![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I added a nuclear transmutation section. I want to know who deleted it and what justification they think they had. If nuclear transmutation evidence is suppressed I will dispute the article.-- Ron Marshall 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC) I found Pcarbonn's comment in the page history. " nuclear transmutations are not relevant for the cold fusion controversy. Move the new content to "condensed matter nuclear science" article". My question is how nuclear reactions can not be relevant? And also what "condensed matter nuclear science" article? My position is that nuclear transmutations prove nuclear reactions take place and therefore are completely relevant and that the article would be with out merit if the evidence is suppressed. -- Ron Marshall 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Rebirth of Cold Fusion, page 217 "According to a 2003 survey performed by Miley, nuclear transmutations have been observed in 15 separate laboratories worldwide (See Appendix B) in both H2O (light) and D2O (heavy) water experiments."
ICCF-12 ABSTRACTS http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/ICCF12/ICCF12-Abstracts.pdf The following topics will be discussed at the conference: • Excess Heat and Related Nuclear Products • Nuclear Processes and Transmutations • Materials and Condensed Matter Conditions • Analyses and Diagnoses Techniques • Innovative Approaches • Theories on Condensed Matter Nuclear Effects • Engineering, Industrial, Political and Philosophical Issues
STemplar 00:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know precisely how the scope of the DOE review was determined. I expect there was some negotiation between DOE and the experimenters to limit the scope of the review. It looks like transmutation, light water experiments, and non electrolysis experiments were left out. I would argue the use of the term “some experiments” versus “many experiments” is inaccurate. I know McKubre has admitted to being reluctant to deal with transmutation, but I thought he had gotten over that. I suspect that there was not much transmutation expertise in this group. I know Chubb has some, but he was probably the only one. One of the bad ideas that skeptics push is that experiments don’t count if you don’t have a theory to go with them. Mizuno was denied publication on this basis. Since they thought they had a plausible heat and helium theory they may have to decided to go with that. So it may have been a political decision. If so it was a mistake. I don’t know if Mizuno or Iwamura speak English. Miley could have spoken for transmutation even though a lot of his work has been with light water. I don’t know how much these five scientists were acting independently or tried to reach a consensus with other scientists.-- Ron Marshall 22:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I general I don't disagree with Pcarbonn's suggestions for editing Nuclear Transmutation. I will edit it in that direction. I don't trust Pcarbonn's editing. I am not favorably impressed by the tone and style of the rest of the article.
For example take this line: "Articles have been published in specialized peer reviewed journals such as Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, and Journal of Fusion Energy. After the initial interest, the only prominent general science journal to publish a cold fusion paper was Naturwissenschaften, in 2005.[2]" This was debated, but it still comes across as political spin. Why is it important to suppress the number of cold fusion papers? Why is a general journal so important?
What about the papers in 2001 and 2002 in the Japanese Journal Of Applied Physics? Is this provable? This looks like original research that is wrong? Every one agrees that the number of papers has declined. However, are we trying to prove the field is dying. The quality of experiments has gone up. With experiments like the Iwamura experiment it is likely to continue. All this work and the line still lacks merit because it is one sided.-- 24.1.151.250 23:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
--
Ron Marshall
16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)== Muon Catalyzed Fusion ==
"The original cold fusion, muon-catalyzed fusion, takes place at room temperature. However it uses muons which require to much energy to create and which have to short of a half life to make the process practical for energy generation. Neither pyroelectric fusion or muon-catalyzed fusion are presented further in this article."
