Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 2

cuts?
I cut the extra links to infinite energy, the wired article - what if cold fusion is real, cold fusion magazine, and the cbc program. This list of links should remain NPOV and be closer to what mainstream science believes to be an encyclopedia article - rather than copious links to what if media coverage. The lenr link represents infinite energy and cold fusion times well (it is written by some of the same people). The included media link is in reference to bubble fusion which is also mentioned in the article. Let's refrain from linking to every person who thinks cold fusion would be cool, and keep the links more authoritative. Trelvis 22:32, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

The links are there to provide balance [read as: NPOV]. Reinserted. JDR 03:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I took out the line claiming that the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor is a working yet unpractical cold fusion device. The fusor may not require thermodynamic equilibrium, but it still requires ions with several keV of energy, and should not qualify as cold fusion - this also goes against normal usage of the term cold fusion. Furthermore the term cold fusion carries negative connotations, so you probably do not want to associate your pet low cost table top fusion device with a catastrophic scientific failure - but that is just my opinion. Trelvis 16:16, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

I put in the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor link into the See also aection. JDR

I undid a drastic changed that reversed the sense of the book summaries. If whoever wrote it has evidence to back up his allegations then please put them here. DJ Clayworth 18:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What - you don't think "slanted and dangerously slanderous" is a NPOV description of a book? Boy, what a nit-picker! DavidWBrooks 18:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) (I'm joking, by the way; in edit wars like this, it's sometimes hard to tell.)


 * I say always be polite to an editor the first time. They might be a newbie who thinks this is acceptable behaviour. DJ Clayworth 18:58, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Page summaries
Request to sysop: Can you please add these notations to previous edits?
 * 3:50 added better descriptors
 * 2:54 typo correction
 * 2:53 added more accurate descriptor
 * 2:52 added more accurate descriptor
 * 2:49 differentiated between 1989 and 2004 D.O.E CF review
 * 2:48 removed biased descriptor
 * 2:47 use neutral label
 * 2:46 typo correction
 * 2:44 html correction
 * 2:42 Misc edits, Detailed current worldwide cold fusion research, first attempt to write more accurate descriptor of Park's book, added Beaudette's book, added Krivit/Winocur Report, corrected detail of DOE non-announcement
 * 2:30 Minor edit to Muon Catalyzed Fusion description
 * 2:20 Contributed cold fusion description from "The 2004 Cold Fusion Report"


 * I'm a sysop, but I can't do this. Is it ok just posted here?  What are you trying to accomplish?  moink 05:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, you can't add notes to edits after the fact - certainly plain old sysops can't. Just think of the edit wars that would ensure, with people changing the "reason" for an enemy's last edit to, say, "demonstrate misunderstanding of entire issue" or "sprinkle twisted POV throughout article"! DavidWBrooks 13:37, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

revert
I just reverted a bunch of edits to a version from yesterday, because the edits consisted of copying an article from another source, creating an ugly and possibly copyvio'd mess. DavidWBrooks 13:42, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To whom it may concern
Dear Wiki's:

I am certainly not an expert here on Wikipedia, and I am certainly a newbie and forgive me if I have erred in protocol, method or etiquette, but I think that I do qualify as having unique expertise on the subject of cold fusion.

With the assistance of my wife Nadine Winocur, we have recently completed a four year journalistic investigation into the subject of cold fusion. We have interviewed nearly every prominent cold fusion proponent and cold fusion critic and found out what they (don't) know [Park, Happer, Koonin, Lewis, Gratzer, Close, Williams]

We have had our research reviewed by a "hot" fusion plasma researcher in a major U.S. Atomic energy firm, by Nobel Physics Laureate Brian Josephson, Dieter Britz and others. We have disclosed and made public documents from Amoco, Shell and cold fusion critics Garwin, Bard and Lewis which support the claims of cold fusion. We have been in direct communiction with the deputy director of the Office of Science of the D.O.E., Dr. James Decker, with Kenneth Chang of The New York Times, Charles Choi of United Press International, Toni Feder of Physics Today, Bennett Daviss of New Scientist and have good relationships these journalists.

