User talk:Navy Physics Geek

Welcome to Wikipedia. You ask this. I can't answer you there at the moment, I'm topic banned like quite a few others who tried to make that article complete and accurate. Don't worry, it's a momentary speed bump and freed me up for Other Stuff, it will be over soon. Anyway, the reason is that the neutron finding had so much media notice that the editors sitting on the article couldn't ignore it. There is, in fact, sufficient secondary source that the charged particle detection should be there too. But it's been difficult to get the simplest and most blatant and thoroughly sourced stuff into the article; one fact at a time. Thanks for the pointer to the erratum, it's useful as a citation of Widom-Larsen theory, that helps make it notable.

Right now, the article claims that all theories of cold fusion are "ad-hoc," based on old tertiary source, very weak, and, while the exact cause of my ban is a tad mysterious, it wasn't actually stated, there was edit warring to keep out the Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory of Takahashi (which is stunning, in my opinion, it much more clearly explains all the experimental results than any other), which is cited in the 2009 Naturwissenschaften paper by the SPAWAR group (Mosier-Boss et al), and hydrino theory. I'm not at all sure, because I don't have a copy of the recent Kim paper in Naturwissenschaften on Bose-Einstein condensate theory, but I think that the TSC theory is a variation on it.

So we have a section on proposed explanations that doesn't give any, except for "experimental error." Cool, eh?

We also have a section on the association of excess heat and helium that doesn't show any association at all, the only experimental result given is a mangled report from the 2004 DoE report that was a blatant misunderstanding of the Hagelstein review paper, that actually, were it correct, would show no association, i.e., probably no correlation at all. In fact, there is high correlation, both as shown in the body of the Hagelstein paper, and, a bit more thoroughly, in Storms (The Science of Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction, 2007). Actually, stunning and conclusive correlation, as those things go, at the right energy for deuterium in, helium out. But we have a very active editor who literally doesn't understand what "association" means. Ah, so many details, so little time!

I think it's really funny. SPAWAR finds copious radiation, almost certainly alpha particles, every time they run a cell with CR-39. It's been confirmed by others, and, in fact, the radiation was first reported by the Chinese in about 1990, also using CR-39. Helium is found, same difference, actually. Correlation with heat nails it. And nobody notices. (Fortunately, not exactly nobody, or there would be no hope for this on Wikipedia.) But a handful of neutrons, maybe ten total per chip, for weeks of electrolysis, big uproar! Of course, it is, in fact significant, because that's ten times background, and it shouldn't be there at all if there are no nuclear reactions taking place. But it wasn't a new finding, since low levels of neutrons have been reported by many groups; it's just that the SPAWAR findings use such a simple method that it's quite difficult to ascribe it to artifact, as could be done with the previous low-level findings that used more cumbersome methods. Sometimes cheaper is better. --Abd (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

About the cold fusion article
. We don't have coverage of charged particle detection only for political reasons. Besides there being ample primary source, peer-reviewed papers, we have multiple reliable secondary sources on it, but, in general, any sources which appear to support nuclear phenomena in palladium deuteride, or other low-temperature environments, are vigorously opposed as "fringe." Even though this is becoming increasingly preposterous. Even though there is no contrary peer-reviewed source, primary or secondary, beyond Kowalski, who is strange and who does, in any case, generally confirm the CR-39 findings, but simply asserts an origin for CR-39 pitting that isn't as described, and in apparent ignorance of the controls (which he didn't test, he is working in a private lab without much in the way of resources). He simply asserts certain possible contradictions in his own experiments, which were answered in back-to-back publication with Kowalski's critique. In any case, I'm at ArbComm now over my ban from Cold fusion, see Requests for arbitration. --Abd (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion
It's no secret that cold fusion has been very controversial. I hope everyone is able to rise above the controversy. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. My position is that Wikipedia guidelines are already quite adequate to deal with the controversy. The problem has been that there is a constellation of editors which, over many articles, has acted to exclude what they consider "fringe" opinion, contrary to policy and ArbComm. We use reliable source standards to determine due weight, but if sources are excluded, that, by the nature of the publication, would ordinarily be considered reliable, based on our judgment that they are "fringe," we then warp our process for determining due weight.


