Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

To do items from an archive discussion

7. The episode in 1990 when Gary Taubes and Science magazine made an accusation of experimental fraud at Texas A&M, which was proved false, needs to be covered.

8. A description of tritium results needs to be added.

10. Description of helium experiments needs to include hollow cathode experiments.

11. The skeptics assumption of hot fusion results need to be put in clearer terms. --Ron Marshall 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

12. It needs to be pointed out in the commercial section that a theory that explains the experimental results is necessary before an accurate estimate of commercial potential can be made.--Ron Marshall 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

is LENR a subset of CMNS ?

The article currently says : "Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is now called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), a subset of "condensed matter nuclear science"". What are the other parts of CMNS ? How do they differ from LENR ? Do we have a source for this statement ? Because this is in the intro, we need to be absolutely sure of it, and avoid original research. Pcarbonn 05:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

about the "quotefarm" tag

Found in WP:QUOTE:

Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information."

Pcarbonn 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PCarbonn, I removed the quotefarm tag. I am losing patience with your games.--Ron Marshall 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PCarbonn, this is not about editing, this is about your bias and your effort to suppress the experimenters point of view. The problem is a DOE panelist made himself and his cohorts look bad and despite all the insults of experimenters in the article you cannot let that stand. If I turned the quote into statements you would invent some other excuse.--Ron Marshall 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ron, this is only about writing a good wikipedia article. I put the tag back. Let's turn these quotes into statements, and we'll both be happy.Pcarbonn 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ron, I removed your statements about me: they are plain wrong and out of place (see WP:ATTACK), and I ignore them anyway. My only concern is to write a good wikipedia article. Now that the history section has been moved to a sub-article, we have more room to discuss the fine points of the argument.Pcarbonn 07:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

M's comments on bias

The most important - and hence most controversial - matter that this article should address is what the scientific community at large has to say about cold fusion. Do they shun it? Do they approach it with interest? Is skepticism abating? What results (accepted by the scientific community) are there? How are they interpreted? The lead addresses this as follows:

The latest mainstream review of research in LENR occurred in 2004 when the US Department of Energy set up a panel of eighteen scientists. When asked "Is there compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources", the panelists were evenly split. When asked about low energy nuclear reactions, two thirds of the panel did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing" and one was entirely convinced. The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments in this field. Critics say that the DOE review had too limited a scope and inappropriate review process.

Alright, I was somewhat skeptical (evidence proportional to claims), but this sounds good. Of course, the best source of information is probably the Report itself, so I went to have a look.

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.

Is what the conclusion states. Haha - something's not quite right here, is it? Looking closer, I see other ...mistakes.

"Is there compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources" is not the question asked, and a needless re-intepretation of the report's "evidence for excess power is compelling". Don't use quotes unless quoting, and don't needlessly change "excess power" to "power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources". And don't skip something as seemingly important as "Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented."

"When asked about low energy nuclear reactions, two thirds of the panel did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence 'somewhat convincing' and one was entirely convinced." is a needless substitute for "Two-thirds of the reviewers [...] did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced."

"...funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments in this field." is much more general than the specific and explicit "...funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV."

Criticisms such as "Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented." were entirely omitted.

But my biggest objection is, why isn't the clear conclusion being provided? I see that the current paragraph makes cold fusion seem quite legitimate (not to say that it's illegitimate - I don't know), while the actual conclusion states that nothing has changed since the 1989 review - the review isn't mentioned in the article. I doubt that it had "good" things to say about cold fusion, considering the history. The motive seems clear.

Moving up a paragraph, we see "However, from 1989 to the present many scientists report experimental observations of..." - someone is mistaken as to what "many" means. They probably should have used the word "some", or "few" - unless in fact "many" is the correct word, which I doubt.

Looking at the citations for the first paragraph:

1. Mizuno, T., "Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion". 1998, Concord, NH: Infinite Energy Press
2. Beaudette, Charles. Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, 2nd. Ed. South Bristol, ME, Oak Grove Press, 2002. ISBN 0-9678548-3-0.
3. Hagelstein P. et al., "New physical effects in metal deuterides", submitted to the 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion [2]
4. Mallove, Eugene. "Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor". Concord, N.H.: Infinite Energy Press, 1991. ISBN 1-892925-02-8
5. Krivit, Steven ; Winocur, Nadine. The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy. Los Angeles, CA, Pacific Oaks Press, 2004 ISBN 0-9760545-8-2

One is the paper submitted to the panel. The rest are books and hence not easily verifyable, and come from unknown (in google) or suggestively named ("infinite energy press") publishers - which is all fine, but not when other sources are lacking. The citations for the second paragraph were surprising - considering the tone, I expected critisicm from the scientific community at large. Instead, it's critisicm given by proponents. That simply doesn't belong in the lead section, not unless it's as important as the definition (it isn't), the history (it isn't), the current state of affairs (it isn't), and a clarification that needs to be shortened.

Citations in an article as obviously controversial as this should be expanded. What did Mizuno's book say, exactly? Don't be afraid to cite the paragraph. If that paragraph for example refers us to 4 experiments that have been carried out cite the results of those experiments instead of the book.

Looking now at the first citation, the one that addresses "but the public debate abated quickly and cold fusion was generally rejected by the mainstream scientific community", I see that it points to an article titled "DOE Warms to Cold Fusion". Rebuttals not what citations are for. Simply write it out - "...rejected by the mainstream scientific community. However, the DOE has decided to proceed with an evaluation of...[1]" - which really doesn't deserve mention anymore. Those citing sources have a look at Multiple_uses_of_the_same_footnote.

Though it initially seemed alright, I'm going to remove "Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is now called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), part of the field of "condensed matter nuclear science" (CMNS). ". It's not cited is one reason, but the main reason is that ofter debunked subjects of inquiry tend to, amongst their supporters, have their name changed to something new to avoid that past stigma (not to say that cold fusion is debunked). I suspect that this is what "LENR" is about. Regardless, you refer to the topic by its title, otherwise the page should be moved to "Low energy nuclear reaction" - if not, then this naming comment belongs at the end of history, and not up in the lead.

This is just the introduction. I don't care about cold fusion. I am, however, intolerant of the sort of bias that this article presents. If you're a proponent of cold fusion, please stop editing this article, or edit it to the extent that your position is represented by the scientific community. I see the notice, but since I doubt that a rebuttal to this will show that green is red and that this isn't all just bias, I'm going to change the lead section to address these concerns. –M^T 22:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to comments

Dear M:

I have a pro-cf bias. I admit it and make no attempt to hide it. And I also respect anyone who has an anti-cf bias and backs up their positions with logic, courtesy, references and cooperates with others amicably and with Wikilove.

Normally when one wants to make drastic changes, the considerate thing to do is to propose it first in the TALK, give it a few days, and then see how it goes. You appear to have lost tolerance for, or are ignorant of this mode of community effort.

I cannot say that I have found your recent action to be respectful or neutral - as you allege. Your anti-cf bias shows quite clearly. Please don't come here and play games. Many people have been working very hard on this page for quite some time. Perhaps you had a bad day or something. Anyway, you need to play nice here or find some other sandbox to play in.

Now, on to matters of fact.

1. You state "The most important - and hence most controversial - matter that this article should address is what the scientific community at large has to say about cold fusion. Do they shun it? Do they approach it with interest? Is skepticism abating?"

You need to defend the following points:

1a. Why should scientific opinion be the most important aspect of this article? Is opinion more important than the actual research and scientific facts?

1b. How do you know what the "scientific community at large" is? Have you done some sort of survey? Do you have a reference for the "scientific community at large"? Are you alleging that 18 members of the 2004 DOE panel represent the "scientific community at large"

1c. To directly answer your question, I might direct you to the excellent online magazine, New Energy Times. They appear to be quite expert in this subject matter. They recently reported on a U.S. Navy Science and Technology conference this summer that took place in Washington, D.C. To answer your questions, based on editor Steven Krivit's article http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET18.htm#FROMED it would seem that interest is growing and skepticism is abating. You may also note that, as Krivit says, " LENR research was one of many other research areas and applications presented at the conference. They included inertial confinement fusion, fuel cells, biodiesel, coal, wind, and synthetic hydrocarbon liquids." Of course, you can dismiss Krivit as biased, if you wish, but he *was* there in Washington, D.C. and apparently he did meet generals, admirals and the like. Did you attend the conference?

2. As far as the 2004 DOE Cold Fusion review, I'm as confused as you are as to the origin of those quotes and would be quite pleased to see the specific references. I've looked at the charge letter http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/2004-DOE-ChargeLetter.pdf and I don't see that language, though I believe that language may have come from some of the reviewers own personal comments, http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/2004-DOE-ReviewerComments.pdf though I don't care to nitpick and hunt that down at the moment.

3.Next matter is your comment, "someone is mistaken as to what "many" means. They probably should have used the word "some", or "few" - unless in fact "many" is the correct word, which I doubt."

There seem to be about 200 researchers around the world who have been working on this over the last few years. When I say "working," my definition is anyone who has written or co-authored a paper on the subject. If you have an argument with that metric, please let me know. The references for these people are in the conference abstracts. If you go to the New Energy Times "Conferences" page, http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/conf.htm you will find a rather detailed index of conferences, and under many of the headings, you'll find links to conference abstracts. Read them - count the researchers over the last few years - tell me how mistaken I am. Also, you might try going to some of the conferences and meeting some of them first hand. If you're near Russia, the next big international conference is in 2007. If you're in the U.S., the conference will be in Washington, D.C. in 2008. I would expect attendance over 200 in D.C. but not so many in Russia due to the travel challenges.

4. Next item: " The rest are books and hence not easily verifyable"

What do you mean "not easily verifyable?" Do you mean accessible? If so, try Amazon; you can purchase all the books [Mallove, Krivit/Wincour, Mizuno and Beaudette] there. Do you mean that the contents in the books are not reliable, accurate, or the sources are not identified? For someone who is trying to improve the factual basis of a scientific article, your suggestion of a less-than-credible reference as these, due to "not easily verifyable?" is so ridiculous that it really makes me wonder. You do realize, of course, the pains that authors, publishers and their lawyers go through to assure the factualness of their books before they spend ten to forty thousand dollars on a book run?

I've read Krivit and Beaudette's books in detail. Seems as though they provide ample references to "verify" their content.

5. And what is your point: "and come from unknown (in google) or suggestively named ("infinite energy press") publishers"

Is a book not a worthy book unless it is published by a publisher which is well-known and established? You're making me laugh now. Infinite-Energy Press - yes, duh, of course it is suggestive. Got a problem with it? You say, "which is all fine." You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you didn't have a problem with "Infinite-Energy Press" you wouldn't have mentioned it.

6. Next item: "Though it initially seemed alright, I'm going to remove "Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is now called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), part of the field of "condensed matter nuclear science" (CMNS). ". It's not cited is one reason, but the main reason is that after debunked subjects of inquiry tend to, amongst their supporters, have their name changed to something new to avoid that past stigma (not to say that cold fusion is debunked). I suspect that this is what "LENR" is about."

6a. The reference for this was identified in this page as a need a while ago. So, thanks to you, I searched and found a reference. Now, you're going to have to be a bit patient with this. It's not in any textbook at the moment. First of all, this "cold fusion" idea is only 17 years old. Second, it's been a pretty big mish-mosh of information. However, if you go to the people who - at least claim to - be experts on the topic, you'll find that this is their understanding of CMNS and LENR.

I won't bore you with the details, but I will suggest you read item #9 in New Energy Times FAQ http://newenergytimes.com/PR/LENR-FAQ.htm

Nagel, by the way, the author of the graph, is a college Prof, and is retired from a very high-ranking position in the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in the condensed matter group. He's been speaking about CMNS/LENR to government, military and scientific groups for the last few years including the DOD, APS, NRL. Ask him, if you can't google this - it's not something that's been highly publicized - but first try googling him on New Energy Times. Please don't even suggest that he's unqualified.

6b. "after debunked subjects of inquiry" Guess what, my friend? It was never debunked. *That's* bunk! Caltech, MIT and others did slipshod hasty experiments in less than 6 weeks and then called it quits.

Take a look at Krivit's Historical Analysis of Key Cold Fusion Experiments http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/HistoricalAnalysisSummaryCharts.htm . I'm sure you've never heard of the guy and he's not a scientist, but just look what he's researched - it's all referenced - all laid out on the table. Krivit's been speaking around the world for the last few years on this stuff - in front of real nuclear physicists -http://newenergytimes.com/contact/contact.htm#appearances and as far as I know, nobody has challenged him or found problems with his investigations.

6c. " amongst their supporters, have their name changed to something new to avoid that past stigma (not to say that cold fusion is debunked). I suspect that this is what "LENR" is about."

Sorry to disappoint you, but AFAIK, nobody involved in "cold fusion" really gives a hoot what the rest of the world thinks anymore. I'm mean, really, after the beating its taken, how much further in the ghetto of science can it get?

It's called LENR, AFAIK, for several reasons:

1. The hypothesis of "fusion" is even debated among those in the "cold fusion" field.

2. As I've heard, there are some reactions that are clearly not even fusion, some kind of low energy transmutation, perhaps fissions, perhaps something new.

3. There is a new theory out by Widom and Larsen http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET18.htm#wl4 that suggests that LENR has something to do with ultra low momentum neutrons - not fusion, not fission.

The name "cold fusion" was stupid in the first place, it was not chosen by F&P and it is stupid, except when referring to the history, to continue to use it to describe the science.

Yes, science.

STemplar 06:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if somone feels so inspired and willing, to revert the draconian changes by M. I will do it myself, if neccessary but I would prefer to see if there is community agreement with my position, and I would also like to avoid an edit war.

STemplar 06:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

--- --- ---

Scientific "opinion", also known as scientific consensus, reflects research and scientific facts. One may claim X, or Y, or whatever, but the truth of the claims is best found not in the minds of you and I, but in many minds. Even if you were to offer me irrefutable proof of some claim, because is an encyclopedia, I would not agree to adding it. That's not how we work. The 18 members of the panel represent the scientific community. I may or may not think that they were poorly selected - again, it doesn't matter. Until we have respectable and neutral sources claiming poor selection, we don't add anything.

New Energy Times "[offers] original reporting on research in the field of leading-edge energy and power technologies, with an emphasis on cold fusion". This is fine, but not a source I would want to involve myself with considering their apparent inclination. Could you please quote where in Krivit's article growing interest is suggested? I'd like to have a quick look, but yes, I won't accept "interest is growing" when the only source is a proponent. A person that meets a general is not thereby more trustworthy.

Of those 200 researchers, how many report these observations? 150? Of "scientists researching cold fusion" then, yes? But given that only 200 researchers are working (by your definition) on a technology that may bear such massive fruits as near-unlimined free energy, I fully stand by my claim that "many scientists" is not the right proportion (of those potentially interested in such a technology).

