![]() | 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 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 |
JzG - - I assume that you will be here in person rather than in 'bot', since you have been forewarned on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (→Cold Fusion: new section)
"There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)"
You (JzG) eliminated a sentence "In 2007 they established their own peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. [1] " based on its link to a "not reliable secondary source" (your claim). If there were a link to a commercial advertisement in the NYT about the JCMNS, instead of the ISCMNS link, would that be acceptable to you?
You are wrong on several counts that betray both your POV or carelessness. Assuming that cold fusion is "fringe" today (with over 4,000,000 hits on Google) and stating that a peer-reviewed journal (JCMNS) is "not reliable" is purely POV (yours or that of those you are supporting). Stating that the link is to the journal rather than to an organization's website (ISCMNS, a reliable secondary source for this purpose) is carelessness. Deleting important material, which had been discussed previously, with only a cryptic and invalid comment is not appropriate: 4 April 2014 JzG ... (they created a journal, source: link to the journal. Which is not a reliable secondary source.)
I went through the anti-fringe argument 1.5 years ago in this talk area and no one could come up with a valid reason for maintaining CF as a fringe topic. The topic could be considered "WP:controversial"; but, despite the major effort of the anti-CF group to keep documentation of mainstream research and publication out of the article, considering it to be fringe is untenable. It is only the unwillingness of that group to allow sufficient post-2000 publications to remain in the article that they can convince themselves (and certain administrators) to maintain the charade of their fringe argument. Aqm2241 ( talk) 17:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Who are the authors of this recent mentioned book? This labeling "example of institutionalized fringe science" is just rant.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This should be mentioned and detailed. The article mentions them as a cluster of specialized journals like International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Journal of Physical Chemistry, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 23:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be useful to know many articles on CF have been published in each journal mentioned here.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 20:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I see that there are a quite large number of quotes in the article from Huizenga's book. I think those quotes are insufficient to establish the context and validity of Huizenga's statements. The quotes should be more detailed. Those w'editors that have access to the book are asked to provide more details.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
A quote/excerpt about unfounded cluttering allegations from WP:TE is useful to be mentioned in this context:
In addition to this quote the requests for facts and reference check are compliant with WP:V#Accessibility, WP:REREQ and WP:REFCHECK.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 09:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I also notice that there are many quotes from Gary Taubes's book? More details should be added to establish the context and validity of his statements.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It is claimed by Taubes that the claimed excess heat in CF is due to ohmic heating due to a isotopic effect of lower conductivity (electrolytic) of heavy water lithium salts solutions compared to those of light water. This has to be verified with tabulated numerical values of conductivity for these solutions, if available. Taubes claims that some values are available for lithium heavy water ionic solutions.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 09:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I am copying the following here to allow other cold fusion skeptics to reply below closed copy:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi! I've noticed your comments from here and your invitation to ask questions regarding the aspects presented there. Could you please explain what is the essence of DS (Discretionary sanctions)? Also is there any potential interference with improvement of content of articles by DS?
Another question refers to your notification of some disruption. What is exactly is the nature of the disruption? I haven't understood very well. Is somehow the use of word disruptive disruptive and should it have been replaced with word less insinuating? An objection to a objectionable (dubious) archiving can't reasonably be considered disruptive/obstructive (or some other strong word).--82.137.15.45 (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Cold fusion is considered fringe by the large majority of the scientific community, and so is considered fringe by the Wikipedia community. As to the feasibility of using cold fusion as a source of energy, I will note that hot fusion is universally accepted (just step outside during the daytime), but that fifty years of research and development have not brought us much closer to using it practically. Fusion is difficult to achieve even under extreme laboratory conditions, and there is no good theoretical explanation of why cold fusion should be achievable under "relatively normal" laboratory conditions. The difficulty of achieving practical hot fusion under extreme conditions is another reason why cold fusion is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there a compelling reason why the supporter(s) of cold fusion have to post from (shifting) IP addresses? Why not create an account or accounts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What about this article? Should be meantioned I think that NASA is working on it: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/Greets-- 92.227.207.78 ( talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That's nonsene. Why is it difficult with that source? NASA is working on it without a doubt, so just write it in the article and point to that source. Nothing wrong with that. What is your problem? It is the freaking homepage of NASA. What does one have to show you that you would accept this source in the article? Greets-- 92.230.48.192 ( talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The recently granted Mitsubishi patent: "Nuclide transmutation device and nuclide transmutation method" should be added to the patent section. 207.23.182.118 ( talk) 21:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I will replace the 1993 patent in the article wit the Mitsubishi one. 207.23.182.118 ( talk) 16:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This US Navy patent granted in 2013 heavily references "cold fusion" and Pons and Fleischmann. The language in the patent section needs to be revised to reflect the fact that the USPTO does apparently grant "cold fusion" patents. Link to relevant patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919 207.23.182.118 ( talk) 20:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
What is the scientific plausibility of Storms's mechanism of hydroton? Should it be mentioned in article?-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 15:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that Storms published the Hydroton theory in The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship Between Observation and Explanation, published by Infinite Press, in June 2014?
A book published by one of the advocates of the theory, on a press created to publish advocates of the theory when their material is rejected elsewhere.... This would work in topics where you can count the notable advocates with the fingers of one hand and there are very little independent sources, such as Expanding Earth. Then you can pad the article with this stuff to give some pointers to the readers.
In cold fusion there are enough secondary sources giving descriptions about the theories put forward by advocates. And way too many competing theories to list them all. Theories get mentioned when independent sources pinpoint them as important for the field for a specific reason. (for example: the "loading ratio" explanation is reported as used by many researchers, the "electron screening" explanation made it to the 2004 DOE report, if the NASA gets around to budgeting LENR then we could mention their explanation, etc.). In other places, we simply say that there are many competing explanations, and none has achieved a place of prominence. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
A request for amendment or clarification was filed with the ArbCom, requesting a clarification that cold fusion is not pseudoscience and so not subject to discretionary sanctions. Since a Request for Comments is currently open on this page, the ArbCom request appears to be an effort to bypass the consensus process. The proper vehicle for determining whether cold fusion is, within Wikipedia, considered pseudoscience is the RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk)
The IP editor who filed the arbitration clarification request states that he or she has an account but edits from the IP address. There is no requirement to create an account in order to edit Wikipedia (except that editing semi-protected articles such as cold fusion requires an auto-confirmed account). However, Wikipedia policies do state that intentionally editing logged out is inappropriate, as it avoids scrutiny, and may be a means for topic-ban evasion or block evasion. I will ask a two-part question. First, do any of the IP addresses editing this talk page have accounts? If so, why are you editing logged out? Second (as I have asked before), is there a good reason why any IP addresses who do not have accounts choose not to create accounts (which would permit editing a semi-protected article)? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
There are at least two parts to this RFC. If other questions are proposed, they can be added. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments other than !votes that are made in the Survey sections will be deleted or moved. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article state that the experiments reporting cold fusion are widely considered to be pathological science?
Yes, cold fusion (CF) should be described as pathological science (PS). Irreproducibility is but one of the traits of PS. What makes an idea PS is wishful thinking leading to experimenter bias. The fact that CF would mean cheap, safe, unlimited energy leads the experimenter to discard or explain away undesirable results, so it is PS. The fact that it gets any funding is, I think, a little like betting on a long-shot in a horse race. Some funding sources put some money into it, even though it's unlikely to 'win', because the return (if it does 'win') would be staggeringly huge. Roches ( talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Seeing this comments and YES/NO answers in the survey subsections I have to ask how is the procedure operating: by counting votes or analyzing arguments?-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
> No. CF is controversial science, --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
> No - it is controversial science Alanf777 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it's pseudoscience. There is nothing controversial about it. Criticisms have been leveled at the field and the cold fusion community does not address them, they just start name-calling...that is not acceptable behavior for scientists. Avoiding the issues at all costs is a clear sign of pseudoscience., and I will guarantee you that mainstream has NOT accepted LENR in any form. Kirk shanahan ( talk) 20:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The key giveaway that you are dealing with pseudoscience is the massive level of denial shown by the CF researchers when any non-nuclear explanation is proffered. They resort to misrepresentation (strawman arguments), personal attacks, and just plain ignoring the facts to maintain their fantasy of a 'nuclear' cause of the effects they observe. Those tactics are not ones accepted by mainstream science, and their belief that those tactics prove their point is the final evidence that they are practicing pseudoscience. Kirk shanahan ( talk) 21:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Career-killing (see comment in vote above) is well documented. And even covered in the article. eg Melvin Miles [4] and "Hagelstein begins the first day of this year’s course with a warning: this field can be dangerous for your career." [5] Alanf777 ( talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
* Comment The water here is by now so muddied that I cannot vote one way or the other in good conscience. What Brian Josephson says is well based and reasonable and I agree strongly enough that I do not think that the term pathological science should be used, but I hesitate to use the term controversial science without qualification, and I am uncertain that this article is the right place to discuss such fine distinctions. On the basis of no special skills or qualifications I personally doubt that there is any merit to the basic theses of CF, but that is not relevant. Looking at the some of the most professional work in the field, I still am not moved to change my mind about the proposed physics, but I also don't feel justified in painting the associated science as pathological on principle. However having seen accounts of great deal of the kind of "work" done by zealots (as opposed to enthusiasts), some of them grossly unable to inspire confidence, I do not see how to draw line between the undeniably pathological attempts (most of them informal and IMAO incompetent) to prove the reality of the class of effects, and the reasonable (but perhaps arguable or controversial?) research attempting to investigate it. Sorry, I hate doing this, but I abstain on the grounds that I cannot see a reasonable context being established. JonRichfield ( talk) 06:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Anaxial: That equivocation could only be used if the sources do. Otherwise you are hedging an unambiguous statement from the sources for no obvious reason, Second Quantization ( talk) 07:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
At this point, the count of properly placed !votes appears to be 13 Yes, 4 No. There are also some improperly placed !votes in Threaded Discussion. Since closing is not a vote but a function of strength of arguments, I have requested an uninvolved closer. Anyone who has misplaced their !vote may add it to the Survey before the close. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To which of the four categories defined in WP:ARBPS in principles 15 through 18 should the article say cold fusion is considered to be? 1. Almost universally considered pseudoscience. 2. Generally considered pseudoscience, but with a following, such as astrology. 3. Widely accepted, but considered by some to be pseudoscience, such as psychoanalysis. 4. Alternative scientific theories or formulations.
