Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 8

Are there any anti-CF web sites?
I made a minor change to the link to LENR-CANR. Someone had it:

". . . information and links from pro-cold fusion research, and an online library of over 450 full-text papers from the peer-reviewed literature and conference proceedings."

That's fine, except that strictly speaking, we do have some anti-cold fusion papers by Jones, Morrison, Shanahan and others. We have links to other anti-CF papers, including the 1989 ERAB paper, the recent DoE review, and so on. We would have more negative stuff but the skeptics have not published much, and I doubt that many of them would want to give us papers. (Everything at LENR-CANR.org comes from the authors, with their permission.) This is nitpicking, but I changed that to:

". . . information and links on cold fusion research (mainly pro-cold fusion) . . ."

Does anyone know of an anti-cold fusion website that includes technical papers? I will link to it.

Hundreds of web sites mention cold fusion, either for it or against it, but only a few include research papers. I have links to all the ones I know about.

--JedRothwell 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Good articles
This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because this article is being edited heavily and forcefully by cold fusion advocates, with frequent POV and factual disputes. The content needs to be settled and NPOV (by consensus, not by declaration) for this to be considered a good article. -- SCZenz 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to say just the opposite. The article has been heavily edited by people who have not read the literature and who clearly know nothing about electrochemistry, calorimetry or fusion. They forcefully add irrelivant insert POV statements and absurd mythology about magical majorities of scientists, while they ignore peer-reviewed, replicated experimental proof. This article should be held to the same standards that any other scientific article would be, but the skeptics insist on dragging in these weird distractions and comical distortions. That has been the story of cold fusion ever since 1990. By every proper, traditional, accepted, rigorous standard of science cold fusion was proved beyond any doubt in hundreds of experiments performed in world-class laboratories, but fringe "skeptics" keep shouting that it is not true!


 * We agree that the quality has suffered because some people cannot distinguish between scientifically proven facts and their own opinions & fantasies. --JedRothwell 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the very essence of a POV dispute; each side thinks the other is going too far. Now's the point when, in principle, we could start working out neutral wording based on closely following reputable sources, but I don't think we agree on which sources are reputable.  But we can always check; give me a moment and I'll make a list. -- SCZenz 20:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already made a list; see below. It did not take me a minute, however. It took me about 10 years. To make it, I read a few hundred papers, attended a dozen conferences, visited laboratories around the world and observed the experiments, and I wrote, edited and translated a dozen papers and three books.


 * Are you sure you can do this in a moment? How quickly can you read and evaluate papers, anyway? Fleischmann is one of the world's top electrochemists and a Fellow of the Royal Society, yet he pondered the subject for 30 years and then did intensive research for five years before he drew a conclusions. Richard Oriani is also one of the top 10 electrochemists, and he told me that in his 50-year career this is the most difficult experiment he has ever done. You must have an awesome intellect if you can draw up a list of authoritative journals and articles in a few minutes. By the way, have you read the 35 peer-reviewed journal articles already listed in the Wikipedia article? That's a good place to start. --JedRothwell 21:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

DOE Review
To those of you who are defending your position to reject or dismiss cold fusion behind the shield of the DOE review; be forewarned, the ground beneath you is unstable and receding.

In 1989, the DOE review was predetermined to a negative outcome. This evidence comes directly from the man who came up with the idea of the review and advised the president of the United States how to settle the matter according to this scientists' personal belief that cold fusion was impossible. Do your homework, you'll find it. It also comes from John Huizenga who stated that he thought a review was a waste of time.

This is not science, people, this is politics.

In 2003, some cold fusion researchers thought they were all hot to trot with new strong evidence and they thought they could finally get DOE to reverse their opinion on the matter. What a joke! So what they did was to use political leverage to go to the top of DOE, Spencer Abraham and lobby him to do another review.

Abraham said, yes, and then he went to James Decker of the Office of Science and said, "Hey, you gotta look at cold fusion again." Decker and company said, "Aw, for cryin' out loud, we really don't want to do this. Cold fusion is a freakin' political nightmare. We'd rather shove hot coals up our behinds."

You'll notice that DOE made no effort to publicize either the initiation of the review or the completion of the review.

Bennnett Daviss of New Scientist and Tony Feder of Physics Today got the scoop on it from inside sources, there was never a press release.

Get it done and over with as quickly and as quietly as possible and shut these guys up. Will Happer nailed it, “I think a review is a waste of time, but if you put together a credible committee, you can try to put the issue to bed for some time."

So Decker says to Abraham, "Fine, you can shove this thing down our throat but you can't tell us how to do it." So wouldn't you know it, they set up the review so that reviewers spend one whole day talking to half a dozen cold fusion scientists about 17 years worth of research. Then the reviewers visit a whopping zero cold fusion laboratories and lo and behold, a majority are not convinced! Imagine that!


 * Despite all the things against it that you describe so well, the DoE panel stated that 1/2 the reviewers were somewhat convinced by the evidence of excess heat. Because the DoE is used by the opponents of cold fusion, this statement from the DoE is the best ammunition that the pro cold fusion can use !  They can't challenge it !  Please recognize that. Pcarbonn 06:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is politics people, not science. And if you think you are thinking independently and scientifically by standing behind the DOE report, I have a bridge to sell you in New York.

Ask yourself this: What if some of the negative things you've been told about cold fusion have not been true? Is it possible? What if some prominent scientists have lied to you? Is that possible? Or is that too disturbing a question?

STemplar 04:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a profoundly disturbing possibility, for prominent scientists to lie to the public about scientific results. If such a thing were to occur, it would be vitally important to set the matter straight, to make sure the truth won out.
 * You suggest a conspiracy of prominent scientists in non-cold fusion related jobs, all deciding for indirect, obscure political reasons to lie about a phenomenon that, if real, would have a profound positive impact on humanity. To answer your question:  No, I don't find it at all plausible that there's a cabal of villainous fake scientists conspiring against cold fusion research.
 * It would be concievable for the leadership of DoE to be mistaken about a real phenomenon and dismiss it incorrectly, but your suggestion that they're deliberately lying about it is implausable. If they actually believed the phenomenon occured they'd be among those most likely to be excited and supportive of it.  A verified, working cold fusion finding would greatly help the DoE, not hurt it.
 * Since you bring the topic up, there exists a group of scientists who do have a much more direct motivation to lie about cold fusion results, whose personal pay is directly dependent on the perception of the validity of these results. What if some formerly prominent scientists have lied to you? Is that possible? Or is that too disturbing a question? --Noren 16:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Noren writes: "I don't find it at all plausible that there's a cabal of villainous fake scientists conspiring against cold fusion research." I don't either. That's silly. The people campaigning against cold fusion are all real scientists, except Taubes, who is a journalist. Everyone knows who these people are, because they often boast about what they have done. They state clearly, on the record, what they did and why they did it. Huizenga and Close wrote books. Park and Zimmerman stood up in front of an enthusiastic crowd of supporters at the APS and announced that they and their allies at the DoE would "root out" and fire any scientist in the Federal government who supports cold fusion or talks about conducting experiments. They followed through and did that, and they are proud they did. The people who have done the most to crush the field are the plasma fusion scientists at MIT and elsewhere. Their feared their funding might be cut, so they pulled out all the stops to sabotage cold fusion. They went on the warpath within hours of the announcement. They called up Boston news reporters and told them that Fleischmann and Pons were criminals and frauds who must be stopped. They & their allies still say that, as often as possible, in as many newspapers and magazines as they can reach. They also ensured that the DoE review would be a farce, and that no mention of actual cold fusion research or results will be published in any major U.S. newspaper or magazine. The opponents themselves tell me they do that. They say they keeping science free of fraud -- they will not allow criminals to subvert the process or sully the reputation of mainstream science. They do not see themselves as evil, but rather as defenders of good science and ethics. News reporters and editors tell me that DoE officials and others assure them that if they publish anything about cold fusion, strings will be pulled and they will soon be out of a job.

A small number of people are doing this, but they have power and support from many others. They are all well known to me and to everyone else in the field, and their activities are well documented in books and papers. This history is not disputed by anyone, least of all by these people. On the contrary, they brag about their accomplishments. I am sure they sincerely believe they are protecting science from fraud. Nobody would go around conducting witch-hunts and destroying people's lives, careers and reputations if they did not believe in their cause. --JedRothwell 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

STemplar's description of the DoE review is hilarious and accurate. He wrote:


 * "In 2003, some cold fusion researchers thought they were all hot to trot with new strong evidence and they thought they could finally get DOE to reverse their opinion on the matter."

At the time, I & others told them 'be careful what you wish for.' We saw this coming.

STemplar did not mention one other player, whose fingerprints are all over the final report: Steve Jones. As soon as I read the report I thought he must have influenced it, and insiders later confirmed my impression. Let's give credit where it is due.

Pcarbonn suggests we make lemonade from this lemon, which is a good idea:


 * "Despite all the things against it that you describe so well, the DoE panel stated that 1/2 the reviewers were somewhat convinced by the evidence of excess heat."

Did it say that? I recall it said only one person is convinced CF is real. Anyway, the skeptics think the DoE report supports their point of view, and the newspapers all reported it that way, so it hardly matters what the report really said, or what was done. It is true that from the DoE's point of view, the review backfired when some of the panelists took their job seriously and looked at the data. (From their comments, I can tell that some of them read papers on LENR-CANR, which pleased me to no end.) That was ironic and funny, but anyway the DoE was able to paper over the damage by issuing the summary that distorted what the panel wrote. They tried to keep the actual panel comments secret, too. The DoE was soon back to its old tricks: www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf --JedRothwell 21:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it absolutely said that. If you doubt it, please have a look at page 3 paragraph 4 of the Doe Report.  Because this statement is made by a source recognized by the skeptics, they cannot deny it.  And this statement is enough to make the LENR field respectable, and to counter the negative spin that DoE and many others have put on the report.


