Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 38

Cold fusion and pathological science
This keeps coming up. I started to wrote the discussion below in response to a comment by Kirk Shanahan, above. But when I found the source linked below, I made this a separate section and expanded it.

The paradigmatic example of Pathological science was N-rays, and this was extended to polywater. In both cases the original evidence for the existence of these was found to be a misinterpretation of the experimental data: with N-rays, the detection of N-rays was demonstrated as a product of observer expectation, and polywater was debunked when the properties ascribed to it were conclusively shown to be due to impurities. This kind of pulling of the carpet out from under the original claims never happened with cold fusion, and we see this in Simon (2002) and Goodstein (2010). Fleischmann's basic finding was heat, and his calorimetry was never successfully impeached, and there are 153 peer-reviewed papers confirming excess heat in palladium deuteride, the widely reported "failure to reproduce" mostly represented hasty early conclusions and efforts abandoned before success. This was a difficult experiment, not as simple as was thought. Fleischmann also reported helium and neutrons, but both of those reports were impeached; we now know that whatever is behind the FPHE, it produces almost no neutrons. But it does produce helium, reliably (if there is excess heat) so the helium Fleischmann reported may have been real. Detailed examination of the pathological science issue follows below.

Langmuir's characteristics and cold fusion
Langmuir set these characteristics for pathological science:
 * 1. The magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the causative agent.
 * 2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limits of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
 * 3. It makes claims of great accuracy.
 * 4. It puts forth fantastic theories contrary to experience.
 * 5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
 * 6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50 percent and then falls gradually to oblivion.

The "magnitude" of the FPHE has been shown to vary with the level of loading found, quite well. The level of reaction also varies strongly with the percentage of hydrogen in the heavy water, as shown by Storms, who tested the effect of hydrogen impurity.(That it was difficult to set up the NAE has been confused with this characteristic. "Success" has mostly been a matter of getting the necessary very high loading. It's said that the actual reaction may only occur with loading above 100%, as a local condition.) Characteristic 1 fails to apply to cold fusion.

Many of the effects were close to the limits of detectability, but excess heat is often reported three orders of magnitude higher than detectability. Some of the results are at very high levels of significance. Helium is found well above the limits of detectability. Neutron radiation, the apparent result of secondary reactions (not of the primary reaction, but nevertheless markers of some nuclear process taking place) has been found well above background, as reported by SPAWAR, recently. Tritium, also a side-reaction or minor branch product (and thus, like neutrons, widely variable), has also been found far above background. Characteristic 2 fails.

I've seen no special claim of "great accuracy" in cold fusion reports. 3 fails.

We had no experience in the area of research, nobody had systematically looked for evidence of nuclear reactions in cold palladium. There had been anecdotal experience that, in hindsight, might have indicated a nuclear reaction, this was reported later, as researchers looked back. Normal loading of deuterium into palladium would be well below 80%, which is where excess heat results start to show up. Much of the idea that the results were "fantastic" came from the idea that the fusion would be deuterium-deuterium fusion, which was known to be exceedingly rare under CF conditions, and which would have shown very different characteristics. D-d fusion was fantastic. But some kinds of the influence of condensed matter conditions on low-energy nuclear reactions were already known. That there might be an undiscovered effect in this area was probably unlikely, but not fantastic. Fleischmann has written that he was testing the assumption that the approximations of 2-body quantum mechanics to condensed matter were adequate to predict behavior -- he was not doing "free energy research," and that he expected the difference between that and reality would be below measurement error. Nobody had tested this assumption in this way, but let there be no doubt: it was not proven theory, it was an assumption, previously found to be approximately correct, but not expected to be fully accurate. And CF represents a tiny, tiny exception, a very rare reaction at best, at least so far. 4 fails.

What actually happened was that experimental results were met with ad hoc criticisms, with no experimental basis or follow-up, and often based purely on a theoretical assumption that the reaction must be d-d fusion, if it existed. Therefore (if it's d-d fusion) the textbooks would have to be rewritten, this contradicts well-known facts, etc., etc. The "well-known facts" were the behavior of d-d fusion: 50% -> 3He plus H+, 50% -> 3H + n, <0.1% 4He plus gamma. Since the 3He and 3H are both radioactive, they would easily be detected, plus the neutron radiation would be so copious as to be fatal, a fact often pointed out. To get 4He without gammas, from d-d fusion, would require some mechanism to transfer the enormous fusion energy immediately, and that is what was considered fantastic. And probably is fantastic. #5 fails. (Except as to the claim that "cold fusion" is d-d fusion, which is sometimes still repeated. Note that deuterium might effectively fuse through other possible pathways, and mechanisms have been proposed for this, some of which do account for much of the observed phenomena.)

The "support rate" for cold fusion never was 50%, probably, though many thought the report sufficiently plausible to go to work on it immediately after the announcement. Some of these workers later stated that they had been very skeptical, but ... what if it worked? However, very quickly, cold fusion was derisively rejected. The 1989 DoE panel had about fifteen members. Of those, it appears that only two supported cold fusion.

We have more data about the 2004 DoE review. There were 18 reviewers, presented with a paper and copies of the referenced papers, and with nine of them being present at a one-day presentation, and half of the 18 considered the evidence for excess heat to be "conclusive." One-third considered the evidence for the heat being of nuclear origin to be "convincing" or "somewhat convincing." There are obvious signs of an increase in support, from the appearance of reviews of the field in various mainstream publications, after that. (Claims here that I've been "misleading" on this have been based on evidence that, first, many "scientists" still reject cold fusion, and many "cold fusion supporters" believe that their work is still widely rejected, neither of which negate my reports.) Thus characteristic 6 can be conclusively rejected. Real support has apparently greatly increased since 1989, as shown by the DoE ratios.

However, I know what some editors may assert as my point. It's not my point. Cold fusion was very notably rejected as "pathological science," and the article should report that. What it should not do is to present this as if the analysis was true, to imply that this rejection was rooted in science. It should be attributed, and when it was said is also important. An editorial in Nature in 1990 or so is one thing, a recent one would be very different in significance! We have contrary reliable sources, which should also be covered, it's that simple. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Publication rate
The publication rate declined for both N-rays and polywater, drastically, after the conclusive explanations were published. The publication rate on cold fusion also declined drastically, though with no special crisis point visible. It is known that there was blanket rejection of articles without review, based simply on the topic, at certain major publications.

Publication under peer review reached a nadir somewhere around the time of the second DoE review, roughly one publication every two months. However, the current rate is about four times that high, and has been sustained for three years, 2008-2010. Cold fusion is the subject of increasing U.S. governmental research, the American Chemical Society has just issued the second volume in its Symposium series covering Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, in collaboration with Oxford University Press, and two positive articles on cold fusion were, at the end of 2009, published in an encyclopedia of electrochemical power sources, by Elsevier.

Bauer on pathological science
, from the International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 8, No.1 (2002), covers Cold fusion in its consideration of pathological science. This source might be enlightening to some here. I just found this today, but it says, about cold fusion, what I've been saying here since I became of the situation:


 * The transfer of expertise across disciplinary boundaries affords great challenges, and this instance illustrates that a superficial view might label as misconduct what is basically a natural result of failing to recognize how intricately specialized are the approaches of every sort of research. Much of the fuss about cold fusion is understandable as an argument between electrochemists and physicists as to whether empirical data from electrochemical experiments is to be more believed or less believed than apparently opposing nuclear theory (Beaudette 2000). To electrochemists it may seem perverse, possibly even scientific misconduct, to rule out of the realm of possibility competently obtained results because some theory in physics pronounces them impossible. To nuclear physicists, it may seem incompetence verging on scientific misconduct for electrochemists to invoke nuclear explanations just because they cannot understand where the heat in their experiments comes from.

We might consider this article as a source for some text on the "pathological science" issue.

But all this was trumped by the heat/helium correlation data. Helium is a nuclear product. If helium is actually being produced, helium that was not there before, there has been a nuclear reaction of some kind. (Could be fusion, could be fission or natural radioactivity.) The levels of helium involved, from the reported excess heat, if it is being produced from deuterium, and if all the energy is converted to heat -- as seems to be the case -- would be small, sometimes less than ambient atmospheric helium, which is why this evidence was suspect at first. However, eventually, careful work was done to measure both excess heat and helium in the same experiments, and the results turn out to be correlated consistently with the value for deuterium fusion to helium. And that result has never been impeached; all arguments that I've seen have been separate arguments about calorimetry or helium, except for a fantastic hypothesis that Kirk Shananan proposed here the other day. This is a reliably reproducible experiment. It's not easy, which is why it hasn't been done all over the place: it requires two difficulties be overcome. First of all, coaxing a cold fusion cell into creating what Storms calls "Nuclear active environment" (NAE) isn't easy. Many tried and failed, in the early days. But gradually it was learned how to do this, such that He Jing-Tang reported in 2007 (Frontiers of Physics in China) that many groups were reporting 100% reliability. For the purpose of determining heat/helium correlation, though, even a small "success" rate will work. Miles reported about two-thirds of cells showing excess heat. Then measuring helium at the required levels is expensive and difficult. However, again, it's known how to do that. Every group which has measured both excess heat and helium has found them correlated well within an order of magnitude, with the most careful studies narrowing it down to within a few MeV of the magic figure of 23.8 MeV expected from deuterium fusion. Blind analysis was been used in the most extensive series, that of Miles, published long ago. In no reported case (and some of these experimental series every cell was reported) has excess heat been found without commensurate helium. Rarely has excess heat been found without helium.

Yet this isn't widely known, even though it is well-documented and covered in multiple reliable sources, and is as conclusive evidence for a radiation-free fusion reaction as I can imagine. Why isn't this widely known? I'm really not sure. It is absolutely the strongest evidence for cold fusion, and it cuts through the physics vs chemistry debate and all the issues about the reliability of the calorimetry. But when it has been presented, as in the review prepared for the DoE in 2004, it's been buried underneath piles of preliminary explanation, and given only a few sentences, and, in fact, understated. It is as if Hagelstein expected the reviewers to read very carefully, every word. He wrote a very reserved, cautious scientific paper, as with much of the peer-reviewed publication in the field (but not all!), contrary to reputation.

Other reviews often give this a sentence or so, focusing instead on calorimetry and radiation or transmutation evidence, all much more easily challenged.

The recent review of the field by Storms (Disclosure: I helped edit this paper) does cover the heat/helium evidence in detail, far more than in any other such review. Storms wrote a paper on heat/helium, and asked me to help edit it, perhaps as a result of our discussions by email of this topic. He later told me that Naturwissenschaften, where he'd submitted it, requested, instead, a full review of the field, and sent me (and others) a draft for review and correction. Perhaps it will make a difference. But heat/helium has been known since the early 1990s, Huizenga realized the importance of this, and wrote about it in 1993.

I wrote to Dr. Storms suggesting that a convenience copy be made available, and he responded by sending a preprint to lenr-canr.org. There is a convenience copy of the paper at lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Was the electrochemistry "competent"?
Nate Hoffman was a metallurgist who studied cold fusion for the Electric Power Research Institute, which published his report in 1995, with the American Nuclear Society, titled A dialogue on chemically induced nuclear effects, a guide to the perplexed. He writes, on the calorimetry, after discussing possible artifacts, "In general, these heat measurements are being done by very knowledgeable experimenters who know how to avoid artifacts." That is a comment in reliable source, from a skeptical analyst (though a very careful skeptic). Do we have any contrary reliable source on this? We have Shanahan's unconfirmed analyses and objections, which we can report as his opinions or raised issues, having been published under peer review. But do we have any actual analysis doing more than raising a potential conventional explanation? --Abd (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

general discussion on the matter
You are, of course, aware that this article is under sanction, correct? Dropping a 15k wall of text on the page is disruptive - do so again, and I will seek to have you removed from further comment here. Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * maybe you might want to sound less bossy on your first encounter? it's usually more productive.  Kevin Baastalk 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It worked for him last year (and the "retirement" gambit also worked then, too), so why expect him to try anything different.). --Abd (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I consider the matter closed per WP:FRINGE guidelines: Cold Fusion clearly falls under #4 there, which is categorically NOT pseudoscience, as the policy states explicitly. (and i believe this was discussed in depth in an archived discussion, complete w/rfc.) From my understanding this matter is settled. Thou admittedly it doesn't always seem like all the editors here speak under that presumption. Kevin Baastalk 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * having said that, though i don't really buy the concept of "wall of text", i do think that this post was unnecessarily and considerably overboard in length, to the consternation of existing and/or potential discussions on other topics. Kevin Baastalk 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone, other than the author of the above 15k passage, support it's continued existance on this talk page, or should we just archive it as not likley to help improve the article? Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Give it a week, so that normal editorial activity cycles give opportunity to see it, if nobody supports this section as useful, it's fine to archive it. But I will be proposing edits based on it. Don't worry, if it's been archived, I'll just point to it in the rationale. Kevin, I'm very familiar with this topic, as you know, and there is new material there, very relevant to the article. New for me, at least! That new section was a continuation of your discussion today with Kirk Shanahan, but, as I wrote it, and found what I found, I simply split it off to its own section. If it causes "consternation" in "other existing or potential discussions on other topics," I fail to understand how. A single section can easily be ignored, nobody was interrupted with their small-scale discussion having a tome interposed, which can be, indeed, a problem. (In that case, collapse might be a solution.) But its own section? I don't think so!


 * Kevin, you seem to be a bit confused on "pseudoscience" vs. "pathological science." Easy to understand! My section above is about "pathological science," and the present article points to sources that call cold fusion this. From the lede (!), By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[7] That's true, but misleading, particularly in the lede, there are reliable sources which also call the rejection of cold fusion "pathological science." The key is "1989." It was true in 1989 and for more than a decade after that. What is the state of affairs today? In an article on science -- is this an article on science? -- what people thought twenty years ago is not necessarily what they think today, and the opinion of "most scientists" isn't that important, it is what the peer reviewers and independent publishers consider reliable and notable that counts, and I cover that above. --Abd (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that collapse summary is a tad pointed, eh? I'm not going to revert it, but this was more on-point than the discussion that preceded it, and it is an extended response to that, which led to specific reference to article text and to a source for more material on what we cover in the article on the topic of claims that cold fusion is pathological science. Specifically, I point to current text that is out of balance, in the lede, on pathological science, and I point to an additional reliable source that explicitly considers cold fusion and pathological science, which I'd never seen before, which balances the opinion covered in the article, in two places. And I indicate that I'd be preparing text for the article. However, I'm not in charge here. The non-COI editors are. --Abd (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you propose that the lead is inaccurate? If so, please show us a reliable source that indicates that cold fusion is no longer a pathological science. The source should say something like, "cold fusion has been labeled a pathological science. The label is no longer applicable for certain reasons now elucidated." This needs to be an independent source for obvious reasons. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing that the lede is "inaccurate," I described the problem precisely in what you collapsed. It tells half the story. A more notable half? Perhaps, perhaps not, that's unclear, and in science, there is some preference for later opinion over earlier opinion. Cold fusion has been labeled a pathological science, for sure, but I proposed two sources that propose that the rejection of cold fusion, and this labeling, may have been pathological science, it its own way. Simon (2002) covers this fairly well, and Bauer (2002) covers it very specifically and clearly and denies that Langmuir's criteria apply to cold fusion. And, as I pointed out, it's clear that the criteria certainly no longer apply, if they ever did. But that's original research. But I have not researched what's in reliable source on this yet, adequately, to be ready to propose an edit, and I was looking for preliminary comment, so that I might come up with something more likely to quickly find consensus. In any case, Simon and Bauer were both published independently; Simon is a book on the sociology of science, specifically about cold fusion, published by Rutgers University Press, and Bauer was published in the International Journal for the Philosophy of Chemistry. SA, don't you think I know our RS guidelines? What did you think I'd do, propose an article from Infinite Energy?
 * I also quoted Hoffman, 1995, generally considered a skeptic, independently published, stating that the calorimetry was competently done. Hoffman concluded, in short, that the matter was unresolved, which was, in fact, the conclusion in 2004 as well. It is impossible to read the 2004 DoE review consistently with the opinion that cold fusion is pathological science, because in 20 years, the support did not decline, it increased in fifteen years from what may have been 14% (1989 panel) for "nuclear origin" to ~ 33% (2004 panel), with there being 50% support on the critical calorimetry issue -- and if you don't accept the calorimetry, you sure as hell aren't going to accept a nuclear origin for it ! True pathological science, by Langmuir's criteria, would not muster the kind of support that cold fusion has been clearly getting fifteen to twenty years later. The article is imbalanced because there is contrary RS on the "pathological science" claim that is of equivalent quality or better than what the article cites. --Abd (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OR in other words. No dice. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? OR by some skeptic calling CF "pathological science" is okay for the article, but OR by a chemist, published under peer review, isn't? How about even application of standards? In any case, when I make the proposed edits, I'll include source analysis here. --Abd (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There exist reliable, independent sources which describe cold fusion as pathological science that are directly cited in the article. That's not "original research". Your determination that cold fusion is somehow no longer pathological science was made by combining a bunch of sources: none of which actually make that statement or even directly address the issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There exist the sources you describe. There also exist reliable, independent sources which contradict this. "Pathological science" is not a scientific category. Did you read Bauer? You've confused the history of opinion with scientific fact.
 * Obviously, SA, you have a POV on cold fusion, you've been pushing it for years. You go way, way beyond what the sources actually say. Did I synthesize my opinions? Sure I did. I started by reading the sources, by buying the books, starting with Huizenga and Taubes and Hoffman and Simon. Then Mizuno and Storms. And then everything else I could get my hands on. I see no sign at all that you are familiar with the sources and issues, all you know is "fringe pathological science" and useless ad-hominem arguments. Cold fusion was never pathological science, as you claim, there was never a neutral application of Langmuir's criteria to it that didn't rest on unexamined assumptions, such as "not replicated" and "with more accurate measurements the effect disappears." A totally bogus argument, never confirmed. Etc. Cold fusion was called pathological science, that's clear, and that is all that can be shown in the sources. And the contrary, as well.
 * I'm surprised. I really did imagine you'd be more cooperative than this. I really did try to help you when you were banned. Ah, well, live and learn. --Abd (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