I really didn't find a category that fits. Category 5 -- it is widely regarded as pseudoscience, but may, like continental drift, eventually be proven correct. Alanf777 ( talk) 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this procedure operates, if it is consensus probing it should work on analyzing arguments rather than counting votes.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 20:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, neither of the four categories presented as options fit. Perhaps another category should be created Controversial science.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 20:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Alanf777 re: faulty or fudged MIT experiments...they weren't. There is a big hoopla in the CF field about the MIT experiments because Eugene Mallove made a big stink over them at the time by resigning his position in the MIT Press Office. Gene claimed the data were 'altered' to cover up real cold fusion results. He even wrote an article on it for his magazine (Infinite Energy, Issue 24, 1999, p.2). However, what that article shows is that between the original data collection and final presentation, the MIT authors chose to alter the appearance of the data plots, which is entirely normal and within the purview of every author. They apparently did two things. First they changed to plotting time window averages of the raw data instead of plotting the raw data -which is not an issue. Second, they suppressed (by not plotting) parts of the raw data that showed large baseline shifts. This is most likely due to the fact that everyone realizes the baseline isn't supposed to shift (just as remarked upon by Dr. McKubre in his 1998 EPRI report), and thus just confused the issue from their viewpoint. The issue being that they ran for many hours and got no peaks like they were supposed to get. (This showed that full reproducibility had not been obtained.) What they didn't know back then was the shifting baseline can arise from a CCS. The calibration equation was of the form y = mX + b, and changing b shifts the baseline. I believe Mallove considered the baseline shifts to be evidence of CF, while the MIT people were looking for peaks. Mallove thought an upwards shift in baseline meant excess heat was being produced, which it does in theory, but the CCS problem means it is not real heat. Kirk shanahan ( talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Alanf777 re: criteria - You list 3 sources (but only reference 2) - Re: Hagelstein - he is one of the 10 authors who failed to understand my CCS proposal, therefore I doubt his comments on calorimetry will contain anything relating to my work, therefore his comments are likely irrelevant. If you care to reference what you're talking about I may be able to check that.
Re: other two – The speculative CCS mechanism includes the formation of a surface active state. It serves as a way to cause H2+O2 bubbles to combine and adhere on the electrode surface long enough for combustion to occur. The SAS most likely involves impurity adatoms of some sort. The identity and configuration of these are unknown. Storms' criteria and the Cravens and Letts criteria are similar. The criteria can be simplified to 'loading ratio', 'impurities', 'high current density', and 'triggering'. 'Loading ratio’ is a red herring, and is one of those spots where CFers ignore the facts. The Storms data I reanalyzed were collected from platinum electrodes, no palladium present. Platinum does not absorb any appreciable amount of hydrogen, so it never develops any loading to speak of. Big problems with Ni too. The probable impact of loading ratio on Pd is the surface structuring that arises from dislocation loop punching during loading. 'Impurities' is of course important. 'High current density' would favor observing the effect via CCS since it would increase the number of bubbles resident on the electrode surface at any given time. 'Triggering', i.e. inducing non-eq conditions seems pretty vacuous to me. I mean they consider flipping a nearby resistive heater off and on a 'trigger'. You have to be more specific in order to contemplate how it would affect the CCS mechanism. In other words, the criteria proposed also fit the CCS mechanism as far as we can tell right now. When you have two equally-valid alternative explanations for a set of data, you can’t just pick one and ignore the other. That’s pseudoscience. I recommend you go back to a ‘2’. Kirk shanahan ( talk) 16:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I count 12 !votes for Option 2, 1 !vote for Option 3, and 3 !votes for Option 4. Because this is not a numerical vote but an assessment of strength of arguments, I have requested an uninvolved closer. If there are any misplaced !votes not in Survey, they should be moved before closure. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Kirk shanahan is (has been) an active player in the field, and seems to be basing his objections largely on a feud with other researchers. I think this rises to the level of a conflict of interest, so his votes should be disqualified. (I admit that I have been following this field closely and have been convinced by the "preponderance of evidence", if not quite by "beyond reasonable doubt" that CF is real, and is backed by legitimate, though outlawed science.) Alanf777 ( talk) 18:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(Belated comment) 188.27.144.144 states that "ignorable comments", having less argumentive value, should include mine, presumably my comment at #Survey that the counter-arguments tend to be more rhetorical than scientific. I beg to differ. I was commenting on Insertcleverphrasehere's reference ( unsigned edit) to Alfred Wegener (notable re his Theory of continental drift), and implicitly to Alanf777's subsequent invocation (24 June) of "continental drift" as an example of something eventually proved correct. The implicit argument is that "mainstream science is wrong to reject cold fusion, just as it was wrong to reject continental drift." But as I have commented, to claim a parallel circumstance by invoking Wegener (or Galileo, Prusiner, etc.) is not a scientific argument. (That is, not about the scientific evidence itself.) Whether the scientific establishment has properly evaluated the scientific evidence is, at best, a meta-argument. Which can be valid, but is at a different level. It is my observation that proponents of pseudoscientific topics tend towards such meta-arguments, as we have seen here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
A previous case from the annals of science may help people clarify their thinking in regard to the cold fusion case, and it is perhaps more relevant than the case of low production success making chips that someone cited above. I refer to my own 1962 prediction that a superconducting tunnel junction could carry a current at zero voltage. Soon after I had published my calculation, Nobel Laureate John Bardeen, one of the discoverers of superconductivity, categorised it as erroneous science, saying the calculation was wrong as the electron pairing it assumed did not extend into the barrier (Bardeen was wrong in this respect, it turned out). The interesting thing though was that experiment seemed to confirm it being a non-effect: John Adkins and I found no supercurrent through our junctions down to 1nA (nanoamp), even when we compensated the Earth's magnetic field in case that was suppressing the effect. It was not till 9 months after that confirmation was obtained by Anderson and Rowell. But the point was that there were great difficulties at first in getting good junctions, because if you make the oxide layer thin enough to get supercurrents you are liable to get short circuits, so it isn't tunnelling. Adkins and I found great variability in I-V characteristics from one junction to another. There is a story of scientist A asking scientist B "how do you manage to get good junctions?" and being told "we mix in a little of the vapour from X brand of hair oil". He thought scientist B was joking, but when he visited his lab he noticed to his surprise a bottle of brand X hair oil sitting on the shelf. Such experimental difficulties, airbrushed out of published science, are what real science is about.
I was lucky in that methods for making good junctions reliably were found, so there was no dispute about the reality of the phenomenon. But it could quite conceivably have turned out that only a small proportion of people were lucky and the reality of the supercurrents would still have been a matter of dispute. But if the experimenters concerned used good methodology it might have been accepted that the effect was real. However, people have actually to visit the labs concerned to get a clear idea if experiments are being conducted properly, and the people who make up the consensus that CF is not real never do this. --
Brian Josephson (
talk)
08:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
These have not been covered in mainstream US media yet, but Bill gates visited ENEA (reported in Italian media as a possible $1B investment), the Indian Government is being urged to restart research (eg BARC), and the Chinese may already have done so (Rossi/Industrial Heat). Note : I am also providing links to "non" reliable sources, as they have translated the italian, and in some cases got further information. I do not expect these to go into the article. Original http://www.larena.it/stories/Economia/947605_gates_finanza_lenea_vicini_ad_unintesa/?refresh_ce#scroll=911 Comment: Gates Foundation Close to a $1 Billion Agreement to Fund ENEA for Fusion Research [Update: Human Translation into English] < http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/16/report-gates-foundation-close-to-a-1-billion-agreement-fund-enea-for-fusion-research/> Official statement from the University of Verona : http://www.univrmagazine.it/sito/vedi_articolo.php?id=2806 "Gates, accompanied by Head and scientists of the center, wanted to find out the research activities of the institute in the field of low energy nuclear reaction, LENR, better known as “cold fusion, (fusione fredda)”. The center ENEA Frascati is, in fact, considered to excellence in the world in this area. Thanks also to the presence of scientists among the most qualified in the field of cold fusion such as Vittorio Violante. This is why the United States has involved ENEA, the only non-US agency, a research program of great scientific importance in the field of LENR." Comment : http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/18/university-of-verona-statement-gates-visit-was-to-investigate-lenr/
Secondly, the Indian government is being urged to restart cold fusion research : Business Standard (Reliable regional print newspaper, reprinted by Gulf News) http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/modi-government-urged-to-revive-cold-fusion-114111700763_1.html This specifically mentions Rossi, and that the Chinese (through Rossi/Industrial Heat) may already have started research : I have already proposed adding to the Energy Catalyzer article. "Some top nuclear scientists are urging India's new government to revive research on "cold fusion", saying it has the potential to provide answers to the country's energy problem." .... " According to Srinivasan, research on cold fusion needs to be revived now since "very interesting things are happening in this field" and people like Bill Gates -- who Nov 12 visited the Italian laboratory to observe LENR experiments being carried out there -- were "seriously considering funding cold fusion/LENR". Srinivasan said that recent technological breakthroughs had resulted in the development of suitcase-sized LENR reactors that can be mass produced.".