 * Jed says "It hardly matters what the report really said". I would say instead that it is of the utmost importance for Wikipedia.  As editors, we are supposed to look at the primary source of the information, not on the secondary ones, especially if they have modified the message.  We now have a chance to make things straight, and we must do it. Pcarbonn 12:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pcarbonn wrote: "If you doubt it, please have a look at page 3 paragraph 4 . . ." I do not doubt it, I just forgot. It says:


 * "The excess power observed in some experiments is reported to be beyond that attributable to ordinary chemical or solid state sources; this excess power is attributed by proponents to nuclear fusion reactions. Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic."


 * I agree, that's pretty good. I'll bet it upset the bigwigs at the DoE. Fortunately for them, none of the skeptics read that, and Sciam and the others ignored it.


 * "As editors, we are supposed to look at the primary source of the information, not on the secondary ones, especially if they have modified the message."


 * So you are saying we should ignore the DoE summary report? Right? Because it is tertiary. (Or whatever comes after that.) It is a distorted report describing impressions that people had after one day of listening to people describe first and second hand information about cold fusion. It did not merely "modify" the message, it made corn beef hash out of it. One or two actual facts about cold fusion leaked through the process inadvertently, but overall it was a farce.


 * If that is what you have in mind, I agree. It would be fine with me if we cut out all references to the DoE report. However, the skeptics (who think the report supports their POV) probably want to leave it in. That's okay too. It is unimportant. People who turn to the DoE report, Sci Am. or the Washington Post instead of reading actual original source scientific papers are hopeless. It makes no difference what this article says or does not say. These people will believe whatever the "authorities" at the Sci Am. or the DoE tell them to believe. They never question authority, and they never read original sources, and they never think for themselves. --JedRothwell 15:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right to say that the primary source for experiment results are original articles in peer-reviewed journal. I'm right to say that DoE is a primary source when we are talking about polls of scientist, because no other poll exists.  While nothing beats reading the orginal articles themselves, as you are right to say, many people will rely on authorities like DoE to make their opinion.  Correctly representing what the DoE report says is the responsibility of Wikipedia.  Saying what people say about the DoE report would be second source, and would be wrong. Pcarbonn 15:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jed, why don't you start an article on low energy nuclear reaction: you would have plenty of place to describe what is generally known on these reactions. Please cite your sources, so that the article remain POV.  I'm more and more convinced that the cold fusion article is not the right place to put all this, and it would be very valuable to better understand the current state of research.  Pcarbonn 15:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are both mistaken about the relative roles of primary and secondary sources in Wikipedia. When authoritative secondary sources exist, it is usually correct to cite them over primary sources in Wikipedia. Constructing our own interpretation borders on original research. I can find a scientific paper to support just about any claim, but that doesn't mean each paper should be given equal weight in Wikipedia. To avoid the problem of deciding how to weight things, using secondary sources (like reviews) as a guide is very useful. –Joke 15:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. DoE is a review, and that's why it should be used here.  Using what people said about the DoE review would be wrong though. (that's why I said it is a "primary" source as a review). Pcarbonn 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream Western peer-reviewed papers through the years
I think these should be added to the references, for no other reason than to show that the subject has been accepted in the Western scientific mainstream through the years:


 * McKubre, M.C.H. et al. (1994) "Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd Systems."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 368, 55.
 * Szpak, S. et al. (1995) "Cyclic voltammetry of Pd + D codeposition."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 380, 1.
 * Celani, F. et al. (1996) "Reproducible D/Pd ratio > 1 and excess heat correlation by 1-microsec-pulse, high-current electrolysis."] Fusion Technol., 29, 398.
 * Storms, E. (1996) "How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect."] Fusion Technol., 29, 261.
 * Yuki, H. et al. (1997) "D + D reaction in metal at bombarding energies below 5 keV."] J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 23, 1459
 * Aoki, T. et al. (1998) "Search for nuclear products of the D + D nuclear fusion."] Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources, 6, 22.
 * Szpak, S. et al., (1998) "On the behavior of the Pd/D system: Evidence for tritium production."] Fusion Technol., 33, 38.
 * Gozzi, D. et al., (1998) "X-ray, heat excess and 4He in the D/Pd system."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 452, 251.
 * Zhang, W.-S. et al., (1999) "Numerical simulation of hydrogen (deuterium) absorption into ß-phase hydride (deuteride) palladium electrodes under galvanostatic conditions."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 474.
 * Zhang, W.-S. et al. (2000) "Effects of self-induced stress on the steady concentration distribution of hydrogen in fcc metallic membranes during hydrogen diffusion."] Phys. Rev. B: Mater. Phys., 62, 8884.
 * Cisbani, E. et al., (2001) "Neutron Detector for CF Experiments."] Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 459, 247.
 * Zhang, W.-S. et al. (2002) "Some problems on the resistance method in the in situ measurement of hydrogen content in palladium electrode."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 528, 1.
 * Li, X.Z. et al. (2003) "Correlation between abnormal deuterium flux and heat flow in a D/Pd system."] J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 36, 3095.
 * Zhang, W.-S. et al., (2004) "Effects of reaction heat and self-stress on the transport of hydrogen through metallic tubes under conditions far from equilibrium."] Acta Mater., 52, 5805.
 * Szpak, S. et al. (2004) "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition.] Thermochim. Acta, 410, 101.
 * Szpak, S. et al. (2005) "The effect of an external electric field on surface morphology of co-deposited Pd/D films."] J. Electroanal. Chem., 580, 284.
 * Szpak, S. et al. (2005) "Evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd lattice."] Naturwiss., 92, 394.
 * Storms, E. (2006) "Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion."] Thermochim. Acta, 441, 207.

Does that selection show convincing pertinent work in mainstream reputable peer-reviewed journals through the years? I avoided the more voluminous Japanese literature because understanding of the subject is apparently clearer in Japan for some reason. (Why is it?) --James S. 05:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fusion Technology is not a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal, it is a journal specifically created to publish credulous articles about cold fusion. It is not even one of the 6496 scientific journals listed in the Science Sitation Index. --Noren 16:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Fusion Technology changed its name a few years ago to Fusion Science and Technology, which is listed in the SCI. You can tell from the volume numbers that it was established about 1967, 22 years before the controversy. --James S. 17:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Disciplinary Alert
Whoever the admins are, I'd like to bring to your attention that this is the second attempted insertion of this inappropriate post.

a static ( 22:47, 17 April 2006 84.204.115.107 (→Other kinds of fusion) [[User:STemplar|STemplar] 04:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * He did it again on April 21st ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by pcarbonn (talk • contribs)
 * And on April 24th ! Pcarbonn 22:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

assertion that authors are never allowed to peer review themselves and related claims
I don't know as much about the physics peer review system as I do about the math peer review system. But in math, I'm pretty sure this statement is actually false. If A publishes a conjecture and B submits a heuristic argument against A's conjecture, having A review B's work is considered fine I think. Now, this may be due to the fact that math is highly specialized, so it may be that there isn't anyone better qualified than A to review B's work. Something similar could reasonably happen in a specialized area like cold fusion. Furthermore, I'm aware of at least one case in an astrophysics paper where the paper was sent to be reviewed by someone who had a strong attitude against the sort of model proposed in the paper, and my impression is that this sort of thing occurs in the biological sciences as well. So I would like to see an assertion that this is considered unacceptable in physics. JoshuaZ 17:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Cold fusion is not highly specialized at the level critiqued in this instance. The dispute between Lewis and Miles & Noninsky was about basic calorimetry. A layman's summary of it, by me, is here: lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf All of the electrochemists and physicists I know were aghast at Nature's action, including some prominent skeptics who oppose cold fusion. They did not believe it happened until I showed them the letters from Nature. So I think this is "considered unacceptable" to say the least. Actually it is considered whacko, straight out of Alice-In-Wonderland, and hysterically funny.


 * I spent a year in a biology lab and as far as I know this would be completely out of the question in that field, as well.


 * How this bizarre custom might work in math I cannot imagine. In what sense can it be considered a "review"?!? This is the ultimate case of an author writing only for himself! --JedRothwell 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd prefer some sort of citation or claim other than personal anecdotal evidence. JoshuaZ 18:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You want a citation showing that authors are not allowed to peer review themselves? Are you serious? This is not a joke? You could look up peer review I suppose. But you are asking me, right? Okay, before I attempt to provide authoritative proof of that which is blindingly obvious by definition -- that a person is not his own peer -- you should please give me authoritative proof, with a citation, proving that a person is incapable of procreation by himself.


 * Please stop making ridiculous and childish demands. If you do not know how science journals have worked for the last 400 years, find out. Don't ask me to spoon feed you facts which are common knowledge, and statements which are true by definition, such as "a person is himself and not someone else, or his own peer." When you debate such points, you reduce the discussion to tiresome inanities. --JedRothwell 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I must be misunderstanding something here. You wrote: "When Miles and Noninsky wrote critiques of an anti-cold fusion paper by N. Lewis, Lindley, the associate editor of Nature, decided to send two critiques to Lewis himself. In effect, Nature let Lewis 'peer-review' himself." Now, that's pretty different than actually peer reviewing oneself, which would be reviewing one's own paper, which is of course ridiculous. However, being a reviewer for a paper which is critical of oneself is different. (Also, please be civil and don't make personal attacks. Accusing someone of making "ridiculous and childish demands" is unproductive). JoshuaZ 18:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * JoshuaZ writes


 * "Now, that's pretty different than actually peer reviewing oneself, which would be reviewing one's own paper, which is of course ridiculous."