 * The problem with cold fusion is that there was, indeed, a general rejection of the entire field in 1989-1990. That was primarily a media phenomenon, not a scientific one per se, and we have reliable source on this, a sociological study by Simon, Cold fusion:Undead Science, 2002. There is plenty of media source that cold fusion was rejected, that it was pathological science, that Fleischmann's work was never replicated, etc., and that exists up until now, plenty of the reports in March of this year contained that "never reproduced" claim. Media reports, largely depending on prior media reports, etc. These are considered "reliable source." However, not for science.


 * For science, we prefer peer-reviewed reliable secondary source, as well as academic secondary source. I've been unable to find any peer-reviewed secondary source that makes the claim that cold fusion doesn't exist. There are, for example, editorials, as in Nature by Maddox, I think it was in 1990. Those weren't peer-reviewed.


 * Now, the claim is made that because the field is so thoroughly rejected, there isn't any review, why bother reviewing junk science? However, when we look at prior "junk science" phenomena, such as N-rays or Polywater, there were actual peer-reviewed publications that showed the nature of the experimental artifacts. What we have with cold fusion is the existence of "negative replications," which only shows a failure to reproduce, and, given that it was difficult even for Fleischmann and others to create conditions that showed the "F-P effect," that merely showed the difficulty, not the non-existence. Fleischmann's neutron measurements were defective, there is no controversy over that at all. But his calorimetry is another matter, it has generally be verified that excess heat is found, on occasion, in these experiments. The irregularity of this led to obvious speculation that it was artifact, or that there was publication bias: don't find heat, don't publish. Find heat, publish. And we must acknowledge that these criticisms had a certain validity, but we must also acknowledge that they prove nothing. Failure to see an effect is simply a failure to see an effect, it doesn't prove that the effect doesn't exist.


 * In later work, the conditions that allow excess heat were identified, and there was a recent Bayesian analysis of four variables of published papers that predicts whether or not the experiments would find excess heat, with complete accuracy. Thus the early "failures" actually confirm the later work, they are not in contradiction to it.


 * But our editors, too often, synthesize rejection and contradiction from a negative result.


 * Once we start to look at more recent work, we find a very different picture. Excess heat is now reported with 100% incidence under certain known experimental conditions, specifically the co-deposition technique of the SPAWAR group and the gas-loading work of Arata in Japan. We have secondary sources on this work, but they've been rejected by editors based on "fringe." What our guidelines would suggest, in fact, is that what we have in secondary sources be included in the article, but balanced. I have no problem, at this point, with continuing to report that cold fusion isn't generally accepted. But reporting that it is rejected by "scientific consensus" is much more problematic.


 * "Scientific consensus" must mean the "consensus of the knowledgeable," and whenever cold fusion has been neutrally considered, to the extent that neutrality is possible, it has not been rejected, and a very good example would be the 2004 DoE review, which found no consensus, though there was, then, a majority opinion (2/3) that the excess heat effect, either did not exist, wasn't proven, or was not proven to be of nuclear origin. "Not proven" is not the same as "conclusively does not exist."


 * What I find interesting is that particle physicists and others highly committed, career-committed, to a concept of nuclear physics that considers the chemical environment to be negligible, are disposed not to accept the excess heat evidence, for it's a measurement that is normally outside their expertise, and they are theoretically convinced that it's impossible. So it must be artifact. So if we set aside those that don't consider excess heat evidence "convincing," which was half the panel, and if we assume that nobody who considers evidence for nuclear origin to be "somewhat convincing" who doesn't think excess heat is real, what we have is two-thirds of those who accept the excess heat evidence, on being informed as to the research -- which most "scientists" aren't -- who are somewhat convinced that it is of nuclear origin. So a very important question is the validity of the excess heat findings. And we have very abundant primary and secondary source on this, with very little actual negative source. Shanahan has hypothesized a "calibration constant shift" as an explanation for excess heat, but there are quite a few reasons to reject that; to me, the most cogent is the correlation between excess heat and helium. Either of excess heat or helium could be reasonably argued, in a given experiment, to be artifact. However, if there are a series of experiments where excess heat is measured, and helium is measured, and they correlate well, so that a Q factor can be estimated, this actually validates both measurements, unless we can hypothesize some common mechanism that would cause simultaneous and correlated excess heat error and helium error, which I find, shall we say, difficult to imagine.