I'm not sure where in the article to put these. Possibly in a new section "Commercial Cold Fusion". Alanf777 ( talk) 18:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be missing. Can somebody fix it? Alanf777 ( talk) 19:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
In "Cold fusion: comments on the state of scientific proof" [2] by Michael C. H. McKubre (published in the section mentioned above) McKubre argues that:
If pressed the authority of experts in the fields of nuclear or particle physics are invoked, or early publications of null results by ‘influential laboratories’ – Caltech, MIT, Bell Labs, Harwell. Almost to a man these experts have long ago retired or deceased, and the authors of these early publications of ‘influential laboratories’ have long since left the field and not returned. The issue of ‘long ago’ is important as it establishes a time window in which information was gathered sufficient for some to draw a permanent conclusion – some time between 23 March 1989 and ‘long ago’. Absurdly for a matter of this seeming importance, ‘long ago’ usually dates to the Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) on 1 May 1989. So the whole matter was reported and then comprehensively dismissed within 40 days (and, presumably, 40 nights).
This tells volumes on our approach here at this Wiki page, where we also focus heavily on those 40 days and those labs (Caltech, MIT, Bell, Harwell)
I would argue that the condition of certainty is approached asymptotically – we achieve the comfortable condition of ‘knowing’ by painstaking repetition and accumulation of knowledge over periods of years, decades or generations. Very few people ever attempt this exercise – those that do are called experts – those who do not look to these experts for answers. What is sought is not fact, but patterns and consistencies of behaviours. In his most recent book7, Ed Storms reviews over 900 publications sorting through these patterns in the attempt to create systematic order for those of us with less time, talent or devotion. By any standards Storms is an expert on the subject of cold fusion – one could argue that he is the preeminent expert on this topic. But where does one go to get a countervailing ‘expert’ opinion? I would argue that there is no such place or person and has not been for more than two decades, and that this is a problem. Individuals selected to evaluate the accumulated evidence or some subset of evidence with an open mind invariably come to the conclusion that the case for cold fusion is not disproven (the experience of Rob Duncan and 60 min comes to mind8). To hear a counter argument one must approach experts in related fields and ask their opinion about matters that they have not studied. Of course, all one can expect is an intuitive, emotive or self-serving response.
Which again speaks volumes that Ed Storms is consistently regarded on this talk page as being a disreputable source, (failure to be allowed to cite his work even when published in peer reviewed journals) despite being the preeminent expert on the topic. And that other so-called 'experts' are consistently cited despite not actually being involved in, or having studied, the field of cold fusion at all.
McKubre concludes:
From what we know today, and Figure 1 clearly illuminates, none of the cells in any of these early cited null studies would be expected to produce any excess heat. Not only for the reasons of a loading deficiency (as stated explicitly); the durations of the experiments were wholly insufficient. The Caltech work13 was completed and conclusions made public within 40 days of the Fleischmann and Pons public announcement. None of the Caltech experiments was operated for the 300 h (12.5 days) that was the minimum initiation time observed at SRI for bulk Pd cathodes and the entire set of Caltech experiments was complete well within the 1000 h (42 days) established as the minimum time of observation at SRI (see note 6). In addition, the current density stimuli used in these early null experiments were too small to reliably produce the effect and the deuterium flux was not measured. None of the criteria of eq. (1) was shown to be met, at least three demonstrably were not. In hindsight it is evident that the authors13–15 were victims of ‘unknown unknowns’, and perhaps ‘undue haste’ – but this is understandable in the frantic circumstances of 1989. What is important is that these experiments be recognized for what they are, not what they are not. They are important members of the experimental database that teaches us under what conditions one encounters FPHE. They are not any part of a proof of nonexistence of the phenomenon and cannot be used to support such a conclusion; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
in other words, pretty much all of the citations that we are using in this wiki article that were negative have been proven to have been victims of Unknown Unknowns, and do not now meet the criteria as reputable sources for determining the validity of the CF effect, except as a historical perspective on what was done wrong . from the now known criteria necessary for the production of excess heat, they would never be expected to work.
Source: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/forthcoming/CS-1.pdf
Insertcleverphrasehere ( talk) 01:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review.
Silly me. This special section in a small, unimportant journal, is of interest only to a small, unimportant population of scientists in a small, unimportant country. Alanf777 ( talk) 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
There was a rumor that Science Journal was hacked by North Korean activists to discredit a leading science nation. Its quite logical that all these CF fringe scientists get funded by North Korean government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 ( talk) 11:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
[Edited] I just typed LENR at the prompt and was redirected here. LENR is quite clearly not cold fusion, the theory is totally different, and unlike cold fusion LENR seems to be based (at least partly) on real and rigorous science and scientific theory. This article was published on a NASA site -
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/ Note that LENR is a speculative theoretical field - looking at potential future mechanisms for low energy nuclear reactions for energy production, it is not about validating or proving existing experiments. Without such research science would barely be able to progress at all, so attacking it by labelling it as pseudo-science beforehand is particularly annoying.
As for the article itself parts of it are totally non-NPOV and aggressive bordering on rude. It is also far far too long. In articles dealing with subjects labeled as pseudo-science or fringe science care needs to be taken - especially as supposedly neutral and scientifically trustworthy sources quite frequently abandon all neutrality and scientific principles in order to make stronger arguments. Sceptics are often no better at science than the people they criticize and this does not help the real debate. Two classic examples of subjects that were heavily attacked and debunked for decades as pseudoscience were manned flight and rocketry, but really the examples from history are almost endless...
Its almost certain that cold fusion is a complete fantasy and that either the reaction was not fusion or there was some kind of experimental error or fabrication, but the proof is not 100% absolute. Disproving negatives is very difficult especially in areas where the scientific base is not 100% complete, which is most of science.
Perhaps the real crime lies with the media, who always jump on every small discovery or idea and then blow it completely out of proportion, and then once bored jump the other way and attack it like a pack of hyenas - wrong both ways...
Lucien86 (
talk)
23:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It was fixed by glowing sceptics afterwards. Splitting would be a nice feature. Anyway, there is at least a section which differentiates LENR and friends from P&F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.45.23 ( talk) 09:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Are there more meanings to the term cold fusion? This phyiscist Robert Smolanczuk has an article with cold fusion in title Smolanczuk, R. (1999). "Production a mechanism of superheavy nuclei in cold fusion reactions". Physical Review C. 59 (5): 2634–2639. Bibcode: 1999PhRvC..59.2634S. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.59.2634..-- 86.125.182.23 ( talk) 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I see this discussion and I think it would be an improvement to the article to specify if the term has other meanings beside the main one presented here. If there are multiple meanings, perhaps a link to cold fusion (disambiguation) is useful. So the WP:NOTFORUM aspect has no place here.-- 5.15.177.195 ( talk) 08:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that there are indeed multiple meanings as the disambiguation page says. Perhaps an article cold fusion (superheavy nuclei) should be created.-- 5.15.177.195 ( talk) 08:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
What concerns the patent applications, there is probably a pending german application from Airbus describing an LENR reactor. https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=bibdat&docid=DE102013110249A1 Its not granted yet, but quite noteable. 143.161.248.25 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the following content regarding patents is relevant to the patent section and should be included because it could be one reason why some patents related to LENR/Cold Fusion have been rejected:
A patent law firm in Silicon Valley, California that represents at least one LENR firm sued the USPTO using the Freedom of Information Act procedure to uncover a secret program for delaying patents called the Sensitive Application and Warning System (SAWS). Once subjected to scrutiny the USPTO agreed to cancel the SAWS procedure. [10] ( Climate Challenge ( talk) 21:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC))
Fixed link Climate Challenge ( talk) 18:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is a link to USPTO explaining SAWS / STATUS http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/patent-application-initiatives/sensitive-application-warning-system
And some supplementary link: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/12/22/ex-insiders-perspective-of-saws/id=52821/
I think mentioning the saws program in the patents section is mandatory as there is lots of reliable source out there - and CF is covered by SAWS with TC2800.
Link to the FOIA Response: http://ipwatchdogs.com/materials/SAWS-FOIA-Respose.pdf 143.161.248.25 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The two-part RFC has now been closed. Cold fusion, or reports of cold fusion, may be said to be considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. Cold fusion may also be categorized in Category 2 as defined by the ArbCom in WP:ARBPS, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience but have a following. Any edits that differ with those conclusions are against consensus, and so are disruptive. Any questions that do not contain sufficient to be answered, or any edit requests that do not contain sufficient detail to be understood, may be ignored, but, if persistent, are disruptive editing, and can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement.
Now that the RFC has been closed and consensus is established, I will be requesting that this talk page, but not the article page, be unprotected, to allow comments by unregistered editors. However, any disruptive editing of this talk page (which has happened more than once) will either result in its semi-protection again, or in Arbitration Enforcement, or both.
Now that the RFC has been closed, we can move on.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea what this is all about, but you certainly do not have my agreement to the proposition that CF is considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. The fact that papers on the subject have been published by regular peer-reviewed journals disproves the proposition. This whole business has the air of a coup and smells distinctly nasty. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 11:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Does this mean that ANY addition to the article supporting the proposition that Cold Fusion is real, and that its investigation is legitimate, if controversial, science, is against the "consensus" and will be regarded as disruptive? Alanf777 ( talk) 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I would think this article needs to be revisited as pseudoscience: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.6.9.83 ( talk) 06:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The research of Steven Jones at Brigham Young has not been vetted in this article. It is very significant and peer reviewed in Nature. Also, the back-stabbing, slanderous activity of competing physics labs is significant, especially when they all secretly patented their unique versions of the experiments. Most of the recent patents do not say "cold fusion". They say "muon catalyzed", "piezonuclear" or "plasma" experiments because the patent office would summarily trash can anything that said "cold fusion". This kind of sophomoric playground nonsense always occurs in scientific organizations prior to paradigm shift (the rush to publish, own and monetize). CF is recognized as occurring at atomic levels, just not at practical energy-producing levels, yet. I think I know what they are doing wrong, and I am not talking. I need a couple hundred thousand dollars to prove it.