Ron, The first four words that you added here can cause confusion. While the term "cold fusion" was first used in the scientific literature by others, "cold fusion" has come to be known, by and large, as that which was claimed by FP. It was indeed unfortunate that the Wall Street Journal associated the term "cold fusion" with the FP work on March 23,1989, however, this is the term that has become associated with the FP work. So I don't see how those four words help, and I do see how they can confuse things. Please let me know if you disagree. STemplar 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
STemplar, I think the article as written causes confusion. If you want to clarify things in the mind of the reader you can say things like "The popular press sometimes use the term "cold fusion" to describe "globally cold, locally hot" plasma fusion that occurs in table-top apparatus such as pyroelectric fusion or bubble fusion or whatever so they are not confused with PF cold fusion or muon-catalyzed cold fusion. However for scientific and historical reasons muon-catalyzed fusion deserves more attention. Steve Jones did not invent muon-catalyzed fusion or the term cold fusion. There was a Nobel prize given in 1968 for experiments that included muon-catalyzed fusion and it was called in the press cold fusion. I remember because I was an adult in 1968. The muon-catalyzed fusion article the last time I looked did not include anything about the Nobel prize. I also recall reading about other cold fusion theories like cold fusion inside Jupiter to explain the excess heat balance problem with respect to solar radiation which has the conventional explanation of gravitational collapse. The term was around along time before FP and used in a lot of different ways. But muon-catalyzed fusion had the best claim to name until FP when it became muon-catalyzed fusion. The other reason why muon-catalyzed fusion should not be swept under the rug is the scientific one. It shows that with ingenuity fusion reactions can take place at room temperature. I cannot offer my memory as a scholarly resource, but I know what I know.
My initial reason for changing the wording was the terms "locally cold" or "locally hot" are meaningless in muon-catalyzed fusion.-- Ron Marshall 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
STemplar, we could try:
"Historically the term cold fusion was originally applied to what is now called muon-catalyzed fusion. However when the Fleischmann-Pons experiment occured it became known as cold fusion and muon-catalyzed fusion was no longer referred to as cold fusion. Muon-catalyzed fusion takes place at room temperature. However it uses muons which require to much energy to create and which have to short of a half life to make the process practical for energy generation. Neither pyroelectric fusion or muon-catalyzed fusion are presented further in this article."
Or you could write something else. I am just going with what I see as the facts. I do not see this as a do or die issue.-- Ron Marshall 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the list of papers in the "Further reading" section, because choosing some papers over others would be considered as Original Research when the reports and reviews include such list. In other words, the secondary sources should be preferred on this topic, and readers are invited to consult them. Pcarbonn 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a bogus excuse and it looks like censorship.-- Ron Marshall 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This section is getting too big compared to others. The "Cold fusion" article is already longer than the Wikipedia standard (we are not writing a book on cold fusion !). If we were to expand on the calorimetric details or other fine points of the controversy, the article would be losing its impact. Let's try to focus on the main elements that are relevant to the cold fusion article, and let's avoid repetition, or definitions that can be found in related articles. If needed, a secondary article can be written. What do you think? Pcarbonn 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Cold fusion is a controversial subject. The most important thing is that both points of view are fairly represented, that we have a neutral point of view. I do not see any dying trees. The overall article is still to one sided. It looks to me like efforts to shorten the Nuclear transmutation section or the entire article are just another attempt to censor out the experimenters point of view.-- Ron Marshall 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Pcarbonn, I try to respond as quickly as I can, but I have a life and my internet service was not working last night. I do not have much of a problem with what has been written. I have more of a problem with lack of detail about why these experiments could be correct. There seems to be plenty of room for statements about experimental error. It seems like the same DOE statement is repeated at least three times. There are also a lot of statements about pathological science and pseudoscience. It seems like that statements you want to delete in nuclear transmutations are the statements that make it appear like there is less likelihood of error.
I think it is telling about what has been going on in that there was not already a decent section on nuclear transmutations.
I am not eager to delete the work of others. I will list the points that should be addressed. I do not see how addressing these points could increase the text as much as 10%.
1. A statement needs to be made in the introduction that the experimental evidence found includes heat, nuclear transmutations, tritium, and helium, not just heat and nuclear transmutations.
2. A statement needs to be made about the limited scope of the DOE review.
3. Statements need to be added about nuclear transmutations of radioactive isotopes, both as experimental evidence and commercial applications to get rid of radioactive waste.
