Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science/Archive

Big problems with article
Namely that it presents no skeptical viewpoint of the purported phenomenon at all and neglects to mention the fact that it is virtually universally regarded as being pseudoscientific quackery by nuclear physicists.--Deglr6328 19:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ought it not to be merged with cold fusion? Jefffire 20:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The point of this article is to describe the physics of the phenomenom, and I agree it can be much improved. The observations could be described in more details here than in the main article. I guess we have to clearly state this in the intro: that's what I tried to do.  Is this enough to remove the POV tag ?  What else is needed ? Pcarbonn 20:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the article remains overwhelmingly, grossly one sided "rah-rah" in favor of LENRs. I really do not want to become dragged into even tangential cold fusion debates so I will list at WikiProject Physics and exit stage left at this point.--Deglr6328 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that this disqualifies you as an editor of this article. Pcarbonn 07:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are not being sarcastic you are in desperate need of a clue.--Deglr6328 05:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Attempting to answer Pcarbonn's question about what else is needed, I'm adding a new section here in Talk on the Proposed mechanisms section and what's wrong with it.JohnAspinall 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

DOE's view on the matter
Deglr6328 removed the "unsolved problem in physics" on the ground that "DOEs views on the matter are utterly irrelevant. framing the question in this manner gives implicit approval of the question's status and respectability when there is none at all".

The question of the relevance of DOE's view was heavily debated on the cold fusion page (see Talk page, "DOE policy"), and eventually DOE's view was kept in the intro of that article. The reasons for giving it such a prominence are the following: DOE is the last (and probably only) published scientific review of the matter, and DOE's 2004 review was largely quoted by the popular and scientific press, including Nature. Actually, DOE's review is by far the most quoted review on the subject, by skeptics and LENR researchers alike. If you still believe that DOE's view is irrelevant, I would suggest that you raise the issue in the talk page of cold fusion.

The phrasing is : "What is the explanation for the apparent production of excess heat and helium in palladium metal when it is saturated with deuterium?". I have explicitly added the word "apparent" to express that it is not recognized by everybody. Also the question is very open, so that the source could be chemical, nuclear (or even fraud). I'm open to change in the phrasing, but I believe it is pretty good already.

Pcarbonn 06:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Another evidence that cold fusion is a valid scientific research area is that, in March 2006, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion in Baltimore (See 2006 APS March meeting ). Pcarbonn 14:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Deglr6328 has removed the "unsolved problem in physics" again, saying "no convincing evidence presented". Please explain why the evidences above are not convincing ?  Could you give convincing evidence that DOE's view are irrelevant ?  That there is no status and respectability to the question ? Please engage in the debate to justify your action.  Pcarbonn 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Proposed mechanisms section
The item titled Bose-Einstein condensate-like suggests "tunnelling and superposition" as a mechanism to overcome the Coulomb barrier. This is not a mechanism. The wave equation can be solved for two deuterons, and a non-zero probability of the inter-particle distance being "close enough for the strong force to outweigh the Coulomb force" can be described as "tunnelling". Similarly, a non-zero probability of the inter-particle distance being "close enough for fusion" can be described as "superposition". But in order to be a possible mechanism there needs to be an explanation of how or why there is more tunnelling and superposition in a palladium lattice than in a cold gas of the same density and temperature. Presumably, that missing explanation comes from the coherent behavior of the deuterons in the Bose-Einstein condensate-like model. That missing explanation should be supplied.

The item titled Multi-body interactions says, in effect, "if this hypothetical reaction turned up, we could explain why we don't see gammas." This should be re-written to sound less like wishful thinking and more like a proposed mechanism. If there is a credible proposal for a mechanism here, if this is a mechanism whereby there is no gamma emission, it must surely start by explaining how four deuterons overcome their Coulomb barrier but two deuterons don't. That missing explanation should be supplied.

The item on Swartz and others' theory of the lower angular momentum of less energetic, cooler deuterons should begin by explaining "lower angular momentum". I would think that every Wikipedia reader who has taken a first undergrad course in quantum mechanics would remember angular momentum as being quantized. Clearly the theory must be a little more complicated than first undergrad course in quantum mechanics, so an explanation is in order.

Also in the item on Swartz and others' theory of the lower angular momentum of less energetic, cooler deuterons: the reference is to a 1955 article in Phys.Rev. It is not clear what the connection is of this article to cold fusion or to Swartz and others' theory. A primary reference to Swartz and others' theory should be supplied.

The item on Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory assures us that their theory is "based on mainstream physics". Surely every single statement here should be based on mainstream physics or prominently noted otherwise. Special pleading to be mainstream physics should be removed.

Also in the item on Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory, a mechanism is again missing here. If this is an explanation for cold fusion the theory must explain why electrons and protons don't react to form low momentum neutrons in all other kinds of regular matter and only in the Pd-D system. That missing explanation should be supplied.

Also referring to the item on Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory: the reference is not found at the URL given (http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505026).