D8. Publishable results obtained in 1988-1989
In August 1988, we did gamma-ray studies, using the sodium-iodine detector easiest set up. As before, we saw only non-significant hints of gamma production in our 3 inch sodium iodide counter, so we decided to concentrate on using the neutron spectrometer, which was fully conditioned for use in late 1988. Our first studies with this spectrometer were done using titanium, palladium, tantalum, nickel, aluminum, iron, and lanthanum. We also used several methods of loading deuterium into metals, including the original electrochemical method. Thus, we performed anew the experiment which we had started in May 1986, namely electrolytic infusion of deuterium into metals, but with a much-improved neutron detector. Of these experiments, Paul Palmer records: "Steve [Jones] and Bart [Czirr] have set up experiments exactly as we did a year or so ago and looked for fusion-generated neutrons in Bart's liquid-scintillator, low-resolution spectrometer.....As in the previous work, the results were tantalizingly positive." Within a few weeks, the results had reached a statistical significance of over five standard deviations. We also found correlations between tritium detected in Hawaii and volcanic eruptions there, in agreement with expectations that piezonuclear fusion occurs in the earth. We decided in early February to publish our results. ........
It is noteworthy that our paper to Nature was published (April 1989, 338:737)
Danarothrock ( talk) 09:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Thats soo oldschool. Nowadays, truth is democratic ;-)). If nobody reads your papers - they are fraud. Even the attached handwritings are highly suspicious. Everybody knows that serious science involves the usage of computers. lol. "The two-part RFC has now been closed. Cold fusion, or reports of cold fusion, may be said to be considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. Cold fusion may also be categorized in Category 2 as defined by the ArbCom in WP:ARBPS, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience but have a following. Any edits that differ with those conclusions are against consensus, and so are disruptive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 ( talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I respect roles and processes. Cold Fusion in its original physical sense is "dead". The article covers this issue with "There are many reasons why known fusion reactions are unlikely explanations for the excess heat and associated claims described above." This means that a (known) fusion reaction has to have properties like production of deuterium and gamma radiation. But the decision if this article deals with low temperature effect with known fusion reaction characteristics - or anomalous heat generation without known fusion characteristics isnt taken. Its well mixed up - and even the move to relable anomalous heat generation without known fusion characteristics as "LENR" is misinterpreted as synonym for cold fusion - instead of a clear new generated category in physics. So there would be some need to differentiate between CF in physical and common sense - as well as a differentiation with LENR - which is definitely something different as CF. Does ArbCom decision apply to all this 3 different items ? Thats the primary question. Does ArbCom decision covers these aspects ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.182.233 ( talk) 23:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
References
Since there is a dearth of references in this article on the subject since 2011 (and only a very few from 2000, relative to the number of research articles available on the topic), it might be worthwhile adding a reference and link ( http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/spl.php?splid=2) to the 25 Feb 2015 issue of Current Science that has a special section on low energy nuclear reactions. It contains 30 peer-reviewed papers (theoretical and experimental)on the subject and they are all available online for free. Most of the papers are of a review nature (with references to prior work) and new research results were not encouraged by the guest editors, so there is only a very few cases of previously unreported research in the papers presented. Since I am one of the guest editors, I am not allowed to contribute this information to the Wiki article. I hope that someone else will do so. Aqm2241 ( talk) 17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cold fusion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting, for more parsable grammar, a change of
to
75.88.40.163 ( talk) 15:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Search Wikipedia for LENR, and you get redirected to this page, which is all about the discredited Fleischmann–Pons experiment.
There is a mention of LENR, it suggests that it's an alternative name used by a small group of researchers who are continuing to attempt the Fleischmann–Pons experiment.
I was trying to find out more information about LENR research which has gone well beyond this, essentially not doing traditional fusion of deutrium to Helium but from Nickel to Copper, or Carbon to Nickel. This page seems irrelevant to the subject.
Here is a paper illustrating a typical contemporary LENR experiment:
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
And here is an interesting article from NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/
I do hope you gentlemen can stop squabbling about a 25 year old experiment and get on with explaining what is happening with contemporary LENR research.
Either that or stop redirecting LENR here because it's very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Irwin ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I didn't. I started reading this (rather long) talk page at the top, but after reading about 10 minutes of FP bashing and naval gazing I gave up. In effect at the bottom the discussion does get more to the point.
But the real issue is that the caboodle (including talk page) really could be condensed more than a zip file full of spaces:
1) What is Cold Fusion (Fusion reactions achieved without artificial sun like conditions)
1) Summary of PF, problems with results and non repeatably; Link to a specific article about the experiment and the controversy etc (it is relevant to science history etc).
3) A brief paragraph for each of the hypothesized or attempted methods, citing experimental work in course, or linking to specific articles for more detailed experiments such as NIF's lasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.75.112 ( talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There is an external link to [ [11]] but perhaps a better link might be:
http://lenr-canr.org/index/DownloadOnly/DownloadOnly.php
which is a php generated table which can be sorted by publication date and author name. Most of the pdf links on the iscmns.org site go to the lenr-canr.org site anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.201.101.145 ( talk) 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Since there is a dearth of references in this article on the subject since 2011 (and only a very few from 2000, relative to the number of research articles available on the topic), it might be worthwhile adding a reference and link ( http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/spl.php?splid=2) to the 25 Feb 2015 issue of Current Science that has a special section on low energy nuclear reactions. It contains 30 peer-reviewed papers (both theoretical and experimental)on the subject of cold fusion and they are all available online for free. Most of the papers are of a review nature (with references to prior work) and new research results were not encouraged by the guest editors, so there is only a very few cases of previously unreported research in the papers presented. Since I am one of the guest editors, I am not allowed to contribute this information to the Wiki article. I hope that someone else will do so. Aqm2241 ( talk) 17:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
An interesting link [12]. The first paper mentioned in the list addresses theoretical perspective on CF/LENR/CMNS.-- 5.15.185.29 ( talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The authors of the review are from a mathematics department which is very suitable because the theory in CF as well as in conventional nuclear physics is/must be undoubtedly mathematical belonging to mathematical physics.-- 5.15.185.29 ( talk) 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
'Cold Fusion' was a fusion of hydrogen atoms to produce helium using a lattice to reduce the required energy. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions use an as yet unproven technique (Muon like catalyzed fusion perhaps, or other theories like Widom Larson or quantum tunneling have been proposed) to slip a proton-electron hydrogen atom into a much larger metal atom like Nickel or tin or iron, then there is radio-active decay that releases energy, an electron released or the proton and electron in the nucleus collapse onto a neutron. A redirect from LENR to cold fusion is like redirecting from Quantum Mechanics to an article on gambling. The net effect is that about five years of peer reviewed material and break through science are being entirely ignored and not reported on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.249.4 ( talk) 17:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this should be mentioned in article: the launching of a CMNS research program at Tohoku University http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/30/cold-fusion-by-2020-olympics-clean-planet-inc-and-tohoku-university-launch-clean-energy-lenr-research-lab/.
Any thoughts/comments to this news suggestion/addition to article?-- 5.15.12.43 ( talk) 10:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Eurekalert - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-04/tu-eps041415.php
AsianScientist - http://www.asianscientist.com/2015/04/academia/tohoku-university-collaborates-clean-planet-study-condensed-matter-nuclear-reaction/
...To sum it up - we have the original press release on the homepage of the involved institute - ...And we have 2 serious sources which comment that in english. ...That should be enough to add this information. 143.161.248.25 ( talk)
I think that Tohoku University is a reliable source - if they state something in an official press release. Do you send an independent peer review squad to cern every time there is a cern press release ? 143.161.248.25 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Are there more meanings to the term cold fusion? This phyiscist Robert Smolanczuk has an article with cold fusion in title Smolanczuk, R. (1999). "Production a mechanism of superheavy nuclei in cold fusion reactions". Physical Review C. 59 (5): 2634–2639. Bibcode: 1999PhRvC..59.2634S. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.59.2634..-- 86.125.182.23 ( talk) 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I see this discussion and I think it would be an improvement to the article to specify if the term has other meanings beside the main one presented here. If there are multiple meanings, perhaps a link to cold fusion (disambiguation) is useful. So the WP:NOTFORUM aspect has no place here.-- 5.15.177.195 ( talk) 08:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that there are indeed multiple meanings as the disambiguation page says. Perhaps an article cold fusion (superheavy nuclei) should be created.-- 5.15.177.195 ( talk) 08:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important that article specify if there is a connection between the two meanings by, say, nuclear structure and reaction mecanisms details.-- 5.15.12.182 ( talk) 19:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There are many factual errors in your biased piece. One that is fairly easy to prove concerns the early failures to replicate Fleichmann and Pons. The peer reviewed paper by Dr. McKubre in Current Science http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0495.pdf explains why those efforts at replication were doomed to fail and gives examples of how to replicate the effect.
That Current Science published a special section on LENR in February gives lie to your published forecast that the E-Cat would be shown to be a fraud by 2012. In fact there is a 1 MW plant built by Industrial Heat LLC that has started running a one year trial - for several months now. Mats Lewan reports that it is working well. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactions&featid=10094 98.115.160.80 ( talk) 20:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cold fusion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I consider that although there is no accepted theoretical explanation of what has been called cold Fusion, now often called LENR, Low energy nuclear reaction, There are a number of theories and the "FACT" of the phenomena with hundreds of papers, tests and patents can not reasonably be refuted. The wikipedia page needs to be re-written to reflect this. Please initiate a discussion about this with authorities in the field. Sources are too many to list. Inteligent searches can reveal them. They may well be covered in part on other Wikipediav pages. Richard Wells, email. rich grey@msn.com
88.145.36.193 ( talk) 00:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that the article should specify if there are some reported results in peer-reviewed journal articles from European Physical Journal, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy or other (mainstream?) journals on using pseudo palladium in CF experiments.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that is possible that the idea of using pseudo-palladium in experiments have not occurred to people in the field.-- 5.15.49.4 ( talk) 11:25, 12 June 2015 (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 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 |
JzG - - I assume that you will be here in person rather than in 'bot', since you have been forewarned on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (→Cold Fusion: new section)
"There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)"
You (JzG) eliminated a sentence "In 2007 they established their own peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. [1] " based on its link to a "not reliable secondary source" (your claim). If there were a link to a commercial advertisement in the NYT about the JCMNS, instead of the ISCMNS link, would that be acceptable to you?