To quote the lead, "By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead, and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science." That's well-verified by the sources listed and even agrees with your analysis. If you have a specific proposal and sources, let us know. Otherwise, this is all just sound and fury. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've listed the sources, but I'm not terribly motivated at the moment to work on the article, with Hipocrite and Science Apologist showing up with extreme provocations. It will take some days, if ever. I'm much happier editing secondary sources, writing primary ones, and doing the actual research. It is way, way more fun than slogging through the crap here on Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would, indeed, be a better use of your time if your goal is to get Wikipedia to identify cold fusion claims as actual breakthrough research. When you convince the rest of the scientific community, we'll gladly follow suit here. And no, you have not convincingly offered evidence that you have convinced the rest of the scientific community. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither is my goal, and it's really weird that you would assume that it is, but not actually surprising. I have argued that it is, from the available evidence -- which can include verifiable information that isn't adequate for inclusion in an article, depending on editorial consensus -- emerging science, and that we cannot automatically apply to it the special standards for "fringe science," though, in fact, if fairly applied, would address almost all the problems I've pointed out. I haven't argued that it should be so stated in the article! --Abd (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

At some point, some of us just want to scream. There is far, far too much above for anyone to reasonably get through. Changes are made incrementally here. If someone has a minor change to the article they want to propose, do so - otherwise, I suggest we archive this entire talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a complex field, with too much stuffed into one article. Nobody has to "get through" all the above, you can just watch the article and check out what's relevant. But people are working actively on sections, there was just study of a recent source at RSN, etc. Hipocrite reduced the archive bot to 10 days, I just reverted it back to 30 days, but I really would just like some more opinions on this. Maybe 10 days is okay, maybe not. (This is, I believe, how long a thread will sit with no responses before being archived.) --Abd (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite reset it at 20 days. I won't protest that. Other opinions? --Abd (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that 10 days is too short. Personally I'd prefer 30 as i think a little scrolling is a small price to pay for increased transparency and discussion.  But if more people prefer 20 or 30 becomes too impractical, i'd be willing to settle on 20 as a comprimise.  Kevin Baastalk 16:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Until recently, the bot archiving this page would reduce the size from roughly between 100 and 150 kB by roughly 50 kB. Very recently, this page has ballooned to its present 425 kB. That's why there is a move to alter the archiving, to try and control the page size. If anyone has a better / more effective way to try to return us to a more reasonable page size, please share it. EdChem (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * less bickering and distortions and more intellectual honesty and thinking before you speak. if people all get their facts and logic straight in the first place others won't have to spend so much time and verbage correcting them.  though i'm not sure that's going to happen, so the archiving thing seems more effective.  there will just have to be more verbage until people honestly start listening to each other more. Kevin Baastalk 16:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "less bickering and distortions and more intellectual honesty and thinking before you speak. if people all get their facts and logic straight in the first place others won't have to spend so much time and verbage correcting them.  though i'm not sure that's going to happen, so the archiving thing seems more effective." I am sure that is not going to happen. Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 13:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream journals
I'm not going to fact-tag every one of the mainstream journals, but could someone please provide citations and quotes from papers (or just titles, where the title makes it obvious) that Cold fusion reports have been published in the


 * Japanese Journal of Applied Physics
 * European Physical Journal A
 * European Physical Journal C
 * Journal of Solid State Phenomena
 * Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry
 * Journal of Fusion Energy?

Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can see the Dieter Britz bibliography, it's an external link from the article. However, he does not list by publication. lenr-canr.org does. Go there and click on the Library link. Then click on Publications at the top. In the left panel you can select a publication. So, for example, for Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, (J. Electroanal. Chem.) you can see all the papers considered to be related to cold fusion by Rothwell. You can then see the year of publication and check the independent Britz review of the paper. For example, the most recent I found in that journal was a Spzak et al. paper published in 2005. Someone who knows the field would know immediately from the author and title, The effect of an external electric field on surface morphology of co-deposited Pd/D films, that this was a cold fusion related paper. However, there is a comment near the end:
 * ''Parenthetically, nothing substantial can be gained (in terms of understanding) by conducting a set of parallel experiments involving “light” water. In contrast, a comparison with “light” water is essential when evaluating excess enthalpy generation (the Fleischmann–Pons effect)[12]. [...]
 * ''[12]H. Gerischer, in: The Science of Cold Fusion, Proc. of the II Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, 1991. --Abd (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look at one more: European Physical Journal A. Rothwell lists two reports published there, relatively minor ones, both in 2006. Rothwell doesn't host a copy of either. Britz has a summary of the first, by Czerski:
 * Following their 2004 paper, the authors again theorise about enhanced fusion in metal targets hit by deuteron beams, and conclude that indeed electrons can screen the deuterons, raising fusion rates to levels comparable with those reported by Jones et al (1989). Jones was reporting, in 1989, a variety of cold fusion, and the issue of electron screening is an important one to the theoretical basis for cold fusion. This paper is of interest because of low-energy fusion
 * The second paper, by Huke, is a bit more to the point of cold fusion. Britz's summary:
 * ''As with the other papers (Czerski et al (2004) (2006)) this confirms that dd fusion might be different in Pd. Here the target metals are Al, Zr, Ta and Pd and the branching ratios of the dd fusion reactions are examined. For some target metals, the branching ratio of neutrons to protons emitted falls (somewhat) below unity at low beam energies, unlike observations in plasma experiments. This is taken as evidence that the cold fusion claims of greatly different branching ratios for dd fusion in PdD might be real. There are no references to actual cold fusion papers, however, and the crucial rate of helium emission was not examined.
 * That's all I have time for today. There is no crisp definition of "cold fusion" paper, but, for example, listing EPJ-A in a list of journals publishing recent papers on cold fusion is probably misleading. Britz is an electrochemist, apparently skeptical, who took on the task of maintaining a bibliography on cold fusion. That he includes a paper is some kind of evidence that it's related, but sometimes he includes, for example, bubble fusion papers, even though bubble fusion is hot fusion, if it exists.


 * More to the point for the article is recent publications, and, in addition, recent secondary source reviews of the field, especially in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, published in 2005 or after, which are all listed, to my knowledge, except for one Biberian review just found by Britz, at Cold fusion/Recent sources (I've been working with Britz on this; I'd found another Biberian review he'd missed, and he did a more thorough look-up).


 * The publication rate in 1989-1990 was rapid. However, that declined to a nadir of roughly one paper every two months by 2004 or 2005. However, for 2008-2010, the rate has risen significantly to about two papers per month in mainstream journals, sustained over the period. --Abd (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2010
 * I don't follow all the above about what is hosted where. Clearly we need the full ref of at least one paper in every journal mentioned. It's up to those who want to include the info to go looking for the refs. Sending us to external websites isn't the right way to go about it. ISTR we did have the refs at one point. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite asked about the journals. I pointed to where the references can be found, and looked up some of them. I wrote about the significance of this, in context, and briefly. I pointed to the bibliographies. Suit yourself, Judith. If you think the article needs references, get them and put them in, I made it easy to find them. If you think the text should be removed, fine with me. At this point, mostly, it's putting lipstick on a pig, the article is full of original research, or what may sometimes be worse, implications about the science from shallow uninformed media secondary sources, what really amount to tertiary sources. You know where to find a recent peer-reviewed secondary source on cold fusion, in a mainstream journal, and where to find more than fifteen others. If you need a reminder or to know about the topic, to find references, etc., my Talk page is open and so is my email. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I notice that ABD provided another wall-of-text to answer an easy question. I don't see an answer in it, so I'll ask again before removing journals:

Could someone please provide citations and quotes from papers (or just titles, where the title makes it obvious) that Cold fusion reports have been published in the


 * Japanese Journal of Applied Physics
 * European Physical Journal A
 * European Physical Journal C
 * Journal of Solid State Phenomena
 * Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry
 * Journal of Fusion Energy?

Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Google scholar comes up mainly with lenr-canr sited articles. You can find links from links. This would appear to be one of the ones referred to: Yasuhiro Iwamura, Mitsuru Sakano and Takehiko Itoh, “Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation”, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol.41, No.7A, (2002). Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with judith) Almost all taken from Krivit's list of selected papers.


 * Japanese Journal of Applied Physics
 * (Heavy Element Transmutation in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) Iwamura, Y., M. Sakano, and T. Itoh, "Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics A, Vol. 41, p. 4642, (2002)
 * R. A. Oriani1 and J. C. Fisher, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 41 (2002) pp. 6180-6183 "Generation of Nuclear Tracks during Electrolysis"


 * European Physical Journal (not sure if it's "A")
 * (Evidence for Existence of Neutrons in LENR) Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Dea, Jack Y., Forsley, Lawrence P.G., Morey, Mark S., Tinsley, James R., Hurley, John Paul and Gordon, Frank E., "Comparison of Pd/D Co-deposition and DT Neutron-Generated Triple Tracks Observed in CR-39 Detectors," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, Vol. 51 (2), (Onlne July 7, 2010) p. ???, (2010)
 * (Cold Fusion Theory) Kalman, Peter, Keszthelyi, T., and Kis, D., "Solid State Modified Nuclear Processes," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, Vol. 44, p. 297-302 (2008)
 * (Response to Kowalski SPAWAR Replication) Mosier-Boss, Pamela, Szpak, Stan, Gordon, Frank, and Forsley, Lawrence P.G., "Reply to Comment on 'The Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments': A Response to Kowalski," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, Vol. 44, p. 291-295 (2008)
 * (Kowalski SPAWAR Replication) Kowalski, Ludwik, "Comment on 'The Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments" by P.A. Mosier-Boss, S. Szpak, F.E. Gordon and L.P.G. Forsley, Interpreting SPAWAR-Type Dominant Pits," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, Vol. 44, p. 287-290 (2008)
 * (Review of use of SSNTDs in Pd/D and H/D Co-deposition Experiments) Mosier-Boss, P., Szpak, S., Gordon, F., Forsley, L, "Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, Vol. 40, p. 293–303, (Dec. 13, 2007) DOI: 10.1051/epjap:2007152 (Full list of SPAWAR Papers)


 * European Physical Journal A
 * (Alteration of the Reaction Channels of the DD Reaction in Accelerator Experiments) Huke, A., et al., "Evidence for a Host-Material Dependence of the N/P Branching Ratio of Low-Energy D+D Reactions Within Metallic Environments,"] European Physical Journal A, Vol. 27(S1), p. 187, (2006)
 * (Measurement of CMNS Reactions Using Ion Accelerators) Czerski, K., et al., "Experimental and Theoretical Screening Energies for the 2H(d, p) 3H Reaction in Metallic Environments," European Physical Journal A, Vol. 27(S1), p. 83, (2006)


 * European Physical Journal C
 * (LENR Theory) Widom, A., Larsen, L., "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces," European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields, Vol. 46(1), p.107 (2006)


 * Journal of Solid State Phenomena
 * (Experiments with Ion Beam Irradiation to Search for Evidence of 3D Fusion) Tahahashi, A. Takahashi, A., et al., "Search for Enhanced D+D+D Reactions under D+ Beam Irradiation into TiDx Targets," Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Vol.107, p. 55, (2005)


 * Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry
 * (Morphological Changes Indicating Substantial Anomalous Energy) Szpak, S., et al., "The Effect of an External Electric Field on Surface Morphology of Codeposited Pd/D Films," Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 580, p. 284-290, (2005) (Full list of SPAWAR Papers)
 * (Excess Heat) Fleischmann, Martin, and Pons, Stanley, "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium," Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 261, Issue 2, Part 1, p. 301-308 (April 10, 1989). Errata: Fleischmann, M., Pons, Stanley and Hawkins, Marvin, Vol. 263, p. 187-188, (1989)
 * (Excess Heat (Seminal Paper)) Fleischmann M., Pons, S., Anderson, M. W., Li, L. J., Hawkins, M., "Calorimetry of the Palladium-Deuterium-Heavy Water System," Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 287, p. 293-351, (July 1990)
 * (Excess Heat (Replication of data reduction calculations of 1990 F-P Paper)) Wilson, R.H. et al., "Analysis of Experiments on the Calorimetry of LiOD-D2O Electrochemical Cells," Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 332, p. 1-31, (1992)
 * (Excess Heat (Rebuttal to Wilson et al.)) Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, "Some Comments on The Paper 'Analysis of Experiments on The Calorimetry of Liod-D2O Electrochemical Cells,' R.H. Wilson et al., Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 332, (1992)," Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 332, p. 33 (1992)


 * Journal of Fusion Energy? ([http://www.springer.com/new+%26+forthcoming+titles+%28default%29/journal/10894 journal's website)
 * (Brief Review of CMNS) Li, Xing Z., M. Wei, Qing, Liu, Bin, Zheng, Shu X., X. Cao, Dong, "Progress in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science," Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 25, No. 3/4, (December 2006)
 * --Enric Naval (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Can someone explain how European Physical Journal C and Journal of Solid State Phenomena are Cold Fusion papers? Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * About EPJ C, note the header "4 Low energy nuclear reactions", the He byproducts, see the first comment nad its signature in this Nature's blog. I think that Larsen founded a cold fusion company (Lattice Energy LLC). They say that no actual fusion is happening, and they give an alternate explanation for how the cold fusion cells work. Larsen is directly related to LERN efforts in New Scientist and Chicago Reader.


 * For the Solid State Phenomena paperlink to abstract. The author is Aito Takahashi, an eyewitness of Arata's demonstration of a cold fusion cell. His theory of how the CF cell works: inside the loaded palladium the collisions of three deuterium molecules at the same time are more frequent ("three-body D+D+D fusion reaction in condensed matter") and those collisions release a lot of energy.  --Enric Naval (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with above) I'd answered, with links and quotes, about EPJ-A and JEC, and, as I pointed out above, there is no crisp definition of "cold fusion reports." The paper in EPJ-C, however, is a notable publication of Widom-Larsen theory, an attempt to explain the set of phenomena known popularly as "cold fusion." W-L and supporters (most notably Krivit) claim that this isn't "fusion," but it is, instead, a different kind of "low energy nuclear reaction." Semantic difference only. This is a cold fusion paper, very much so. Note that Low energy nuclear reactions was redirected to this article.
 * The JSSP paper is trickier. A. Takahashi (not Tahahashi, that's a NET error) is a major cold fusion theorist. A hot fusion physicist, he discovered that the cross-section for multiple-deuteron fusion was higher than expected from the bombardment of titanium deuteride with deuterons. Your first clue is the author. Second is that NET lists this as an important older paper. Third is this paper hosted at lenr-canr.org: acrobat/TakahashiAstudiesond.pdf, covering the same subject matter. The fourth clue is the abstract itself, you can see it at, "To search possible enhancement of three-body D+D+D fusion reaction in condensed matter, we have studied for 10 years about emitted charged particle spectra from titanium-deuterate (TiDx) samples under low energy D+ beam irradiation." One of the classic arguments against cold fusion is that the cross-section for fusion is way too small at room temperature. Takahashi finds, in this paper, cross-section enhancement by an estimated factor of 10^26. This is support for his Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory, which involves four deuterons. There is no doubt that Takahashi is working on cold fusion, and his result is a striking support for the possibility that nuclear reactions in the solid state are much more likely than older approximations predicted. This paper is not included in the Britz bibliography, I'll write him, because this is definitely a CF-related paper. lenr-canr.org lists 51 papers by Takahashi related to cold fusion, which is hugely prolific. But Rothwell also missed this paper....


 * Executive summary: I agree with Enric, those are both "cold fusion reports." --Abd (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lock this talk page
Seriously people. Do your own work, and stop arguing. Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 13:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This article has been taken over by strong POV-pushers, it's impossible to work here. It's not about arguing at all. Bye. --Abd (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Convenience links to papers cited in article
Many times over the years, convenience links have been added to papers cited in the article or referenced in the bibliography and hosted by lenr-canr.org, have been added. These have been removed, mostly by one person, and were originally blackllisted by that person, based on arguments that were considered in detail and rejected at [] and elsewhere. I intend to restore those links, for the pages that were, over a year ago, whitelisted for that very purpose, and I'm requesting delisting (or will request more whitelistings if needed). There is no reason to require our readers to search for the papers. (They can, indeed, find them relatively easily by googling the full citation, lenr-canr.org is often the top hit, after Wikipedia.) These are convenience links only, lenr-canr.org is reliable for copies hosted by permission, (often they are preprints, which many publications allow authors to share), but the site is not ordinarily a reliable source itself. These are the links to lenr-canr.org that have already been whitelisted (not all may be appropriate for this article, I haven't checked): --Abd (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmansearchingf.pdf
 * http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf
 * http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html This is the index to the lenr-canr.org bibliography. Invaluable to anyone researching the field.
 * http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm This is the full bibliography (large file).
 * http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
 * http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
 * http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJaccountabi.pdf
 * http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBpathologic.pdf
 * http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
 * http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushBFheliumprod.pdf
 * http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf
 * http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HublerGKanomalousea.pdf
 * http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYelementalaa.pdf

ScienceApologist reverted the convenience links, with an edit summary of LENR-CANR.org does not have an editorial policy that is compatible with the goals of external sourcing.. SA has misunderstood what these are. They are convenience links, not "external sources." All of these were approved by an admin, they had to be to get around the whitelisting. The "source" is the original papers, and the links are just for reader convenience. The argument SA made has been brought up many times before and always rejected when considered. I thought this might not be controversial. In any case, since he has reverted, and I'm COI, I cannot revert him; so it's up to other editors. If there are any questions, please ask. But see the debate at and the prior debate at. This has been discussed to death, and the conclusion was always the same, and removals only stuck when they weren't noticed. --Abd (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Jed Rothwell's site does not seem to have the appropriate permissions to reprint the journal articles listed above and the appropriate safeguards do not seem to be in place of a standard preprint server. The primary source documents are all soapboxes and I appreciate that Abd is not reverting due to his obvious conflict-of-interest in presenting his version of "research" into cold fusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense, and this has been debated in depth, many times. The "no permission" argument was raised at the whitelist page, prior discussion, and rejected, and for all these links, (see also whitelisting of most of the links listed above), specifically, and the position being taken isn't WP policy. The documents I linked in the article were already in the bibliography, and this "soapbox" argument is preposterous. Some of these were crucial papers, if anyone wants to understand cold fusion and its history. Do we serve the readers? (I've got no problem with the media, or with how mainstream science is treating cold fusion. And those links are not to my "research.") If a source here doesn't belong in the bibliography, it should be removed. That's a totally separate issue! Don't list it and then make it harder to find! --Abd (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have copyright concerns about the lenr-canr website, and have not been able to find in the links to previous discussion any reason why we should regard those copyright concerns as resolved. We should never feel the need to make convenience links to academic papers unless we are sure that there is no copyright problem. Authors, article title, journal, volume, issue, page numbers, doi number would be helpful, and then anyone can find the paper in an academic library. Indeed, if you in the UK and have no access to an academic library, you can get a paper from your local library on interlibrary loan. We can do without being sued by academic publishers. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The links are in my comment above, to two discussions. What can't you find? The "copyright problem" is a secondary one. I.e., we would not be hosting copyvio, ourselves, the issue would be knowingly linking to a copyvio. Do we require positive proof for a web site that there is no copyvio there? Do we require this proof for every link? Effectively, this has been claimed, yet this is not policy, and it is obvious why. There have been attempts to put it in policy. They failed. Wikipedia isn't going to be sued for linking to a web site that is not an obvious copyvio farm, and this site clearly doesn't qualify. Some (most?) of the links are preprints, and the publishers typically allow authors to distribute those. There may be a few exceptions. In any case, I've argued this maybe three times, in depth. I'm not about to do it again. But I do see that concern for the reader has been completely lost.