4. This sentence is confusing: “They explain that, in 1989, Fleischann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and has an accuracy of 1% or less.” Does this mean the equation have an accuracy less than 1%?
5. BlackLight Power does not do cold fusion work. They have their own thing going with hydrinos, which some have considered an explanation for cold fusion results.
6. Julian Schwinger died in 1993 and the tense of some statements needs to be changed.
7. The episode in 1990 when Gary Taubes and Science magazine made an accusation of experimental fraud at Texas A&M, which was proved false, needs to be covered.
8. A description of tritium results needs to be added.
9. Additional points need to be made in defense of the heat data like “heat after death” and localized melting of palladium implies a temperature of 1554.9 °C (2830.82 °F).
10. Description of helium experiments needs to include hollow cathode experiments.
11. The skeptics assumption of hot fusion results need to be put in clearer terms. -- Ron Marshall 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
12. It needs to be pointed out in the commercial section that a theory that explains the experimental results is necessary before an accurate estimate of commercial potential can be made.-- Ron Marshall 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Just my thoughts - Intro needs a little works I feel, but is obviously a stickler so I'll think on it more before advocating changes. History section is fabulous as far as I can tell, so well done to contributors. Arguements section is a little biased in places, can we find a little more detail on some of the arguements against? Jefffire 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ron, you say: "I am not eager to delete the work of others", and I believe that you resent whenever your work is deleted. Please remember that nobody "owns" anything on Wikipedia (see WP:OWN for details). So, feel free to edit or delete anything in the article, but do not expect it to remain as you last edit it. Below the edit form, wikipedia always says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." It may look chaotic, but that's the way wikipedia works. Pcarbonn 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Pcarbonn, I have to say the only time I don't resent my work being deleted is when it is replaced by something better. I think that your changes in nuclear transmutation improved the flow of the article and I left them alone for that reason. My approach is to try to get important ideas down in a clear way. However, the prose is not always as polished as it could be. -- Ron Marshall 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Guys, have you considered moving the section out to its own article, and then rewriting the current section in summary style? Of course this does not fix any concerns over accurancy - the new article will need to be referenced ( WP:CITE, WP:RS). I agree that the more controversial the topic the more important it is to have good primary sources and if something is disputed to address both sides of the dispute. Thanks/ wangi 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is an attempt to summarize the on-going dispute on the length of this section.
Reasons to present it in about 4 paragraphs (about 1 "screen"):
Reasons to make it longer (about 2 screens):
Pcarbonn 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
SCOPE: http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/McKubreDOEReview.htm
METHOD: Somebody with the time, patience and motivation should probably consider author Charles Beaudette's question in http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005BeaudetteC-ResponseToDOE2004Review.pdf
"The DOE/OS accomplished the best peer-review evaluation that was possible under the difficult circumstances of CFR’s place in the professional community. Nevertheless, it is instructive to ask, What if the editor of an archival journal were to use a similar peer-review procedure by choosing reviewers who were not active in the field, did not know of its key experiments, and were ignorant of its literature?"
STemplar 17:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The article currently states: "However, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between the nuclei separated by several femtometres is greater than interactions between nuclei and electrons by approximately six orders of magnitude." I'm not sure what is meant by this, and how relevant it is in the discussion. Here is a possible rewrite: could an expert confirm it is better?
In order for fusion to occur, the electrostatic force (Coulomb repulsion) that repels the positively charged nuclei must be overcome. Once the distance between the nuclei becomes comparable to one femtometre, the attractive strong interaction takes over and the fusion may occur. However, bringing the nuclei so close together requires an energy on the order of 10 MeV per nucleus, whereas the energies of chemical reactions are on the order of several electron-volts; it is hard to explain where the required energy would come from in room-temperature matter. Pcarbonn 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed Cold Fusion from the list of Good Articles for the following reason:
Pcarbonn 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed the word "accuracy" to "error". I know the word accuracy was used in the original source, but way it was used was confusing. If a measurement has a 1 % error then it is 99% accurate.
