Talk:Cold fusion

Pathological science

Why are Alchemy, Pathological Science, Protoscience, and Transmutation linked to Cold Fusion here? Wouldn't Nuclear Fusion, Nuclear Fission, and some other kind of energy production linked to this article? They seem almost unrelated to this article, other than the fact that most of those require a fusion of some sorts (namely alchemy and transmutation) and that this is a new science (protoscience). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cold Fusion isn't protoscience so much as it is pathological science, hence the links. I have no idea on Alchemy or Transmutation, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion was considered pathological science in the 90's, but it isn't anymore: the 2004 DOE was evenly split on the evidence of excess heat, and identified several areas of research to resolve the controversy. You would expect such an assessment for a protoscience, not for a pathological science. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that the field's reputation has improved since the 90's. According to the Physics Today 2005 article, cold fusion is still in a state of "disrepute." Therefore, the link to pathological science should probably stay. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny enough, the title of the Physics Today article you refer too is "DOE Warms to Cold Fusion". That article does not talk of "pathological science" at all. Actually, I do not think that there is any post-2000 source presenting cold fusion as pathological science. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Physics Today April 2004 article is titled "DOE Warms to Cold Fusion" while the Physics Today January 2005 article is titled "Cold Fusion Gets Chilly Encore." The former states that the scientific community "shuns" cold fusion, while the latter states that "Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing than they were 15 years ago." Physics Today is the principal magazine published by the main association of American physicists. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the numerous recent articles on cold fusion would present cold fusion as pathological science if that's the proper way to present it. None is doing it. Pathological science is a a clearly defined concept: a science in which "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions". None of your statement nor your sources supports that view. Instead, they are consistent with a new field of study trying to establish its legitimacy. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They recommended against giving it any federal funding, and considering some of the things the federal government HAS sunk money in (the infamous telportation report, the remote viewing program, ect.) I don't think that's exactly a vote of endorsement. They listed some very basic stuff which cold fusion has ultimately failed to answer; I think calling it pathological science is justified given it seems more that people WANT to believe in it rather than actually having solid evidence for it. The whole thing reminds me strongly of polywater. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken : the 2004 DOE DID recommend giving federal funding (but not in a focused program). Here is a quote from the 2004 DOE report : "The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that 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."

Polywater has been shown to be pathological science, not cold fusion : small impurities were invariably found to explain the polywater phenomena; many experimental reports of cold fusion have no satisfactory explanation at this point. If some people want to believe in CF, as you suggest, others chose to show "pathological disbelief" towards cold fusion, only on the basis of their belief system. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A general principle on controversial articles is to keep the See also section quite short and not to use it to introduce aspects of the controversy that should be dealt with in main article space. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant scientific literature does classify Cold Fusion with Polywater. See "Indicators of failed information epidemics in the scientific journal literature: A publication analysis of Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion", E. Ackermann, Scientometrics 66, 451-466 (2006) --Noren (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't conclude that cold fusion should be considered pathological science from that paper, only that it should be considered as a failed information epidemics. The definition of failed information epidemics given in that article is distinctively different from the definition of pathological science. I would have no problem tagging the cold fusion article as a failed information epidemics, but it would require this topic to be presented in the article (as itsmejudith explained). Pcarbonn (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia; we report from a NPOV and use RSs. RSs say that cold fusion is a pathological science, and indeed it is more commonly thought of as a pathological or pseudoscience than as an actual science by scientists. Hence, we MUST state that it has a reputation as being such; it would not be neutral for us to do otherwise. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then please provide a reliable source, among the many published since 2000, that say that cold fusion is pathological science. Wikipeida policies require that any challenged statement be backed up by a reference. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean other than the source already in the article? Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Refer to pcarbonn's previous comment, where he notes that said source does not say that cold fusion is pathological science. Kevin Baas^talk 15:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Google reveals: Columbia university cites it as an example of such: [1] Hyle criticizes the term "pathological science", but cites cold fusion as an example thereof: [2] It is associated with pathological science as strongly as polywater and N-rays, perhaps MORE strongly in some people's minds because it is more recent. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Columbia's citation is from 1998. Hyle's citation is from 2002, and he says that OTHER people called it pathological science, with examples from pre-2000. A lot of things have happened in the field since then (such as the 2004 DOE report, which presents it as an ongoing controversy). Again, I don't know of any people saying that cold fusion actually is pathological science after 2000. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't use the phrase "pathological science," but here's an article in Discover from 2006 which calls cold fusion a "fiasco" which delivered "little besides unpredictable results." They even put "cold fusion" inside quotes which implies that they have a low opinion of the field. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/jan/physics 209.253.120.198 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, they are not using the word "pathological science". So, we agree. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it being from 1998 important? That's silly. I could put all sorts of arbitrary requirements on you, but that doesn't mean they make sense. How much attention is paid today by mainstream scientists to it? Why? Why do they look down on it so? The answer is quite clear. Denial is a terrible thing. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Cohen references cold fusion in his Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line and talks about it being pathological science.
• SFgate.com had an article about it and talked about how it showed all the signs of pathological science, but I can't find the article.

