, it is wikipedia policy that we should preferentially rely on reliable secondary sources for text. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The nasawatch.com info is not for the article, only here on the talk page to give some background. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I am looking for the reliable secondary source, to establish due weight. The phrase, "According to a NASA website ..." looks like original research. You are looking at the NASA website and picking what you have decided is important, rather than deferring to reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a wrong understanding of OR, read the policy again. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OR Policy: Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The same OR policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

Furthermore secondary sources have also mentioned NASA work on LENR. I have discussed that here on this talk page several times. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Do the secondary sources mention the Widom Larsen theory, if so, why aren't we using them, if not, why are we mentioning it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Again WP:OR Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

Also have a look at WP:ABOUTSELF. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You say the secondary sources mention NASAs work, why don't we use something that they highlight instead? You want to use a primary source when this should usaully be avoided and only used with care (per policy), and cite ABOUTSELF, which is usaully for articles about themselves or their activities. Hence it seems like a pretty weak rationale. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have used the primary source to make a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact that any educated person with access to the source but without specialist knowledge is able to verify. Please explain why you are not able to do so. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't just insert random material just because it can be verified, it should have due weight as well, due weight is best demonstrated through reliable independent sources; where are they? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Due weight is not the stop gap for things you don't like to hear. Oh, I almost forgot that in the 14 May C&EN article "Reviving Cold Fusion" Ritter quotes Dennis Bushnell as saying: "From more than two decades of experiments producing heat and transmutations, _something_ is real and happening" ... "Nasa scientists are evaluating the many extant devices to determine their correspondence, or not, with the weak interaction theories." I guess you conveniently didn't think of that article, which you have admitted that you have read, while you keep trying to delete this NASA mention. You ought to be trying to improve the encyclopedia. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Maybe we should wait until NASA achieves something before putting in so much text about about it. Is it really so important that NASA is working on something? They are expected to study very speculative projects, after all. Olorinish (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"so much text" <> 1 line. As I have explained before it is important to mention that renowned institutions work on this topic as the general belief is that this topic is dominated only by crackpots. In an article about NASA it would possibly be undue to mention this activity, because it is only a fraction of all NASA activity, but this is not an article about NASA. And in a field were most of the work is done by scientists in their off hours or on shoestring budgets, this is important to mention. For information here on the talkpage: a further explanation on NASAwatch by Dennis Bushnell describes the funding around 200k USD per year, for the last 3.5 years, totalling 1 million USD by end of 2012. Tom Whipple has written an article in the Fall Church News Press mentioning NASA's verification work on the Widom Larsen theory. Previously David Hambling had already written in wired.co.uk about the same work at NASA. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition, I note that no one actually agreed to the edit and so there is no consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the darpa paragraph as well which there was no consensus for either (and was the reason for the entire talk page section. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)