Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 26

Whitelisting lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com?
By the way, if anyone else is irritated by the fact that we have to pussyfoot around the blacklist, and that we have papers referenced in the article for which we can't provide a link where the papers can be freely read, we can request whitelisting of some specific pages, or of the whole sites. (lenr-canr.org is globally blacklisted, newenergytimes.com is locally blacklisted, so whole-site with NET would just be delisting.) I've been somewhat successful at this (with other blacklisted sites, and, with Enric Naval, one lenr-canr.org page). The politics at meta, right now, make it unlikely that we could succeed in globally delisting the whole site globally, but there was, in fact, no sound reason for the blacklisting in the first place; the blacklist is designed to control linkspam, and there wasn't linkspamming, the links alleged as linkspam for lenr-canr.org were like many here in Talk: not links, so blacklisting didn't prevent them. No linkspamming at all was alleged for newenergytimes.com. There is also alleged copyright violation at lenr-canr.org, but consensus at Martin Fleischmann seems to be that this is a non-issue, and no specific violation has reasonably been alleged. That lenr-canr.org is allegedly fringe should be moot; linking to a specific page that is a permitted copy of a paper, as a convenience link, does not dump the reader into a polemic for cold fusion. In any case, there is about zero chance of getting lenr-canr.org delisted globally if we don't have specific pages whitelisted here on en.wikipedia, or a whitelisting of the whole site here, the argument will be made, and it will be effective, that it isn't needed, don't bother them. --Abd (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Copyrights Citing_sources. Note the term "reasonably certain".LeadSongDog (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! That whole debate at Talk:Martin_Fleischmann went by without anybody notifying this page that it was going on until now. In a strange way, that's impressive.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) Since that discussion isn't formally closed as to conclusion, and since it can be reopened even as to subquestions that have been closed, anyone is welcome to join, but I would ask, please, read the preceding discussion first and consider the specific points made, and try to delink the issues, linking of issues is often what keeps us from finding consensus. Further, if there is agreement already expressed there, and you differ, how important is it, because reopening a decided question will take up more time. Decisions in a local RfC-type discussion like that aren't binding, they don't create any kind of precedent that will prevent better decisions from being made in the future. Or at least they shouldn't! However, and this was indeed the intention, they may establish that whatever is agreed there is at least a reasonable decision, to start, not just the unsupported opinion of a deranged tl;dr editor like me.

"We must not X because A and B and C and D and E." "B isn't true." "Maybe, but there are still A and C and D and E." "But D isn't true either!" "It's true!" "(diff showing D is preposterous)". "Maybe, but there are still A and B and C and E. Would you please stop beating a dead horse?"

... and this can go on for a long time. Instead, we can look at A. Is A true? If not, why not? If so, what's the evidence? Why do you believe this? And we can continue doing this, getting more and more specific. In such a process, it becomes really obvious if someone is reasoning from conclusions, and most people, realizing that this just isn't right and that the world will not end if they agree on a narrow point with someone "on the other side," will back down, and agree on the specific point or suggest some acceptable compromise (or shut up and go away). It can become a habit, and points of agreement build. And I've seen this kind of process result in total agreement when previously the sides were digging their heels in.

"But A and B are connected!" Fine. We still should try to find agreement on them separately, then, once we understand and agree on each subissue, we can consider possible connections before addressing a higher-level question.

Just in case someone thinks otherwise, this process often will not lead to X. It will lead to something else that enjoys higher consensus. I.e., perhaps argument A came to be considered valid, and action Y satisfied the concern, as well as the concerns of those proposing X. But when we have a big pile of issues, fringe linkspam copyvio uncivil alters documents kook SPA nonsense conflict of interest block evasion banned unnecessary anyway, WTF do we begin?

We find consensus by pursuing, at least initially, one little teeny-tiny question at a time.

As to the page and section on linking, I don't see the term "reasonably certain" there, and we are not obligated by policy or copyright law to be "reasonably certain" that there is no violation; indeed, read the guideline, it's the opposite: we should not link if we "know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright," and the relevant case law cited has to do with "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright." When I noticed the blacklisting (I'm here because of that, not the reverse, I did not arrive at this article with an agenda), I asked a knowledgeable administrator, DGG, about the copyright issue. I think his opinions are cited there, and he showed up to confirm it (as he did previously on the blacklist pages). And that is fully consistent with policy and guidelines, and I haven't the foggiest what LeadSongDog was trying to point to. --Abd (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I forgot that I had clicked through from Citing_sources, which is where the actual words were. Now refactored.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is what the referenced guideline says:
 * A "convenience link" is a link to a copy of your source on a webpage provided by someone other than the original publisher or author. For example, a copy of a newspaper article no longer available on the newspaper's website may be hosted elsewhere. When offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary, and that it does not infringe the original publisher's copyright. Accuracy can be assumed when the hosting website appears reliable, but editors should always exercise caution, and ideally find and verify multiple copies of the material for contentious items.


 * Where several sites host a copy of the material, the site selected as the convenience link should be the one whose general content appears most in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability.


 * The matter of lenr-canr.org and copyright violation has been considered in a number of venues, and the best opinion expressed is that lenr-canr.org is, indeed, quite unlikely to be hosting copyvio. There are a number of basic reasons: The site does claim permission from authors and original publishers for all the content, and the bibliography that they have is far larger than the set of papers they host, I think it's roughly one out of three that is hosted; Rothwell claims that he has thousands of papers that he'd love to put up, but he can't get the permissions. The site is highly visible. If you search for a paper that is hosted, using Google, lenr-canr.org is usually top ranked. The site hosts papers from publishers known to vigorously pursue copyright violation, so we may presume from the long-continued existence of the site, with these papers, that serious copyvio is lacking. The controlling policy is WP:COPYVIO, and the guideline you cited isn't clear on the definition of "reasonably certain," and links are routinely added to the project, without objection, where there is less reason to be "certain" about copyvio. The policy is in line with the law, with actual violation of copyright and contributory infringement.


 * Lenr-canr.org copies are only proposed for two purposes: convenience copies of papers cited in articles, where the paper is not otherwise available except through cumbersome or expensive procedures to get a copy, and for discussion in Talk. It's pretty hard to intelligently discuss a source if the interested editors can't all read it.


 * We show the URL anyway, the blacklisting only prevents the convenience of a direct link. --Abd (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it "cumbersome or expensive" to visit a library, or would you advocate that we should rely on the quality of journals too obscure for major libraries and journal databases to justify subscriptions? LeadSongDog (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we may rely on any source that meets WP:RS standards. It could be an obscure book very difficult to obtain, and it might not be in English, and the only exception I've seen is where an editor came to be considered untrustworthy, this editor was required to use sources in English. And, yes, it can be very "cumbersome or expensive" to visit the necessary library. Given that we could easily avoid the need for this, why are we making it more difficult for readers to find a copy of a paper cited as a source, or mentioned for further reading? LeadSongDog seems to be conflating two issues here. One is reliability and usability, the other, the issue for this section, is the usage of links for papers that are already considered reliable source for the application, they already are cited in the article, and the citation is stable. I don't see that LeadSongDog addresses the issue, but merely confuses it. The guideline that has been cited obviously does encourage the use of "convenience links," and only raises the two obvious issues for consideration: possible copyvio and reliability of that specific copy.


 * In the case of the link that is already whitelisted, both objections having been considered by knowledgeable editors, in a cautious environment, there is no reason not to use it. I think there are more such that could be whitelisted. They used to be in the article. When editors started removing them, one of the arguments was that there wasn't a problem with a removal because there were three or four other links to lenr-canr.org in the article. They were picked off and finally JzG removed them all and blacklisted the site without discussion.


 * (There was discussion later, but in a place where a small handful of spam blacklist administrators make decisions, and the tendency there seems to be guilty until proven innocent, it's an odd process, I've been able to rescue one major web site and get a couple of minor fixes. With tremendous effort. They say, "No problem with blacklisting, if you need a link you can always request it be whitelisted." It can be a mountain to climb. With one simple and quite obviously useful link, it sat for over a week with some discussion, JzG raised the copyright issue there as well, but nobody confirmed that, consensus was the opposite. I went to AN with it, where the usual suspects weighed in with the usual contempt. One of the blacklist regulars then closed the whitelist discussion, with the copyright argument, clearly neglecting the whitelisting discussion, but I ended up being confirmed at AN, essentially, and an admin reversed the close and the English interface to the site, lyrikline.org, was totally whitelisted, opening the door to what will probably be hundreds of links in the end, as many as 600, depends on what the community does with the actual edits, so far, none I've put in have been taken out, I think. I've been very noisy about it, too.)


 * So... coming soon, a link to lenr-canr.org in the article. Probably today. Some editors have been demanding that I actually edit the article. Happy to oblige. --Abd (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue of whether a convenience-linked paper is the same as the cited work comes down to trusting or verifying the online library. Given the level of controversy we have had over trusting this particular library, why not simply agree that before adding a link that an editor in good standing will carefully vett the actual cited paper against the one at the convenience link to ensure they are the same? The doubts over copyright permissions are also easily resolved: simply notify the copyright holder that we intend to add the link. If they've granted permission, there won't be a problem. If they haven't, they'll deal with sending a takedown notice. Either way, we haven't contributed to a copyvio.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is why not "agree about before adding the link." There isn't any reason to doubt the accuracy of the copy, it was certainly provided by the author. I'm going to make the edit. It's not copyvio and I don't think there is any reason to doubt the authenticity. If we have to stand on our heads for every reference in the article, the whole process becomes impossibly cumbersome. But if you have some specific reason to doubt this reference, by all means, raise it. --Abd (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As to notifying the copyright holder, I gather that you are volunteering for this task, LSD? If you doubt the link, it would be a service to the project if you did. I presume that the copyright holder(s) would be Tsinghua University Press and/or Martin Fleischmann, and I think that Jed Rothwell, librarian for lenr-canr.org, is tight with both of them. But maybe I'm wrong, and wouldn't egg all over my face look beautiful? --Abd (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've raised the question of whether the OTRS system can be used to enable this process. We'll see what arises.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Eh? What would be standard is that an editor does it, and reports the result. Testimony is presumed true unless controverted. What do you need OTRS for? If the Foundation wants to get involved in copyright verification, then such confirmation would be done by the foundation and by trusted volunteers, so, perhaps, OTRS could do it, but consider the volume of such requests that might be needed, if the tight standards being proposed were followed more generally. I'd advise against it. There is no legal risk to the project at the "absence of intention to link to copyvio" level, error in this doesn't establish legal risk, unless error persists after notice. I.e., a copyright holder says, "stop linking to that site!" Much more likely, with links that would be likely to be used here, the page goes dead, as the site pulls it from a copyright infringement notice, or the site goes dead when it ignores that. We really don't need to worry about it with sites like lenr-canr.org or newenergytimes.com; these are sites with known and responsible owners with much to lose if they infringe copyright, and all signs are that they are careful about this. --Abd (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the appropriate venue for this discussion? Shouldn't it be taking place on a noticeboard? At the very least, could it be moved to a subpage in order to reduce the clutter on this talk page? Thanks, Verbal   chat  20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the appropriate place.


 * Here is the situation, to bring you up to speed: lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com, which are both quite useful sites for finding information on this subject, and which do meet a certain level of reliability (though that's controversial, but note that, for example, a critic of cold fusion, Kirk Shanahan, points to New Energy Times for a description of the work of Arata in Japan. It's solid reporting, in fact. There used to be quite a few links to those sites from this article. Many of the documents hosted there can be found elsewhere, but ... not all. In any case, JzG, who was quite involved with this article, removed remaining links to the sites from this article and from Martin Fleischmann, and added the sites to the local blacklist, alleging a series of problems with them: copyright violation, "fringe," unreliability (alleged alteration of documents), and linkspamming. This was eventually noticed, and is, in fact, how I came to be interested in this article, I saw notice of this on Jehochman talk. Normal blacklisting process had been bypassed. I requested delisting, and discussion began here. Meanwhile, without letting us here know, JzG went to meta and requested global blacklisting, and it was granted with little discussion. The local discussion was closed as moot because of the meta action (it was delisted here). I went to meta and requested delisting and, after much discussion, it was denied; in what I've seen, now, many times, since I started learning about the blacklist, the decision was based on these links not being "necessary." In a typical comment, as well, we were assured that if we needed a link, we could get it whitelisted. So User:Enric Naval went to MediaWiki:Spam Whitelist and requested whitelisting for two or three pages; one was eventually granted. It was not what I'd call an easy process. Then, when Enric inserted the link into Martin Fleischmann, edit warring broke out over it. All the old arguments were asserted. Eventually, I started a process there of investigating each of these points, because what usually would happen would be that it would be claimed that the link was "fringecopyviospambanneduser and how do we know it hasn't been changed?" And if one of these arguments were impeached, well, there was still "fringecopyviospambanneduser." Impeach anther and it would be "fringecopyviobanned user and how do we know it hasn't been changed." I'm sure you have seen debates like this, where conclusions are clearly driving the arguments.
 * The political reality is that there is little hope of getting these sites delisted, without substantial disruption, unless there is a showing of necessity or advisability of using links to them. Hence the question here. If those sites aren't useful here, there is little other possible use, so why bother? I'm addressing, gradually, the overall problems with the blacklists, which are by no means confined to this topic and these sites and the particular administrator involved.


