Talk:Cold fusion

This article was the subject of mediation during 2009 at User_talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion.

Publications

JCMNS

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. " 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)

Cold fusion is considered fringe "today" for reasons that should be obvious once one reads over WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and, of course, WP:FRINGE. As such, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is as reliable as any "journal" published from within the walled garden of astrology, homeopathy, etc. I.e., Regardless of the number of Google hits produced by the endless number of blogs and websites devoted to the topic, or the number of self-published papers its devotees can produce, without mainstream support, fringe is still fringe. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem - do you consider the CF article to be anti-CF (and therefore mainstream) or neutral, but specific to the topic? If the former, then it should be clearly identified as such. In that case, only a few exceptional articles could be allowed to support the minority view. Since there are mainstream anti-CF views, this would be a legitimate position. However, there are few mainstream descriptions of, or experiments on, the topic (perhaps none since 1991). If this article is a specific article on CF, not 'views on CF', then the balance shifts the other way. The anti-CF references are then the minority and must be held to the higher standard.

If the anti-CF crowd is treating the CF article as a minority and fringe position relative to a mainstream "view," then it needs to be retitled. Are you, or is anyone, authorized to speak for the anti-CF club, to decide what the article is. I would be happy to retitle it, if the decision is that it is a view of, rather than an article on, CF. Too much time and energy has been expended on trying to create an article that must meet different standards from the editors' viewpoints. Aqm2241 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqm2241 (talk • contribs)

Aqm2241 your instance on labeling other editors must stop. You have absolutely no idea what my personal views on the topic are. If you believe I or any other editor is acting in bad faith, as your use of "anti-CF" implies, the take it to the proper venue. Personal attacks, thinly veiled or otherwise, do not improve the article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem Forgive me if I have misjudged you. You consider yourself an 'honest' skeptic and I can respect that. However, your apparent turning a blind eye to the overt removal of pro-CF mainstream references and external links from the WP:CF article certainly pointed to acceptance of the anti-CF position and actions. Everyone has a POV and I believe few men would object to being labled (women don't seem to like it). There is nothing wrong with being pro- or anti-CF, as long as it does not detract from the article. I see no evidence of bad action in your case (but, to be honest, I haven't looked very hard). I had asked you a question that I thought would clarify some of the problems. If people see the article from different viewpoints, then they will have different expectations.

An earlier discussion had asked whether the article was a 'history' of the Fleischmann Pons effect or more. Was it resolved? If not, we could be having the same problem now. My question was whether CF was considered to be a mainline topic or a fringe topic. The header on the CF talk page says that it is controversial. 'Controversial' requires an attempt at equality. It also requires the controversy to be described. There should be a section in the article devoted to the controversy. If editors perceive the article as fringe, then they should treat it differently than if it is fringe in a mainline article (e.g., a nuclear physics topic) or controversial. What is proper or acceptable editing on one case is vandalism in another. Thus, actions and perceptions unnecessarily polarize the editors. I still have not heard anyone address what they consider the article to be in those terms. The anti-CF group appears to consider CF to be fringe, but the article to be a mainstream subject. I have a problem with that. Maybe it can be resolved.

From WP:PARITY - "Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects." I do not believe CF to be a mainstream subject (yet). This article is specific to a non-mainstream topic. Therefore, I consider blocking and deleting of pro-CF views and references (particularly high quality ones) to be vandalism. If you still consider CF claims of excess heat and nuclear reactions to be extraordinary and the CF article to be a mainstream article, then you might even consider arbitrary deletion of pro-CF mainline journal articles to be justified as fighting WP:Undue, because the referenced journals are not 'extraordinary'. While I doubt that I could convince you about the claims, particularly if the appropriate references are 'not allowed', we might come to some agreement about the nature of the article. If all editors came to such agreement, the article could be made 'whole' and perhaps a second one, or second part, could also be agreed upon. Aqm2241 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Still considered fringe in 2013.

I recall that the journal is published by the organizer of the annual CF conference? It should be given preferential treatment among proponent sources. I find it natural to mention the most influential journal in a fringe field, when speaking about publications. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

How about: no. We know they publish journals for each other, but unless you can find reliable independent sources that establish the significance of these journals, then citing the existence of the journals to the journals themselves is WP:OR and discussing them at all is WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Guy - You clearly seem to think that Cold Fusion is a mainstream article on the subject and therefore pro-CF views and papers are a minority position and fall under the WP:undue ruling. Would you care to defend the title of the article if it considers the cold fusion research to be a majority activity? If CF is a majority activity, could you quote some majority-position research in this area in the last decade? Two decades? If the title were "Cold Fusion in the 20th Century", I would give you a bit more slack. "Cold Fusion in the 21st Century" is a whole new ball game. You say that you have learned about CF from a friend who worked in Fleischmann's lab. If he was not the janitor who cleaned up after one experiment burned its way thru the lab bench and part of the floor, then I would be interested in what he had to say. Perhaps, you could write a letter on what he had to say to the editor of Nature and have it, as a tertiary source, become an acceptable reference for the CF article?

You suggest that I am advocating pathological science and that the scientific community considers that is what CF is. I publish and communicate with physicists and engineers in 3 different fields. Most are surprised that CF is still active and are generally interested in the positive results. A few do have the closed mind and POV that you seem to enjoy. For the most part, they are not the ones doing active research. On the other hand, perhaps you have data and many physicist friends that are both knowledgeable on the subject and agree with your POV. Since you are so set against CF and want to eliminate any positive references, why don't you just leave the title and eliminate all but one line, "bullshit", and save us all a lot of grief. I'm sure that you can find a reference for that. It expresses your POV, your OR, and all of the other excuses that the anti-CF club has been using over the years to deny evidence and to convince themselves of their rightness and righteousness. Aqm2241 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

See the arbitration case linked at the head of this page. The world views cold fusion as pathological science, it is not Wikipedia's job to fix that for you. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's still considered fringe science. See for example page 176 of the recent book "Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem", where cold fusion is cited as an "example of institutionalized fringe science" and where the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is specifically mentioned as part of this institutionalization. --Noren (talk) 03:03, 28 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)

Dear Noren, your reference is very interesting. Note that the author described CF as "institutionalized fringe science." The book is a collection of 24 essays by various experts seeking to identify the distinctions between science and pseudoscience. The essay you referenced is titled "Belief buddies versus critical communities." I find it very interesting that her description of "belief buddies" (p 169, many with "little relevant scholarly training," p. 177, and as a marker for pseudo science, p 179) seems to fit the anti-CF crowd very well. Her description of CF as institutionalized and composed of self-critical, communicating, credentialed, individuals (characteristics of science) gave it "borderline legitimacy" (p 176). Since the anti-CF crowd often takes quotes from pro-CF author's introductions to identify problems with CF research or data, you may as well also. Please put it into the article text, so that we can add a legitimate CF reference (see my comments below). Aqm2241 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not a Wikilawyer and sometimes am somewhat slow (naive?). I just realized that the reason that the anti-CF club must remove legitimate sources that are pro-CF is that they have to maintain the fiction that CF is fringe. Then, to show that they are 'neutral', they can allow as many pro-CF as anti-CF references. Thus, they play the game.

We can help them play their game, and still improve the article, by finding as many anti-CF comments as possible. Since the anti-CF crowd would allow (and claim) even blogs as strong tertiary sources (if they fit the proper POV), the pro-CF group could play along just to permit additional legitimate CF-documentation to be referenced in the article. Of course, the discerning reader would see the difference in quality of the references, but the anti-CF crowd is not trying to convince a discerning reader. Since it cannot 'kill' CF, it only wants to preserve the fiction that CF is fringe-science. Furthermore, some of the anti-CF group are less than honest and know that periodically, they can bring in a 'big gun' and just arbitrarily 'erase' many of the pro-CF references to maintain the appearance that CF is still only "fringe" and no real work or progress is happening. For example, I note that all of the Forbes references are now gone. Some sources that are 'legitimate' when publishing anti-CF articles would be labeled as fringe and/or worthless and not be allowed, if publishing non-anti-CF articles (e.g., http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.4.2409). However, the anti-CF articles from these same journals must still be retained to keep the WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe charade intact.

Speaking of WP:Fringe, within their own definition, they violate the Wiki tenets: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." Clearly the anti-CF group will not allow "more extensive treatment" under any circumstances. (They may even deny the notability of CF, since they apparently believe it is fringe. Apparently, they consider the article to be about the failure of CF - a majority viewpoint? - thus they can claim that they are only suppressing "undue weight.")

I also note that there is no section in the CF article on why people should be interested in the success of CF (cheap energy, little or no radioactive waste, reduction in green-house gases, no concern about strip-mining or fracking, off-grid living) and no figures indicating demonstrated levels of power and energy generation (e.g., last figure in http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/). Aqm2241 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's covered in commentaries, but you can't say there would be little or no nuclear waste because it's pure conjecture, there's no actual evidence of a nuclear process at all so conjecture about the level of waste is not going to fly. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A major argument against CF (based on the assumption that CF must follow known high-energy D+D fusion patterns) is that there is no proton or neutron radiation commensurate with the heat produced in the claimed D+D => 4He fusion reaction (see note 4 in the article). The fact that nuclear ash (protons, neutrons, tritium, 3He and 4He at very low levels) has been observed & reported repeatedly in numerous laboratories proves the nuclear process(es). Aqm2241 (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem was, they didn't detect all at the same time. One lab detected ash A but not B, the other lab detected ash B but not A, etc. I read this in a source, but I don't remember which one......

Even when detecting the same ash, the ash/power ratio was different. I am not sure if I read this in a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This fluctuational behaviour seems to be a defining feature of chaotic systems where the same initial condition does not produce the same effects.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's also consistent with random experimental error. Don't forget old William and his useful cutlery. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In such case, the same group would detect different ashes on each one of their cells, right? And the same ash would be detected at different ratios on each cell.

Instead, each group is detecting the same ash in all their cells, which have the same initial conditions. That's suggestive of problems in procedures: group A uses a method that overcounts background-levels of ash A, group B doesn't realize there is contamination from ash B in one step, group C measures ash C with an uncalibrated or inadequate measurers, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Once the finding can be replicated independently without the need for True Believers taking part, I am sure it will be published in the peer reviewed journals. Until then... Guy (Help!) 09:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Replication has not have to be 100%, it can have a frequency distribution like other stochastic and processes such as earthquakes occurrence, wind intensity, composition of fission products. A statistical replicability seems to be an experimental fact that needs to be considered as intrinsic feature of the phenomena.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It has to be consistently reproducible, or a compelling argument has to be made as to why it usually fails. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

100% reproducibility seems an excessive demand. There are stochastic phenomena like wind intensity distribution and earthquakes frequency which have an intrinsic random occurrence. To give an additional example of a more similar nature to cold fusion namely nuclear, the composition of nuclear fission products at a given momemnt is not reproducible for two nuclear fission reactors operating simultaneously at the same time or for the same reactor successively. The composition of nuclear fission products is the statistical averaging of individual fission events of single nuclei. No one is insisting that the composition of fission products should be reproducible.--82.137.9.236 (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

See my comment above....... Each cell is an independent reactor. If your theory was correct then each cell would be giving different products. We wouldn't have each group reporting that all their active cells give the same products. Products would be different for each ell, not for each group. (This has derived into unsourced comparisons of personal theories, and talk pages are to discuss changes to the article, not for discussion of the topic, etc., etc.. It has been good, I can't encourage this behaviour by continuing the discussion. These discussions belong to the vortex-l mailing list and other such forums, not to wikipedia's article pages. Please go there to find people interested in discussing this, and forums that welcome this type of discussion). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody needs to do anything to maintain the impression that CF is fringe: it is fringe. A very good friend of mine worked in Fleischmann's lab back in the day, I am quite well informed on this. You are advocating pathological science, and Wikipediua is not the place to fix the fact that the scientific community in general considers you to be doing this. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know the name of your friend and whether he has published some articles on some (negative) results.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

He has never published anything on this, as far as I know. I know he did some work for Fleischmann (I remember the jokes about the "thermonuclear shield", a ceramic basin covering the apparatus in case of boiling water ejection) but his publications are primarily on biosensors. Oh, and the current standard undergraduate text on analytical chemistry. You can Google him: Professor Séamus Higson. I bet him a fiver he'd be a full professor before the age of 40 and I collected it at his inaugural lecture :-) I also showed him our FA version of this article; he said it was a fair and accurate. A lot of special pleading has been added since. I haven't asked him recently, but he shakes his head ruefully when the topic is mentioned: he liked Martin Fleischmann and largely blamed Pons for the science-by-press-release fiasco and the race with Jones, which trashed a formerly very sound career. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that there is a Séamus mentioned in Archive 5 of this talk page, but not his full name.--82.137.8.198 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Specialised journals