 * Why is it different? Why is allowing Lewis to censor his critics any different than letting him give his own paper a "pass" in the first place? Of course Nature should allow Lewis to see the critique, but they let him decide whether it should be published or not. He was the one and only reviewer. (Perhaps we need to make that clearer.)


 * Put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine Nature routinely publishes cold fusion papers by Miles. A highly qualified person writes a critique of one of those papers. Nature sends the critique to Miles, and he rejects it. Nature lets a cold fusion researcher censor his opponents. Would you agree that is outrageous? I'll be you would! Heck, you would demand that fact be emphasized in the first paragraph of this article.


 * If you do you not see that this is grossly unfair, and in violation of all academic traditions, then you and I are worlds apart, and we must agree to disagree. --JedRothwell 19:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the cases are very different. While it might not be a practice I like, it is not "unprecedented" or "in violation of all academic traditions" since it happens in multiple fields. Now, do you have a citation that this is considered more unacceptable in physics or not? I don't care about your personal opinion, I'm really just interested in you sourcing it, JoshuaZ 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you need to be told by an authoritative source that this behavior is outrageous, unfair, and a violation of academic traditions, then I pity you. It is shocking that you cannot decide for yourself that an author has no right to censor his critics. Have you no inborn sense of morality? No ability to judge what is right and wrong by yourself, without running to vaunted authorities? Suppose 10,000 authoritative sources said it is okay for Lewis to do this. Your conscience and common sense should tell you they are wrong. It is manifest, and needs no proof. --JedRothwell 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling this censorship is overblown. Yes, it would be a good thing for them to have sent it out to other editors, but negatively reviewing something which disagrees with your opinion is not inherently censorship. I note however, that cries of censorship are a classic pseudoscience claim. JoshuaZ 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And while we're at it, do we actually have a reliable source that any of this happened? JoshuaZ 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh come now. Do you really think that Krivit & I would have the chutzpah to invent a story like this? Ask Lindley, Noninsky or Miles. (Lewis does not want to talk about it.) I could send you copy of the rejection letter, but you would only accuse me of counterfeiting it. If I would invent a story like this, why would I not also make a fake letter from Nature? So you will have to go to the original sources.


 * This conversation has entered the Twilight Zone, so I think I will bow out. --JedRothwell 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My only concern in regard to reliability is a) I have no idea whether Krivit is an impartial source (certainly seems to be a very pro cold fusion source) and b) we have no way of knowing (indeed no evidence in the sources you have cited) that no one else was called in to review. c) since reveiwing is normally anonymous, the claim that it was reviewed by Lewis and Lewis alone seems almost unverifiable. Do you have any explanation for why it wasn't in this case? (And simply claiming that it has "entered the Twilight Zone" is not a useful comment) I'm getting increasingly tempted to massively slash the section down to verifiable details from non-biased sources (i.e. not Krivit), or add massive diclaimers in the section. JoshuaZ 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There were no other reviews attached to the rejected papers. It is customary to attach all reviews. Perhaps, in this one case, Nature suspended the custom and attached only the comments by Lewis. Anything is possible, but that seems unlikely to me.


 * "since reveiwing is normally anonymous, the claim that it was reviewed by Lewis and Lewis alone seems almost unverifiable."

Well whoever wrote the "review" began by saying, "while it is true that our open system measurements . . ." and he repeatedly referred to the paper and the experiment as "mine" and "ours." So it was either Lewis, his doppelganger, or someone suffering from the delusion that he was Lewis. Take your pick.

It is true this review is unsigned.

Also, Lindley says in the letter that he sent the paper to Lewis, but I suppose you would not be willing to take his word for it, either, would you?


 * That would be worth seeing, yes. JoshuaZ 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "I'm getting increasingly tempted to massively slash the section down to verifiable details from non-biased sources."

Oh are you?!? Golly gee. You would be "tempted" to do that no matter what, no matter how much proof you had.

Look, get real, would you? Seriously, what do you want me to do? Would you be satisfied with a copy of the letters?

I suppose I could upload the images to LENR-CANR.org, and then everyone who is interested could download them. . . Probably a good idea. Let me do that. --JedRothwell 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Query, have you read WP:NOR? It may be relevant. How much of this is from your own conclusions and how much from Krivit? JoshuaZ 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is all from Lindley and Lewis. They made no effort to hide what they did. Apparently, they saw nothing wrong with it. Have a look: www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/Lindley.jpg. I attached that to the article, as well. Now you will be unable to resist the urge and you will delete everything. Go ahead: a skeptic must blot out the truth as soon as he sees it. --JedRothwell 21:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your description of the letter was misleading. It says "He once again disputes your arguments (for essentially the same reasons as our independent reviewer did some time ago)" Thanks for leaving out that last part which mentions that the same objections had already been made by a prior independent reviewer. Furthermore, you still haven't answered the basic concern of OR. How much of this is your own work and how much is by Krivt? (And finally, please stop with the personal attacks, please). JoshuaZ 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, you are right. He did indeed say that. Good point. We should adjust the article to reflect this, and maybe dig up the rejection letter to Miles. Still, I regard this and the rejection letter to Miles as a summary rejection, and I still say an author should not be given the opportunity to decide whether letters or critiques about his work will be published.


 * "(And finally, please stop with the personal attacks, please)"


 * Why? You can't take the heat? Think about what you have said to me. I find it no less insulting, and no less personal. But I could not care less what you or anyone else says about me, and in the cold fusion business one must endure year after year of bitter insults and accusation, so perhaps I am having difficulty calibrating. I apologize if I hurt your feelings. It was meant to be sarcasm, or wit.


 * I hope you realize that when I write something like: ". . . you should please give me authoritative proof, with a citation, proving that a person is incapable of procreation by himself" that is not meant to taken seriously. I do not know how you view these exchanges, but I think most of them are humorous. That statement is my idea of a joke, not an insult. Ditto the part about "Lewis, his doppelganger . . ." I am not seriously suggesting he has been cloned by the CIA. (But it would be fun to start a rumor to that effect!) --JedRothwell 21:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more of statements like "Now you will be unable to resist the urge and you will delete everything. Go ahead: a skeptic must blot out the truth as soon as he sees it."


 * That's an observation. And a joke! Funny, f-u-n-n-n-y. (Down boy!) Sorry if you don't see it that way. It probably will not make you feel any better to know this, but I say worse things about cold fusion scientists to the scientists. Even in Japanese, to Japanese professors. Talk about people who can't take a joke! --JedRothwell 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What you consider funny is not relevant to Wikipedia policies, and I'm unsurprised that the people you talk to in a worse way don't find it funny either. JoshuaZ 00:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh give me a break. People here give me ten times more guff than I have given you. Cut the sob story and the thin skin act. It is unbecoming. Heck, it's unmanly. (Not PC! Not PC! Is that also against the rules?) --JedRothwell 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted to the text to give credit to Lindley for the first round independent peer-review. This was the second or third version that Noninsky submitted. (I have copies of his various versions.) --JedRothwell 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be a step in the right direction, however, there is still a major OR concern. Could you please explain in detail how much of this is in Krivt's book? JoshuaZ 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the letter and judge for yourself. At this stage, I would say it is entirely based on the letter itself. Plus, I suppose, the fact that Miles and Noninsky are still unsatisfied is common knowledge to everyone in the field. It is probably described by Mallove or Beaudette.

I adjusted it a little because the previous version was so short, the reader might not see why M&N (and other CF researchers) feel this was an abuse of the system. It said only that Lewis was allowed to "review" Noninsky. Reviewing is perfectly legit. But, as you see, Lindley asked him to "advise." That's not okay! That's an abuse, no matter how you cut it or at what stage in the process it occured. (Even fifth round rejection.) --JedRothwell 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, this doesn't answer the basic OR issue, how much of this is in Krivt's book? Connecting all these peices together looks very much like OR. JoshuaZ 00:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dunno. Ask Krivit. I would say it takes zero research to connect these pieces together. I got the story about 15 milliseconds after reading the first paragraph, and that was years before Krivit's book. Can't you tell what's going on? What do you need Krivit for? The letter is self-explanatory.


 * That letter is a logical gem, isn't it? In the second paragraph, Lindley demands that Noninisky find an error that applies to Harwell and all other null experiments! What do they have to do with it? As if there can be no such thing as an actual null experiment, and all experiments automatically produce the same results (positive or negative). Plus he calls textbook calorimetry "unorthodox." That kind of illogic is even more infuriating than letting Lewis decide who gets to critique him. --JedRothwell 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you harping on this "OR" business for, anyway? What's the big deal? Are you looking for an excuse to chop the paragraph? Hey, you're a skeptic. You can chop anything, anytime. Just declare it is "POV" (meaning "I disagree") and out it goes. I know you want to chop it . . . don't try to fool me . . . I can f-e-e-l you out there itching to erase this because, because . . . because its original research! Because Krivit said it! Because someone, somewhere, might not instantly see this letter is a canard, and may need Krivit to connect the dots. Right? Go for it. Think up an excuse later on.