 * The guideline is at WP:ELNEVER. I've never seen anythying but speculation on this on lenr-canr. What proof would be required? Out of all the pages where whitelisting was requested (above is a partial listing), one paper was withdrawn because of a possible copyright concern. If someone were going to be sued, it would be the host, who is already prominent in any web search for this material. Not Wikipedia. When lenr-canr.org has been linked to, a list of claims have been raised. Answer one and another pops up. It usually starts with "fringe." Above, SA refers to the site's "editorial policy." What editorial policy? This is almost entirely a library! He hosts every paper relevant to the field, where he can get permission. Without permission, he doesn't host, which is why he only hosts about a thousand papers out of about three thousand published. Then, when that's addressed, comes copyvio. This sudden concern about copyvio, coming from a person who is clearly on an anti-fringe crusade. It's obvious, and I'm sorry to see you've fallen for it, Judith.


 * Not my problem any more. Suit yourself. I discharged my responsibility to those who came before and who worked on this issue. Unless I see some positive action here, I'm gone, editors who have and are clearly and *blatantly* pushing a POV, unsupported by reliable source, are given free rein, and copyvio is nitpicked. The claims that I have some motive to imbalance this article are speculative assumptions of bad faith. These were merely convenience links, but it was work to prepare them and put them in. Not to be repeated by me. I don't need this at all. The revert taking these out is above. Revert it or don't. --Abd (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Abd, you are the only one who wants to use the copies on lenr-canr. The only one.  There are NO complaints coming from over 700 wikis.  Only you want to link to these as convenience links .. and that is all that they are.  Convenience, not necessary.
 * Fact: there are documents there of which the copyright status is disputed. Only the site owner says he has proper right to publish them, but many editors think that it is unlikely, and proper documents can not be found.  We do not link to documents that violate copyright, and I am sorry, I am willing to err there on the save side.  Fact: there is documentation there that is altered.  It has been shown for one article.  I am sorry, but if there is one, then that IMHO means, that for every document on that server it should be checked.  While it is not necessary, we can link to the originals.  Or do you want to include with every reference here that the links are checked and found the same.  Those are real concerns.  You may be right for most of the site that the links are fine, and that is exactly why we have the whitelist.  If it is found that certain documents are fine, then they can be whitelisted.  And please, worry about waste of admin time when it comes to it, unless we get a massive influx of several editors who want to use convenience copies on lenr-canr.org, and most of those convenience copies are not necessary anyway (there is always the original!), so if there is a waste of time, it is keeping asking for whitelisting or de-listing of convenience copies of documents.  If you have any real arguments in stead of regurgitating the old arguments (i.e., arguments which are not 'it was not spammed', 'there are no problems with copyright', 'it is convenient to link to them', 'it is a waste of admin time', 'most documents are not changed'), please present them.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll interject this short remark to agree with Kevin Baas, below, that Abd is not the only one who thinks that the lenr-canr.org site is a good place to find relevant information on this subject. V (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true, and you seem to misunderstand the issue here. What is neccessary: a thorough, comprehensive, verifiable and balanced article.  this means we must present information not in respect to some secondary artificial criteria such as does it have a link that we can use, but on the matter of whether it is due weight and verifiable.  lacking other sources for verification, so called "convenience links" become necessary in certain cases to fulfill the due weight and verifiability criteria.  provided that the content linked to (not to be confused with where the particular content is hosted) satisfies WP:RS criteria.  many papers related to CF that meet the WP:RS criteria and are important for achieving due weight and balance may only be available over the internet through one host. in which case it becomes neccessary to use that link, lest we unduly burden people who are using wikipedia as a resource, or simply checking that the content is verified. Kevin Baastalk 17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Convenience links are manifestly independent of WP:UNDUE and WP:V concerns. No sources were removed from the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * many papers related to CF that meet the WP:RS criteria and are important for achieving due weight and balance may only be available over the internet through one host. in which case it becomes neccessary to use that link, lest we unduly burden people who are using wikipedia as a resource, or simply checking that the content is verified. Kevin Baastalk 17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not convincing. When people start complaining in droves about not being able to find links to papers on-line, we can think about whether we should try to migrate preprints to wikisource where they can be properly handled. Until then.... ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * right, until people start complaining in droves.... Kevin Baastalk 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In review i recall that sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet. my point was i hope we set a higher bar than that; i would hope that it doesn't actually take people complaining in droves for anything to get done.  preferably things would be fixed well before that. Kevin Baastalk 15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that needs to be fixed. "Convenience" is not something that Wikipedia is required to provide. If you would like to work on migrating pre-prints over to wikisource where they can be properly archived, I think that would be fantastic. I trust the collaboration at Wikisource which has the necessary safeguards in place to prevent abuses that some of us worry about associated with Rothwell's site. However, I'm not seeing any reason myself to undertake such a task at this time, in part because there is only one editor other than yourself who is complaining about this, and I know for a fact that neither of you have a problem getting access to sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean to suggest that you know that I have access to subscription-based services or anything at all beyond what your average layman does than you know something that i don't. i am your average layman.  also i'm sure you are aware that there have been more than 2 people complaining about this, as Beetstra is no doubt aware.
 * As regard migrating content over, again, yet another example of an arbitrary and impractical obstacle. Kevin Baastalk 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If you mean to suggest that you want free access to articles that should only be available via subscription-based services, then you seriously misunderstand what is allowed here at Wikipedia. If it is a true preprint, migrate it over to Wikisource so we don't have to worry about whether Jed Rothwell will do something to the paper. If it is not a pre-print, then we shouldn't be linking to it except through the actual publisher. The obstacle may seem arbitrary and impractical to you, but there are enough people expressing their concerns about your proposed "convenience links" to mean that you ought to put in some work to satisfy us. I've just described how to do this. I'll even help you out on a few if you'd like. Let me know. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)i don't mean to suggest that. i just don't know what could possibly lead you to believe that i have unusual access to sources, or even how that could matter to readers of the article.
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. it is about reason. and i haven't seen any justifiable reason. i will not put in any work to satisfy people that i don't feel are being reasonable in the first place. that would just seem like a total waste of time. if you don't want to include the one pdf out of the entire libary that jed put a disclaimer on then you don't have to. noone should have to do more work on account of the paranoid delusional premise that a collection of library resources are going to be spammed all over on account of one rather disclaimer put on one pdf. that is not reasonable. Kevin Baastalk 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are required to work with others on Wikipedia whether you like their reasoning or not. There are ways to address systemic concerns you have about other's reasoning, if you'd like. The very fact that there exists a single document that Jed altered makes me extremely worried about his integrity as a librarian and legitimate content provider. There is a simple way to safeguard against the abuses that Jed was documented to have committed to the DOE report: migrate legal and unaltered copies of sources over to Wikisource where the history and alterations would be transparently protected against. Rothwell has not implemented safeguards that every legitimate preprint server has, so I simply do not trust it as a convenience link. The sole owner and content protector of the site is too much of a strident advocate for Wikipedia to be relying on him. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * i was talking about whether or not i choose to do extra work which i don't feel is neccessary. that has nothing at all to do with dispute resolution or working with others.  i don't imagine anyone would reprimand me for not migrating content over to wikisource anymore than they'd reprimand mickey mouse for not doing so, either.  My primary concern here is that there is a lot of relevant material and sources here which might not be giving due weight on account of nothing more than a practical impediment.  the article is one-sided and anemic enough as it is.  (hell, the "proposed explanations" section doesn't even contain any proposed explanations!) Kevin Baastalk 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're a bit all over the map here, but let me respond to two points I see that could use response: 1) No sources at all were removed. What was removed were links to lenr-canr. The sources are still listed. I will not get upset if you choose not to migrate preprints to wikisource; as I said, I'm not up to doing that either. However, I am also willing to help you if that's something you would like to do (and I think that such a project would be a fabulous thing for someone to do). 2) I agree that the proposed mechanisms section needs work. But the proposals I've seen for how to deal with it are generally less satisfying to me than the current article. Essentially, the current article right now discusses the very real impediments to the theoretical explanations that have been proposed by cold fusion proponents for 20 years (and, as far as I can tell, not much has changed in their theoretical proposals in 20 years except for a certain amount of gloss). The problem is that the theoretical proposals themselves are vague and undefined. They are all essentially of the form that there is some sort of catalyzed nuclear reaction that is allowed for by some lattice-magic. Schwinger believed it was H-D fusion. Current proponents favor D-D complexes (and are avoiding the term "fusion", as far as I can tell, in order to side-step branching ratio issues). There is even a wizbang theory using QFT tools that is supposed to explain how the catalysis works. This is all stuff that would seem ripe for inclusion, but is really hard to describe without giving WP:UNDUE weight to one or two proponents or without engaging in WP:SYNTH. These are problems I have yet to see addressed in the discussions. And so we're stuck. To get unstuck, let me suggest you start a new section, propose a sentence to insert in the article, cite a secondary source, and we get moving on the description of what the proposed mechanisms are in general. I'm willing to work with you. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to work together on the proposed explanations section (and related sections in the vicinity). I think that's a good place where a lot of progress can be made.  and yes we should start a new section below for that.  but let me first note here, i believe it needs refactoring.  i started a page on my user space: User_talk:Kevin_Baas/workspace/cold_fusion_refactoring with my first impression of how such a refactoring might work.  no content was changed (i'm pretty sure), just moved around and sections renamed.  it may be useful to at least get ideas from.  having said that, if you want to go ahead and start a new section and maybe get any initial ideas down that you might have, i would gladly shift my focus to working together on that.  (though i should warn that i might be away for long periods, so don't bother waiting if i don't reply for a while.  as some people may have noticed, my level of participation is kind of on-and-off.) Kevin Baastalk 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your workspace is in the right direction, but I'm having a hard time dealing with it mostly because I don't necessarily think all the content we have right now is worth saving. I think I'd prefer to discuss exactly what the proposed explanations are as described by independent third-party sources in a separate section. To be honest, I'm not sure anyone has actually attempted to do this. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Kevin, a significant number of the references on lenr-canr are the same, or pre-prints of, as the original sources. Those sources can be found, they can be read, go to a local university library (you can just enter there, you don't need to be a student of the uni), and get to the original papers.  Most universities which teach exact sciences will have access to these journals.  You can get the sources.  Same goes for books, follow the ISBN, and find it.  (And those who use Wikipedia as a resource for Cold fusion a) should first read this, and b) most will be of a scientific institution who have direct access to the originals).  You, or whoever can get the copy.  Those links are not necessary, and since we can get them, there is NO issue with undue weight, with NPOV, the content can be checked.  You can even here put a non-working link (leave off the http) and discuss it here (one could even make a drop-down box with a table with the non-working links in the top, for convenience), the main space document does not need the link (it would just be nice ...).  Your arguments that leaving out copies of documents available on lenr-canr is giving undue weight does not make sense.  When the document is only available on lenr-canr, then the story becomes a bit different, but MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist is just there for that.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why go through all that trouble when you can just follow a link.  and why whitelist on a case by case basis when you can just unblacklist and be done with it?  the problem is there are no reasons.  and people keep going bla bla bla but they never give any real substantive reasons because there are none.  i suppose you guys can go bla bla bla all you want but don't expect it to fix anything.  personally, i won't be using wikipedia as a resource for things like that because it's just not very good of one.  it's got a strong pseudo-skeptic bias and it doesn't provide links to look into stuff more thoroughly.  no i'm not going to bother going to a library when i can just find the same info on the internet by going to a different site.  and i certainly won't use the wikipedia article as a starting point, ironically, and for reasons i've already mentioned.  if that's how some people want it, well they can have it, i suppose.  people can always go to britanica or compton's online instead.  i know i will. Kevin Baastalk 14:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever, Kevin. If editors would get (or would have gotten) to the point, and keep away with their bla bla bla .. then we would get or would have gotten somewhere.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the main impediment here, as is often the case, is lack of objectivity. only when one is truly being objective does one have a valid point that can be quickly "gotten to", and, well, ascertained to be based on valid and practical reasoning.  lacking such will almost inevitably lead to disagreements that never finish and never accomplish anything, thou one party will inevitably get their way (for better or worse) in the interim.  and that, of course, is far from ideal. Kevin Baastalk 15:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me get the point through, here. lenr-canr.org was blacklisted as it was deemed misused/spammed (by the site owner and others), and because it was deemed that there were copyright violations being linked to (as a form of abuse).  There is no direct evidence of spam (at least not of a scale that needs blacklisting), but copyright violations brings that level down significantly.  If the people that look at de-blacklisting then get as a main reason 'It was not spammed', ignoring or insufficiently addressing the other problems, then I point to the above linked policy ('A procedural error made in posting anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post.').  When other points are then not properly countered ('oh, I talked with him, it is fine', 'no-one makes a big deal out of it', etc.), and originals can be used anyway, then I decline (note, I had nothing to do with the original blacklisting), or comment with a negative advice (in later delisting requests where I felt myself not impartial anymore).  I prefer then to err on the save side.  And those reasons get repeated (and repeated, and repeated).  I've tried to tell the de-blacklisting nominator to counter things properly and to keep discussions short, etc., but those points don't get through, the dead horse is beaten over and over.  I am sorry, there is a lot of rubbish out there (this not being one of it), and if editors keep beating dead horses and not coming with properly reasoned requests, and I have to go through lengths to check everything myself before making a final verdict .. then indeed, it leads to disagreements that never finish and which accomplish nothing (note that I also declined a blacklisting-request recently on exactly the same reason, I am not going to do the work to check it (or it must be blatantly obvious)).  But well.  It is weekend .. lets enjoy the .. rain (in this case, I already did the work myself to give a verdict, so no need to make this discussion any longer).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll finish reading the rest of your comment, but first just a fine point: what you referred to, as you described it, was a policy error, not a "procedural error". a procedural error would be for instance not posting an RFD notice on an article you're nominating for deletion. Kevin Baastalk 16:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * another fine point, if multiple editors keep "beating the horse", then perhaps it isn't dead. Kevin Baastalk 16:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, i believe the valid, practical reasons for convenience links (and not having to whitelist them one at a time), besides being plainly obvious, has been clearly communicated many times over by multiple editors. Kevin Baastalk 16:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As regard the one possibly valid concern, which is almost never argued, of "possible copyright violations being linked to", i assure you, that argument is specious, at best.
 * as to "valid counterings" of points, those are valid counterings. "the author has granted the rights in question", "it is not a copyright vio", etc. are all valid counterings to "it could be a copyright vio".  etc.  like i said, that argument is specious, at best.  Kevin Baastalk 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason 'it was not spammed, so it should be delisted', is an incomplete argument if there are other reasons mentioned (or found) for blacklisting; not being spammed goes for many sites on the blacklist, which were blacklisted for other reasons much more grave then being spammed. It is a part of an argument, if all others are properly countered.  Saying 'I talked to the guy, he says it is fine' is also not good enough.  Dragging in 'you can publish pre-prints' ... well, I could not find proof for that either, generally I even believe you are not allowed to do so.  Keep it simple and to the point, don't go around things that can't be proven, keep arguments short .. but that was not done, and the request was, as usual, incomplete, I had to do work for it to find all the data.  If I say that I am afraid that there are copyright violations, then tell me 'well, here it says it probably does not' ..  don't say 'hey, go find it', as I said, I prefer to err on the save side.  And note, if it can be used as a convenience link, it also means that editors are also able to 'use' it as a reference, without using the original .. which IMHO, should NOT be done, use the originals as the source, and this purely as a convenience copy!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * why would you be against using the original as the source? that seems counter-intuitive. Kevin Baastalk 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And let us be clear on what we are talking about here. These are resources in a library that are publicly available upon request, and have been for decades.  were there a copyvio in all of the literature i'm it would have surfaced by now.  there's being safe, and then there's just being utterly paranoid beyond reason.  and i'd be quite surprised if you were equally "safe" with other, similiar resources.  and you would be hard pressed to find one with a librarian who's actually spoken to the authors about distribution and availability.  that is going above and beyond. Kevin Baastalk 18:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The argument "if it was illegal, someone would have complained by now" is not one that the copyright policies of Wikipedia permit as a valid rationale for an action. The onus is on you to show that the concern is moot if you believe it to be so. It's a pain, but that's how Wikipedia works. You're not the first person to get upset over this aspect of policy and are not going to be the last one either. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * well apparently the argument that they got permission from the authors doesn't fly either, so i'm at a loss. Kevin Baastalk 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that's not how preprint servers are supposed to function. Rothwell gets permissions from authors but doesn't get the preprints from the authors. There are indications, such as watermarks, that he just grabs them off of subscription sites and posts them on his site. In those cases, he needs to get permission from the journals. I haven't seen where he has indicated that he did this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * well yes, i can agree with that. if he gets it from the journal he's got to get permission from the journal, even if the text is word for word the same.  it's arguably a "stupid" and arbitrary rule, but it's a rule, nonetheless.  i wasn't aware of the indications.  i was operating under the assumption that he got it from the authors. "the devil is in the details" so they say. Kevin Baastalk 18:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting this, isn't it.
 * A) these are pre-prints, not originals. There is NO indication that there are no differences between the originals and the pre-prints (though they are likely to be the same, don't count on it).  Hence, don't use the documents on the site as the reference, unless you have actually checked that the document is actually really the same as the original.  That is what I mean with don't use this as a reference, only as a convenience copy.  I would call using the documents on the site as a reference (without checking) a misuse, and if one is pointed towards that and is continuing, it is abuse.
 * B) As soon as a document is accepted for publication, the copyright is the publishers. Pre-prints are, obviously, after that moment, and hence, copyrighted by the publisher as well.
 * C) Authors can NOT transfer the copyright, it belongs to the publishers. Authors can ask for permission from the publisher (some publishers let them pay for it), and then it can be published.  Of course also others can ask for permission (I don't know if they have to pay for it), and they may get it.  When this was blacklisted, there were no such indications.
 * None of these points were properly addressed in the delisting request .. in NONE of them. We only get yelled at.  Abusive blacklisting, you make mistakes, this is not spam, etc. etc.  But reasons like 'he says that he has permission', 'it was not spammed', 'you are abusing the spam blacklist by blacklisting other links as well, see ..., and this is also one of them', 'blacklisting this give undue weight', 'these are pre-prints, they don't fall under the copyright', oh even, on meta, 'en.wikipedia ArbCom says this, so this is a wrong addition' (en.wikipedia ArbCom does not say anything on meta, and then I don't tell that that interpretation of the ArbCom was synthesis, it was not a literal thing the ArbCom said, it was a FoF on an editor and a admonishment of the same editor, which together could say that he did the things in the FoF wrong, but it was not literally said that way, and without a clarification of the ArbCom we will never really know) .. are incomplete arguments, and arguments which are not to the point, and arguments which are plainly false (read the copyright forms on the servers of the publishers, you can all access them).
 * Now, and if we would be talking about a site which is a full and plain copyright violating site in all of its pages (lenr-canr.org is not that, of course), which is blacklisted for one addition (which indeed would not qualify as 'being spammed', but if a site gets abused like that, then WP:COPYRIGHT(which contains parts which are law, not just something that we come up with as a policy), can be applied). Then coming with 'it is not spammed' (which is plainly true, but saying that 'policy says that the blacklists are for spam, this was not spammed but added, so it should be removed', is IMHO a WP:NOT violation.  If a policy is not saying something, then that is not a reason that it is then allowed!) is in no way a reason to de-blacklist it.  A good reason would be 'it has cleaned up its act, all the documents that are copyright violations are removed, there is nothing wrong with any document on the domain anymore, and it was not spammed anyway'.  And yes, you (pl) are all right, the spam blacklist is for .. spam, and yes, the blacklisting policy should be rewritten, etc.
 * And then, this is for a site which is a convenience, not a must. For Cold Fusion this site exist, for many other subjects it is not there.  Wikipedia there has to refer to articles which can not be accessed like this.  Does that make all those articles that don't have lenr-canr having undue weight, are they not verifiable.  No, it makes it harder to do it, but it can be done, and that is the point.  That it can be verified.  We do not need links to lenr-canr.org for that, it just makes it easier.
 * I hope this explains least my concerns, and my reasoning. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been persuaded by the copyvio argument and examples given, so we're on the same page now. :) Kevin Baastalk 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank yhou Dirk, for explaining yet again what has already been explained to Abd numerous times. Why was this removced fomr the meta blacklist in the first place? The only people linking it have been Rothwell and people proxying for Rothwell, as Abd has been doing here. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki link to Wikiversity
a link to the Wikiversity resource on Cold fusion was removed with (removed link to CF wikiversity page, which is essentially self-published by Abd and biased; if you want to add it back please discuss it first).