I do not understand how/why there is a copyright violation in the text I posted. I own it. I would think I can do with it as I please, particularly if I feel so generous as to donate it to the public domain. If I am misunderstanding something I would appreciate clarification or the decency of a telephone call (310) 721-5919.

That description of cold fusion I posted has been reviewed for accuracy by nearly all of the worlds' leading cold fusion scientists. I think it would be a loss to Wikipedia if it were edited out.

Further information on our research is available at www.newenergytimes.com. Readers may request a complimentary copy of the report prior to May 1, 2004 by sending a request to steven@newenergytimes.com.

I will stand down momentarily from further edits and await to hear a response from the Wiki community.

Respectfully, Steven Krivit

From David

 * First, I apologize for the word "ugly" - I meant that in the sense of wiki format, not content or writing. I didn't revert your material because I thought it was wrong or useless, just that it was so unusual I had concerns. Wikipedia is very cautious about copyright violation, because it can happen so easily and have legal repercussions. (For example, it might have been the case that you researched and wrote the story under contract for a book or magazine, and the copyright was actually owned by the publisher.)


 * Your knowledge is exactly what wikipedia needs, certainly more than any previous poster possesses (maybe more than all of them combined!). Since you own the copyright then it would be great to have your material - but in an encyclopedia-like form. It will need some rewriting and rearranging to meet readers' expectations and needs, which are different for an encyclopedia than magazine or textbook. (Don't worry about formatting - that can be done later)


 * I would suggest this: Put your version of the article on this new, temporary page (Cold fusion (temp)) and then announce it here, on this Talk page. Let everybody look at it and comment. When consensus is reached (including from you - you're part of the wikipedia community!) it can be moved to the main article space. - DavidWBrooks 18:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * (If you're a professional writer you will find this an occasionally frustrating process, since you'll have X+1 editors - and on a topic like this some of them will have chips on their shoulders. But it is definitely worth the effort. And by the way, why not create an account? It's not mandatory, but is helpful to keep track of who made which changes.)

From Steven
David, thank you for the informative and considerate response. That certainly feels more welcoming. Your suggestion sounds good, though I'm a bit confused. You first note that it will need rewriting and rearranging (the requirements of which I am willing to learn) but then you say such formatting can be done later. This seems contradictory, and I'm not sure how to start.

I'm also curious as to who will be "rewriting"; Nadine and I, the group mind, or all? It was rather a monumental effort to write the description in the first place. One needs to know that the "cold fusion community" is in no way homogenous. There are broad basic agreements as to the experimental observations, theory is "all over the map" at this point in time, and each scientist, headstrong as any of the rest of us, feels that his or her POV is correct. The document I posted was reviewed for errors and any gross misunderstandings by nearly a dozen cf scientists, plus a secret hot fusion scientist who has been assisting to help us with language and terminology that will help it be "heard" by the hot fusion camp. What resulted was a compromise that was not the "perfect" description for all cf scientists, but it was acceptable enough to all.

Yes, good idea about the account, I had actually done so, but forgot to login before many of my previous posts. I believe that I have set a cookie to autologin now.

One thing I want to state up front: I have no interest in arguing online if people don't do their homework. I will gladly engage in argument or defense regarding any of our work, which is meticulously referenced, or any other original sources. But arguments based on information from second sources is just a waste of time as most of them (both pro and con)are often skewed, inaccurate, and merely propogate the continued communication problem. Does this seem acceptable and reasonable to the culture of Wiki?

I will be pleased to send a free copy of our Report to anyone who requests it, and I will be pleased to direct them to scores of original sources and documents on this subject matter should they wish it.