They explain that, in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an accuracy of 1% or less. Recognizing these issues, SRI International and other research teams used a flow calorimeter around a close cells: the governing equations become trivial, and the method has an accuracy of 0.5 % or better.
They explain that, in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an error of 1% or less. Recognizing these issues, SRI International and other research teams used a flow calorimeter around closed cells: the governing equations become trivial, and the method has an error of 0.5 % or better.-- Ron Marshall 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I noticed after I made a couple of minor changes that the summary had a caveat saying not to edit it without discussing it.
My main change was to edit the wording in the discussion of the DOE report. The original wording said "CMNS researchers criticized the DOE report..", and I changed this to "Critics claim the DOE report..." I made the edit because the original used an acronym (CMNS) that was frankly confusing, and I believe that acronyms should be deleted whenever possible to do so.
Using the search function showed that CMNS was defined earlier, but since the sentence reads more clearly without the acronym, it's better deleted.
The article currently says : "Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is now called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), a subset of "condensed matter nuclear science"". What are the other parts of CMNS ? How do they differ from LENR ? Do we have a source for this statement ? Because this is in the intro, we need to be absolutely sure of it, and avoid original research. Pcarbonn 05:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone disagrees, I would drop the sentences on published articles in the intro, so that the paragraph looks like this:
This would bring the intro more in line with recommended length in WP:LEAD. Pcarbonn 06:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
"Many say they have detected the generation..."
I would think that we don't, as each statement is further described in the body of the article, with sources. Pcarbonn 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This deleting of references needs to stop. I do not know what purpose it is supposed to serve, but it does not serve the reader and destroys the creditability of the article.-- 24.1.150.218 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Pcarbonn just because Dr. David Goodstein uses derisive terms like “many scientists with a variety of credentials” does not mean you can. Some insults against cold fusion experimenters are allowed because they are part of the history. You can attribute derisive terms to people like Dr. Goodstein, but you can’t make them as an editor.-- Ron Marshall 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the author of this line has had a long enough time to supply a citation and that it should be deleted until someone provides a citation.-- Ron Marshall 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Some claim that the results may be in error because the levels of excess heat reported are often small, 50 to 200 milliwatts (one thousandth of a watt). citation needed
Ron Marshall is crying for more room to present the experimental evidences of transmutation in the argument section. If we give more room for transmutations, we would need to present more experimental evidences for the other arguments too, for appropriate balance. For WP:SIZE reasons, I have put a brake on this. A way out would be to greatly summarize the history part, and move the current content to a separate "cold fusion history" article. This would leave more room for the argument section. The "cold fusion history" article has enough content to stand on its own, and most readers are probably more interested in the arguments than in the history. Does it make sense ? What do you think ? Pcarbonn 10:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not know I was crying for more room, but I am not as concerned about the length of the article as Pcarbonn is. My position is the length is what ever it takes to get the job done right. I do not know how much more space is needed on such subjects as helium, heat, or tritium. I think a description of the experiments and the reasons or evidence why they might be correct or in error is the highest priority and as Pcarbonn says probably what most people want to know. I have said before the history is a lower priority than the current state of experimental evidence. I am okay with moving the history to another article if enough people think that is a wise choice.-- Ron Marshall 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Pcarbonn, I placed Mizuno at the front because he was work was first in chronological order. -- Ron Marshall 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The article does not mention the inventor who is perhaps the leader of the cold fusion field today. The book "Making Waves" by science writer Roger Lewin recounts Dardik's life and work in areas as diverse as medicine and physics. [3] Because of Dardik, the DOE is beginning to get interested in the possibility of cold fusion again. [4] McKubre has visited the lab and said "It's the first clear indication that something practical might come out of all this effort." I am not an expert in cold fusion, but it seems to me that if wikipedia is going to have an article on it - the article should at least contain the most promising results the field has to offer. RonCram 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I added a nuclear transmutation section. I want to know who deleted it and what justification they think they had. If nuclear transmutation evidence is suppressed I will dispute the article.-- Ron Marshall 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC) I found Pcarbonn's comment in the page history. " nuclear transmutations are not relevant for the cold fusion controversy. Move the new content to "condensed matter nuclear science" article". My question is how nuclear reactions can not be relevant? And also what "condensed matter nuclear science" article? My position is that nuclear transmutations prove nuclear reactions take place and therefore are completely relevant and that the article would be with out merit if the evidence is suppressed. -- Ron Marshall 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Rebirth of Cold Fusion, page 217 "According to a 2003 survey performed by Miley, nuclear transmutations have been observed in 15 separate laboratories worldwide (See Appendix B) in both H2O (light) and D2O (heavy) water experiments."