Please see Wikimedia sister projects.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what Wikiversity is and how it operates. All material there is "self-published," and so that argument would obviate any links to Wikiversity at all. Wikiversity, like a real university, handles neutrality, which is a policy there as well as here, differently. A resource there may be declared as NPOV, in which case it may be held to stricter standards, but that's not a requirement. Mainspace at Wikiversity allows subpages, but in any case, original research is allowed, just as it is at any university. Forking is encouraged by policy there, instead of fighting over content, i.e., it is perfectly acceptable at Wikiversity to have more than one page on a topic, just as one might have more than one class at a university, taught by more than one professor, using different textbooks, and where different points of view might be expressed.

As such, it is possible to explore a topic far more deeply than at Wikipedia. It is not an encyclopedia article! It is to develop resources to learn about the topic. And what have been created there, for the most part, are "seminars," where some aspect of the topic is studied. Anyone can create one, and anyone may participate in developing one. I've invited many here to participate there. So far, only one editor from here has shown up at all.

Links to sister WMF projects like this are encouraged, and are generally to be given priority over other external links. Note that I used the template. Are editors going to take a position here that links to Wikiversity are not to be added? What about Wikibooks? Wikisource?

I won't add it back, I'm COI, and once I'm aware that something is considered controversial, I'm prohibited from reverting it back. --Abd (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's suppose that Olorinish is correct and I'm "biased." If you want to learn about cold fusion, you can learn from skeptics and you can learn from "believers," (I'm not a "believer," but some might think that), and you can learn from sources. The best learning will be when you learn from all of them. This is very different from an encyclopedia article, and, I've noticed here, there seems to be an idea that one should not link to sites which are "fringe." If the topic is allegedly fringe, any site that seriously covers the topic is likely to be "fringe"! Wikiversity, however, is a sister project, is covered by WMF neutrality policy, and any Wikipedia editor can use their SUL login there. If it's a problem, fix it! I'll help you find your way around Wikiversity. I want participation there, it would be absolutely great if there were a skeptic willing to actually look at and comment on the sources. If any dare! Just remember, the 2004 DoE reviewers looked at the sources, and came away with a very different opinion than what some here think is the "mainstream." Knowledge is dangerous. --Abd (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to follow this conversations on this page, but sadly haven't been able to keep up with the volume and so I have been unable to contribute thus far. If for some reason the following comments are irrelevant, should be discussed elsewhere or are otherwise hogwash please just ignore them.  It is true that "Wikiversity, however, is a sister project, is covered by WMF neutrality policy".  The sense in which NPOV applies at at wikiversity will seem quite different to the average wikipedian, so I thought I might elaborate further.
 * Any article may take any particular point of view it likes at wikiversity, provided it contains a pov box that describes what the point of view is. In case in point the article being discussed takes the point of view of "Progressivism", though I am not sure what that means in this setting.  Articles may also contain original research, provided their authors display (and live up to) a statement about ethical standards of their contributions (For an example see v:User:Abd).  In principal original research is subject to some very strict sourcing guidelines.
 * This was at least the intended scheme, though it is rarely enforced in any way, and the guidelines outlining this never quite became policy. Anyone curious to read more may see v:WV:Disclosures and v:WV:Research guidelines.
 * Writing this I noticed that Wikiversity is left out of NPOV, does anyone know if that was intentional or an oversight? Thenub314 (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that: a) less that 500 articles have links to wikiversity, so there is not a tradition of doing this b) Wikimedia_sister_projects says "Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers". The current wikiversity article does not seem to be useful to our readers. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This request amounts to: I am having no success skewing this article to my non-neutral POV so please let me link to my extremnely non-neutral article on Wikiversity. "Er, no" seems to cover it quite nicely. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

X-rays
Sorry it took me so long to add the section on x-rays. Please let me know what you think of it. One of the references is in Chinese, but it is a 1995 review of several Arata & Zhang confirmations by independent outside researchers, as requested. If people would be more comfortable with more or different references for that section, please say so.

I noticed that the section on helium-4 is heavily biased towards detractors. What is the best statement to balance it from from the recent set of reviews? Would one of the Biberian reviews be good for helium-4? Would be better? Ura Ursa (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this, but we need to step back and ask whether the x-rays have been noticed by outside observers regarding the cold fusion community. I have no idea why x-rays would be relevant to this discussion. If anything, gamma-rays would be the thing that we would want. Anyway, we need more exposition and explanation as to why this belongs in the article. I removed it per WP:BRD, but hope to workshop. Cheers. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Are there any known or postulated chemical processes which would produce x-rays in Pd/D electrochemical cells or Pd/D gas loading? The fact that none have been postulated by either side of the debate has been said to indicate a nuclear process of some kind since the Szpak, Boss & Smith (1996) Physics Letters A paper which you removed along with the section on x-rays.  Since there were no objections other than from Shanahan (at Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 36) who didn't respond when I asked whether he was opposed enough to actually remove the section himself, and I waited several weeks before inserting the section, does that qualify as (B)old for the purposes of BRD?  In any case, have I addressed your question about the significance of x-rays sufficiently?  Are there any reasons that the section should not be included?
 * And how about the helium-4 question: Do you believe that section should include a statement from any of the several reviews published since the DOE review it cites, which report helium-4 production commensurate with energy production, e.g. Hagelstein (2010)? Ura Ursa (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you haven't really addressed the issue. The closest I could get was this article which seems to put upper-limits on nuclear reactions. Is this the sense in which x-rays may be of interest to cold fusion proponents. Are they hoping to show this result incorrect? It's not clear. Please give a secondary (not primary) analysis which explains the significance of x-rays.
 * ScienceApologist (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are unable to suggest any non-nuclear process which could produce x-rays in Pd/D electrochemical cells or Pd/D gas loading, then what reason do you have to say that x-rays from such sources are not of interest to both proponents and detractors alike? The sources you removed were all secondary except for the initial 1995 report of x-rays from Szpak, Boss, and Smith.  If you are unable to answer this question, I will be replacing the section. Ura Ursa (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have shown that there are "detractor citations" that indicate that x-rays are not found. I have not read any source which explains this as anything but a proper null result, so the onus really is on you to explain why inclusion is warranted. WP:REDFLAG is quite clear on that point. I am willing to figure out why you think it important, but without explanation I'm afraid such sections look very much like a coatrack. Please do elaborate. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that a failure to detect x-rays from 1989 should outweigh more than three recent peer reviewed secondary sources and the primary Szpak, Boss, and Smith (1996) result from Physics Letters A? If so, why? Again, please answer the question: If you are unable to suggest any non-nuclear process which could produce x-rays in Pd/D electrochemical cells or Pd/D gas loading, then what reason do you have to say that x-rays from such sources are not of interest to both proponents and detractors alike? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Physics Letter A is not properly peer-reviewed, but what I'm saying is there is no refutation of the previous work nor explanation. We do ourselves no service by succumbing to WP:RECENTISM. Step back a bit. Why are x-rays important? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe he just said why they are important: because their existence in Pd/D electrochemical cells or Pd/D gas loading is indicative of a nuclear process. Kevin Baastalk 15:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to what independent sources which have commented on the information he proposes to include? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously? According to what independant sources should excess heat be a topic covered by the article? Kevin Baastalk 20:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Xrays are not heat. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * of course. i was making an analogy.  Kevin Baastalk 20:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The analogy is lost on me, care to clarify? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty straightforward rhetorical question. Requiring independent sources to explicitly address the issue of xrays' notablility and importance in relation to cold fusion in order for it to be included in the article is like requiring independent sources to explicitly address the issue of heat's notablility and importance in relation to cold fusion in order for it to be included in the article. (okay, so maybe it's technically a simile) Kevin Baastalk 20:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's an independent source documenting that "excess heat" is an important concept connected to cold fusion:. Can you point to a similar one that does the same for xrays? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the Chinese Wang (1995) review you deleted not an independent source? Neither its authors nor most of the replicators it reports had any previous experience with palladium hydrides prior to their 1993 reports. Ura Ursa (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wang is a primary source. Independent reviews of Wang and colleagues are required. There has been 15 years for these to show up and they aren't forthcoming as far as I can tell. ScienceApologist (talk)
 * You are mistaken. Wang (1995) is a review of several other independent replications of Arata and Zhang, of which Wang's 1993 primary source paper was one of many. Are you saying that once a researcher reproduces someone else's results, that their independence vanishes and they are no longer capable of writing reviews of the field? Do you think you could find any journal editor who would agree? Replicators often author reviews -- more often than original researchers, in new fields. Ura Ursa (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Independent reviews would be those done by people who are agnostic about the existence of cold fusion effects (especially post 1990). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * SA, I don't see where it says that excess heat is an important and/or notable concept in connection to cold fusion fusion in that report. it certainly talks about excess heat in the context of cold fusion, yes.  but it doesn't mention anywhere that it's important or notable.  Kevin Baastalk 14:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that they do not mention x-rays and do mention excess heat is good enough for me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * but that's not the criteria that you proposed. Kevin Baastalk 14:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria is that the source be independent. That was satisfied. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not the criteria you proposed. Your criteria was that the source had to say it was important.  If it just has to be an independent source, well that's easy to satisfy for x-rays just as much as for heat, so i fail to see why you mentioned it. Kevin Baastalk 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. The only criteria I have is that it is an independent source. I look forward to you providing one. Note that the Wang (1995) source doesn't do it. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I repeat my question: How do you define the boundaries of "the cold fusion community"? What specifically do you mean when you say "an independent source"? And again, you still have not answered: what reason do you have to say that x-rays from Pd/D sources are not of interest to both proponents and detractors alike? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The DOE report, for example, is an independent source. The question you ask is irrelevant. I say they're not of interest because I haven't seen any sources presented which explains why they are of interest. Wang (1995) doesn't even do that. If you want to quote a sentence or two where they explain why x-rays are of interest, be my guest. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Szpak (1996) and Wang (1993) cited in Wang (1995) both explain the significance of x-rays: that there is no electrochemical process which could possibly produce them in either form of Pd/D loading. You reverted the insertion of the section on x-rays citing WP:BRD, but you refuse to discuss these questions or answer them. You give an example of something you think is independent without saying what your standards are, and you simply refuse to discuss, referring to a singular question when there were three questions asked. You've refused to respond to questions concerning whether you have shunned those who have expressed interest in this subject below. Therefore, I am replacing the text on x-rays. Ura Ursa (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed per WP:FRINGE. See X-ray generator for why no one takes these kinds of arguments seriously. It doesn't appear in the DOE report, so it probably doesn't belong in our article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:FRINGE do you believe supports your deletion? Why do you continue to refuse to properly answer the three outstanding questions?  Why do you believe "appearing in a DOE report" is a more accurate standard for inclusion than "appearing in four peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews?"  Why do you think that any part of X-ray generator has anything to do with whether people take "these kinds of arguments" or this particular set of questions seriously?  Refusal to discuss strongly suggests adherence to a position with no support within Wikipedia's standards of inclusion. Ura Ursa (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All these sources are written by cold fusion advocates. Do you have any independent source giving any weight to X-rays? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The current version does cite published articles. One line about X-rays seems reasonable, considering the length of the article. Olorinish (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is no comprehensive source nor explanation of importance provided. No, WP:WEIGHT will allow us to exclude this posturing. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was sure that your change from "observed" to "reported" would satisfy the detractors, because that small change removed a lot of potential controversy, turning a contentious statement into an incontrovertible historical fact central to the issues which make the underlying facts so controversial. I hope you or someone will replace it, but I am still too upset at the failure to discuss by those citing WP:BRD to feel objective enough to replace it today. Ura Ursa (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Chinese were neither advocates nor detractors in 1993, so their results then and their secondary review of all the Arata & Zhang replications in 1996 is far more independent than anything produced by the DOE, which took a strong organizational position in 1989. Is there any reason to believe otherwise? Ura Ursa (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that Arata & Zhang are or were ever skeptics. They are true believers in cold fusion mythology like the rest of the usual casts of characters. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that they ever weren't skeptics, either. In any case, that question is why I provided a secondary source from independent researchers who replicated and confirmed Arata & Zhang's detection of x-rays, at your request. Ura Ursa (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone other than ScienceApologist think that reports of x-ray production should be in the "Excess heat" section? Ura Ursa (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ten days should be more than enough for answers, but out of respect I'll wait at least twenty before replacing the deleted section. Ura Ursa (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Needed Additions
I have recently been heavily involved in other things, but this has given me the opportunity to reread in detail the current CF article. I find (amazingly enough) that I have to agree with Abd that the current article is substantially poorer than the previous ones, with particular reference to the one where I last attempted to add descriptions of the conventional explanations for reported results http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=239093535

Thus it is probably inappropriate at this time to add in the proposed section I was discussing recently, simply because the number of words is out of proportion.

However, there are still several sections in the current article under the “Reported Phenomena” heading that offer no counterpoint to the nuclear CF explanation, which needs to be addressed. In line with what is said in the “Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat” subsection, the “Neutron radiation” subsection needs the following added:


 * A 2010 article[Shanahan 2010] presents the idea that the same non-nuclear cause of excess heat signals could mechanically induce similar damage in the CR-39 plastic, which in turn would lead to the reported pits appearing during etching, negating the idea that they exclusively indicate nuclear particles. Supposed neutron signals detected via electronic counting methodologies have always been close to background and therefore inconclusive (as is also true with other types of radiation such as x-rays or gamma radiation).

In the “Helium-4” section, the following should be added:


 * The reliability of cold fusion researcher’s helium measurements was directly called into question by a 2003 finding [Clarke 2003] that 4 samples produced by the McKubre group (SRI) were heavily contaminated with air. When the contamination occurred remains the important question today as no further attempts at replicating the experiments have been conducted, and until the He measurements are shown to be reliable and well above laboratory background, the issue of whether He has actually been produced in cold fusion experiments remains open.

In the “Nuclear transmutations” section the first sentence is misleading, as if the heavy elements were just discovered in 1999. In fact, they were first reported (and ignored as contamination) in 1989 (mentioned in Shanahan 2010). I believe they continued to be reported off an on from then, but the idea they came from a ‘LENR’ wasn’t brought to the fore until c. 1999 or so.
 * "In 1999 several heavy elements had been detected by other researchers, especially Tadahiko Mizuno in Japan" That's not misleading. The old version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=239093535#cite_note-Storms_2007_93_95-74 "In nuclear reactions, a chemical element may be transmuted into another. There are numerous reports of nuclear transmutations and isotope anomalies in cold fusion experiments.[75]" "75. ^ Storms 2007, p. 93-95." Also not misleading.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 16:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In the “Nuclear transmutations” section, the following should be added:


 * Nuclear transmutation results have been characterized as a combination of contaminant concentration and detection (heavy metal’s presence) and misinterpretation of analytical technique’s results (isotopic distributions) [Shanahan 2010].