 * For now, the question was asked, Do we want to use links to these sites, here in discussion if nowhere else? If we don't, why bother the good folks at the noticeboards? If enough of us would want to use them, then I do know how to proceed, but I'm not going to do it without some support. (Note that we do use the sites for reference, frequently, here in Talk, but we have to delink, i.e., not allow a link to show, I usually do it by leaving out the http://, the blacklist then doesn't detect it and block the edit.) --Abd (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography, no present link, hosted on lenr-canr.org
see http://lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html
 * Beaudette, Charles G. (2002), Excess Heat & Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, New York: Oak Grove Press, ISBN 9-9678548-2-2
 * Bockris, John (2000), "Accountability and academic freedom: The battle concerning research on cold fusion at Texas A&M University", Accountability Res. 8: 103, doi:10.1080/08989620008573968
 * Bush, Ben F.; Lagowski, J. J.; Miles, M. H.; Ostrom, Greg S. (1991), "Helium Production During the Electrolysis of D2O in Cold Fusion", Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 304: 271–278, doi:10.1016/0022-0728(91)85510-V
 * Fleischmann, Martin; Pons, Stanley (1989), "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium", Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 261 (2A): 301–308, doi:10.1016/0022-0728(89)80006-3
 * Fleischmann, Martin; Pons, Stanley; Anderson, Mark W.; Li, Lian Jun; Hawkins, Marvin (1990), "Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system", Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 287: 293–348, doi:10.1016/0022-0728(90)80009-U
 * Fleischmann, Martin (2003), "Background to cold fusion: the genesis of a concept", Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Cambridge, MA: World Scientific Publishing, ISBN 978-9812565648
 * Gozzi, D.; Cellucci, F.; Cignini, P.L.; Gigli, G.; Tomellini, M. (30 September 1997), "X-ray, heat excess and 4He in the D:Pd system", Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry (Elsevier) 435 (1-2): 113–136, doi:10.1016/S0022-0728(97)00297-0

Up to G, more tomorrow, I assume. --Abd (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Arata's experiment
The latest experiments were done in May 2007 by Yoshiaka Arata and Yue-Chang Zang. It is noted that the conducted the experiment somewhat else (they used palladiumpowder in the electrode that was made by injecting the powder with deuteriumgas under high pressure). It was reported that 70% more heat was generated than the electricty put into the experiment.

According to anata, pycnodeuterium is formed in the experiment and they believe the scientific formula that would explain the reaction would be possible if a fonon was included (which they believe was present)

the experiment was documented in Journal of the high temperature society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.135.164 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I find this article in that journal from Arata:


 * The Establishment of Solid Nuclear Fusion Reactor, Yoshiaki ARATA and Yuechang ZHANG, Journal of High Temperature Society, Vol. 34 (2008), No. 2, pp.85-93
 * Abstract: An ultrahigh vacuum stainless-vessel including only solid samples is used as a “Solid Fusion” vessel. When extremely high purity D2 gas is injected into this stainless-vessel, D2 gas is penetrated into the solid sample as “ D+-jet stream” and “ Solid Fusion” is generated instantly with [He-4] and thermal energy as the reaction products. Consequently, the stainless vessel can act as both a “ [He-4] generator” and a “Thermal Reactor”. As a result, and excellent actual “Solid Fusion” reactor is established for the first time in the world.


 * The paper is in Japanese. Tantalizing, but confirmation? They are using palladium nano-particles in the vessel. This is a radically different approach than the electrolysis methods, and, I'm sure, the excitement is about the possibility of a continuous process. Arata's theory is of less interest than the experimental results, in my opinion. Arata has published a mountain of research into various aspects of our topic. lenr-canr.org's bibliography gives this 2008 paper, but they have no copy hosted. In 2005, at ICCF12 in Yokohama, Japan, Arata presented a description of a "reactor" which did not involve electrolysis, the 2008 paper appears to be a continuation of that work. --Abd (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This paper contains no new Figures over and above what was publicized and discussed previously. As such, it is still not conclusive, too many possibilities of alternate conventional explanations.  And did you notice the references?  all of them are to their own work!  Wow...   Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was noticed. Kirk, did you read the original paper, in Japanese? Or did you read a translation? From where? --Abd (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I compared the Figures in the paper to those in the Krivit article here: www.newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.htm#hood - No new data was added, so none of the questions that came to mind then have been answered, and others besides me pointed out that the demonstration really didn't prove anything. Specifically one thing missing is control experiments showing the residual delta T is real and not an artifact.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kirk. There are controls reported in the Krivit article, a typical kind for CF research. They ran it with hydrogen, which is chemically almost identical to deuterium, plus, with deuterium, in the paper Krivit is working from, they use two different alloys. Besides, the smoking gun there is helium. Actually there are three smoking guns.
 * Krivit points out, in the popular version of the article that precedes what's linked above, that the motor demonstration was, not meaningless, but certainly not conclusive, in itself: On May 22, professor emeritus Yoshiaki Arata (Osaka University) and professor Yue Chang Zhang (Shianghai Jiotong University) did it. With the flick of a finger to start the Stirling engine, they saw the heat from their LENR experiment—with no applied electrical energy—turn a small rotor for many minutes. The presumption is that the motor was turning during the nuclear energy production phase rather than the chemical energy production phase. The turning motor is symbolic, a bit of showmanship. But what's significant is the temperature behavior.
 * "Alternate conventional explanations." Okay, Kirt, it's not your obligation, an unexplained experimental result is not a proof, in itself. However, when we start to have to pile unlikely assumptions on unlikely assumptions to explain repeatable results, when there are controls, Occam's razor kicks in.
 * For the benefit of others, I should describe the experiment briefly. A reaction cell is within a thermal isolation chamber. The temperature inside the reaction cell is Tin, the surrounding chamber is at Ts. The cell contains "nanopowder" palladium alloy, in the first experiment documented, it's ZrO2-Pd, and there is 7 grams of it, as I read the article; in blank runs, there is no powder in the cell. First the chambers are baked and allowed to cool, then D2 gas is introduced. The gas is rapidly absorbed by the powder, the pressure in the cell remains low, but temperature rises rapidly. This is a chemical or mechanical effect, it happens with hydrogen. However, it is what happens next that is of interest. The pressure in the cell begins to rise, as the temperature falls. With deuterium, long after one would expect the cell to have come down to room temperature, Tin remains hotter than the outer chamber, which shows steady heat production in the cell, and Ts remains above room temperature. Chemical? Doesn't happen with hydrogen, happens with deuterium. Then come the tests for helium. Arata claims no helium is detected with hydrogen gas, no helium with an empty cell with deuterium, helium is detected, however, with the palladium alloy and deuterium gas. Generally, critics of these experiments assert that the helium must be coming from ambient abundance or contamination of the equipment. If so, why not with one of the controls? Arata filters the deuterium with a palladium filter which he claims will filter out helium. (I presume he does the same with hyrdrogen gas). He does not detect any helium when he uses hydrogen gas, indicating that the helium is not a contaminant in the powder. The chemical/mechanical heating in the initial phase happens with hydrogen as well as helium, but when the cell is saturated and pressure rises, Tin returns rapidly to Ts. The charts in the NET article go out to 3000 minutes; the temperature difference with deuterium is maintained that far out.
 * The experimental design is simple but clear. Heat is being generated in the cell, anomalously. As we see with hydrogen, there is heat evolved from the deuterium getting tight with the palladium. But with hydrogen, same initial evolution of heat, but that heat stops, there isn't a trace of heat generation, that I can see, by 50 minutes. It's sustained with deuterium. "At 300 minutes, the deuterium experiments are 4 degrees [and 7 degrees higher than room temperature, and the hydrogen experiment is 1 degree higher than room temperature. He has adjusted the time scale to begin with the onset of the "Skirt-Fusion Zone."" (those figures refer to Tin; Ts is at a lower temperature, between room temperature and Ts; with hydrogen, Tin and Ts are the same long before 300 minutes). In the experiments where heat is generated, helium is found.
 * Let's see, heat generation with deuterium, not with hydrogen, helium found with deuterium/palladium alloy, and not with hydrogen or deuterium with no palladium alloy, okay, what's the "alternate conventional explanation"? I'm not saying there isn't one, but only because there are more things under heaven and on earth than I have ever dreamed of. This is a far simpler experiment than the complex calorimetry involved with the original Pons and Fleischmann work. Because energy input is limited to the provision of gas, which flow stops early on, there aren't all the complications of looking for what is usually a needle in a haystack: the anomalous heat compared to all the energy that was dumped in to load the palladium rods with deuterium, sometimes over months.
 * By the way, there are no allegations flying about of fraud with any of this work; sometimes editors coming upon this, knowing that cold fusion is considered a fringe science, might think, well, that's what they say, but how do we know they are telling the truth, you know, those cold fusion fanatics will do anything to get attention. No, cold fusion research is being carried out by serious research groups around the world. Though Arata's work isn't yet accepted as conclusive, it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal in Japan. As Shanahan says, there may be some conventional explanation, but, just as with Iwamura's transmutation work, nobody suspects fraud; the holy grail for all these scientists is reproducibility, and it's awfully hard to get that with fraud.
 * I intend to look for references to Arata's work. Our article mentions the work, I think, in the phrase "deuterium gas loading onto Pd powders under pressure."


 * Comments - Protium is NOT a control for deuterium and vice versa.   A) The heat of formation for the relevant metal hydride is different for H and D. B) The equilibrium P-c-T conditions are different. C) The thermal conductivities are different.  As well, thermal conductivity between sample particles will be different for different materials and possibly even for the same material at different stages of the experimentation due to accumulated effects related to activation processes and differential swelling coupled with initial packing density.


 * All the results shown could be attributed to these factors. The T difference between the Tin and Ts are explainable in terms of standard concepts such as these, thus the paper needs to explain this, but I saw no indication in the Japanese paper of this via equations, figures, etc.  Perhaps they did so in words only, but if so, I suspect it would be just a hand-waving comment, and not a real investigation of the potential problems.


 * Note that this does allow for an actual delta T to be present which could be used to drive a Stirling engine I suppose, but the source of the delta T is likely conventional, not nuclear. We can’t tell from this work.


 * Demonstrations (also known as ‘dog and pony shows’) rarely prove scientific points. And no one would accept it in this case anyway (unless they were predisposed to do so because of their personal beliefs) because this is no different than a standard perpetual motion machine demonstration.  The only way that or the Ararta demonstration would be considered real is if it could be shown no ‘tricks’ (like I describe above) were involved.  No such studies are yet available.


 * By the way, was it you that said the only options were that it was true or there was fraud present? Whomever, they missed the other option - incompetence.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Fleischmann 2002 reference
Just noting that this reference was removed from the article, in case editors may find it useful either in developing this page or related pages:
 * ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit was by JzG, the summary was: (This is not the context for which this whitelist request was granted. The site is known to be relibale. There is no evidence this is significant in this context.)


 * The whitelist request was for Martin Fleischmann. Now, is a granted whitelist request an approval of the specific usage? While it may be evidence of some legitimacy, it doesn't substitute for editorial consensus at the article itself. However, once it is whitelisted, it may be used elsewhere, the whitelisting still stands as some kind of general acceptance of legitimacy of the link, but obviously not of the usage in any particular article. Links to lenr-canr.org that existed prior to December 18 were removed by JzG without discussion, on that date, and then the site was blacklisted so that nobody could revert them back in. From his history, JzG will come up with reason after reason why his actions are justified, when they are challenged. "No evidence that this is significant in this context" is a new one. But the default here would be that there is significance, because of standing history. The paper has been listed here as part of the Bibliography for a long time. If it's necessary, I'll detail the exact history.


 * Nevertheless, the argument deserves response; however, because of the history, I'm reverting pending consensus. Editors should not remove long-standing accepted parts of this article, in the presence of objection, without discussion first. Again, from history, JzG is reacting to the use of a lenr-canr.org link, done here for convenience only. However, if he can't prevent the use of the link, his arguments on that not surviving careful examination, he will then go after the original paper, but the goal is clearly to prevent links to that web site. I wouldn't be saying this if not for long and deep study of JzG's involvement with this and related articles. He's quite welcome to discuss changes, but asserting them through reverts and removals without discussion, no. It's been tolerated too long.


 * Removal December 18, (Unlinking a polemical site inappropriate for references (and in some cases hosting copyright material in violation of copyright))
 * "polemical" was found irrelevant in discussion (unless there is a more neutral site available for use).
 * "inappropriate for references" was a red herring. The reference is the Tsinghua University publication, the site is merely used for a convenience copy.
 * "hosting copyright material" has been a constant refrain from JzG, but no actual violation has ever been shown. Other experienced editors have reviewed this and it's been pointed out that lenr-canr.org is highly visible in the field. Search for a paper hosted there and it is often the first hit from Google. The reason behind the allegation is an assumption by JzG that Elsevier, for example, never grants permission. However, Elsevier are known to be vigorous in copyright enforcement, and the fact that lenr-canr.org is still functioning, having hosted these documents for years, is strong prima facie evidence that they do, as they claim, have permission from authors and publishers. They have a bibliography of perhaps three times as many sources as they host, and many of them are from publishers far less likely to be able to enforce copyright or even to notice a violation, yet they do not host these papers because, they have stated, they have not been able to get permission.