I mean that it is hard for me to verify a book, in comparison to a website. As I said, this doesn't bother me, it's the lack of easily-verifyable citations that does that. And redundantly, I'm fine with "infinite energy press", it's the lack of non-pro-cf books that I'm against.

If LENR is not a common term, then why is it mentioned here? | I never said that anything was debunked, just that I was suspicious of that usage in an article with the bias that I found. | As far as I'm concerned, LENR is a better term than cold fusion, and would happily change it and wait for it to settle in. Sadly, I may not do this.

I want to make make something quite clear: I'm not anti-cf. This is not even my domain. I wish that accurate information is provided to me, and for that I am against your work on this article. I don't think that any anti-cf bias exists, or shows - what is your criteria for judging such bias? I find your patronization ridiculously out of place. I'm sure that you've (plural) been working hard for quite some time, but I point out that your hard work has led to this article to be stripped of its featured article status, and then of its good article status. Bias is the most-cited reason for this.

Regarding my changes. The comment is justifyably tactless. The removal of the uncommon LENR naming from the lead was proper. The references given have nothing to do with "but the public debate abated quickly and cold fusion was generally rejected by the mainstream scientific community", and so were moved. The quotes were all uncited, non-representative, and evasive of the conclusion (which is effectively the summary of that document) - biased towards pro-cf. The abridgement of that medium paragraph regarding other topics had nothing to do with pro-/anti-cf. The correction of citations is nothing but proper. What are you against? Perhaps how I've presented the conclusion of the report? Can you more aptly summarize that conclusion? –M^T 08:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I support M in this matter. As part of being WP:BOLD, I reverted the article to its featured status. There are obvious improvements that can be made to the article, but when an article degrades as this one has done, it is important to go back to a point where it was better. Let's propose that M and I take edits slowly: one by one. And we'll see what we can do in terms of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. --ScienceApologist 15:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to take the edits slowly, one-by-one, then please don't throw out months of work by dozens of editors. You deleted over 70 peer-reviewed sources. There is a line between being bold and being a dick, and that kind of deletion crosses it. GKK 06:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The months of work were not "thrown out" since we as editors can see them in the article history. We deleted the "sources" because we are working from the article that was previously featured. As we continue to add, cull, and edit material, we will consider the relevance and usefulness of including these sources, each in turn. --ScienceApologist 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just delete the parts you think are bad instead of deleting over two years of work? Putting "sources" in scare quotes doesn't change the fact that most of them are peer-reviewed. There is no reason you need to throw out two years of work and that many sources. GKK 07:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, nothing is ever thrown away on Wikipedia. It's all there to see. We aren't talking about deletion here, we are talking about starting from a point where the article was featured. That's considered a high standard on Wikipedia. The article as you are promoting it was not up to those standards. We want the best possible article and so are starting from when the article was better. If you disagree and think that the article is better in your version, take it up with the article review processes of the featured and good article collaborations. Your issue is with them, not with me. --ScienceApologist 07:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about a featured review which is over two years old. Yes, I think that version is worse, not because what it says, but because it contains a tiny fraction of the links and references for people to learn more from. Your attempt to destroy two years of edits isn't very much better than vandalism no matter how much you try to dress it up. It's obvious from your comments and previous edits that you are simply using the excuse of being "better" because you disagree with the consensus version that arose in the following two years since the controversial topic made FA status. That is POV-pushing, plain and simple. You can't seriously think that an article as unstable as this one will suddenly regain FA status simply because of a revert to a two-year-old version. GKK 08:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am stating that if the article was FA at one time it can be FA again. We are starting from scratch and will allow you to help us getting in any information you wish to see in the article. However, violating 3RR as you just did is a blockable offense and you will be reported for it. I encourage you to discuss what precisely you wish to see in the article. If you think the version you like is better than the FA version, then you should take up the issue with the review that delisted the article. Otherwise, we should start with the version that was, by community consensus, considered of higher quality than the current article. --ScienceApologist 08:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are accusing me of violating 3RR with my last edit to the article? How exactly could adding a tag which neither you nor any other editor has removed from the article in at least the past several months be considered "undoing another editor's work?" I demand that you retract your false accusation. GKK 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, thankfully you didn't violate 3RR! I retract my statement and apologize. --ScienceApologist 08:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations and hard work do not make an article great. This is made obvious by the consensus-based demotions of this article even as recently as this July. The best place to start building a 'perfect article' is at the place that consensus - not you nor I - deems this article to be best. Though you believe that the peak takes place at the most recent revisions, a respect for consensus dictates that that peak is at the 'featured article revision' (though perhaps we should have a look at revisions up to a week after that event). –M^T 11:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, citations and hard work are probably more than 90% of what make an article great. This is a controversial subject, and it always has been, and maybe it always will be. Just because some individual came along and marked it GA, and then another individual tossed it off the GA list doesn't mean that there was consensus of any kind involved. And no, FA status from less than two years ago isn't any kind of a "peak" in status, which in this case is obvious because of over 70 missing peer-reviewed article citations and the statements that had referenced them. Your comments above clearly show that you were opposed to the article in its present-day form. You have provided no reasons that the present-day article is worse than the FA version other than an appeal to the consensus of two years ago. Please give me some reason to believe that this rhetoric is an effort from good faith and not simply bias pushing. GKK 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

4:0 individuals made it a FA. 24:9 demoted it. Of those opposed, 6 had less than 11 edits. 24 agreeing against 3 is consensus. The temporary loss of these citations is inconvenient, but we didn't just remove them: we also removed all of the content that has unarguably caused this article's degradation in the view of clear consensus. This is enough justification to revert to a point before the identification of the degradation, but the clear bias that I have shown in the lead is yet more. –M^;;T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Totallydisputed tag

Because it seems clear from his edits to this article that ScienceApologist had problems with its content before he reverted to the FA version of over two years ago, and because he doesn't provide any reasons that he thinks the old article is "better," and because the old article has only a tiny fraction of the number of links and references to more information, including completely ignoring the DOE review, the comments of which by M, above, he purports to be addressing with the revert, I believe ScienceApologist is simply trying to use the massive revert to push his own bias on the article. Because the old FA version of the article completely ignores the DOE review, and contains uncited sources such as "Unfortunately, no "cold" fusion experiments that gave an otherwise unexplainable net release of energy have so far been reproduceable"[sic] which are plainly contradicted by the peer-reviewed sources in the present-day version, the old article is also inaccurate. Therefore I have placed the {{totallydisputed}} tag on ScienceApologist's version. GKK 08:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Have we discussed any content? I'm waiting for you to begin discussing what you want to see included but I haven't seen anything. The reason the older article is better is because it was featured. The current article was delisted for reasons that can be read about in the review. If you disagree with those comments, you need to address them specifically. What we can start doing is adding citation tags if you think things are disputed. Let's start with the sentence you want to cite. I'll add the {{fact}} tag. --ScienceApologist 08:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And now that I have a citation to this fact, I have replaced it with a reference. --ScienceApologist 08:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of your here-expressed disagreement with our starting position has nothing to do with neutrality and factual accuracy, it has to do with the lost work. | ScienceApologist has cited his source (and should cite the conclusion of the DOE report). This leaves you to provide sources that stand up to the DOE report - and it will not do to claim that a book authored by a cf researcher has equal weight to areport by the United States Department of Energy. The sources should show us that advancements actually have been made (in contradiction to the conclusion of the DOE report). At that point, this tag would be justified. Right now it is not. I suggest its removal. –M^T 11:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I usually don't like to remove tags especially when the article is so clearly a "work in progress" as it is currently, but I am of the opinion that the totally disputed tag might be a bit misleading as to what the real issues are. What's going on is actually that the article may need a cleanup, expansion, and more consistent citation of references. I submit we change the tag to these three. --ScienceApologist 15:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The latter two seem right, though cleanup seems an odd tag to put on an article that was once featured. I think that tags should be used, but that 'totally disputed' is alarming and innapropriate. –M^T 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation SA provided is neither peer-reviewed or particularly supportive of the statement citing it. I am more convinced than I was last night that the reversion was done for illegitimate reasons of POV-pushing, so it is biased, and the contradiction of the 70+ peer reviewed references leaves the article inaccurate and out-of-date as well. Please leave the tag on the two-year-old version until both of these issues are addressed. GKK 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've directly above pointed out that the conclusion of the report by the United States Department of Energy is a citation supporting his claim. You will have to point out exactly what you think is innacurate before you have justification for placing that tag. There is a different tag for out of date articles. –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

DOE review

What exactly about the DOE review should be included in the article and why? --ScienceApologist 08:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it concluded? The present version reads as if it is still ongoing. Beyond that, I'd include the summary from the recent version and a summary of the points M raises above, in the lead section, with the more complete description of the report from the sections of the present-day version. Along with the other 70 peer-reviewed sources along with the statements they used to support. I continue to believe that you should not be allowed to POV-push and require others to do all the hard work of putting those references back in piece-by-piece, just because the article was featured more than two years ago. I think we need mediation to work this out. Will you agree to mediation? GKK 08:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is fine. I am more than ammenable.

I would like to consider what you believe the result of the report to be and how we should report it? I don't think that the "present-day" version is adequate nor do I think it was entirely accurate. I will be bold and try to include your idea as best as I can ascertain.

--ScienceApologist 09:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made it clear that I believe the present-day version is acceptable. I don't think M's assertion that the conclusion of the DOE report was that cold fusion is at the same point it was at in 1989 is accurate, because the statement referred to is hyperbole. I think it is far more important to mention that a clear majority of reviewers found support for unexplained excess heat, a term which is supported in several places of the report if not the one which M chooses to selectively quote from, and that the panelists were evenly split on the question of whether the excess heat was nuclear in nature. GKK 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the claim of hyperbole. That the reviewers agree that excess heat is a reasonable conclusion is not the issue - this is unimportant to us (as far as the main body of the article) until that excess heat is attributed to cold fusion. If you'd like to mention in the reasonably-sized section on current research, that excess heat was generated I'm not at all against that. Such incremental changes are what we'd like to see more of. –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: mediation request withdrawn pending outcome of survey below, per dispute resolution procedures. GKK 00:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Tossing around "bias"

Please cease calling those that are reverting to featured article status biased. Scientific consensus [the DOA report and surely others] approximately states that cold fusion is where it was in 1989. Objections to this report may exist, but they do not deserve mention in this encyclopedia until scientific consensus veers to support them. The debate over cold fusion isn't somewhere in the middle, with many believing that it happened and many disbelieving - it's at one end, and the debate is over. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine what an anti-cf bias would look like - perhaps someone believes that no research is being conducted, I don't know. I do know that a bias exists that purports comparatively exciting innovation/advancement to be occuring in the field. I call this a bias because it contradicts scientific consensus. When we that are critical of the recent article start contradicting scientific consensus, inform us of the truths immediately, and if we continue regardless, then point out that we may be biased (and not just uninformed). Until then, please don't call us biased. It's innacurate and rude. And it's probably a personal attack. –M^T 11:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is false. There is one sentence, clearly hyperbole, in the DOE report suggesting only that the matter has as much final resolution now as it did in 1989 -- i.e., that authorities are still split on the question. That is not at all what you have included. This kind of selective quotation is plainly and obviously counter to the creation of an accurate encyclopedia. If you had quibbles with the term "excess heat" then by all means replace it with more accurate terms. Replacing the entire summary of the report with the statement that the field is in the same state as it was in 1989 is bogus. You should have explained that was referring to whether a consensus opinion was settled or not. Claiming that the field is in the same state ignores hundreds of peer-reviewed publications. You should know better. GKK 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Selecting the conclusion as the source of the quote is nothing but proper. It's the conclusion. Cite "hyperbole", and cite "still [are or were] split". I have nothing against the term "excess heat". That part of the summary was replaced because it misrepresented the report (details above). –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Will be reverting

ScienceApologist and M, after having ample opportunity, have been unable to show that their reversion to the two-year-old version of the article was due to desire to make the article more accurate, and not just because of their bias against the present-day version. No reasons have been given that the present-day version could not be improved by incremental changes, which is the way we improve every other article on the wiki, or that a monolithic revert eliminating two years of work and 70+ peer-reviewed science references is necessary for any actual reason. My complaints about the lack of content, in particular those peer-reviewed references and the DOE review of 2004, were met with the absurd counter that I was not complaining about any actual content, and a hasty citation of a non-peer-reviewed hearsay statement to support the absurd hyperbole of the DOE report that the field is at the same state today as it was in 1989.

Therefore, I will be checking in on this article about once per day until a mediator arrives, and reverting to the present-day version unless the two-year-old version is improved with at least half the number of peer-reviewed science sources as the present-day version I prefer. If ScienceApologist and M are serious about improving the article to beyond its present-day state, then they ought to be able to cite at least half its number of peer-reviewed references. GKK 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Incremental improvement should start at the consensus-deemed best version. The old FA version, despite a lack of references, despite X years of hard work, is nonetheless better than the newer article. If you're unsatisfied with the DOA report as a valid source, show us that this unsatisfaction stems from your evaluation of a contradictary and equally trustworthy source (cite it) - and not from your opinion. I'm not going to comply with your request to 'cite 35 articles, or don't revert'. It makes no sense. –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey (request for comment)

Should those unhappy with the current state of the Cold fusion article work incrementally from the present-day version which they believe is too long and has other unspecified problems, or should they revert to and work from a two-year-old version which was once a Featured Article, deleting over 70 peer-reviewed references and the work of dozens of editors?