 * There seems to be little contest among the knowledgeable, now, with the idea that excess heat is real. There is still a lot of nonsense propagated about it, the idea that it is small, that it isn't reliably reproducible, that it's only a very small proportion of the energy input (Arata's work has no energy input, only the natural and constant heat of formation of palladium deuteride, which is relatively small and transient), etc. As to nuclear origin, even researchers in the field disagree. Something that was unexpected is happening, that's for sure. There is specific nuclear evidence, to wit, the helium, as well as radiation, the charged particle radiation you mention, which is confirmed, and neutrons, recently reported but, in fact, confirmed much earlier work that was simply more easy to challenge as some kind of background phenomenon, such as bursts of neutrons from cosmic rays.


 * I will, in discussion, say a lot of things based on my reading in the field, and not all of it may be ready for the article. When we work on actual article text, I claim, we should follow RS guidelines, and whatever is in RS should be included, for being in RS establishes notability. It isn't necessarily reported as fact, that's a different issue. If it is in reliable peer-reviewed secondary source, and there is no contradiction of sources at that level, we start to consider reporting it as fact. If there is source of lesser quality, but still reliable source, contradicting it, we may report that as well, using appropriate language. But the total exclusion of information coming from alleged fringe sources that was, in fact, coming from independent peer-reviewed or academically published material, was unacceptable and it was in confronting this exclusion that I was banned. And because I was following guidelines, I believe that the ban will not stand, and it doesn't matter how many anti-fringe editors shout at me! When the community, overall, has a chance to consider these issues carefully, I've seen, it confirms these positions.


 * Thanks for your interest. --Abd (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know this user?
Have you ever heard of User:Nrcprm2026? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. How well do you know him? Navy Physics Geek (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I know him quite well from tangling with him, I cut my Wikipedia teeth on his socks, you can find a number of cases I filed or supported. Your suspicion, Enric, is understandable, but, caution: preferentially filing sock puppetry charges against non-disruptive editors, based on little more than similarity of POV, no matter who you think they might be, could ultimately be seen as a pernicious form of POV-pushing. Some of this may come out in the current RfAr. I can say that I wouldn't file a case on this editor yet. If he edit wars, I might, but simply raising issues in Talk, based on recent reliable sources, even if it is Nrcprm2026, is actually helpful. Remember WP:IAR. Nrcprm is a fan of it, see Special:Contributions/BenB4, and especially the last edit, and sometimes he's right. I'd encourage him to come out of the cold, he could be more effective in a positive way, he can email me if he'd like assistance. I'll keep it in confidence. --Abd (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know Nrcprm2026 well, but I gather that he has been misrepresenting scientific sources in science-related articles to support some POV or other. I'd say that this is very relevant. I don't know Nrcprm2026 well enough to know if this person has edited enough to apply WP:DUCK and open a SPI case. And the account name fitting the topics that were raised by the last two socks in that same talk page... well... I don't know if Nrcprm2026 enjoys leaving clues to see how long it takes us to catch on.