Given the number of words currently devoted to presenting the pro-CF version of the results, the additions are of the right approximate size. Wordsmith them as you like. IF the statements above or some substantially similar are added, I would say the current article would be much more balanced.

I anticipate remaining very busy but I will try to respond to any questions you all might have regarding this post. However, I think I am done trying to get my point across, I have simply spent too much time for too little gain. I will instead be working on my reply to Storms’ recent ‘review’. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I'll be looking at these sections shortly to see what to do. Kevin has also volunteered to help out with this stuff. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This may be slightly off-topic to the novels you people have been writing on this talk page, but I, as a non-expert (but an interested reader) am kind of dismayed by the state of the current article. I agree that older versions were much better/more informative, and I'm curious as to why the summary at the beginning writes off the numerous experiments (with both positive and negative results) done up to 1999 and around that time as "few mainstream reviews" (Re-posting this edit because I forgot to log-in) HaploTR (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @SA - You miss the point. If there are no objections, I will be adding these lines shortly.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope people don't mind that I added a new section about reported and verified experiments done at UCLA with room temperature cold fusion using piezoelectric crystals. I just copied and pasted the bit from the article on nuclear fusion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion. Note that the experiment was done at room temperature, and counts as cold fusion, despite the fact that it didn't produce more energy than it took in. -Yours Truly, Spencer.--Spencerbug (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Given the number of words currently devoted to presenting the pro-CF version of the results, the additions are of the right approximate size. Wordsmith them as you like.  IF the statements above or some substantially similar are added, I would say the current article would be much more balanced." - Kirk shanahan
 * "This may be slightly off-topic to the novels you people have been writing on this talk page, but I, as a non-expert (but an interested reader) am kind of dismayed by the state of the current article. I agree that older versions were much better/more informative" - HaploTR
 * Is the new version decidedly more Pro-CF than the older article? Doing a search on "tritium" produces the following results in the old version:
 * "The [1989 DOE] panel "recommended against the establishment of special programs or research centers to develop cold fusion", but was "sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system." The Panel recommended that "the cold fusion research efforts in the area of heat production focus primarily on confirming or disproving reports of excess heat" and stated that "investigations designed to check the reported observations of excess tritium in electrolytic cells are desirable.". [28]"
 * "Eugene Mallove, a cold fusion proponent, contends that by 1991, 92 groups of researchers from 10 different countries had reported excess heat, tritium, helium4, neutrons or other nuclear effects.[36] Proponents estimate that 3,000 cold fusion papers have been published, [37] including over 1,000 journal papers and books, where the latter number includes both pro and con articles.[α]"
 * "The reports of excess heat and anomalous tritium production[α] have been met by most scientists with skepticism,[49] although discussion in professional settings still continues."
 * "The fusion of two deuterium nuclei usually produces either a tritium nucleus and a proton, or a helium-3 (3He) nucleus and a neutron. The level of neutrons, tritium and 3He actually observed in the Fleischmann-Pons experiments have been well below the level expected in view of the heat generated, implying that these fusion reactions cannot explain it."
 * In the new version, we see the following results:
 * "....Martin Fleischmann, then one of the world's leading electro-chemists,[2] and Stanley Pons in 1989. They reported anomalous heat production ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[3]"
 * "'Triple tracks' in a CR-39 plastic radiation detector claimed as evidence for neutron emission from palladium deuteride, suggestive of a deuterium-tritium reaction"
 * "The Fleischmann and Pons early findings regarding helium, neutron radiation and tritium were later discredited.[72][73]"
 * "Fleischmann and Pons reported a neutron flux of 4,000 neutrons per second, as well as tritium, while the classical branching ratio for previously known fusion reactions that produce tritium would predict, with 1 watt of power, the production of 1012 neutrons per second, levels that would have been fatal to the researchers.[101]"
 * "If one watt of nuclear power were produced from deuteron fusion consistent with known branching ratios, the resulting neutron and tritium (3H) production would be easily measured.[76] Some researchers reported detecting 4He but without the expected neutron or tritium production; such a result would require branching ratios strongly favouring the third pathway, with the actual rates of the first two pathways lower by at least five orders of magnitude than observations from other experiments, directly contradicting mainstream-accepted branching probabilities.[117]"
 * Furthermore:
 * The letter sequence "crit" appears in the old article 13 times and the new article 9 times.
 * The letter sequence "hypot" appears in the old article 3 times and the new article 1 time.
 * The word "discredit" does not appear in the old version, but it appears once in the new version. Ditto for the word "media".
 * The word "reported" appears one less time in the new version (28 times not 29), which is also true when excluding the reference section (27 times not 28).
 * The wore "unwilling" appears twice in the new version and only once in the old version.
 * 6 out of 11 times that the word "proposal" appears in the old article, "proposal" refers to cold fusion claims (the other 5 out of 11 have to do with Shanahan's CCS proposal). The word "proposal" only appears once in the new version.
 * The word "discovery" appears in the old version once (excluding a category name) and eight times in the new article (again, excluding a category name).
 * Excluding the references and the mention of geo-fusion, the word "University" appears 10 times in the old article and 8 times in the new article. And in the old article, we see that 4 of them appear in a pro-CF list:
 * In addition to Fleischmann and Pons, the generation of excess heat has been reported by others, including:

Richard A. Oriani, while he was professor at University of Minnesota, in 1990,[62] Edmund Storms, while he was at Los Alamos National Laboratory, in 1993,[63] Bush, of University of Texas at Austin, in 1991,[64] Miles, at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, in 1993,[65] Michael McKubre, of SRI International, in 1994,[66] Yoshiaki Arata, while he was professor at Osaka University, in 1998,[67] Gozzi, of Sapienza University of Rome, in 1998.[68]
 * As far as search results for the letter sequence "conclu", the old article is decidedly more apologetic about CF:
 * In February 2002, a laboratory within the United States Navy released a report[43][44] that came to the conclusion that the cold fusion phenomenon was in fact real and deserved an official funding source for research.[45] Navy researchers say that, since 1990, they have published roughly 10 papers on cold fusion in respected peer-review journals.[46]
 * It concluded: "While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review." "The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers in the 2004 review 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 electron volts (eV). These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions." "The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals."[48]
 * New information was presented in 2004 to the DOE review panel regarding the production of 4He .[102]. When members of the panel were asked about the evidence of low energy nuclear reactions, twelve of the eighteen did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing", and one was entirely convinced.
 * In 1992, workers at General Electric challenged the Fleischmann-Pons 1990 report in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, stating that the claims of excess heat had been overstated.[33] The challenge concluded that the Fleischmann and Pons cell generated 40% excess heat, more than ten times larger than the initial error estimate. Despite the apparent confirmation, Fleischmann and Pons replied to General Electric and published a rebuttal in the same journal.[34]
 * Compare the above to the only such results found in the new article:
 * In 1989, the majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive. A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first.[16]
 * The extraordinary nature of cold fusion claims[40] together with theoretical issues have caused the scientific community to come to a general skeptical conclusion with regards to the subject.[41] New experimental claims are routinely dismissed or ignored by the community.[42]
 * The United States Department of Energy organized a special panel to review cold fusion theory and research.[45]:39 The panel issued its report in November 1989, concluding that results as of that date did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from phenomena attributed to cold fusion.[45]:36
 * The report summarized its conclusions thus: While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
 * The report presented to the DOE in 2004 indicated that deuterium loaded foils could be used to detect fusion reaction products and, although the reviewers found the evidence presented to them as inconclusive, they indicated that those experiments didn't use state of the art techniques and it was a line of work that could give conclusive results on the matter.[70]:3,4,5
 * Many groups trying to replicate Fleischmann and Pons' results have reported alternative explanations for their original positive results, like problems in the neutron detector in the case of Georgia Tech or bad wiring in the thermometers at Texas A&M.[106] These reports, combined with negative results from some famous laboratories,[107] led most scientists to conclude that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion, at least not on a significant scale.[106][108]
 * Excluding the TOC, headings, and the references, the word "helium" appears in the old article 15 times and in the new article 7 times.
 * As for the word "dismiss":
 * Old article: "the lack of a satisfactory explanation could not be used to dismiss experimental evidence."
 * New article: "New experimental claims are routinely dismissed or ignored by the community.[42]"
 * Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 17:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. It's a real eye-opener.  What do you think the right course of action under these circumstances is? Ura Ursa (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Should the article have a neutrality warning?
I say it is not needed. Does anyone disagree? Olorinish (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be there. The article doesn't come close to reflecting the secondary sources.  The section on helium is particularly bad, reflecting the DoE hegemony which has no empirical sources behind it; just a lot of rhetoric.  Kmarinas86 does a good job of pointing out how skewed the article has become with WP:WEASEL words and other blatant bias.  I'm particularly disappointed in how those citing WP:BRD have refused to discuss their positions, for weeks now. Ura Ursa (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ura Ursa, what changes do you propose? Olorinish (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It absolutely should have. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

To Kirk Shanahan: Why? What changes would need to be made so that it wouldn't need one? Olorinish (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shirley you jest. How about reading everything I have written on this for the last 5 years...  The bottom line still is that the conventional explanations for all the purported "evidence" for cold fusion are still not mentioned in the article, even though I have now addressed all of Pcarbonn, Abd, etc.'s objections by making all my objections RS by publishing them.  I admit, I have run out of steam, and this comment shows just how wasted my time has been.  Adios.  Fix it up yourselves.   Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirk, much of your work is mentioned in the article. The basic points are outlined fairly well, I think. Specific adjustments can be made, but I think the major point that most cold fusion results can be explained through calibration mistakes is made in the article in the excess heat section. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A cite to Fleischmann reads "a b c d e f g Fleischmann et al. 1990". We might see something like "a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Shanahan 2002" if you have only three publications.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The obvious answer is that Cold fusion first has to be accepted as mainstream.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the neutrality warning should come off. For that to happen, editors have to work together to ensure that the article is entirely neutral. I suggest working together on a to-do list for the article. Why not have a target date for taking the warning off? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose that the warning be removed if and when the disputes are resolved, as the warning itself states. My to-do list is:
 * (1) Resolve the disputes about x-rays. Reports of x-rays are currently in the "Excess heat" section. I propose that we restore Olornish's X-rays section  which discusses reports of x-rays, not assertions about their detection, because discussing them in a section to which they do not pertain is inherently biased;
 * (2) Include reports of correlations between excess heat and helium production in the recent literature reviews published by Hagelstein, Biberian, and Storms, in the Helium section. The standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, so it is biased to fail to summarize that a heat-helium correlation has been reported in secondary sources because less than a handful of editors disagree with the editors of peer reviewed journals about whether the papers they have published are reviews or not; and
 * (3) Given that Widom-Larsen theory has been discussed in several subsequent papers, I believe it should be included in the article. Its central thesis that a proton can become a neutron by electron absorption in a dense fermionic field has been discussed in publications only tangentially related to cold fusion.  I note that U.S. government employees or contractors bound by the born secret doctrine have inherently conflicted interests and may be forbidden by statute from discussing sources of neutrons. Ura Ursa (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate to say this, but 1 through 3 are basically subject to a no-go theorem. 1) The reports of X-rays are just that: reports. It's hard to say whether they are relevant or not to this discussion because the fringe field is not undergoing normal cross-pollination. 2) Correlations between excess heat and helium are, to put it mildly, not believable as they are culled exclusively from confirmation bias reports. As Shanahan and the article points out, the "excess heat" reports scale so poorly to make the relevance of helium on par with possible sources of contamination (which is surprising considering how little helium is in the background). 3) Widon-Larsen theory has received no third-party review that I've seen. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to an actual no-go theorem, please say which one(s). As for (1) your edit summary here suggests that reports of x-rays are "slightly more appropriate" in the "Excess heat" section, which I asked you about 10 days ago. I don't see how reports of x-rays have anything to do with excess heat, or any reasons why they shouldn't be in their own section. I don't know what you mean by normal cross-pollination, either.  Regarding (2) I am sure that you, Shanahan, and many other people believe that confirmation bias is the only source of the reports of correlations between helium and excess heat, but the editors of multiple academic journals publishing literature reviews disagree, as do plenty of researchers claiming six+ sigma helium measurements correlated with excess heat from decades of repeated experiments at SPAWAR San Diego, Brookhaven, ENEA, NRL, and other major laboratories who you can email, telephone, or visit in person to discuss the issue in detail.  Those who claim that the reports are from confirmation bias, on the other hand, have uniformly not performed any empirical experiments since the early 1990s, if they ever have at all, and they haven't had their statements published in the secondary literature.  You may want an article which agrees with your personal opinion, but encyclopedia articles are supposed to summarize the secondary literature, and it is clear on this point. (3) Try searching with the correct spelling, Widom-Larsen, not Widon. Ura Ursa (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The reports of X-rays are just that: reports. It's hard to say whether they are relevant or not to this discussion because the fringe field is not undergoing normal cross-pollination." So what about reports about anything cold fusion? This statement implies that one should to get rid of every bit of report of any phenomenon concerning cold fusion experiments (done by proponents anyway). But of course, if a report is positive, all of a sudden the researchers associated with it are dumped in the fringe. Also, what do you mean by "normal" cross-pollination?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 03:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Deference to "a no-go theorem" is nothing more than a preference of valuing theoretical refutation more than empirical refutation. For a good example of this, see Bell's theorem.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 04:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