Work incrementally from the recent version (0737,1 October 2006 by 75.35.76.29)

1. Essentially every other article on Wikipedia is edited this way. GKK 00:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)User has a total of 0 article edits . (Talk and community edits excluded)
   • comment. I assume that very few articles have faced a choice between the 'updated' and the 'good'. Could you point some out? –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
     • See physics and physics/wip. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Am I the only one who remembers that when Edmund Storms and Jed Rothwell proposed a full re-write, they were requested to write a separate new Wiki page rather than perform massive BOLD changes? (Which they agreed to.) My guess is that being BOLD (and reckless) does not apply when you are dealing with a highly controversial subject, someone please correct me if I am wrong. The statement by M, "The debate over cold fusion isn't somewhere in the middle, with many believing that it happened and many disbelieving - it's at one end, and the debate is over," does not support his/her claim of being neutral. Good luck people. STemplar 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   WP:BOLD always applies. Sometimes it is community consensus to request editors start a proposal page. Sometimes it is community consensus to work directly on the article. In the past, the former was requested of some contributors, today the latter is being done. --ScienceApologist 22:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

3. When a premier and mainstream science publisher feels a book by the experiementers is warrented, you might want to give the experimenters their due. Perdita 16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

   This discussion is not about giving them their due, it's about reverting a delisted GA revision to a FA revision, and then working to include both sides. –M^T 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

4. If the information is not complete and comprehensive we are not informing people at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gathall (talk • contribs) This user has 1 contribution.
5. I'd rather listen to Galileo than selfappointed custodians of scientific consencus representing the church. I suspect the controversy is more about politics than about science, free-energy is a politically sensitive topic. Include a section about harassment, the murder of Mallove and a reference to cointelpro as well.Yeslove User has a total of 2 article edits. (Talk and community edits excluded)
6. A revert would throw away too much. The current version has problems (primarily readability and structure) but is far more informative. The old version has the same structure problems, so going back to it is not an improvement. I favor a section-by-section rewrite from scratch as outlined in User:ObsidianOrder/Cold_fusion_redux. Until then, keep this version. ObsidianOrder 19:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
7. the article fairly represented the 2004 DOE review, so keep this version (see discussion below) Pcarbonn 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
8. A large amount of information was deleted in the alteration. This is a clear case of POV-vandalism committed by a known wikiclique. I should also note that ScienceApologist also drastically vandalized the article Static universe. GoodCop 03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Work incrementally from the featured article version

These are votes for censorship not science--Ron Marshall 17:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Less work to be done. Consensus informs us that the old article is better than this new one, despite all of the sources that have been added. My opinion is that the old article is clear and readily improvable. The current article is biased (as I describe above), its citations are often duplicated and are used improperly (such as to respond against the point, rather than to support it), nearly all citations are from cold fusion proponents, and nearly three fourths of the article consists of what appears to be arguments for and against things like "excess heat = cold fusion". That argument belongs, if anywhere, in an article titled 'Controversy over current cold fusion research'. –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
2. I agree with M. Having a good article to use as a base will imo lead to a better overall article. I was reading the version supported by the other side and its clear that many of those 70 references that keep being thrown around do not appear to be particularily valuable, especially considering that many of them are books published by cold fusion advocates. In science, books by anyone other than large academic publishing houses (ie not Infinite Energy Press) are not considered reliable sources, because they have not necessarily been through a peer review. Obviously however knowledge in cf has progressed in the last 2 years and that should be edited in, including the DOE report. --AmitDeshwar 05:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Start from FA-version and take it slowly from there.O. Prytz 05:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Let's start from the FA-version. References from non reputable sources have been used as propaganda in the non-FA version. That's simply wrong. I suggest that before starting to edit the FA version of the article, we have discussions here about what reputable sources are, what counts as evidence and what not etc. Count Iblis 12:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
5. The FA-version may be out-of-date, but at least it was recognized by reviewers as being good enough to feature rather than terrible enough to be removed from a good article listing. --ScienceApologist 14:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
6. The above commenters make good points, in particular Count Iblis and ScienceApologist. I find myself in agreement — revert to the last version known decent. Also, I would like to lodge my disapproval of how this survey question was phrased. As the comments here plainly indicate, people do not agree that the "over 70 peer-reviewed references" were used in proper or legitimate ways. The question is blatantly slanted, not that the people commenting so far seem very influenced by it. Anville 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
7. We are not doing science here. And incidentically, the work to done in an encyclopedia can be positively described as censorship, as a an encyclopedia has to report established knowledge. There are other Wikis for questioning the establishment. --Pjacobi 17:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
   • I disagree, this is an article about science and if it is inaccurate we are doing the readers and science a disservice here. If Wikpedia cannot produce a fair and accurate article on a controversial subject then it should not produce an article.--Ron Marshall 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [Ron Marshall had added this comment as a vote, I changed it to a comment–M^T]
8. Joke 20:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
9. I also support working from the FA version. --Noren 05:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Going Forward

We are going to forward from the 9/27/06 or equivalent version in an incremental way. This is an article about science and experiment is the reality check of science. This article is and should be about the pro and con of experiments. The article presents the skeptics and the experimenters point of view and will continue to do so. --Ron Marshall 17:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Murder of Dr. Eugene Mallove

On 14 May 2004, a foremost cold fusion champion, science journalist Dr. Eugene Mallove, was brutally murdered in a yet unresolved case. His death has both saddened and inspired the cold fusion and free energy community in general and has drawn international attention to the status of cold fusion today.[4]

Are we implying that he was murdered because of his cold fusion work? This is conspiracy theory. Wikipedia isn't a memorial. Many other prominent people have died but we give the details of their death on their pages. Stating this death here, and in those words, only implies that somehow his death was cold-fusion-related - there is no proof that it was. I'm removing the above-quoted paragraph. –M^T 20:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But good god, what a mess. I hope they solve the case before cold fusion winds up as a combination of the 100 mph carburetor and the Da Vinci code. SBHarris 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris Sanders says this in the film Oil, smoke and mirrors[1]

The use of 'conspiracy theory' as a derogatory, as an epithet almost, is something the propaganda has perfected through the decades, and its a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent, and other points of view and information that might be inconvenient for a policy agenda.

Of course there is no evidence, if there were, it would be destroyed, withheld or flatly denied, wouldn't it? CF-research has a history of harassment and Mallove was a figurehead of this research, therefore his murder is relevant to the subject and further, because of this history one may ask, wouldn't it be be really really strange if the forces previously known to harass and suppress did not also employ operatives to change wikipedia content? --Yeslove 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We cover conspiracy theories just as well as other topics. See for example 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's just that this one is not prominent. As far as I know, no major source has come out and said that they believe this to be the work of ... who? Angry scientists who fear decreased funding? Oil tycoons? I think the presumption ridiculous, but that's beside the point. Show us that notable controversy has been generated, and we'll surely agree. The coy implication that there was some conspiracy, however, is unacceptable. –M^T 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

M, just who are 'We'?--Yeslove 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia. Conspiracy theories must meet WP:V and WP:NPOV in their description as well as WP:NPOV's undue weight clause. If you can get it to meet those it can be included. So far, since not even any pro-cold fusion source has been given making the claimed connection, it is hard to see how it should be included. JoshuaZ 22:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Malloves murder is stated as a fact, how can a fact be a conspiracy theory? In fact the conspiracy theory first appears in M's writing, doesn't this mean that M is a conspiracy theorist? After all, the conclusion and remark about coyness was his, remember? Now M wants the fact removed because it fits with his own conspiracy theory, honestly, is that NPOV? Then you JoshuaZ, chime in with an answer to a question directed to M as if he can not answer for himself and question the verifiability of Malloves murder, whether the fact of this verifiable event is NPOV and if its weight matters to the subject and the minds of hundreds of researchers sharing a documented history of harassment and suppression. I find it cynical. I say the burden of proof is on M to prove his conspiracy theory that Malloves murder had anything to do with cold fusion before removal of the section is justified, if he can not prove it then I think it should remain in place. I also agree with M that his future discussions about conspiracy theories belong to a page of its own. Can you also agree with that? --Yeslove 20:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tycho Brahe also died in a particularly scandalous way. And yet, we don't mention it on the page devoted to Tychonic system because it is simply not relevant to the subject. Likewise with the death of one of the people who researched cold fusion, it is simply irrelevant to cold fusion itself. --ScienceApologist 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The pattern biography/scientific concept would be a false analogy, Mallove did not invent or originate CF and does not have a page. The pattern is rather historical context/scientific concept where the latter is Tychonic_System and the Condensed_matter_nuclear_science page covering the scientific aspects of CF. This page states: "Please visit Cold_Fusion for a history and discussion of the controversy.". Mallove, as CF's champion, is at the heart of the controversy[2], Cold_Fusion therefore corresponds to Tycho Brahe which both documents his horrendous death and speculates about its causes. If Malloves murder inspires people to think how coincidental randomness can be in controversial sciences and apply their own probabilities to it, so be it. Neither you nor I can or should determine how this is done on an individual basis but the data may provide valuable context by serving as a cue to understand the interaction between the CF community and MSS. Removing a fact because it is inconvenient to one owns favourite conspiracy theory is unscientific, POV, not uncommon but nevertheless amounts to fraud.--Yeslove 07:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Eugene_Mallove does have a page on wikipedia. The issue here is of keeping to the topic rather than censorship. Mallove's death is not mentioned on the ZPE page either, though he was an advocate and fundraiser for that as well. The PoV fork Condensed_matter_nuclear_science page does not dictate, nor is it relevant to, the content of this page. --Noren 14:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mallove's page, thanks, sloppy me. One thing, "keeping to the topic", what is cold fusion as a topic? The scientific concept, the historical phenomenon or the controversy? Users who read the page will expect quite different things.--Yeslove 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't see the original comment saying anything about a conspiracy. The murder of a prominent proponent would be an important part of cold fusion history. DavidPesta 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether it was murder or not has yet to be determined by the courts; there are two individuals charged with felony murder for killing him when he confronted them during a robbery of his rental property. No one is charged with simple murder, nor does the prosection claim that they targeted him specifically- the prosecution is arguing that their premeditation was in the planning of the robbery. While tragic, his death has nothing to do with cold fusion, any more than if he'd died of cancer or from an automobile accident.

It is entirely irrelevant which editor proposed a conspiracy theory in this talk page, if they did at all, or the order in which they did/did not. Let's examine the facts rather than the editors. --Noren 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

CENSORSHIP, RECKLESS editing and SHAMEFUL behavior

What in the world is going on here?

"Deleting over 70 peer-reviewed references and the work of dozens of editors" over a period of many months, with no notice, no warning, no discussion?

Someone asserted that being bold was in accordance with Wiki policy. This person apparently did not read the full instructions:

"'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects ... without carefully looking at your edit ... In many such cases the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily."

"M" wrote "We are starting from scratch and will allow you to help us getting in any information you wish to see in the article."

Who is "M?" I don't see that this poster has been a regular participant in this work. I don't see any previous participation from this poster. This is not to say that such is required, but my point is that we have a person who has taken it upon themselves to push their way in and bully others.

Who is "WE?"

Who provided this authorization?

As far as I can tell, this drastic set of changes was never authorized, in any way, and as such, does not even deserve to be voted on.

Now, after the fact, we see that "M" has several supporters. Is this the "We?" Can someone please explain to me why this doesn't appear to be an organzied behind-the-scenes effort to promote one POV?

Is this really how Wiki works? Use part of the rules, out of context, when it is to the advantage of some with one POV, but use other rules, such as pushing the Storms' edit to a separate page, when also, serves the purpose of that same group POV?

Ditto what another poster said, "Your attempt to destroy two years of edits isn't very much better than vandalism no matter how much you try to dress it up."

Shame on all those who are participating in this affront and who are permitting it.

I suggest that this article be reverted quickly to the "current (0737,1 October 2006 by 75.35.76.29) version." Such actions do not bode well for the reputation of Wikipedia.

STemplar 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop crying over spilled milk, as it were, and help us make edits that improve from a version that was decidedly better than the "current" one. It is clear from above discussions that most editors agree we should be building from the 2-year-old version. Feel free to cite whatever statements you think should be cited in the article and to propose new wording as you see fit. --ScienceApologist 22:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Positions

...on article content, structure, and the controversy.

I have this to say regarding the recent and upcoming changes:

• I support reverting to the featured article revision ("FAR"). However, I think that all concern over this issue is trivial. We'll be going through the article step-by-step regardless.
• The FAR has anti-cf bias. It's not as bad as the recent revision ("RR") bias, but it's there.
• The article should not be edited to state or imply that cold fusion is a real effect. This hasn't been proven. Doing so is liable to cast serious doubt on the motives of the editors, and polarize others into an opposing position. Editors should be very careful about stating anything that isn't proven. Be also careful in equating cold fusion to established sciences.
• Cold fusion is not a pseudoscience. It follows the scientific method. It has not been proven un-workable. There still seems to be an unanswered question (of excess heat). Editors should not mistake "has not been proven" with "is disproven".

The article itself:

• The current FAR lead is better than the RR lead, but can be improved.
• The history sections should both be considered, and carefully merged into something of equal or lesser size than what we have, but having the same subheadings. 'Continuing efforts' might be expanded. The department of energy review of the RR might be included here and not elsewhere, but it needs to be careful what it quotes, and must quote the conclusion of the report.
• The controversy section of the FAR is deficient, but in the RR it is overwhelming. It needs to be cut down to approximately equal the history section, probably more. If content exists in a 'sub-article' ("Main article:Cold fusion controversy"), then it should not be duplicated here.
• There should be a section on how cold fusion is expected to work, and how the experiments are being set up. Instead of this information being scattered throughout the article. There is a lot of history and arguing over the controversy, but the article does a poor job of explaining what cold fusion actually is in a simple way.

–M^T 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Disgracefaul behavior on talk:WikiProject Physics

I copied this section because I wanted everyone to see the disgraceful behavior of the some of the participants in this debate. I will replace it if is deleted again.--Ron Marshall 14:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I direct your attention to the nonsense below. None of these people are practicing science. What they are practicing is scientific censorship, social conformity, name calling, arrogance, ignorance, and irresponsibility. Notice the civil nature of these fine minds. --Ron Marshall 21:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[ redacted Joke 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC). Interested editors can go see the conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics ]

Mediation

The stated issues:

1. One party believes the article should have a neutal point of view by providing the point of view of both the skeptics and the experimenters. The other party believes only the point of view of skeptics should be represented.
2. One party believes the experimental evidence and corresponding arguments for both sides should be represented. The other party does not want a detailed discussion of experimental evidence.

These are not the issues. I belong to the first party, but no doubt Ron Marshall thinks me part of the second. I am the only one of 9 that Ron mentions, and don't believe that this is between only him and I. I also don't think that it is yet time for mediaton: I've added a section above where people can explain their positions regarding this article, and Ron has not done so. All I know so far is that he doesn't like anti-cf bias and disagrees with the revision. I don't know the way in which he disagrees with my position, or what he'd like to see from the article. Provide your position and discuss here what you think the issues are, and when we agree on them, we'll take it to mediation.

The summary of events is that I examined the a recent revision (RR) of the article and provided some comments on the bias that I found. I changed the introduction of the RR. Seeing that it was once a featured article, but is now a delisted good article, I brought this issue up at wikiproject physics. ScienceApologist boldly reverted to the FA revision, and suggested that we work incrementally to make the article better, and include all information while making sure that anything untrue or with a strong bias (in either direction) was omitted. This was met with opposition and revision by Ron Marshall (and perhaps others), but a survey indicated 9:2 (2 opposed not counted due to 0 contributions) that this was the correct course of action. I don't believe that the revision to FA deserves mediation - the RR is not lost, pieces of it may be (and have been, by me) reinserted, and the survey indicates that there is limited opposition to the revision. Ron Marshall has done nothing to improve the article, though he has removed sections that state correctly that cold fusion has not yet been demonstrated. –M^T 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi, I am not an official mediator, but I will try to help.