 * (See? I just can't help myself. Must be some kind of complex. I think I'll blame it on you. Get ready for a guilt trip.) --JedRothwell 01:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh Man, quit projecting your insecurities onto me. You're even more of a drag than the ethics committe. ( preceding comment to be taken in irony ;) ) Jefffire 09:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Bennet
Why do we have a picture of Charles Bennet looking at cold fusion vessels? He's a computer scientist, not in any relevant discipline. Can we find a more relevant picture? JoshuaZ 21:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable sources
Please note that only sources meeting WP:V are acceptable. See WP:RS for more details. In specific, emails, blogs, forums, and the like are not acceptable sources. Personal knowledge is considered a violation of no original research. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Clarification: (1) Is a copy of a letter written by a prominent person in their official capacity "personal knowledge"? How so?  I believe it counts simply as a primary source, to cite WP:NOR: "Primary sources: ... historical documents such as a diary..."  (2) What is the basis for your assertion that "Personal knowledge is considered a violation of no original research"?  Could you please quote an actual policy?  Even eyewitness accounts and the like may be considered reliable - to cite WP:RS, "Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.".  A copy of a document is a notch above an eyewitness account.  On the other hand, original research is anything which "proposes ideas or arguments".  I fail to see how a describing an official letter can in any way "propose an idea or argument". ObsidianOrder 11:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In specific:

KillerChihuahua?!? 13:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Is a copy of a letter written by a prominent person in their official capacity "personal knowledge"? It is a primary source, unverifiable, unless published, and is not acceptable. See Reliable_sources "The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." ObsidianOrder asserts that primary sources are acceptable per WP:NOR. However, clearly stated in WP:NOR, we find the following: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." (emphasis added) Further, we find that " it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library." Hence, the stipulation that any letter be published.
 * 2) Personal knowedge is covered under the above, as well as WP:NOR: "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. ... They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify." (emphasis added)
 * "primary source, unverifiable, unless published" - correct. It is, however, published on the web, which is an acceptable form of publication (as you quoted: "available to readers ... from a website").   "descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" - also correct, the descriptive claim in this case being that the Noninsky et al paper was sent for review to Lewis; it requires absolutely no specialist knowledge to verify this from a brief reading of the letter.  "personal knowedge is covered under the above" - you have still not explained how "personal knowledge" is a category applicable to a photocopy of a letter. ObsidianOrder 15:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the url? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here you go: www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/Lindley.jpg (this was also in the part of the article which was cut). ObsidianOrder 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better, still a primary source so must be handled with caution. Is there commentary somewhere concerning the letter? It appears the url is to a library of primary sources, which does not meet WP:NOR. I Google searched but came up emtpy (I used nature "may 3" 1991 lindley letter as my parameters.) KillerChihuahua?!? 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your search is possibly too narrow. Try Lindley+Noninski.  The same event is described in e.g. Rothwell, J., Introduction to the Cold Fusion Experiments of Dr. Melvin Miles. Infinite Energy, 1997. 3(15/16) which is an actual dead-trees source.  "must be handled with caution" - I agree that as it is, this is somewhat thinly sourced, but it is is a copy of the actual document and so I would consider it acceptable (heck, if that's good enough for CBS, it's good enough for me ;).  If I remember correctly the same is also described in Krivit (ISBN 0976054582), unfortunately I really don't have time to look for a page number for you right now.  Also: "library of primary sources, which does not meet WP:NOR" - I think you may be wrong about what NOR means:  a new theory in physics would be OR, a first-hand report of an event would not be OR.  The distinction is that the former introduces new ideas or arguments.  Plain reporting of facts cannot be OR, by definition (although possibly it may not be considered reliable until confirmed by multiple sources and/or hard evidence).  ObsidianOrder 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent) ) You miscontrue my position here, perhaps. I have no position one way or the other on whether the information is added to the article. I am here on request as an Adminsitrator to facilitate understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. My expertise is Wikipedia policy in this regard. It is incumbent upon the editor who wants the information added to find a reliable source. Feel free to post one here when you have found one, if you want the information added to the article. If CBS posted a reference to it on their site that would be more than acceptable. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "good enough for CBS" was just a humorous/snarky reference to the Killian documents; it's not relevant. "Feel free to post one" - yes, I just posted three: Krivit's book (it's on pg. 99), the article in Infinite Energy 1997, and the copy of the letter itself.  Only the second one of these is new, the other two have been posted here since the beginning of this whole dispute.  Anyway, yes, I understand your position.  My point was that this is a case of needing a reliable/verifiable/etc source, fine, and I agree completely; but it has nothing to do with WP:NOR, since OR deals with theories, analysis, arguments and the like, and not with plain vanilla facts.  ObsidianOrder 07:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR also deals with items purported to be "facts". Sourcing is required. In an article on the Spanish language for example, I could report that Spanish is among the top ten worldwide languages.  That would be a fact.  However, absent a source it is OR because I'm merely reporting a factoid from memory.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jim is absolutely correct. Facts are very much OR, unless completely acceptable as very common knowledge - and that list is a short, short list. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, I think you guys don't get the distinction I am trying to make, which is actually quite clearly made in the NOR article. If I say I saw a UFO, for example, then I am a (possibly unreliable) primary source; all of the reasons to avoid primary sources in Wikipedia apply, but there is no OR issue.  If I say that humans are descended from aliens from Alpha Centauri because of (insert lengthy argument), then that is OR.  If I say that I had "read somewhere" (unspecified) that someone saw a UFO, that's also OR.  ObsidianOrder 21:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your example of the UFO is indeed OR, not primary source. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What is "commenting out" and why did you do it?
JoshuaZ magically made a paragraph disappear, and wrote: "Allegations of suppression of cold fusion research - commenting out correctly." Evidently he feels this paragraph should go, because he imagines it is "original research." Since he is a skeptic he will insist on this despite all evidence to the contrary.

My question is, why not simply delete the offending paragraph? What is this commenting out business, and why bother with it?

The claim that a letter from Nature constitutes "original research" is mind-boggling. Would a letter from Pres. Bush also be "original research"? In what sense? The content of this letter is common knowledge to hundreds of cold fusion researchers, and it has been discussed in two books, but evidently JoshuaZ is determined to find an excuse to keep the rest of the world from finding it on Wikipedia. --JedRothwell 21:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link or other verifiable data on the source. If it is a letter from Nature, it is not acceptable as a source. A letter from President Bush, unless published, is also not a verifiable source. "Common knowledge" is specifically not a verifiable source unless it is truly common, as confirmed by virtually all editors of a page and any article Rfc about the "common knowledge." What two books (title, ISBN, and page numbers, with quotes from the books) reference the letter? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 21:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do I understand you correctly here? The questions at issue are: 'What is Nature's editorial policy? Why have they rejected papers?' Are you seriously saying that a letter from the editor of nature in which he spells out his policy is "not acceptable"? What more can you ask for?!? Are you expecting David Lindley himself to come into Wikipedia and write "YES THOSE ARE MY REASONS!" (Actually, if you contact him, and he has time to talk, he will tell you that.)


 * If that is not acceptable, what would be? It seems like the better the proof, the less willing you are to look at it. Would you prefer a third-hand rumor from the Internet?


 * The two books are already listed in the article, at the bottom of the page. As I said, they are Krivit and Beaudette. --JedRothwell 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've looked up the index of Beaudette's book, and could not find any reference to the review of Lewis' article by Miles and Noninsky, nor to any irregularities in the review process by Nature. Please cite page numbers if you can find it. Pcarbonn 14:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Krivit and Beudette" is not what I requested. I requested a published source, if they are books I expect the title, ISBN, quote, and page numbers. David Lindley saying anything does not matter to Wikipedia unless it is published in a verifiable source. Please familiarize yourself with the WP:V policy. Further, your comparing your source to a blog is a False dilemma: the choice is not your assertion a letter exists vs. a blog; the acceptable source is not mentioned in your "choices." Please study logic and reason before attempting to obfuscate the issue with absurd comparisons. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For what commenting out means, look at the diff of the edit. You'll see the comment characters added that simply make the text into a comment, visible in edit mode, but not in the article--hence commenting out. And if it has been published in two books, those are sources you can cite, but not a personal letter you (or whoever) recieved. So it's original research in terms of Wikipedia policies only. See WP:NOR. - Taxman Talk 22:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh. Huh. I don't see the point of it. (Commenting out, I mean.)


 * If it is the Wikipedia standard not to trust a signed letter from the person who sets Nature policy, or to call this "original research" (whatever on God's green earth that means in this context) then I would say Wikipedia is never-never land. But we knew that already, as Arthur Clarke would say. --JedRothwell 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But in fact if you did scan this letter, it could act as a primary source, that could be confirmed to be from the sender in any number of different ways. I think that could satisfy the relevant policies, but it would be up for discussion. The only other problem would be the license on it, as you didn't write it so you can't release it under a free license. It could be sent to others for checking though. And commenting out leaves the text there so that it can be fixed and edited if need be, saving the person from having to copy it back in or revert to restore a fixed version. It's basically a more polite way to question some content. - Taxman Talk 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The letter is already scanned and on the internet, as posted by ObsidianOrder. See thread above for discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't that Wikipedia is never-never land but that we have strict standards for reliability and verifiability. see WP:RS, WP:V. Wikipedia does not make any claim that other sources are not true, or are inherently questionable, but that rather as a matter of safety in order to guarantee reliability we cannot use personal letters and similar texts. Now, earlier you said "At this stage, I would say it is entirely based on the letter itself. Plus, I suppose, the fact that Miles and Noninsky are still unsatisfied is common knowledge to everyone in the field. It is probably described by Mallove or Beaudette" You may want to reread WP:OR and see why this is problematic. JoshuaZ 00:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see you do have strict standards! High standards. Quite amazingly high, when it comes to something you disagree with. Alpine high. Ah, but, when you agree, anything goes! I have cut out statements from this article that were not only totaly unsourced, and obviously imaginary, they were gross volations of basic physics. They would embarrass Taubes. Statements that mix up power and energy, temperature and scale. Ridiculous distortions and rumors, and goodness knows how many unfalsifiable assertions. And yet, for some strange reason this stuff keep popping in again, and it seems the authors are. . . skeptics!