You are wrong on several counts that betray both your POV or carelessness. Assuming that cold fusion is "fringe" today (with over 4,000,000 hits on Google) and stating that a peer-reviewed journal (JCMNS) is "not reliable" is purely POV (yours or that of those you are supporting). Stating that the link is to the journal rather than to an organization's website (ISCMNS, a reliable secondary source for this purpose) is carelessness. Deleting important material, which had been discussed previously, with only a cryptic and invalid comment is not appropriate: 4 April 2014 JzG ... (they created a journal, source: link to the journal. Which is not a reliable secondary source.)
I went through the anti-fringe argument 1.5 years ago in this talk area and no one could come up with a valid reason for maintaining CF as a fringe topic. The topic could be considered "WP:controversial"; but, despite the major effort of the anti-CF group to keep documentation of mainstream research and publication out of the article, considering it to be fringe is untenable. It is only the unwillingness of that group to allow sufficient post-2000 publications to remain in the article that they can convince themselves (and certain administrators) to maintain the charade of their fringe argument. Aqm2241 ( talk) 17:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Who are the authors of this recent mentioned book? This labeling "example of institutionalized fringe science" is just rant.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This should be mentioned and detailed. The article mentions them as a cluster of specialized journals like International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Journal of Physical Chemistry, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 23:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be useful to know many articles on CF have been published in each journal mentioned here.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 20:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I see that there are a quite large number of quotes in the article from Huizenga's book. I think those quotes are insufficient to establish the context and validity of Huizenga's statements. The quotes should be more detailed. Those w'editors that have access to the book are asked to provide more details.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
A quote/excerpt about unfounded cluttering allegations from WP:TE is useful to be mentioned in this context:
In addition to this quote the requests for facts and reference check are compliant with WP:V#Accessibility, WP:REREQ and WP:REFCHECK.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 09:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I also notice that there are many quotes from Gary Taubes's book? More details should be added to establish the context and validity of his statements.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It is claimed by Taubes that the claimed excess heat in CF is due to ohmic heating due to a isotopic effect of lower conductivity (electrolytic) of heavy water lithium salts solutions compared to those of light water. This has to be verified with tabulated numerical values of conductivity for these solutions, if available. Taubes claims that some values are available for lithium heavy water ionic solutions.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 09:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I am copying the following here to allow other cold fusion skeptics to reply below closed copy:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi! I've noticed your comments from here and your invitation to ask questions regarding the aspects presented there. Could you please explain what is the essence of DS (Discretionary sanctions)? Also is there any potential interference with improvement of content of articles by DS?
Another question refers to your notification of some disruption. What is exactly is the nature of the disruption? I haven't understood very well. Is somehow the use of word disruptive disruptive and should it have been replaced with word less insinuating? An objection to a objectionable (dubious) archiving can't reasonably be considered disruptive/obstructive (or some other strong word).--82.137.15.45 (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Cold fusion is considered fringe by the large majority of the scientific community, and so is considered fringe by the Wikipedia community. As to the feasibility of using cold fusion as a source of energy, I will note that hot fusion is universally accepted (just step outside during the daytime), but that fifty years of research and development have not brought us much closer to using it practically. Fusion is difficult to achieve even under extreme laboratory conditions, and there is no good theoretical explanation of why cold fusion should be achievable under "relatively normal" laboratory conditions. The difficulty of achieving practical hot fusion under extreme conditions is another reason why cold fusion is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there a compelling reason why the supporter(s) of cold fusion have to post from (shifting) IP addresses? Why not create an account or accounts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What about this article? Should be meantioned I think that NASA is working on it: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/Greets-- 92.227.207.78 ( talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That's nonsene. Why is it difficult with that source? NASA is working on it without a doubt, so just write it in the article and point to that source. Nothing wrong with that. What is your problem? It is the freaking homepage of NASA. What does one have to show you that you would accept this source in the article? Greets-- 92.230.48.192 ( talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The recently granted Mitsubishi patent: "Nuclide transmutation device and nuclide transmutation method" should be added to the patent section. 207.23.182.118 ( talk) 21:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I will replace the 1993 patent in the article wit the Mitsubishi one. 207.23.182.118 ( talk) 16:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This US Navy patent granted in 2013 heavily references "cold fusion" and Pons and Fleischmann. The language in the patent section needs to be revised to reflect the fact that the USPTO does apparently grant "cold fusion" patents. Link to relevant patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919 207.23.182.118 ( talk) 20:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
What is the scientific plausibility of Storms's mechanism of hydroton? Should it be mentioned in article?-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 15:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that Storms published the Hydroton theory in The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship Between Observation and Explanation, published by Infinite Press, in June 2014?
A book published by one of the advocates of the theory, on a press created to publish advocates of the theory when their material is rejected elsewhere.... This would work in topics where you can count the notable advocates with the fingers of one hand and there are very little independent sources, such as Expanding Earth. Then you can pad the article with this stuff to give some pointers to the readers.
In cold fusion there are enough secondary sources giving descriptions about the theories put forward by advocates. And way too many competing theories to list them all. Theories get mentioned when independent sources pinpoint them as important for the field for a specific reason. (for example: the "loading ratio" explanation is reported as used by many researchers, the "electron screening" explanation made it to the 2004 DOE report, if the NASA gets around to budgeting LENR then we could mention their explanation, etc.). In other places, we simply say that there are many competing explanations, and none has achieved a place of prominence. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
A request for amendment or clarification was filed with the ArbCom, requesting a clarification that cold fusion is not pseudoscience and so not subject to discretionary sanctions. Since a Request for Comments is currently open on this page, the ArbCom request appears to be an effort to bypass the consensus process. The proper vehicle for determining whether cold fusion is, within Wikipedia, considered pseudoscience is the RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk)
The IP editor who filed the arbitration clarification request states that he or she has an account but edits from the IP address. There is no requirement to create an account in order to edit Wikipedia (except that editing semi-protected articles such as cold fusion requires an auto-confirmed account). However, Wikipedia policies do state that intentionally editing logged out is inappropriate, as it avoids scrutiny, and may be a means for topic-ban evasion or block evasion. I will ask a two-part question. First, do any of the IP addresses editing this talk page have accounts? If so, why are you editing logged out? Second (as I have asked before), is there a good reason why any IP addresses who do not have accounts choose not to create accounts (which would permit editing a semi-protected article)? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
There are at least two parts to this RFC. If other questions are proposed, they can be added. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments other than !votes that are made in the Survey sections will be deleted or moved. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article state that the experiments reporting cold fusion are widely considered to be pathological science?
Yes, cold fusion (CF) should be described as pathological science (PS). Irreproducibility is but one of the traits of PS. What makes an idea PS is wishful thinking leading to experimenter bias. The fact that CF would mean cheap, safe, unlimited energy leads the experimenter to discard or explain away undesirable results, so it is PS. The fact that it gets any funding is, I think, a little like betting on a long-shot in a horse race. Some funding sources put some money into it, even though it's unlikely to 'win', because the return (if it does 'win') would be staggeringly huge. Roches ( talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Seeing this comments and YES/NO answers in the survey subsections I have to ask how is the procedure operating: by counting votes or analyzing arguments?-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
> No. CF is controversial science, --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
> No - it is controversial science Alanf777 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it's pseudoscience. There is nothing controversial about it. Criticisms have been leveled at the field and the cold fusion community does not address them, they just start name-calling...that is not acceptable behavior for scientists. Avoiding the issues at all costs is a clear sign of pseudoscience., and I will guarantee you that mainstream has NOT accepted LENR in any form. Kirk shanahan ( talk) 20:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The key giveaway that you are dealing with pseudoscience is the massive level of denial shown by the CF researchers when any non-nuclear explanation is proffered. They resort to misrepresentation (strawman arguments), personal attacks, and just plain ignoring the facts to maintain their fantasy of a 'nuclear' cause of the effects they observe. Those tactics are not ones accepted by mainstream science, and their belief that those tactics prove their point is the final evidence that they are practicing pseudoscience. Kirk shanahan ( talk) 21:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Career-killing (see comment in vote above) is well documented. And even covered in the article. eg Melvin Miles [4] and "Hagelstein begins the first day of this year’s course with a warning: this field can be dangerous for your career." [5] Alanf777 ( talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
* Comment The water here is by now so muddied that I cannot vote one way or the other in good conscience. What Brian Josephson says is well based and reasonable and I agree strongly enough that I do not think that the term pathological science should be used, but I hesitate to use the term controversial science without qualification, and I am uncertain that this article is the right place to discuss such fine distinctions. On the basis of no special skills or qualifications I personally doubt that there is any merit to the basic theses of CF, but that is not relevant. Looking at the some of the most professional work in the field, I still am not moved to change my mind about the proposed physics, but I also don't feel justified in painting the associated science as pathological on principle. However having seen accounts of great deal of the kind of "work" done by zealots (as opposed to enthusiasts), some of them grossly unable to inspire confidence, I do not see how to draw line between the undeniably pathological attempts (most of them informal and IMAO incompetent) to prove the reality of the class of effects, and the reasonable (but perhaps arguable or controversial?) research attempting to investigate it. Sorry, I hate doing this, but I abstain on the grounds that I cannot see a reasonable context being established. JonRichfield ( talk) 06:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Anaxial: That equivocation could only be used if the sources do. Otherwise you are hedging an unambiguous statement from the sources for no obvious reason, Second Quantization ( talk) 07:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
At this point, the count of properly placed !votes appears to be 13 Yes, 4 No. There are also some improperly placed !votes in Threaded Discussion. Since closing is not a vote but a function of strength of arguments, I have requested an uninvolved closer. Anyone who has misplaced their !vote may add it to the Survey before the close. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To which of the four categories defined in WP:ARBPS in principles 15 through 18 should the article say cold fusion is considered to be? 1. Almost universally considered pseudoscience. 2. Generally considered pseudoscience, but with a following, such as astrology. 3. Widely accepted, but considered by some to be pseudoscience, such as psychoanalysis. 4. Alternative scientific theories or formulations.