 * I will return to discuss the question of substance, after doing some research. --Abd (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There was, in the article, back in December, when the link in question was removed, a reference to quantum electrodynamics vs quantum mechanics. This is actually a very important issue: the simpler quantum mechanics is an approximation that is useful in dealing with nuclear physics, but complex systems as exist in the condensed matter state are not accurately represented by it. The paper involved here is one where Fleischmann outlines the history of his investigation. It's worth reading. They were not just sitting around thinking, "Gee, I wonder what would happen if we electrolyze heavy water with a palladium electrode." They were not ignorant of the theoretical problems involved in the idea of cold fusion. They were looking for it based on a possibly more sophisticated analysis. They knew it was a long shot, that the more complex system would not necessarily show fusion, but they did consider it enough of a possibility to put years of work into it, funding it themselves. In any case, I have added this text back in, and have referenced it to the paper in question, which is an appropriate source since this is Fleischmann himself talking about what they were looking for and why. --Abd (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Abd! The reason for the whitelisting is irrelevant to our collective editorial decision as to whether to include the link on this page. Even if there were a valid reason not to include the link, that would be irrelevant to the question of whether to include the citation.  Your edit is a reasonable one based on that source in my opinion and is relevant to this article, which addresses JzG's reason for deleting the citation.  Information about their reasoning as to why they conducted the experiment in the first place seems to me to be of pretty basic importance to coverage of this topic. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conference proceedings are not reliable sources. It should not be included.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conference proceedings may not be reliable sources for scientific facts, but here this is not used to establish scientific facts, but to establish the motivations i.e. the state of mind of Fleischmann at the time of the original experiment. For that purpose, a published statement by the person themselves is quite adequate; there is no need for peer review for that purpose. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This assertion has been considered in detail elsewhere. The paper was written by Fleischmann and is being used as a source for what he and Pons thought. It is generally confirmed by other sources, but they are derivative from him. We can use additional sources if needed. Kirk, conference proceedings can be reliable sources under some conditions. This appears to be one of them. Conference proceedings are similar to self-published material; such material can be used when the author is notable, writing on a topic covered by his or her expertise. --Abd (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One more point. Elsewhere, Kirk, don't you decry "wikilawyering"? Could you see that your objection could look like wikilawyering? Is there a problem with the absolute reliability of the text asserted on the basis of this source? Is this information valuable to the reader? Is it misleading? If so, how? Is there some misstatement about the relationship between quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics? That would be on point, in fact, but "wikilawyering" is taking a general rule and implying that it controls the situation, instead of dealing with the substance, the very purpose of the project. --Abd (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:Martin_Fleischmann. That page is where there was very detailed examination of the reference and the link; nothing new, really, has been raised here. The only two edits JzG made in the last two days were removals of the whitelisted lenr-canr.org link from this article and the biography, using reverts without discussion or attempt to reach consensus, just the repetition of old arguments. --Abd (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the edit was appropriate, the correct way to make changes is WP:BRD. Had this model been followed, discussion should occur prior to remaking the same edit over an objection- there's no such page as WP:BRRD.
 * Secondly, in both of the above cases User:Abd seems to be arguing about the editor rather than the page. Allegations of bad faith for JzG, immediate accusation that Kirk was wikilawyering- neither of these things are appropriate for this venue.
 * Finally, a claim made in 2002 does not belong at the location that you placed it chronologically. As evidence that he held these opinions back in 1989, it is inadequate.  why didn't he publish or mention this in 1989?  Or the 1990s?  A 13 year backdated rationale is not convincing. --Noren (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Noren and Abd got my point, although they don't seem to realize why I was making it. When I attempted to discuss the likelihood of 'heavy metal transmutation' being due to contamination concentration and attempted to support the position by referencing a Web page by Scott Little, I was lambasted by Pcarbon on the point that Little was not an 'expert'.  When I pointed out that he had a publication in the field (enough to qualify him as an expert, given his other work), I was told that since the publication was in a Proceedings, it didn't count.  There's an old saying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  I find Wiki to be extremely inconsistent in its application of policy, and I find the Wiki policies inadequate in this controversy.  Bottom line is no proceedings I believe.
 * With regards to Noren's last point about the timing, I agree and I think I've said that once before. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Noren, I gave the history for a reason. The link was in the article, it wasn't a subject of debate. It was removed without discussion. I have reason to believe that editors tried to revert it then, but it was impossible, because it was immediately blacklisted by the editor who made the edit. I'm not going to go into the implications of that right now, because this is, indeed, not about JzG, but about the text and our immediate process. Properly, the default state here is that the reference is in the article, with the link. However, I didn't assert this link without discussion or warning. I did make the edit about quantum electrodynamics, to be sure. That brings us to the issue about 2002 vs 1989. I'm going to address this with an edit that attributes the claim about the thinking. This would address the substance of your objection, I believe.


 * Kirk, you don't understand the issue. Conference proceedings are similar to self-published papers. They can be used under some circumstances. This paper is Fleischmann describing his thinking in the period leading up to 1989. He's notable. He's an expert on the topic. It's reliable that he wrote this. I'm sorry that you felt you were "lambasted," but I'm puzzled. You were lambasted? Pcarbonn had no special authority, his argument would stand or not, it was up to the community. There isn't any "policy" on conference proceedings, to my knowledge, but there are notability guidelines and a preference for peer-reviewed publications and against self-published material. Read WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, they apply. A conference proceeding may be a notch up from self-published. I don't think they publish whatever crank paper is submitted (though some might think they do!), but papers are accepted or not, without extensive review. --Abd (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Something should be clear. The mention of quantum electrodynamical considerations as the basis for the research was in the article when the link was removed without discussion. What I've done is only to restore, roughly, what was there, and a link that was used. I have now addressed the issue of anachronism, but, please consider this: any reference about what they were doing when they discovered the effect is going to be retrospective. It wasn't published, at all, prior to 1989, it was, after all, secret, and this is describing what they had been doing for years at that time. This is an important piece of information about the history. It's now attributed, with a date. The removal of the paper from the bibliography has not been justified by Noren, he simply did it. That's reversion without discussion, based only on a technical claim that somehow I was wrong to put it back in, without giving any reason but process, I.e., supposedly I should have discussed it. But I did discuss it. Too much, some would say! I restored what was there before Noren's edits, addressing the objection about "anachronism." If it can be improved, please improve it. I think there may be other earlier sources on this, if people are offended by the delay, Fleischmann has written about this in more than one paper, but this was the most complete discussion of it I've seen. --Abd (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 13 years after the fact? C'mon Abd.  There are RS for their thinking at the time, they don't get to come back 13 years later, after all sorts of speculative rationales have been offered by others (not to mention their own rationales from 1989 which did NOT mention this later one (correct me if I'm wrong)), and claim that this was their thinking.  It's putting Fleischmann's later spin into what should be a strictly factual article, not to mention giving lots of weight in the wrong place.   3 editors have now removed it, so I'm pretty sure there isn't consensus for inclusion. Phil153 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There also is not consensus for exclusion, Phil. What it will take, perhaps, is detailed discussion and examination of each point, and possibly involving neutral editors. I don't see the description of their thinking as anything like what you are asserting, it's not spin, it is a simple and reasonable explanation of what they had in mind, and it isn't contradicted by the earlier sources. This should be a "purely factual article?" So what someone was looking for when they found something isn't in the realm of fact? Sure, we need testimony to establish it, but motivation is a fact established all the time in the legal system. What starts it is a legal principle: testimony is presumed true unless controverted. It is a fact that Fleischmann, in 2002, explained why they thought fusion might be possible. It's not speculation. Sure, maybe he made it up. But why? I don't see any motivation.
 * Phil, you assert, in your revert, that "there is already RS for what they thought." There is RS for some of what they thought, and what was in the article is far less informative, it makes it look like they were merely asserting some kind of pressure effect, which is highly unlikely to be the whole story. The 2002 explanation makes sense of it. It does not contradict it. And Fleischmann speaks to this point, exactly. You removed a verifiable fact from the article, Phil. Not good. The fact is "As reported by Fleischmann in 2002, ...." Do you deny this? How is it undue weight? It's not anachronistic, it's an attributed assertion about what preceded the research. So ... we get to examine this one in detail, apparently. Meanwhile, *what does this have to do with the removal of the paper from the bibliography?* It was there. Phil, you did not just remove the part about the prior thinking, you did a revert of the whole edit. --Abd (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The source (a conference proceeding), was there to support the text you added, and you put it in during the same edit, so I was indeed only removing the part about the prior thinking. You other points have been covered by myself and others.  From your text below and this edit that established a long standing version, Paul V. Keller seems to agree that this doesn't belong either.  That's 4 that don't think it or the source belongs in the article Phil153 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) More of the history. This is the edit that removed the mention of quantum electrodynamics. There had been a discussion in Talk. Shanahan suggested language which is fairly close to what I've put in. Keller wrote, ''Dr. Shanahan is right that Fleischmann and Pons statement as to motivation made in 1989 is more reliable that the one Fleischmann gave 14 years later, particularly as their original hypothesis was proven wrong in the intervening period. I have made changes accordingly and attempted to improve the experimental description while I was at it. ~Paul V. Keller 02:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)''

What the article now has may be a combination of both reports. I haven't seen Legget. I'm a bit puzzled by "their original hypothesis was proven wrong in the intervening period." What hypothesis? The hypothesis mentioned in the present text hasn't been proven wrong. It's still controversial, to my knowledge. The only measure we have of any reliability as to current scientific consensus is the 2004 DOE report, which asserts no such "proof," it merely reports that low-energy nuclear reaction of the kind under consideration had not been "conclusively demonstrated." One reviewer thought it had. The general hypothesis reported here is of the nature of a hunch, that something might be different in the lattice than in a plasma. That, actually, isn't controversial, what remains controversial is the hypothesis that it is different enough to allow fusion. --Abd (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the subtlety of Keller's point, which may be because you haven't read their statements in 1989. It's worth having a look at them and comparing to the later postdated rationales offered. Phil153 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The paper is at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf
 * It says very little about the theoretical background to their work. The paper from 2002 gives far more detail, detail which does not contradict what was said in 1989. For reference, the 2002 paper is at . The considerations about quantum electrodynamics provided a general background, against which they then considered the specific case of deuterium in palladium, which is what they mention in the 1989 paper. The specific does not contradict the general. --Abd (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil, the "Early Work" section clearly indicates that claims involving unusual events in deuterium-saturated palladium long-precede the P&F experiments. It is perfectly reasonable for people knowledgeable in their field, with better measuring equipment at their disposal, to seek to investigate such claims.  Sure, "fusion" had been mentioned before, and chemists who perhaps were not well-informed about nuclear physics might mistakenly think about interesting possibilities --but the  measurements  were what needed to be done before any such old claims could be taken seriously.  And they did indeed have better equipment available.  Do you have a problem with this description of P&F's rationale? V (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for other references on this topic of Fleischmann and what he was looking for when he found what he believed was cold fusion. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf

In this paper presented at ICCF12, 2003, Fleischmann is even more specific. In the 1960s we started a series of research projects aimed at answering the Question, "Can we find illustrations in Chemistry (especially in Electrochemistry) of the need to invoke the Q.E.D. paradigm to explain the results obtained?" His continued discussion shows that the work he was doing was fundamental research, it was not aimed at finding cold fusion. It was aimed at discovering if Q.E.D., or field dynamics was needed to explain results in chemistry. Now, from my non-expert position, it would be surprising if it were not necessary to explain, at least, some minor effects, shifts in predicted values, etc. The question, really, is how significant the effects of the condensed matter state are, not whether there are any effects. (As an example, the Mossbauer effect exemplifies a change in nuclear behavior due to the nucleus being embedded in a crystal. To be sure, this involves lower energies and not nuclear transformations other than excitation/de-excitation). That this is the work Fleischmann was doing is plausible, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, should be accepted as his description without being impeached by claims of "spin" or distortion. Because of the lapse of time, certainly, attribution is appropriate; but this statement, if made in the 1989 article, would simply have added to the controversy without improving the basic experimental science. In the 1989 paper, his overall research project wasn't relevant and he deliberately avoided publicising it. There may be earlier work consistent with this claim. My the way, Shanahan might be gratified to notice that in this paper Fleischmann notes the problems involved in calibration of calorimeters when there is unequal distribution of heat generation, thus Fleischmann refers to the need for controls as distinct from simply measuring alleged anomalous heat. --Abd (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Abd, I think you posted something somewhere around here about P&F detecting a small amount of excess heat when ordinary hydrogen was used, proportionate to the natural occurrance of deuterium. If so, this would be about 1/6500 the amount of heat in a pure-heavy-water experiment.  If accurate, this is bad news for Shanahan, two ways.  First, A control experiment with ordinary water would be generating hydrogen and oxygen at the same rate as the heavy-water experiment.  If CCS occurs for heavy water, with the two elements recombining, why doesn't the same amount of recombination and "error" show up in the plain-water experiment, after the same number of hours of run-time?  Second, if the calorimeter is accurate such that 1/6500 amount of heat could still be detected in the control experiment, what is the basis for assuming it is not accurate when 6500 times as much deuterium is present?  Suppose heavy water was mixed with ordinary water so that, in different control experiments the proportion was 1/2000, 1/600/ 1/200, 1/60, 1/20, 1/6 and 1/2?  The calorimeter should detect proportionate increases (approximate triplings) in excess heat in each control, right?  Such a sequence of experiments/measurements would totally demolish the CCS hypothesis. V (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Process note: I am holding firmly to an assumption that Shanahan, as an expert and a professional, will be totally pleased if research shows that his hypothesis was incorrect, just as a doctor would be pleased to find that his diagnosis of a particular disorder was wrong and the patient was healthy or at least not as seriously ill as thought because a hypothesis about the disorder turned out to be wrong. Shanahan's criticism appears to be cogent, when applied simply to calorimetry alone, and Fleischmann, as I note elsewhere, has alluded to the problem if not to Shanahan's work directly. It's my view that inadequate attention has been paid to controlled experiments, and in particular to control with hydrogen vs. deuterium. It's relatively easy to dismiss a conclusion based on a very complex procedure, calorimetry, alone. However, correlation with He4 production makes such evidence stronger; the use of controls adds, again, far more weight. It's still possible to assert that the subtle differences that exist between water and heavy water are responsible; but when Arata analyzes the gas in his gas-pressurized nanoparticle palladium, finds heat only with deuterium, not with hydrogen, variation in heat with differing alloys, no heat with an empty cell, and then, again, finds excess helium only in the cells with deuterium and heat generation.... this starts to become very, very serious replication and evidence. The "replication," here, isn't of electrolytical results, which are complex and difficult to reproduce, and exactly composition of the palladium electrodes turns out to be critical, but of loading palladium with deuterium and getting heat. And nuclear ash. I need to read the reports again, but my impression is that the negative reviewers in the 2004 DOE review did not pay sufficient attention to the range of verifications, and, indeed, seem to have considered that a negative: there were so many different kinds of demonstrations of experiments where the signature of nuclear reactions was claimed to be strong that the reviewers felt that no single one of them was "convincing."
 * I'd say that what is out there now, and with the ongoing work taking place around the world, we will know much more clearly how the scientific world is reacting to the more recent work and analysis, within a few years. Meanwhile, we have article decisions to make, here, let's make them carefully and with full respect to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and not according to some POV, pro or con. My objection here has been to a contingent of editors who clearly assume that cold fusion is dead, rejected, only being pursued by fanatics and con artists and "kooks," and who have been willing to edit war to make sure that the article presents cold fusion in that way. And on the other side are those who would take the article too far in the other direction. Definitely the field has attracted some con artists, but ... that doesn't make it dead, only a little more confusing. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