"Strict" hardly begins to describe it. S&M comes to mind. --JedRothwell 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See above, Acceptable sources, for what is acceptable. See the policies I have linked. And most urgently, see WP:NPA, which you have been repeatedly violating on this and other talk pages. I strongly suggest you read WP:CIVIL and follow the guidelines of acceptable behavior. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr KillerChihuahua, could you please point to any specific example of a personal attack by Jed? I think you will find he has been careful to only speak out against broad categories of people, not individuals.  While that may not be the calmest possible form of expression, I don't believe he has engaged in personal attacks or been uncivil.  You, on the other hand, are quite close to a WP:POINT with your very extensive use of WP:TLAs.  ObsidianOrder 15:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) See his talk page, if he hasn't blanked it again. Check his contribution history.
 * 2) You are in error. I am not in violation of POINT. Feel free to post on WP:AN/I if you disagree. However, using shortcut references to Wikipedia policy is certainly not POINT, I assure you.
 * 3) I have linked any Wikipedia policy the first time I mentioned it, then referred to it by its abbreviation. If I missed any, certainly anyone can ask me what I'm talking about. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I was not aware of any of the stuff on Jed's talk page. It seems to me that Jed may have lost his temper, but it was certainly after considerable provocation, I would almost say deliberate baiting.  I understand your desire to step in and help as an uninvolved admin, but I am not sure if what you're doing is actually helping.  What would be most helpful is to get the sides to talk to each other again, or maybe take a short vacation so tempers cool off and then talk to each other.  Picking on one of the people in a conflict when the others are hardly blameless is unlikely to calm things down.  When I say "hardly blameless", I am talking about the repeated deletions of perfectly well-sourced information by Jefffire - the Schwinger quotes which come from Beaudette's book - which is what caused this whole thing to get out of hand.  A few more requests for clarification, if you don't mind.
 * (1) Where exactly is the policy saying that one cannot delete a "warning" posted by another user (not admin) from one's own talk page? Actually where is the policy saying one cannot delete anything from one's talk page?
 * (2) What specific 3 reverts was Jed blocked by MDD4696 for? What 3 reverts is Jed currenly blocked by WMC for?  Could MDD4696 or WMC or you please give the exact diffs?  I did look briefly but couldn't find anything.  (Also: is it not standard operating procedure to give diffs when taking such an action?  This is particularly disturbing given that both of these admins have been involved in the controversy here, and can hardly be considered impartial.)
 * I don't feel there is anything about you I need to post to WP:AN/I, I think you are actually trying to help, I'm just not sure you're going about it right. ObsidianOrder 06:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am not "Picking on one of the people in a conflict" - as a neutral party, I literally don't take sides, sides are irrelevant. He made personal attacks, he was told not to.


 * 1) Wp:vand, the fifteenth bullet point, Removing warnings .
 * 2) See WP:AN/3RR and WP:AN/3RR.
 * KillerChihuahua?!? 12:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Obsidian, your accusation of deliberate baiting is a rather strong one -- yes, yes, you could say you were stating an opinion, but the fact remains that the effect of your statement is the leveling of an accusation. As KC has noted many times, if you have a problem with anything she has done you are free to report it at WP:AN/I.  Personally, I've seen no signs of any misconduct on KC's part, quite the contary in fact.  She has behaved with extreme objectivity aqnd restraint, supplying warnings as appropriate rather than merely taking adverse action.  In addition she has explained anything she has done, referrenced or said in a clear, precise and accurate maner.
 * One friendly caveat redactor -- make sure that you read up on policy before making accusations. Wiki, like any community, has rules, standards and a code of acceptable behaviour covering any issues that might be construed as problematic.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is unclear to me who ObsidianOrder considers to have "baited" JedRothwell, but it does not appear to me that he is speaking of my actions. I could be in error - if so, please correct me, ObsidianOrder. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KC: I was thinking of his Jed's response to your note regarding his use of "insufferable ninny".
 * Obsidian, the above does not, however, haver any impact on my statement re the accusation of baiting. In fact, in rereading the page, I see no sign of any baiting by anyone.  Rather, I see extreme misconduct on the part of JedRothwell both on his user page and on this page(WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:CON, WP:AGF, WP:VAND and WP:DR).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. JedRothwell said "insufferable ninny", not OO. Unless my mind is finally going completely. I'm late for something, I will check later. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See above -- pronouns are dangerous things without clear antecedents. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  14:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * KC: I case it was not absolutely clear, I was not talking about you.  Sorry if you thought I was.  I don't think you were even around here at the time.  If you want a specific example of what I had in mind when I said "baiting", try this comment  or this .  To put this in context, read the edit history before and after, as well as the talk page.  The revert war was over whether to include statements by Julian Schwinger, who is probably one of the top physicists of all time, who was also close to many people in the cold fusion field, and who is now dead.  As you can imagine, people feel a little emotional when it comes to remembering his work and his legacy.  Especially considering the crap he had to deal with when he was alive (which led to his resignation from the APS), I think you can understand how tempers can run high when someone tries to delete him and what he said and did from the history books.  Now, in this case, the debate was not over whether he said what he said (it's perfectly sourced), but rather over whether it belongs here.  Considering the guy was one of the most prominent people ever to work on cold fusion, and considering he was talking specifically and very pointedly about cold fusion, how can there be any question about that?  And yet, Jeffire and JoshuaZ tag-teamed Jed in removing these quotes, citing "irrelevant" as the only reason.  That's absolutely outrageous.  I went through the article talk page history and as far as I can tell Jed's comments there are eminently reasonable, as is his response to MDD4696's compromise proposal.  Yes, he lost his temper once with Jefffire, on his own talk page, and after what I would describe as extended provocation.   ObsidianOrder 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jim62sch: "read up on policy before making accusations" - I asked for clarification of policy, actually. I stand by everything I have said.   ObsidianOrder 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KC: "warnings for vandalism" - thank you for the pointer. However based on the wording that seems to imply warnings for vandalism only, not for anything else?  Which this was not, right?  Also, I'd assume that would be a warning by an admin at least, and not any JDoeUser?  Otherwise any anonymous account can just go around and tag everyone's pages with warnings which they would be unable to remove ;) ObsidianOrder 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KC: regarding the 3RR links - thanks for that as well. I looked at the diffs: in all cases, they are not simple reverts, but clearly an attempt to come up with an improved version.  It is somewhat of a borderline case since it does consist of putting back the same material in some form, but I think this may in fact not be 3RR, or at least not unambiguously so.  ObsidianOrder 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) Currently the verbiage does say "vandalism". In practice, it has been applied to other warnings, most often NPA warnings and disruption warnings. I am attempting to seek consensus on this now, thanks for bringing that to my attention. In the case of a block, a different policy applies, btw, which is why Jed's talk page was protected. Blocking policy states that the block notice needs to stay on the page for the duration of the block - this is so people know why you aren't participating on article talk pages, for example. And warnings can be given by anyone. Consensus is weaker on this - policy is clearly that the warnings stay, so don't remove them. If they are without basis, report on AN/I or to an admin, and if there is no basis for the warning, it can be considered vandalism, and/or a mild form of personal attack, which will get the poster of the spurious warning message their very own warning message and possibly a block. If they continue, it is harassment, which can get you not only blocked but also banned, in fairly short order depending upon how severe the harassment is. 3RR policy also covers reverts over multiple edits, reverts which are substantially the same, etc. This is why I did not block myself - I posted on 3RR so another admin could review the diffs and provide an opinion, if indicated. If there is a question, this is often discussed at some length before a block is made, or denied. WP:AN/3RR is one example, read through the archives or watch the page and you will see others. Hope that clears things up, if not, let me know. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, OO, I read the two links and I still don't see any baiting. In fact in the one link, Jed makes a nasty, uncalled for comment that prompts Jefffire to warn him about such comments.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim62sch: I'm not sure we're reading the same stuff ;)  In what I'm reading, Jeff and JoshuaZ are repeatedly deleting extremely relevant, well sourced information for reasons which are absurd; in the process of doing that one of them suggests that Jed should/will be kicked out; Jed says that he will not be affected by threats; and Jeff immediately replies by threatening to report him to an admin.  What are you reading?  ObsidianOrder 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm not seeing that. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a contextual matter. To wit:
 * "Also, you threatened to get rid of me somehow. If you have a method of doing that, I suggest you try it now. Threats mean nothing to me. ' Stop me if you can . --JedRothwell 19:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)"
 * Your antics will be reported to an administrator if you do not cease this behaviour immediatly. Jefffire 19:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The "threat" (which was anything but) is clearly in response to a provactive comment made by Jed. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

DoE policy
Jed [meant JEFF], we both want to have the article present the situation in a NPOV way. I'm sure that you'll agree that this can only be done by representing primary and secondary references correctly: our personal opinions should not influence on where statements should be made or not made.

You have repeatedly removed the following sentence from the intro : "The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposal for experiments in this field." You said: "DoE policy isn't appropriate for an intro", and "it doesn't have anything to do with the validity of Cold Fusion. There are probably hundreds of organisations with policies like this." Let me challenge this:

Pcarbonn 14:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This DOE policy is quoted by The Guardian (and I would think many other newspapers): "In a landmark decision in December, the same US Department of Energy gave a cautious green light to funding cold fusion research."  This is a strong evidence that this statement is relevant for the Wikipedia public.
 * the fact that it does not have anything to do with the valididty of cold fusion is in no way a reason to not put it in the intro. The intro does not have to be limited to discussing the validity of cold fusion, and it actually isn't.  Instead, it should say things that the general reader wants to know about cold fusion, and, as the Guardian shows, this is one of them.
 * "hundred of organisations like this". We discussed that already: the DOE is easily the most quoted organisation when talking about cold fusion.  Therefore, many people think that its opinion counts: therefore "hundred of organisations like this" is not a valid argument.