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)

Template Housekeeping

The template at the top of this talk page referring to sanctions linked to the wrong ArbCom case, which had to do with climate change. I have changed it to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, because cold fusion is considered by the mainstream scientific community to be fringe science or pseudoscience as usually defined. There was also an ArbCom case entitled Cold Fusion, but it was decided after Pseudoscience and resulted in a few editors being topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you parse the enforcement provision in the link you deleted "1) The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions." (the original ruling includes that wikilink to this article) as the wrong ruling having 'to do with climate change?' The Abd-WMC case was resolved years after the Pseudoscience case, and the arbitration committee found it necessary at that time to make it utterly clear that sanctions apply to this article whether or not someone chooses to argue whether or not this topic is pseudoscience. (In fact, you'll see from the current talk page that some still actively dispute this categorization.) It is therefore useful to link to the decision which specifically nails down that this particular article is subject to sanctions whether or not one considers it to be pseudoscience. Things get muddy because the committee decided to retroactively merge logging of enforcement with the earlier pseudoscience case for purposes of simplifying recordkeeping ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=484342294#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Discretionary_sanctions_in_cases_named_after_individual_editors ). However, I think there is value in maintaining the link to the Cold Fusion-specific ruling to avoid misunderstandings... after all, this article was problematic enough that the arbitration committee found it necessary to single this page out for sanctions years after the pseudoscience ruling had been in effect. Perhaps all three should be linked in the template? --Noren (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I had been looking at a different William M. Connolley case. My mistake. The case does indeed involve cold fusion, and explicitly states that cold fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions. The pseudoscience discretionary sanctions are also applicable. I agree that both cases should be cited, and possibly the Cold Fusion case, although it did not restate the sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretending something is pseudoscience while it is not is a great example of unacceptable behavior. 84.107.128.52 (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretending that something is science while it is pseudoscience is also problematical, and is subject to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Second DOE report

The analysis of the second DOE report should be more detailed in the article.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what specific change to the article are you proposing.--McSly (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the best proposal in this case is adding some details from the mentioned available sources like the report proper and Choi and Feder. Especially the paragraph 4 from Feder is interesting to cite.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring and Disruption on Talk Page

Not relevant to the article

The editing of this talk page is disruptive and involves talk page edit warring. There have been too many allegations of disruptive editing of this talk page, which are themselves disruptive. There has been a silly edit war as to whether to insert or remove a list of publications. There is no reason given for removing the material. Personal attacks, trolling, or disruptive material may be removed, but there is no need to remove a list of questionable publications. Stop edit warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC) There are statements being made by unregistered editors that cold fusion is no longer considered fringe science. Those statements are simply contrary to scientific consensus. If the unregistered editors are here to make the case that cold fusion is no longer considered fringe science, they are wasting electrons. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC) It seems that some users (registered or not is not important) are just wondering if the statement of cold fusion being considered fringe can be take for granted as if it were an axiom. One cannot dogmatically accept this assertion and want to see what is its base by analyzing sources that seem to be doing this labeling. This is a reasonable way to proceed.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Hi, I was asked to comment here. I'm not sure what is happening, but I see in this diff there was a re-posting of old archived material that was unlikely to be helpful. 94.53.199.249, if you have a suggestion, it's best to post a fresh request under a new section title, but try to avoid repeating requests that you know have been made before, unless you have new sources or a new argument. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy on Non Peer Reviewed Journal Articles

I would first like to point out a flaw in the coverage of this article, which I'm sure has been pointed out in full before now, however I will bring it up again and expect a reasoned and reasonable response from level headed wikipedia seniors and not a reactionary response involving name calling and abuse as has occurred on this talk page previously. I also fully admit that I am not a regular wikipedia contributor, but am a scientist (an academic Engineering Geologist and Biologist).

Regarding the current war on this article because of a POV issue regarding a sliding scale with 'believers' on one side and 'blind rejecters' on the other separated by a healthy amount of middle ground people as well, I respect those that have the viewpoint that Wikipedia should only support reliable sources and enforce that policy.

However it should be noted that there is a group of researchers actively researching cold fusion claims. As most users who frequent this talk page well know. These scientists, despite a wish to do so, and a strict adherence to scientific method, regardless of whether their paper supports or does not support the subject cannot be accepted by peer reviewed mainstream journals or by the patent process. This results in an unfair situation in which those wishing to investigate the field within the realm of scientific endeavour will be unable to publish regardless of the outcome of their experiment, this is unscientific (the previous sentence is original research, but is included for context). This has resulted in this entire field writing articles and publishing them in journals that are reviewed only by other CF scientists or by self publishing without peer review, this is a damn shame but unavoidable given the wider scientific consensus.

QUESTION: Does this mean that we are categorically not allowed to post information form these articles?

From what I have read regarding fringe policy on wikipedia... it appears not, see the following comment:

Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

-from Wikipedia:Fringe under the heading 'Peer-reviewed sources help establish the level of acceptance'

This indicates that these sources may be included, so long as it is noted that the views are those of the group of researchers from that journal and not of the wider scientific community.

1. The above sentence seems to indicate that a lot of information that has been gathered by researchers in non peer reviewed journals that has perviously been denied access to the article by that (unavoidable) status should be included in this article, under a heading of 'non peer reviewed material' of course.

2. While I realise that the Scientific Community is of the consensus that CF is not real, I also note that this article is NOT a science article, its is a FRINGE article. Therefore under different rules regarding the inclusion of non peer reviewed journal articles. It appears to me that this policy has not been followed, given the apparent removal of nearly all information in the article not directly opposing cold fusion or else related to the original 1989 experiments and immediate aftermath (as opposed to what I remember about the article state 1 year ago, widom-larsden theory info comes to mind, and I would be curious to know why it was removed.)

3. Within the article, few references to the ongoing work in this community is mentioned, and where mentioned the comments seem to be always cited from a highly derisive point of view from some mainstream source, rather than any citation from a primary source (which of course would be non peer reviewed due to peer reviewed journal policy).

possible solution: I suggest that following the guideline above from Wikipedia:Fringe more primary sources from non-peer reviewed JOURNAL articles be included in a new section entitled 'Ongoing Fringe Research' or something similar. Always of course form the point of view or noting that this research is the views of the group represented by that journal and not of the wider scientific community.

NOTE: caution must be taken, as 'believers' may attempt to use any change in policy to insert quite a lot of unreliable stuff, HOWEVER, this should be balanced against the outright rejection of all sources by 'blind rejecters' which is also unacceptable. (note that the two terms used in the previous sentence are my own personal opinion and should not be construed as derision of a wikipedia user's personal character, rather they are labels based on my own scientific belief in impartiality and the weighing of all information regardless of source based on its own merits and credibility)

as stated above I would like some responses from moderators regarding these interpretations and consider any comments mocking my personal character to by highly unacceptable.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess my point is that it is the purpose of an encyclopaedia to inform. This article is not informing readers about any ongoing research, and mentions that research in one sentence in the summary which is written from a viewpoint that implies that these scientists are completely unreliable. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The way to think about this is to consider the hundreds of other contentious topics at Wikipedia. Suppose a reader who knows little about Shakespeare beyond standard high school education developed an interest in whether Shakespeare's plays were really written by Shakespeare. Would they want to spend time studying Shakespeare authorship question knowing it was based on the work of proponents of extreme minority viewpoints? Or, would the reader be better served if the article were based on reliable sources published by acknowledged experts in the field? To put it another way, no, this article will not have a section written by editors who select primary sources in order to advance a position. In the future, please restrict commentary to article content because the amount of soapboxing and irrelevant chatter on this page is tedious. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

your analogy is not really relevant, but that aside, you didn't answer my question regarding the policy that I cited. This IS commentary on article content... I'm saying that theres content missing. The only reliable experts in the field of cold fusion today have no way to publish in a reliable source. (note i am not saying all CF researchers are reliable, i am merely noting that if there was such a thing, they would not be able to publish in a reliable source)Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing this discussion I have to underline in this context that the article mentions some (cluster of) peer reviewed journals. Articles from the mentioned journals could be used to add further content details. These are reputable journals.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

is it this quote 'Cold fusion reports continued to be published in a small cluster of specialized journals like Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Il Nuovo Cimento. Some papers also appeared in Journal of Physical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, and a number of Japanese and Russian journals of physics, chemistry, and engineering.[105] Since 2005, Naturwissenschaften has published cold fusion papers; in 2009, the journal named a cold fusion researcher to its editorial board.' that you refer to? if so I agree.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course this is the quote. Should these articles be detailed by issue, year, journal, perhaps as a list of number of articles for each journal?--94.53.199.249 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Doing some research it seems that a review article was conducted by Edmund Storms in Naturwissenschaften.

Storms, Edmund, "Status of Cold Fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften, 97:861–881, (2010)

with several followup replies

Krivit, Steven. B., "Nuclear Phenomena in Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research," Naturwissenschaften. DOI 10.1007/s00114-013-1080-z, (Aug. 15, 2013)

Storms, Edmund, "Efforts to Explain Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions," Naturwissenschaften, DOI 10.1007/s00114-013-1101-y (Oct. 30, 2013)

these are reputable sources are they not? and can be used to create a new section about the current state of research summed up by this article and its followup comments.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

moreover he repeatedly cites his own book as a source of additional information (as an even more comprehensive review) http://www.amazon.com/Science-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction-Comprehensive/dp/9812706208 would this be considered a reliable source, as it seems to be being considered by Naturwissenschaften? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Quotes

Huizenga quotes

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)

Since you apparently don't have access to Huizenga's book, could you please explain specifically why it is that you believe his work has been misrepresented? Or if you don't believe that there is any misrepresentation, why it is that you would like to send the other editors of this page on an extensive scavenger – or snipe – hunt? Beyond the bare fact that you don't like what he has to say, I mean? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already explain what is the misrepresentation in a section that has been hastily archived. I'll explain shortly. The main misrepresentation is that related to Nernst equation.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Or...not. You've been bringing out the same stuff from the archives on a semi-monthly basis since at least August 2013. Most of the time, you copy-paste it out, maybe add a comment, then it gets archived again after a month or so of failing to gain any traction. Seriously, there are four copies of the section "Huizenga's reasoning to Nernst equation missinterpretation" in Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 45, and one more in Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 46. Please stop cluttering this talk page and wasting the time of other editors. You obviously don't have anything new to add this time around, either; stop beating the dead horse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A quote/excerpt about unfounded cluttering allegations from WP:TE is useful to be mentioned in this context:

• One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors

No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor, but simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e. g. "You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors. (end of quote)

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)

Taubes quotes

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)

Since you apparently don't have access to Taubes' book, could you please explain specifically why it is that you believe his work has been misrepresented? Or if you don't believe that there is any misrepresentation, why it is that you would like to send the other editors of this page on an extensive scavenger – or snipe – hunt? Beyond the bare fact that you don't like what he has to say, I mean? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There are here also several mispresentations that now I have not enough time to explain in detail.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

So you're expecting other editors to go through every reference on the page, since you won't say which ones you have an issue with (or explain why), and guess at the type and amount of additional detail will satisfy you? Not cool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My time schedule does not allow for the moment further explanations.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Well then get around to it when you can, don't expect others to do it for you. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:04, 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 wouldn't worry too much about that if I were you. Most of the isotopic effect is accounted for by using the different thermoneutral potentials for H2O and D2O. Slight differences in Li salt solubilities would only be small effects on top of that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the concept named thermoneutral potential requires further details. Are there somewhere data tables to illustrate the smallness of the isotopic effect in conductivity? If the isotopic effect is indeed small, then the source Taubes is not to be considered very seriously as a usable source.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

See http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/47302.pdf page 6 for a quick description. The TV for H2O is 1.48 and for D2O is 1.54V (as I recall). That means for a given electrical input, a larger fraction of the power will be used for the electrolysis with heavy water. This is a good illustration of why H2O is not really a good control for D2O. Other chemical properties vary as well. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

New reference - CF is rejected by mainstream

FYI - those who want to, you might consider including:

Y. Liu, R. Rousseau, "Towards a representation...", Information Processing and Management, 48, (2012), 791

as a ref to the mainstream rejection of CF. Quotes:

"These are clear indications that the theory of cold fusion is not accepted." - Section 9. "The Fleischmann-Pons article provides a case of an immediate explosion of attention, soon followed by the rejection of the ideas proposed in it." - Conclusions Kirk shanahan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

for the full title "Towards a representation of diffusion and interaction of scientific ideas: The case of fiber optics communication" i don't see how this is a relevant source, from what i can tell this guy is neither a Chemist, Physicist, nor a Cold Fusion Researcher and the subject matter is not about CF. The article already has plenty of sources to the mainstream rejection of CF in the Fleischmann-Pons aftermath, however, you might note that not all mainstream journals reject CF. In Storms (2010) review of cold fusion in Naturwissenschaften, in his conclusion he states:

"Where does the field of study stand at present? First of all, a large number of studies (Storms 2007) reporting production of large amounts of power and energy are now available for evaluation." and "Therefore, the claimed occurrence of unusual nuclear reactions under conditions thought not to cause such reactions is supported."

see [[1]] if you'd like to read it yourself. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know if someone can find a recent comprehensive review that is published in a mainstream peer-reviewed-journal that can be used as a source offering the counterpoints to those offered in Storms (2010) as I am considering writing a new section based on the current status of CF offered in this journal article. any help is appreciated. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be nice. Unfortunately, the marginalization of this subject means that there is only supportive literature of it. Normal skepticism, devil's advocacy, and careful review simply do not exist for the field. This is unfortunate, but that's simply the way things will remain until, for example, SPAWAR, ENEA, McCubre, etc. get their work published in Nature or Science or somesuch. jps (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing of Talk Page - Further Reminder

Not relevant to the article

I have been told that disruptive editing of talk pages for articles that are subject to discretionary sanctions is subject to discretionary sanctions. The posting of walls of text to this talk page is disruptive editing. If the reason that the unregistered editors are here is to get this article rewritten to state that cold fusion is considered science rather than fringe science, then they are wasting electrons. Any further disruptive posts will be reported to arbitration enforcement, and possibly to sockpuppet investigations. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC) if you are referring to me, noted regarding the amount of text in my previous section. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC) I was referring to the IPs, and I did not consider your comments to be disruptive. However, you have been notified. As the template notes, it does not imply any misconduct on your part. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding a paragraph on Reproducibility

I would like to add this:

A review of the subject by Storms in 2010 suggests that the reactions do not occur uniformly throughout the electrode but rather in small sites referred to as ‘Nuclear Active Sites’, the exact nature of which is not well understood. “Because the number of these sites is variable, many failures are experienced when no active sites are present… Often, failed replication results when important nano-structures are not present, conditions that are very difficult to reproduce reliably.”

to the bottom of the section on 'Reproducibility', anyone have a problem with this? source is: Storms, Edmund, "Status of Cold Fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften, 97:861–881, (2010) [[2]] Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This text and source are not okay. The source is not an independent source as would be required for such a claim. Naturwissenschaften's editorial review of cold fusion is controlled by Storms himself which means that there hasn't been adequate peer review of this statement. jps (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I would be reluctant to give much weight to this publication. It appears in a journal with a relatively modest impact factor (2.278), but more troubling is that the paper appears to be well outside the journal's usual scope and competence; Naturwissenschaften is specifically dedicated to papers in the general biological sciences. If you look at other papers published by this journal, this one is pretty emphatically an outlier.

Moreover, Storms is certainly not offering an unbiased take on the field; he's a true believer who is using a review article to push his personal point of view. (And he's pretty far out on the fringe, even for a cold fusion proponent. About the only 'biology' aspect of his Naturwissenschaften paper – and presumably the wedge by which he managed to get the paper kinda-sorta in-scope for publication – is his enthusiastic embrace of the notion that living creatures have harnessed low-energy nuclear transmutation to produce required minerals—despite an utter lack of convincing evidence.)

Finally, experienced Wikipedia editors will also cringe to note that Storms specifically acknowledges the contributions of User:Abd and User:JedRothwell to his manuscript. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Another issue is that an article at Wikipedia is not the place to debate why some experiments may have failed to reproduce results. The take-home message in an encyclopedic article like this is that there are no reproducible results, and there is no mainstream support for the reported phenomenon. The article may benefit from the addition of findings from an independent source, known for its reliability in the field, if that source were to assert that various reproducibility experiments were flawed for certain reasons. However, an article at Wikipedia is not available for the promotion of fringe ideas by diluting the fact that results have not been reproduced with suggestions for why such failures occur. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

First, I am 100% certain that nowhere in the world does the scientific review process does not allow one to peer review ones own work, despite Storms being on the editorial review board of Naturwissenschaften, due to ethics he personally would not have had anything to do with the peer review process for this paper, and to suggest so is at best original research on your part. I admit that him being on the review board would certainly have had an impact on the paper being accepted for review, HOWEVER, remember that Storms was put on the review board knowingly by the rest of the scientists at Naturwissenschaften and they personally OKed this paper. it is Original research to suggest that the article in question, from a reliable journal, is not a reliable paper. unless you can find a source that says so of course. Saying that he 'wedged' the paper in is literally accusing of academic misconduct, of which there is (to my knowledge) no evidence.

User Johnuniq has a point however and I will not add this section, however Storms 2010 meets all criteria for a reliable source. to say otherwise undermines the whole idea of a reliable source in wikipedia standards. it is not YOUR job to decide whether an article from a reliable peer reviewed journal is a reliable source. It just is. If you are calling it a 'biased source', may I remind you that wikipedia policy recommends the inclusion of opinionated sources (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources). I am not convinced that it is a biased source but that is the only guideline that even marginally applies from Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources that you might be using to call this source unreliable. Furthermore, avoiding 'undue weight' recommends the use of review articles, which this is, please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship and don't waste my time pushing your POV.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A discussion on whether this source is biased or unbiased would be useful as it bears importance on how information from it is written about in the article. However, this does not have any bearing on whether the source is reliable or not. please discuss to reach consensus. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The question of whether a source is "reliable" always needs to be considered in context—what is the topic of the article? what text would be verified by the source? There is also the question of WP:DUE—even if a source is reliable in a certain context, how does the text/source fit in the article? Those lofty considerations are not required for the source in question because it is clear that the journal and the author are not independent from those who promote cold fusion, and the article already has sufficient coverage of that side. If this article concerned a scientific topic where 40% of those in the field support a particular explanation, 30% support something else, and the remaining 30% think various other things, a source like the one in question might be acceptable as showing the opinion of its author. However, this article has none of those properties. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely with you about the issue of Due and Undue weight, I 'am not' suggesting that this article be rewritten from the point of view of this review paper. this represents 90% of your last post. However, the question of whether the content in this paper is reliable is not affected by due or undue weight. That merely affects how much content in the article is written from the POV of CF supporters. I reiterate, Storm (2010) is a reliable source, and may be cited when weight is due. I think there are a few things in this article that could be a nice addition to the wiki, particularly elements of the conclusion, I'm talking 2-3 sentences, this is not undue weight. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My comment, in hindsight, comes off a bit critical and reactionary. Thanks for your input on this matter. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Storms review is only a reliable source for what cold fusion proponents believe and does not qualify as the highest quality source we would use for an evaluation of a subject by WP:FRIND. Note that the text you are advocating is basically a rehash of Storms particular idea that the lack of reproducibility is due to a phenomenon he, as far as I can tell, invented out of whole cloth and is advocated by no one but himself. That there has been no critical review of his claims is simply a side effect of the research into cold fusion being marginalized, but 1) as there was obviously no critical review in place for that article, 2) Naturwissenchaften certainly did not choose a critical reviewer for the article, and 3) the whole point of putting storms on the board was so that he could handle submissions of cold fusion papers and similar subjects to the journal, it's obvious to me that we have a situation where the journal was basically allowing cold fusion promotion to be published unencumbered by critical review. That's not uncommon for medium to low impact journals. I can point to a number of journals which have done the same thing over the years from time to time in a lot of different areas. The idea is that if you relax your review standards you can get more papers published and perhaps increase the standing of the journal. This technique, however, tends to backfire after others notice the pattern. I see that Storms is no longer listed on the editorial board of Naturwissenchaften, for example. I wonder if they decided that this experiment was not in their own best interest. Well, this is speculation, but it is important to go through when evaluating whether sources are reliable for the approaches desired. In this case, I am pretty convinced that this is not a reliable source for anything but Storms' opinions, and you haven't made a convincing case that Storms' opinions should be included in this article. jps (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OBVIOUSLY Storms review is only a reliable source insofar as it represents what CF proponents believe, i have already said this. First 1) what evidence do you have for this? or is this your own opinion? 2) again what evidence do you have for this? I would like to know. 3) accusing someone of putting his own paper through without review is tantamount to accusing of academic misconduct, you had better have some evidence of this you your opinion means exactly nothing. Your wild speculations on whether the source is reliable based on your own POV makes no relevance on the subject at hand, see WIKI:POV and WIKI:Reliable source. I repeat: Storms (2010) is a reliable source insofar as it represents the views of cold fusion proponents. Stop pushing your POV, your opinion has no relevance on reliable source status, its a published paper in a reliable journal. So unless you have EVEIDENCE of professional misconduct and a lack of proper peer review stop waiting my time. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already shown the evidence. That Storms sat on the very editorial board of the medium-impact journal in which he was published is a classic WP:REDFLAG especially when WP:FRIND is concerned. That's all we really need to do. What I'm asking for is for you to find a better source. This one isn't good enough and it is clear that you are the only one who thinks otherwise. jps (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's medical articles, where I often edit, this type of issue is common enough that it's actually addressed in the guideline for identifying reliable (medical) sources, WP:MEDRS.

"Other indications that a biomedical journal article may not be reliable are [some medicine-specific points] or its content being outside the journal's normal scope."

While not explicitly spelled out in the general WP:RS guideline, this type of publication certainly should raise a flag in any journal. When a biological-sciences journal publishes a fringe physics paper, it's definitely getting out of scope. It is reasonable for us to question whether or not the journal's editors have sufficient relevant expertise to select appropriate, independent peer reviewers and to properly evaluate such reviews as they received. (Remember, even in 'peer reviewed' literature the final decision to publish – or not – rests with the journal editor(s), not with the peer reviewers.)

I remember an instance a couple of years ago where intelligent design (anti-evolution) advocates were pushing for heavy coverage of a paper on irreducible complexity that appeared in the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, a small medical journal. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 116#Baylor paper for one of the discussions. Two key concerns raised during that discussion were that the paper fell outside the journal's scope (why would a medical journal with a strong emphasis on clinical results publish a paper on evolutionary theory, and why would we trust it when it does?) and the fact that the paper's author sat on the editorial board, and would therefore have enjoyed more than the usual amount of influence over the decision to publish. (As I noted in that discussion, this type of problem isn't restricted to low- or even medium-profile journals; PNAS managed to publish this silly thing in 2009, for instance.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well reasoned but the similarities from that intelligent design paper and Storms (2010) are not analogous, the difference being that the ID paper was an opinion piece that was neither a research paper or review article, meaning that there was nothing to peer review. It bears many similarities to the case however, like you say he is on the editorial board, and an ID paper in a Biomed journal is (somewhat) similar to a CF article in a natural sciences journal. However, the paper in question was seriously derided in two replies to the ID article, the CF review article was criticised only on the grounds that it was TOO critical of several areas of research by not including enough of an in depth discussion. Dr. Joseph Allen Kuhn also was previously the HEAD of the editorial board, meaning that he had a very large influence, Storms was promoted to the board knowingly by the other editors that he was a CF proponent (given that he already had a book written on the subject, meaning that the other editors must at least in majority support his views). I still support that Storms (2010) is a Reliable, Biased source that represents a reliable source of Storm's opinions and (as he is in good standing in the CF community) the larger CF community in general. Therefore the issue of weight due or undue should be heavily considered (at a later time given suggested content inclusion) and note that undue weight should not be given. However, his conclusions in the article could well be given weight of 1-2 sentences as this is the only review article on the subject that has been written in recent years, positively or negatively. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the situations aren't identical, but they're sufficiently similar to be instructive. On the other hand, since you did spend so much time closely inspecting that old discussion, I'm sure that you also noted another key issue that was raised. To wit, that intelligent design paper had been published only a few months before the discussion, so it was difficult to determine how important or relevant it was perceived to be by the 'experts' in the field.

In dealing with Storms (2010), we don't suffer from that handicap; we can actually look at how often his 2010 paper was cited, and in what ways, to get an idea of whether his perspective is considered useful. Doing a quick search in Google Scholar, we find 16 citations in the four years since publication: [3]. Most of those are not in peer-reviewed journal articles. 7 cites are just Storms referring back to himself in various documents. One cite is a direct response from Steven Krivit (a prominent cold fusion believer), criticizing the original paper; interestingly, Krivit didn't even notice the Storms paper to comment on it until 2013. Another one is Liu and Rousseau's paper on, ironically, citation trends over time ([4]), which had nothing whatsoever to do with cold fusion. Even among the in-universe characters of the cold fusion world, Storms' paper seems to have attracted little attention or respect.