It seems to me that this is a dispute over a trivial matter. All previous versions are still available in the history so no work is destroyed no matter which version is the one currently displayed.

Let me suggest that both sides create a rough draft subpage and cut and paste whatever material they like into it, without worrying about what version is currently displayed. Once the draft subpage is deemed worthy, it can be cut and pasted as a complete replacement of the current contents. --Ideogram 07:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen none of the people who prefer the two-year-old version do any substantial work on it. After trying not to look for the better part of a week, they have managed to add only four references to it, and those only to buttress their transparent bias. Not acceptable. I will continue to revert to the version with over seventy peer-reviewed citations. GKK 07:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't care which version is displayed, but if both sides revert-war without progress I will get the page protected and force you to do something productive instead. --Ideogram 07:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

@Ideogram, thanks for your attempt to bring this into calmer waters. But I'm pretty much convinced, that this cannot be solved by insisting on better process, as the factions primary disagreement is over content, not over process. If both sides would (perhaps yet unknowingly) agree on the desired result, it would not be of great concern whether we start at A or B to reach C. But it's more like going from A to A' vs from B to B'.

@GKK, being properly sourced is necessary but not sufficent for a statement to be included into an Wikipedia article. You can wrote pretty abyssmal articles with every single statement properly sourced. The problem starts with NPOV but doesn't end there. It's a problem of encyclopedic style and userfriendly presentation, too.

@All, at times I and others have voiced the opinion, that article evolution should follow simulated annealing: Bold and in great steps, while the quality and coverage is low, but increasingly carefull and in smaller steps, with the growing quiality of the article. This article's evolution is an example where not following the idea has effectively destroyed the good work of previous work. It was a featured article, but reckless pushing of its content into one direction resulted in a rather clear decision to remove the FA status, see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Cold_fusion.

Pjacobi 08:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is really a dispute about the destination and not the starting point, then you need to start discussing your differences over the destination as soon as possible instead of arguing over the starting point. I don't see either side going away any time soon, and I am not going to let you edit-war over the article, so you had best start working on a compromise. --Ideogram 08:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the destination is stated easily by comparing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold_fusion with Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Cold_fusion. I'm just now thinking whether and how this can be explained to GKK etc.

Perhaps the starting point is important: Whereas the "old version" is undisputedly much shorter, it got a nearly undisputed better evaluation in terms of neutrality and general quality. So when starting there, a case should be made about every addition and how to present it, without violating NPOV and especially "undue weight".

Pjacobi 09:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe that the starting point is important. You could just as well start with a blank document. --Ideogram 09:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ideogram, thanks for coming over to help. I don't think that this article has enough editors for there to be sufficient, if any, progress on a sub-page. While I agree (see my position, above) that reverting it is trivial, I do think that the consensus reached in the survey above should be respected. Contrary to what GKK says, progress is being made as planned (FA vs current). The change isn't drastic, but it is incremental. Ron has not done any work on his supported revision, and has removed cited and seemingly unarguable statements under the guise of "bias-removal"[3]. His counter-consensus (can I call the above vote/FA-delistment consensus?) revisions are somewhat disruptive, but luckily enough people have been reverting them. To sum things up, I think that the dispute over which revision to build from is over, and would really like it if we stopped taking time to discuss it and moved on to the vastly larger problem of what each party wants and does not want to see in the article. I've expressed my position above.

I want to make it clear that "they reverted 2 years of work, citations, etc., and have not yet brought it up to my standards" is 'not a valid argument against the reversion. The recent revision is as Pjacobi describes it. It is overindulgant in arguing the controversy, it is not written with non-experts in mind, it is very clearly (see my initial comments above) biased, and has a host of other problems. It's been made better by reverting. We could stop our work on the article right now, and I think that it will be in a better state than we found it in.

I think that the next step in resolving this conflict is having Ron and others clearly state what they don't want to see, what they do want to see, and in which proportions. See my #Positions above. –M^T 09:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope all sides can agree that we should stop arguing about which article should be displayed now and move on to discussing what it should be. I concur that you all should be discussing what you want and don't want in the article.

Perhaps a good approach would be to list specific differences between your preferred versions so that you can move on to discussing how to merge them. For example, I am hearing complaints that 70 references were deleted, perhaps you can explain why those references are not desirable. --Ideogram 09:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They are mostly references to single scientific papers from the cold fusion community, not all of them published in peer reviewed journals. They consist primary sources. Giving them and all their arguments and claimed observations in full, would give the false impression of the scientific consensus. They should be replaced, if available, by review articles (secondary sources). --Pjacobi 09:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

GKK and Ron, response? --Ideogram 10:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Some other points to add: References are attached (in this case, some very precariously) to statements within the article. When the article was reverted, we lost many of these statements, and with good reason. Most of the article was a high-level argument more appropriate to cold fusion controversy or similar, or perhaps not even proper for an encyclopedia at all: there's no need to detail every single experiment with unclear or interesting results, and then reference the lab report. The DOA report was mentioned 5 times. Some refs given for some 'skeptic' comments don't support them, instead they lead to documents offering an opposing view. –M^T 10:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Two Noble prize winners in physics, Julian Schwinger and Brian Josephson, have condemed the scientific establishment for its treatment of cold fusion research. The on going effort in the cold fusion article is just another attempt at scientific censorship and misinformation. Experiment is the reality check of science. The public is not being served by yet another effort to advoid discussion of experimental evidence in accordance with the scientific method.--Ron Marshall 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that's generally not the way we discuss things around here. Are you new to Wikipedia? Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) as that will leave your name and a timestamp. --Ideogram 14:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Off topic: Holy crap, why does the article "Cold fusion controversy" exist at all? A separate article is just an invitation for POV-warriors. It now also contains a lenghty passage linking to Harold Aspden, notable for advancing his very own Theory of everything (which explains really everything, including the Steorn, the EmDrive, and whatsnot). --Pjacobi 14:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

By way of explaination, Cold fusion controversy was created as a PoV fork. The creator wrote what I would have to describe as the most rampantly opinionated, specious and policy violating pieces of detritus I have ever seen. He left Wikipedia after a series of increasingly lenthly blocks for incivility and 3rr violations on the article. He was also responsible for a lot of the problems that the post-FA version of this article had. The original version of CFC and messages from the writer can be found at this link. I would fully support the deletion of what remains of the article as it's been more or less abandoned. Jefffire 15:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

On AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold fusion controversy. --Pjacobi 15:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the link to Jed's page and learned more about CF in 15 minutes than in the last few days I've spent here. I see no factual arguments against it and that the vote to delete it was unanimous, hmmm. --Yeslove 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In the last version by Ron Marshall before the revert, there were 86 entries under references. Using the numbering there, the following sets are duplicates: (30,72);(31,48,79);(53,59);(42,44);(6,12);(38,77,86);(28,32);(4,16,67,71,74,75);(8,17);(9,18,49);(2,41). These 18 exact duplicate references would take the total down to 68. In addition, references 78, 56, 66, 39, 54, and 64 refer to the same work as other references but different sections or page numbers, which is good practice for citation but including them as different works for purposes of enumeration of references would be deceptive. Of those, many (most?) are still present in the current version. Of the first ten from the old version, references 1-6, 8, and 10 are currently included, though in different sections. Reference 10 was initially removed but has been added back in a recent edit, consistent with the intent to add relevant references back in with their appropriate sections. --Noren 18:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of material by Ron Marshall

I would like to discuss the issues one by one that Ron Marshall has with the text he removed. If he could list all the material he removed and explained what about the material he disputed, then we can continue to address his concerns and move towards a cited and balanced article. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At one time I was in the process of adding information about my edits to the talk page when some one reverted the talk page and I lost my text. Since my edits to the article and my edits to the talk page are being deleted what is the point of discussing it.--Ron Marshall 17:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if your edits to the talk page were deleted, I am pretty sure that was an accident. Please keep trying to work with us. We really do want to hear the reasons why you want to make those edits; if you can put them in a form that fits with Wikipedia policies, we will very likely accept them. --Ideogram 17:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The deletion in the talk page was no accident. You do not seem to be grasping the problem or to have a problem with censorship. The September version of the page has been vandalized by know nothing skeptics. The featured version of the article was biased and not NPOV. Now the page is locked in a biased state. We are being told that experimental results and the scientific method are of no importance to a encylopedia article on a scientific subject.--Ron Marshall 13:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ron, please try to remain civil. You seem to be new here, you don't understand Wikipedia policies yet or why we have them. If you work with us we will try to explain to you how we do things around here and why. If you cannot work with us you will not make much progress. --Ideogram 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly if they aren't from authoritative sources then they are of no importance. Even if research really is being suppressed, that's the line we have to stick to. Wikipedia isn't the place to try and enact a revolution in science, and it also isn't the place to flame. Jefffire 15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

100% agreed. Wikipedia isn't the appeals instance of the scientific process. --Pjacobi 11:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I think it is more complex than that, consider this article on corruption of authoritative sources:[4]1. Who is the authoritative source in this dispute, the 20 Nobel laureates or Scott McClellan? 2. "Leshner said there is a "frightening trend" in this direction now, in which scientists whose findings appear to run counter to the dominant political or cultural agenda are losing funding or appointments.", should Wikipedia take this into account when selecting sources? 3. ""This is dangerous," said Orians", should Wikipedia ignore or acknowledge this statement when applied to: "Even if research really is being suppressed, that's the line we have to stick to."? 4. Is the reliance on authority rather than evidence healthy and if so, who authorised this view?--Yeslove 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the edits to which Ron refers (and please correct me and clarify if I'm mistaken) started with a comment he made followed by a cut and paste of a section of the [talk:WikiProject Physics] page here, reverted by M here. Ron replaced this comment and the cut and paste here, Joke137 preserved Ron's comment but replaced the long cut and paste with a link here; Ron reverted the link to his cut and paste again here, Count Iblis reverted to a linked version here; Ron reverted again to the long cut and paste here, and Wangi reverted to the link again here. This is the present form of that subsection. The first edit by M did remove text authored by Ron Marshall; the subsequent ones did not, as far as I can see.--Noren 14:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ron, it is not necessary to cut and paste large amounts of text from other pages to here. Simply including a link to those contents allows interested readers to click on the link and read that text without expanding this page. I hope you can understand that this is not censorship. --Ideogram 17:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...

Well while all of this settles, would anyone mind me doing style, layout and spelling/grammar edits? Maury 13:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, but you'd have to get it unprotected. Ron and others had been visiting the page frequently before it was protected, but now that a discussion is being forced, little is being said. Strong motivation to put their own version forward, seemingly no motivation to offer explanations or participate in discussion (hopefully I'm wrong). I think that the current protection is much more disruptive than Ron's efforts were - previously, he'd be quickly reverted and we could get on with whatever work could be done. I'd like it to be unprotected. –M^T 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You can still create a subpage and edit that, as I originally suggested. It is my hope that protecting the page will motivate Ron and the rest to participate in discussion. Let us give that a few days to work; if they still do not join the discussion, we can unprotect it. --Ideogram 02:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. Forgive me if I'm way out of place, (Wiki Newbie) but research (available) outside of the USA seems to have gone much further:

"Very few Americans seem to know what is happening, which is incredible. It's known all over the world, except the USA. There are hundreds of laboratories doing it, they've got patents all over the place, Motorola, Westinghouse, the Department of Energy ... The prototypes are on sale now. There are 7,000 units operating in Russia right now and no one in the United States seems to know about it."

Arthur C. Clarke on Cold Fusion, "which is neither cold, nor fusion."

or have I just been had?? blucat 10/10/06

You forgot the citation- that quote is from Discover Magazine in May 1997. (I think, if my web search is correct) Usually cold fusion advocates prefer to use more recent quotes to avoid the 'but if this was the state of research years ago, what happened?' line of questioning. --Noren 01:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration on Censorship Issue

Since the request for mediation on the censorship issue has been refused by M a request for arbitration has been made. --Ron Marshall 18:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is almost certainly going to be rejected. You have not made any good faith efforts at discussion. --Ideogram 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram-- If you are attempting mediation I do not see why you are displaying such a strong bias toward one side. I worked on the article in good faith for several months. The editors working on it now have openly said they only want the skeptics position represented. This is not a good faith position as far as I am concerned. My position is that we should be building on the September version because it had a NPOV and 10 times more information that the current version. There does not seem to be any hope of producing a fair and accurate article building on the current version with the current group of editors. No one has offered any reason that gives me any hope that working with editors dedicated to censorship of opposing ideas can produce a positive result. --Ron Marshall 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said that they wanted only the skeptic's position... unless you mean "cold fusion has not yet been demonstrated", which is simply a fact, not a position. Ideogram is displaying no bias. You really havn't done anything to help us work through this: plenty of complaint and slander, but you won't take the time to communicate what you want the article to contain. –M^T 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright put the nuclear transmutation section back in. Show your good faith --Ron Marshall 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Both the Mediation Committee case and the Arbitration case have been rejected. The Mediation Cabal case is still open to those who wish to discuss the situation. Any neutral party is welcome to attempt to mediate the case. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

article seems to have gotten a lot worse

I used to work on this article a while ago, but not recently duee to lack of time. Around the time I stopped being actively involved, I thought the article was in a reasonably good state [5], although I was also working on a draft for a rewrite that would be even better User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion redux and which seemed to be supported both by the opponents and proponents of CF. I just read the current version and it is an absolute disgrace. Not only does it present just one side of the story, it simply throws away a whole lot of information. This is stuff that was all hashed out on talk, point by point and sentence by sentence. Now, some new people seem to have clobbered it (without actually reading the talk archives, I assume?) I'm not sure who's doing what, it will take me some time to get back into it, but I just want to say that this is unacceptable. As soon as the page is unprotected, I will dig through the history for the most recent good version and revert to that. I will also do a side-by-side read of the two versions, and if the current version has any information not in the old one, I will copy that over (but, at a glance, I think it has strictly less information). If you disagree, please state your reasons. ObsidianOrder 18:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, reading back, I see: ScienceApologist and/or M did the revert (and after that posted a poll, in which most of the editors I am familiar with have not had a chance to participate yet). Well, guys, this was discussed as part of Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Cold fusion, and the revert didn't win. If you want to re-do that, please do the poll properly. I think consensus is better than a majority decision, and that is clearly not present... in which case it is best to abstain from making radical changes.