How about if the first sentence in the Helium section is replaced with "Researchers have reported helium production in electrolysis experiments. In some cases correlated excess heat is also reported. [ref][ref]"? Ura Ursa, can you propose a sentence about Widom-Larson that could be added somewhere, maybe inside the "Probability of reaction" section? Olorinish (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would propose stating that Widom-Larsen theory has been cited outside the field, with at least two refs. Would it also be appropriate to mention that sources of neutrons for transmutation can be covered by the born secret doctrine, prohibiting discussion among US government employees and contractors for whom the First Amendment is not supreme in this case? In retrospect, that might explain some of the difficulty here. Ura Ursa (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That proposed wording is terrible because it's only cherry-picked results from sweeping reviews that propose this. Widom-Larsen is essentially not addressed by anyone but cold fusion activists. I'm not sure why Ura Ursa thinks otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Widom-Larsen theory has been cited in the peer reviewed nuclear waste transmutation literature: Bourgoin, R (2007) "Transmuting nuclear waste by use of a quasi-superconductor" Acta Physica Polonica B 38(1):139-42. 171.67.128.199 (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not much difference between picking cherries and picking blueberries.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 03:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist, are you saying there should be no statement that there have been claims of heat-He correlation? Can you think of a wording that would be reasonable? Ura Ursa, are you sure heat-He was claimed strongly enough that it deserves to be mentioned here? Work with me, people. I really want to get rid of that neutrality warning if possible, since it will make people trust the article more. Olorinish (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out exactly how to describe what the claims are. The problem is that the energy measurements and the products are small in the realm of signal to noise. We're not talking about massive amounts of helium nor massive amounts of energy (relatively). The obvious problems with this argument are such that I'm not surprised no one has really commented on it. However, I'd like to find an independent source who commented on it to see how they describe the situation. Can you help me track one down? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'm trying to figure out exactly how to describe what the claims are." You will never finish this task. "The problem is that the energy measurements and the products are small in the realm of signal to noise." This statement is incoherent because the energy measurements, products, signals, and noises are trial dependent and experiment dependent; it is improper to make cross-comparisons between a signal measured in one experiment with the noise measured in another. Could you actually try quoting that which you don't understand? It might help everyone, including yourself. Such rigor is uncommon on Wikipedia talk pages, especially this one, but don't let the difficulty doing that bother you. glKmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 03:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If Hagelstein, Biberian, and Storms all claimed heat-He correlation (forgive me, I haven't read them in a while), it seems to me that is enough for one sentence, or a quick mention at the end of a sentence. How does that sound? Olorinish (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All three of them claim a lot of things that we don't include here. Those are all fairly substantial treatises on cold fusion belief -- great for explicating the party line but not so great for deciding how to weight an inclusion. A third-party source would be nice. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A third-party source will not maintain third-party status if it takes cold fusion belief seriously. Of course, taking a belief seriously does not itself imply actually committing to the belief itself. But taking the belief seriously is enough to forbid continuation of third-party status.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 04:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ura Ursa said, "[E]ditors have to work together to ensure that the article is entirely neutral." However "neutral" is something this subject cannot be.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 15:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Judith said that. I don't see why this article can't be neutral. Folding new data into the predicate calculus database which represents our scientific understanding becomes more complicated as the size of the database grows, but we just have to keep discussing it until we can work it out. Ignoring inconvenient secondary sources because they disagree with hegemonic folklore is very biased, however, and too many times that has happened with this article because both proponents and detractors have been convinced that they are right. Such issues have led to multiple bans of proponents, reinforcing what turns out to be an untruthful systemic bias. Give me a few days to address ScienceApologist's question about where Widom-Larsen theory has been cited, and please join me in asking him to explain why he believes x-rays are more appropriate to report on in the Excess heat section, and why reports of helium-heat correlations should not be included, even though they form the basis of the controversy and appear in most if not all of the peer reviewed secondary sources from the last ten years. Ura Ursa (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The correlations between helium and excess heat form the basis of the controversy? Really? Where is your source that these correlations are controversial? All I've seen are singular primary-source claims to such an effect. I haven't seen anyone challenging them to start a controversy. Something can only be a controversy if it gets noticed. I contend that no skeptic has even noticed this claim of cold fusioneers because it is so easy to dismiss it out-of-hand. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * SA says, "Something can only be a controversy if it gets noticed. I contend that no skeptic has even noticed this claim of cold fusioneers because it is so easy to dismiss it out-of-hand." If the claim was never noticed by any skeptic, then it is impossible for any skeptic to have had the chance to dismiss that claim. I contend that the most likely reason why this claim was ignored (if that is in fact the case) is because skeptics are so passionate in their views in their objection to such claims that they do not wish to spend more time observing them than "what their time is worth".Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be, but we're not really in the position to figure that out as Wikipedia editors. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no shortage of peer reviewed documentation that production of helium in proportion to excess heat is central to the claim of cold fusion and (therefore) very controversial. E.g., . 171.67.128.199 (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An article from 1991? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pick any year since. How about ? Ura Ursa (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I maintain my stance.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 19:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook"? Peer-reviewed? It's surprising what you think passes for a reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe he had not made his choice yet. There are too many years to choose from, in his mind. Sticking to just one select example (rather than many diverse ones) prevents obfuscation.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 03:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality warning can come off when we've rolled back the assiduous POV-pushing of Abd, and before him Pcarbonn, both of whom have been used as patsies by the cold fusion community. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That won't happen until the article presents only the mainstream point of view.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 18:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How many more peer reviewed literature reviews affirming the reality of cold fusion will be necessary for you two to accept that the cold fusion community is the mainstream? Is that within the realm of possibility, or are your minds so made up that they can't change on this point? And what good is the mainstream, anyway? There are huge regions of industrialized nations where the mainstream belief is that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to summarize the secondary literature, not the mainstream. Ura Ursa (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "How many more peer reviewed literature reviews affirming the reality of cold fusion will be necessary for you two to accept that the cold fusion community is the mainstream?" For some it is impossible to believe that cold fusion could be real at all. The idea of overcoming the coulomb barrier by means other than "brute force" has been refuted time and again by various research done by hot fusion experts as well as theoretical quantum physics which requires that Pauli Exclusion principle be violated if cold fusion were to work at all. "And what good is the mainstream, anyway?" It proves that cold fusion is impossible. Michio Kaku and Steven Chu are qualified authorities in science. They are not quacks, so just count on their word about cold fusion being an absolute farce. Especially Steven Chu's. Ok? Just follow the leader.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 03:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The coulomb barrier isn't a problem if the density of the electron cloud has caused an electron-proton collision resulting in a neutron (and neutrino), which is what Widom-Larsen theory postulates. Unlike the other theories, that allows for the anomalous light water results which have been published and repeated, too -- check Britz's bibliography in the external links for just how often; there are dozens if not hundreds of those. I'm sure you know that we are supposed to use the WP:SECONDARY sources as the final authority here, and not celebrity scientists. Ura Ursa (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, to sum up, in response to my proposal, Ura Ursa thinks the article should be more pro-CF (X-rays, heat-He, and WL should be included), while Kirk Shanahan, ScienceApologist, JzG, and probably Kmarinas86 think it should be more anti-CF. I know these are real disagreements, but I don't think they justify having a neutrality warning considering how much noncontroversial material is in the article. I worry that readers will see that warning and dismiss the whole article, because I do that sometimes. Is there anyone who agrees with me? Olorinish (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No matter the subject, all points of view are non-neutral. At best, a point of view is held egocentrically, but that alone forbids its neutrality.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether Kevin Baas, Judith, and Objectivist/V think there is a legitimate controversy which should be indicated as a neutrality dispute. Ura Ursa (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Without legitimate controversy, renegade theories of physics have zero notability.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 19:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC) The neutrality warning at the top cannot specify which parts of the article discuss the controversy itself.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 19:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Several of the folks posting to this Section appear to be setting themselves up to look very foolish in the future. Here's some news (Nov 13, 2010): http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-83321.html --The particular person promoting CF in that news article is talking about pressurized-deuterium experiments, not electrolysis experiments. That's because so far, all the pressurized-deuterium experiments have produced anomalous heat. (One Reliable Source article: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhLA..373.3109K ) But due to the obstinacy of detractor-editors, the CF article here still concentrates on electrolysis experiments, where the success rate has most certainly been problematic, as if the electrolysis approach to Cold Fusion is the only possible approach, and "of course", since those experiments are problematic, CF can't be real, can it?. Hah! And, tsk, tsk. V (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist is not qualified to comment on pressurized-deuterium experiments, but he is qualified to have an unqualified opinion about the credibility of such experiments.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 19:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From the abstract, "2.4±0.2 eV/D-atom and 1.8±0.4 eV/H-atom". In other words "error too large to be sure a difference exists", not to mention estimated energy a billion-fold too small to be fusion. If you want this read as something significant, please find a secondary RS that does so, because it certainly doesn't say so on its face.LeadSongDog come howl!  06:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You stopped reading the abstract too soon. It is not very important that both H and D release heat when pressurized into palladium (the process, called "deuteride/hydride formation" in the abstract, has long been known to be exothermic).  So, it should be expected that when various isotopes of hydrogen are absorbed into palladium, the amount of heat released during the absorption process should be similar.  But the important thing is the last sentence of the abstract: "The sample charged with D2 also showed significantly positive output energy in the second phase after the deuteride formation."  That's the "anomalous effect" of which the article's title refers --and that's the effect noted by all the pressurized deuterium experiments:  heat continues to be relased after "deuteride formation" is done. V (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Until pressurized-deuterium experiments receive the same amount of review that electrolysis experiments have received, it is not our place to crow about them. It's pretty obvious that the history of this subject has inspired a number of proponents to change their approaches in response to criticism. This is to be lauded, but it cannot be used as evidence of success until independent notice and verification happens. jps (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2009 publication I linked is something of a replication/verification of earlier work. I've been waiting for more than a year for an RS third publication about this.  One possibility was a recent Hagelstein article that purportedly "reviewed" 1000 CF papers; I have not been able to access that article to see if it referenced any of the pressurized-deuterium experiments, and nobody I've asked here about it has, so far as I know, looked.  I don't suppose the CF detractors here would accept that Kerala/India news article??? V (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by "accept." I accept it as an indicating the opinion of some Indians, but I don't accept it as indicating that a large fraction of scientists believe that cold fusion has been produced. To do that, you would need quotes from experts in nuclear science reported in CNN, the Washington Post, etc., and articles published in the the main nuclear science journals, such as Physical Review Letters. Olorinish (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant by "accept"; I was asking about the possibility of editors here accepting that India news article as being an RS 3rd-party source about the pressurized-deuterium experiments. Remember that the detractors here had to accept Storms' book with respect to the electrolysis experiments, as reference material in this article, in spite of the mainstream not accepting those experiments as adequate evidence of cold fusion. V (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not fulfill the WP:REDFLAG requirements that would have us use higher-quality sources for extraordinary claims such as pressurized-deuterium cold fusion. Storms' book is only accepted as a primary source indicating his opinions and is not used in the article as a demonstration of the success, utility, or appropriate interpretation of the claims of cold fusioneers. jps (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not quite correct, about Storms. His book is a 3rd-party publication attesting to the fact that various electrolysis experiments were actually done and had the results that were reported in primary and secondary sources.  That's why his book had to be accepted by the detractors here.  I've been waiting for an equivalent 3rd-party publication to appear, regarding the pressurized deuterium experiments, and, so far, the closest thing I've seen is that India/Kerala news article.  I see that that news source publishes mostly ordinary stuff, just like other mainstream news outlets (it is not an equivalent of the Star or the National Enquirer), which seems to qualify it more as RS than fringe.  It makes sense for it to have published statements made by a noted Indian physicist, since some of its focus would naturally be related to events in India.  As a counterpoint, I challenge you and anyone else here to find just one RS publication -- regardless of primary, secondary, or 3rd-party -- claiming that pressurized-deuterium CF experiments have not been done or that an attempted replication failed to produce anomalous heat.  So far, there appears to be no data that indicates that deuterium pressurized into palladium cannot produce anomalous energy.  Yet there are almost no separate details about those experiments in this article!!!  (The only place that mentions it lumps it together with electrolysis experiments, so that it can imply that 2/3 of the experiments failed.  False!)  I submit that the detractor-editors here have dug themselves a hole so deep, regarding the "impossibility" of cold fusion, that to save face they are now forced to bring up any excuse they can think of, to prevent any details about the pressurized-deuterium experiments from being included in this article.  Too bad; Nature doesn't care one whit about people jumping to a conclusion before they acquire all the relevant data. V (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're kinda all over the place there. The Storms book is being used in the article currently as a primary source for what cold fusioneers think, so it really doesn't matter what the context was for its accepted inclusion, I trust Storms to publish a book about what the cold fusioneers think, so I'm happy to include it as a primary source. I'm not too keen on the India/Kerala news article as it seems to just be a standard popsci article with little in the way of critical review. There does seem to be an increase in activity in India with regards to this subject, but it's hard to see the signal above the noise. We could use that article as a source for the already-mentioned fact that there is ongoing support for cold fusion investigations in India, but beyond that there isn't much more we can do with that news article. Your challenge is not relevant for this article according to WP:FRINGE. Fringe claims of all stripes suffer from lack of interest on the part of independent sources. This usually indicates that they do not deserve explicit mention. jps (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weasel words won't help your case one bit. Primary sources are not typically allowed in Wikipedia, remember?  (The biggest exceptions are major-news items, but in such cases publication is so widespread among so many sources that relaxing the rule makes sense.)  Storms is a 3rd-party source about cold fusion, and that is why even the detractors had to accept it, no matter what they used it for.  Meanwhile, the Physics Letters A experiment-publication that I linked is a 2nd-party source, since it is basically a replication of an earlier experiment (by Arata).  Wikipedia prefers 3rd-party sources, especially when the topic is controversial.  That's what I've been waiting for, and, like I wrote earlier, that's what that Kerala news article appears to be, at least to some extent --in reporting on what a prominent Indian physicist had to say about pressurized-deuterium experiments, we could say that that man's statements are those of a 3rd party, and now those statements have been published.... :)  V (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd has initiated on Wikiversity a discussion of the Storms 2010 review paper, and Edmund Storms is participating in the discussion there. Editors here who wish to look in may find the discussion with Edmund Storms here.  —Caprice (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources out of the mainstream
Should we include: "Most of the secondary peer reviewed sources which have been published on this subject over the past ten years are considered out of the scientific mainstream by many celebrity scientists."? Ura Ursa (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The celebrity scientists should be quoted one by one.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the sources are out of the mainstream, but I'm not sure what you mean by "celebrity scientists." --mikeu talk 18:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Steven Hawking, Michio Kaku, and Seth Shostak, to name a few... and perhaps to a lesser extent, Steven Chu. To a greater extent, Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan, but neither are alive anymore.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 14:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but 1) have any from that list of celebrity scientists made comments on cold fusion and 2) why (in the quote at the top of this subsection) should we give the opinion of celebrity scientists more prominence than other scientists? From what I have seen most of the secondary peer reviewed sources are out of the mainstream, but it appears that this is not an opinion that is limited to just celebrity scientists. --mikeu talk 19:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Certainly not the last two. 2) 'cause they're celebrities. ;)Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 11:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More silliness from the detractors, I see. Try this link: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#Clarke.27s_Laws and read "Clarke's First Law" V (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Except I'm not a detractor. I'm an ironist. I'm trying to create a caricature of detractors.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 23:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we won't be including any statement about "celebrity". We already discuss in the article that the cold fusioneers are not able to publish very much in the mainstream journals. jps (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now this is a real detractor.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 23:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Very much" is not an accurate quantity.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 00:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cold Fusion in Popular Culture
It is customary in Wikipedia articles to note when a subject turns up in popular culture.

I happened to be thinking about the (not terribly popular) science fiction genre of steampunk, and wrote a rather whimsical blog post imagining how a SPAWAR Cold Fusion Cell might be used in the context of a bit of science fantasy in the style of steampunk. There would be no pretense to authentic science or technology in such a riff. It's just fun to think about incorporating ideas from science or technology in bits of fantasy fiction.

It turns out that this wasn't an original idea. There are other suggestions for incorporating Cold Fusion into steampunk stories.

But that's not quite what I wanted to talk about here.

My personal blog typically draws about 25 hits a day, and yesterday was no exception. Yesterday's new post on steampunk drew only four direct hits — two hits from referrals on Facebook and two from referrals on one other site where I mentioned it in a casual discussion thread.

That's par for the course. Almost no one ever reads my blog, even when I mention to my correspondents that I've written a new post.

So when I mentioned it late yesterday afternoon in IRC to JWSchmidt, he asked me if the Navy's SPAWAR Cold Fusion Cell had actually achieved any significant results, in terms of excess heat or reaction products. Of course I had no idea, not having read the technical literature on it, so I suggested he just Google up "SPAWAR Cold Fusion Cell" to find the official reports.

Imagine our surprise when we discovered that, just 8 hours after having written a silly and whimsical blog post on steampunk (that at best only four or five people had actually read), Google was listing my blog post as the 8th ranked hit on "SPAWAR Cold Fusion Cell" even though serious reports on it have been out there for years.

But if you think that's weird, try the Bing Search engine where my blog post on Steampunk is now the #2 hit for "SPAWAR Cold Fusion Cell."

What does that tell you about the popularity or importance of the Navy's work on its SPAWAR Cold Fusion Cell?

Moulton (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That it's not very important or popular? jps (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm also having trouble figuring out what to make of the work at SPAWAR. Abd insists the work at SPAWAR is not Cold Fusion, and that it's also not theory.  That leaves me wondering exactly what it is they are doing there.  —Moulton (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be cold fusion? Do Krivit and Abd use the term LENR instead? Ura Ursa (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's the source of confusion. jps (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (since we are talking about popular culture) In Bart Simon's book, it says that the plot of the film "The Saint" is directly inspired in Fleischmann & Pons, even if they are never mentioned by name. The only difference is that, at the end, the scientist in The Saint makes a successful demonstration of his experiment, and they say that the whole world will be changed by the discovery. It would be good if this was added to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What I'd like to see changed is the way we teach, explain, and portray the application of the scientific method to guide the process of scientific research and discovery. —Moulton (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How? Science is so tied up in professional courtesy that nobody is willing to stand up and say "The Emperor has no clothes!" when lots of people screw up at the same time, or otherwise apparently well-meaning cosmologists say they want to search for a new set of particles to explain dark matter instead of going with primordial intermediate mass black holes. Ura Ursa (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ! What does this misplaced anger at cosmologists and direct dark matter detection experiments have to do with cold fusion? jps (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ura Ursa was asking Moulton a question. You might want to see what Moulton's statement "What I'd like to see changed is the way we teach, explain, and portray the application of the scientific method to guide the process of scientific research and discovery." has to do with cold fusion. Ura Ursa has responded to the effect of doubting that Moulton's desire, to see particular changes in science be done, would ever be fulfilled.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 23:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not anger, just frustration. Ura Ursa (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can empathize with feelings of frustration. Let me illustrate an example of my own frustration.  In the section on Further Studies, we read:
 * In February 2002, the U.S. Navy researchers at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California who have been studying cold fusion continually since 1989, released a two-volume report, entitled "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system," with a plea for funding.
 * The reference then takes us to Szpak, Mosier-Boss: Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system, Feb 2002, which is the first volume of the cited report. The second volume (on calorimetry methodology) is evidently not to be found at the Navy's site.  But an archive copy of the second volume can be found at the LENR-CANR site.  This copy may or may not be a true and correct copy of the original; the tables and figures are missing, and the references are numbered incorrectly.  Did SPAWAR quietly remove the second volume from their web site?  The archive copy at LENR-CANR is frankly a mess.  The strangest thing about the second volume are the footnotes, which excoriate the Japanese NHE group for mistakes in calorimetry.  See, especially the second footnote, which appears on the very first page:

 However, the high precision of the instrumentation (relative errors below 0.01%) has been converted into a 10% error by the group at NHE. It is hard to see how anybody can make such an assertion while still keeping a straight face. If the errors were as high as this, then it would be impossible to say anything sensible about calorimetry – for that matter, it would remove one of the main planks of scientific methodology. </dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>
 * Is this not evidence that both camps are raising concerns about scientific methodology? As I read the literature, each camp is accusing the other of departing from correct (or reliable) scientific methodology, and thus coming to opposite conclusions.  Therein, I reckon, lies the lesson for science education.  I'll return to this point, below, in the context of the question, "How do we determine if the scientific method is reliable?"


 * Moulton (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The second volume (on calorimetry methodology) is evidently not to be found at the Navy's site.
 * Correction. The second volume of the SPAWAR report is indeed there on the Navy's own site. Because of its size (44 MB), it was failing to load within the default time-out period of my Firefox browser.  I was eventually able to successfully download it manually from the Unix command line.  All the figures and tables are there, but the references are still bollixed, the same as on the text-only (sans tables and figures) version on the LENR-CANR archive.  This reference should probably be listed in the article, with a note warning that its size may be an impediment to successful downloading on some systems, depending on one's network bandwidth.  —Moulton (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The infighting of proponents is something that has bothered a lot of the people in the cold fusion community. The LENR-CANR conferences, Krivit, and even, to some extent, Rothwell try to keep this infighting to as much of a minimum as possible lest the community completely fall to pieces. Nevertheless, science is ultimately an ego-driven pursuit and is, all the moreso, when you are pursuing ideas on the fringe. Mainstream scientists nurse bitter, bitter rivalries that last lifetimes. Fringe scientists are no different. The only difference is that if there are only a handful of proponents, bitter rivalries amongst those handful can utterly decimate whatever sense of solidarity might be left while mainstream scientists can go nurse their political wounds with their friends. jps (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Baby Einstein is more of a part of Popular culture than the entire Steampunk genre, but do you see an entry about Baby Einstein in the Albert Einstein article? No you do not.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 17:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a hunch that Moulton may be just joking, similar to the tactics you seem to have recently embraced on this page. But, unlike your obvious parodies, it's sometimes hard for me to tell what his precise motivations and desires are. I do think the anecdote that his page shot up in the Google-ranking is, well, amusing. Not particularly encyclopedic, though. jps (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one of the odd things about Cold Fusion. It's hard to look at it after 21 years and try to figure out who's kidding whom.  Feynman's First Principle of scientific research was that you must not fool yourself.  And surely he was not joking about that.


 * But my motivations are transparent. I'm a science educator.  I don't have a stake in whether CF is real or not.  But I do have a stake in how well we are teaching science fundamentals, including what it means to conduct research in accordance with the protocols of the scientific method (and what happens if you stray from that).


 * Here we have an example of scientific research in which two camps have come to dramatically dissimilar conclusions. How can that be if the scientific method is any good?


 * What appears to be the case here is that the two camps are using notably different interpretations of the protocols of the scientific method, and that difference in how they are doing science evidently accounts for their dissimilar findings and conclusions. That's an important observation for those of us engaged in science education.