Is this the one where Hal Plotkin says that "I've become convinced that the federal Department of Energy is responsible for a massive failure to serve the public interest."(May 17, 1999) ? Hardly a support to the pathological view ! Pcarbonn (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• The NYT quoted Morrison in 1989 calling it pathological science.

Indeed Morrison and many others have said that Fleischmann & Pons made mistakes in radiation measurements in their initial reports (but not on the excess heat). But you cannot infer that the later researchers did the same mistakes. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Jasper McKee, editor of Physics in Canada, talked about cold fusion being pathological science, and again referenced something else Morrison said.
• Apparently the book Voodoo Science calls cold fusion pathological science.

Its author said in 2007 : 'there are some curious reports - not cold fusion, but people may be seeing some unexpected low-energy nuclear reactions'." (source) Pcarbonn (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Undergrowth of Science talks about cold fusion as pathological science.

Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We are writing an article representing the current view of the subject, that's why recent sources matter (except for the history section, of course). That's why it is important to find a recent reliable source saying it's pathological science. Even if such as source is found (pls provide the date for your sources), it also has to be shown that it is the majority view, or we have to qualify it as the view of so and so.

By the way, if there is a consensus that CF is pathological science, why did the DOE recommend further scientific research on the subject ? Why is DARPA financing research in it ? See here. Cold fusion is a controversial effect, like many others, that is studied by real scientists.

We are having this discussion for the "See also" section: during the mediation, it was agreed that we would not have one (See here), and that, if we had one, it should not include controversial links (see Itsmejudith's comment above in this thread). A link to "pathological science" is already in the lead section: no need to add it in a "See also" section.

The same can be said about a "pathological science" category for the article: there is no recent proof that there is a clear consensus that CP is pathological science, so there is not enough support to put it in that category. It's better to put it in the Category:Unsolved_problems_in_physics. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cold Fusion should be placed in Category:Unsolved_problems_in_physics AFTER data showing a convincing deviation from established physics has been reported in a top journal. Until then, let's wait and see how the research progresses. By the way, the fact that some people study something does not mean it is not pathological science. By definition, all pathological science has had someone studying it, or it wouldn't even exist as a type of science. The term pathological merely labels those people as being incompetent, not nonexistent. A better metric for detecting pathological science is whether results are repeatable and reproducible. Good researchers strive to publish results in top journals (Science, Nature, Physical Review), so if they can't, there is a good chance their results are not repeatable and reproducible, which supports the use of the "pathological science" label. In other words, if something is discussed but never makes it into top journals, that is by itself evidence that something is wrong, at the very least. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The cloning of animal is difficult to repeat, and very few teams can actually repeat it. Yet, nobody says it's pathological science. Just after the cloning of Dolly, i.e. when it was not yet reproduced, nobody said that it was pathological science. Also, many discoveries never make it to Nature : would you call them pathological science ? Pathological science has a well-defined meaning: let's stick to it. Your criteria, while related to pathological science, are not enough to classify something as pathological science. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, government funding does not mean it isn't pure pseudoscience; see, for instance, the millions the government spent on remote viewing experiments over the course of decades, or the infamous teleportation report [3]. Any argument based on "the govnernment gives it money, therefore it isn't pseudoscience" is pretty worthless, as the US government has in the past funded pseudoscientific garbage for a variety of reasons.