1998. Fleischmann paper on a similar theme: the breakdown of quantum mechanics in describing a condensed matter system. --Abd (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

book slightly earlier than the 2002 paper which describes the goal of their research. It describes the "hidden agenda" very explicitly. The research was thus into fundamental physics, actually. They were not looking for "free energy." I'm finding this fascinating. --Abd (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In 2000, a Fleischmann article was published in Accountability in Research. Here is a copy. . This paper explores in detail the theoretical underpinnings of the work, specifically the inadequacy of classical quantum mechanics in describing the condenses matter state. It's quite clear that this is a deep and long-term interest of his. --Abd (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Phil153, you said, "There are RS for their thinking at the time"; would you please be more specific about what's available along those lines?
 * It would be really good if we had secondary sources commenting on the Fleischmann 2002 ref in terms of Fleischmann's thinking.
 * I prefer presenting together all the POVs about his thinking at the time. We can say something like "Fleischmann stated later that at this time he had been..."; that's a fact: he did in fact state that later, and that's consistent with WP:ASF: state facts about opinions. However, putting his 2002 publication later in the article is not unreasonable as well.
 * By the way, I'd just like to take this opportunity to talk about why I'm editing this page. I had heard about cold fusion on the news years ago and not thought about it much at all since then.  Then I saw that there was contention (e.g. an Arbitration case) so I started to notice this page and have started learning a tiny bit about cold fusion, and find it interesting.  I tend to lean towards inclusionism:  I myself would like to see more information on Wikipedia about cold fusion&mdash;I wish those subpages hadn't been deleted so I could read them and learn some things&mdash;and I imagine there are probably other readers like me who would also like to see more material. I think readers will be interested to read Fleischmann's paper, and that if it's not included as a reference it would be good to put it as an external link or listed as "further reading".  I want to see lots of facts included here: not just selected facts, but many facts, organized e.g. with subpages so that readers aren't overwhelmed.  There are all sorts of questions: how are the calorimeters calibrated? What size is the apparatus? What sorts of time periods are involved? How does the excess heat compare to the total energy put in as electricity? etc. that I don't think are answered in this article.   I realize there are others who lean towards deletionism and think it's better to have a short, simple article that many readers will want to read all of; using subpages is a way to satisfy both. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC News article on ACS cold fusion session.


Cold fusion, first announced 20 years ago on Monday, was claimed to be a boundless source of clean energy by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons.

Fleischmann and Pons announced a set of experimental results, on a topic that many considered could possibly imply a revolution in energy generation. However, Fleischmann himself was working on basic theoretical issues having to do with the relationship between quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics, and research into the possibility of deuterium fusion in a palladium lattice was really just an example that took over. What F and P actually claimed was generation of anomalous heat and detection of neutrons. If I've got it right, the hype was generated by the media. I just noticed that we don't seem to have any citation of the original articles on the announcement, an oversight, I'm sure.

Look at, the report May 3, 1989, about the famous disparagement of Fleischmann's work at the American Physical Society meeting. Fleischmann and Pons are described as having claimed "nuclear fusion in a jar of water at room temperature." That was, itself, misleading. "Jar of water?" No, in a palladium lattice loaded with deuterium gas at very high effective pressure, roughly as high as the deuterium would be if it were a solid (which doesn't happen except at very high pressures or very low temperatures). But presenting it as a "jar of water" makes it sound kooky, and this was quite typical as the rejection mounted. This article does mention "Hopes that a new kind of nuclear fusion might give the world an unlimited source of cheap energy." However, that's not attributed to anyone.

Attempts to replicate their experiments failed, but a number of researchers insist that cold fusion is possible.

An example of how to mislead with truth: just tell part of it, implying what is false. Sure, "attempts failed." Many attempts failed, some reported, some not, I'm sure. However, when one is dealing with an effect that, it ought to have been recognized from the beginning, must be rare and unusual, requiring special conditions, or else it would have been discovered before, it might not be just a matter of that jar of water. It might not even be a matter of doing electrolysis using a palladium cathode in heavy water. And, indeed, it wasn't. Elsewhere on this page I point to the Bayesian analysis of a set of failed and successful attempts to replicate the anomalous heat effect, presented in 2008 at ICCF14. The failed experiments did not follow Fleischmann's protocol, which hadn't been published yet, and, even later, attempts to reproduce often varied the experimental conditions in ways that turn out to have a predictable effect: no heat. The paper is worth reading. I've seen a list of successful reproductions of the anomalous heat effect, published in peer-reviewed journals. 153 papers. Many more presented at conferences. So, yes, attempts failed, but, once it was understood how to do it, most efforts succeeded, the replication rate has become high.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf

Look at Table 2 on p. 4. Bayesian criteria were developed to test protocol compliance. I won't deal with the details of this kind of analysis, but it's cogent (and there is also a potential problem, though it looks to me like it doesn't apply here).

And, yes, a number of researchers insist that it's possible. Is it just "a number of researchers," and are they basing that on theory, after all, according to the implication of the first phrase, they haven't actually replicated the experiment? So what the article presents is a picture of isolated theorists hanging on to a failed experiment that nobody could reproduce. Way to go, BBC.

But then they do a little better:

''The American Chemical Society has organised sessions surrounding the research at its meetings before, suggesting that the field would otherwise have no suitable forum for debate. In a bid to avoid the negative connotations of a largely discredited approach, research in the field now appears under the umbrella of "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR. Gopal Coimbatore, ACS program chair for an LENR session at the 2007 national meeting, said that "with the world facing an energy crisis, it is worth exploring all possibilities". Who'' suggested? Who taught the reporter how to write? Lost performative, a debate trick, in fact. It's a way to make a suggestion while not taking responsibility for it.

Question: Does Gopal Coimbatore think that cold fusion is a possibility? The statement implies it.

As to "avoid," this is about motivation. Okay, who is motivated? The fact is that there is no settled explanation of the excess heat. Maybe it isn't fusion, maybe it's something else, but this is what we know from the 2004 DOE review: The reviewers were evenly split on the question of excess heat, half of them finding evidence for it "compelling." Okay, 18 reviewers, so, roughly, 9 found evidence for excess heat compelling, 9 were not convinced. Then they state that "Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced." I really should do a summary of the actual reviews, which are available on newenergytimes.com, but if we have six reviewers at least "somewhat convinced" that LENR is real, and if we assume that the more dedicated skeptics also don't accept the excess heat, we'd have two-thirds of those who accept excess heat being somewhat convinced, at least, that the origin is nuclear.

And they seem to have universally agreed that further research was called for, and claims here that this was just bureaucratic boilerplate are not supported by looking at the actual reviews. It was an active recommendation by the reviewers.

There were early critiques of the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, and it's accepted, I think, that they were wrong about the neutrons (though neutrons are reported using other techniques in later experiments; I think at lower levels). However, the critiques that were most broadly accepted and considered convincing about experimental failure, turned out to be flawed themselves, and the Fleischmann report of excess heat hasn't been, according to a number of neutral sources, successfully impeached. But those who, for understandable theoretical reasons, strongly against the very idea of LENR, are quite likely to look at excess heat with a jaundiced eye. I really should do that review of the reviewer reports. There is nothing wrong with skepticism, and nothing wrong with pointing out possible sources of experimental error. But there is something wrong with widespread assumptions that, because someone has pointed out a possible error, an experiment has therefore been impeached. Some of the early replications, by the way, were also in error.

Frank Close, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Oxford, says that the far greater problem with cold fusion claims is that results from any given study have never been independently verified - a problem that plagued that first announcement.

Again, it's highly misleading. This is appeal to authority, and what's the authority? A professor of theoretical physics, a field which Fleischmann was directly challenging with his research program, I imagine the reporter called him up, having no clue about the issues. Was it about turf, chemistry vs. physics? No, it was actually about physics: quantum mechanics, an approximation, vs. the more accurate model, quantum electrodynamics. QM is much simpler to apply; Fleischmann theorized that in condensed matter, it is sometimes necessary to use the more sophisticated -- and mathematically difficult -- quantum electrodynamics. He was looking for examples of situations where QM would be inadequate to explain what is observed by experiment. He didn't expect, he reported later, to find fusion, he thought it was a long shot. Specifically, he thought that fusion would occur, but the reaction rate would be too low to detect. Still, any finding of fusion would be of high interest. He was not trying to fix the energy crisis. He would have been quite happy with a barely detectable rate, not usable for energy generation, like the cold muon-catalyzed fusion that is known to work. He got more than he expected.

There are lots of unverified studies, which is partly a consequence of the funding problem and the general rejection problem. However, there are also verifications. For example, deuterium loading into palladium black has been verified to generate the effects. The SPAWAR codeposition work has been verified. How much of this verification has been published in peer-reviewed journals? Some of it. In a sense, any work with condensed matter showing low-energy nuclear reactions is a kind of verification, though, obviously, specific experiment verifications are quite desirable. The BBC did a terrible job with this article, basically the reporter should have known that the field was controversial, and taken care to check out the nature of the controversy, avoiding reporting only one side of it. We can do better, can't we? Using reliable sources and reviews, with balance.

Close's dismissive comments were more extensively reported. Why Close? Okay, pick a random "theoretical physicist." Remember, there is no accepted theory to explain cold fusion. What's this random physicist going to think? Likely, he knows little or nothing about the field beyond what was widely reported in 1989, and his entire training for his entire career has implied that it's impossible, though theory doesn't actually show cold fusion as being impossible -- and we know of an example of it that is accepted. The people to ask would be scientists who have actually studied the field, and there are plenty of them. In China, papers on cold fusion are being published in peer-reviewed journals by experts on hot fusion. The barriers apparently aren't as strong there.

It's a good example of pathological science, all right, it's actually a very, very old problem, where theory trumps experiment. It's quite a story to be told, we have reliable sources on it, and we should be telling it, now that there is some hope that the "fringe wars" are over. Let's get to work! --Abd (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But there is a theory, called quantum mechanics, that has proven itself that rules out cold fusion under the standard circumstances (i.e. deuterium in palladium). Despite the fact that we cannot exactly "solve" a many body problem in quantum mechanics, we can still make estimates and see if there is room for an enhanced fusion rate. Even at this very qualitative level of looking at the problem, one can easily see that it cannot happen.


 * You have mentioned Mossbauer effect earlier, but this is actually somehing that is easily explained theoretically. It is closely related to the so-called Debye Waller factor see e.g. here that gives the probability of recoilless scattering. In fact Debye and Waller had already more or less arrived this result before quantum mechanics was properly formulated in the 1920s.


 * Superconductivity is another triumph of theoretical physics that involves subtle effects in a many body system. Now, high temperature superconductivity has not been explained yet, but theoretically it is not a problem to imagine at the qualitative level how you can have supercoductivity at liquid nitrogen temperatures. Indeed, there are models which are not very inaccurate which predict superconductivity at temperatures of 1000 K. Of course these models are not good models to describe superconductivity, but a priori such models do not make outrageous assumptions.


 * The problem with cold fusion is that you cannot get there, even when making mildly unrealistic assumptions. Count Iblis (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Count Iblis, are you  sure  about that last statement? http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.2411.pdf  V (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, did you read the paper cited in the section above, Talk:Cold_fusion? Have you read Fleischmann's papers on what he was looking for? Hint: it was not cold fusion, as such, that was just a possible example. He was, he's reported numerous times, pursuing the difference between quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics or quantum field theory. Quantum mechanics has indeed proved itself as an approximation. If you have the scientific muscle to examine the theory paper critically, by all means, do so. Now, as to the claim of "cannot get there," this certainly is commonly said, and it is obviously false. You can get there with muons. What other situations are possible? How would you know?

And one more point. The first and most basic issue with cold fusion is whether or not reports of excess heat are correct. Is there excess heat? Then we can look at reports of radiation, say, or other nuclear ash. Then we can look at reports that correlate the two. Is it fusion? How would we know? Maybe it's something else, and that's the point that Krivit is making as described by V in the section above.

Fleischmann-Pons effect
This article focuses on "cold fusion." Low-temperature nuclear reactions, of which fusion is a theoretical example, are a hypothesis proposed to explain the Fleischmann-Pons effect. That's a redirect to this article (I created it). However, what's the "Fleischmann-Pons effect." What is the scientific consensus regarding it?

There are many more scientists who think the effect is real than think that it is caused by fusion.