JohnAspinall 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest. I agree that the theory section is very poor.  It is mostly a copy of the theory section of the cold fusion article, which is very poor.  I would actually suggest to correct the cold fusion article, because it is a more visible article.  A good base for correcting it is the chapter 7 of this guide.
 * You can find good references to the Widon-Larsen theory here. Pcarbonn 10:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer. Unfortunately, I find chapter 7 of that guide to be rife with the same kind of problems of "explanations that don't explain".  I see several proposed mechanisms there that are wildly at odds with conventional nuclear science, and yet they are presented without any comment as to how much conventional science would have to be revised or discarded should that explanation be accepted.  (Examples: free neutron clusters, particles converting to waves, new strange particles.)


 * I think I represent the educated but uninformed reader when I say that the article needs to have a stronger answer for: "What is the relationship between condensed matter nuclear science and other subdisciplines of science? Can the reader trust that when CMNS says "neutron cluster", it carries all the same understanding as when conventional nuclear science says "neutron cluster"?  Can the reader trust that when CMNS says "heavy electron", it means no more and no less than when conventional solid state physics says "heavy electron"?  Can the reader trust that when CMNS says "particle-wave conversion", they can find a standard quantum mechanics explanation of the same thing?  In short, can the reader approach the article with the general sense of part of a larger body of science, or does every statement have to be mentally footnoted with CMNS only.


 * I look forward to reading an improved section, but unless you simply want me to point out all the holes I see, I don't know enough to write it. JohnAspinall 16:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute "requires gaseous diffusion or a nuclear reaction to change an element from its natural isotope ratio"
In a paragraph arguing for non-natural isotope ratio being evidence of transmutation, the statement is made that in general it "requires gaseous diffusion or a nuclear reaction to change an element from its natural isotope ratio". This ignores the many other physical processes capable of partially separating different isotopes. For example, the article on Oxygen-18 says that Harold Urey froze out 18O-containing water from 16O-containing water in a barrel. Several other examples can be found in the heavy_water article where processes for separating D2O from H2O are described.

For the lightest elements, which have the largest mass ratios between different isotopes, natural processes are good enough at partially separating different isotopes that there is no single "natural" isotope ratio that applies across everything. (See Vienna_Standard_Mean_Ocean_Water where it points out that the deuterium concentration in sea water is greater than that in rivers and lakes.

I suggest that a more balanced presentation of the isotope ratio results would point out that the alternative to transmutation would be any physical process that was capable of concentrating and separating existing isotopes.

JohnAspinall 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding "This ignores the many other physical processes capable of partially separating different isotopes.", no, it doesn't. Please refer to the meaning of the phrase "In general".


 * Also, re: "natural" isotopic ratios. (cf. Natural_abundance.) It is true that isotopic concentrations differ from place to place, just as element concentrations do. This is the reason why there is such a thing as "natural" isotopic ratios.  There are a certain number of nuclear processes that have occurred or are occurring on earth and/or in the vicinity of earth (e.g. the sun).  These processes have produced or are producing certian isotopes of different elements at certain rates, depending on the reactions, decay, and stability of the isotopes.  For example, hydrogen is far more common than deutrium largely because it is far more stable.  Same reason deutrium is far more common the tritium.  For a graph of the stabilities of isotopes, you can refer to an isotope table.


 * Regarding "alternative explanation": Right. This is an alternative explanation.  (And it would certainly be a surprising result requiring massive amounts of explanation.) Though it doesn't explain the unlikely result that the unnatural isotopes happen to be +8, +4 of the naturally occuring isotopes of the source elements, nor the fact that the source elements disappear at the same rate that the anomolous elements appear.  Furthermore, this explanation assumes that the isotopes where already present, and just their local spatial distributions changed.  This would be super-super-easy to see.  However, this has not been the case in any experiments performed to date.  All measurements showed a _global_ concentrate of isotopes in ratios that were not present _globally_ in the original sample.  So, in conclusion, although this may be an (original research) alternative explanation to part of the phenomena, it is not a viable alternative.


 * In other words, although physical process that are capable of concentrating and separating existing isotopes, such as gaseous diffusion, may explain changes in the distribution of isotopes, they do not explain changes in the overall concentration of isotopes, such as was observed in the experiments in question. Kevin Baastalk 19:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with cold fusion ?
To address the POV issue, would it make sense to add a section "experimental evidences" in the cold fusion article ? I think that cold fusion would get very long, but if it helps address the POV issue here, I'm ready to consider it. (I would not add the theoretical section because it is of very poor quality at this point). Pcarbonn 08:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Cold fusion is a subset of CMNS. CMNS also contains fission and transmutation. Kevin Baastalk 19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