 * Which is exactly why it is covered in depth later on in the article. But the introduction needs to be lean and the official policy of the DoE on what to do about the panels findings just isn't important enought to be in the intro as it has nothing to do with the validity of Cold Fusion. It is best just to report the findings, and give their responce later. Jefffire 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you have to judge whether it is important or not, since the Guardian does it for you? Do you have any source that shows it is not important ?  Again, let's not get interference from our opinion on what is important and what is not (otherwise the article will have to keep the POV tag).  Secondary sources are the best place to judge what is important or not for the wikipedia reader.  (I would not use the Guardian to verify the veracity of the statement, we should go to the DOE report for that.  But for its importance, I'm not sure what would beat it as a source). Pcarbonn 15:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my two quarks-worth: First, the section on DOE as it is now doesn't fit into the rest of the intro -- I'm guessing it was written by a differrent person (?). And, for my other quark, it could be appreciably shorter and merged with the last very short paragraph of the intro.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  15:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly respect your opinion, but what evidence do you have to support it ? Again, let's not have our opinions get in the way, if we want this article to be NPOV. The DOE report IS quoted in most recent general articles on cold fusion, so we have to admit it is relevant to the general public, unless you show otherwise.  Pcarbonn 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For stylistic comments, I don't need a source -- my point is that it could be shorter, and should be rewritten to match the style of the rest of the intro . &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In short: Pcarbonn is right, and he has provided reasonable documentary support for his view. The DOE info should stay precisely where it is. ObsidianOrder 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is specious reasoning, at best. The Guardian also reported that Silvio Berlusconi is not Jesus Christ, but we'd hardly put that in an article on either Jesus Christ or Silvio Berlusconi (although that Berlusconi compared himself to Jesus Christ is in his article, although not in the intro.)KillerChihuahua?!? 17:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If there was a review of the Berlusconi-Christ affair by (let's say) the Vatican, that would be in the intro, right? That's a better analogy.  ObsidianOrder 17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not unless it were a child article titled Berlusconi-Christ affair or something similar. It simply isn't central to the man, or the Vatican, and certainly not to Jesus. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * KC, how do you propose to resolve the issue? Pcarbonn 17:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some confusion on this issue. I am not advocating the removal of the paragraph on the DoE's panel, I am making the case for leaving out the sentence about their recommendations to DoE policy until later in the article since there is no need to go into it in the intro. It is important, but this is an article about cold fusion, not DoE policy on cold fusion. This is primarily an aesthetic change but one which improve the way the intro reads greatly. Jefffire 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, then Wikipedia writing guidelines support you. The lead section is "a definition or clear description of the subject at hand". Hence, the DoE information would be appropriate to the lead section in an article on DoE policy on Cold fusion, but not the lead for this article, unless the DoE is the only person and/or organization in the world with a position on Cold fusion - or the primary "player" in the field. My understanding (and again, I know style, policy and guideline, not Cold fusion, so correct me if I am wrong) is that Cold fusion is a scientific endeavor, energy related, and hence various scientific authorities would be appropriate in the lead. Every country has some type of energy department or government position, so DoE should not be in the lead section on those grounds as well - it automatically biases the intro. Again, if my limited understanding of cold fusion has led to some misconceptions, please correct me. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Primary player" - in one sense, certainly, since they organized the early ERAS review of CF, which was probably the first of its kind, and widely cited. Also, I don't think any other similar government agency has the reach or the funding or the credibility of the DoE (MITI in Japan?  maybe).  Considering that, the new CF report is extremely influential, an order of magnitude more than any other similar agency's report might be.  ObsidianOrder 22:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that qualifies. Do they fund the only large serious research program in the world for Cold fusion, or anything like that? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Better: they're not funding what would be the largest serious research program in the world if they did fund it ;) So for them to make a statement that is even the least bit equivocal is highly significant.  ObsidianOrder 23:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that clarifies thing beautifully, thank you! Then that information is certainly noteworthy enough to place in the article, but is inappropriate in the lead section. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KC, the issue is not whether DOE is a primary player (it is, otherwise we wouldn't report on its 2004 review), but whether its policy (and the one of Nature) is relevant in the intro.Pcarbonn 09:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem is, this leaves a lot of room for POV. let's see what the following discussion will bring. Pcarbonn 06:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand why we would present the resuls of the DOE panel in the intro, without the following sentence: "The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposal for experiments in this field." Could someone explain this to me ? The discussion above seems to be based on a misunderstanding: this sentence does not represent the policy of the DOE, but the view of the reviewers. To me, this is an important sentence to describe the status of the field, according to these reviewers, and belongs in intro. Pcarbonn 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So I have now added it. Let's add the POV tag if someone disagrees, until we resolve this.Pcarbonn 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Because their recommendations are irrelevent to the validity of cold fusion. They could have recommended complete ceasation of funding, that wouldn't have been relevent either. As it is we have a completely irrelevent statement in the intro because 99% of the readers won't care what the DoE policy is, especially since it's completly neutral on the issue. This can be dealt with in far better detail in the later section. Jefffire 08:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to hear the opinion of other people here, especially on : "99% of the readers won't care what the DoE policy is reviewers recommend, especially since it's completly neutral on the issue" Pcarbonn 11:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It was the most recent convening of scientific opinion by a government body that presumably has an interest as to whether cold fusion is real or not. That said, it was certainly done in a flawed, half-hearted way:  The review was not even formally announced beforehand; the reviewers names were, at least officially, secret; they had a very limited time to review the pro-CF side, essentially being given some papers plus a one-day presentation; there was no clear anti-CF side presented; there was no allowance for long discussions, reviewing original lab records, suggesting experiments, etc.  All this led to the review being attacked both by some on the pro-CF side (e.g., Rothwell) and the anti-CF side (e.g., Bob Park, who in his column even claimed that the way the review was done was technically illegal).  To me it is further evidence that the current top-level scientific and official prejudice against CF is so strong that no government body can even attempt to conduct a full and open review today. But maybe that's more an argument for the "Cold fusion controversy" article... -Wfaxon 13:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about something like: "In a 2004 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) scientific review of cold fusion, reviewers were split as to the significance and interpretation of the results of a number of cold fusion experiments.  DOE policy remained unchanged, allowing for the funding of "well-designed" cold fusion experiments, however it has not yet subsequently funded any cold fusion research." -Wfaxon 13:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is bordering on POV. Jefffire 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Every word true, AFAIK. What specifically bothers you? -Wfaxon 14:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Selective ommision. No mention that 2/3 of the panel did not think there was conclusive evidence for cold fusion. Jefffire 14:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If they're split both on the significance (down to say 1/2) and interpretation (down to say 1/4) of the results, that's even less supportive than than the 1/3 you quote. I do need to go over the panel's report again.  Probably a number of those who believed the experimental results agreed that the heat, tritium, helium, etc. couldn't be explained by chemistry but due to their understanding of nuclear physics they couldn't swallow a strict deuteron-deuteron "cold fusion" explanation, either.


 * If we turned that result around and said "only 1/3 of the 19 reviewers agreed that there was conclusive evidence for cold fusion", would that satisfy you? (What's the actual number, 6 or 7?)


 * I would now remove the quotes around "well-designed". Gotta watch those quotes. -Wfaxon 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I still prefer the wording the way it is at present (with or without the recommendation of the panel). Changeing 2/3 disagree into 1/3 agreed seems a little weasley to me. However considering how badly run the panel seems to have been I think that critisms of it may need to be included. Can we get references for the criticisms? Jefffire 15:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The actual number of those convinced is 1 of 18. The existing '2/3 did not think' is deceptive by omission in this way.  From the DoE summary: "Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced."  Claiming that the 5/18 that were 'somewhat convinced' agreed that there was conclusive evidence would be false and NPOV. --Noren 03:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also keep the wording as it is, because it is tricky to change it. OK also to make a critique of it in the body of the article.  But let's not forget the issue: should the 3d statement be in ?  Pcarbonn 18:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nature in intro ?
The intro currently says: "Cold fusion papers are currently rejected by major scientific journals such as Nature and Scientific American". I have several issues with this statement:
 * I've not found any source for this. Maybe some one can supply one.
 * This is not developed further in the artical. Yet the guide for lead sections says: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". Maybe someone can develop what we are trying to say.
 * As it is stated, I do not see how it can be verifiable. Unless the editors of these papers actually say it in their published policy, we can only say : "papers HAVE BEEN rejected", but then it does not belong in the intro anymore.  Unless the editors say otherwise, we have no reason to believe that they would not accept a significant paper on the subject, now or in the future.
 * Therefore the generalisation cannot be justified. We should list the journals for which we have enough evidence.
 * How does the statement contribute to "a definition or clear description of the subject at hand", which is what the lead description should be. The same argument to reject the DOE policy in the intro (see above) could apply here. By the way, this issue applies also to the statement "Cold fusion is currently not accepted by much of the mainstream scientific community". With the same line of reasoning, one could argue that this should be in the intro of cold fusion controversy, not of cold fusion.