There is a review paper that was presented at ICCF-14 (2008), http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf

Abstract:
 * One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of “excess heat” is a real physical effect “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

From the paper:


 * In August 1989 Nathan Lewis’ group from Caltech published a negative paper Searches for

Low-temperature nuclear fusion of deuterium in palladium [10] in the mainstream science journal, Nature. In November 1989, D.E. Williams’ group at Harwell Laboratory published a negative paper Upper bounds on cold fusion in electrolytic cells [15] in Nature. Mainstream science writers and patent agents have referred to these papers for years when seeking to deny scientific legitimacy or patent protection for CMNS researchers. The failed papers have made a lasting impression since Nature refuses to publish more recent experimental results. The editors consider the matter settled: the Fleischmann-Pons Effect is not real.


 * By the time the Caltech and Harwell experiments were conducted, a few of the required

experimental factors were known from the Kainthla and Fleischmann-Pons papers. The lead investigators chose to follow their own protocol resulting in two failed experiments and a negative image for CMNS.

The 2004 DOE review reports this:


 * Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no

convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic. Those reviewers who accepted the production of excess power typically suggest that the effect seen often, and under some understood conditions, is compelling. The reviewers who did not find the production of excess power convincing cite a number of issues including: excess power in the short term is not the same as net energy production over the entire of time of an experiment; all possible chemical and solid state causes of excess heat have not been investigated and eliminated as an explanation; and production of power over a period of time is a few percent of the external power applied and hence calibration and systematic effects could account for the purported net effect. Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.


 * Glass half-empty or half-full. There are editors who have been working on this article for a long time who treat cold fusion as something that was "disproven," an example of "pathological science." However, back away from that. Is the Fleischmann-Pons effect real, never mind what is causing it? I'm thinking that the "effect" refers to the production of heat due to the loading of palladium to high density with deuterium. There are quite a few different approaches to this that have been tried; not only the electrochemical approach of F & P, but the direct gas loading of a powdered palladium alloy with deuterium, no electrolysis involved, hence no large input of power (to electrolyze the deuterium), with sustained heat generation being shown (Arata's work).


 * Given the extensive bias against cold fusion that developed after 1989, which is well-documented, that half the eighteen reviewers in 2004 considered the F-P effect to be real is quite striking; it indicates to me that if not for the bias, that would probably have been a supermajority. (I haven't looked at the individual reviews, "half" might indeed mean 9 vs. 9.)


 * In any case, there is continual appearance of publication in reliable sources on this topic. Back to the purpose of this section: I think we need a section of this article, or an article, that focuses on the F-P effect itself, rather than on the hypotheses about it.


 * Then there is the interesting question of correlation of other experimental results with the F-P effect. Apparently, there are extensive reports of He4 generation correlated with excess heat. I.e., series of experiments is run. Some show excess heat, some do not, for, perhaps, reasons unknown. But helium is detected above background in the experiments where heat is found, not in those where it is not. Arata runs experiment with deuterium. Heat generation clear (Arata doesn't depend on calorimetry, his work is much simpler), helium detected well above background. Runs experiment with hydrogen. no heat and Helium not found.

This field does not resemble any other "fringe science" I'm aware of. The literature is massive. I've seen a bibliography showing publications in peer-reviewed journals, showing positive excess heat results (i.e, this total excludes negative reports such as the Nature publications that closed that door), with 50 different journals, 153 papers, 348 authors and co-authors, from 62 institutions. The document claims that "there are actually many more institutions involved in cold fusion than this. These numbers are more of an indication of how much peer-reviewed journal editors resist publishing than a comprehensive tally." By comparison, and to explain why the compiler of the bibliography considers that "resistance" may be involved, the lenr-canr.org bibliography shows about 3000 technical papers; but most of them are, I think, conference proceedings and other alternate publications, some of which seem high quality, and some not. --Abd (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The publication patterns in the field of Cold Fusion have a great similarity to the publication patterns of Polywater, including key features described elsewhere as characteristic of failed information epidemics, including the publication of seminal papers followed by rapid growth and then decline of both the numbers of authors of papers and of journal publication frequency.  For a reliable source on the topic, see "Indicators of failed information epidemics in the scientific journal literature: A publication analysis of Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion", E. Ackermann, Scientometrics 66, 451-466 (2006).  --Noren (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Kevin Baas points out the problem with the Polywater analogy, or, what has been more notably asserted, the N ray one. Fifteen years after the N-ray flap, there weren't fifty percent of expert reviewers considering that there was something real being observed. The experiments weren't getting stronger. However, thanks for the source, that's very interesting and may be useful.


 * (list of sources moved to subsection below) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After long review, we've discovered that the acceleration patterns of a cheetah and a car are quite similiar. We conclue, therefore, that a cheetah actually is a car. Kevin Baastalk 13:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "The cheetah has spots! No other cat has spots!  This is clear evidence of my theory that a cheetah is not really a cat!" "Nope, other cats have spots, for example the leopard.  Here's a reliable source to that effect."  "He thinks that a leopard is a cheetah!" --Noren (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, a more proper analogy might have been something like "... since a car has an internal combustion engine, we conclude that so does a cheetah." but i went for simplicity and humor over accuracy.  Looks like it did the trick. Kevin Baastalk 19:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Polywater was (quickly) fringe science. Reproductions were difficult but did take place. Sure, the analogy is a good one, to a point. Beyond that point it fails. Later work with cold fusion improved the reproducibility, and more accurate measurements, more precise conditions, all improved reproducibility and clarity of results.

There is an interesting powerpoint presentation on this at Bad Science, which ends up using Polywater and Cold fusion as poster boys. Page 16 of the presentation shows a chart of publications per year on the topic. Polywater did not get serious notice until 1966-68. It hit Science in 1969. Research publication peaked and fell off, and by 1974, there was very little publication. It is hard to interpret the chart. A similarity is mass media involvement. Our article on Polywater is pretty bad, with little technical detail and without the key references. There was a cogent negative paper by Rousseau, published a year and a half later in Science, which explained the experimental results with reasonable power. Because there remained some possibility of error in the negative results, debate did not immediately cease; our article claims, however, that when glassware was more thoroughly cleaned, the polywater results disappeared. Again, the source of the "effect" was identified with reasonable certainty.

The presentation, however, in examining Cold fusion, starts with the assumption that there are only two pathways to fusion. There are three known and accepted for hot fusion, plus muon-catalyzed fusion which takes place at low temperatures. Slide 31 asserts that neutrons and protons are released in cold fusion. There is some question over neutrons, but protons aren't reported, and neutrons are reported at levels so low that clearly, if what is happening is fusion, it isn't a pathway that normally generates fast neutrons. The author of the presentation has not taken the time to review the actual papers and state of the science, but is relying, apparently, on media presentation (the very thing decried) and superficial review, at best.

Slide 32 is "The Signs of Fusion." It shows Excess Heat, Neutrons, Tritium, Helium-3, and Protons. These are, of course, the characteristics of the predominant reaction pathways in hot fusion. However, there is another pathway that is known and accepted, but in hot fusion, it only occurs in small abundance: Deuterium fusion to Helium-4, with an emitted gamma ray. Cold fusion isn't hot fusion, that ought to be obvious. It might involve the third pathway, usually, but then there is the gamma ray, which is a pure release of energy; it's penetrating radiation. However, if the energy could be, as one example, coupled through some Q.E.D. effect to the crystal, that energy release would become, simply, heat. Good thing, too, or else we'd have been seeing the dead graduate student effect....

The presentation reports the media hysteria, and massive attempts at confirmation based on limited information. Then, however, it reports the Confirmations. Listed there is the Georgia Tech finding of neutrons. That information was released by press conference and retracted several days later as being due to limited information. Some later cold fusion work, with much more cautious work and with more sensitive detectors, have found neutrons, but the Georgia Tech work didn't have excess heat, if I'm correct, and therefore neutrons would not have been expected. Now, why is a simple experimental error included in this presentation? It's pretty obvious: the reviewer is convinced that it was bogus science, and including an experimental error, of a kind that would not ordinarily have attracted any attention, helps make that point. The slide gives six confirmations, the sixth is "Bob's Discount House of Knowledge."

The presentation then reviews the Compton peak problem with Fleischmann's original gamma radiation report (that would have indicated neutrons), and that is an aspect of Fleischmann's work that was never confirmed, I'm not sure how Fleischmann responded, and I'm not aware of other reports of that radiation, so I assume this criticism is cogent.

They note some retractions, and then show the Harwell work, referring to it as "the most extensive set of cold fusion tests in the world." Harwell published in November, 1989. They may indeed have been the most extensive individual set of tests at that time. However, as the analysis mentioned above ( http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf ) shows, and while they may have been "working with advice from Fleischmann," they did not follow the protocol (and to be fair, some aspects of the protocol, necessary conditions for the effect to be seen, may not have been known at that time, the protocol that works only gradually came to be known through many failures and successes). The basic protocol was known, for anyone following work in the field, by the mid-1990s. The Chinese paper mentioned above shows an analysis of something on the order of 10,000 experimental runs, which would be, I'm sure, far more extensive than the Harwell work, and it shows increase in positive results in recent years.

Other negative results are shown, such as failure to detect radiation expected from classical fusion and now known not to be present with the Fleischman-Pons effect, or at least not at levels that would be easily detectable. (There are some cogent and fairly recent claims of neutron detection using methods that are effectively more sensitive, but that's another story.)

Then one of the characteristics of Bad Science is described: researchers working in isolation. That is not the case with cold fusion, witness the regular conferences, plus continued publication, up to the present, in peer-reviewed journals outside the specific "fringe" field, and vast numbers of research reports as conference papers. Some idea of the level of publication is cited above. The reasons for the early negative findings are fairly well established. And then there is the 2004 DOE report, which is, quite simply, inconsistent with this judgment of Bad Science. It shows the existence of a genuine scientific controversy.

The polywater example is, I believe, notable, as is the N ray example, but they should be presented in the History article that I've been proposing, beyond, possibly, a attributed note that Cold fusion has been so compared. The slide show discussed above isn't RS, but it is, for us, a clear example of how misconceptions about this research have been promoted and taught for years. It's not isolated. Cold fusion is Bad Science, end of topic, and, please, don't confuse me with the latest research. --Abd (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

polywater comparison, sources, when, how and why
So we have this source comparing polywater to cold fusion: "Critical Issues in Biomedical Science: A Guide for Biochemistry and Molecular & Cell Biology Graduate", 2002, Leland L. Smith

Comparison also made by: So, multiple independient reliable and non-reliable sources making the same statement, sorry im in a hurry to finish writing this --Enric Naval (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Henry H. Bauer, 2002, Hyle journal,, which gives another source:
 * Rousseau, D.L.: 1992, ‘Cases studies in pathological science’, American Scientist, 80 (January-February), 54-63.
 * Deconstruction and research, Journal of Phase Equilibria and Diffusion, 2005, also puts the two on the same article
 * A newspaper from Seattle, 1989
 * David Goodman, on a mailing list in 1998
 * book that cites Taubes and adds some analysis of its own "Commercializing new technologies", 1997, Harvard Bussiness Press,
 * NY Times?, April 1989
 * The Undergrowth of Science: Deception, Self-Deception and Human Frailty by Walter Gratzer. 2000, Oxford University Press, review
 * Resonance journal?, 2008
 * That's correct, as I mentioned, we have usable sources on this, though they are not generally of the nature of unbiased analyses, so they should be attributed. This is not science, it is notable opinion about science, and should be presented as such. There are also, I believe, apparently neutral sources which report the accusations and analyze them. --Abd (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure enough, those sources describe the same thing:

cold fusion got the denomination of pathological science after being compared to polywater by some guy from Toronto and "(if cold fusion is given the category of scientific death, it) passes into the history of failed scientific claims, and joins N-rays, polywater, and ESP" and compares it with Irving Langmuir's definition of pathological science 'Undead science', Bart Simon, 2002, Rutgers University Press. "For most natural scientists now, the case for cold fusion is closed and the veredict unequivocal: 'pathological science'. Irving Langmuir's space for scientific fantasies was retrieved and put to cartographic use in dennouncing the claim and in castigating its pitchmen, Pons and Fleischmann, as the episode quickly entered the annals of science next to other illusions: N-rays, polywater and martian canals. It was hardly coincidence (...) that Physics Today chose to reprint Langmuir's 1953 talk in its October 1989 issue." (footnote 3 on page 184 gives another 4 books using comparisons from Langmuir, who talked about "sick" science, including N-rays, mitogenetic rays and ESP, before polywater was "discovered") Cultural Boundaries of Science, Thomas F. Gieryn, 1999, University of Chicago Press This book analyzes how rethoric and humor were used to ridiculize cold fusion in "the short history of this controversy" Science, reason, and rhetoric, Henry Krips, J. E. McGuire, Trevor Melia, 1995, Univ of Pittsburgh Press. Entirely discredited, the notion of cold fusion today denotes an infamous episode of sloppy science that chemists, especially, would prefer to forget Draw the lightning down, Michael B. Schiffer, Kacy L. Hollenback, Carrie L. Bell, 2003, University of California Press "A literature review uncovered six distinctive indicators of failed information epidemics in the scientific journal literature: (1) presence of seminal papers(s), (2) rapid growth/decline in author frequency, (3) multi-disciplinary research, (4) epidemic growth/decline in journal publication frequency, (5) predominance of rapid communication journal publications, and (6) increased multi-authorship. These indicators were applied to journal publication data from two known failed information epidemics, Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion." "Indicators of failed information epidemics in the scientific journal literature: A publication analysis of Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion", E. Ackermann, Scientometrics 66, 451-466 (2006)

"'even though its precise physical mechanism is not fully understood at present' such characteristic is typical of another kind of event in science, one which Irving Langmuir accurately described in a classic paper in the 1950's [in reference to the paper coining the term 'pathological science'"


 * (Letter from Piel to Rothwell, page 8 of PDF, 3 December 1991)

"As you suggested, I did look over a number of the offerings at www.lenr-canr.org. Unfortunately, I still don't see evidence in those papers, or in the mainstream physics literature, that LENR-CANR has achieved any significantly new level of credibility in the eyes of the general physics community. The site does point to a large number of publications that ostensibly offer evidence of the phenomenon, but sheer numbers of papers is not sufficiently compelling-- as I'm sure you know, even the creationists can point to thousands of "publications" and "scientists" seemingly supporting their position."