I really didn't find a category that fits. Category 5 -- it is widely regarded as pseudoscience, but may, like continental drift, eventually be proven correct. Alanf777 ( talk) 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this procedure operates, if it is consensus probing it should work on analyzing arguments rather than counting votes.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 20:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, neither of the four categories presented as options fit. Perhaps another category should be created Controversial science.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 20:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Alanf777 re: faulty or fudged MIT experiments...they weren't. There is a big hoopla in the CF field about the MIT experiments because Eugene Mallove made a big stink over them at the time by resigning his position in the MIT Press Office. Gene claimed the data were 'altered' to cover up real cold fusion results. He even wrote an article on it for his magazine (Infinite Energy, Issue 24, 1999, p.2). However, what that article shows is that between the original data collection and final presentation, the MIT authors chose to alter the appearance of the data plots, which is entirely normal and within the purview of every author. They apparently did two things. First they changed to plotting time window averages of the raw data instead of plotting the raw data -which is not an issue. Second, they suppressed (by not plotting) parts of the raw data that showed large baseline shifts. This is most likely due to the fact that everyone realizes the baseline isn't supposed to shift (just as remarked upon by Dr. McKubre in his 1998 EPRI report), and thus just confused the issue from their viewpoint. The issue being that they ran for many hours and got no peaks like they were supposed to get. (This showed that full reproducibility had not been obtained.) What they didn't know back then was the shifting baseline can arise from a CCS. The calibration equation was of the form y = mX + b, and changing b shifts the baseline. I believe Mallove considered the baseline shifts to be evidence of CF, while the MIT people were looking for peaks. Mallove thought an upwards shift in baseline meant excess heat was being produced, which it does in theory, but the CCS problem means it is not real heat. Kirk shanahan ( talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Alanf777 re: criteria - You list 3 sources (but only reference 2) - Re: Hagelstein - he is one of the 10 authors who failed to understand my CCS proposal, therefore I doubt his comments on calorimetry will contain anything relating to my work, therefore his comments are likely irrelevant. If you care to reference what you're talking about I may be able to check that.
Re: other two – The speculative CCS mechanism includes the formation of a surface active state. It serves as a way to cause H2+O2 bubbles to combine and adhere on the electrode surface long enough for combustion to occur. The SAS most likely involves impurity adatoms of some sort. The identity and configuration of these are unknown. Storms' criteria and the Cravens and Letts criteria are similar. The criteria can be simplified to 'loading ratio', 'impurities', 'high current density', and 'triggering'. 'Loading ratio’ is a red herring, and is one of those spots where CFers ignore the facts. The Storms data I reanalyzed were collected from platinum electrodes, no palladium present. Platinum does not absorb any appreciable amount of hydrogen, so it never develops any loading to speak of. Big problems with Ni too. The probable impact of loading ratio on Pd is the surface structuring that arises from dislocation loop punching during loading. 'Impurities' is of course important. 'High current density' would favor observing the effect via CCS since it would increase the number of bubbles resident on the electrode surface at any given time. 'Triggering', i.e. inducing non-eq conditions seems pretty vacuous to me. I mean they consider flipping a nearby resistive heater off and on a 'trigger'. You have to be more specific in order to contemplate how it would affect the CCS mechanism. In other words, the criteria proposed also fit the CCS mechanism as far as we can tell right now. When you have two equally-valid alternative explanations for a set of data, you can’t just pick one and ignore the other. That’s pseudoscience. I recommend you go back to a ‘2’. Kirk shanahan ( talk) 16:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I count 12 !votes for Option 2, 1 !vote for Option 3, and 3 !votes for Option 4. Because this is not a numerical vote but an assessment of strength of arguments, I have requested an uninvolved closer. If there are any misplaced !votes not in Survey, they should be moved before closure. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Kirk shanahan is (has been) an active player in the field, and seems to be basing his objections largely on a feud with other researchers. I think this rises to the level of a conflict of interest, so his votes should be disqualified. (I admit that I have been following this field closely and have been convinced by the "preponderance of evidence", if not quite by "beyond reasonable doubt" that CF is real, and is backed by legitimate, though outlawed science.) Alanf777 ( talk) 18:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(Belated comment) 188.27.144.144 states that "ignorable comments", having less argumentive value, should include mine, presumably my comment at #Survey that the counter-arguments tend to be more rhetorical than scientific. I beg to differ. I was commenting on Insertcleverphrasehere's reference ( unsigned edit) to Alfred Wegener (notable re his Theory of continental drift), and implicitly to Alanf777's subsequent invocation (24 June) of "continental drift" as an example of something eventually proved correct. The implicit argument is that "mainstream science is wrong to reject cold fusion, just as it was wrong to reject continental drift." But as I have commented, to claim a parallel circumstance by invoking Wegener (or Galileo, Prusiner, etc.) is not a scientific argument. (That is, not about the scientific evidence itself.) Whether the scientific establishment has properly evaluated the scientific evidence is, at best, a meta-argument. Which can be valid, but is at a different level. It is my observation that proponents of pseudoscientific topics tend towards such meta-arguments, as we have seen here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
A previous case from the annals of science may help people clarify their thinking in regard to the cold fusion case, and it is perhaps more relevant than the case of low production success making chips that someone cited above. I refer to my own 1962 prediction that a superconducting tunnel junction could carry a current at zero voltage. Soon after I had published my calculation, Nobel Laureate John Bardeen, one of the discoverers of superconductivity, categorised it as erroneous science, saying the calculation was wrong as the electron pairing it assumed did not extend into the barrier (Bardeen was wrong in this respect, it turned out). The interesting thing though was that experiment seemed to confirm it being a non-effect: John Adkins and I found no supercurrent through our junctions down to 1nA (nanoamp), even when we compensated the Earth's magnetic field in case that was suppressing the effect. It was not till 9 months after that confirmation was obtained by Anderson and Rowell. But the point was that there were great difficulties at first in getting good junctions, because if you make the oxide layer thin enough to get supercurrents you are liable to get short circuits, so it isn't tunnelling. Adkins and I found great variability in I-V characteristics from one junction to another. There is a story of scientist A asking scientist B "how do you manage to get good junctions?" and being told "we mix in a little of the vapour from X brand of hair oil". He thought scientist B was joking, but when he visited his lab he noticed to his surprise a bottle of brand X hair oil sitting on the shelf. Such experimental difficulties, airbrushed out of published science, are what real science is about.
I was lucky in that methods for making good junctions reliably were found, so there was no dispute about the reality of the phenomenon. But it could quite conceivably have turned out that only a small proportion of people were lucky and the reality of the supercurrents would still have been a matter of dispute. But if the experimenters concerned used good methodology it might have been accepted that the effect was real. However, people have actually to visit the labs concerned to get a clear idea if experiments are being conducted properly, and the people who make up the consensus that CF is not real never do this. --
Brian Josephson (
talk)
08:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
These have not been covered in mainstream US media yet, but Bill gates visited ENEA (reported in Italian media as a possible $1B investment), the Indian Government is being urged to restart research (eg BARC), and the Chinese may already have done so (Rossi/Industrial Heat). Note : I am also providing links to "non" reliable sources, as they have translated the italian, and in some cases got further information. I do not expect these to go into the article. Original http://www.larena.it/stories/Economia/947605_gates_finanza_lenea_vicini_ad_unintesa/?refresh_ce#scroll=911 Comment: Gates Foundation Close to a $1 Billion Agreement to Fund ENEA for Fusion Research [Update: Human Translation into English] < http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/16/report-gates-foundation-close-to-a-1-billion-agreement-fund-enea-for-fusion-research/> Official statement from the University of Verona : http://www.univrmagazine.it/sito/vedi_articolo.php?id=2806 "Gates, accompanied by Head and scientists of the center, wanted to find out the research activities of the institute in the field of low energy nuclear reaction, LENR, better known as “cold fusion, (fusione fredda)”. The center ENEA Frascati is, in fact, considered to excellence in the world in this area. Thanks also to the presence of scientists among the most qualified in the field of cold fusion such as Vittorio Violante. This is why the United States has involved ENEA, the only non-US agency, a research program of great scientific importance in the field of LENR." Comment : http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/18/university-of-verona-statement-gates-visit-was-to-investigate-lenr/
Secondly, the Indian government is being urged to restart cold fusion research : Business Standard (Reliable regional print newspaper, reprinted by Gulf News) http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/modi-government-urged-to-revive-cold-fusion-114111700763_1.html This specifically mentions Rossi, and that the Chinese (through Rossi/Industrial Heat) may already have started research : I have already proposed adding to the Energy Catalyzer article. "Some top nuclear scientists are urging India's new government to revive research on "cold fusion", saying it has the potential to provide answers to the country's energy problem." .... " According to Srinivasan, research on cold fusion needs to be revived now since "very interesting things are happening in this field" and people like Bill Gates -- who Nov 12 visited the Italian laboratory to observe LENR experiments being carried out there -- were "seriously considering funding cold fusion/LENR". Srinivasan said that recent technological breakthroughs had resulted in the development of suitcase-sized LENR reactors that can be mass produced.".