 * I also find his reply a bit flippant, so I will reword it: Navy Physics Geek, you look a lot like a sock account of Nrcprm2026. Could you give some explanation of how you are just some other guy, like how you arrived to the cold fusion page? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do that, but first I want to clear something up: You say that Nrcprm2026 has been misrepresenting scientific sources and in the next sentence you bring up "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck."  So before I explain myself to you, would you please say which sources you think Nrcprm2026 and I may have misrepresented? Navy Physics Geek (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not reviewed the history of Nrcprm2026 and socks at Cold fusion. But what I saw of the last sock there, and of NPG, there wasn't any misrepresentation of sources. If you need more specific citations, Enric, ask for them, but they are basically right. I've been telling you the same thing for quite some time, and, I'll point out, I'm considering myself banned from Cold fusion for the moment, and WMC hasn't retracted his threats, but I wasn't banned for misrepresenting sources, at all. Nor was anyone that I can think of, including Pcarbonn, JedRothwell (if he's banned!), ScienceApologist, or anyone else. Come to think of it, though, I think you have misrepresented some sources, but only because, I believe, you don't understand them, not as any kind of deliberate deception. The banned editors I listed are all quite knowledgeable; it's possible that Nrcprm2026 is as well.


 * Yes, he plays cat and mouse games; for example, account names may hint at being a sock, such as BenB4 or Acct4. By responding and playing whack-a-mole, you will make it more fun for him. The attempt to reduce disruption by banning has a tendency to backfire, some of these people realize that we can't actually prevent anyone with any level of sophistication from editing Wikipedia, unless we start causing massive inability of people to easily edit, which contradicts foundation policy. Scibaby, who is vigorously pursued, with a checkuser essentially watching for any hints, seems to have not been particularly disruptive at the beginning, he merely had an unpopular POV, and was met with incivility and blocks; since he was blocked, by what seem to be involved administrators, he has apparently created 300 socks. Just think of how much time has been wasted, and how much damage is done by setting range blocks that prevent many innocent editors from editing. It's been mentioned in the current RfAr, by an arbitrator. I recommend, Enric, that you deal straightly with Navy Physics Geek, you and the article might benefit. That's what I've done with Nrcprm socks in the past, even when the POV being pushed was diametrically opposite to his mine. --Abd (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * If you are really Nrcprm2026, then people already told you what sources you were misrepresenting, even if you believe that you didn't misrepresent them, and using socks to avoid your block is not the way to get yourself unbanned. I see that the ban was based in behaviour and not in the content being bad and also in socking (see links here) so I won't just dismiss beforehand statements in talk pages about how a certain scientific source demonstrates X or Y. However, I won't play to the tune of an editor that doesn't want to fix his behaviour and wants to abuse WP:IAR to push his own opinion via socks. If something good comes out of you raising the issue, well, better for everybody, but don't start nagging about your interpretation of the sources being the only valid interpretation, or about people refusing to see your point because of some POV, instead of just because they don't agree with your interpretation.


 * If you are not Nrcprm2026, then I'll point out that Kirk Shanahan has made an argument on why the sources don't support the charged particles thing, and I trust him to know what he is talking about, so I'll wait to see if other editors want to comment on it. Personally, I don't think that you are making a very strong argument, and the connection between the different source looks like quite tenuous. If some estabished editor says that it's good, then I'll take another look.


 * @Abd. Thanks for the advice. From a quick read, I gather that Nrcprm2026 had very strong disagreements with many other editors about what sources meant. By the way, I have no problem with you bringing this to the current arb case or to anywhere you feel necessary. Myself, if I see misbehaviour, I'll just go directly to SPI. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Submitting evidence to a case where other sock already had his evidence removed is crossing the line, and you are experienced enough to know this, so directly to Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment in RfAr
Per permanent link, just in case the impermanence of all existence strikes mysteriously, thanks for your comment. Given what's already happened in this case, there could be some negative attention to you. I'll just say that anyone who examined the recent history of the cold fusion article would have encountered nrcprm2026, and the only thing to connect you with that editor is your interest in cold fusion. It's pretty outrageous that you were challenged above with nothing more than a POV and no violations of guidelines that I've seen. And it is outrageous whether you are Nrcprm2026 or not. That's coming to be an issue in this case, preferential investigation of currently nondisruptive editors based on POV. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)