In other (fewer) words, then, we don't have to rely solely on our own evaluation of the quality of Storms' review article. The field of cold fusion researchers have done so for us—and despite being about as sympathetic an audience as Storms might ever hope to find, they have seen fit to ignore it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems clear to everyone that YES the only reason he could get this review published was because he was put on the review board which in my mind is sad. That the scientific community won't allow any discussion on a topic that has changed quite a lot in the past 20 years. I will note that the citation count is probably pretty irrelevant, as most CF papers aren't actually listed in google scholar. I'm going to give up now as I'm sick of arguing and its making me feel frustrated and i feel this has gone on long enough. Anyone who 'supports' CF even tentatively or sceptically has abandoned these wikipedia articles because of the difficulty of citing anything and don't blame them. I don't blame you guys either you are just following the rules.

I want to ask a question though. What if this wikipedia article is affecting the 'consensus' or overall viewpoint of CF? Wikipedia has grown beyond being a simple encyclopaedia, due in no small part to great contributors such as yourselves. When people want an answer to a question, such as "is there anything to this cold fusion thing that I've heard about?" where is the first place they look? My guess, 90% of the time it is this article. (I wonder if there is a way to check via google records). With that sort of thing happening there isn't much chance of a change without some massive irrefutable event. I am not saying that anything can be done, it is just something to think about. Does wikipedia's stance on Fringe articles affect the entire evolution of that fringe environment given wikipedia's high status? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is often a first stop for promoters of fringe ideas of all stripes. Being completely ill-equipped to decide which idea is continental drift and which idea is N-rays, we are stuck being equally cruel to all novel ideas. There are a bunch of Wikipedia policy arguments and essays with respect to this: WP:NOR, WP:RGW, WP:CBALL, WP:MAINSTREAM. The alternative is a free-for-all. That approach may be a good one too (e.g. [5]), but it is not the approach Wikipedia adopted for better or worse. My advice to cold fusion supporters has always been: go effect the change you want to see and come back. Submit your work to high quality journals. Address the reviewers comments if they come back rejected and keep pressing. If it is true and you convinced Robert Duncan on the basis of scientific work alone and not (as cynics have suggested) with the promise of bringing in a huge investment from Sidney Kimmel to Mizzou, you can probably convince some independent high-impact journal somewhere. jps (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

On citation counts, I'm not asking you to take my word for it, or insisting that Google Scholar's index is the final word. (Though Scopus isn't kind to Storms' paper either; I haven't checked Web of Science because I'm out of the office and there's only so much time in my day.) If there are a lot of reputable papers that cite and endorse Storms' summary of the field, but which aren't captured by the usual publication indices, then by all means call attention to them. The problem is that Storms seems to be occupying something of an outlying position even within the world of cold fusion proponents – the fringe of the fringe, as it were – and we should be very reluctant to present such an individual's views as representative of the state of the field. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I've learned a lot about citing reliable sources. I think that this section can be closed now. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove E-cat

E-cat, like many other cold fusion claims before it, seems like a flash in the pan publicity stunt. I suggest removing mention of it from this article per WP:ONEWAY. jps (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Until such time as the E-cat is either proven as a scam, or releases a commercial device for sale, I don't recommend removing it as there are still ongoing developments in the story. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing developments is not a rationale for keeping it in an article about cold fusion. It may be a rationale for having a separate article, but we have such a thing. jps (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Rossi and friends still supply press releases and non-peer-reviewed 'reports', but from a scientific standpoint it is hard to see any tangible 'ongoing developments'. The scale of the promises grows, but the actual deliveries.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Copied from User talk: Robert McClenon

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)

I will reply here, since your IP address keeps changing. First, since your IP address keeps changing, it would be useful to create a registered account. Second, for a description of discretionary sanctions, see discretionary sanctions. Second, you ask whether there is any potential interference with improvement of content of articles due to discretionary sanctions? That depends on what you mean by improvement of content. Discretionary sanctions provide special remedies for POV-pushing, incivility, etc., in contentious areas. This facilitates the NPOV improvement of content. It is meant to prevent the imposition of non-neutral POV on articles. In the case in point, it will slow down efforts by believers in cold fusion to demand changes that present cold fusion as mainstream science, when it is Wikipedia consensus and scientific consensus that cold fusion is fringe science. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

In order to prevent the imposition a non NPOV, firstly the NPOV must be determined, not assumed from start in order to prevent possible error of stating inaccurately NNPOV as NPOV. You seems to have the impression that the scientific consensus is that CF is fringe and some users are POV-pushing the contrary. One can certainly say that CF is controversial, the fringe status is to be verified based on sources.

This assertion as CF being fringe cannot reasonably accepted as an axiom, it has to be based on sources whose accuracy must be verified to prevent misrepresentation from insinuating. The requests from CF talk are intended to clarify some problematic aspects from some sources. These requests surely are for the improvement of the article and are reasonable and labeling them disruptive is objectionable (not to say obstructive because I understand using this word is not considered appropriate).

If you want to provide us with reliably sourced information indicating that cold fusion is not considered fringe by a large majority of the scientific community, you are welcome to do that, as long as demands are not made to edit the article, and as long as there is no edit-warring about what is included on this talk page. That doesn't change the fact that the scientific consensus is that cold fusion is pathological science. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If [cold fusion]] does happen under nearly normal conditions, why hasn't it been observed in non-laboratory conditions? What is the theoretical explanation of when it does and does not happen? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility of a misrepresentation of consensus? Any reasonable editor should consider this and should not impose a certain POV by default.--82.137.15.108 (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Therefore I ask you politely to stop labeling as disruptive reasonable requests for clarification of content of sources and what these sources really support.--82.137.15.108 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

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)

I continue here a discussion which I see has been moved from user talk.

Large majority of scientific community is a vague attribution that should be objectively determined. Secondly, it should not be assumed that hot fusion and cold fusion must necessarily share the same mechanism or other entailments like this.--82.137.12.140 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to provide us with reliably sourced information indicating that a significant minority of scientists accept cold fusion as sound science, then you are welcome to do so, provided that you do not provide demands to edit the article and do not edit-war over the contents of this talk page. The demands were disruptive, and the edit-warring was disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If cold fusion under nearly normal laboratory conditions exists, why has it not been observed outside of laboratories? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a place to debate whether cold fusion is real, it is not a forum. (that goes for you too Robert as per your last comment) Find reliable sources and come back. The scientific community must change its mind before this article can. Sadly % wise weight must be given due to CF proponents and opponents, based on the amount of consensus in the scientific community. In this article it pretty much is. Whether the article is well written and wether the CF sources are the best ones available is another matter of discussion. I'lI reiterate, this is not a forum to discuss whether CF is real, I know it is, you know it is, but the scientific community has its head up its ass so wikipedia must report on what the majority believes. nothing you can write here will change that fact. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The main aspect involved here I was trying to underline before the intervention of Insertcleverphrasehere is the wikicolaborative courtesy of providing quotes from sources for clarification by users who can access the sources containing the required quotes. I think there is some wikirule in this regard.--82.137.11.148 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment about a rule of providing sources for clarification. You acknowledge that providing quotes from sources is a courtesy and not a requirement. So what rule do you think you are referring to? Some of us have tried to collaborate and cooperate, but have tried to explain to you that the fringe status of cold fusion is an established scientific consensus, and that if you disagree with that, the burden of proof is on you to provide contrary evidence from reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The rule seems to be mentioned in WP:V WP:SOURCEACCESS supplemented by WP:REREQ and WP:REFCHECK.--82.137.11.2 (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Also I think we should keep two aspects which should not be interfered separate. These aspects are the request for sources clarification and the status of CF. Trying to imply equivalence between them is not reasonable.--82.137.11.2 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Another aspect is that the burden of improvement of the article by clarifying requested aspects should be on all users who edit (or propose edits), not just on some editors.--82.137.11.2 (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I am satisfied that the article reflects scientific consensus. The burden is on those who wish to change the article to find reliable sources and to show that those reliable sources represent the scientific consensus, or at least to show some academic support for cold fusion. I do not see the need to reply to further requests for "clarification", let alone to further demands to change the article or "improve" the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop conflating two different aspects. If you are satisfied and consider that there is no place for improvement by requesting clarification then you should not impose your opinion to others.--82.137.11.2 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

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)

In the absence of a compelling reason why the supporter(s) of cold fusion have to post from (shifting) IP addresses, rather than creating accounts, I am even further disinclined to respond to further comments from shifting IP addresses. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This seems like discriminating unregistered users by forcing them to register where there is no compelling reason to register.

What shifting IPs are we talking about? From I what can see in this talk page, beside dynamic IP edits, there are also static IP's who have edited. Is somehow suggested to further discriminate dynamic IPs from static IPs. Even the slightest suggestion to discrimination of IP vs registered users is contrary to wikirules and should be avoided.--82.137.11.2 (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Another annoying assumption is that editors who request clarification of sources must be necessarily CF supporters, other variant being excluded by default.--82.137.11.2 (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty presented by dynamic IPs is one of communication. The only effective way to discuss anything with these editors is in article talkpages. That means that the talkpages become cluttered with discussion of user-specific issues, disputes between specific editors, attempts to assist or coach those editors, and other things that would better be done on a user talkpage. In some cases, there is even cause for confusion between dynamic IP editors from similar ranges. A stable static IP does not present these problems, nor does a registered username. Robert asked a simple question, which has met only evasive answers. So again, is there a compelling reason? Or can you just not be bothered? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I can propose compelling reasons, but they would be inconsistent with the policy to assume good faith. If there is no reasonable answer, I may offer any of various unreasonable answers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, is there a compelling reason why supporters of cold fusion post from shifting IP addresses rather than registering an account or possibly accounts? As LeadSongDog observes, the use of dynamic IP addresses makes it hard to hold discussions of specific issues on user talk pages and clutters this talk page with IP-specific issues. I will also point out that in closing the RFC, the closer will undoubtedly treat all of the IPs as a single person. If there actually are two or more humans behind the IPs, they are discounting themselves by posting anonymously (rather than pseudonymously). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand from this discussion that static IPs can be considered as good for not cluttering as registered users as LeadSongDog explains. It seems reasonable to treat dynamic IPs from the same range as single persons even though this could not be the case. Regarding closure of RFC, this being not a vote counting it is rather indifferent whether IPs are the same person or not. Speaking on my behalf (and not of other IPs) I also have a registered account U18827.., so I consider that this aspect is clarified. Other shifting IPs may not be forced to register, although this could be recommendable.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Going Forward - RFC

I propose that, if anyone wants changes to the article, we should first get Wikipedia consensus via a Request for Comments. The first question that I plan to include in the RFC is whether cold fusion is considered by most of the academic community to be pathological science. The second question is which of the four categories of questionable science, as defined by the ArbCom, cold fusion belongs to. The four categories are: first, areas that are universally considered to be pseudoscience; second, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience, but that have a following, such as astrology; third, areas that are widely accepted as valid, but are considered by some to be pseudoscience, such as psychoanalysis; and, fourth, alternative scientific formulations. Does anyone want to add any other questions to the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ARBPS, principles 15 through 18, for the four categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC

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)

Pathological science

Should the article state that the experiments reporting cold fusion are widely considered to be pathological science?