POV tag unjustified
I can find no justification for the POV tag on this article, so I am removing it. LossIsNotMore 00:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Evidence" is both singular and plural, a collective noun
The use of the non-standard noun "evidences" throughout this article (and Cold_Fusion) is jarring and I think distracts from the presentation. Standard American English usage is much like "money". We don't say "one money", "three moneys", or "fewer money"; we say "one piece of money", "money", and "less money". JohnAspinall 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

missing facts
1. I can't find a reference, but when F-P made their cold fusion announcement, another researcher at University of Utah had reported successful fusion of deuterium. This researcher used a negative mu meson (pion?)to replace the electron in D2+ molecule. The muon being 1000 heavier changes the S1 orbital wave function so the deuterium nuclei are within the neutron capture radius of deuterium. This research was verified and accepted. The researcher lauded F-P for having a similar mechanism, ie bringing two deuterium nuclei within neutron absorption radius. CRC lists neutron cross-sections. 2. The stated requirements for cold fusion (original) was high current equals high hydrogen/deuterium flux entering the bulk palladium electrode. Normally one "naked" Hydrogen atom (proton in metallic orbital) per interstice, defects or Hydrogen pressure at surface forcing two Deuterium per interstitial space where nuclei can approach closely.
 * Some electrodes don't work and some explode. Look at Pd properties: Pd disks are used to purify hydrogen because hydrogen passes through it with a pressure differential. In the real world, commercially, Pd is alloyed with 5% Silver. Pure Pd undergoes phase change (expands) to form intermetallic PdH2 powder.

3. I'm experienced with plating chemistry. Say Copper/Sulfuric Acid. Copper has positive emf vs hydrogen, solution has low resistance in part due to the high mobility of H+. So voltage is .46(Cu) plus voltage to drive 100s of amps through fractions of an ohm. Yet anything over .46 volts (hydrogen is 0.0 volts) can drive hydrogen into the metal, potentially causing it to fracture when heated. The flip side is alkaline Copper, higher resistance due to lower OH- mobility. But you can ramp up the voltage because due to the low hydrogen concentration.
 * The point here, the discrepancy, is that the successful cold fusion reactions seem to be LiOD/D2O( >He) and KOH/H2O ( >Ca), with no success NaOH/ or NaOD. If we were pushing deuterium, we'd be using D2SO4. At pH of 14, (probably over 3 volt Li > Li+ potential) it would appear that we're loading the Pd electrode with Lithium. Li6 isotope has a larger neutron absorption radius than Deuterium. Fast electron reaction (breeder reactor) Li6 + n > alpha + Tritium. D + Li6 > Be8* > 2 alpha (no gamma). The report of Boron alloyed in the Pd, of course B10 isotope has an even greater neutron absorption radius, improves reaction.

Shjacks45 12:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"See also"-section needs to be looked at.
The "see also"-section references two schemes for IEC fusion and philo .T Farnsworth, inventor the fusor(a method for IEC fusion).

Inertial Electrostatic Confinement is a method for hot fusion in the plasma state. Please remove these links and add links to relevant things.

213.114.195.141 12:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This page was serving as a POV-fork
There is no meaningful distinction between this article and cold fusion. This page was essentially functioning as a POV-fork where cold-fusion proponents could post their "evidence" free from criticism. This is not acceptable (see WP:FORK and WP:FRINGE). I have redirected to cold fusion. Any material that was lost can be re-merged there. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

CENSORSHIP
Dear ScienceApologist,

This page was created as a place to discuss the current field of condensed matter nuclear science, with the intention of distinguishing it from the historical aspects and incidents known as "cold fusion."

Your action on the "cold fusion" page of deleting published books (mine, Beaudette, Mizuno) for the petty reason that they were either not published by a well-known publisher or that they were not reviewed not only reflects a rather strong point of view, but perhaps even one that is hostile, if not malicious. It also looks like censorship and serves to embarrass and weaken the effectiveness of Wikipedia.

Your unilateral and undiscussed decision to redirect the CMNS page also reflects what appears to be censorship, as well as a manipulation and abuse of the Wikipedia system. One must be fairly Wiki-savvy to know how to undo your action. You would be well-advised to consider how such actions will reflect on you and your reputation here at Wikipedia.

The fact that you do not find many references in mainstream science for CMNS does not mean that it does not exist as a real science. Most folks realize that it is a controversial field that is struggling for respect and recognition. To ignore this fact, and argue that it is not a legitimate science because its papers are not published in PRL is to see the field from a very narrow, limited view.

If you are unaware of the scientific field of CMNS, I suggest that you bring yourself to the 14th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science in Washington, D.C. next year. Or read any of the thousands of science papers at http://www.LENR.ORG, or read any of the papers published in respected peer-reviewed journals listed here http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/SelectedPapers.htm, or speak to any number of experts in the field, most of whom are PhD's in the related sciences, some of whom have worked for the International Atomic Energy Association, Indian Atomic Energy Commission, SRI International, LANL, UIUC, MIT, UC Berkeley, U.S. Navy SPAWAR, U.S. Navy NRL, U.S. Navy China Lake, Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN), Italian Agency for New Technologies and Energy (ENEA,) Russian Academy of Sciences, and on and on and on. Your uninformed (at best) representations of this field in your discussion on the "cold fusion" page does not serve the best interests of Wikipedia or the public at large.

You may even wish to speak to Bob Park, who, on 22 March 2007, in Chemistry World, conceded the possibility of low-energy nuclear reactions, or Richard Garwin, who, on Feb. 19, 2007, conceded to me that he was unable to find an error in a recent LENR theory.

There are aspects of the field of CMNS that are worth critiquing, and perhaps yes, even apologizing for. But you would have to learn much more about the field to learn of its true weaknesses.

StevenBKrivit 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)