 * (letter from Rennie to Storms, page 4 of pdf, 25 April 2003)

"I notice that although you called Jonathan Piel's decision 'a catastrophic misjudgment' almost a dozen [years] ago, the scientific mainstream would still side with him. Not bad as catastrophes go. (...) it does you no good to curse Scientific American because the people you need to convince about the scientific credibility of cold fusion aren't journalists. They're professional physicists who review submissions for respectable technical journals. If you can convince mainstream scientists that LENR-CANR is real and significant, magazines like Scientific American will drop into line."


 * (letter from Rennie to Storms, page 10 of pdf, 21 May 2003)

"If so much of the scientific community outside the U.S. and U.K. is supportive of LENR-CANR, it hardly seems necessary for you to try so hard to enlist Scientific American to publicize your cause. It is odd, though, that although we have editions and well-respected scientific contacts all around the world, I have never heard any of them request an article making the case for the phenomenon."

"(...) The editors of Scientific American were right to be skeptical about such poorly documented claims at the time [the distances covered by Wright brothers in their flights, not about whether they actually flew!], just as its editors today are right to be skeptical of mountains of cold fusion "evidence" that somehow fail to convince most physicists that the phenomenon is real and significant."


 * (letter from Renie to Rothwell, page 13 of pdf, undated, probably 21-22 May 2003)

"The first one is apparently a misconception about how scientific method works. You are claiming that unless we (or, more properly, mainstream physicists) establish a technical basis for disbelieving claims of LENR-CANR, we have no basis for dismissing it. But it is not up to mainstream physicists to disprove LENR-CANR; it is up to LENR-CANR's physicists to come up with convincing proofs. The burden of evidence is on those who wish to establish a new proposition."

"(...) We don't claim to be authorities on physics or any other discipline (for all that there is quite a lot of real expertise built into our staff). For that reason, the scientific points of view we choose to publish are ones that have already been vetted in the technical, peer-reviewed literature and that generally seem to represent a consensus within the scientific community. (...) "

"(As for whether we're entitled to mock cold fusion...well, sorry if you disagree, but that opinion reflects the consensus of most scientists, too.)"

"So it really doesn't make a difference to me if LENR-CANR advocates petition me for articles on the subject; I'll put them on the stack of similar requests from the scientific creationists, the global warming deniers the face-on-Mars people, the crypto-archaeologists, and all the others who want publicity and scientific respectability but can't make their case convincingly to the community of scientists. But I'll say this again, too: if LENR-CANR's physicists can convince the mainstream physics community that they've got a credible case and articles to that effect start appearing in major peer-reviewed journals, Scientific American would be glad to write about it."
 * (letter for Renie to Rothwell, pages 17-19 of pdf, 22 May 2003)


 * So, what the reliable sources say is that cold fusion is discredited, that the controversy is over, that the attempts to compare it to polywater/N-rays/ESP/etc. were sucessfull and killed the reputation of cold fusion (in about six months?), etc.


 * Mind you, this is not a description of the field itself, it's a description how it was painted by some and how the idea caught, and how it's still considered by scientists the same thing as back then in 1989 after the dust settled (a discredited science). --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

is the controvesy really over? sources
(cut from section above because of topic change --Enric Naval (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC))


 * It's really going to be necessary to read the complete sources, and not just extracted sentences. For example, the article on rhetoric and humor is about how rhetorical devices were used effectively to discredit Fleischmann and Pons. This article supports the view that the rejection wasn't "scientific," but was political in nature. Consider Note 4 on page 174: Interestingly, Lewis' main empirical claim, that Pons and Fleischmann had not stirred their cells and had mistaken thermal disequilibrium for heat excesses, was soon countered by Pons and Fleischmann, who showed that the deuterium bubbles provided sufficient stirring. Lewis had, it seems, based his conclusions on a series of experiments in which he had built much larger cells than Pons and Fleischmann had actually used. Like Koonin's claims over radon, Lewis' claims over lack of stirring are not definitive.
 * The author is considering the effect of rhetoric, which is a political device, designed to influence people and not to resolve controversy in a scientific way, through further research or, sometimes, definitive analysis. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It explains how Lewis and Koonin used humour on their presentation to sway the audience on their side and accuse P. and F. of breaking scientific rules (see start of page 173, and pages 170-174). This doesn't change the fact that the audience was swayed, that's it, that the controversy is over and that cold fusion now stands as pathological science. See:

"On the one hand, many experts say that cold fusion is dead, but on the other hand we can always find scientists who will disagree. Latour has left us with the knotty problem of figuring out how many dissenting experts it takes to keep a controversy alive." Undead Science, pag 11
 * I think this is enough material to write up something on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. By the way, I have the book on order (Undead Science) and a few others, such as Storms (2007). No question but that there is material for the article. But be careful about describing what happened in 1989 as a present scientific consensus; the judgment of "pathological science" is very clearly in contradiction to the 2004 DOE report, which is the most recent source we have as a broad review. "The controversy is over" is so patently false, Enric, that I'm wondering where you are coming from. There are reliable secondary sources, recent, that stand directly in contradiction to this. There is controversy. Get over it. Or did I misread you?


 * Because a roomful of scientists, influenced by crowd mentality just as can be everyone else, join in ridiculing a thing does not mean that controversy is over. Controversy continued with N-rays for some years, but with rapid decline. There was a conclusive refutation. The F-P effect was never refuted; it was impeached, but we have RS that the impeachment was defective. The 2004 DOE report itself seems a bit confused, the Chinese study shows a steady increasing in replication reliability. In any case, the 2004 DOE report has The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review.


 * Honesty, Enric, does this sound like "the controversy is over"? Or like "pathological science."?


 * WP:PSCI, a section of WP:NPOV, provides four classifications for questionable sciences. Which one applies here, if any?
 * In an Arbitration Committee case, which may be read in full here, the committee created distinctions among the following:


 * Obvious pseudoscience: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more [justification]."


 * Generally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."


 * The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:


 * Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."


 * Alternative theoretical formulations: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."


 * It could be argued that "cold fusion" is "generally considered pseudoscience," but only if one refers to the general "scientific community," but not to those who have reviewed it in detail. Quite a number of skeptics and critics have shifted their positions. Storms, if I'm correct, first published as a critic. I think the book will tell his story. The best example we have of how the informed scientific community thinks of the field is the 2004 DOE review. That review takes us up to the third or fourth category, which are not pseudoscience. "Pathological science" refers to poor experimental practice and unwarranted conclusions, and "pathological science" as a term has been applied to the skepticism about cold fusion as well as to overenthusiastic and premature acceptance of it. --Abd (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * DOE 2004 says nothing about the field being accepted or about any controversys existing or not. Use sources that actually deal with the topic:
 * "Seventeen years after the announcement [of cold fusion] the scientific community does not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme." Biberian 2007
 * "Most chemists would rather forget all about cold fusion. (...), only a small core of researchers has kept the idea from fading away entirely. (...) Acceptance by the scientific community is still the main target for cold fusion advocates [success in publishing in peer reviewed journals seems imminent, but not in replication or appearing at major conferences] (...) But will the flare-up of cold fusion excitement last?" Van Noorden 2007
 * "Nonetheless, a network of dedicated cold-fusionists still toils away in a vineyard that looks pretty barren to almost everyone else" Wired March 2009
 * "Nobody [proved it correct]. The laws of physics left cold fusion dead in the water. Nearly. A hardy band of believers refuses to let the dream die and, two decades on, continues to work on the phenomenon, now renamed as low-energy nuclear reactions." The Guardian, March 2009
 * "So far it hasn't been replicated to satisfy either the scientific community or the Department of Energy, leaving this type of fusion's future out in the cold for now." Scientific American, March 2009
 * "Attempts to replicate their experiments failed, but a number of researchers insist that cold fusion is possible. (...) The American Chemical Society has organised sessions surrounding the research at its meetings before, suggesting that the field would otherwise have no suitable forum for debate. (...) In a bid to avoid the negative connotations of a largely discredited approach [researchers now use the term LENR" BBC, March 2009
 * "But other scientists could not reproduce their results, and the whole field of research declined. A stalwart cadre of scientists persisted, however (...)'" American Chemical Society, March 2009
 * See? It's still not accepted, it's discredited, there is a small resurgence of interest on the topic, it's not clear if it's a real revival or just a perceived flare up or a temporal thing, and there is only a die-hard core of scientists still pursuing it.


 * P.D.: it seems that the CR-39 experiment is taken more seriously, according to the New Scientist --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like Abd to address why these secondary sources don't leave clear that the CF field was discredited and only a few scientists remained in it. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, except for "still considered." Maybe. What scientists? The latest evidence I know of that would address this, and that quite imperfectly, is the 2004 DOE review. That review did not consider low energy nuclear reactions a "discredited science." It took a middle position. The reviewers were evenly divided on the reality of excess heat. A majority considered the evidence for fusion to be not conclusive. What the sources above tell is a story of rejection outside the normal scientific process, but which affected, and continues to affect, the scientific process, and we have reliable source on this analysis.


 * I think I know how to address this. I'm going to start a version of this article in my user space, under rules which I will establish there. The goal is to develop a complete article. No reliable source will be excluded on arguments of "balance," because to judge balance, we need an overview of the field, and we don't get that overview without completeness. There is so much source on this topic that I expect the draft will fragment into subpages corresponding to detailed sections in the draft.


 * I did a little ad hoc "original research" here. I asked some ordinary but scientifically knowledgeable people, knowledgeable enough to know about cold fusion. My small sample: "Too bad nobody could reproduce it." That's an error, an error generated by the massive bypass of normal scientific process. Some reproductions are difficult. A negative result doesn't prove much except failure of one experimenter/experiment. When some effect is difficult to reproduce, but it is real, what will happen is that researchers will eventually discover, usually, through experiment and communication, what conditions are necessary, and they will learn to increase the reliability of reproduction, sometimes to the point of complete reliability.


 * The argument of lack of reproduction continued to be made long after it wasn't true. Now, certainly one can challenge the reproductions as being errors of some kind. Shanahan has challenged certain calorimetry results, if I can summarize, as being due to some kind of systematic error. However, it should be realized that there are confirmations of the basic effect that don't depend on calorimetry. Each one of these may, again, have some possible alternate explanation: Iwamura's work could be contamination by sulfur, and I haven't gone into that in detail. It should be possible, though, to disentangle these with more experimentation, and most of these criticisms do not apply to controlled experiments, they become much more complicated, for example, in attempting to explain excess heat and helium with deuterium as the loaded gas and no such results with hydrogen.


 * In 2004, the review panel considered the science to be near the tipping point, i.e., the basic effect was accepted by half the reviewers (that is, heat generation). There is now more published work, with what looks to me like stronger evidence on the disputed points. Describing the field as "discredited" is reasonably accurate as to the situation after the 1989 review, whether or not that review justified it. Likewise the publication in Nature was considered definitive as a rejection, even though it was actually no more than a failed set of experiments by a reputable research group that, given what are now known to be the necessary criteria to observe excess heat and helium and other evidence of nuclear reactions, did not satisfy the criteria, so, in hindsight, the experiments were successful in verifying the necessary criteria.


 * The process we have been following to try to improve this article could be expected to improve it somewhat with the passage of time, but with enormous inefficiency, and the rate of improvement may be low enough that it never reaches what a normal encyclopedia with normal editorial process, but with the kind of freedom we have in terms of space (once subarticles are considered), would reach in fairly short order. As an example of the problem, besides the existence of highly attached editors to one POV or another, we have the issue of balance. How do we determine balance if we don't know the actual balance of what is in reliable source? That's why we need to work on a draft where balance issues are excluded. Before implementing the draft, if that is ever decided, the article would go through a balancing phase which did not eliminate any reliably sourced material, but would use various techniques to eliminate redundancy and insure that a multiplicity of weak sources doesn't overwhelm a lesser number of higher quality sources.


 * All editors are welcome to participate. The draft is at User:Abd/Cold fusion. I was thinking that I'd copy this article there, but I've decided instead to start with a tabula rasa, probably organizing sections before filling them with content. There is a subpage I started with an intention of examining sources, but I started out with too much detail, there are so many sources that gross overall categorization is needed first. Sources will be divided into categories:
 * Peer-reviewed reviews of the field or aspects of it
 * peer-reviewed experimental reports,
 * peer-reviewed theoretical papers
 * media reports in independent reliable source
 * media reports in specialized media (which may or many not be considered reliable but which should be notable in the field)
 * conference papers from notable conferences
 * self-published or other irregularly published material.
 * The draft article should initially include all salient facts found in the first four categories, with appropriate attribution for what is controversial or unconfirmed.
 * I prefer that, at the beginning, the article also include material notable within the field from the last three categories. In the end, though, material from these three categories is more likely to not find its way back into mainspace; the final decision, of course, will be made by consensus of those working on it.
 * We are, working in user space, totally free to set aside, temporarily, issues of balance, which often boil down to what material is going to be included in what must be, many think, a brief article. The draft article, however, will potentially be the basis for more than one article; where there is reliable source on some subtopic, it may not be excluded from the project because it allegedly imbalances an article. This is a classic fringe science or pseudoscience problem.
 * One more note: I've put this in my user space for the moment, but there is no demand that it stay there. What I'm doing is not exclusive, does not bind anyone, and does not preclude others doing the same. Those who do not wish to participate remain completely free to object to whatever article emerges from this process, and the move to mainspace will be a matter of consensus here, not there. To put it simply, the draft in my user space advises me on how to proceed, as well as anyone else choosing to be so advised. I welcome cooperative contributions, and I consider the POV of editors to be irrelevant. POV-pushers, welcome, just, please, recognize the customs of the place. That includes those pushing an anti-fringe POV, or a fringe POV, or any other POV, or those who imagine that their own POV is NPOV, I want to make sure that what reliably sourced facts these editors would want to be included, are included, before we then move to a finishing and balancing process. --Abd (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion theory, possible electron-catalyzed fusion
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.2411.pdf Papers on arxiv may sometimes be used, depends. See Reliable_source_examples

Sinha, K.P. and A. Meulenberg, A model for enhanced fusion reaction in a solid matrix of metal deuterides.


