User:POVbrigand

I am not a native english speaker. I am not a native speaker of German either. I am not very versed in using wikipedia's tools. To give you an idea of how I work: I still code static HTML with an editor.

with my username "POVbrigand" I express my intent to adhere to NPOV and fight POV.

I had an old account that I barely used. I made only a handful of edits with it in 2009 and only 3 edits since then. It has been retired. I abandoned it because I use the same handle on many different internet stuff.

I have never used it parallel to my current account. It was abandoned before I started editing with my current account. The old account was a harmless, wikignome account. It had accumulated merely 1 page of edit history since mid 2004.

I have disclosed that account to Arbcom. "The older account was disclosed to ArbCom last year. There's no time overlap (ie the older account was abandoned several weeks before POVbrigand started editing); there are no overlapping article edits; and the previous account's block log is clean." User_talk:POVbrigand

As mentioned above I have no intent to push POV on Cold Fusion. I am experienced enough with wikipedia that I fully understand that: 1) pushing POV won't work, 2) there is a world outside WP , 3) as soon as I turn my back, my precious work will be re-edited into oblivion. That is WP, I know that from experience and it doesn't bother me.

But while I am here I want to get some work done. I noticed that the article is in pretty bad form.
 * it doesn't have a good structure
 * it doesn't read well
 * there are some flaws like references from 1989 to support a comment on events from 2010. That doesn't make sense, does it ?
 * it could improve here and there on NPOV
 * there is a reference nightmare (WP:CITEKILL)

That is no wonder, because cold fusion polarizes. And the result is a minced meat of an article.

What is fascinating for me is the sociological part of the Cold Fusion situation. Why is it so polarizing ?

List of LENR researchers
List of cold fusion researchers, or LENR researchers, or whatever you call it

User:POVbrigand/Noticeboards
My noticeboard discussions

Subpages
Material

ICCF

papers

On the experimental results

 * The minority view: ""The success rate is about 20 percent, so we know the conditions must be very specific. It's a hit-or-miss reaction, ..." Physorg ?
 * The majority view: "The experimental observations are mere mistakes" (Labinger 2005) ?

"Many scientists were not able to replicate the experimental results and it is generally concluded that the reported observations are caused by mistakes. Other scientist think that it is a "hit-or-miss" reaction and repeatability is indeed problematic, but that many positive replications cannot be attributed to mistakes."

On the lack of scientific discourse

 * The minority view: Mainstream science stopped listening, scientific journals refused to publish papers.
 * The majority view: Pathological science; after many years there is still no conclusive evidence.

On the theory

 * The minority view: Theory should match the observations, not the other way around. Many theory proposals have been made.
 * The majority view: Accepted theory does not allow for these observations, they must be attributable to mistakes. There is a multitude of fringe theory proposals and none of them is regarded as a candidate to explain all claims.

The DOE 1989 conclusions
Dr. Seaborg: ''"I was called to Washington on April 14, 1989, to brief George Bush on cold fusion. I don't know whether you know what cold fusion is, but it was the idea that you could fuse nuclei very easily and get a lot of energy just by passing electric current through heavy water, whereas, of course, physicists had built huge machines and worked for decades trying to do this, spending billions of dollars. The chemists thought they'd really stolen a march on them. The idea swept the country and I was called to Washington to brief President Bush on it. It was a real dilemma. What should I do? I decided to take my background as a nuclear scientist and really come to the sensible conclusion that this work was not right, that it was really cold. You couldn't do it. So that's what I told him at that time. I said, "You can't just go out and say this is not valid. You're going to have to create a high-level panel that will study it for six months, and then they'll come out and tell you it's not valid," and that's what he did."''