ICCF-12 ABSTRACTS http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/ICCF12/ICCF12-Abstracts.pdf The following topics will be discussed at the conference: • Excess Heat and Related Nuclear Products • Nuclear Processes and Transmutations • Materials and Condensed Matter Conditions • Analyses and Diagnoses Techniques • Innovative Approaches • Theories on Condensed Matter Nuclear Effects • Engineering, Industrial, Political and Philosophical Issues
STemplar 00:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know precisely how the scope of the DOE review was determined. I expect there was some negotiation between DOE and the experimenters to limit the scope of the review. It looks like transmutation, light water experiments, and non electrolysis experiments were left out. I would argue the use of the term “some experiments” versus “many experiments” is inaccurate. I know McKubre has admitted to being reluctant to deal with transmutation, but I thought he had gotten over that. I suspect that there was not much transmutation expertise in this group. I know Chubb has some, but he was probably the only one. One of the bad ideas that skeptics push is that experiments don’t count if you don’t have a theory to go with them. Mizuno was denied publication on this basis. Since they thought they had a plausible heat and helium theory they may have to decided to go with that. So it may have been a political decision. If so it was a mistake. I don’t know if Mizuno or Iwamura speak English. Miley could have spoken for transmutation even though a lot of his work has been with light water. I don’t know how much these five scientists were acting independently or tried to reach a consensus with other scientists.-- Ron Marshall 22:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I general I don't disagree with Pcarbonn's suggestions for editing Nuclear Transmutation. I will edit it in that direction. I don't trust Pcarbonn's editing. I am not favorably impressed by the tone and style of the rest of the article.
For example take this line: "Articles have been published in specialized peer reviewed journals such as Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, and Journal of Fusion Energy. After the initial interest, the only prominent general science journal to publish a cold fusion paper was Naturwissenschaften, in 2005.[2]" This was debated, but it still comes across as political spin. Why is it important to suppress the number of cold fusion papers? Why is a general journal so important?
What about the papers in 2001 and 2002 in the Japanese Journal Of Applied Physics? Is this provable? This looks like original research that is wrong? Every one agrees that the number of papers has declined. However, are we trying to prove the field is dying. The quality of experiments has gone up. With experiments like the Iwamura experiment it is likely to continue. All this work and the line still lacks merit because it is one sided.-- 24.1.151.250 23:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
--
Ron Marshall
16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)== Muon Catalyzed Fusion ==
"The original cold fusion, muon-catalyzed fusion, takes place at room temperature. However it uses muons which require to much energy to create and which have to short of a half life to make the process practical for energy generation. Neither pyroelectric fusion or muon-catalyzed fusion are presented further in this article."