Steven

steven@newenergytimes.com

"A recent development (March 2004) is that the United States Department of Energy now will give this phenomenon a second look, based on new data. This news was released by James F. Decker, deputy director of the science office, and reported in the weekly publication New Scientist."

Thanks for this contribution User:165.155.128.121, do you have any supporting information on this? The exact issue of New Scientist would help, or a link to the announcement from USDoE. --Mat-C 12:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From Steven
To whom it may concern:

Why have I not received any responses to my previous post? Why has only one person (David Brooks, see above) participated in this "community" discussion? Is this truly a community or is it merely a clique? Is 99.99% of this "community" merely lurkers? I'd really like to know before I consider investing any more of my time into this.

Thank you,

Steven Krivit

Steven@newenergytimes.com

Steven

Nobody else responded because David pretty much stated the community view. We are not 'lurkers', but Wikipedia covers the entire universe of information. Relatively few people are likely to be interested enough in any one topic to watch its talk page. You will find more people respond when you edit the article. Feel free to add well-researched, enlightening information to the Cold Fusion article.

A few things you should probably be aware of. It's bad form to overwrite existing content of an article completely with your content. The best way is to integrate the information you have into the information that already exists. 'Rewriting' will be done by anybody and everybody who feels like it. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Also, from looking at your previous post, please note that we don't sign contributions here, because once it's part of a Wikipedia article its common property. On talk pages the reverse is true - it's essential to sign contributions, which is best done by adding four tildes after your post: ~.

Arguing with people who haven't done their homework is unfortunately a fact of life here. However if you can cite sources for anything you write, and you are repsectful of others opinions most people are pretty reasonable. Happy editing.

DJ Clayworth 17:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From David again

 * There are 250,000+ article on Wikipedia now, so any given article only receives attention from a small part of the community at any time. Having said that, I'm surprised nobody else has entered the discussion. Ah, well.


 * What I meant by my suggestion was that you rewrite your article into more encyclopediac (is that a word?) form and put it on the Cold fusion (temp) page. ("Formatting" can be done later - that is, adding wikipedia markups to make things bold, or to create internal links, and to follow accepted style. That's relatively trivial.)


 * Soon, I would imagine, there would be consensus (maybe just from you and me) to replace the existing article with your piece. Then, maybe nothing would happen, and it would join the general base of wikipedia articles - or maybe other people would suddenly notice and object, or raise questions, or rewrite portions to make them better, or to make them worse, or even to make them wrong. You might have to debate the issue with somebody who's very knowledgeable, or somebody who's completely ignorant. In the process you might be able to enlighten somebody who is deluded on the topic - or you might run into a closed-minded idiot who frays your patience, citing second-hand sources. If this doesn't sound like something that interests you, maybe (alas) wikipedia isn't for you, since throwing yourself open to all comers is part of the appeal, and part of the drawback. - DavidWBrooks 17:24, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From Steve
Dear DJ and David,

Your posts were very helpful. You've helped me to see the underlying considerations which I couldn't know at first glance. What a fascinating concept this Wikipedia thing is. I commend all of you for your efforts and contributions, but I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for me - at least not now. It's too important to me to preserve the integrity of my work. Also, dealing with the public confusion on this subject on an individual basis does not appeal to me.

All the best to you and thank you for your thoughtful replies,

Steven Krivit

www.newenergytimes.com

Steven Jones
From some of the text it could seem that Jones was associated with F&P's work, or that his work supported their conclusions. I've tried to patch this. For "media circus" see http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/131history.html Dandrake 06:15, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Picture / diagram request
Would you have a picture or diagram to illustrate this article, e.g. of an electrolytic cell ? This could bring the article to featured article status. (I have also inserted the request in Requested images) Pcarbonn 21:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stanley Pons / Martin Fleischmann
I created stubs for these two guys. It seemed really stupid to have links to them in this article which just redirected to this article. I don't know much about them at all though so please feel free to flesh those out if you do. --Fastfission 02:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)