John Dash: "In March 1989, Pons and Fleischmann claimed that they were able to produce nuclear fusion by electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium cathode. Their main evidence for this claim was the production of excess heat which could not be explained by any known chemical process. In may 1989, the American Physical Society after examining evidence from major laboratories, concluded that no excess heat is produced in the Pons and Fleischmann experiment. however, in 1994, after careful evaluation of the 1989 data used for the Physical Society conclusions, it was discovered that serious errors were made. these error invalidated the conclusions reached by the American Physical Society in 1989. [see J. Phys. Chem, 1994, 98: 1948-1952. ]"

"Our own research on the Pons and Fleischmann experiment has been fruitful. For example, surface crater were observed on the palladium cathode after a 12 minute experiment. During longer experiments, excess heat, localized melting, and localized concentrations of unexpected elements were observed."

"Our studies are continuing. We currently are studying glow discharge, in which others have reported excess heat and evidence of nuclear ash. "

Krivit RS? Peer-Reviewed articles?
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/about/presentations-publications.shtml John Wiley & Sons American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press Elsevier Journal of Environmental Monitoring Current Science

Krivit Media References
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/pressroom/pressroom.shtml

Krivit overview of LENR

MIT
 

MIT progress report

Detecting gamers

 * Don't_call_the_kettle_black
 * WikiBullying
 * Wikilawyering
 * Gaming_the_system
 * Policy_shopping
 * Tag_team
 * Griefing
 * Harassment
 * Don't_be_a_fanatic
 * Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus"
 * Overzealous_deletion

that's all folks
User_talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Wikipedia_is_broken_and_failing

WP:FRINGE

 * [Village pump discussion]


 * "Fighting fringe"

detecting WP:OR is simple
 User_talk:AldenEPark

Differentiate
editors are unable to differentiate cold fusion scientific work from "Amateur inventors claiming "new science" " 

Admitting failures are unneeded distractions


, , User_talk:128.59.171.194

Hatred is all aroud us
Arbitration/Requests/Clarification

SPAWAR
Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight - At the University of Missouri, on May 29, 2009 - youtube video available

Global Energy Corporation

e-wire website hosting the SPAWAR presentation video

NASA

 * Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_57
 * Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_40
 * Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_41
 * Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_42
 * Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_43

"Reviving Cold Fusion" by Stephen K. Ritter in C&EN from May 14, 2012

Wired.co.uk

CNews.ru

Gazeta.ru

NASA Glenn Research Center website

TM-102430 TM-107167

Talk pages Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_40, Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_41 , Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_4

Xing Z. Li - 2006

Bushnell interview transcript

Austrian news outlet mentioning the NASA video

Washington Post "Helium-3, an isotope that in the future may support cold fusion when earthlings finally figure out how to make it happen, is another potential treasure." - I thought the Washington Post knew for a certainty that cold fusion was debunked and crackpot ?

Tom Whipple discusses the NASA video in the falls church news press Tom Whipple discusses NASA work on Widom Larsen

Italian GreenStyle discussing the NASA video

South African Engineering News mentioning the NASA video

Forbes commenting on the video

futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov Dennis Bushnell - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook

NASAinnovation channel NASA LaRC | Abundant Clean/Green Energy

Light in the dark
 Teemu on December 09, 2011 1:41 PM:

Generally civilian science establishment has rejected it, they focus too heavily on theory and initially low rate of success in repeating the test. First transistors worked pretty randomly also.

Whereas NASA, military/intelligence science establishment is pretty interested and still doing some research on low energy nuclear reactions, since they have more common sense approach: "Ok, seems that there has been some success, and considering how huge the potential is, and how low the costs of research are compared to other energy research, it would be foolish not to look in further."

Thousands of pages of research can be found, the success rate of repeating the test seems to be better now. http://www.lenr-canr.org/ and is interesting site also http://newenergytimes.com/

praos on December 10, 2011 12:37 AM:

The whole LENR is based on the idea that you could influence nuclear reactions by chemical means. On elementary-school level, that's nonsense, but as early as forty-some years ago, when I studied chemistry, at least two exceptions were mentioned in my textbooks. The effects were minute (about 1%) but even such small discrepancy could bring down an absolute rule. So the question – even in scientific mainstream in 1970's -- was not if, but when, how and how much. As for "reproducibility" and "replication", first attempts to replicate Pons and Fleichman experiments were made in bad faith and with zero chances of success. The idea that you can simply mix ingredients and duplicate results is very naive. Even classroom demonstrations could go wrong, and who ever had any experience even with a well established and understood analytic or preparative procedures will easily understand that "replication" in chemistry is more exemption than rule. "Replications" is by no means a "ready replication", but more of the "it happens" kind. In the Pons-Fleichman story the chances of replication were pure lottery. To successfully replicate, you have to control all the vital parameters, by no means an easy task even when you know them. But to know them, you must have a useful theory, and in the shifting sands of LENR, the convincing theoretical explanation was not reached to this day. So the research remained highly empirical, with all the blind man bluff which this entails, and results following Rorschach patterns. However, up to present more than few (in fact about 3500) papers on LENR were published, including many very convincing replication by serious scientist with immaculate credentials. Results vary, but some were more than impressive. In such a new field, with so many unknowns and with no theory to talk of, the proof is a single replication, and not hundreds of failed experiments. It is serious science, if I know one. You see, the metallic substance is not some rigid structure, as pictured in textbooks, but in fact compressed plasma contained by crystal lattice, and in this plasma things happen. Just Google Rossi, eCat, cold fusion, LENR, and you are in for a big surprise!

Praos

User:Equazcion/Editing controversial subjects
WP needs more editors like this one

And this one User:Filll/Controversial_Article_Project

Steamroll_minority_opinions
oh, yes

Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733
Administrators' Noticeboard

Category:Wikipedia_essays
All the essays. My picks: Randy_in_Boise, Tendentious_editing , Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight

Yeong E. Kim
Peer reviewed papers - secondary sources: "Storms, E., Status of cold fusion (2010). Naturwiss., 2010. 97(10): p. 861-881." ""Krivit, S. and J. Marwan, A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research. J. Environ. Monit., 2009. 11: p. 1731-1746."

Mentioned in peer reviewed papers "Advances in proposed D-Cluster inertial confiment fusion target" - George H Miley et al. Journal of Physics: Conference Series Volume 244 Part 3 Create an alert RSS this journal George H Miley et al 2010 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 244 032036 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/244/3/032036

NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN Volume 97, Number 7, 655-662, DOI: 10.1007/s00114-010-0681-z A possible in situ 3H and 3He source in Earth’s interior: an alternative explanation of origin of 3He in deep Earth Songsheng Jiang, Jing Liu and Ming He

Kim talk on few bodies problems conference 12MB

Institute for Solid-State Nuclear Physics, Berlin, Germany
 

Ruhr University

Electron Screening: A Review

AIP Conf. Proc. 831, pp. 296-303; doi:10.1063/1.2200942 (8 pages) FRONTIERS IN NUCLEAR STRUCTURE, ASTROPHYSICS, AND REACTIONS - FINUSTAR Date: 12-17 September 2005

ISCMNS
ISCMNS Website Article in the times of India

CERN colloquium
Italian GreenStyle article

University of Missouri

 * Eurekalert
 * Physorg
 * Columbia Tribune
 * Columbia Missourian

Vice Chancellor for Research Seminar Series: "Excess Heat and Particle Tracks from Deuterium-loaded Palladium"
 * program schedule

Laser experiments
In their 2004 DOE paper "NEW PHYSICAL EFFECTS IN METAL DEUTERIDES" Hagelstein et al. pointed to beam experiments.


 * nov 2009 - edit by Aqm2241
 * nov 2009 - edit by Aqm2241
 * edit by Aqm2241
 * edit by Aqm2241
 * edit by POVbrigand
 * deleted by Olorinish
 * reverted by POVbrigand
 * started talk page Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_40

- dormant period -


 * Olorinish reinitiated talk showing possible signs of revenge and hounding Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_41
 * deleted by Binksternet

Undue Weight
The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia

NETS 2012
George Miley and Yeong E. Kim speaking on LENR

http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012-Program.html

BARC
The new indian express - columnist V. Sudarshan