One more general comment: Wikipedia does not exist to represent the mainstream scientific POV (if that even exists as a unified POV). Wikipedia presents all POVs fairly. If there is a single mainstream scientific consensus view on a subject (which is debatable, here), then Wikipedia should simply say what that is, and describe it as the mainstream scientific view... and then fairly describe notable opposing points of view. Perhaps some of the editors here (ScienceApologist, judging by the name) are confused on this point. ObsidianOrder 19:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Those who considered the article to be not longer of featured article quality saw reverting to be then easiest path to continue.

Uhhh, and actually, yes, Wikipedia is meant to to represent the scientific POV on topics of science. As every encyclopedia.

You may want to contribute to this RfAr if you think otherwise: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (the name is badly choosen, it's not about pseudiscience in the strict sense).

Pjacobi 19:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a proper poll? A proper poll was conducted. The results were 3:9, favoring a revert. Yes, content (of dubious value) was lost. Read the objections, especially "there's no need to detail every single experiment with unclear or interesting results, and then reference the lab report" and "They are mostly references to single scientific papers from the cold fusion community, not all of them published in peer reviewed journals. They consist primary sources. Giving them and all their arguments and claimed observations in full, would give the false impression of the scientific consensus. They should be replaced, if available, by review articles (secondary sources)." (search upwards to find the relevant discussions). Yes, the current article needs work. If Ron would be so kind as to participate in the discussion, maybe then the page could be unlocked and we could do a proper and speedy job of bringing it up to par. –M^T 21:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Poll was only open after the revert, involved parties (say ppl with 10+ edits to the article) were not notified and mostly have not voted, poll should be open a lot longer for something major like this, and heck, even the heading of "Survey" hardly indicates any urgency. Also, it is 6:9 currently, which is not consensus.

About the deleted sources: all of those in the "Papers" section were peer-reviewed, actually. From the other sections, the vast majority of the papers are peer reviewed, the few that are not are notable for other reasons. Books and newspaper articles don't get peer reviewed, obsiously. There were also many review articles... I don't know if you actually bothered to read them, but you might try [6] and [7]. There is incidentally nothing wrong with citing primary sources, when that is what's available. ObsidianOrder 22:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

3:9 - we do exclude votes from obvious dummy accounts - is enough for something as trivial as this. We aren't deleting an article, or choosing which version to set in stone, or banning the inclusion of pieces from one version. All of the old information is still there. We're merely choosing which revision we want to work from. It's not productive to bicker over the revision used. If you want to replace part of the current revision with a part from the recent revision, hey, please go ahead. That's incremental; it gives people a chance to give feedback on what you're doing. If your revision is good, then you're just a few steps away from lasting consensus. | Several people have elaborated on their objections to the recent revision, perhaps you could voice your exact objections to the featured revision? –M^T 22:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did write a detailed outline: User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion redux. At the time (it was right after the featured article removal vote), many people thought that was reasonable. My objection is that a lot of the critical information in there is either not presented int he FA, or presented in an unclear, non-rigorous or poorly written way. This applies to both sides of the dispute btw. I would say the pro side is essentially not at all represented in the FA version, it was represented but not very clearly or systematically in the recent (pre-revert) versions (incidentally - what pro stuff there was came mostly from short article Edmund Storms wrote just for Wikipedia, which was then NPOV'ed by myself and others). The anti side has never been clearly represented, even though it gets a lot of space, but it was somewhat better in the recent version as well. The FA version makes (unsourced) statements which are outright false, like: "the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalance". There's not a word about <up>4He, tritium radiographs, and other isotope products; nor about electrodeposited Pd, Pd/D ratios, anomalous conductivity of PdD, non-electrochemical reactions, etc, etc. I am willing, when the page is unprotected, to replace/rewrite sections one at a time with contents exactly as described in the outline, as an alternative to reverting sections or the whole thing. If the basis for the dispute is that some editors do not want to see the pro side presented at all, I don't know what I can do to resolve that. I also don't like to frame the dispute in terms of pro vs anti, but... unfortunately that is how it seems to be. I will happily write the anti section (writing for opposition, well I was gonna do that anyway) if someone from the opposition wrote the pro section... I'm not very optimistic about the chances of that happening however. ObsidianOrder 01:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree that we will be starting with the current FA revision, as per the above majority poll, even if no consensus was reached? Keep in mind that you're absolutely free to rewrite that version incrementally to whatever you want, or start a branch off your user page. | I've read your summary, and I don't approve. The vast majority of your headings are about current work in CF and controversy; very few are dedicated to history and scientific information about cold fusion itself. Let's agree on an outline. –M^T 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the reasoning for the revert, but will go along instead of edit-warring. Yes, let's do incremental. Random question... assume we do come up with some kind of reasonable consensus version, what exactly guarantees that someone like SA won't come along a bit later and revert it again?

"The vast majority of your headings are about current work in CF and controversy; very few are dedicated to history and scientific information about cold fusion itself" - correct, I think history should have a separate article (perhaps "History of (early) cold fusion research"). Even a brief summary of the relevant events of 1989-92 would take longer that the current article. I would have one paragraph amd a link. On to the other topic, "scientific information about CF itself" is the controversy, I don't see any way you can separate the two. My "Theoretical objections" section pretty much covers the mainstream view of CF, and "Practical difficulties" and "Proposed mechanisms" covers the CF researcher view. Both are scientific information, I think. I'm not sure what other "scientific information about CF itself" you'd like to see? ObsidianOrder 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Someone like SA" (e.g. me) won't come along and revert because after we're done with this article, there won't be such a clear reason to revert. Of course, if this article again degrades into avoidance of fact and unnecessarily verbose descriptions of each experiment and each quarrel, it will be reverted. No, history should not have a seperate article. It simply isn't large enough to merit a branch. And hiding that whole scandal in another article isn't something that should be done, just as we shouldn't hide all "pro-cf" content. There's no need to seperate info and controversy, but the thing we care primarily about is the mechanism/theory/information, and not whatever arguments are going on, so the heading and organization should reflect this. I do not approve of this article being a forum for arguing either side. Simply give a concise description, and point out valid objections. There's no need to bring "supporters" and "skeptics" and "pro-cf" and all that into the info/mechanism section. –M^T 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I don't see a clear (or any) reason to revert now, I don't see what will be different. The pre-revert version was the result of considerable wrangling and compromise, if you look through the archives. Not saying it was perfect, but it was a hell of a lot better than the FA version. So, we go through the process of coming up with a reasonable compromise version all over again, and you're happy, but someone else comes along and reverts, back to square one?

History is huge, if done at a reasonable level of detail. I don't want to hide it, but it is history and primarily of historical interest, not really that relevant to the current state of the field (e.g. back then most calorimetry had an accuracy of ~0.1W at best, now it is typically under 1mW). Ok, keep it here until it gets large enough to split, if you prefer. ObsidianOrder 23:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Others did see a reason. I don't know who you wrangled with before, but they clearly weren't very good wranglers. If you look upwards, there's plenty of critisicm of what came out of your wrangling. If someone more competent and nonpartisan than us comes along and "decides to revert", after giving plenty of reason and gaining plenty of support, then godspeed. May their reversion make this article even better. M 05:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"they clearly weren't very good wranglers" - they were ok; please read the archives from #5 to 10, this covers the FA vote, discussion about my outline, and the addition of (parts of) the Storms article, several rounds of NPOV-ing, as well as lots of back-and-forth and some unfortunate acrimony. I'm not so sure how the just-before-the-revert version compares to the versions towards the end of my previous active involvement with this article, I should probably do a side-by-side comparison at some point. ObsidianOrder 08:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"the heading and organization should reflect this. I do not approve of this article being a forum for arguing either side. Simply give a concise description, and point out valid objections" - i don't want it to be a forum either, but i do want to include all relevant facts and arguments. that's a reasonable suggestion, and it will probably make for a better article, but it will be hard to do in practice, I think. for one, a big chunk of the article (both now and proposed) is objections, not even following a description of anything but "stand-alone" objections if you will. a lot of the scientific debate has in fact been along the lines of:

experimental scientist A: i did this and got the following results

theoretical scientist B: these results are completely impossible for the following 20 reasons (and therefore, you must have an error in your experiment)

if you don't want a separate section for objections, how would this be handled? considering that the experimentalists are not proposing any theory for the theorists to object to, per se?

ObsidianOrder 00:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You say what the experiment showed. You avoid primary-source conclusions like "and that means we've got cold fusion". You tell the reader the ways in which the experiment may have failed, which is npov because the doa report indicated that the experiments should be improved. No need to mention every single experiment, it'll probably be enough to say "from 19.. to 20.., N teams have reported excess heat. Whether this excess heat is caused by cold fusion[][], by some other unknown process[][], or by experimental error[][] is disputed." M 05:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"You say what the experiment showed. You avoid primary-source conclusions like "and that means we've got cold fusion". You tell the reader the ways in which the experiment may have failed" - Yes, I agree emphatically. This is precisely what I'd like to do. This is mostly absent from the current (FA) article, btw. One minor note, I would say that at a minimum every major type of experiment should be mentioned, since calorimetry of heavy water cells with bulk Pd electrodes is just a small part of the CF story. Naturally, not every single experiment, just an example or two of each type: D20/LiOD and bulk Pd; same with electrodeposited or nanoparticle Pd; D2 gas over Pd powder or membranes; glow discharge in H20 or D20 with (typically) carbon electrodes. I think that about covers it. Similarly, every major type of effect that has been searched for: heat, 3He, 4He, tritium, other isotopes, neutrons, alpha particles. ObsidianOrder 08:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere in this discussion, ObsidianOrder voiced his concern that someone may come later and revert all the work we would do here. This is bound to happen if we base it on primary sources, as it is always possible to find reasons to reject them. If we instead base our work on recognized secondary sources, like the 2004 DOE report (even if it is imperfect), the chances of a revert will be much lower. Pcarbonn 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

People certainly may do that, but if they do, it would not be according to Wikipedia policy. Primary sources are clearly recognized as appropriate in some cases and for some uses ("purely descriptive", that's all we need); there is no such thing as a prohibition on primary sources. I strongly maintain that when a scientist with a PhD in the field publishes something in a peer-reviewed journal which is extremely relevant to the topic of the article, there is no possible reason to exclude it (well, except space - if there are 10 or 1000 articles reporting the same effect, you might include just one of them - but you can't exclude all). Reliability and verifiability of the source is already amply established in such a case, and it is not the place of wikipedia to judge "truth". ObsidianOrder 22:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Outline

Proposed outline, omitting see also/refs/... :

• Lead (quick summary of what it is; summary of F/P, rejection, current status (doe report); summary of how it works)
• History (30%)
  • Early work
  • Pons and Fleischman (from its start to its rejection)
    • Experimental set-up and observations (the actual experiment)
• Continuing efforts (30%, summary of various teams, experiments, etc. Should not be bigger than P/F section)
  • Department of Energy Report (somewhat small section on the report)
• Theory/Mechanism (30%, the actual mechanism is described, with copious proper use of the word "hypothetically")
  • Theoretical objections (targetting specific parts of the mechanism)

–M^T 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Where would Cold_fusion#Other_kinds_of_fusion fit in? I would think this would be important too for a proper perspective. (10-15% at least?) Crum375 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a table at the bottom, with a row "Methods of fusing nuclei". I don't think a quick overview of the various methods of fusion really belongs in this article. In fact, it duplicates content in nuclear fusion. M 06:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this response before. My point was not to cover all fusion methods but only the easy table top kinds, like fusor and sonoluminescence (obviously the first proven/working the second up in the air). Crum375 22:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Theory/Mechanism - this includes both "Theoretical objections" and "Proposed mechanisms" from my outline(?) mechanism is not known, although some have been proposed, so that is a very short section. I would say theory should be close to half of the article. i was going to put that first, because it is (a) important to understanding why this subject is so controversial - CF requires not just one outright impossibility according to conventional fusion theories, but four or five, and (b) important when looking at specific experimental results which have a bearing on some of the theoretical objections. if you want to put current research first, i won't object but i think others might, it has been an important point of contention with people who do not believe in CF and want the article to start by effectively describing why it is impossible. i don't mind either way, since i agree that clearly describing the objections is important.

Continuing efforts - includes "Current research" and "Practical difficulties" from my outline(?) why should this section not be much larger than P&F? P&F is just one old/obsolete experiment, granted a very controversial and influential one, but there has been tons of much better quality and more interesting work done. I would say this should be close to half of the article also.

Let me counter-propose another outline with %'s:

• Lead
• History 25% (although i would advocate splitting when this gets large)
• Theoretical objections 20%
• Proposed mechanisms 10%
• Practical difficulties 10%
• Current research 25%
• Other kinds of CF 5%

ObsidianOrder 23:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Revised:

• Lead (quick summary of what it is; summary of F/P, rejection, current status (doe report); summary of how it works)
• History (30%)
  • Early work
  • Pons and Fleischman (from its start to its rejection)
    • Experimental set-up and observations (the actual experiment)
• Theory/Mechanism (30%, the actual mechanism is described, with copious proper use of the word "hypothetically")
  • Theoretical objections (preferably not so seperated out)
  • Practical difficulties (preferably not so seperated out)
• Continuing efforts (30%, summary of various teams, experiments, etc. Should not be bigger than P/F section)
  • Department of Energy Report (somewhat small section on the report)

In theory/mechanism, we should have wording like "..then there would need to be a reason that rule X does not apply, then...". The reason certain sections should not be larger is because they aren't that important, and a lack of a limit invites verbose and needless writing. Do you agree with the headings? The percentages we can work out later, if you don't agree with them now. M 06:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to trying to merge mechanisms and theory into one section. I think it will be difficult, but I'm willing to give it a try. Not sure how practical difficulties fits in there - wouldn't that go in current research? Percentages are ok. ObsidianOrder 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right about difficulties, I was hasty. One more then:

• Lead (quick summary of what it is; summary of F/P, rejection, current status (doe report); summary of how it works)
• History (30%)
  • Early work
  • Pons and Fleischman (from its start to its rejection)
    • Experimental set-up and observations (the actual experiment)
• Theory/Mechanism (30%, the actual mechanism is described, with copious proper use of the word "hypothetically")
  • Theoretical objections (preferably not so seperated out)
• Continuing efforts (30%, summary of various teams, experiments, etc. Should not be bigger than P/F section)
  • Practical difficulties (preferably not so seperated out)
  • Department of Energy Report (somewhat small section on the report)