 * Moulton (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Here we have an example of scientific research in which two camps have come to dramatically dissimilar conclusions. How can that be if the scientific method is any good?" We must be clear about what we mean by "good". We can define "good" to mean "useful". It is not uncommon to find differences of scientific opinion. Such differences can be quite large. However, this is not evidence that the scientific method is "bad", but rather, it shows the ability of scientists to disagree with each other. This is to be expected with the scientific method, because one of its attributes is the need to evaluate and derive conclusions from information, where it helps to be a critical thinker. It can take many decades to resolve even one area of disagreement. This is simply due to limits of "critical reasoning" which result from the cost of developing evidence to invalidate otherwise valid criticisms. Part of "developing" evidence is the communication of such evidence, which is controlled by something that can be regarded as the mother of science itself—economics.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 23:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Permit me to choose a more useful term here. We have an example of scientific research in which two camps have come to dramatically dissimilar conclusions.  How can that be if the scientific method is reliable?  Or to put it another way, how do we determine if the scientific method is reliable?  What emerges from this case is an observation that notable differences in how one construes or applies the elements of the scientific method lead to dramatically different conclusions at the end of the day.  To my mind this is a useful observation for those of us engaged in science education.  —Moulton (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, one of the primary academic treatments of fringe science and pseudoscience is in the context of science education. However, those treatments tend to really aggravate and offend those people who would prefer their fringe science and pseudoscience ideas be incorporated into the mainstream. UFOlogists rail against Phil Plait, creationists rail against Eugenie Scott, etc. The claim has been made that this anger is directed towards these "critics" in particular precisely because their aim is education. Bart Simon's book is one you might really find interesting if this is the angle you'd like to pursue. jps (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes a car "reliable"? It lasts a long time. It does not break down easily. It needs few repairs. It can withstand harsh environments. How many of these qualities apply to a methodology such as the "scientific method"? Perhaps what we should really ask is, "Where does the scientific method derive its validity?" Obviously it is empiricism. Clearly, all scientists adhere to empiricism when dealing with the theories they support and not as much when debating against competing theories.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 14:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Proof it is in the pudding. That's why a lot of scientists make bets about the future. For example, I would short sell Blacklight Power, but owing to the gullibility of Wall Street, the timescale as to when it will be discovered to be a company based essentially on fraud is not easy for me to predict. jps (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What does my comment about selective empiricism have to do with scientists betting against said frauds? If your statements are indeed related, then you should be implying why scientists have been far less empirical with Blacklight Power as compared with their own research, in that they do not have any curiosity in regards to setting up experiments related to BLP's claims. I would say that the curiosity of third-party scientists ends when the said fraudsters are the only entity willing to fund the experiments. Such a result has nothing to do with any accomplishment of the scientific method, but rather, it is due to the condition implied by the limited choice of financial arrangements offering sufficient independence so as to not be associated with the said fraudsters.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 15:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Controlled experiments necessary for true empirical discourse are expensive in every sense of the word. Baloney detection kits are cheaper in spite of the ire they inspire. jps (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so how do we use any of this to improve the article? jps (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The section here is "Cold Fusion in Popular Culture". My conclusion is that implementation of Moulton's proposal above will not improve the article for it is tantamount to adding trivia.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 00:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not really concerned about whether mentions of Cold Fusion in popular culture or in movies like The Saint or The Believers belong in this article. That's an editorial judgment for others to decide.
 * What's interesting to me (as a science educator) is that references in popular culture do raise awareness, interest, and (hopefully) good questions about the underlying science and technology upon which the popular treatments are fabricated.
 * In this case, a riff on re-imagining a SPAWAR Cold Fusion Cell as a whimsical Steampunk device did inspire me to raise questions that otherwise would never have crossed my mind. Are they silly, trivial, dumb, or preposterous questions?  Perhaps.  But if so, the answers should be equally simple to come by.
 * Alas, the answers I got (from Storms and Abd) were that I was asking silly, trivial, and dumb questions based on preposterous ideas that revealed a pathetic "ignorance of science." Golly.
 * Moulton (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because by romanticizing and fantasizing about their serious science, they felt you were trivializing their endeavors even if you didn't mean to be. The reaction that Kate Bush received from true-believers in orgone after she made the video for Cloudbusting was quite similar, IIRC. jps (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You would like to imply that "true-believers" in orgone reacted generally negative to Kate Bush's video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6uwLznbW2E), similar to recent comments by Storms (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.18.71.79) in reply to Abd and Caprice/Moulton (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion/Storms_%282010%29&action=history) (http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion/Storms_%282010%29/Radioactive_decay_of_contaminant&action=history).Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86
 * Since my own field of research is the relationship of emotions to learning, I went out of my way to ask both Storms and Abd to disclose to me their affective emotional states at significant junctures in my conversations with them. I even went so far as to suggest a laundry list of imaginable emotional states that might arise in the context of our wide ranging discussions, inviting them to nominate the vocabulary terms that best captured their emotional states.  (Note that this was well before I wrote up my whimsical riff on  steampunk.  See this account of my interview with Storms, as of two weeks ago.)  —Moulton (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The truth is that even if cold fusion can work, nobody has any bloody idea how it can work. Transmutations are actually a bad thing in a power cell if you cannot predict how they occur. Either a theory will come to explain all that so those problems can be engineered out, or we'll never see cold fusion commercialized.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 00:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From the link, "But there is no satisfactory theory for a mechanism of Cold Fusion that jibes with what we know about Atomic Physics." "How can he conduct experiments without working from a technical theory that offers any insight into what's presumably going on?" And here is the Catch 22. How can you have a working model for something like Cold Fusion which evidently requires nanotechnology to even be understood, without even attempting to produce such systems? How can you produce such systems if you do not first justify going through experiments, whatever the first negative impressions of such experiments might be? If you cannot use good theory to explain what might happen, does that mean you simply do not perform similar experiments, ever, in the future? And if it so happens that experiments often produce contradictory results, wouldn't a high-level sensitivity of the results to material conditions be a further indication that they depend strongly on material parameters that are not easily controlled, such as the exact lattice structure, which itself can be modified for better or for worse using impurities? Wouldn't such contradictory results be normally interpreted as being due to flaws in experimental procedures? What if those many of those flaws were indeed due to the lack of theory to boot, which is one of the major things that Cold Fusion'eers' are criticized for? Also, the lack of consistency can be attributed to the fact that different types of setups have been tested whose outputs appear exceedingly random. It is problematic when many of the material parameters are not measured even directly, due to lack of sufficiently advanced technology that would quantify lattice impurities once they are already embedded in them.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 01:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to such inadequacies of today's technology relative to the technological and theoretical needs for verifying the excess heat, people supporting this field have been casted as incompetent by mainline scientists . If they are indeed incompetent, it is probably because they are trying to bite way more than any scientist today can chew. Perhaps we'll see a future where new scientific discoveries are made by only an exceedingly small minority of scientists. I would not be surprised if by the end of my lifetime, only 1% of the amount of today's scientists would be smart enough to be capable of discovering new things in science. The propensity for elitism in the sciences will correspondingly become worse, due to the diminishing probability that anyone born will be talented enough to do new science, regardless of overcoming physiological limitations at birth, I suspect. By 2100, perhaps a dozen or so "evil geniuses" or "beautiful minds" will be the only ones doing new science.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Kmarinas86, I don't know if you were intending this or not, but your summary is one of the best I've read for describing the feelings of those who are frustrated with mainstream scientific dismissive-ness of fringe ideas. Thank you. jps (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Umberto Eco said, "Whereof we cannot express a theory, we must tell a story instead." If Eco's insight is on the mark, then we are still very much in the story-telling phase of Cold Fusion research.  Stories, of course, are populated by curious characters who have beliefs, desires, intentions, and a range of idiosyncratic feelings like disappointment, frustration, hope, and defiance.  In my latest blog post on this subject, I note that Cold Fusion researchers have achieved something remarkable. They have managed to take two precious metals — Platinum and Palladium — and (by means of an over-excited battery charger) dramatically transformed them into the surreal elements of Antinomy and Antagony.  —Moulton (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Gas loading
The gas phase experiments for which Arata and Zhang are known have much better replicability rates, and in a wider geographical distribution than electrochemistry cell experiments. The article currently covers the latter to the complete exclusion of the former. Should Arata, Zhang, et al's gas loading experiments be included in the article? 208.54.5.55 (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * NO independent notice of this exists. jps (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you looked? It's not hard to find. Britz's bibliography is a good place to start (search for the keywords used on the Arata & Zhang articles) but at least three of the recent reviews have good coverage of gas loading too. 208.54.5.57 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Substance of content dispute?
Discussion about editors should happen on their user talk pages, please. I want to know (1) the reasons why http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=403929478#Experiments_and_reported_results is better or worse than the same section in the current article, and (2) whether anyone intends to address its citation needed tags? There was a long stretch of productive discussion about content, and it would be nice for that to continue, please. 208.54.5.75 (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) The current article is a better summary. 2) The citation needed tags were erroneous. A citation was proffered and a controversial contention sourced to NewScientist about Widom-Larsen theory was removed. jps (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The oldid'9478 version has more chronological and even coverage to both sides. Can you propose a way to reconcile the two versions (and if so, how would you change and/or add to the article's introduction?) I think you may be right that there has been one article cited already for one of the citation requests, but are you saying more than one of the requested citations could be in error? Even the one about the mainstream should be updated if at all possible, right? 208.54.5.69 (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Even coverage" is not WP:VALID at Wikipedia. As for "chronology", the differences are in experiment and not in history. I'm saying that all of the citations are there already. There's nothing left to cite. jps (talk)


 * Much of the so-called "content disputes" are really disputes about reverts.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 21:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not seem that the requested citations have been addressed, and there are other factual disputes which seem to be remaining. I've underlined the areas of such substantive and citation disputes I've been able to identify on the left side of this comparison:

Is it fair to say that those eight underlined regions are the main areas of substantive factual disputes? Can we go through these one by one and discuss, please? 208.54.5.55 (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is ability to replicate experiments proportional to ability to achieve high loading ratios, per Hubler et al?
 * 2) What source says Fleischmann and Pons' experiments produced 10-20% excess heat?
 * 3) Can helium from air contamination be ruled out (e.g. with atmospheric argon) and what source says it can't?
 * 4) Do the peer reviewed literature reviews say helium production is correlated with excess heat?
 * 5) Have X-rays been reported in secondary peer reviewed literature published in China, Europe, and the United States?
 * 6) Which current sources say proponents' explanations are not accepted by mainstream scientists?
 * 7) What source says that the DOE found theoretical explanations to be the weakest part of cold fusion claims?
 * 8) Did cold fusion researchers at the United States Army Research Laboratory propose Bose–Einstein condensates and Widom–Larsen theory as theoretical explanations?


 * 1) Irrelevant.
 * 2) Already listed.
 * 3) No. The one listed.
 * 4) Only the ones done by cold fusion proponents.
 * 5) "Secondary" as compared to the cold fusion community? No.
 * 6) "Current" is irrelevant. Cold fusion is more relevant as a historical incident.
 * 7) The DOE report.
 * 8) No. That's not what is stated.

jps (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. For 2 and 3 could you please link to or write out those sources? There is no way to tell which they are. I am particularly interested to learn who thinks you can't detect air helium contamination from the air argon spectrum. How is that even remotely feasible?
 * Question 1 is highly relevant to the answers given to questions 4 and 5. The electrochemist Hubler at US Navy Research Laboratory has several dozen peer reviewed papers, patents, etc., but never did anything related cold fusion before his bosses asked him in 2006 to write up a review of the field, because Navy SPAWAR keeps publishing positive results (not "quietly" as the article says--they've been passing mainstream peer review on the subject since the early 1990s.) So Hubler does the review and reports that all the researchers with the capability to achieve high loading ratios get positive results, and everyone else can't replicate the experiments. There's the boundary of the "cold fusion community" right there: the technical ability to load hydrogen isotopes into metals; very difficult, time consuming if you aren't doing it right, and an obvious source of potential professional acrimony. Hubler's 2007 review has been cited by both the detractors' and proponents' publications, and it's been in the article for a few years. Can we agree and include in the article that the ability to achieve high loading ratios is what seperates the cold fusion community from those who've been unable to replicate the experiments?
 * And can we agree, therefore, to include the reports from secondary peer reviewed publications about the excess heat-helium correlation and x-rays? To do otherwise would mindlessly set the interests of those who never figured out how to achieve high loading ratios over those of the researchers who did.
 * Regarding question 8, it's a plain matter of fact that when the ARL held their cold fusion workshop this year, the explanations offered included W-L theory, which is summarized in the existing New Scientist report (by the way, that was cited incorrectly in a recent edit and is currently a big red "Cite Error" in the references list.) How could that be best phrased? 208.54.5.55 (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Helium
(comment continued from the previous section)
 * ...Finally, the helium section seems, to me, to be unwarranted yet. A sentence that cold fusioneers believe they have measured helium might be appropriate, but the evidence is selective. The meta-analysis threw out non-detections but accepted all detections, as far as I can tell. Again, secondary source evaluation would be best.
 * ScienceApologist (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a meta-analysis on helium? Reference, please?  I've been working from the recently highly-vaunted 2010 Storms "review," and looking at the research summarized there, trying to determine for my own understanding how strong the evidence is for the  claim of a strong correlation between heat and helium, and have so far not found the strength of this "correlation" or  Storms' selective description of it very convincing.   He defines a correlation this way:  "A correlation can be said to exist if helium is detected when extra energy is produced and helium is absent when energy is not produced" and then lists twelve bodies of research in which he claims that such a correlation has been reported.  But if you look at those research reports that's not what most of them are actually reporting.  One of the reports didn't report or measure energy output at all, which eliminates it entirely as potential support for the statement made. Others, as SA suggests above, ignored cases where there was reported heat but no excess helium,  rendering them unsuitable as support for the statement.    I found especially interesting a graph which had six helium measurements (all from heat-producing cells) three of which showed excess helium and three of which didn't; the line drawn to fit the data (and to show how "close" it was to a line generated by a theoretical prediction)  obviously excluded the  non-helium points and only fitted the three points where helium was above background; if the other points had been included, as they should have been, the line would  have approached horizontal.)    Another study, that involved mass spectrometry, had the calibration peaks in the right place, the helium peak (4.0026) to the left of the D2 peak (4.028), but when they presented the "evidence" for helium (a single observation of helium in an unspecified number of runs) the "helium" peak is inexplicably to the right of the D2 peak, and so small that you have to take their word for it that the "after" peak is 25% higher than the "before" peak. None of the reports that I've looked at  has shown unequivocally that "where there's heat there's helium; where there's not heat there's not helium."  In some cases the authors admit the problem; for example,  the author with the misleading graph freely admitted in the text that "A more significant problem is that three He samples, taken at times of non-zero excess power, exhibited helium concentrations only at the level of analytical uncertainty...."  and that only in some samples from power-producing cells did helium levels exceed that of the ambient background. Another report comments, "However the circumstances of having a significant [helium] background even before the immission is somehow disturbing."  So the assertion in Storms' "review" that the twelve studies consistently reported a solid "heat>helium, no heat>no helium" association, is simply not an accurate representation of the data reported in those studies.  The review is too new to have attracted secondary criticism, if it ever will, and of course my informal analysis is useless for our purpose here, but I don't believe we'd be serving our readers well if we used this review to support any assertion about a correlation between heat and helium, even if Wikipedia rules, broadly interpreted, would allow it.


 * Then, yesterday, I looked at the article to see what we are saying about heat and helium, and was relieved to find that our article doesn't actually assert a correlation between heat and helium and that what the article says about helium appears to summarize the currently-available data accurately, so I was putting the stuff all away and going back to what I was doing before I was distracted by this recent discussion,  when this thread caught my eye.  If I'm reading the comments above correctly it appears that an editor wishes to include statements asserting this correlation (although I thought Hagelstein was a theorist not a researcher; has Hagelstein actually produced research supporting this correlation?); if so,  I agree with SA that to make any encyclopedic statement about this research is "unwarranted yet."   Woonpton (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Hagelstein (2010) review reports on the correlation between measured helium and excess heat, as do the Storms (2010) review and most of the Biberian reviews, all of which have been published in peer reviewed academic journals. Have you had the opportunity to read the Hagelstein and Biberian reviews? Also, which graph are you referring to in the work cited by Storms (2010)? Ura Ursa (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By "Hagelstein review" I do hope you don't mean the 2010 Naturwissenschaften article titled "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment," which is not a review but a bit of theoretical speculation. There are reports of scientific observations (primary research reports) and then there are reviews that provide critical analysis of the primary research in a field, set aside flawed studies, and summarize what's left; that's the kind of secondary independent source we need to support statements made in this article.  The Storms and Biberian reviews, while ostensibly "reviews of the literature"  are not reviews in this customary sense; they are simply recitations of claims.


 * I've already commented on problems I see with the Storms review; as for Biberian, the section on helium (in the 2007 review)  begins with a bit of bizarre revisionist history:  "At the initial press conference, Pons and Fleischmann claimed that they had measured helium-4, thereby proving that the reaction was D + D > He4 + gamma 24 MeV."  This account is fiction.  Nowhere in that press conference, in the press release that announced the conference, or in the original paper, did Pons or Fleischmann mention He4.  He3 is mentioned in a speculative way in the introduction to the paper, with a question suggesting that the governing fusion reaction might be one that leads to the formation of He3, but nowhere in the experimental, results, or discussion sections is He3 mentioned again, let alone He4. Credibility in science depends to some extent on factual accuracy in research writing.  I found all of these documents and read them in about five minutes, so it wouldn't have been hard for him to check his facts.