 * Our study shows that the cross-section for fusion improves considerably if d-d pairs are located in linear (one-dimensional) chainlets or line defects. Such non-equilibrium defects can exist only in a solid matrix. Further, solids harbor lattice vibrational modes (quanta, phonons) whose longitudinal-optical modes interact strongly with electrons and ions. One such interaction, resulting in potential inversion, causes localization of electron pairs on deuterons. Thus, we have attraction of D+ D- pairs and strong screening of the nuclear repulsion due to these local electron pairs (local charged bosons: acronym, lochons). This attraction and strong coupling permits low-energy deuterons to approach close enough to alter the standard equations used to define nuclear-interaction cross-sections. These altered equations not only predict that low-energy-nuclear reactions (LENR) of D+ D- (and H+ H-) pairs are possible, they predict that they are probable.

I'm putting this here because there has been some discussion of the idea that electrons may be functioning similarly to how muons function in muon-catalyzed fusion. This is a recent paper, presented at ICCF-14, the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Washington, DC, 2008, uploaded to arXiv, January, 2009.

The authors claim to predict observed fusion rates and phenomena from this theory, using standard physics models.:

It is a goal of this paper to provide an understandable, standard-physics basis (under special conditions) for the extensive body of results presently available from LENR.1

It will be interesting to watch for whether or not there is any response to this from those who know those "standard physics models" and can judge if the models are accurately applied to the peculiar environment of highly loaded palladium or the like. I'm not holding my breath, but sooner or later this kind of response will be needed from those outside the narrow field. I'll say, though, that theory starts looking good when it can predict the numbers. It can then become falsifiable.--Abd (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See also: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0603213 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0595v1.


 * I wonder about this explanation being good enough for the typical results (lots of heat instead of gammas or neutrons). Perhaps later.  For now, just having a reasonably good theoretical way to overcome the Coulomb barrier might cause a few of the detractors to think that maybe CF isn't quite so impossible or miraculous, after all.  Of course, maybe the detractors can point out a flaw or two in it, instead (just the fusion-initiation part, please! --since that is all this hypothesis is about).... V (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BBC coverage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7959183.stm - as usual it notes that this is a pariah field and quotes a reputable scientist saying why most people won't go near it with a bargepole. I see that we seem once again to be trying to "fix" the real world by changing Wikipedia, and the real world remains determinedly sceptical (note the quote: "The American Chemical Society has organised sessions surrounding the research at its meetings before, suggesting that the field would otherwise have no suitable forum for debate.").  No surprises there, then. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to interject a point I made elsewhere, about the Chemists' Club tending to look out for their own, even as the Physicists' Club turns its collective nose up. I just want to see what happens when the physicists stop ignoring the DATA that the chemists are gathering.... V (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the citation, Guy. The article is a really good example of what goes on. I'm going to start a section on it, to look at it. You are right, no surprises, much of it is the same thing that has been said for twenty years, and it continues to be said even though anyone who actually reads the research in peer-reviewed journals, and the 2004 DOE report, wouldn't say it. Who is "trying to fix the real world by changing Wikipedia?" Got anyone in mind? You said "we." Does this mean you were talking about yourself? --Abd (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "anyone who actually reads the research in peer-reviewed journals, and the 2004 DOE report, wouldn't say it." I have read the research in peer-reviewed journals, and I still think the field is pathological science. Olorinish (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. But you don't tell us why, you simply assert your own opinion as if it were authoritative. We will be, I predict, looking at each relevant detail. See, what happens, is that people reject an idea based on an overall impression, but don't really attend to the details. This is how incorrect ideas get entrenched, they never get examined in detail. When one does that, what might have been firmly held opinions sometimes fall apart, and people change their positions. Without that careful process, people simply oppose each other based on their general impressions, and consensus can't be found. Take it apart, and consensus can end up with something quite different that what was expected. Take a look at the process of deciding to add the link to lenr-canr.org to Martin Fleischmann. It was impossible until the issues were deconstructed and examined in detail. Yet it seems to be stable there now. Coming soon to an article near you.
 * By the way, your judgment of Cold fusion as pathological science isn't supported by any recent reliable source, nor, in fact, by any substantial review by a panel such as one of the DOE review panels, aside from what are clearly just quotations of other sources or repetitions of their conclusions without any new examination. The DOE results are quite inconsistent with a judgment of "pathological science." --Abd (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's some News Just In: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16820-roomtemperature-fusion-in-from-the-cold.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news --The funny part is the editor of the New Energy Times being skeptical. V (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So they've taken last year's e-paper to a conference to get it published? Nothing to see here, move along please.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * LSD, you seem to be missing the point; the news is that the mainstream is starting to pay a little more attention than previously, not the data that is getting looked at. V (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. And by "mainstream" did Abd mean the BBC or New Scientist?LeadSongDog (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you don't see. Science is neither top-down-only nor bottom-up-only, in terms of how people become informed.  It is both.  Middle-level publishers like New Scientist or the BBC will get their data from both places.  People at the top may ignore the bottom, but they won't necessarily completely ignore the middle.  So, because of the extent that the data is now getting spread widely by the middle, SOME of the people at the top might notice and become interested enough to investigate more closely (say by reading a SpringerLink article that they might not otherwise have known about), whereas before they could dismiss everything (and thus be ignorant of developments) because they considered all the publishers of the data to be  "bottom-level" and ignorable.  This is sort-of what Abd talked about elsewhere on this page about the dike springing a leak, or something to that effect. V (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

LSD, what are you talking about? The paper this section was started about was presented at a conference, yes, but also uploaded to arXiv, which does have standards. The arXiv acceptance is a notch above conference publication. However, this has nothing to do with the New Scientist article that V pointed to. As to skepticism, there is lots of skeptical criticism in the LENR community. I've been looking into the Arata work, and the most pointed commentary is coming from our old friend, Jed Rothwell. The basic work is probably accurate (i.e, there is indeed heat generation), Rothwell points out prior work and confirmation, but the research is frustratingly short on detail, such as calibration, which should be fairly easy with the setup they have (what steady heat dissipation in the cell does it take to maintain that temperature differential), or other important details are missing. Rothwell reads Japanese, too. --Abd (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The point about Krivit being "skeptical," above, may have been missed by the author of the New Scientist piece. Krivit is really just being careful. The experimental results are a very strong indicator of a nuclear process. To pin this down as "fusion," at this point, remains unconfirmed, though if, as it looks, we are taking deuterium and getting helium out, it sure looks like fusion. The neutrons are actually occurring at quite low levels (though above background, for sure; the neutrons are spatially correlated with the cathode, and they don't get them with hydrogen in place of deuterium). There are quite a number of different hypotheses asserted for what might be going on, and some don't involve "simple" fusion reactions. But if deuterium is going in one side of the black box, and helium is coming out the other, there has been fusion, in the end. Krivit's real point is to look at the experimental evidence and don't focus on the theory that might explain them. The first thing to do is to consider the experiment. If this were not work that has already been largely confirmed, it would be one thing. What's new here is the neutrons.

The New Scientist piece, though, is head and shoulders above the rest of the media response to the ACS National Meeting. The writer seems to have actually done some research and interviewing, more than, say, calling up one skeptical physicist. He mentions controls. --Abd (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole abbreviation of LeadSongDog is messing me up. The image of someone talking to LSD is rather comical.  Kevin Baastalk 15:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Media notice.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/090323-cold-fusion.html

discussed above some:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7959183.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16820-roomtemperature-fusion-in-from-the-cold.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

In fact, google search:

Pretty hot for something cold, eh? --Abd (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Navy scientist announces possible cold fusion reactions But evidence also could indicate another type of nuclear reaction, she cautions Houston Chronicle --Abd (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cold Fusion' Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial Energy Source

ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2009) — Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called "cold fusion" that may promise a new source of energy. One group of scientists, for instance, describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring. 

Ahem. For some time now, I've been pointing to the neutrons found by the SPAWAR group as remarkable evidence, but I haven't attempted to put it in the article because of a lack of secondary sources. Today it rained, and it poured. I do remember that science isn't run by newspapers, but .... Wikipedia sometimes is. We have reliable source here for a whole series of facts and claims that would have been difficult to put in before now, given the contentious environment and the marginal notability. Don't worry, I'm not going to rush. --Abd (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Abd, please get a grip and leave the gushing at the door. It just shows your tendentiousness, especially when combined with your inappropriate and undeniable meatpuppetry for the banned JedRothwell and his website.  And yes, please escalate that, I can provide dozens of diffs proving my claims and getting you banned from this topic.  Posts about the sources and improving the article are great, though.  Edit summaries like lost cause? My sympathies, terms like ahem, today it rained, and it poured, don't worry just show that you have a strange delusion that this thing is a battle, which it isn't and never was for most of the editors here, except against tendentiousness and putting in more than what the sources, WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE allows.  Leave it at the door and we'll all get along better, and you'll get more support for your POV.


 * As for the sources, with the new reporting in secondary sources today, the neutron stuff has definitely reached the threshold for inclusion in the article. A short and very carefully qualified mention in the lead is justfied (IMO), and more detail at "further developments".  I'm not sure how we could expand "experimental results" though, it already covers all the claims in a good summary form.  And the claims are numerous, including many contradictory ones.


 * BTW, the BBC article says: One wholly new approach will be explained by researchers from Hokkaido University, who have seen unexplained heat production in a chamber filled with compressed hydrogen and a chemical called phenanthrene.. Worth keeping an eye on for more information out of this conference. Phil153 (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My, my, Phil. How can I assist you? "Today it rained, and it poured" demonstrates "battle"? "My sympathies" demonstrates "battle"? "Lost cause" might possibly represent some idea that someone has a cause in mind, so should I be more specific? No battle here? ArbComm apparently thought otherwise, WP:BATTLE has been explicitly cited. There is a struggle here, indeed. A struggle to establish consensus. It can take a lot of work. Are you in favor of that, Phil? If so, welcome, roll up your sleeves, we have a lot of work to do. If not, well, then I ask again, how can I assist you? --Abd (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is consensus for the current version of the article. You've been a one man band (aided by the occassional SPA) working against that consensus, and for the inclusion and unblacklisting of lenr-canr.  The only battle here was brought by Pcarbonn, who was banned by Arbcom, and then restarted by you to include sources against WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG and two Arbcom determinations that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that should provide articles in line with mainstream thought.  Also, people aren't that stupid, Abd.  Honesty in both spirit and letter is the best policy because no one is ever as smart as they want to believe they are.


 * Anyway, it's been said and I apologize for the interruption. Phil153 (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for the current version. What has happened is that there has been edit warring to maintain a version, or at least stonewalling. I don't edit war, so it can look like there is consensus when there is not, and many other editors have thrown up their hands in despair. Having said that, I've been thinking of suggesting that some of the POV tags come out. As to one-man-band, sure. A band that only plays in Talk. (But it isn't just one man, in fact, I follow WP:DR, which requires expanding discussion as needed, I just don't rush into it. Who requested whitelisting of the lenr-canr.org link? Hint: it was not me.) As to lenr-canr.org, that may all become moot. The web site is notable, as is New Energy Times. There will be articles on them, coming soon to a project near you. I'm very aware of the ArbComm rulings, and they are far friendlier to so-called fringe science than the group of editors sitting on this article have been. I work slowly and carefully, Phil, with plenty of discussion. Some thing too much, but then, they, themselves "discuss" by asserting edits or reversions with inadequate basis. I let them play for a while, I'm an eventualist. What sources have I placed in the article that violate the guidelines? The first things I did here was to insert material from the 2004 DOE report. Does that violated the guidelines?


 * I can't say if I'm smarter or less smart than I think I am, but I'm smarter than you think I am. Because I've known I was above the 99th percentile since I was in high school, I've never had a problem with needing to believe I was smart. I'm smart. Get over it. That doesn't give me superior rights as an editor. Indeed, honesty is the best policy, but some people don't appreciate honesty in others, and they imagine that they are honest and others aren't. You wouldn't be one of those, would you, Phil? --Abd (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The comment about intelligence wasn't about how smart anyone is, and it wasn't directed at your intelligence. It was about game theory and the limits of perceptiveness.  I have no idea how smart you are or how much intellectual wisdom you have, and it's not relevant to anything.  I think many people who edit this page and other science articles are probably 99th percentile in math/science intelligence, so it has no relevance to the cogency of viewpoints.  Phil153 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

EE Times
 * Cold fusion experimentally confirmed

Interesting thing about these reports: they are typical of media reports, even the ones in the science-related media: they show a shallow knowledge of the very research they are describing. We have been discussing the neutron findings here for months; the SPAWAR group has found plentiful ionizing radiation, probably alpha particles; the neutrons were found almost by accident, on the back side of the CR-39 chips, where arguments about dendrites causing damage to the plastic don't apply. The media reports don't show any awareness of the work, duplication of the work, criticisms of the work, etc.