I don't object to most of what you've said below, though I do want refs to be filtered like the Iwamura ref below. I don't think that anyone has shown that we can say "it is nuclear", despite the arguments presented. "CF has not been demonstrated" and "CF has not been shown false" seem very fair game, though I might be proven wrong on the latter one. If you have no objection to this outline, then feel very free to implement it and start editing/re-inserting. –M^T 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Draft theory+mechanisms section written, see below and User:ObsidianOrder/Cold_fusion_redux_theory. I'd like to hear your comments. ObsidianOrder 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. about Iwamura: what does "filtered" mean in this case? Not including that reference? I disagree. He is a a physicist working with a team at a large mainstream research institution, the article is published in a very reputable peer-reviewed journal, there is no conceivable reason for excluding it. I would strongly argue that papers presented at ICCF should also be cited. ICCF papers may be conceivably be argued to be self-published, since ICCF exercises only a limited degree of editorial selection. However, the policy on self-published sources says: "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously." WP:V The exception for a "well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise" applies to almost all ICCF papers. Therefore they can be used, bearing in mind all of the cautions in that section of WP:V. I will also note that peer-review is not an absolute requirement for sources on science topics: "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." WP:V. For a lot of CF stuff, there just isn't another good source at the moment. Therefore, we can use that according to: "Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. ... If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question." WP:V. Something like Iwamura is in my opinion clearly important enough to keep, and so the ICCF paper would be cited even if there was no JJAP paper. ObsidianOrder 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You brought up Iwamura in response to "You say 'the finding of nuclear transmutations which proves nuclear reactions are going on' - please cite this. Who says that nuclear transmutations are occuring?". By filtered, I mean that your citation wasn't adequate. If you had cited a major government agency, and a few journals, which I didn't expect you to do, then you could make that statement. Frankly, I doubt that "proves nuclear reactions" will be a phrase we'll see in this article at this point in time. –M^T 02:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable misunderstanding. I was just responding to your request for a cite, and yes, I do think the Iwamura report (and other similar ones) deserve a mention in the article, but I wouldn't even imply/write that the transmutation result is established in a bulletproof way yet, let alone that it proves anything. "X and Y have reported transmutation" is about all I would want to say, and that is verifiable and neutral. If the result is correct, it strongly suggests nuclear reactions, but we shouldn't say that since it is pure conjecture/original research. For the record, I have not, nor am I likely to in the near future, try to insert a claim like "... proves nuclear reactions are going on" in the article. I would be very skeptical of any "X proves Y" language outside of a direct quote anyway. ObsidianOrder 06:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A Primer on cold fusion

What is the justification for censoring out experimental evidence on a scientific subject that is already acknowledged as controversial? Applying the term pseudoscience to people who are practicing the scientific method is both an insult and a lie. The case of cold fusion is in some ways a unique problem and in some ways not so unique a problem. First cold fusion is a scientific issue and the rules of science should apply. We should be open to people who are practicing the scientific method. It should be recognized that experiment is the reality check of science, not real or imagined expertise or committees. For example Einstein was an expert on general relativity, having created the theory. However he falsely believed that black holes were more likely a hole in his theory than a hole in space. I have read that a black scientist proposed in the 1930’s that black holes were real and was soundly ridiculed for his efforts. Second the cold fusion issue was “decided” by the political method in the May of 1989 and not by the scientific method. I will give a short primer on cold fusion. More details can be found in the September 2006 version of the cold fusion article which has since been censored. Hot fusion is what powers stars. Particles have to be moving at a high velocity to overcome the electrostatic repulsion of like positive charge protons in hydrogen nuclei. When the nuclei come close together the strong nuclear force takes effect and brings them together. In the hot plasma electrons are separated from the nuclei so their negative charge is not as effective in overcoming the proton repulsion as if they were still attached to the nucleus. In 1968 a Nobel prize in physics was given for muon-catalyzed fusion and related work. Muon-catalyzed fusion was the original “cold fusion”. The electron was replaced with a more massive negative muon. Because of its higher mass the muon took up a position much closer to the nucleus. The charge shielding effect of the negative muon allowed nuclear fusion to take place at room temperature. It is typical in science that if you change some of the variables you change the result. The problem with Muon-catalyzed fusion was that the muons had a very short half life and the process was not practical for that reason.

The term, cold fusion, was also applied to an experiment presented by Martin Fleishman and Stanley Pons in March of 1989. They claimed the experiment produced to much excess heat to be a chemical reaction and therefore had to be a nuclear reaction. They were rushed into an announcement of this claim by the desire of the University Of Utah to protect patent rights. Also important details were left out of the announcement for the protection of patent rights. There was a rush to duplicate the results and most, but not all efforts seemed to fail. Some editors in power in the scientific establishment concluded that cold fusion could not possibly be true, that cold fusion was an embarrassment to science, that it should be immediately squelched, and that the end justified the means. The editor of Nature was one of the first to take this direction and was followed by the editors Science, Scientific American, and some of the physics journals. At this point these members of the scientific establishment abandoned the scientific method in favor of the political and entered on the course of insult and censorship. They made sure cold fusion received a very bad press which served to reinforce the insult and censorship approach. The problem with this approach is that a bad press does not change the laws of physics and experiment is the reality check of science. But some how experiments done since early 1989, like the finding of nuclear transmutations which proves nuclear reactions are going on, do not count. This is because it is believed by many the issue was already decided by a bad press. Experimental evidence like nuclear transmutations exists today. If it was know in early 1989 that such evidence existed history would have taken a different turn. It seems that once the establishment has made a mistake ordinary rules of evidence no longer apply. Two Noble prize winners in physics, Julian Schwinger and Brian Josephson, thought that nuclear reactions were going on in cold fusion experiments and condemned the scientific establishment for its treatment of cold fusion research. The cold fusion experiments are described in approximately 2000 scientific papers by more than 200 scientists. Despite efforts at censorship many of these are in peer reviewed scientific journals. The people doing these experiments have PhDs in physics and chemistry. The experimenters are not denying the facts of hot fusion or implying that energy is not conserved. They are simply saying that the variables are different, that cold fusion is more likely a wave effect than the billiard ball effect of hot fusion, and that experiment is the reality check of science. It is also important to note that this is not just an academic issue. A nuclear reaction with relatively benign side effects would reduce poverty, pollution, and global warming.--Ron Marshall 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The only things we're "censoring" out are things that don't belong in an encyclopedia, as per wikipedia's various and very clear guidelines. You havn't been paying attention and have assumed the worst: nobody is calling it pseudoscience. I've personally removed sections that made that implication. We aren't saying that it can't be real, but we're not letting you say "cold fusion has been verifyably demonstrated", and we're not letting you censor out factual and important statements like "nobody has yet shown that the excess heat is fusion". You say "the finding of nuclear transmutations which proves nuclear reactions are going on" - please cite this. Who says that nuclear transmutations are occuring? If I were a nobel prize winner, and even if I wasn't, I'd flatly disapprove of censoring research - but I probably wouldn't assert that nuclear reactions were actually ocurring, because it is evident that we don't have enough evidence to support this claim. Do you realize what kind of a mainstream news story the vindication of cold fusion would make? There are many, many people hoping that you do find cold fusion. But some of these people aren't happy when you say that you've found it, when you havn't yet. –M^T 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

factual and important statements like "nobody has yet shown that the excess heat is fusion" - I am somewhat perplexed by what standard of evidence is required for that. There are numerous experiments which (if the results are correct, etc) directly prove that it is fusion (or some kind of nuclear reaction if not specifically D+D fusion). To wit: tritium, 4He (in quantities proportional to excess heat), and other isotopic products, and strange isotopic ratios in non-electrolysis Pd/D experiments; and at the gross level, excess heat of GJ/kg, far beyond what can be produced by any chemical reaction. You can say that the experiments are poorly done and their results are invalid (this is what the reviewers in the DOE panel argued, at least some of them and for some of the results they looked at), or that the people doing the experiments are lying/deluded/crooks/charlatans, but if you agree that the results are valid, then yes, they do prove fusion quite directly. ObsidianOrder 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you provide evidence that neutral qualified observers concluded that "the excess heat was fusion", then it would be acceptable here. The problem then boils down to identifying those observers and deciding on their neutrality and qualifications. The way that I approach these contentious issues is by reducing the problem to an atomic level - find one source that meets these criteria and make a case for it. All we need is one such valid source to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV. But that source must be neutral and highly qualified scientifically, i.e. impeccable. Of course, even then, if a majority of observers would still disagree, you'd still have to note that "while the majority of scientists believe that the excess heat was not fusion, a small minority, such as Prof. Impeccable, believe that the existence of fusion was in fact proven.[1][2][3]" Crum375 00:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Would one of the reviewers in the most recent DOE panel count? What about nobel prize winner physicist Brian Josephson?

Thing is, nobody is ready to make the claim that it is fusion, because we don't know what it is. There is stuff that strongly suggests a nuclear reaction is occuring; there is excess energy far beyond what can be explained by any chemical mechanism; but it doesn't have to be fusion, certainly not D+D fusion. All of the non-fusion explanations are vastly more implausible (care to suggest one?), so fusion would be the natural assumption unless proven otherwise. So people tend to make somewhat more cautious statements. I think some solid (and uninvolved) scientists have gone on the record saying whatever is happening definitely is nuclear, though. Would you like me to dig for a reference? ObsidianOrder 00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, yes. This would give you license to say that "some scientists, such as X, Y, and Z, assert that the process is nuclear", assuming that the references are all solid. M 06:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's one: Brian Josephson writes in an letter to the editor in the Independent (UK): "... nuclear fusion already works: the way to make it work was demonstrated 15 years ago by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann but an inadequate, poorly analysed experiment by rival workers specialising in high-temperature fusion led to the scientific community concluding that "cold fusion" was a delusion, and to the suppression of such investigations. Research continued in some laboratories nevertheless ...". This is from August 2004, it used to be at [8] but does not currently appear to be available online. That's a pretty definite assertion that it is nuclear. ObsidianOrder 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

M - on the earlier question: you wanted a cite for transmutations, well, here's a couple from this very article (an older version, [9]):

1. Iwamura, Y., et al. Observation of Nuclear Transmutation Reactions induced by D2 Gas Permeation through Pd Complexes. in ICCF-11, International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2004. Marseilles, France.
2. Iwamura, Y., M. Sakano, and T. Itoh, Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41: p. 4642.

and this has been reproduced in other labs. now are you getting a sense that important material keeps being deleted? ObsidianOrder 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not M, but can you make a case that Iwamura is neutral and highly qualified? Can we see his CV? Are there any qualified neutral scientists that reviewed or criticized his work? Crum375 00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean by neutral. He is doing CF research and reporting positive results, that would be sufficient to disqualify him for some people ;) The work was done by a team at the Advanced Technology Research Center, Mitsubishi. There are at least 4 other independent Japanese teams that have reproduced this or variants of it since: Kitamura et al at Kobe U (exact reproduction), Takahashi et al at Osaka U (exact reproduction), Narita et al at Iwate U, and Yamada et al also at Iwate. This is presented at ICCF10, ICCF12 and JCF7. These are all teams of scientists, not just one guy. There is a number of similar results in somewhat different setups, for examlpe isotopic products in glow discharge or in electrolysis, see work by Mizuno, Omohri, Miley, Savvatimova, etc. ObsidianOrder 00:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think in a contentious issue such as this one, WP should strive for excellent sourcing, which should be neutral secondary sources reviewing the results of primary ones. In this case, it would have to be some general science publication or board, not directly related to CF efforts, reviewing the primary papers published by the CF workers and commenting on them. To rely on a primary source such as a paper by someone trying to prove CF in his lab would make WP a primary science reviewer, which it is not; WP as an essentially tertiary publication should try to rely on secondary sources in contentious areas, IMO. Crum375 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the quality of sources should vary with how contentious the subject is. WP has criteria are considerably more inclusive than what you propose, quote:

• "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." WP:V
• "Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. ... If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question." WP:V
• "There is sometimes no single prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources." WP:RS
• "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." WP:RS
• "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims." WP:RS

etc.

There are very few sources that meet your criteria: basically just the two DOE reports, the ERAB board, and possibly a court case or two. The policy guidelines I quoted on the other hand suggest that citing specific important journal articles (even non-review) is actually good when dealing with a controversial science topic. The rule on primary sources (ie "purely descriptive claims") is something that I have no problem with whatsoever. ObsidianOrder 06:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to ISI Web of Knowledge, Yasuhiro Iwamura seems to only have published this one paper. The Japanese Journal of Applied Physics is peer reviewed and reputable, and in areas I'm familiar with the papers it publishes seem solid enough. Iwamura's paper has been cited twice, but only one of the cites (in Journal of Fusion Energy) seem relevant (the other has the title "A study on behavior of inorganic impurities in water tree" and is published in Electrical Engineering in Japan), but there seems to be no published reviews or reproduction of this work. All in all I'd say that this paper is very non-notable if judged by it's impact on the mainstream physics litterature. O. Prytz 01:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Prytz - the paper is indeed non-notable in mainstream physics terms. In order for it to be notable there would have to be a large current peer-reviewed literature on CF which could cite it, and there obviously isn't. CF papers have extreme difficulty being published at all, those that do tend to be both the best technically and also notable just for being published. In the CF researcher community, Iwamura et al are very well known, and have presented dozens of papers/tech reports as well as having multiple collaborations with other groups. Also pls note that the guy is a scientist working in corporate research, most of what he has done before this probably cannot be published for proprietary/trade secret reasons. It is interesting that Mitsubishi would want this to be public. Regarding including this in the article: I would say it is significant enough and well sourced enough to be included as an "interesting experimental report", with appropriate disclaimers about it not being sufficiently confirmed/reproduced etc (although it is reproduced by other groups, and the reproductions were presented at several ICCF's, I certainly wouldn't claim it has remotely reached the status of well established experimental result). ObsidianOrder 05:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Those citations aren't up to par, as per the above comments regarding them. Especially for a claim as extraordinary as "cold fusion exists". M 06:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not a claim I am making, nor is any such statement (either "exists" or "doesn't exist") appropriate to Wikipedia. A much more limited claim, namely "Several groups (cite#1) (cite#2) have recently reported apparent conversion of nuclei to other nuclei with higher atomic mass in thin Pd-D films" is directly supported by peer-reviewed (and other) sources, and extremely relevant to the subject of the article. It is also a statement of plain vanilla fact, because whether or not what these scientists reported is true, they certainly did report it. ObsidianOrder 06:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quoting you: factual and important statements like "nobody has yet shown that the excess heat is fusion" - I am somewhat perplexed by what standard of evidence is required for that. There are numerous experiments which (if the results are correct, etc) directly prove that it is fusion (or some kind of nuclear reaction if not specifically D+D fusion). If you want to make a statement that some cf researchers think that their experiments show cold fusion ... well, I don't know, perhaps even that is not worth mentioning, I really have no opinion at the moment. –M^T 07:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"some cf researchers think that their experiments show cold fusion" - well, duh ;) "nobody has yet shown that the excess heat is fusion" - i guess coming back to the original question, how is that factual? it's an opinion; the only fact is that some prominent people have said that. (actually very easy to source: huizenga, parks, ...) how would one show the excess heat is fusion? if 4He production proportional to excess heat doesn't show that (see the Navy tech report and work by Miley), what the hell would? i think the factual statements would be instead (1) "some prominent scientists attribute the results to experimental error" (cite parks+huizenga+others) (2) "some/a few accept the measurement of excess heat but say there's insufficient evidence at this time to definitely conclude that it is due to fusion due to the lack of expected fusion products" (cite many reviewers in the latest doe panel, possibly others) (3) "cf researchers point to a number of results that directly link excess heat and fusion, such as ..." (cite: probably review by storms, szpak, etc). now those are all factual statements. ObsidianOrder 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like M and his group are incapable of NPOV judging by the above comments. It looks like the article is going to be disputed for a long time.--Ron Marshall 17:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ron - you gotta be willing to work with people, no matter what. Otherwise it is hard to get anywhere in Wikipedia. ObsidianOrder 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Was our summary of 2004 DOE review biased ?