 * I mentioned two graphs; the one where only the cases where both heat and helium were present were used in fitting the line and the points where there was heat but no helium were ignored is Figure 1 in McKubre et al 2000, "The Emergence of a Coherent Explanation for Anomalies Observed in D/Pd and H/Pd Systems: Evidence for 4He and 3He" which was cited in Storms 2010 as evidence for his  claim (where there is heat there is helium, where there is no heat there is no helium).  Obviously this was not the case in that experiment. The other graph, with the "helium" peak in the wrong place, is Figure 6 in Botta et al 1995, "Search for 4He Production from Pd/D2 Systems in Gas Phase," also cited by Storms as evidence for the claim. I would caution against getting hung up on specific graphs or sub-issues; my point was and is a general one, that the claim made in the review is not well supported by the research cited as evidence for it.  This is true throughout the body of research; the two graphs I mentioned were just two obvious examples that illustrate the problem very nicely.  I don't have the time or interest to list the problems in the interpretation and presentation of the data in each of these studies (someone should write a good independent review of this literature, but it won't be me) and even if I went to the trouble, my analysis wouldn't be useful to us here.  The question that concerns editors here is, should the in-universe claims that haven't been verified by independent confirmation be included in the article, or do we wait for independent verification of those claims? The latter course seems wiser,  more encyclopedic, and more respectful of readers' desire for accurate, reliable information.Woonpton (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my comments on the merits of the research, since my opinions about the research are irrelevant here; lest my point be lost, it's that having seen the evidence for a heat/helium correlation, I concur with the statement we have in our article about helium, sourced to a 1999 Scientific American article; this is an accurate representation of the state of the research to this point IMO.  (Most of this research was presented or published in the 90s, so there's not new information since 1999).


 * And before someone portrays me as anti-cold fusion, this has nothing to do with cold fusion for me. It could be any data in any field. My only interest is in the accurate interpretation and presentation of data and the drawing of appropriate conclusions from it,  whatever the topic.  I wouldn't even have looked at this if Abd hadn't gone on at such length about how strong this correlation is; finally I decided I had to see for myself.  Even Storms' descriptions of the research aren't very persuasive, eg what he says about Takahashi's research:  "Four successful runs gave values between 8.8 x 10^14 to 7.0 x 10^16 atoms, with a background of 5.5 x 10^15 atoms,"  and about Apicella: "The largest value reported is 1.05 x 10^16 atoms, compared to a background of 0.75 x 10^16 atoms. The background is from helium initially present in the spectrometer."  Statements like these give a statistician pause, and certainly don't provide support for Storms' claim that all these studies show that where there's heat there's helium, where there's not heat there's not helium,  so then I had to go to the original sources and look at the actual data and see how big the sampling error is (it's huge, and another unfortunate blunder is that Miles mistakes measurement error for sampling variability--experimental error-- and crows that the difference between the largest and smallest values they measured in the presence of heat was 37 sigma! What he was really inadvertently pointing out was how huge the variance in the heat-helium measurements is, which is entirely a different issue than the accuracy of each of those measurements, and the implication is that most if not all of these measurements are almost certainly not statistically different from background).  But even after drawing the conclusion for my own information  that the data don't provide convincing support for the claimed correlation (I'm not saying there couldn't be such a correlation; there well could be, I'm just saying that the present body of research hasn't established it)  I would have put it away without commenting on it here, except that just that morning someone suggested that our article should mention the correlation between heat and helium. I'm sorry I commented, and will take this article off my watchlist so it won't happen again. Woonpton (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, found your comments very valuable, Woonpton. Please consider continuing here. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you endorse Woonpton's assertion that Hagelstein (2010) is not a review, even though it says "REVIEW" across the top and summarizes more than 1,000 papers? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Calling something a review doesn't necessarily make it a review. Claiming that it summarized 1000 papers doesn't make it so. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By that logic, if a cold-fusion detractor publishes a claim of having conducted an experiment that debunks the idea, then we don't have to believe that the paper is valid, right (the detractor could just be lying)? Since such assumptions are not how Science works (especially when a paper is published after peer-review!); you cannot arbitrarily claim that the claims made in that Review paper are faulty --you have to repeat the work to be able to make such a claim! V (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument makes no sense; whether a paper is a research study or a review doesn't depend on what it's called, but what it is. A scientist doesn't "claim" to have conducted an experiment; the published account speaks for itself, for better or worse.


 * I was not claiming, arbitrarily or otherwise, that the "claims" made in the Hagelstein paper are faulty. I was simply saying that the Hagelstein paper is not a review, regardless of the banner heading Naturwissenschaften gave it.  They appear to have only a few categories for articles:  Original Paper, Review, Short Commentary and Editorial are the only ones I've seen.  The Hagelstein paper by most objective standards would be considered an original paper, but the journal didn't give it the "Original Paper" label for whatever reason. I'd guess they get so few theoretical papers they didn't know what to call it, but decided it was closer to a review than an original paper, since it is an attempt to explain some older findings rather than a research report offering new observations.  But as ScienceApologist rightly says, calling it a review doesn't make it a review.  And claiming that it summarizes 1000 papers is, don't you think, a bit exaggerated, when it actually mentions only about 20 studies.  The paper proposes a theoretical framework related to cold fusion, but it is in no sense of the word a review of cold fusion research, and by the title Hagelstein gave it, it seems unlikely that the author himself considered it a review; in my experience writing and reading research and reviews of research, a paper that sets out to review the literature on a topic customarily states in the title or subtitle that it is a review. Woonpton (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (signature added later to assign authorship, since post was broken up with inserted comment below)
 * I can certainly accept the idea that an article might not actually be a review, if the author does not say it is a review (despite others saying it is). Regarding 1000 papers, though, if the author says that that much experimental data was examined, I don't know why it can't be true (especially for Hagelstein, who has been active in the field since the original announcement by P&F).  Also, I would think that the particular experiments/papers focussed on are those the author considers to be the most representative of the 1000 total.  The only question I now have concerns the papers that are referenced, and Wikipedia's policies regarding primary and secondary sources.  There are some recent experiments (about 2008 onward) that have not been allowed mention in the main article here, because all we had were the primary-source (albeit mainstream) publications.  To the extent that some of those papers have now been referenced in this Hagelstein paper, then it seems to me that this secondary source now qualifies those earlier papers for use in this Wikipedia article.  What say you? V (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hagelstein isn't independent enough. Wait for acknowledgment from someone who isn't a documented cold fusion advocate. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bad answer. That's like saying some new paper on Newtonian Mechanics can't be used by Wikipedia even after it get referenced by some pro-Newtonian-Mechanics author, and if we accepted such horrible "logic", then the original Storms review likely would have to be discarded, too.  That's why the more important data item is "mainstream publication", which this Hagelstein paper most certainly is (along with the Storms publication). V (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not instructive to compare cold fusion with Newtonian Mechanics. See WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is always instructive to point out double-standards and other forms of hypocrisy. By definition, articles published in mainstream journals are not "fringe".  And I was talking only about such articles, above (although I just added a bit of text in an earlier post to make it more obvious).  V (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, the definition of fringe science in Wikipedia says nothing about publications defining it. I think you missed the excellent summary of what publication (esp. peer-reviewed) means offered below by Woonpton. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything at the WP:FRINGE page that requires everything about CF to be called "fringe", and that's partly because there are two significant issues here, not just one. The first issue consists of the reports of energy being produced in "CF experiments".  So far as I know, this has never been called "fringe"; both DOE panels, for example, were relatively encouraging of more experimentation to get more and better data about that.  The second issue involves the proposed explanation for that energy, which we all here know consists of claims and counterclaims about deuterium fusion.  Personally, I've just about reached the point where I don't care what the arguments are; I just want to see more experimental data.  Should it happen someday that the energy measurments become reliable (and positive, of course), then it will be time to argue about where that energy is coming from.  Anyway, I agree that the mainstream has basically frowned upon "fusion" as being the right explanation for the detected energy, and so non-mainstream publications that focus on fusion can generally-correctly be called "fringe".  However!  The mainstream publications of experiments that I was talking about involve data more than theory.  They are basically in line with what the DOE panels favored, and so are hardly "fringe".  Remember, one of them was a pressurized-gas experiment (approximate replication of Arata's work) that was published in Physics Letters A, and was all about the detection of anomalous energy.  That's about as non-fringe as you can get!  And as for the new Hagelstein paper, while it may focus on theory, the Question I've been asking involves the references in that paper, to other articles.  So, if it happens to discuss/reference the Physics Letters A paper, then it would be a mainstream/secondary source about that article, and, to the best of my knowledge, would allow us to start using the referenced paper as a source of data for this Wikipedia article. IF the PLA paper is referenced, of course! V (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

{unindent}“I don't see anything at the WP:FRINGE page that requires…” - Of course not. Do you think all fringe topics are called out by name?
 * That's not what I meant; I was talking about the definition there, of "fringe". That is, just because you claim that CF qualifies as fringe, per Wikipedia definition on the [WP:FRINGE] page, that does not mean it actually qualifies as fringe.  Read the descriptions there more carefully V (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

“…, this has never been called "fringe"…” – Please stop mixing apples and oranges. For Wikipedia purposes, cold fusion has always been, and still is, ‘fringe’. Whether some reporter or scientist chooses to use that term or not is irrelevant. What is required to change that is clearly stated in reverse with: “Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe concepts as highly speculative or even strongly refuted.” Get the mainstream to view them as strongly supported and non-speculative, and you’re not ‘fringe’.
 * There you go, agreeing with what I wrote about the proposed explanation of the data; fringe concepts are indeed often highly speculative. The data itself, however, which led to those speculations, and especially recent data from the CF field, is most certainly not being strongly refuted.  So, the mainstream is provably shifting away from that viewpoint that all CF stuff is fringe, and the proof is the fact of mainstream publishing of CF-related data in recent years, including even a whole sourcebook by the American Chemical Society.  In other words, no matter how much you think CF used to qualify as "fringe", it qualifies less-so as fringe today.  I don't know where the dividing line is, that something once considered fringe becomes something more than that (example: "continental drift" was definitely once "fringe", but isn't any more); historically, it usually happens after enough die-hard detractors die off.  I'd be interested in knowing why we should have to wait for that to happen again, if the data holds up to replication (and some of it already has held up; remember that the Physics Letters A paper is about an approximate replication of an earlier experiment by Arata). 07:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

“both DOE panels, … were relatively encouraging” – You mistake professional courtesy for approval.
 * I don't care what you call it; the DOE panels did not strongly refute the data that led to speculations that cold fusion could explain that data. And therefore, by definition, they did not thereby give any indication that that data qualified as "fringe". V (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

“The second issue involves the proposed explanation…” – No, the underlying issue here is whether inordinate coverage of all the various CF claims in the Wiki article gives it undue notoriety per Wiki policy not to be used to promote fringe ideas. We have agreed that issues discussed by non-CFers in RS is justification for inclusion here. The primary non-CF RS is the two DOE reports. Newspaper articles don’t count for this. Also, the nature of the conversion from “speculative or refuted” to “ accepted” requires some time to pass and some widepread discussion to occur. So far, that has not happened, so the idea of ‘recentism’ is applicable.
 * As I've previously pointed out, it is because the article here does not make a distinction between the data and the proposed explanations, that you and other detractors can lump all of it together under the label of "fringe". And it looks to me like the gang of you desperately want to keep it all mixed up (avoide making the aforementioned distinction), just so you can continue to mis-label recent data as "fringe", despite it being published in mainstream journals.  Tsk, tsk. V (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

“I've just about reached the point where I don't care…” – I started that way in ‘95. All I wanted to see was the compelling data. Never found it.
 * Yes, we've seen the extraordinary excuses you concocted to try to convince others that real heat that can melt palladium was actually only an illusion. I think the relevant quote is, "None are so blind as those who refuse to see".  Which reminds me that there is a kind of "silent" large group of scientists out there, such as Robert Duncan (university chancellor) originally was, who simply haven't been paying attention to the arguments.  I wonder just how large that group is, compared to the group (known to consist mostly of hot-fusion researchers) that insists CF is impossible.  That is, what is the real mainstream view of this subject, eh? V (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

“They are basically in line with what the DOE panels favored, and so are hardly "fringe".” - No, they have not resulted in any significant change in the mainstream position and thus the field _remains_ fringe.
 * And that statement is utter nonsense, since mainstream journals have been publishing rather more CF papers recently than they did ten years ago --a very significant change in the mainstream position! V (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

“…Physics Letters A, and was all about the detection of anomalous energy. That's about as non-fringe as you can get!” – You failed to understand again what is going on. Junk gets published, everywhere. Peer review is the lowest level of QC possible. Again, getting published does not mean you are non-fringe, it just means you got lucky. The Kitamura paper is one of those garbage papers that got published in spite of how bad it is. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you say a paper is garbage, that does not make it so. Where is your evidence that it is a garbage paper?  Have you performed the experiment and discovered different results? And, have you forgotten that that paper is about an attempt to basically replicate an earlier experiment (which, according to the authors, it succeeded)?  Where are any papers about deuterium gas pressurized into palladium, with anomalous heat not being noticed?  (Per one in-house document linked here some months ago, even NASA found anomalous heat, long before Arata.) V (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First, please don't post in the middle of others' posts; it breaks up the discussion and leaves paragraphs appearing to be unauthored. I've signed the orphaned paragraph but for future reference, please don't break up posts by commenting in the middle of them.. Second, the assertion in the paper is that "we searched more than a thousand papers for results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission for unit energy;" he was just looking for papers he could use for developing his theory, not examining all thousand papers. Woonpton (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Woonpton (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are papers that purport to be reviews (Storms 2010, Biberian) but they don't have the characteristics generally associated with a review. A review looks at all the research on a topic (not just favorable research) and rather than simply mentioning each study with its key findings (that would be an annotated bibliography) a review examines the research closely, pointing out problems in experimental design, analysis, whether the conclusions follow naturally from the the data, whether there could be other possible explanations for the findings, and so forth. Then the review summarizes the evidence taken altogether, weighing the evidence for and against, taking into account the questions that may have been raised about the reproducibility, reliability and validity of individual studies,  and arriving at a tentative conclusion about what findings have  been conclusively demonstrated by the body of research taken as a whole.  As far as I can see, there has been no such review conducted wrt the recent cold fusion research; the only thing that even resembles an independent review is the 2004 DOE report which doesn't really qualify, since rather than asking reviewers to read and weigh all the original literature, reviewers were only asked to review and respond to a fairly short and selective report prepared by cold fusion researchers. Woonpton (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And while I'm here, a word about peer review. Peer review is not a stamp of approval on behalf of mainstream science, nor does it offer much assurance that a paper has been checked for errors or vetted for validity by checking for flaws in experimental design, analysis, and so forth. The standards of peer review vary from publisher to publisher, so one can have more confidence in the peer review process of some journals than others, but as a whole, the peer review process isn't any guarantee that the work is scientifically sound, only that it meets the minimum standard for publication for that journal, whatever it is (and for some, that bar is set very low indeed).  It's also worth noting that scientists don't put as much stock in peer review as non-scientists. (David Friedman, in his excellent 2010 book "Wrong," notes that "It is typically science journalists and other outside observers who imagine peer review to be an assurance of study reliability" and that scientists themselves understand that the public idea of peer review as a stamp of authentication is not accurate. When the British Journal of Medicine tested its peer review system by sending out to a pool of 221 reviewers, a test article deliberately salted with 8 obvious errors, the reviewers caught an average of two errors each.  In other words, while many people believe that the peer review system puts an article through something like the literature review process I described above, in most cases research papers don't get that kind of scrutiny before publication.  And as a person whose career consisted of teaching, reading, writing, evaluating and summarizing research literature, I can attest that many papers that pass peer review shouldn't have, if peer review served any useful purpose in terms of weeding out or improving flawed research reports before publication. Woonpton (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be best at this juncture to request mediation concerning whether the several secondary sources reporting correlation between heat and helium production are appropriate to include? I am not convinced by the people who insist on saying that the Hagelstein (2010) review, which is plainly labeled a review by the academic journal it appears in and indicates that it summarizes more than 1,000 other papers, is somehow not a review. Ura Ursa (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In particular, I would like to ask Woonpton some questions. Firstly, what is "the statement we have in our article about helium, sourced to a 1999 Scientific American article"? Do you mean, "great care must be used to avoid contamination by trace amounts of helium normally present in the air"? Are you aware that contamination with air produces both argon and helium, both of which have unique sharp spectra?
 * Secondly, on one hand, you say that a bona fide review "set[s] aside flawed studies" but later you say that a real review "looks at all the research on a topic (not just favorable research)". Are you aware of the work which has been done on deuterium loading ratio achievements? Ura Ursa (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodness. I haven't been watching this page and just came across this quite by accident, trying to work out a problem with my browser. I believe I've already said everything I have to say about Hagelstein and Storms and won't go around that circle again.  If you want to take it to mediation, be my guest, but I have no interest in participating, and as I said, I'm not watching this page so I won't know and won't care what's decided in the mediation about it, if one occurs. I personally think it would be a disservice to the reader to use these  inside-universe"reviews" as sources for statements about a correlation between helium and heat, but I don't care enough about it to be involved in dispute resolution about it.


 * I'm puzzled by the question about what I mean by "the statement in our article about helium sourced to a 1999 Scientific American article;" I should think it's clear that the statement I mean is " However, the reported levels were very near to the background, so there is the possibility of contamination by trace amounts of helium which are normally present in the air. The lack of detection of gamma radiation seen in the fusion of hydrogen or deuterium to 4He has caused critics to attribute the helium detections to experimental error.[" That's the only statement about helium in our article that's sourced to the 1999 Scientific American article (in which a panel of experts were asked to read the recent research on cold fusion and respond) and as I remarked, after reading all the research that's cited in Storms 2010 on the subject, I  believe that this reliably-sourced statement in our article is a fair summary of the recent research on helium. And yes, I'm aware of all the research.


 * As for the last question, those two statements are not at all contradictory. The first one refers to the body of literature that is analyzed for the review; a review should include ALL the literature available, not just the literature that offers favorable conclusions, as Storms' review does for example, leaving out research which refutes the favorable research.   The second statement was taken completely out of context, for reasons inexplicable to me, but refers to a later phase in the review process, as can easily be seen in its context, above.   Having amassed all the research literature available on a topic, the reviewer then analyzes each of the studies, evaluating their research methods, data analysis and presentation, and whether the conclusions follow logically from the data.  An example of what that would look like in a review can be seen in my brief remarks about a couple of the helium studies above in this thread. In other words, the fact that a study claims a correlation, and draws a graph showing a correlation, by using only the three points where there is a correlation and leaves out the three points where there is no correlation, should be prominently mentioned in any review that includes that study.  The review does this evaluation explicitly for each of the studies in the body of literature that is reviewed.  Once flawed studies have been identified and "set aside," the studies that are left (in  other words the data that still remain standing when the review is finished) are used to summarize the findings in the field. The flawed studies are included in the analysis of all the studies in the field, but are not included in the summary of findings, since by definition they don't represent valid findings.Woonpton (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)