One issue here is whether the intro should describe: "Reputable scientists dismiss cold fusion", or "Reputable scientists believes the issue is not scientifically settled". DOE and Nature don't seem to agree on this (nor the editors of this article). I do not see any reason to accept one more than the other: there are some reputable scientists who dismiss it, and there are some reputable scientists that believe it is not settled (as the DOE shows). I would propose that, in the intro we say neither, or both. Either we talk about both DOE and Nature policies, or we don't. If you want to keep only Nature, please provide a justification for doing it, with sources. Pcarbonn 06:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One point - Nature and Scientific American carry vastly more respect in the scientific community than an eighteen man panel created by the US department of energy. Jefffire 09:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We have debated that already, and I still disagree. Until you can source this, we have to consider it as POV and OR, and ignore it totally when writing this article.  Again, DOE's point of view is quoted by many papers, including Nature, so we have plenty of evidence that its opinion on cold fusion is respected.   Pcarbonn 09:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But not as respected as Nature, which is considered by many to be the reliable source. Jefffire 09:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for the following statement : "DOE is not as respected as Nature (when talking about cold fusion)" ?Pcarbonn 10:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fairly common knowledge that Nature is the most respected, I'd say. Are you seriously suggesting that an eighteen man panel from the US department of energy is more respected? I hadn't hear of them until coming to this page. In any case it's irrelevent,I don't need to source stuff on the talk page.Jefffire 10:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm seriously saying this, and I have evidences to back it up. The DOE report on cold fusion is by far the most quoted view on cold fusion, much more than Nature's view. It is so in general newspaper and in science journal, such as Physics Today.  So, unless you provide a source and you address the issues I listed above, I have enough justifications to delete the statement on Nature's policy in the intro.  Pcarbonn 11:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No where in the physics today article does it suggest that the DoE's panel is more respected than Nature. Quotes don't equate to respect. Jefffire 12:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you refusing to search for sources to justify your statement ? what do you propose to resolve the issue ?Pcarbonn 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am suggesting that you find sources to prove that this one time 18 person panel for a branch of US government is more respected than the major science journals that have established themselves as pillars of respectability and honesty and the benchmark of science writing. Jefffire 12:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Will you address the other issues listed above ? Pcarbonn 12:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The other points are fine. Jefffire 12:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We are making progress. The intro now says: "Cold fusion researchers publish papers in scientific journals specializing in related fields, but none have published in major scientific journals such as Nature or Scientific American after the late 80's." Here are the issue are still see:


 * This is not developed further in the article. Yet the guide for lead sections says: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". Maybe someone can develop what we are trying to say.
 * while I don't dispute the fact, no source seems to mention this fact. Is wikipedia the only source that considers it important, and actually so important that it puts it in the intro ? Can wikipedia be a primary source on this information ?  I would think that the issue has some similarities with Nature's rejection letters for the Lewis critique (although I did not follow this recent discussions in details). Pcarbonn 08:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Rothwell struggles in vain to withdraw from Wikipedia
This is somewhat off topic, but I was surprised to discover that a person is not allowed to withdraw from Wikipedia or delete the contents of his own talk page. Apparently it is cybernetic tar pit.

Had I know it was against the rules to erase one's own talk page, I never would have talked there, since I frequently use it for things like unfinished manuscripts (which have embarrassing errors), jokes and so on, which were never intended to be permanent. Anyway, for the past day or so I have been trying to erase these comments without success. One of the Sysops here, Mr. Connolley apparently wishes to preserve this page because it includes proof that I have committed an egregious violation of the rules, by calling someone: “childish, boorish, pig headed [and] unreasonable” and earlier “an insufferable ninny.” The poor fellow was so overcome by grief & consternation, he felt compelled to report this outrage to the authorities. (I might also call him a crybaby or a tattletale, but he would die of shock. I have done enough damage already; I fear he may need long-term therapy.)

Anyway, I was banned for this unspeakable language, and Connelley will not even allow me to purge the evidence of my shame. I changed my description page and sent a message to Connelley with damning evidence for him to use in place of my talk page. I fear he may revert both, and delete this message, but before he does readers here may be amused by the new text here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JedRothwell I quote Schiller's warning: "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." ('Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.') (Maid of Orleans, act 3, sc. 6). Hence, the title of this message.

Thick-skinned readers here might also enjoy the egregious replacement insult I sent to Connelly:


 * . . . If you would like a reason to block me, or prove that I have violated the rules, you need not preserve the talk page. Here is another deliberate & intentionally provocative violation of the rules -- an old-school personal insult:


 * You are a loathsome, sanctimonious, hypocritical, ignorant twit. If you were in a state of uncontrolled combustion, I would not take the trouble to extinguish the flames by urinating on them.


 * I hope that is satisfactory.

That goes for you, too, Mr. .. uh, Chihuahua – isn’t it? Bow wow! Ruff! Grrrrr. . . Consider yourself gravely insulted. If this were the 18th century you might challenge me to a duel, but since I am a craven bounder, I would, of course, run away instead of accepting. Believe me, I am trying to get away, without success so far. --JedRothwell 18:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As a female, I would hardly challange you to a duel, whatever the century. Do you have anything to say about the article? This talk page is for discussion of the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jed, I for one hope you stay. You have contributed a lot to this article.  I am sure I'm not the only person here who thinks that.  Take some time off if you need to, but come back, or at least stop by occasionally?  ObsidianOrder 19:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To remove yourself, contact an admin and ask that your account be deleted. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, he has, only instead of making a polite request, he called WMC a "loathsome, sanctimonious, hypocritical, ignorant twit" and is now blocked for 48 hours for a personal attack. Also, your account cannot be deleted, even by a bureaucrat. GFDL, remember? Legal aspects, accountability, etc. The best we can do for him is delete his talk page, his user page, place a notice on each that they have been deleted at the user's request, and protect so no-one can post there. He has not asked for that. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WMC is anything but what Jed described him as. BTW: I was merely being polite, as my thoughts would have led to a comment that would have been in bad form all around.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's list all remaining POV issues
Do we agree that it is our goal to remove the POV tag ? Could we list the remaining issues, so that we have a view of what's ahead of us ? Pcarbonn 08:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy with the intro as it stands. How about everyone else? Jefffire 12:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The arguements section looks a little dodgy, and of course we have the link to the controvery article. Otherwise this is looking pretty good. Jefffire 14:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Other kinds of fusion
I do not feel that it is proper to have the "Other kinds of fusion" section in this article (except for muon catalyzed). No one doubts that pyroelectric fusion IS real fusion but it is not "cold fusion" the atoms themselves which are being fused are HOT. It matters not that the remainder of the bulk of the fusing material remains cold. The label of "cold fusion" which has been affixed to these new fusing phenomena has been applied (wrongly) almost exclusively by the news media. I do not recall ever seeing it used in the literature. I will split off this section unless someone can show that "cold fusion" is in fact the term being used in the liturature to describe these types of fusion.--Deglr6328 17:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Pcarbonn 17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle; but it may be problematic in practice. Pyroelectric fusion has been added at least twice, in two different places, by editors whom I believe sincerely considered it to belong to the article.  You may be right that the literature does not refer to it as 'cold fusion', but mainstream press has- and even the AIP newsletter labelled it as 'Pyrofusion: A Room-Temperature, Palm-Sized Nuclear Fusion Device'.  There have been arguments here as to whether it should be considered cold fusion.  Given the confusion articles such as these create (and to prevent repeating a cycle of well-intentioned editors adding it) it may be justified to mention pyroelectric fusion, if only because coverage of it may be expected from those having read these sources. --Noren 22:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also see that the nuclear fusion template lists Pyroelectric fusion as a subset of Cold Fusion. I'll see if I can fix that, though my wiki knowledge may or may not be adequate. --Noren 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Various Issues
Hi.

(1) I can't find an "edit" tag on the introduction.

(2) I suggest we prefer the name order of Fleischmann and Pons. Though as an American I might prefer the reverse (and Pons and Fleischmann even scans better), Fleischmann was the more senior and honored researcher and this is the order of their names in their initial paper. Fleischmann also has continued research into CF to this day.

(3) "Scientific American" is not a refereed science journal; they do not publish original research. The American counterpart to Britain's "Nature" is "Science", published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. There is also some rivalry between the two. If you wish to mention "Scientific American" you might also mention its British counterpart, "New Scientist". All four magazines currently have a negative editorial opinion of cold fusion.

(4) Instead of saying that "Nature", etc. reject cold fusion papers (which requires writing "cold fusion researcher say that..." since we don't have access to the rejection letters), it is sufficient to remark that (a) they have a negative editorial opinion of cold fusion, (b) they have not published any papers supportive of cold fusion, and (c) that such papers have been published in other leading science research journals (and you can name a couple). Let the reader draw his/her own conclusions.

(5) The term "cold fusion" is possibly a misnomer based on the original research direction of F&P. The current view of what is happening is quite muddled although nuclear fusion of deuterons continues to be one of the possibilities. See the overview papers of Storms at www.lenr-canr.org.

(6) There is a wikipedia page on "hydrino theory" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrino_theory), which is generally considered some sort of cold fusion spin-off. It ought to at least be referenced by this page.

Happy editing! -Wfaxon 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To edit the intro, click on "edit this page". As the intro has no separate sectionheading, it has no separate edit link. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

who used "cold fusion" first ?
The intro says: "Johann Rafelski and Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University were the first scientists to use the term "cold nuclear fusion" to describe their research in 1986. " The article of E. Stoms at cold fusion/tmp says: "The term "cold fusion" was coined by Dr Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University in 1986". Who's right ? Was this question addressed before ? Pcarbonn 15:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

These two links...
Including this succesful replication reported in March 2006, which took place in Colorado, United States and replications reported in France by JL Naudin and researchers connected to his laboratory JLN Labs.