I'm not sure where in the article to put these. Possibly in a new section "Commercial Cold Fusion". Alanf777 ( talk) 18:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be missing. Can somebody fix it? Alanf777 ( talk) 19:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
In "Cold fusion: comments on the state of scientific proof" [2] by Michael C. H. McKubre (published in the section mentioned above) McKubre argues that:
If pressed the authority of experts in the fields of nuclear or particle physics are invoked, or early publications of null results by ‘influential laboratories’ – Caltech, MIT, Bell Labs, Harwell. Almost to a man these experts have long ago retired or deceased, and the authors of these early publications of ‘influential laboratories’ have long since left the field and not returned. The issue of ‘long ago’ is important as it establishes a time window in which information was gathered sufficient for some to draw a permanent conclusion – some time between 23 March 1989 and ‘long ago’. Absurdly for a matter of this seeming importance, ‘long ago’ usually dates to the Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) on 1 May 1989. So the whole matter was reported and then comprehensively dismissed within 40 days (and, presumably, 40 nights).
This tells volumes on our approach here at this Wiki page, where we also focus heavily on those 40 days and those labs (Caltech, MIT, Bell, Harwell)
I would argue that the condition of certainty is approached asymptotically – we achieve the comfortable condition of ‘knowing’ by painstaking repetition and accumulation of knowledge over periods of years, decades or generations. Very few people ever attempt this exercise – those that do are called experts – those who do not look to these experts for answers. What is sought is not fact, but patterns and consistencies of behaviours. In his most recent book7, Ed Storms reviews over 900 publications sorting through these patterns in the attempt to create systematic order for those of us with less time, talent or devotion. By any standards Storms is an expert on the subject of cold fusion – one could argue that he is the preeminent expert on this topic. But where does one go to get a countervailing ‘expert’ opinion? I would argue that there is no such place or person and has not been for more than two decades, and that this is a problem. Individuals selected to evaluate the accumulated evidence or some subset of evidence with an open mind invariably come to the conclusion that the case for cold fusion is not disproven (the experience of Rob Duncan and 60 min comes to mind8). To hear a counter argument one must approach experts in related fields and ask their opinion about matters that they have not studied. Of course, all one can expect is an intuitive, emotive or self-serving response.
Which again speaks volumes that Ed Storms is consistently regarded on this talk page as being a disreputable source, (failure to be allowed to cite his work even when published in peer reviewed journals) despite being the preeminent expert on the topic. And that other so-called 'experts' are consistently cited despite not actually being involved in, or having studied, the field of cold fusion at all.
McKubre concludes:
From what we know today, and Figure 1 clearly illuminates, none of the cells in any of these early cited null studies would be expected to produce any excess heat. Not only for the reasons of a loading deficiency (as stated explicitly); the durations of the experiments were wholly insufficient. The Caltech work13 was completed and conclusions made public within 40 days of the Fleischmann and Pons public announcement. None of the Caltech experiments was operated for the 300 h (12.5 days) that was the minimum initiation time observed at SRI for bulk Pd cathodes and the entire set of Caltech experiments was complete well within the 1000 h (42 days) established as the minimum time of observation at SRI (see note 6). In addition, the current density stimuli used in these early null experiments were too small to reliably produce the effect and the deuterium flux was not measured. None of the criteria of eq. (1) was shown to be met, at least three demonstrably were not. In hindsight it is evident that the authors13–15 were victims of ‘unknown unknowns’, and perhaps ‘undue haste’ – but this is understandable in the frantic circumstances of 1989. What is important is that these experiments be recognized for what they are, not what they are not. They are important members of the experimental database that teaches us under what conditions one encounters FPHE. They are not any part of a proof of nonexistence of the phenomenon and cannot be used to support such a conclusion; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
in other words, pretty much all of the citations that we are using in this wiki article that were negative have been proven to have been victims of Unknown Unknowns, and do not now meet the criteria as reputable sources for determining the validity of the CF effect, except as a historical perspective on what was done wrong . from the now known criteria necessary for the production of excess heat, they would never be expected to work.
Source: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/forthcoming/CS-1.pdf
Insertcleverphrasehere ( talk) 01:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review.
Silly me. This special section in a small, unimportant journal, is of interest only to a small, unimportant population of scientists in a small, unimportant country. Alanf777 ( talk) 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
There was a rumor that Science Journal was hacked by North Korean activists to discredit a leading science nation. Its quite logical that all these CF fringe scientists get funded by North Korean government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 ( talk) 11:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
[Edited] I just typed LENR at the prompt and was redirected here. LENR is quite clearly not cold fusion, the theory is totally different, and unlike cold fusion LENR seems to be based (at least partly) on real and rigorous science and scientific theory. This article was published on a NASA site -
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/ Note that LENR is a speculative theoretical field - looking at potential future mechanisms for low energy nuclear reactions for energy production, it is not about validating or proving existing experiments. Without such research science would barely be able to progress at all, so attacking it by labelling it as pseudo-science beforehand is particularly annoying.
As for the article itself parts of it are totally non-NPOV and aggressive bordering on rude. It is also far far too long. In articles dealing with subjects labeled as pseudo-science or fringe science care needs to be taken - especially as supposedly neutral and scientifically trustworthy sources quite frequently abandon all neutrality and scientific principles in order to make stronger arguments. Sceptics are often no better at science than the people they criticize and this does not help the real debate. Two classic examples of subjects that were heavily attacked and debunked for decades as pseudoscience were manned flight and rocketry, but really the examples from history are almost endless...
Its almost certain that cold fusion is a complete fantasy and that either the reaction was not fusion or there was some kind of experimental error or fabrication, but the proof is not 100% absolute. Disproving negatives is very difficult especially in areas where the scientific base is not 100% complete, which is most of science.
Perhaps the real crime lies with the media, who always jump on every small discovery or idea and then blow it completely out of proportion, and then once bored jump the other way and attack it like a pack of hyenas - wrong both ways...
Lucien86 (
talk)
23:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It was fixed by glowing sceptics afterwards. Splitting would be a nice feature. Anyway, there is at least a section which differentiates LENR and friends from P&F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.45.23 ( talk) 09:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Are there more meanings to the term cold fusion? This phyiscist Robert Smolanczuk has an article with cold fusion in title Smolanczuk, R. (1999). "Production a mechanism of superheavy nuclei in cold fusion reactions". Physical Review C. 59 (5): 2634–2639. Bibcode: 1999PhRvC..59.2634S. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.59.2634..-- 86.125.182.23 ( talk) 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I see this discussion and I think it would be an improvement to the article to specify if the term has other meanings beside the main one presented here. If there are multiple meanings, perhaps a link to cold fusion (disambiguation) is useful. So the WP:NOTFORUM aspect has no place here.-- 5.15.177.195 ( talk) 08:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that there are indeed multiple meanings as the disambiguation page says. Perhaps an article cold fusion (superheavy nuclei) should be created.-- 5.15.177.195 ( talk) 08:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
What concerns the patent applications, there is probably a pending german application from Airbus describing an LENR reactor. https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=bibdat&docid=DE102013110249A1 Its not granted yet, but quite noteable. 143.161.248.25 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the following content regarding patents is relevant to the patent section and should be included because it could be one reason why some patents related to LENR/Cold Fusion have been rejected:
A patent law firm in Silicon Valley, California that represents at least one LENR firm sued the USPTO using the Freedom of Information Act procedure to uncover a secret program for delaying patents called the Sensitive Application and Warning System (SAWS). Once subjected to scrutiny the USPTO agreed to cancel the SAWS procedure. [10] ( Climate Challenge ( talk) 21:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC))
Fixed link Climate Challenge ( talk) 18:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is a link to USPTO explaining SAWS / STATUS http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/patent-application-initiatives/sensitive-application-warning-system
And some supplementary link: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/12/22/ex-insiders-perspective-of-saws/id=52821/
I think mentioning the saws program in the patents section is mandatory as there is lots of reliable source out there - and CF is covered by SAWS with TC2800.
Link to the FOIA Response: http://ipwatchdogs.com/materials/SAWS-FOIA-Respose.pdf 143.161.248.25 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The two-part RFC has now been closed. Cold fusion, or reports of cold fusion, may be said to be considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. Cold fusion may also be categorized in Category 2 as defined by the ArbCom in WP:ARBPS, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience but have a following. Any edits that differ with those conclusions are against consensus, and so are disruptive. Any questions that do not contain sufficient to be answered, or any edit requests that do not contain sufficient detail to be understood, may be ignored, but, if persistent, are disruptive editing, and can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement.
Now that the RFC has been closed and consensus is established, I will be requesting that this talk page, but not the article page, be unprotected, to allow comments by unregistered editors. However, any disruptive editing of this talk page (which has happened more than once) will either result in its semi-protection again, or in Arbitration Enforcement, or both.
Now that the RFC has been closed, we can move on.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea what this is all about, but you certainly do not have my agreement to the proposition that CF is considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. The fact that papers on the subject have been published by regular peer-reviewed journals disproves the proposition. This whole business has the air of a coup and smells distinctly nasty. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 11:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Does this mean that ANY addition to the article supporting the proposition that Cold Fusion is real, and that its investigation is legitimate, if controversial, science, is against the "consensus" and will be regarded as disruptive? Alanf777 ( talk) 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I would think this article needs to be revisited as pseudoscience: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.6.9.83 ( talk) 06:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The research of Steven Jones at Brigham Young has not been vetted in this article. It is very significant and peer reviewed in Nature. Also, the back-stabbing, slanderous activity of competing physics labs is significant, especially when they all secretly patented their unique versions of the experiments. Most of the recent patents do not say "cold fusion". They say "muon catalyzed", "piezonuclear" or "plasma" experiments because the patent office would summarily trash can anything that said "cold fusion". This kind of sophomoric playground nonsense always occurs in scientific organizations prior to paradigm shift (the rush to publish, own and monetize). CF is recognized as occurring at atomic levels, just not at practical energy-producing levels, yet. I think I know what they are doing wrong, and I am not talking. I need a couple hundred thousand dollars to prove it.