The whole dispute started on the statement that our summary of the DOE was biased (see discussion in the top of the page). I would like to revisit this question with you, because I don't understand where the bias was. Presumably, if our summary was OK, then the page could be reinstated as it was.

The intro addressed 3 points: a) is there evidence of excess heat ? b) can we attribute it to nuclear reactions ? c) which research should be funded, if any ? My first question is : Are we saying that the selection of these 3 points is a sign of bias, or that the way they were presented was biased? I would think that most people agree that these 3 questions are the central issues in this debate, and that their selection is not a sign of bias, but I'm ready to discuss this if necessary. You said that some important statements were "Skipped" or "entirely omitted". In fact, they were presented in the body of the article, where I believe they belong. Are you suggesting that they belong in the intro instead, in replacement of the 3 issues above ? How do you keep the intro short if you want them ?

Concerning the possibility that these points were incorrectly presented, here is what I would say:

1. On the question of excess heat: the charge seems to be that we did not quote the text exactly. Indeed, we strived to make it short and easily understandable, while reusing as much as possible the original wording of the report. The words "power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources" do come from paragraph 3 on page 3, so we have not invented anything here. Unfortunately, we could not find one phrase in the report that we could quote exactly and that would meet our requirements for the intro. We tried different versions, and adapted it based on questions or comments from readers. Is the charge that the sentence does not reflect the content of the report ? Please read page 3 of the 2004 report fairly: you'll see that the reviewers were evenly split on the issue of excess heat (a significant change compared to the 1989 report, by the way, so the 2004 DOE conclusions in its last page are not fully consistent with what is written in its page 3). So where is our bias ?
2. on the question of nuclear origin: again, the rewording of the DOE statements was done to bring clarity, and especially to clarify that there are 2 separate scientific questions (excess heat, and nuclear origin), because some past visitors had difficulty to make the distinction. In any case, are you suggesting that the rewording is a source of bias ? Please explain this if you think so.
3. on the question of funding: the wording you propose is long and technical: "funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV.". When you analyse the statement, you can realize that the 2 proposed areas of research are really addressing the 2 scientific issues (excess heat, and nuclear origin). So, if we are saying "funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments in this field", just after explaining the 2 scientific questions, we are really saying the same thing, aren't we ? Where is the bias ?

Finally, you say: "the current paragraph makes cold fusion seem quite legitimate (...) while the actual conclusion states that nothing has changed since the 1989 review". In fact, the 1989 report "was sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system". So, research has been legitimate since 1989, and confirmed by the 2004 DOE report, so where is the issue with the paragraph we have written ? Pcarbonn 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would only repeat the long section I wrote above if I offered objections. Despite your intentions, the outcome was biased. You ignored the conclusion of the report in favor of your own interpretation, when certain statements were shortened by a mere few words, they came out implying more support than before, and so on. The funding statement seems to imply that research that tests if the energy produced is anomalous should be funded, which is not the same as "any experiment in the field". The point is mostly moot now, but since we will be re-writing that section: Quote the report directly, and in context, and only when neccesary. The conclusion is a must-have, and it should be central, and it should not be open to interpretation by editors - our readers can do that themselves. Once you've given a very, very basic explanation, request comments on whether any other statements should be added (do not have some statements ready, just give people the report and ask them if there's anything missed). If clear consensus emerges, then add them. –M^T 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the 2004 DOE report is THE reference and THE basis for this wikipedia article. Until we agree on what it said, this article will remain disputed for ever and we'll debate it endlessly. I strongly recommend that we set our top priority to develop all together a good summary of the DOE report for the intro. If you do not like our summary, could you propose another one as a basis for discussion? This would be very appreciated. Thanks in advance. (Saying that the conclusions are the same as in 1989, without saying what they were back then, is not very instructive, and is not a valid summary according to me). Pcarbonn 10:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pcarbonn - I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. DOE is the most important single reference, true, but it is not "THE" reference. And what it says in the official report is highly equivocal at best, I would imagine for political reasons, so it is tough to get anything clear out of it beside the fact that it is equivocal and not an outright rejection. The reviewer comments are a lot more interesting ;) ObsidianOrder 20:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the impression that it should be considered the exclusive source. I'm glad that we agree that it is the most important single reference, which is what I meant.

Don't you agree that the DOE report should be presented in the lead section of the article ? After all, it is by far the most quoted summary of the field. If so, what should we say about it?

Don't you agree that the content of the article should be in line with the DOE findings? If so, shouldn't we agree on what they were? Don't you agree that we should have a common understanding of the most important single reference, as it will facilitate the writing of the article afterwards ? Pcarbonn 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"should be presented in the lead section of the article" - yes, in one or two sentences. "content of the article should be in line with the DOE findings" - no, not as a general principle. in practice it won't be too different, but heat is hardly the most solid evidence and i want to give a fair hearing to the other results. heat has a disproportionate weight in the report. "shouldn't we agree on what they were" - it is a worthwhile goal. start a section to play around with different wordings of that here or at /wip. "we should have a common understanding of the most important single reference" - well, i think the only significant fact about the DOE report is that it was equivocal. you'd be reading too much if you looked for more than that. as for common understanding, just about everything about the field is highly contentious, so... good luck ;) i'll try to contribute. ObsidianOrder 22:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you ask me, the summary we had was perfectly fine, and I really don't understand why it was dramatically attacked. Here it is again:

The latest mainstream review of research in LENR occurred in 2004 when the US Department of Energy set up a panel of eighteen scientists. When asked "Is there compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources", the panelists were evenly split. When asked about low energy nuclear reactions, two thirds of the panel did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing" and one was entirely convinced. The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments in this field. Critics say that the DOE review had too limited a scope and inappropriate review process.

Or to make it shorter (but making it more objectionable because it's not quoting anymore), it could be something like this:

The latest mainstream review of research was conducted by the US Department of Energy in 2004. While puzzled by the generation of heat that could not be explained by current theory, it generally rejected the possibility that it could have a nuclear origin, and recommended a modest funding of research to better understand the effect.

I'd be very curious to see what M would propose instead. Pcarbonn 12:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pasting what I said above:

"Is there compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources" is not the question asked, and a needless re-intepretation of the report's "evidence for excess power is compelling". Don't use quotes unless quoting, and don't needlessly change "excess power" to "power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources". And don't skip something as seemingly important as "Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented."

I give a lot of detail above, I'm not sure what's not clear. The report didn't talk about special non-chemical power, that's an implication that was added, and needlessly. As for the new paragraph, I do have some objections. Change "mainstream" to "major", or something equally neutral. Emphasizing "mainstream" is a lot like like having someone say "the latest credible report". 'Puzzled' is wrong. That's your interpretation. Please, don't interpret. Don't shorten. And be careful not to cherry-pick. If anything, the report was puzzled about why excess heat was reported. 9 found the evidence for excess heat compelling. 9 said there was no convincing evidence. 12 were unconvinced, 5 were convinced to an unspecified extent, 1 was convinced. [That's wrong, I misread and assumed that all 18 commented on this. The ratios are mostly correct though.]

The latest mainstream review of research was conducted by the US Department of Energy in 2004. Of the 18 commisioned to review cold fusion experimental results, half found no convincing evidence of excess energy. Two thirds commenting on nuclear origins did not feel the evidence was conclusive; 1 was fully convinced; the rest were somewhat convinced. Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented. The review recommended that agencies entertain individual, well-designed, and peer-reviewed proposals for experiments that address specific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. The conclusion of the review was that while significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.

Did I miss any important point? Were any points too trivial to be mentioned? Did I misrepresent anything? –M^T 02:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this question which I find important. My comments:

1. Are you saying that "excess heat" is not the same as "power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources" ? If so, what would be the definition you would propose for excess heat ? A quick search on google shows that excess heat is a term mostly used in cold fusion, so we cannot look elsewhere for a commonly agreed definition, and I believe we should give a definition in our article: we cannot expect readers to know what it is. So I welcome your proposal (with sources, if possible).
2. you say: "The report didn't talk about special non-chemical power". This is plainly not true. The paragraph 3 on page 3 of the report says : "power (..) beyond that attributable to ordinary chemical or solid state sources", and it is the same paragraph that says that the panel was evenly split on whether the evidences of excess heat were compelling. So it is directly relevant here. Please read again the report if you have any doubt.
3. The short summary I made was just there to give an idea, and I agree it is far from perfect. I'm certainly not suggesting we should put it verbatim in the lead section. I prefer the RR (recent revision) version.
4. If the RR version implies that the question "Is there compelling evidence..." is verbatim from the DOE report, then I agree we should change it. Here is what I would propose: "When asked whether there is compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources, the panelists were evenly split.".
5. I have a serious issue with the statement you propose for the summary: "Of the 18 commissioned to review cold fusion experimental results, half found no convincing evidence of excess energy". Why not "half found convincing evidence of excess energy" instead ? Clearly, this introduces bias, and it's better to stick to the orignal wording of the DOE report ("was evenly split")
6. Don't you think that the summary you propose is too long for the lead section ? Could you try to slim it down to 3 or 4 sentences ? Doing this without bias is where the challenging is, I suppose. I welcome your proposal.

Pcarbonn 10:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right about points 1, 2, and 4. I didn't read well enough. The report does define excess power to be "power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources", and that's the definition that we should use. | There's no way to say "on the issue of... evenly split" without introducing bias. The variant you describe, for example, implies that 50% fully agree, and 50% disagree, or agree to some extent, etc. The report details the two sides to avoid bias. If we're going to include the report, we should include the relevant parts exactly as they are written. But I don't really think that we should be including the report. It's only 5 pages and easily read. It's obviously been written with careful attention to bias. Picking out certain bits is sure to introduce bias. The most apt summary of the report is the one it itself gives: the first paragraph of the conclusion. Yes, it's not flattering, but it is the best summary, because its source is the report. As for covering the report, I don't think that it deserves more than a paragraph, and we might not want to mention it directly in the lead section. This will avoid bias in either direction. I think that the real utility of the report is its use in citations. For example, we might want to say "there is an even split when it comes to the question of whether or not excess energy is produced[cite doa]" directly, and then get into why some think that it's not produced, and what others attribute the excess energy to. –M^T 23:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with point 2. To answer your question, I did read the report. The quote "power (..) beyond that attributable to ordinary chemical or solid state sources" does not restrict the possibilities to non-chemical sources. To explain the logic, NOT(A and B) does not imply (NOT A) and (NOT B). I expect that some of the reviewers thought that there was some unexplained CHEMICAL source of energy (i.e. a chemical source that was not ordinary.) This position is consistant with agreement that there was some evidence of excess energy but disagreement that there was evidence that the source of the energy was nuclear- and there were three reviewers with that set of opinions. --Noren 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

NOT(A and B) is equivalent to (NOT(A) or NOT(B)) ;) A chemical source which produced GJ/kg energy would be quite interesting, wouldn't you say? (ie more than the total ionization energy of all the atoms present) In effect, it would have to be something as exotic as Mills' hydrinos (not saying those are real, since I do not think there is any serious evidence to support that theory, but it gives you an idea of the kind of thing you just suggested).

I think a more reasonable reading is "attributable to ordinary sources, for example chemical or soild state" where I assume by solid state they mean something like a capacitor which may not be chemical per se. ObsidianOrder 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be, if such a source were to exist, and the evidence does not exist to demonstrate that it does. That a source of chemical energy that we don't understand (that isn't that large) could exist is not at all improbable. Your positive assessment of what experimental data exists (including the absurd GJ/kg claim) was not shared by many of the reviewers, which is the very point of describing this review. You're assuming the conclusion you want (that cold fusion works) and working from there. Your wording has a different meaning than the actual text and is thus unacceptable. --Noren 07:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on point 2 (chemical source) is going astray. The RR version said: "When asked "Is there compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources", the panelists were evenly split." Where is the incorrect reference to chemical effect in this sentence ? where is the bias ? I still do not see any.

M says "The variant you describe, for example, implies that 50% fully agree, and 50% disagree, or agree to some extent, etc.". Indeed. Not only, it implies it, it is actually what the sentence says. This is also what the report exactly says, so I do not see where the bias is: I only see that you do not seem to like it. Again, please explain where the bias is in this sentence.

Let me put my arguments in a different way. Readers of the article, and of the lead section, should quickly find out answers to the 2 central questions of the controversy (excess heat; nuclear origin). Please tell me what are the central issues of the controversy if they are not these 2. The only way to answer these questions without bias is to use secondary sources, and the most recognized secondary source is the DOE report. We have to report their answers to the questions as they are. Further qualifications are interesting, but not essential to the lead section. Althouth I agree with the "it came to the same conclusion as 1989" conclusion, it is clearly not a valid summary for the lead section, as nobody is expected to know what the conclusions were.

Again, I welcome a clear counter-proposal to the RR version. Pcarbonn 11:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct. Wikipedia should not be in the business of making original summaries of reports that summarize themselves. --ScienceApologist 23:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: if there is any important stuff that is omitted from the summary it may be reasonable to point it out, in context. Would you like to propose what the intro should say about the DOE report, and what a later paragraph should say? ObsidianOrder 18:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What important information is omitted from the report's summary? Who is the judge that the information is important? The judge, I think, should be the report itself. Not you nor I should say "oh, well, it forgot to include this important fact in the summary". It wasn't forgetten. The fact was just not important enough, and would have diluted the overall conclusion. If we want to describe the report in our lead, which I don't think we should, we should replicate its own summary. –M^T 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it another way. "When asked, 'should we dismiss all claims of excess heat', there was an even split". This implies that 50% thought so, but others thought we should dismiss most claims; others, some claims; and a few, no claims at all. It changes the question of what they were evenly split on. The report took the correct approach: define both poles, indicate an even split along the grade between them. Readers will quickly grasp what the 1989 report said. If you want to state "...do not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion", well, ok, but it'd be easy for one to infer that this conclusion was made if we didn't. Again, we don't even need to mention the report in the lead, but we should cite it. The most important points are, most critical first: 'is it a viable source of energy?', 'what progress has been made since 1989?', 'is heat being generated, or is that a result of poor experimental design, understanding, or measurement?', and 'if it is being generated, is a nuclear explanation sensible?'. I don't know if we can or should fit all the answers into the lead. As for "should entertain ... proporsals", found in both documents, this isn't an endoresement. It translates roughly to "no, we aren't dismissing it as an area of scientific study". –M^T 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for listing the top issues in the mind of the reader, as you see them. Let's try to get a consensus on what they are, so that we can address them in the lead section. Could other editors give they thought ?