Survey

• Yes - Generally non-reproducible, probably due to questionable experimental conditions, similar to polywater. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• No - One has to consider that there are also other inherently non-reproducible phenomena which are not pathological science like wind distribution, fission product yield. These examples due their non-reproducibility to statistical nature.--82.137.9.172 (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That's about the silliest choice of counter-examples you could have used. Those areas are classic fields where the statistical predictions, and only statistical predictions, hold up. While one can't say what the product of a single fission event will be, the probability distribution for large numbers of fusion events is very well understood. Similarly hurricane track forecasts vary based on different model's response to limited input data, but they are sufficiently accurate to predict two days in advance of landfall that it will occur in a certain area and timespan, saving thousands of lives by doing so. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, because it's considered so in reliable sources, and it was added to Langmiur's classical list by Denis Rousseau (the debunker of polywater). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• No. CF is controversial science, not pseudoscience: it is the interpretation of the experiments where there is dispute, not the character of the methods applied, which are regular science. Rousseau's ascription quoted above may have had some sense to it in 1992 when it was published, but the field has moved on since then, and at present cold fusion hardly fits any of Langmuir's criteria for pathological science. 'Questionable scientific conditions' is mere speculation, not backed up by proper science. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - Primarily because of the unwillingness of the proponent researchers to accurately engage with their critic and their tendency to resort to 'name-calling' instead. Kirk shanahan (talk) Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - The lack of full disclosure by experimenters precludes any meaningful validation of results. If there is any real phenomenon at work, it remains obscure after a quarter--century of study and will continue so unless that behaviour changes. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. CF meets the criteria for pathological science. See below. Roches (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• No - it is controversial science, which is hampered by the ongoing: lack of funding, lock-out from major journals and career-killing. But there are still researchers at well-qualified laboratories. The lack of an agreement on theory is by no means unique (high-temperature superconductors?), and using that to deny acceptance of experimental results is a reversal of science. Alanf777 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• No - CF, LENR, LANR CMNS, whatever its called is controversial science many researchers that delved into it to 'debunk it' either came out as supporters or closed up their mouth as to not lose credibility. Science has a bad reputation anyway as far as 'consensus' being a good way to judge controversial or revolutionary science. See Louis Pasteur or Alfred Wegener. unsigned edit by Insertcleverphrasehere at 20:29 24 June. -JJ
• Yes, pathological science, for the reason initially stated, and as supported by reliable sources. Also because of the nature of the counter-arguments, which tend more to rhetorical than scientific. (E.g.: "career-killing", and "Wegener!") ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Yes It fits the definition and is sourced. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. Clearly pathological science. I hesitate to say pseudoscience, because it's not clear the fraud is always on the part of the experimenters; fraudent design may produce false positive results. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, follow the best reliable sources' description. Enric's list is excellent. --Noren (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely, given that it can be sourced. Although the phrase "widely considered to be" or something of that sort is an important caveat. Anaxial (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, given that it can be sourced and the statement has due weight, Second Quantization (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. I.e., It is well sourced and well weighted. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

It isn't at all like polywater. With polywater a source of error was identified, realised to be the explanation for the claimed results, and very soon no-one worked on it any more. With LENR, it was rather the reverse in that reasons for failure were identified (e.g. insufficient loading). And with LENR people did not give up: a number of reputable people persevered and eventually achieved reasonable success rates. It is a fact of life that, in materials especially, because one does not have complete control over the conditions it may be hard to reproduce claims, so difficulty in reproduction should not be a reason to class claims as errors or pseudoscience. People should study the literature, e.g. the book of Storms, to get a clearer view of the situation, rather than take books written by deniers as gospel truth. And beware of taking lack of publication on the subject in journals such as Nature as indicators of whether or not the phenomena are genuine: some journals automatically return papers on the subject, so the fact that no published papers appear in them implies nothing. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, if journals are automatically returning papers on the subject, isn't that an indication that the journals in question don't consider LENR research as valid science? Remember, we aren't being asked whether the science is 'genuine', we are being asked whether the relevant sources consider it genuine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, again. Not a good argument IMHO, because there are reputable journals that do publish in this field. If journals such as Nature were to send papers on LENR out to referees as the journals I mentioned do, your claim would have some merit. But really all it shows is a policy adopted by the editors of such journals. We should not presume to know what they are thinking, as there may be other factors underlying what they do. For example, these editors are aware that their journal has a high reputation to keep up, and are probably fearful that they would be attacked for publishing papers on a subject that its readers might consider pseudoscience, and this may well be their primary motive. Editors of more ordinary journals don't have to worry so much, and are likely to feel they have an adequate defence against criticism if they have followed the usual procedures (which editors of journals such as Nature do not) of sending out papers to referees, and going by the judgments of referees who have studied the papers submitted in detail. It is also relevant that Nature and Science accept only a small proportion of papers that they receive, so rejection is not such a big deal for them and they may well adopt a rather kneejerk approach: there are almost certainly other papers that they don't send out for refereeing. Nature is a commercial operation and so all sorts of factors may influence their decision. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see someone try to make the case at wp:RSN for discrediting the positions of Science and Nature on this, in favour of the lenr.org collection. I don't really expect it to succeed, though. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And LeadSongDog seems to be confusing cold fusion research generally, where experimental details are published in the usual way, as has enabled replication by others on numerous occasions (admittedly not with 100% success), with the Rossi reactor, where for commercial reasons there hasn't been full disclosure. His vote seems to be based on a misunderstanding and he would benefit from studying actual research in the area, as for example collated in the lenr.org library.
I might add, since people seem to be very slow in picking up the point, that lack of 100% success in replicating a claim doesn't mean there isn't a real effect: take cloning for example, where in the original animal cloning experiment eventual success was preceded by very many failures, and I should imagine LSD would have difficulty replicating the effect even if given full facilities. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The sordid history of link spamming to lenr.org by its proprietor, leading up to blacklisting, is in the archives if you choose to read it. "The usual way" as you put it is marginally better for CF than for BLP or eCat, but still has all the walled garden problems it ever did. We have to base our content on reliable, independent, secondary sources. It is that simple. My lack of skills in microbiology has no bearing on the matter, though I am puzzled why you might think it does. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

It is controversial science. Many qualified researchers (a minority but significant number) remain convinced of its credibility lay weight to it being controversial science. Pathological science tends to have less qualified proponents (not that CF doesn't have its share of wackadoo's its just that there are lots of credible researchers convinced of its validity, and lots of others are afraid to speak out). Lack of a mechanism delayed lots of revolutionary theories for decades, despite good evidence, so saying that 25 years of research hasn't convinced the scientific community is stupid. Examples include; germ theory, plate tectonics, powered air flight, semiconductors, superconductors, heliocentricity, genetics, evolution, dark matter, quark theory, etc. All of which were delayed due to 'consensus' were controversial science with well qualified proponents and opponents. Mainstream non-acceptance is a symptom of BOTH pathological AND controversial science. you say that CF researchers resort to name calling, but what of CF opponents who do the same? CF opponents often publicly deride the entire field while citing dated papers from 1989 or 1990 that were themselves proven incorrect years ago (in other words, opponents often don't do any research to back up their claims of pathological science-a symptom of controversial science). Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No Insert..., in Langmuir's famous talk on pseudoscience he discusses a person named 'Latimer' who was a well-qualified scientist who got sucked into supporting a pseudoscience proposal. Afterwards, he was embarrassed to talk about it. BTW, the main chemistry building at Berkeley is Latimer Hall...

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)

What misrepresentations are alluded here?--94.53.199.249 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have published 4 papers in the field. In all 4 I refer to a systematic effect/error I call the Calibration Constant Shift (CCS) as a probable root cause of apparent excess heat signals. In a reply to the last publication, 10 CF authors conclude my objections to their excess heat interpretations are wrong because the 'random Shanahan CCSH' {calibration constant shift _Hypothesis_) is _clearly_ wrong. I never provided a random cause, but that doesn't stop them from claiming I did. That's misrepresentation. My 3rd publication was a response to a 2006 Comment from Dr. E. Storms on my 2002 original paper. I addressed each of his supposed points and showed how they were incorrect or irrelevant in a back-to-back publication with his Comment that he was clearly aware of. In his 2007 book, Storms claimed he had addressed all the issues I had raised, and he failed to reference my reply to him, while referencing my original paper and his comment. That's misrepresentation. Kirk shanahan (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This would appear to be the semi-official response from several long-time participants in the ICMNS/LENR community : . Alanf777 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Umm...no idea what you mean here. There is no 'official', 'semi-official', or 'unofficial' involved here, except that published papers and books are certainly 'official' representations of the authors' position at the time. In that sense the papers are totally 'official'. And since in the prior comment I was addressing the actions of one person, who are the 'several'? Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"I was addressing the actions of one person"--my mistake! I understand now! group of 10 is definitely several...sorry Alanf. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Having just read that report, Shanahan's CCSH was basically torn apart on every point, and given the vitriol that he just spouted in his previous comments, seems a little rich to me. Shanahan, did you respond to the aforementioned article? If not then you are guilty of exactly what you just accused Storms of having done. 75.140.120.183 (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well 75..., obviously you completely missed the point. Let me make it clear. I have NEVER proposed a 'random CCSH'. Yes, the 10 authors DID tear the 'random Shanahan CCSH' to pieces...that's the point of a strawman, to set up an easily defeated proposal, defeat it, and then pass it off to observers as the real thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) My CCS is a SYSTEMATIC effect, i.e. NON-random. The fact that the 10 authors have to resort to a logical fallacy to address my criticisms is extremely revealing. It means they have no other arguments against it, but they are so desperate to put me down that they invent nonexistent proposals, attach my name to them, and then denigrate their own invention while claiming it is mine. It ain't. So, as is the point of a strawman, my original criticism remains unaddressed. As far as responding, the journal editor wouldn't allow me to. Re. 'my vitriol'...I am always amused how pro-CFers go ballistic whenever any criticisms are leveled against their pet beliefs. Stating the facts as I did is not 'vitriol', it's just laying out what anyone can see by reading _all_ of the papers involved, not just one side's POV. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The comment from JJ is intriguing and generates a question. Has some statistical analysis of statements of reliable sources been done in order to asses labeling? And stylistic effects cannot be regarded as belonging to arguments.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Have the supporters of low-energy nuclear reactions provided an explanation of how the high potential barrier is lowered, that at the same time explains why it happens under nearly natural conditions but doesn't happen in nature? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Larsen (of Widom Larsen) claims it happens naturally. eg Lightning (and exploding wires), bacteria ...

Career-killing (see comment in vote above) is well documented. And even covered in the article. eg Melvin Miles and "Hagelstein begins the first day of this year’s course with a warning: this field can be dangerous for your career." 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)

Jon, your comment above about being uncertain how to qualify the field is typical of the nonspecialist in a field when presented with pseudoscientific results. The presenters seem legit and sound very scientific, and the talking heads or stuffy establishment dudes don't sound any different to you, or perhaps even worse as they often seem a bit strident. This is the problem with pseudoscientists...they sound like real ones. But they are always making some sort of fundamental mistake that invalidates their conclusion(s), and they refuse to deal with it in a truly scientific manner when that is pointed out to them. That's why you have to be alert to the invalid logical argument tactics they use, like strawman arguments, calls to authority, or personal attacks, to identify them. If you are looking at a real scientist with real data and a valid explanation, you won't get a lot of this (you can get some, especially if the reals guys are dealing with the pseudos). So when I point out for example the use of a strawman argument by the 'group of 10', that's what you need to note. You need to assess what I am saying, are they really doing that, etc. If they are, you should lean towards the pseudo- or pathological science designator for the CFers work. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Kirk, I am sure your encouragement is kindly intended, but I suggest that if you still are interested, you re-read what I wrote and do so more carefully this time. In my career I have actually read a few papers in a range of fields from time to time and refereed some too, both formally and informally, some of which I bounced and some that I supported. Cold fusion is a field that I independently rejected as mistaken in terms of its original rationale some twenty years ago, and soon abandoned pending the proponents meeting certain criteria, which they have not as yet achieved. My recusing myself from this discussion had to do with my unwillingness to brand the field of study as pathological science or controversial science, where I find myself more in tune with BJ's views. But your advice on "invalid logical argument tactics" certainly is trenchant. JonRichfield (talk) 20:24, 5 July 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)

WP:ARBPS Category

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.

Survey

• Category 2 - Generally considered pseudoscience, but has a following. (If it didn't, this talk page would not be contentious.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 3 - The definition of this category in the link given says about the typical example of psychoanalysis that only critics consider it pseudoscience. These seems to be the case with CF, only critics consider it pseudoscience. (This also can explain the contentious nature of this talk page, it has not to be pseudoscience in order to be contentious.)--82.137.9.172 (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 2, per general scientific consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 2, it still has a few important followers in important places. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 2 - Generally considered pseudoscience, but has a following. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 2 - Has a following mostly because of wishful thinking. Roches (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 4. Regarded as erroneous science by many, but recognised as valid science by those who have made a proper study. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 4 Note : Changed from: 2 -- but mostly because the universally-believed debunking was itself based on faulty or fudged (MIT?) experiments, which failed the now-known enabling criteria (See P&F and Storms guidelines, Craven & Lett's statistical analysis, and Hagelsteins reviews of calorimetry), and the hot-fusioneer's belief that head-on collisions are the only theoretical way through the coulomb barrier (Cold fusion is not hot fusion : think lattices, tunneling, screening, phonons, quodons, plasmons, discrete breathers ...) Alanf777 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC) (Spelling correction) Alanf777 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 4 Alanf777 hit the nail on the head in his above comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 2 This is the closest of the four options—it is presented as science but cannot be reproduced. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 2 by process of elimination: it's certainly not universally (even modified by "almost") considered pseudoscience, but neither is it widely accepted. In fact the description of 2 is rather a good characterization of cold fusion. --Dailycare (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 2. Clearly the best choice. It's considered pseudoscience by all but (a few) active researchers and their followers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Category 2 This is how it is described by the best reliable sources and in the mainstream. However, the question of whether ARBPS sanctions are applicable was already argued here (at very great length), and was eventually rendered moot by the subsequent Abd-WMC case. Sanctions are applicable to this article independently of the ARBPS case. --Noren (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Category 2 We wouldn't be having this discussion if it didn't have a following, but there's no evidence that it's "widely accepted" in the scientific community. If it ever becomes so, then we can change it to category 3 or 4, and add this as a historical perspective, but not before. Anaxial (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter. The arbitration committee has no capacity to decide any issue of policy nor do they have the capacity to provide guidelines. There is no reason we need to adopt their operating principles from several years ago, Second Quantization (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Category 2. The cold fusion conventions are well attended, there are researchers in this field. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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 changed my vote from 2 to 4 -- because the description here "2. Generally considered pseudoscience, but with a following, such as astrology." doesn't include the phrase "... may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.", which leaves 4 as my only choice. Alanf777 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And it seems to me that many of the 2 supporters stopped at "2. Generally considered pseudoscience, but with a following". I suggest they too reconsider option 4 as a better Hobson's Choice. Alanf777 (talk) 20:24, 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)