Other scientists were unable to duplicate the 1989 results, thereby discrediting the work. I just don't know how they manage to keep repeating that. Apparently, if a hasty review in 1989, ignoring reproductions that did already exist, concludes that the work could not be reproduced, way over a hundred papers in peer-reviewed publications, plus many more presented to conferences, don't exist. It's truly weird. The media should ask someone who actually knows about the subject to proof their work! (They don't normally do that, it's supposed to hamper neutrality, which, I suppose, it might.) Anyway, these reports aren't valuable for the science, they are valuable for the context, the notability of the SPAWAR research and other efforts that are being reported.)

techradar.com
 * Cold fusion - back with a bang?
 * 20 years on, prefers to be called Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

Three separate groups of researchers - including one group from the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Centre (SPAWAR) - are reporting "compelling" new evidence for the existence of cold fusion.

Gee, I thought so too, when they reported this stuff quite a while ago. However, there isn't a lot of confirmation yet, only some aspects have been confirmed. That is, the work is striking, and, if confirmed, compelling indeed. Some aspects of this, are really confirming prior work. Radiation and other nuclear products have been found before. I think the Italians did a lot of work in a cave, underground, to get away from cosmic ray background, detecting neutrons. The articles don't mention that neutrons are probably only an occasional product, that most of the reactions taking place apparently don't generate neutrons, but rather alpha particles and maybe heat through coupling to the lattice. And it is not over until those outside the relatively narrow body of researchers in the field -- even though there are apparently hundreds of them -- start smelling the coffee and manage to confirm. The experimental details are very important. What is really happening here, to confirm what V wrote above, is that the media is noticing: hey, wait a minute, the consensus has been for years that this field was dead, pathological science, as far as we've been told. And here comes these Navy researchers (you know, that much of fringe fanatics) with credible research results, getting increasingly difficult to just pooh-pooh. Something broke through the barriers. Now comes the real work. Mosier-Boss and others did it right. They published in a peer-reviewed journal, they didn't announce at a press conference, they didn't insist on theoretical explanations, they just said, hey, this is what we found. And what they found, if confirmed, is a smoking gun. Same is true for some of the other work, in fact, it was really only a matter of time until the veil of rejection was pierced. It's still not over, the curtain could possibly descend again if Mosier-Boss et al screwed up in some way. But they have been a very careful research group, steadily building a publication history, one step at a time. It is claimed that their approach is easily verified. So ... is it? Kowalski, pretty much an amateur, verified the heat (even though he criticized some conclusions about the "radiation") --Abd (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens. Now we know where the media is getting this news. Press release. I shoulda known! American Chemical Society press release

Many of the news articles are practically verbatim from this. Who is Michael Bernstein? --Abd (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Bernstein is the contact for all the ACS releases seen at. Apparently he is with the ACS Office of Public Affairs.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/acslive has clips possibly live, I'm listening now. --Abd (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a mess trying to figure out what's going on, because the mainstream just doesn't take this stuff seriously and so replications or disproofs by credible researchers are lacking. I agree the reporting isn't great.  I think the article should have something along the lines of "In March 2009, early press reports noted that some researchers have claimed reliable detection of neutrons in a cold fusion cell, possibly indicating a nuclear reaction."  (we should discuss this IMO)


 * It's interesting to note that some news sources have posted fresh articles on cold fusion in the last day that aren't about the new research. They might be useful for sources See:
 * http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2009/03/dayintech_0323


 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/23/energy-research-science


 * http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=five-big-alt-energy-letdowns-ideas-2009-03-18


 * Phil153 (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional sources. "Early press reports" is really bizarre, actually, the report that caused the big splash yesterday wasn't new, we'd been discussing it here, it was published last year. But, yes, the press reports are early, and still fairly heavy with misinformation, but, Phil, the weight of that misinformation remains on the rejection side. Further, context to understand the Mosier-Boss results is frequently missing. Neutrons were expected, in large numbers, but were not found except at (controversial) low levels, hence the missing dead-graduate-student effect. Mosier-Boss reported finding neutrons, with pretty strong evidence, using a very different detection technique, CR-39, which integrates exposure. The neutrons come in bursts (I think that's also been reported before) which means that high instantaneous levels average out to very low levels. The reports imply that she simply found neutrons, without discussing the levels. Basically, the predominant reaction, estimated based on excess heat, doesn't produce neutrons, that's very, very clear and not controversial. Theory would predict gamma radiation, then, but that also is not found except at low levels. However, if there is little neutron and very low gamma, what's happening? What, again, the media isn't reporting is that Mosier-Boss has been finding, for years, evidence of fairly strong alpha radiation. That's helium nuclei at high energy. Further, the reports are many that helium is found in the cells after heat has been generated, and not in cells that didn't generate heat. Many seem to have forgotten that the only failed experiment is one where the data wasn't collected and reported.... Helium is found in amounts correlated not only with heat detection, but in amounts to be expected from D2 + D2 = He4 based on the measured energy converted into heat.
 * I listened to the press conference last night. It was bizarre. Most of the questioners clearly hadn't done their homework. Some were quite familiar with what had happened in 1989, and then there was one question that took the cake: "Why are you holding this press conference? The problem in 1989 was science by press conference."
 * The problem in 1989 was new science announced by press conference. This is no longer new science, and the particular announcement yesterday that generated so much press was simply an ACS press release that described the papers being presented. The information being presented was already published last year, and continued a series of peer-reviewed papers from the SPAWAR group spanning 20 years, at about one paper per year. I'd say that it was about time a press conference that the press would actually notice was held! At the press meeting, the difference in reaction between chemists and physicists was discussed. It was suggested that people buy the review of cold fusion work recently published by the ACS, and it was mentioned that volume 2 is being prepared.
 * Now, are chemists "scientists"? Who is more qualified to report the results of experiments in chemistry.
 * Mosier-Boss and others were quite careful to note that this might not be fusion. There are alternative nuclear explanations. But what is very clearly being reported is this: excess heat, with massive confirmation from many hundreds of researchers, radiation, also confirmed, and helium-4 at levels commensurate with the heat generated, also confirmed by many research groups. I'll add the controls: hydrogen in place of deuterium, no heat, and no radiation, and no Helium-4. Is it fusion? Who knows? But it sure looks like it. --Abd (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not "bizarre", it's letting the reader know that the press reports are early and mainstream reply is lacking. It's entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia to use such terms.  Have a look at other breaking news article where things are uncertain.  Phil153 (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wired report is interesting. It was presented today, but the headline is March 23, 1989: Cold Fusion Gets Cold Shoulder, and it is almost entirely about the very early situation, with this tacked on at the end:

''After it couldn't replicate the earlier results, the University of Utah discontinued cold-fusion research in 1991 and allowed its cold-fusion patents to lapse in 1998. Pons and Fleischmann left for for the south of France in 1992 to continue research for a Toyota subsidiary. But even Japan's government stopped funding cold-fusion research in 1997.''

Nonetheless, a network of dedicated cold-fusionists still toils away in a vineyard that looks pretty barren to almost everyone else.

Nothing about yesterday's news or the recent work, beyond "network of dedicated cold-fusionists" and the barren vineyard. So why was this article put up? Beats me. It's a fascinating demonstration of bad journalism. --Abd (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was put up (like the others), because it's the 20th anniversary of the cold fusion announcement. Obviously. Phil153 (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cold fusion raises its head above the parapet again
 * 20 years after bringing ignominy and academic exile to its founding scientists, the idea of free energy at room temperature is making a comeback The Guardian

Arggh. Well, I've known since I was in high school that if I read a newspaper account on a topic where I had knowledge, it was almost always wrong about something, and quite often wrong about much. One day, I'd like to do something about that. It's possible, you know.

The headline. Who has the "idea of free energy"? That isn't being said at the conference. In fact, there is quite a bit of opinion among cold fusion researchers that it might never be commercially useful to the extent that "free energy" would be an appropriate term. Consider: with 7 g of palladium black and a little deuterium gas, less than a gram, I think, you could have a little capsule that will, if Arata's work is not mistaken and I'm reading it correctly, maintain, for a long time a temperature perhaps 4 degrees C above ambient. If it's insulated. While I think the math works out to more energy than you could get from any possible chemical reaction (because this is sustained) Palladium is running over $200 per ounce, so that represents roughly $50 worth of palladium. However, the price of palladium is low right now because of the recession in the auto industry, which is the main consumer of palladium for catalytic converters. It was running at about $900 per ounce at the peak. If usage of palladium on a mass scale develops, it will almost certainly rise to the former peak or higher. So $200 worth of palladium, forget the processing cost to palladium black. To get a small amount of heat. Sure, engineering may be able to greatly increase the efficiency and power output. That little cell would probably still work at temperatures boiling water, but a lot more palladium may be needed. Fleischmann said, long ago, that it would take a Manhattan-scale project to make this commercially viable. And who is going to make that kind of investment if the science is not established?

What is "making a comeback" is the science. It should have come back long ago, if the mainstream journals hadn't stuck their head in their quantum mechanics. This is a story waiting to be told here, there is plenty of reliable source on it, this is not just the claim of a small band of disgruntled crackpot graybeards. (And for those tempted to make some comment, my gruntle is in fine shape, thank you very much.)

The results were announced today at a meeting of the American Chemical Society to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the first enthusiastic – and ultimately doomed – claims for cold fusion at the University of Utah.

But wait a minute? The whole story is about the field still being alive. "Ultimately doomed?" Definitely discredited and ridiculed in the short term, but if we look at reliable source over the last five or ten years, not. This is a great example of institutional and public inertia; I've seen it happen elsewhere, I know of another major field of research where, a bit more than five years ago, the research and publication tide shifted and ideas that were considered "consensus" were challenged, in fact, they were basically demolished, but ... still, that consensus is repeated over and over in the media, as if nothing happened. Ironically, the best book on this subject was written by Gary Taubes, well-known for his debunking of Cold fusion in the nineties, in his recent book, Good Calories, Bad Calories.

''As researchers rushed to harness cold fusion for themselves, it became clear there was more than a little problem. No one could get it to work. What had been touted as one of the greatest discoveries of the century fell to pieces. The field of cold fusion lost almost all of its funding and is now so tainted by the farce that scientists have been forced to rename it. It is now called "low-energy nuclear reactions".''

Hmmmm. "Scientists" call the field LENR. Any implications for us? "No one could get it to work." What was never true. It took time to get it to work, it wasn't nearly as easy as the groups that rushed to attempt replication thought. It was still difficult after Fleischmann's publication. Over twenty years, methods were found that are reliably replicable, and Mosier-Boss is using one of these methods, but my guess is that it is still tricky, there are lots of ways to spoil the reaction. Still, replication rates, according to the Chinese paper I've cited above, are tending recently toward 100%. It may still turn out to be "one of the greatest discoveries of the century." Or it may turn out to be a scientific curiosity, like muon-catalyzed cold fusion. Or ... it seems unlikely now, to me, having spent the last two months reading up on this, but nothing should be ruled out in science. Maybe it's a really good example of how you can find something if you look for it, no matter whether it exists or not. On the other hand, the scientific method was designed to address this problem; but what happened with cold fusion is that the scientific method was set aside in favor of polemic and press conferences and ridicule and entrenched contempt for people who were simply doing basic experimental research and reporting the results.

The 1989 DOE report is widely cited as sounding the death knell for cold fusion, but that report never did dismiss it as "junk science," merely as "not conclusively demonstrated." It's hard to overstate the gap between those two framings of their findings.

''The scientists passed an electric current through the solution and used a plastic detector to pick up neutrons being emitted from the beaker. At the end of the experiment, they found what they believe are three track marks caused by particles released as neutrons smashed into the detector. Mosier-Boss believes the neutrons were thrown out of fusion reactions in the device.''

I can see the reactions. I've been reading comments in the newspapers, and this text, I'm sure, will attract this: "Three track marks, is that all? Background cosmic radiation will produce more than that!" But, of course, it's not three track marks, it is quite a number of "triple-track" marks, tracks found in a close pattern indicating a characteristic proton recoil reaction from the influence of a fast neutron. The text shows that the writer didn't have the foggiest. --Abd (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian writer commented there about his writing of the piece. The comment explains his lack of depth:

''I only wrote a brief piece on this SPAWAR research to flag it up to people who might be interested. My view on fringe science like this is the old cliche, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in my personal opinion, this work does not fulfill that criteria. If it had, I would have gone into far more detail...and I'm sure so would everyone else! Let me know though: should we just not cover this stuff? I firmly believe we should, as long as it's in an appropriate manner (i.e. a short online piece vs splashing it across the front pages). There seem to be some people who think we shouldn't cover it, but that to me seems a little miserable. Surely it's interesting the US are still funding research on this, and it's nice to at least be aware of their latest findings or non-findings...''

Basically, it seems that this writer looked, like everyone else, at the press release, didn't do any deeper research but depended on his prior knowledge, isn't aware of the extent to which the SPAWAR research is just one more reasonably clear confirmation out of many, etc. But at least he recognizes that there is something worth writing about. Other sources have gone into more detail, and my guess is that there will be some pieces, after there is time to do some study, with greater depth. And, yes, someone wrote that they were not impressed by three tracks! Someone else pointed out that this was the triple track signature of neutron interaction. I'm just trying to figure out why excess heat correlated with He-4 production and neutrons and other radiation isn't "extraordinary evidence."? Sure it out to be confirmed to death, but converting that old "extraordinary claims" quotation into some kind of law that can be used to assume that nothing new can be learned unless it punches us in the nose is little short of bizarre. It's definitely not science. --Abd (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's an online tech-news site that is also reporting the ACS press release: http://thefutureofthings.com/headline/6742/new-cold-fusion-evidence-reignites-debate.html V (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)