Ron, The first four words that you added here can cause confusion. While the term "cold fusion" was first used in the scientific literature by others, "cold fusion" has come to be known, by and large, as that which was claimed by FP. It was indeed unfortunate that the Wall Street Journal associated the term "cold fusion" with the FP work on March 23,1989, however, this is the term that has become associated with the FP work. So I don't see how those four words help, and I do see how they can confuse things. Please let me know if you disagree. STemplar 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
STemplar, I think the article as written causes confusion. If you want to clarify things in the mind of the reader you can say things like "The popular press sometimes use the term "cold fusion" to describe "globally cold, locally hot" plasma fusion that occurs in table-top apparatus such as pyroelectric fusion or bubble fusion or whatever so they are not confused with PF cold fusion or muon-catalyzed cold fusion. However for scientific and historical reasons muon-catalyzed fusion deserves more attention. Steve Jones did not invent muon-catalyzed fusion or the term cold fusion. There was a Nobel prize given in 1968 for experiments that included muon-catalyzed fusion and it was called in the press cold fusion. I remember because I was an adult in 1968. The muon-catalyzed fusion article the last time I looked did not include anything about the Nobel prize. I also recall reading about other cold fusion theories like cold fusion inside Jupiter to explain the excess heat balance problem with respect to solar radiation which has the conventional explanation of gravitational collapse. The term was around along time before FP and used in a lot of different ways. But muon-catalyzed fusion had the best claim to name until FP when it became muon-catalyzed fusion. The other reason why muon-catalyzed fusion should not be swept under the rug is the scientific one. It shows that with ingenuity fusion reactions can take place at room temperature. I cannot offer my memory as a scholarly resource, but I know what I know.
My initial reason for changing the wording was the terms "locally cold" or "locally hot" are meaningless in muon-catalyzed fusion.-- Ron Marshall 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
STemplar, we could try:
"Historically the term cold fusion was originally applied to what is now called muon-catalyzed fusion. However when the Fleischmann-Pons experiment occured it became known as cold fusion and muon-catalyzed fusion was no longer referred to as cold fusion. Muon-catalyzed fusion takes place at room temperature. However it uses muons which require to much energy to create and which have to short of a half life to make the process practical for energy generation. Neither pyroelectric fusion or muon-catalyzed fusion are presented further in this article."
Or you could write something else. I am just going with what I see as the facts. I do not see this as a do or die issue.-- Ron Marshall 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the list of papers in the "Further reading" section, because choosing some papers over others would be considered as Original Research when the reports and reviews include such list. In other words, the secondary sources should be preferred on this topic, and readers are invited to consult them. Pcarbonn 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a bogus excuse and it looks like censorship.-- Ron Marshall 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This section is getting too big compared to others. The "Cold fusion" article is already longer than the Wikipedia standard (we are not writing a book on cold fusion !). If we were to expand on the calorimetric details or other fine points of the controversy, the article would be losing its impact. Let's try to focus on the main elements that are relevant to the cold fusion article, and let's avoid repetition, or definitions that can be found in related articles. If needed, a secondary article can be written. What do you think? Pcarbonn 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Cold fusion is a controversial subject. The most important thing is that both points of view are fairly represented, that we have a neutral point of view. I do not see any dying trees. The overall article is still to one sided. It looks to me like efforts to shorten the Nuclear transmutation section or the entire article are just another attempt to censor out the experimenters point of view.-- Ron Marshall 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Pcarbonn, I try to respond as quickly as I can, but I have a life and my internet service was not working last night. I do not have much of a problem with what has been written. I have more of a problem with lack of detail about why these experiments could be correct. There seems to be plenty of room for statements about experimental error. It seems like the same DOE statement is repeated at least three times. There are also a lot of statements about pathological science and pseudoscience. It seems like that statements you want to delete in nuclear transmutations are the statements that make it appear like there is less likelihood of error.
I think it is telling about what has been going on in that there was not already a decent section on nuclear transmutations.
I am not eager to delete the work of others. I will list the points that should be addressed. I do not see how addressing these points could increase the text as much as 10%.
1. A statement needs to be made in the introduction that the experimental evidence found includes heat, nuclear transmutations, tritium, and helium, not just heat and nuclear transmutations.
2. A statement needs to be made about the limited scope of the DOE review.
3. Statements need to be added about nuclear transmutations of radioactive isotopes, both as experimental evidence and commercial applications to get rid of radioactive waste.