Your understanding of the 2004 DOE statement on excess heat seems quite strange to me. The report clearly states the 2 options on which the panel was evenly split: "1) evidence for excess power is compelling 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment". The RR summary is perfectly in line with this. The DOE report does not use the word "dismiss" at all, and I really don't see how you can substantiate your view. Please clarify.

On your last point, I agree. (I have never said that the DOE statement is an endorsement. I've only said that we need to report it.) Pcarbonn 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point again. There is an important reason for outlining both poles instead of one. I've gone over it, and don't know how if I can better describe it. Here's a scale [reject|----------|convincing]. Outlining both poles places the "split" quite definitely in the middle. Saying "When asked 'Is there compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources", the panelists were evenly split" puts the split here: |--------*-|. The impression is that 50% find it convincing, while the 50% - who do not find it convincing - are represented as being anywhere in the range from 'not convinced' to 'mostly convinced'. This is why the report mentions both poles, and why we should do the same when "paraphrasing". The word "dismiss" was used in an example that outlined this problem I have (with mentioning one pole, saying that 50% agree with it, and not describing what opininon the other 50 has), and has little to do with the article. –M^T 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I understand. Your point seems very far fetch to me, as the question asked has 2 possible answers: yes (there are compelling evidence) and no (there aren't). But let's try to come to a conclusion. Would this be acceptable to you: "When asked whether the evidence for power that cannot be attribued to ordinary chemical or solid-state source is compelling or inexistent, the panel was evenly split". Let me know.

Let me now discuss the topics you feel are important to the readers, and you feel should be addressed in the lead section, if possible:

• 'is it a viable source of energy?'. I agree that this is at the top of the mind of most people. However, in my extensive reading on the subject, I have not found a reliable source that we could quote on that question. If you have any, let me know. As you say, the 2004 report was very careful to avoid bias, and did not address this question. How could we ?
• 'what progress has been made since 1989?'. Are you suggesting that we say "Significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review in 1989", as the 2004 DOE report concludes ? Why not. After all, that's probably why 2004 panelists were more convinced by the evidence of excess power than in 1989.
• 'is heat being generated, or is that a result of poor experimental design, understanding, or measurement?'. See the proposal I just made in the paragraph above. The last part of your question seems very much biased to me in view of the "even split" of the panel. Why not describe the reasons for which the other panelists find the evidence convincing too ? Unfortunately, we don't have enough room for either of them in the lead section.
• and 'if it is being generated, is a nuclear explanation sensible?'. The RR version seems adequate to me, except for the incorrect order of presentation of the results. (The lead section unfortunately does not leave us more room to explain how they came to their conclusion.)

So here is what we would have (changes are underlined): "Since 1989, significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters. The latest mainstream review of research in LENR occurred in 2004 when the US Department of Energy set up a panel of eighteen scientists. When asked whether the evidence for power that cannot be attribued to ordinary chemical or solid-state source is compelling or inexistent, the panel was evenly split. When asked about low energy nuclear reactions, two thirds of the panel did not feel that the evidence was conclusive, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced. The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments on these 2 questions. Critics say that the DOE review had too limited a scope and inappropriate review process."

Would that be OK ? Pcarbonn 19:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes the rewording is acceptable, assuming we want to talk about the report directly. You made four points. My responses: 1) Quoting the 1989 report: "Based on the examination of published reports, reprints, numerous communications to the Panel and several site visits, the Panel concludes that the experimental results of excess heat from calorimetric cells reported to date do not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion", and also the 2004 report that states that findings were similar. 2) We should point out that, as the report says, little progress has been made. That more scientists believe it to be true - that's unimportant. That's a reflection of, say, increased credibility of cf researchers, or less controversy. More people may be intrigued by the results in 2006, but the results are still similar to 1989, it seems. Please cite a good source that tells us what progress cf researchers have made in their experiments. 3) Sure, describe why other panelists find it convincing. I didn't see that mentioned in the report (could be wrong), but I also point you to a common belief that the experiments could be improved. 4) Yes, the rr version seems ok. | Your description omits that very little progress has been made in terms of experimental results etc. Here's something along the lines of what I was thinking:

[...] Scientific reviews of experimental results conclude that there is no convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion, though they do not rule out cold fusion as an area of scientific inquiry. Since 1989, experiments have been conducted that found [major findings here?] but there has been no success in [prolonging the effect, making it predictable, making it more intense, etc.?]. Evidence of excess heat is more compelling than it was in 1989, but a nuclear cause is generally rejected.

Or something of the sort. No, it's not flattering, but it does answer what I think the reader wants to know in a straightforward way. If you disagree that 'is it a viable energy source?' and 'what progress has been made in cold fusion?' are the most important questions, we should discuss that. –M^T 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I concede on the "viable source of energy". I would still rephrase some of the statements you propose, to get something like this: "Scientific reviews of experimental results conclude that there is no convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion. Since 1989, significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters, and evidence of excess heat is more compelling than it was in 1989. Still, many experiments are poorly documented, the magnitude of the effect has not increased, it is not easily repeatable, and a nuclear cause is generally rejected. Reviewers recommend additional scientific experiments to resolve some of the controversies." What do you think. Pcarbonn 13:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Though the report mentions calorimeters, does this really have enough to do with cold fusion to be important? No real disagreement there though. I would like the major progress to be mentioned, or if there is none, then that should be mentioned. Reviewers don't recommend that funding be supplied ('we should actively get to the bottom of this'), but that funding is not rejected. –M^T 15:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that progress in calorimetry is important. It was one of the issue that made the 1989 claim of excess heat dubious. FYI, calorimetric progress is described in the Appendix A of the document submitted to the 2004 DOE (p. 15). The 2004 reports talks about calorimetry progress in the conclusion: that's an indication of its importance. Again, this is why more reviewers are convinced of excess heat in 2004 than in 1989. Other progress are more controversial, so I think we should not mention them: understanding of the conditions that are favorable for excess heat, increased repeatability, detection of He4, detection of transmuted elements... As for more experiments, I agree that 'recommend' is too strong, but I also think that "do not exclude" is too weak. So, we should stick to what the DOE said, something like: "Reviewers identified several areas of scientific inquiry to resolve some of the controversies". Pcarbonn 16:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We should mention that progress is controversial, unproven, generally rejected, or whatever its nature is. I agree with your 'reviewers' wording. –M^T 17:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

new draft of theory/mechanism section

Hello, I wrote a draft of the theory section (combined with proposed mechanisms) as per discussion with M. Here it is: User:ObsidianOrder/Cold_fusion_redux_theory. Please comment.

This follows almost verbatim the outline for the "Theoretical objections" section in User:ObsidianOrder/Cold_fusion_redux, but mixes in a description of what is theorized so far about mechanisms ("Proposed mechanisms"), and a few mentions of experimental results that have a direct bearing. Most cites and some numbers are not present yet but I have indicated where they would be and I know where to find them; if I can't find the cite the sentence supported by it will go away until I can. This is intended to replace the "Current understanding of nuclear process" section. ObsidianOrder 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave indented comments directly on that page, I don't want to replicate the whole thing or confuse things. Remove my comments if you agree, or respond to them there if you don't. Or just revert me if you think it's a better idea to keep the draft and comments seperate. –M^T 03:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - good stuff. I will revise and/or respond there. Generally, I think all of this stuff needs to be covered, yes it is extensive, but it will comprise fully a third of the article or so. Just "theoretical objections" would have been much shorter but I think you were right that it helps to put related lines of reasoning together (i.e. "X is required by conventional theory but it doesn't happen, Y has been proposed to explain that, Z experimental result suggests..."). I will try to follow your suggestions for places that need more explanation or clearer language or less jargon. Expect another revision soon. ObsidianOrder

I went through the draft and made appropriate changes, and replied to your comments. Better? What still needs work? ObsidianOrder 08:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll start User:M/Cold fusion/wip, so that other parts can be added/organized. –M^T 17:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC) [comment edited by NawlinWiki]

No, I do mean Cold fusion/wip. I won't be the only one editing this, and I don't want the main wip to be under my user space. –M^T 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Shall I merge my recent changes from User:ObsidianOrder/Cold_fusion/theory into that? ObsidianOrder 19:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Edit at will. I wanted a central place where we could both (and others too) work on it, since it's looking somewhat rough I didn't want to muck up the public article. –M^T 00:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I went ahead and added the first round of refs to the theory section. Almost all are from peer-reviewed journals, although in one case I really want to cite an ICCF report (Miles - I don't have another good source for this, possibly the Navy tech report). I'm also giving preference to recent results, the majority are post-1995. Thoughts? Some are formatted using the cite template, some not yet. I also hid the comments using <!-- --> so we can look at the whole thing more easily - unhide if you'd like to respond to any of them. ObsidianOrder 18:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It becomes hard to edit with the ref tags in the way, so hold off on adding them to the wip; it'll be just as easy to paste them in later. Others will be better able to respond to the question of the refs meeting the standards. For the comments, just delete the old ones. There probably won't be a need to see the whole thing until the points brought up by comments are addressed. Move any that you think merit a proper discussion to talk, otherwise just address them and delete. It's not the standard way we do things (though I'm willing to do it the standard way), but I'm willing to have my comments deleted quickly/not preserved so that I won't have to duplicate everything into the talk page for people to know what I'm talking about. –M^T 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Either way. I went through and I think I've addressed all of them that are easy to address; some are tough ;) mostly because the info you want to include is just not available (except as conjecture). Let me know if there's anything you still feel is a concern, if not I will archive them on talk. ObsidianOrder 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

About the ref tags - yes, a bit harder to edit, but I wanted to demonstrate how I plan to source everything I was promising to source (ie mostly recent peer-reviewed articles). I welcome comments about the sources or contribution of new sources particularly for things marked . ObsidianOrder 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

One more note on sources: it is somewhat tough to find sources for the objections such as "the chemical environment of an atom should have no effect on its nuclear reactions". It is common knowledge in the field, but as for actually sourcing it... I'll keep looking. We could let it slide as common knowledge until challenged, I suppose. ObsidianOrder 19:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. But for experimental results/claims of progress/claims of things happening (e.g. "proves X", "excess Y", etc.), it's best to assume that they'll be challenged. –M^T 19:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and those are/will be all sourced. ObsidianOrder 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the strong emphasis on theory / mechanism. Good science starts with experiments. I much prefer the previous heading "arguments in the controversy". Half the 2004 DOE reviewers found the evidences of excess heat convincing: that should be fairly reflected in the article. Where do we present this information when the emphasis is on theory? Pcarbonn 20:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on experimental results will take the other roughly 1/3 of the article (i.e. 1/3 history, 1/3 theory, 1/3 experiment). I think that's fair, although ideally I would move some of the history (the blow-by-blow/chronology part) to a separate, more detailed article. I don't particularly care about the order; others have expressed a strong desire to have theory before experiment and I'm ok with that. On the one hand, theory before experiment is exactly backwards to the way science works; on the other it will help people understand the experimental results when those are presented. ObsidianOrder 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The DoE report would be in the experiment section. It's an encyclopedia, not a scientific study, so putting theory before experiment is just fine. –M^T 00:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I did not get it that 1/3 would be on experiment. That ratio is fine, and whichever comes first between theory and experiment is not very important to me. Pcarbonn 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro must encompass fusor

The current language in the intro does not allow for the existence of desktop fusion in simple devices, as in the fusor. Yes, it is not a practical way to produce useful nuclear energy, but it is nuclear fusion and must be accounted for in the intro, IMO. Crum375 01:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum - I agree that the fusor is a fascinating device, but it is hot fusion. Its functioning in fact relies on the exact same principles as a tokamak (except it actually works ;) This article is about cold fusion. Maybe a "See also"? ObsidianOrder 06:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not saying or implying it was 'cold' - only that by being desktop-like it did not need the complex and impractical confinement conditions previously mentioned in the lead. I guess the addition of the word 'significant' will do for now. Crum375 12:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

proposed standard on sources

I'd like to propose a standard for the use of sources in this article. Namely:

Reports of experimental results which meet the following criteria should be included:

• the result is important and contriubtes significantly to the understanding of the field (and is not a near-duplication of another result which is already in the article).
• result has been reproduced successfully and reported by at least two independent groups. (most results of interest have anywhere between 4-5 and 10+ reproductions, two is just an arbitrary number greater than one, to make sure it is not a fluke)
• the groups are led by qualified scientists (PhD in relevant field) working at established institutions (university, commercial or government lab).
• at least one of the reproductions has been reported in a peer-reviewed journal article. (this may seem like a low bar, but there are so few CF papers published that the ones that get through tend to be extraordinary; most significant work in this field is not published in journals at all, and is pretty much exclusively reported at ICCF; moreover anything in a peer-reviewed journal pretty much automatically passes the V RS criteria and so that would be normally sufficient by itself in any other article)
• the other reproductions have been reported as well in a verifiable source, such as conference proceedings (ICCF) or official technical report.

When results like that are included, the wording should be similar to: "X has been reported/observed (cite)" or "X has been reported by Y and several other groups (cite)". The wording should not be "in cold fusion, X happens (cite)" (which implies a well established result). Results which have a large number of reported reproductions and no negative/critical results may be considered for being reported in the latter way on a case by case basis (cautiously).

For each included result, if there are any peer-reviewed papers critical of the result or reporting no result/failure to reproduce, those must be mentioned as well immediately next to the result. If there are many critical/negative papers, pick one/several and/or summarize, same as for the positive result. For example "X has been reported by Y and others (cite). the observation is disputed by Z (cite) who attributes it to W". ObsidianOrder 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What, no comments? Does that mean y'all agree? ObsidianOrder 18:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's stick to official Wikipedia rules. --Noren 07:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

According to my understanding, the criteria I proposed above are substantially more strict than official Wikipedia rules. Would you like to perhaps clarify official rules for us? ObsidianOrder 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

They aren't all that clear, but I don't think adding yet another set of rules that people can point to would result in more clarity. Quite the reverse. --Noren 23:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)