While editing I initially put for my category the one that is said to be quite popular during elections: none of the above. But then I decided perhaps category 4 with its word 'alternative' was meant to occupy that role, so changed to that before posting my edit. But it seems to be an excellent idea to have a category controversial science.
Now the thought has occurred to me: there exists a process that might be called 'manufacturing truth', and w'pedia plays an important role in this process. This is not the place to enlarge on that, so I'll write something about it on my own talk page when I get the chance. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: 'cannot be reproduced'. No, this is not so. What you mean is 'cannot be reproduced at will'. There may be some factors that influence the phenomenon at hand and which are not subject to precise control, and in such situations it may not be possible to reproduce the phenomenon at will (the length of time that a tungsten light bulb will last before it fails may be an example). It may be however that the probability of success is a function of parameters that one can adjust, and in such conditions one may be able to find the 'optimal operating point' (a strategy to which Mitchell Swartz has drawn attention). This is a nice idea as it explains why perseverance can lead to success while others, perhaps less dedicated to the work, fail. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

When there is no reproducible experiment that demonstrates a claim, the correct description is "cannot be reproduced". A claim might be that some outcome occurs 10% of the time if a certain procedure is followed, but even that cannot be done for cold fusion. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and that's how articles on scientific topics are treated in reputable journals as well as Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Even in well-established fields like semiconductor manufacture, following rigorous procedures, the yield on large circuits can fall below 10% ( hence the high price). As I point out in another reply there are now multiple reports of 100% success. Alanf777 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems that one cannot exclude statistics and probability from playing a key role in this phenomenon.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, stats and prob are definitely involved, but there is a more general meaning to 'reproducible'. It is used both in discussing experimentation and in patents. It means that a worker (scientist) skilled in the art should be able to obtain substantially similar results from a described experimental protocol (minor variation is allowed). But to my knowledge that state or condition has never been obtained. Typically people who try to replicate get no measureable effect and have to tweak the provided recipe substantially to get any signal. Then, their new protocol fails to work for the next worker. The most recent case of this that I am aware of is the description in Hagelstein's 2010 progress report (Chapter 48. Fleischmann-Pons effect studies, RLE Progress Report 152, p 6-7 of 17 http://www.rle.mit.edu/media-content/archive-progress-report/ - click on the link for Chapter 48) where he describes the problem in reproducing what was thought to be a fully reproducible protocol. This illustrates the problem, people seem to get reproducible results in their own work, but it isn't translateable to others skilled in the art, thus full reproducibility has not been obtained. Partial reproducibility yes, which tends to suggest that there is a real effect of some sort that is not well understood at all. My contention has always been that this effect lies in the realm of normal physics and chemistry, no new nuclear reactions needed. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How can the two mutually exclusive assertions of factors (nuclear vs non-nuclear) be discriminated against each other by the rules of the scientific method? I think that this is an important aspect. As Brian Josephson pointed out somewhere (in september 2013?) the skillfulness of each experimenter can be compared to that of an technological process supervisor when he is in vacation and other less skilled employees cause perturbation to the technological process.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

By producing an experimental protocol that is fully reproducible which either uses principles aimed at eliciting the proposed nuclear reactions or principles which use mundane but possibly unique and interesting forms of physics and chemistry (especially). In other words, the proof is in the pudding. Until such time as full reproducibility is obtained, researcher's suggestions as to causes are just that suggestions, and should be viewed as quite possibly incorrect, since they didn't give the desired results. The argument about who is skilled in the art and who isn't is a perennial one, and rarely adds value. When an experiment is fully reproducible, a broad range of workers/scientists will be able to do it to some level or the other. Then, the skill level will likely be reflected in the degree of adherence to the maximal effect noted by the recipe's originators. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this insistence on fully reproducible results. How this request for full reproducibility is going to help the discrimination of factors? Is it reasonable to demand full reproducibility on this phenomenon when it is known that material science offers examples of partial reproducibility and the processes of the same considered nature like nuclear fission is not fully reproducible?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If the results are not fully reproducible with the same conditions, then how can the "discrimination of factors" be studied? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In the process of reaching a fully reproducible formula or recipe for demonstrating an effect, you propose hypothetical control factors, and then run experiments designed to show clearly that those factors have a specific and quantifiable (even if it's off/on) impact. Note that early on, this might even be reversed, i.e. you run experiments, observe what is happening, and try to identify factors from the recorded data. But eventually, you should be working with some reasonably well understood factors that just need a bit of refinement. Once you have enough of the controlling factors defined, your residual error will constitute less than some percentage of the total undifferentiated variation. Typically for research purposes, the percentage is higher than for developing a chemical process that employs the effect under study. As a ballpark figure, 80% is probably good for early R&D, but you need to approach 95% or greater for process design, otherwise your process tends to be very wasteful, i.e. expensive. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarification...the 80% above is the fraction of total data set variation explained by whatever quatitative model you are using. In statistics, it typically is the multiple R^2 value, which for linear models is the square of the correlation coefficient. In other words, for R&D you want correlation coefficients of 0.89 or greater (recognixzing the correlation coefficeint is only defined for linear models). Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This is indeed a good question which requires ingenuity and possibly factorial experiment design to various recipes with differential control experiments.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't explicitly state it above, but the most efficient means to do what I describe is via statistically defined experiments. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Are there any experiments designed and reported to see the influence of the nature and composition of electrodes (pure metal or alloys) on triggering the phenomenon? Also have different discriminating conditions, like alternating current frequency variation experiments in ionic solutions to exclude electrolysis, been tried?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:14, 25 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)

I put a question mark after "fudged?". Failed : Craven and Letts "Two failed experiments that mattered" (table 3) shows that one of the key "debunking" experiments met NONE of the now-known four enabling criteria, and the other met only one. Alanf777 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither of which is the MIT experiment. The overarching observation is that you don't always get apparent excess heat. If my CCS mechanism always predicted excess heat, it would be wrong. It also requires a 'special active state'. See my comment below for more details. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Reproducability and statistics (see Craven and Letts): the exact criteria for inter-group reproducability are not yet known, but many experiments run multiple cells, which is a form of self-control (accidental blanks). More recently, several reports show that all the cells were active, and as part of SKINR working cathodes from one lab have been used successfully in another (unpublished, but presented at an EEC meeting). Edit: Also, McKubre, in a recent interview said that his lab at SRI had completely replicated (building from scratch) several experiments. Alanf777 (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Godes..McKubre Abstract—We have run over 150 experiments using two different cell/calorimeter designs. Excess power has always been seen using Q pulses tuned to the resonance of palladium and nickel hydrides in pressurized vessels. Excess energies of up to 100% have been seen using this excitation method. (my emphasis)Alanf777 (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at this paper shows they are making the same mistakes with regards to differentiating between CF and CCS. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

SKINR/EEC : Huber Presentation http://22passi.blogspot.it/2013/06/new-advancements-on-fleischmann-pons_5.html one slide extracted : http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/passi_nato_huber_P1070417.png -- cathodes manufactured by ENEA, used in other locations. eg COP 3000 for 960 hours. Alanf777 (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The 12th slide has the conclusion that CCSs are avoided because they register a big signal and then it goes away...how is this any different from any other closed electrochemical cell 'excess heat' event? Answer: It isn't, ergo, this work does not distinguish between a CCS and a CF event. This is what you get when, as a pseudoscientist, you ignore a critic...you keep repeating the same error pointed out by the critic. More proof of the pseudoscientific nature of this research. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:30, 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)

Triggering: you really need to read up on plasmons, quodons, phonons and the like. I'm not a science historian, but I'm sure there are plenty of documented feuds in well-established fields. So I don't see your personal experience as particularly illuminating. Alanf777 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As it turns out I have been doing just that. The idea that phonons couple to form standing 'rogue waves' which then go on to create heavy electrons is extremely highly speculative. The energy differences are just too great to make it probable. But that really has no bearing on this discussion and your comment is just another attempt to denigrate my position by inferring that I am 'not up to speed'. A) I assure you I am, and b) if I were to be wrong on the details of various triggering methods, that would not invalidate any comments on anything else. But, this is another of the common pseudoscience tactics I jokingly call 'throwing out the baby with the bath water'. They want the observer to believe that making mistakes is strictly forbidden in science and anyone who does so should be ignored. Too bad they never apply that logic to their heroes who are claimimg to do LENR. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hagelstein and MIT : "Additional information about the MIT calorimetry has allowed a more detailed analysis. The major new finding is that the walls of the MIT calorimetric cell were so well insulated with glass wool (2.55 cm thickness) that the major heat transfer pathway was out of the cell top into the room air rather from the cell into the constant temperature water bath. This helps to explain the reported sensitivity of 40 mW for the MIT calorimetry versus the sensitivity of 0.1 mW achieved for the Fleischmann–Pons Dewar calorimetry. The evaluation of calorimetric designs, accuracy of temperature measurements, electrolyte level effects, calorimetric equations, and data analysis methods leads to the clear conclusion that the Fleischmann–Pons calorimetry was far superior to that of MIT. Therefore, the results of the MIT calorimetry cannot be used as a refutation of the Fleischmann–Pons experiments"

I suggest you take this part of the discussion to a science forum, or respond to that article in the customary manner. Alanf777 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Then you really should stop posting links to bogus papers and talks. But don't worry, I don't anticipate there is anything in any of the other links you've posted that I haven't commented on, so I am done with this specific effort. My point here was that every time someone throws a paper out that claims CF is 'proved', I find that it is full of flaws, the most common being they ignore the CCS problem. As I said above, this just proves the pseudoscientific nature of the research. You really should change your vote to a '2' Alanf... Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for completeness...looked at the Miles and Hagelstein JCMNS paper...good points made, but no inclusion of a two-zone model of the calorimeter, therefore no way to evaluate the impact of a CCS...as expected, since Hagelstein doesn't seem to believe I made any worthwhile contribution based on the video of his 'Cold Fusion 101' course (at 8:12, 1st video at http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cold-fusion-101-video-lectures/). Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Miles also analyses the Harwell, MIT and Caltech "disproof" experiments. "...The isoperibolic calorimetry reported by Caltech, MIT, and Harwell neglected important power terms leading to large errors. . Shanahan's draft paper is at and the Storms-Shanahan-Storms-Shanahan dialog is at . The reply-by-10's comment "Shanahan's random CCSH", is perhaps just a semantic interpretation that his CSH formula results from (his words) "some variation", "small natural variation" and "statistically determined". In any event, I think I have made my case that the main "debunking" experiments, which resulted in the cut-off from funding and the outlawing of the field, were themselves deeply flawed. Alanf777 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, they know that my proposal is non-random because my other two publications after the original were replies to people who essentially said the same thing (that I was discussing a random phenom.). My replies then made it clear that I said I was discussing a systematic effect. The literature is perfectly clear on this. W.r.t. Miles - he also does not fold in my concerns. His comments may apply to the 3 labs' work discussed or not, it is irrelevant here. Here we are concerned with where to apply the designation 'pathological'. Miles ignoring my work is another example of why the label goes to the pro-CFers. The other document you bring up is a copy of an open discussion on the old Usenet group sci.physics.fusion (spf). It is very illustrative of the pseudoscience approach to my work. I recommend you all read it. The randomness-related comment therein by Mike Staker also shows how they weren't willing to understand what I was saying to any appreciable degree. My CCS is not random, and it is not required to have equal manifestation in the positive and negative senses. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This looks to me like a trick survey, through the lack of an option 'other'. It is clear that because people consider they have to choose among options 1 to 4 they are being forced into an option with a description that they don't completely agree with. It is well known in the world of surveys/polls that you can steer people in particular directions by choosing the right questions and one has wonder what lies behind this choice of questions. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As Arthur Rubin points out, they do have to choose among options 1 to 4 because those are the categories that were defined by WP:ARBPS. The choice of those categories was not a trick nor an effort to steer the result, because it is exactly what is defined by ARBCOM. (What else would there be anyway?) If you don't like the categories, you can !vote Other, but that will probably be ignored by the closer, because the purpose of the RFC is to decide, in accordance with Wikipedia principles, which label should be used in the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Those who think "Category 2" doesn't fit because of the mention of astrology, should realize that category 4 does not fit at all....and the categories are selected on the basis of WP:ARBPS for determining what should be said about it. If you don't like the categories, request clarification from ARBCOM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm having problems seeing why that page is relevant. All the discussions on that page seem to relate to previous disputes. Whoever initiated the cold fusion issue obviously looked on that page to find categories in order to create the survey, but there's absolutely no reason why the present case should be treated identically to previous ones and I can't see anywhere where it is stated that that list is binding. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the question isn't well posed. If part of the question is to determine which label should be used in the article's lead, then I included a !vote above to register an opinion, but it makes no sense to me to want to reference an arbcom case in article space. If, instead, this is a question intending to determine to what extent the wikipedia arbcom Pseudoscience case applies to Cold Fusion then the question is pointless as that very argument has already been heard by the Committee back in 2009- I think a wiki-history lesson is in order. The pseudoscience case was decided in 2006, and soon after the arguments on this page began as to whether and to what extent that case applied to the topic of cold fusion. Many of the same arguments appeared on both sides of the question, and things got heated. In 2009 this and other issues on this page heated up enough for Arbcom to take a new case, the somewhat less than perfectly named Abd-WMC case. Of course the arbitration committee did not express an opinion as to whether or not cold fusion is pseudoscience as that is a content question. They did remove any possible ambiguity as to the application of the prior pseudoscience case by directing therein that discretionary sanctions are applicable to this article.--Noren (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment to Arthur Rubin. Regarding Rubin's statement (It's considered pseudoscience by all but (a few) active researchers and their followers.) I think that he, as a professional mathematician, should be very cautious using the generalized quantifier all in his statement as it is not clear who are these all and what is the statistical weight that should be given to a vague, statistically unspecified 'all. Also it is not clear whether the few active researchers mentioned by A Rubin are really that few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Vote Counting