4. This sentence is confusing: “They explain that, in 1989, Fleischann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and has an accuracy of 1% or less.” Does this mean the equation have an accuracy less than 1%?
5. BlackLight Power does not do cold fusion work. They have their own thing going with hydrinos, which some have considered an explanation for cold fusion results.
6. Julian Schwinger died in 1993 and the tense of some statements needs to be changed.
7. The episode in 1990 when Gary Taubes and Science magazine made an accusation of experimental fraud at Texas A&M, which was proved false, needs to be covered.
8. A description of tritium results needs to be added.
9. Additional points need to be made in defense of the heat data like “heat after death” and localized melting of palladium implies a temperature of 1554.9 °C (2830.82 °F).
10. Description of helium experiments needs to include hollow cathode experiments.
11. The skeptics assumption of hot fusion results need to be put in clearer terms. -- Ron Marshall 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
12. It needs to be pointed out in the commercial section that a theory that explains the experimental results is necessary before an accurate estimate of commercial potential can be made.-- Ron Marshall 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Just my thoughts - Intro needs a little works I feel, but is obviously a stickler so I'll think on it more before advocating changes. History section is fabulous as far as I can tell, so well done to contributors. Arguements section is a little biased in places, can we find a little more detail on some of the arguements against? Jefffire 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ron, you say: "I am not eager to delete the work of others", and I believe that you resent whenever your work is deleted. Please remember that nobody "owns" anything on Wikipedia (see WP:OWN for details). So, feel free to edit or delete anything in the article, but do not expect it to remain as you last edit it. Below the edit form, wikipedia always says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." It may look chaotic, but that's the way wikipedia works. Pcarbonn 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Pcarbonn, I have to say the only time I don't resent my work being deleted is when it is replaced by something better. I think that your changes in nuclear transmutation improved the flow of the article and I left them alone for that reason. My approach is to try to get important ideas down in a clear way. However, the prose is not always as polished as it could be. -- Ron Marshall 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Guys, have you considered moving the section out to its own article, and then rewriting the current section in summary style? Of course this does not fix any concerns over accurancy - the new article will need to be referenced ( WP:CITE, WP:RS). I agree that the more controversial the topic the more important it is to have good primary sources and if something is disputed to address both sides of the dispute. Thanks/ wangi 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is an attempt to summarize the on-going dispute on the length of this section.
Reasons to present it in about 4 paragraphs (about 1 "screen"):
Reasons to make it longer (about 2 screens):
Pcarbonn 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
SCOPE: http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/McKubreDOEReview.htm
METHOD: Somebody with the time, patience and motivation should probably consider author Charles Beaudette's question in http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005BeaudetteC-ResponseToDOE2004Review.pdf
"The DOE/OS accomplished the best peer-review evaluation that was possible under the difficult circumstances of CFR’s place in the professional community. Nevertheless, it is instructive to ask, What if the editor of an archival journal were to use a similar peer-review procedure by choosing reviewers who were not active in the field, did not know of its key experiments, and were ignorant of its literature?"
STemplar 17:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The article currently states: "However, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between the nuclei separated by several femtometres is greater than interactions between nuclei and electrons by approximately six orders of magnitude." I'm not sure what is meant by this, and how relevant it is in the discussion. Here is a possible rewrite: could an expert confirm it is better?
In order for fusion to occur, the electrostatic force (Coulomb repulsion) that repels the positively charged nuclei must be overcome. Once the distance between the nuclei becomes comparable to one femtometre, the attractive strong interaction takes over and the fusion may occur. However, bringing the nuclei so close together requires an energy on the order of 10 MeV per nucleus, whereas the energies of chemical reactions are on the order of several electron-volts; it is hard to explain where the required energy would come from in room-temperature matter. Pcarbonn 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed Cold Fusion from the list of Good Articles for the following reason:
Pcarbonn 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed the word "accuracy" to "error". I know the word accuracy was used in the original source, but way it was used was confusing. If a measurement has a 1 % error then it is 99% accurate.