D8. Publishable results obtained in 1988-1989
In August 1988, we did gamma-ray studies, using the sodium-iodine detector easiest set up. As before, we saw only non-significant hints of gamma production in our 3 inch sodium iodide counter, so we decided to concentrate on using the neutron spectrometer, which was fully conditioned for use in late 1988. Our first studies with this spectrometer were done using titanium, palladium, tantalum, nickel, aluminum, iron, and lanthanum. We also used several methods of loading deuterium into metals, including the original electrochemical method. Thus, we performed anew the experiment which we had started in May 1986, namely electrolytic infusion of deuterium into metals, but with a much-improved neutron detector. Of these experiments, Paul Palmer records: "Steve [Jones] and Bart [Czirr] have set up experiments exactly as we did a year or so ago and looked for fusion-generated neutrons in Bart's liquid-scintillator, low-resolution spectrometer.....As in the previous work, the results were tantalizingly positive." Within a few weeks, the results had reached a statistical significance of over five standard deviations. We also found correlations between tritium detected in Hawaii and volcanic eruptions there, in agreement with expectations that piezonuclear fusion occurs in the earth. We decided in early February to publish our results. ........
It is noteworthy that our paper to Nature was published (April 1989, 338:737)
Danarothrock ( talk) 09:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Thats soo oldschool. Nowadays, truth is democratic ;-)). If nobody reads your papers - they are fraud. Even the attached handwritings are highly suspicious. Everybody knows that serious science involves the usage of computers. lol. "The two-part RFC has now been closed. Cold fusion, or reports of cold fusion, may be said to be considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. Cold fusion may also be categorized in Category 2 as defined by the ArbCom in WP:ARBPS, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience but have a following. Any edits that differ with those conclusions are against consensus, and so are disruptive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 ( talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I respect roles and processes. Cold Fusion in its original physical sense is "dead". The article covers this issue with "There are many reasons why known fusion reactions are unlikely explanations for the excess heat and associated claims described above." This means that a (known) fusion reaction has to have properties like production of deuterium and gamma radiation. But the decision if this article deals with low temperature effect with known fusion reaction characteristics - or anomalous heat generation without known fusion characteristics isnt taken. Its well mixed up - and even the move to relable anomalous heat generation without known fusion characteristics as "LENR" is misinterpreted as synonym for cold fusion - instead of a clear new generated category in physics. So there would be some need to differentiate between CF in physical and common sense - as well as a differentiation with LENR - which is definitely something different as CF. Does ArbCom decision apply to all this 3 different items ? Thats the primary question. Does ArbCom decision covers these aspects ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.182.233 ( talk) 23:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
References
Since there is a dearth of references in this article on the subject since 2011 (and only a very few from 2000, relative to the number of research articles available on the topic), it might be worthwhile adding a reference and link ( http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/spl.php?splid=2) to the 25 Feb 2015 issue of Current Science that has a special section on low energy nuclear reactions. It contains 30 peer-reviewed papers (theoretical and experimental)on the subject and they are all available online for free. Most of the papers are of a review nature (with references to prior work) and new research results were not encouraged by the guest editors, so there is only a very few cases of previously unreported research in the papers presented. Since I am one of the guest editors, I am not allowed to contribute this information to the Wiki article. I hope that someone else will do so. Aqm2241 ( talk) 17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cold fusion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting, for more parsable grammar, a change of
to
75.88.40.163 ( talk) 15:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Search Wikipedia for LENR, and you get redirected to this page, which is all about the discredited Fleischmann–Pons experiment.
There is a mention of LENR, it suggests that it's an alternative name used by a small group of researchers who are continuing to attempt the Fleischmann–Pons experiment.
I was trying to find out more information about LENR research which has gone well beyond this, essentially not doing traditional fusion of deutrium to Helium but from Nickel to Copper, or Carbon to Nickel. This page seems irrelevant to the subject.
Here is a paper illustrating a typical contemporary LENR experiment:
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
And here is an interesting article from NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/
I do hope you gentlemen can stop squabbling about a 25 year old experiment and get on with explaining what is happening with contemporary LENR research.
Either that or stop redirecting LENR here because it's very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Irwin ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I didn't. I started reading this (rather long) talk page at the top, but after reading about 10 minutes of FP bashing and naval gazing I gave up. In effect at the bottom the discussion does get more to the point.
But the real issue is that the caboodle (including talk page) really could be condensed more than a zip file full of spaces:
1) What is Cold Fusion (Fusion reactions achieved without artificial sun like conditions)
1) Summary of PF, problems with results and non repeatably; Link to a specific article about the experiment and the controversy etc (it is relevant to science history etc).
3) A brief paragraph for each of the hypothesized or attempted methods, citing experimental work in course, or linking to specific articles for more detailed experiments such as NIF's lasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.75.112 ( talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There is an external link to [ [11]] but perhaps a better link might be:
http://lenr-canr.org/index/DownloadOnly/DownloadOnly.php
which is a php generated table which can be sorted by publication date and author name. Most of the pdf links on the iscmns.org site go to the lenr-canr.org site anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.201.101.145 ( talk) 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Since there is a dearth of references in this article on the subject since 2011 (and only a very few from 2000, relative to the number of research articles available on the topic), it might be worthwhile adding a reference and link ( http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/spl.php?splid=2) to the 25 Feb 2015 issue of Current Science that has a special section on low energy nuclear reactions. It contains 30 peer-reviewed papers (both theoretical and experimental)on the subject of cold fusion and they are all available online for free. Most of the papers are of a review nature (with references to prior work) and new research results were not encouraged by the guest editors, so there is only a very few cases of previously unreported research in the papers presented. Since I am one of the guest editors, I am not allowed to contribute this information to the Wiki article. I hope that someone else will do so. Aqm2241 ( talk) 17:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
An interesting link [12]. The first paper mentioned in the list addresses theoretical perspective on CF/LENR/CMNS.-- 5.15.185.29 ( talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The authors of the review are from a mathematics department which is very suitable because the theory in CF as well as in conventional nuclear physics is/must be undoubtedly mathematical belonging to mathematical physics.-- 5.15.185.29 ( talk) 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
'Cold Fusion' was a fusion of hydrogen atoms to produce helium using a lattice to reduce the required energy. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions use an as yet unproven technique (Muon like catalyzed fusion perhaps, or other theories like Widom Larson or quantum tunneling have been proposed) to slip a proton-electron hydrogen atom into a much larger metal atom like Nickel or tin or iron, then there is radio-active decay that releases energy, an electron released or the proton and electron in the nucleus collapse onto a neutron. A redirect from LENR to cold fusion is like redirecting from Quantum Mechanics to an article on gambling. The net effect is that about five years of peer reviewed material and break through science are being entirely ignored and not reported on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.249.4 ( talk) 17:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this should be mentioned in article: the launching of a CMNS research program at Tohoku University http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/30/cold-fusion-by-2020-olympics-clean-planet-inc-and-tohoku-university-launch-clean-energy-lenr-research-lab/.
Any thoughts/comments to this news suggestion/addition to article?-- 5.15.12.43 ( talk) 10:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Eurekalert - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-04/tu-eps041415.php
AsianScientist - http://www.asianscientist.com/2015/04/academia/tohoku-university-collaborates-clean-planet-study-condensed-matter-nuclear-reaction/
...To sum it up - we have the original press release on the homepage of the involved institute - ...And we have 2 serious sources which comment that in english. ...That should be enough to add this information. 143.161.248.25 ( talk)
I think that Tohoku University is a reliable source - if they state something in an official press release. Do you send an independent peer review squad to cern every time there is a cern press release ? 143.161.248.25 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Are there more meanings to the term cold fusion? This phyiscist Robert Smolanczuk has an article with cold fusion in title Smolanczuk, R. (1999). "Production a mechanism of superheavy nuclei in cold fusion reactions". Physical Review C. 59 (5): 2634–2639. Bibcode: 1999PhRvC..59.2634S. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.59.2634..-- 86.125.182.23 ( talk) 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I see this discussion and I think it would be an improvement to the article to specify if the term has other meanings beside the main one presented here. If there are multiple meanings, perhaps a link to cold fusion (disambiguation) is useful. So the WP:NOTFORUM aspect has no place here.-- 5.15.177.195 ( talk) 08:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that there are indeed multiple meanings as the disambiguation page says. Perhaps an article cold fusion (superheavy nuclei) should be created.-- 5.15.177.195 ( talk) 08:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important that article specify if there is a connection between the two meanings by, say, nuclear structure and reaction mecanisms details.-- 5.15.12.182 ( talk) 19:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There are many factual errors in your biased piece. One that is fairly easy to prove concerns the early failures to replicate Fleichmann and Pons. The peer reviewed paper by Dr. McKubre in Current Science http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0495.pdf explains why those efforts at replication were doomed to fail and gives examples of how to replicate the effect.
That Current Science published a special section on LENR in February gives lie to your published forecast that the E-Cat would be shown to be a fraud by 2012. In fact there is a 1 MW plant built by Industrial Heat LLC that has started running a one year trial - for several months now. Mats Lewan reports that it is working well. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactions&featid=10094 98.115.160.80 ( talk) 20:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cold fusion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I consider that although there is no accepted theoretical explanation of what has been called cold Fusion, now often called LENR, Low energy nuclear reaction, There are a number of theories and the "FACT" of the phenomena with hundreds of papers, tests and patents can not reasonably be refuted. The wikipedia page needs to be re-written to reflect this. Please initiate a discussion about this with authorities in the field. Sources are too many to list. Inteligent searches can reveal them. They may well be covered in part on other Wikipediav pages. Richard Wells, email. rich grey@msn.com
88.145.36.193 ( talk) 00:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that the article should specify if there are some reported results in peer-reviewed journal articles from European Physical Journal, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy or other (mainstream?) journals on using pseudo palladium in CF experiments.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that is possible that the idea of using pseudo-palladium in experiments have not occurred to people in the field.-- 5.15.49.4 ( talk) 11:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)