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)

But the 'evidence' is flawed, and that brings on 'reasonable doubt'. I am active in the field...so that disqualifies me? I think it makes my opinion more valuable! I don't have a 'feud'. I presented a reanalysis of data that drew an opposite conclusion about CF and twice responded to derogatory comments on that work. Then I commented on another paper, and was answered with a paper that proves way beyond a shadow of a doubt that the commenters (who are 'names' in the field) didn't even understand the basics of what I had done. If there is a feud going on, it is all one sided. I just want to see the CF article reflect the current status quo (which it does not), so I posted a current reference to how the mainstream views CF and responded to the RFC and comments within. But, claiming that I have some nefarious reason to slur CF is a typical 'personal attack' tactic. Just more proof... Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The closing of an RFC is not limited to the counting of votes, which are anyway referred to as !votes. It is also based on the strength of arguments. This sort of Wikilawyering is unhelpful and is not conducive to obtaining consensus or getting clean closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I see from wikidefinitions that consensus and RFC are not by counting options expressed (aka votes) but by analysis of arguments . I consider Kirk's arguments worth to consider, as he has shown technical expertise/understanding. Regarding options to ignore in analysis of arguments, the ignorable comments should rather be those by Roches, JJ, Johnuniq, Andy, Enric Naval which have less argumentative value, sounding rather like repeated buzzwords/clichés than real arguments.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kirk shanahan that the allegation of a feud comes close to a personal attack. Any further personal attacks may be taken to arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Then I'll withdraw my classification of "feud", and just point out that he makes ELEVEN references to other CF researcher's rejection/misunderstanding of his CCS theory (the paper is behind a paywall). And classifies my references as "bogus papers and talks" Alanf777 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'group of 10' paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf If you go to that site and search on my name you will find the original manuscript describing the data reanalysis and the CCS that was submitted in 2000 to a journal that eventually rejected it because of reviewer commenting. It was slightly modified and published in Thermochimica Acta in 2002, but the original is probably >95% identical. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked them up, and commented in the previous section. Alanf777 (talk) 21:43, 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)

I disagree with any argument that mainstream science was wrong to question continental drift. They were right to question it until a mechanism was found. However, there were reasons why Wegener proposed it, as there were reasons why Galileo supported the heliocentric theory, that did not involve questionable experiments. The "jigsaw puzzle" effect, in which South America fits so well with Africa, was a reason in itself why it was worth looking for a mechanism. There was also paleontological evidence that was supportive of continental drift. However, mainstream science, in the absence of a mechanism, was right to question it. Likewise, the acceptance of the heliocentric theory depended on a mechanism, Newtonian gravitation. In the case of cold fusion, there are both questions about the experiments (and there were no questions about Tycho's observations) and the mechanism. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point mentioned by JJ. I'll stricken my mentioning him in the list.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A helpful analogy

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)

Sure, cold fusion may be a real phenomenon, and great results may be obtained in the future. But the same could be said for hundreds of other topics which proponents would like favorably treated at Wikipedia. The only practical approach for articles like this is to rigorously insist on accounts of results from reliable sources—not dreams of what may occur. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! There are plenty of positive results published in what I (and other scientists) regard as reliable sources, no dreaming required (no need to waste time and effort telling me that w'pedia has a different definition of reliable to the real world definition, I already know that). -- Brian Josephson (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The real problem is that there are conventional, everyday chemistry and physics explanations for the observations. The problem comes from the CFers refusal to consider them, and the extent that they go to to avoid dealing with them. I mean how often do you see a group of 10 authors repeatedly resort to a logical fallacy to try to defeat a proposed explanation that they don't like? Not very often. And it is this massive effort at not dealing with criticisms that labels their work as pathological and makes it extremely difficult to believe they really have found anything of great importance. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific proposal somewhere? If there is a suggestion for additional text, please keep it simple by proposing just one addition, with source. However, any addition has to avoid WP:SYNTH—text should not describe esoteric details near the limits of experimental procedure with a hint, for example, that any day now cold fusion may be proven. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going waste my time doing that, as experience shows that the cabal will immediately find some guideline that will give them an excuse for not including it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

However, I will go as far as suggesting that you look at my letter published in Nature to see if you find any acceptable references there. But you will no doubt say the links are a primary source so not reliable, and not allow my letter to be considered a reliable source, despite it having been published in Nature, for all sorts of reasons. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

In the McKubre, et al (McK) paper you reference, it can be seen that they use a slightly different calibration equation than usual. However, it can be reduced to the same form via a little algebra, so this paper does essentially the same thing as Storms did with the Pt electrodes in 2000. In the McK paper, propagation of error theory is applied to compute uncertainties, BUT under the assumption that k’ is a constant. However McK also say that k’dT was 2-4% of input power, so it is a variable and should have been considered in the uncertainty calculation. As I showed in my first paper, a 1%RSD variation was able to produce at 780mW signal for Storms. McK report excess heat signals of ~1W, indicating that their results are in the same region as the Storms 2000 results. In my mind at least, that leads me to believe a full error analysis by McK would have shown likewise that the observed signals were artifactual. Perhaps they could have even beaten me to the ‘CCS’ postulate had they done so.

In the Storms 1990 paper, only tritium is measured. The measurement technique is a standard one, 1 ml of sample is mixed with 10 ml of scintillant solution (i.e. standard LSC analysis). However, Fritz Will reported that this approach is susceptible to error due to dissolved Pd, and further developed an alternate method that microdistilled the sample to theoretically remove the Pd. Storms and Talcott mention that some corrective actions were taken in the LSC method they used, but do not elaborate on the details, a typical CF action which is insufficient in this case. The independent observer needs to be able to assess how well the dissolved Pd problem was handled. It is also of interest to note that Will remarks in the second paper that there may be interfering effects, even in his microdistilled samples, from dissolved or suspended nanoparticles and/or other things. So, here we have again insufficient information to assess the reliability of the T results. Certainly not a definitive paper. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

First who exactly are you responding to here? Second I think I need to remind you that this page is not a forum for you to spread the word of your hypothesis, that should be done via peer reviewed science, just like other 'CF' researchers' works. What do you hope to gain by convincing people here? I know very little about calorimetry, certainly not enough to judge your hypothesis on its own merits most others here are the same. Others knowledgeable in the subject have rejected it, perhaps for personal investment reasons, perhaps for valid scientific ones. There does, however, seem to be little support for your CCS hypothesis by... well... anyone (if there is, please CITE it). If you are trying to drum it up here, you are in the wrong place. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Who? The person immediately above my comment, who suggested papers listed in his reference be included in the article. My comment is to point out that there are significant problems with those refs, making them not acceptable for use. I note that that may not be obvious to a layman, but Brian should have no difficulty understanding the points. Hopefully he would withdraw his suggestion after verifying my comment. What do I hope to gain? A fair and balanced article that gives the Wikipedia reader the current state of affairs in the cold fusion arena. If what I have been posting seems new to you, then my point about the article being incomplete is accurate. Re: my CCS postulate - I believe it has been established that pointing out blatantly obvious problems in sources is not OR, as anyone with some knowledge should detect this. I believe that using strawman arguments in a literature paper is one of those obvious things. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Patents

Mitsubishi Patent

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)

link please? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/patents/EP1202290B1?cl=en207.23.182.118 (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

For those who may not believe Google, http://register.epo.org/application?number=EP01402812 . Seems to have been originally a Japanese patent filed for in 2000. As I can't read Japanese, I'm not sure whether that patent was granted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 27 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)

Two questions:

• Just add the Mitsubishi patent to the article. If the 1993 patent is redundant, it will be obvious to other editors.
• is there any secondary source saying that this patent is important? There are many patents issued every year by many big corporations, and most of them amount to nothing. We shouldn't making big lists of patents, without any secondary sources.

--Enric Naval (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

First point is not a question.. please elaborate. The second point.. this is the one I found: http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXNASDZ040JJ_X00C14A4000000/ a report from a large Japanese media corporation. Are there any secondary sources referencing the patent in the existing article?207.23.182.118 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not entirely clear what part of the article you're referring to as the '1993 patent'. If you mean the University of Utah action, there's a citation to Lewenstein in the article, are you challenging that? I guess one could argue that's a tertiary source and follow it down to its secondary source, in this case Lewenstein refers to a news story by Constance Holden, "Utah Puts Fusion Out in the Cold," Science 262 (10 December 1993), pp.1643. --Noren (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the Cannon patent from 1993 that is mentioned in association with the European patent office.137.82.82.140 (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There is also a 1993 patent by Canon, but it's clearly sourced to a New Scientist article.

That Japanese source is published by Nihon Keizai Shimbun, right? I think that's enough to get mentioned in the patents section. Why not add it right next to the Canon patent? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

US Navy Patent

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/US8419919207.23.182.118 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's original research. The USPTO manual says they don't accept cold fusion patents, and there are other sources saying so in the article. The patent reviewer might be sloppy, or the patent was carefully crafted to avoid rejection. Our own article explains that a "cold fusion" patent was approved by muddling the links to cold fusion and getting different reviewers. This doesn't mean that the USPTO now accepts cold fusion patents. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the part of the patent manual that deals with cold fusion. I can't find it. The linked patent was examined for 6 years and directly references cold fusion 12 times. The only reference in the article to the patent office's policy is a 1 sentence quote from patent office official from a decade ago.207.23.182.118 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is some evidence that the USPTO is changing its position. But it's not been reported in wiki-reliable sources, so it doesn't exist. eg see David French's lead-in statement for a seminar he chaired at ICCF-18 http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/files/Poster/French.pdf (there's a youtube video of the seminar). Alanf777 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Correction -- the ICCF seminar was a general "what next" session, though it covered patent issues: French made a specific patent presentation at the MIT colloquium http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cold-fusionlanr-colloquium-at-mit/ Alanf777 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this section C II? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That section explicitly states: "These examples are fact specific and should not be applied as a per se rule. Thus, in view of the rare nature of such cases, Office personnel should not label an asserted utility “incredible,” “speculative” or otherwise unless it is clear that a rejection based on “lack of utility” is proper." It does not state that the USPTO does not accept cold fusion patents.207.23.182.118 (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

From the cite LeadSongDog mentioned, 2107.01 section C II: "Situations where an invention is found to be “inoperative” and therefore lacking in utility are rare(...)Examples of such cases include:(...) a “cold fusion” process for producing energy (In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703 (Fed. Cir. 2000))..." --Noren (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The next part of the section is the part I quoted. Where it says that the patents must be examined on a case by case basis (i.e. should not be applied as a per se rule). This section of the patent manual in no way states that cold fusion devices are rejected as a class of applications.207.23.182.118 (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• As a side question: what is this "US Navy Patent"? The Navy neither grants nor claims patents, and the specific patent linked above does not mention the Navy, so I am a little perplexed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• The first 3 authors of the patent were employed in the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), which is owned by the US Navy. I understand that authors Mosier-Bos and Spazk carried all their research in SPAWAR, and they received funding even in difficult times. Not sure about Gordon.