They explain that, in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an accuracy of 1% or less. Recognizing these issues, SRI International and other research teams used a flow calorimeter around a close cells: the governing equations become trivial, and the method has an accuracy of 0.5 % or better.
They explain that, in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an error of 1% or less. Recognizing these issues, SRI International and other research teams used a flow calorimeter around closed cells: the governing equations become trivial, and the method has an error of 0.5 % or better.-- Ron Marshall 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I noticed after I made a couple of minor changes that the summary had a caveat saying not to edit it without discussing it.
My main change was to edit the wording in the discussion of the DOE report. The original wording said "CMNS researchers criticized the DOE report..", and I changed this to "Critics claim the DOE report..." I made the edit because the original used an acronym (CMNS) that was frankly confusing, and I believe that acronyms should be deleted whenever possible to do so.
Using the search function showed that CMNS was defined earlier, but since the sentence reads more clearly without the acronym, it's better deleted.
The article currently says : "Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is now called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), a subset of "condensed matter nuclear science"". What are the other parts of CMNS ? How do they differ from LENR ? Do we have a source for this statement ? Because this is in the intro, we need to be absolutely sure of it, and avoid original research. Pcarbonn 05:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone disagrees, I would drop the sentences on published articles in the intro, so that the paragraph looks like this:
This would bring the intro more in line with recommended length in WP:LEAD. Pcarbonn 06:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
"Many say they have detected the generation..."
I would think that we don't, as each statement is further described in the body of the article, with sources. Pcarbonn 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This deleting of references needs to stop. I do not know what purpose it is supposed to serve, but it does not serve the reader and destroys the creditability of the article.-- 24.1.150.218 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Pcarbonn just because Dr. David Goodstein uses derisive terms like “many scientists with a variety of credentials” does not mean you can. Some insults against cold fusion experimenters are allowed because they are part of the history. You can attribute derisive terms to people like Dr. Goodstein, but you can’t make them as an editor.-- Ron Marshall 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the author of this line has had a long enough time to supply a citation and that it should be deleted until someone provides a citation.-- Ron Marshall 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Some claim that the results may be in error because the levels of excess heat reported are often small, 50 to 200 milliwatts (one thousandth of a watt). citation needed
Ron Marshall is crying for more room to present the experimental evidences of transmutation in the argument section. If we give more room for transmutations, we would need to present more experimental evidences for the other arguments too, for appropriate balance. For WP:SIZE reasons, I have put a brake on this. A way out would be to greatly summarize the history part, and move the current content to a separate "cold fusion history" article. This would leave more room for the argument section. The "cold fusion history" article has enough content to stand on its own, and most readers are probably more interested in the arguments than in the history. Does it make sense ? What do you think ? Pcarbonn 10:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not know I was crying for more room, but I am not as concerned about the length of the article as Pcarbonn is. My position is the length is what ever it takes to get the job done right. I do not know how much more space is needed on such subjects as helium, heat, or tritium. I think a description of the experiments and the reasons or evidence why they might be correct or in error is the highest priority and as Pcarbonn says probably what most people want to know. I have said before the history is a lower priority than the current state of experimental evidence. I am okay with moving the history to another article if enough people think that is a wise choice.-- Ron Marshall 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Pcarbonn, I placed Mizuno at the front because he was work was first in chronological order. -- Ron Marshall 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The article does not mention the inventor who is perhaps the leader of the cold fusion field today. The book "Making Waves" by science writer Roger Lewin recounts Dardik's life and work in areas as diverse as medicine and physics. [3] Because of Dardik, the DOE is beginning to get interested in the possibility of cold fusion again. [4] McKubre has visited the lab and said "It's the first clear indication that something practical might come out of all this effort." I am not an expert in cold fusion, but it seems to me that if wikipedia is going to have an article on it - the article should at least contain the most promising results the field has to offer. RonCram 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)