Were these results peer reviewed? If they weren't then they can't be considered reliable and need to be removed. Jefffire 11:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, some time after your comments. Pcarbonn 06:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

chronology of spring 89
Noren says that the American Chemica Society meeting occured on April 12. Could you source this ? The timeline of cold fusion says that it met on May 8, and I'll check Baudette to confirm this. Also, you say: "The timing of the two meetings may have been a more important difference, as many groups had tried and failed to replicate the results in the intervening weeks." The way you present it makes it look like Original Research. We especially strive to avoid original research in this article because the subject is very controversial, so please provide a source or remove the statement. Pcarbonn 10:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly. From the existing news section, []- or, of you prefer a paper citation, that article "Elation Should Be Tempered Until Jury Has Examined Experiments" was published in The Financial Post  on May 1, 1989, including a description of the events at the April 12 ACS meeting.  As per the reference I added to the article, the [APS meeting] included presentations by Nate Lewis(Caltech), Brooks(Ohio State),  Hirosky(U. of Rochester), Dickens(Oak Ridge NL), Sur(Lawrence Berkeley NL), Seeliger(Dresden Tech.), Cantrell(Miami U.), Moshe Gai(Joint effort, Yale and Brookhaven NL) all presenting negative experimental results.  I am aware of no similar presentations of failed replications at the spring '89 ACS meeting, which your edit erroneously claimed occured after the APS meeting- indeed, the ACS meeting occured only three weeks after the initial announcement.  The presentation of negative experimental results should reasonably be expected to generate a negative reaction at a scientific meeting, particularly when not a single one of the speakers were able to replicate- as was the case at the APS meeting. It is unfortunate that many of the subpages off of this page contain misinformation, but you are the only editor thus far on the timeline of cold fusion page- you're referencing your own work to support your own erroneus timeframe.  Creating a wikipedia page and referencing your own work does not constitute a way for you to get around the rules of WP:OR.  Finally, please provide a reference for the unsourced claim that there was a split between the chemists and physicists on this issue.  --Noren 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for catching my mistake on the ACS meeting. I confused it with the American Electrochemical Society" meeting that took place on May 8, according to Baudette (I think he meant the 175th meeting of The Electrochemical society (ECS), which is American ).  I guess I was mislead with the previous statement in the article that said it occured in Mid-May.  Please continue to report where "many of the subpages off of this page contain misinformation" so that we can fix it.  Please also report where I'm suspicious of OR, because I would not tolerate it either.  (I do not believe this was the case here).


 * I still believe that this paragraph needs work. I agree with you that the "split between chemist and physicists" should be removed, if not sourced.  The paragraph also talks of a "dramatically different receptions" at the 2 meetings: I would then suggest to describe the different mood in each meeting better, to justify the "dramatic" word.  And I would refrain from trying to explain the difference with unsourced statement: let's instead assume that the wikipedia reader is as intelligent as we are to make his own conclusion. Pcarbonn 20:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus
"Cold fusion skeptics say that there is a scientific consensus against cold fusion, and that no cold fusion papers have been published in major scientific journals such as Nature or Science after the initial controversy."

The first part of the phrase seems to be either a non sequitur, or circular logic, I'm not sure. Skepticism implies that one is skeptical of conditions or claims a, b, or c.

"Scientific consensus," by definition, is not a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method. That being the case, the above phrase would be an example of pathological skepticism. It this truly what is intended in this phrase?

Secondly, what does skepticism have to do with the journals Nature or Science? Does this mean that all other journals are not part of the body of accepted scientific literature? I don't get it.

STemplar 05:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is a circular logic. It would be if we had said "Cold fusion skeptics say that they don't believe in cold fusion". Here we say that they take the scientific consensus against cold fusion as an additional proof that they are right. Maybe this could be rephrased to make it more clear.  Please give it a try.


 * It's true that scientific consensus is not a scientific argument, but that applies also to the argument that "theory says that cold fusion is impossible, so the experiments must be wrong". Still, the skeptics use this argument, so we have a section on it.  Therefore, I don't see this as a reason to remove the "scientific consensus" argument. Indeed, I think that it is a sign of pathological skepticism, hence the statements that follow it in the article.


 * I agree with you about Nature and Science. This has been heavily debated above (see "Nature in intro"). I have not yet found a source that uses this as an argument, and so it looks like WP:OR to me.  But I could not convince other editors.  Maybe your contribution will help. Pcarbonn 06:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, Nature and Science are considered to be the world's premiere science journals. Publish your research in one of these and your work automatically receives a significant boost in respectability, much more so than by your publishing multiple times in specialized journals which, besides often being obscure sometimes publish rather far-out theoretical stuff. The two major journals have a bit of a rivalry regarding being cutting-edge without going over the edge. Just before the CF controversy Nature misstepped badly with the fiasco of Benveniste's "memory of water" paper, while Science may have gone too far starting in 2002 by publishing Taleyarkhan's "sonofusion" paper which, according to reports, at least one of its reviewers condemned.


 * Given the facts of cold fusion's rocky start and the early conclusion that it was the exemplar of bad science, further skepticism on the part of the editors and contributors/reviewers of these two journals is self-reinforcing but not pathological. Nobody is ill; it's just sociology at work. So the "consensus" view: Regardless of their credentials, all CF'ers are cranks. Anyone who doubts this must be a crank himself.


 * And who funds even the non-cranky research of a crank?


 * To counter all this the CF'ers still need a relatively simple and inexpensive cookbook-style experiment that has near-100% reproducibility, doesn't require weeks or even days to work, and oh-by-the-way, doesn't require complex calorimetry to evaluate.


 * Don't hold your breath. -Wfaxon 08:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't gone through the page history in this detail, but I suspect this is an artifact of someone going though the article and prefacing statements that are not strongly credulous with variants of "Skeptics claim..." a while back. Deleting the first 5 words of that sentence would be an improvement.


 * I was intending to be a bit ironic; any successful CF experiment today might require the opposite of one or more of these conditions. Requiring all of them might be akin to requiring that superconductivity be performed at room temperature before being accepted. -Wfaxon 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is in describing the situation in NPOV terms that are suitable for an encyclopedia. It's not just Nature and Science that haven't published CF papers, the more notable chemistry and physics journals haven't, there was a discussion in here a while back about the Impact Factors of the journals that found only a few even listed, and those ranked very low.  A quantitative description of Impact Factors would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia, and honest summaries of this are rejected as NPOV.  Not being published in Science and Nature is brief enough to be not cumbersome yet is still easily verified. The basic problem was summarized a while back by David Goodstein:[]


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


 * The difficulty here is in finding an appropriate way to put the CF research into the proper perspective, without either accepting it all at face value as normal peer-reviewed science or dismissing it outright. --Noren 14:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with your last sentence. Let's try to find the right balance together.  Also, although I still have OR concerns with the Nature statement (only Wikipedia seems to make this point), I can live with it, I don't dispute its truth, and I don't feel like discussing it further.


 * Because this section is on "argument in the controversy", maybe the first sentence should say: "Skeptics often use the argument that there is a scientific consensus against cold fusion." I do not think that removing the "skeptics say that..." would convey the same message.  And it's important to say that it is used as an argument, because this very use can then be challenged from a scientific method point of view.  Let me know what you think.  Also, the summary by Goodstein was quite appropriate a while back, but may be less so today.  As the article says, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion in March 2006: I would not expect this if it was a pariah field.  I find his description of the lack of scrutiny by cold-fusioners very accurate though.  Maybe the article should say it somewhere. Pcarbonn 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is claiming that cold fusion doesn't work because there is a consensus that it doesn't work in the scientific community. That is not actually used as an argument by anyone.  It is, instead, a strawman argument presented by the credulous attempting to portray skeptics as irrational.  The consensus that does exist results from cold fusion not working, not the other way around.  It is used here as a description, not as any sort of proof.  In any case, I don't really like the current phrasing either. --Noren 23:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I really don't understand exactly what you're saying in this last paragraph, instead of trying to parse it I'll just repeat what CF'ers have been saying, to the best of my ability: (1) There is currently substantial evidence of one or more nuclear processes occurring in some CF experiments, with numerous scientific papers supporting these claims passing peer review and being published, albeit in lesser science journals. This statement disputes the "cold fusion not working" argument (I do not claim it refutes it). (2) The major science journals (not just the two biggies) either (a) reject these or similar papers for spurious reasons (no theory, theory differs from currently accepted theory, simply don't believe results, etc.), or (b) as more common today, refuse to submit the papers to peer review in the first place. (3) The reason for (2) is not that CF'ers only do bad experiments or only submit flawed papers, but that the editors and reviewers for these major journals believe that cold fusion is bunk and don't want to waste any time on it. There is substantial evidence for (3) in the rejection letters (normally private but frequently quoted by CF'ers) and editorials and public statements of these journal editors and some noted scientists (some noted partly for having been published in these same major journals, so also being reviewers; agreeing to review other's papers is part of how one pays for the publication of one's own papers). My understanding is that even in the rare cases when a paper is returned from review there are few attempts to suggest improved experimental methods or analysis; the papers are simply rejected. This is contrary to usual practice.


 * If one equates cold fusion with bunk, simple rejection is an entirely understandable position, not irrational at all. In the course of an average year the editor of a major journal no doubt receives hundreds of papers containing pure nonsense. An editor may well think to himself, "Cold fusion had its chance in 1989; let someone else revive it if they can. I've got real science to look at." And when some new science imbroglio comes along, he also has a handy comparator:  The cold fusion fiasco, the cold fusion disaster, even the cold fusion fraud.


 * An understandable position. But anti-science.


 * Science requires doubt. Nobody has to believe that cold fusion is real. But publicly mocking other scientists, some with distinguished careers, some with honors, at least one with a Nobel prize, says at least that you have no doubts.


 * But I do agree it's great fun. -Wfaxon 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Later) This sort of stuff mostly belongs in the "Cold fusion controversy" article. -Wfaxon 11:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Pcarbonn replying to Noren) Noren says: "No one is claiming that cold fusion doesn't work because there is a consensus that it doesn't work in the scientific community." I was going to say that Scientific American used that argument.  See the correspondence between E. Storms and Scientific American  where SA says "If LENR-CANR can be demonstrated satisfactorily for acceptance by the physics mainstream, we would be more than happy to publish more favorable articles about it. Your problem starts with establishing more credibility in their eyes, not ours."  But then I realized that SA is a popular science magazine, and that their editorial policy, as stated, makes a lot of sense.  So, "Skeptics use the argument (of the scientific consensus)" seems incorrect to me now. Maybe we should revert to something like this version of the article where the section was titled "Allegations of suppression of cold fusion research", and with did not include statement about scientific consensus.  Pcarbonn 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Is cold fusion an "unsolved problem in physics" ?
Your input is more than welcome in the discussion page of Unsolved problems in physics. Pcarbonn 22:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)