• But all 3 SPAWAR researchers are retired! They no longer work at SPAWAR!

• And the patent is not assigned to US Navy's SPAWAR, it's assigned to "JWK International"! This company is the employer of the fourth and last author.

• Of course, it's getting spinned as "US Navy gets a cold fusion patent". --Enric Naval (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The patent is assigned to two entities. JWK international, a military contractor with a long history related to the navy, and the United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. This is clear from the above link.137.82.82.140 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely clear; I had to click on "More" to find mention of the Navy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Clear enough to anyone familiar with the use of 'more' on web pages. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to get snarky. The "More" was at the end of the line of "Original assignees" and ran off my screen, and until I found it and clicked on it the information was not visible to be seen. All this being so, I wonder why this patent isn't called by the first assignee, Jwk International Corporation. For sure, it appears to arise out of work funded by the Navy. (Then why is Jwk the lead assignee? Does such funding constitute waste and abuse of government funding?) Or perhaps, as Enric Naval suggested, there is a bit of spin to associate the patent with stolidity and credibility of the U.S. Navy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

To those who actually read the above link, it is quite clear that Enric was correct in his statement about the current ownership of the patent and the IP was mistaken to claim that it currently has two owners. The "LEGAL EVENTS" section on that web page makes it clear that in March 2013 the entire patent was assigned over to "JWK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, VIRGINIA". --Noren (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean. The only legal events I see are the assignment of Forsley's interest to his employer JWK International. My understanding is that this is a common practice and does not change the Navy's status as assignee.207.23.179.92 (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the US Navy was an original assignee, but it was dropped in the final assignation for some reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So this patent is more properly named after "JWK International" than "US Navy". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The string "cold fusion" does not appear anywhere in the abstract, the description, or the claims of that patent; in fact the word "cold" appears nowhere in that patent other than names of some of the citations, and the word "fusion" only appears once in the body, in the phrase "in laser fusion experiments" which clearly does not refer to cold fusion. How do you figure that a patent that never uses the phrase is evidence that the USPTO is intentionally accepting "cold fusion" patents? If the USPTO has no problem with accepting "cold fusion" patents, why does the phrase "cold fusion" not appear in the patent proper? I'm not aware of anyone making the claim that the USPTO rejects patents simply because they refer to papers with "cold fusion" in their titles.--Noren (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this patent, which, was reviewed for almost 6 years, describes nuclear emissions from an electrolytic system, and heavily references cold fusion literature reports, necessitates a re-evaluation of the language of the patent section. The statement: "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion" is based on a one sentence quote in a decade old article and should be examined by editors to assure that it accurately reflects the current situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.23.179.92 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The patent you refer to does not claim cold fusion, it does not even use the phrase. --Noren (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly true. It describes nuclear emissions from an electrochemical system and heavily references cold fusion. The fact is that few modern claims use the term cold fusion because the term tends to send some literal minded people into a recursive loop. I don't think that these authors made any attempt to disguise the active principle of their device. And I don't believe that after a 6 year application process a patent examiner would be unable to determine that the device operated by the principle of cold fusion. The patent section, as written, needs stronger sourcing to justify the language stating that the USPTO does not grant patents that operate by the principle of cold fusion. 207.23.179.92 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The patents section as written does not have language that states that. What it actually states is that the USPTO rejects patents claiming cold fusion, and it has a source. The patent you cite does not claim cold fusion- in fact, the authors deliberately avoided using those particular two words in reference to their claim. The patents section of the article goes on to state that "A U.S. patent might still be granted when given a different name to disassociate it from cold fusion" which this particular patent would appear to be a prime example of. The scenario under which this patent was accepted is already neutrally described by the current article verbiage. --Noren (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

NASA Article

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)

We have already discussed Zawodny in this talk page. Please check this discussion. I understand that NASA's Langley Research Center has been making some LENR stuff. But we only got a powerpoint about a "NASA-IPP sponsored effort" without details. I would like to include this research, but it's a bit difficult with this kind of source. Can we get a source on how much was spent by Langley, an outside source, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:02, 5 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)

Hydroton

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)

Not a forum. Propose a specific change to the article or move on. What you are doing there is a complete waste of everyone's time.--McSly (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the use of questionable forum cliche. I've already proposed/asked whether it should be included (with ref of course) in the article, in case you haven't noticed. Are you against suggesting content addition to article? It seems that you are and use questionable pretexts to hinder useful discussion in order to improve the article.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What is hydroton? Where is the reference? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just been informed on the concept. I'm not sure about its validity but it seems to have been described on wikiversity : [6].--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikiversity Cold Fusion has been taken over by the fringy fringe. Most of what appears there seems to a good target for post-modernist deconstruction - it has words, but no meaning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

188.27 - Please do not waste our time asking us about a possible mechanism for cold fusion when you can't even provide the details. Either provide a reference for what hydroton is, or stop wasting our time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop making unfounded accusation of time wasting. It seems that you are against the improvement of the article. Discussing possible mechanism(s)/details to add to the article and what sources to use is not time wasting but legitimate productive wikidiscussion. I've just asked whether this should be mentioned or not in the article. This has to be determined, not excluded ab initio.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the general problem in cases of this types is who decides what to include or exclude from article(s) and based on what criteria/sources. Assessing this kind of situations can only be done by discussion (of possible sources) which must not automatically be considered time wasting by some wikipeople who seem to prefer that some aspects should not be discussed.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I think your comment above "I've already proposed/asked whether it should be included (with ref of course)" means should it be included with a ref, not that you've already provided a ref supporting its inclusion. It's confusing, and that's where Robert has made an erroneous assumption. However, his second comment is definitely valid - if you wish inclusion find a reliable source (preferably several,) of which Wikiversity is not. Also, as you're the only person advocating the insertion, it's up to you (and you alone - so far) to find aforementioned sources. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You've also got another inadequate assumption. I'm not advocating necessarily the inclusion, I said this potential inclusion has to be determined by discussion, one cannot know if it is worth including without discussing it. I do not necessarily want to be included if it is not worth. People should check their tacit assumption before using excluded middle where it is not appropriate.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

We cannot address the question of whether hydroton should be included without knowing what it is. It is not helpful to ask a vague question of whether hydroton should be mentioned and then ask us to do research to find it. Maybe I did make an erroneous assumption in thinking the 188.27.144.144 could provide a description of hydroton. If she can't, then that is even more of a waste of our time. As to the claim that I am against the improvement of the article, I have no idea what improvement of the article is being proposed, since 188.27 won't even say what hydroton is. Either provide a reference, or stop asking questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I have NO IDEA what the fuss is about. I googled Hydroton and it is perfectly simple. Hydroton is a hydroponic clay bead preparation. Obviously its adsorptive capacity is just what one needs to hold the hydrogen atoms where they can coolly tunnel into mutual fusion propinquity. Now get busy you lot, and write a nice new section explaining all that to the clueless! JonRichfield (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's back up a step then. Due to the fringe nature of Cold Fusion any suggestions of inclusion - or even potential inclusion - really need to be backed up by solid refs and sources, otherwise to keep things simple most editors will not entertain the suggestion.

This is not due to any inherent laziness or negativity on the part of those who seem against the inclusion, it's just simpler on everybody's part. If the proposer cannot begin the conversation with reliable refs as to the validity of inclusion - or even a list of refs and be prepared to discuss whether they're valid in the first place and can support inclusion - then the suggestion is a non-starter, and should be identified as such.

So you want to know if it should be mentioned in the article. Well, fair do's for bringing it to the talk page before insertion, but quite logically the first question regarding whether it should be mentioned is "Are there any reliable sources that support this aspect of Cold Fusion", and if you can't provide them, then the answer would seem to be "Nope, it shouldn't."

And just to clarify an earlier post, while I do maintain that Robert may have made an understandable error regarding refs first time round, he's also correct in that your original post was formed as if you were posting a question to a forum, implying that the onus is on us to do the work. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything re onus probandi. I was not aware that my request would be interpreted this way. It would be reasonable that people verify their (tacit) assumptions before commenting/stating them. I just wanted to ask the wikicollaborators if they are aware/know if any sources on this aspect are available and secondly if they could be considered reliable. I agree that I should have phrased the question more explicitly like "Are there any (reliable) sources that support this aspect of Cold Fusion?"--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are implying it. Asking a question that requires data - but not supplying the necessary data either means you don't expect a valid answer, or you expect us to find the information for you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, (I have to repeat) I'm not implying anything. I'm just asking if some wikieditor happens to know some sources on this aspect. Either, or reasoning is based on bivalent logic and excluded middle and does not apply here. You seem to set on bivalent logic reasoning which I've already explained it does not apply here. Are you not sufficiently familiarized with these logical aspects? If so, please familiarize yourself with non-bivalent logic.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am thanks. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policy of wp:burden? Whilst not literally applicable, using your vaunted powers of logic it should be apparent that the burden of providing such sources when questioned also lies with the editor who wishes (or suggests) the insertion of data. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If are indeed familiar with rigorous logic please try to avoid conflating two different aspects: a) analysis of the opportunity of including some aspect and awareness to (non?)existence of sources and b)the suggestion of analyzing the opportunity vs the wish to include. I repeat that I asked a simple question about the opportunity and awareness to existence of sources that should have been given a straight answer like We don't know any sources on this topic or we don't consider worth to include.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here are simple answers to your two simple questions: Nil, and no. Any further questions before we move on? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 12 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)

ArbCom Clarification Request, and IP Addresses

ArbCom Clarification Request

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 question of pseudoscience is irrelevant to the question of whether discretionary sanctions apply to this article. The Committee has ruled that "The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions." That ruling does not require cold fusion to be pseudoscience for sanctions to be applicable. --Noren (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Robert.

The Arbitration is here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision. It was merged with the more general fringe and pseudoscience ruling here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience

What is referred to as Cold Fusion by this article includes the topic "Low energy nuclear reactions", the topic "the field Condensed matter nuclear science" as well as the topic of "all of the experiments involved", including the experiment by Pons and Fleischmann.

The scope of the article is very broad. You can try to make a synthesis between those things but it won't be very objective. The article mentions that the P&F related research in the 90's is referred to as fringe by Bart Simon in 2002, on pages 183–187 of the book "Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion". And we have it in the fringe category, which seems ok.

The synthesis of "pathological science" is sourced on:

• The 1993 Book by Huizenga: "Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century"

That describes the P&F situation -- at the time.

• March 25, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/us/us-will-give-cold-fusion-second-look-after-15-years.html

That describes the ongoing research -- at that time

• Not sure about the date here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/starships-use-cold-fusion-propulsion.htm

Describes government funded work in Italy, by a Nobel Physics Laureate in the name of a government agency. It also refers to the Energy Catalyzer as a kind of Cold Fusion, which is an undisclosed technology. (if any) Wikipedia skeptics tried their best to source the synthesis.

The Sanctions apply to Finge articles as well as pseudoscience. Fringe things can still be scientific, pseudoscience is not. I find combining the 2 labels confusing, editors (like yourself) tend to assume the Fringe physics topics are now instances of Pseudoscience.

Investigations by both Japanese and Italian government funded agencies involve their most prominent scientists and report positive results. To argue those are institutions of pseudoscience would mean there is no science in those countries. Results are not even required in science, hot fusion consumed many billions before results were produced. Some research never produces anything usable. That doesn't mean it is pseudoscience. The guideline argues: "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods."

You can believe what you like of course, at this stage I don't really care what you write in the article but do I think you would want to provide sources before you apply the label to peoples work.

My request for clarification tries to (but fails) to explain that the Arbitration page is not very helpful explaining what is going on.

Hope this makes sense. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

IP Addresses

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)

Who is that IP who filed the arbitration and what is his IP? --188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

84.106.11.117 (talk · contribs) at WP:ARCA (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

On further reading, the IP says that he does not have an account. He also says that he is not a new user (although he is a new user). I will still ask whether there is a reason why any of the IPs on this talk page do not create accounts, which would permit editing the semi-protected article. Also, the request for clarification, asking to have cold fusion declared not to be pseudoscience, is off the mark for two reasons. First, the ArbCom explicitly ruled that cold fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions (regardless of whether it is pseudoscience). Second, since an RFC is in progress on the pseudoscience status of cold fusion, the IP was attempting to game the system by asking the ArbCom to bypass the community consensus process. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Because they don't have to. It's as simple as that. They get to choose the trade-off of not registering and being an IP editor against not being able to edit certain articles.

If they don't want to create accounts we are in no position to criticise or force actions upon them - however they are also in no position to whinge about being unable to edit some pages. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

They likewise have no right to whinge about delays in having their questions answered and edit requests and edit demands addressed (by volunteer registered editors). In short, they are acting irrationally. They have a right to act irrationally, but no right to any consideration for that irrational action. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)