Second, there is consensus by the scientific community that it is pathological science; see my references above. Our job is to report reality, not the incredibly incorrect POV you hold. We say it is considered pathological science by many in the introduction to the article, it would be completely inappropriate for us NOT to classify it under Category:Pseudoscience in light of that. You are the one who is going against what was agreed upon during arbitration, and you are the one who is, I'm sorry to say, in ignorance of the modern reality - it IS viewed as such by the scientific community at large. While not as poorly looked upon as, say, intelligent design, it is viewed as pathological science at best and crankery otherwise. And the New Energy Times seems to exist for the promotion of such, and doesn't look to be the most realiable or neutral source on the subject matter.

And comparisons to animal cloning show a complete lack of comprehension of how science works and reproducibility. People have, in fact, reproduced animal cloning, but more to the point, unlike cold fusion research, a clone is still extant over time - that is to say, if I claim to have cloned an animal, it is easy for you to confirm whether two sheep are clones via genetic testing. There is an enormous difference because a cloning project actually produces an object which is proof that it worked. Cold fusion is poorly regarded by the scientific community at large, it is seen as pathological science, and it is very different from novelties like animal cloning in essential ways. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The things that are categorized as pseudoscience are categorized as such because they meet the definition of pseudoscience. As pcarboonn has already pointed out, cold fusion does not meet that definition. If some people hold that POV, then it is a POV, and should be presented as such. Using a category presents it as a fact, not a POV, and wikipedia does not take sides on POVs. Since it does not meet the definition of pseudoscience, it is not factually pseudoscience, so wikipedia cannot take a stance that it is, even if some people hold that pov. (while others don't - which brings up a whole 'nother issue: balance) Kevin Baas^talk 14:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, EVERYTHING related to that is an "opinion". Homeopathy, for instance, is clearly pseduoscience, but its supporters ceratinly don't believe it to be so. Same with perpetual motion machines, which fall under Category:Pseudophysics, as this would. And yes, it IS categorized as such; pathological science does not have a category of its own and is instead put into the appropriate subcategory under the larger umbrella of Category:Pseudoscience. And no, a category doesn't present it as "fact", it presents it as a -category-. The point of categories is to categorize stuff, and to group things together appropriately. And the scientific community at large (and world at large), regardless of what Pcarbonn CLAIMS, in actuality classifies cold fusion alongside polywater and N-Rays; comparisons are pretty common and it is commonly referred to as pseudoscience and pathological science. It should be grouped with them because it is commonly grouped with them, and the purpose of categories is ease of finding such. You can find people who contest ANYTHING, but amongst the scientific community, it is broadly considered to be pathological science. I have shown numerous books, universities, articles, researchers, ect. to consider it such. What does he offer in contrast to that categorization? If categorization was endorsement of a given POV, there's no way we could even have a meaningful pseudoscience category, much less put things like homeopathy or intelligent design in it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Titanium Dragon, the criteria for pathological science is not reproducibility anymore, but whether the result of an experiment is extant over time. Luckily, the evidence of CR-39 detectors and of nuclear transmutations pass this test, and has been reproduced, so cold fusion is not pathological science by this criteria either. Also, why do you change the criteria ? This is a typical tactic of "pathological disbelief".

I wish you have read the definition of pathological science : it is the "process in science in which "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions"". So, it is not so much defined by the experiment than by the method used by the researchers. I wonder why the new criteria you propose is not mentionned in the pathological science page. What evidence do we have that the recent researchers have been tricked into false results ? And, on the other hand, do those who keep changing definitions follow the process of science ? Please have a look at the characteristics of pseudoskepticism.

We agreed in mediation to represent the view of the 2004 DOE panel: indeed, this is the most notable neutral review of the field. My "incredible POV" is shared by a significant number of its panelists, just as your incredible disbelief is by others. Clearly, there is no consensus that it is pathological science. So, we cannot categorize it as such. If the article on homeopathy represent a false consensus, we should fix it too. Actually, there is an arbitration going on for that article: hopefully, they will do what's necessary. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You said that the article could be categorized as an Unsolved problem in physics only AFTER it has been clearly established as such. Likewise, could we say that the article could be categorized as pathological science only AFTER it has been clearly established as such ? If not, why the double standard ? Pcarbonn (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon, I read through the articles you cited (homeopathy and polywater) and I really don't see how either of them can be compared to cold fusion. Homeopathy is clearly not science - they didn't do anything scientific. Polywater was shown to be a result of contamination - it is falsified science; the result of sloppy experiments, the cause of which was later discovered to be impurities in the water. I would call homeopathy not science, just like i'd call intelligent design not science. I would call polywater a solved problem in science - as the cause of the phenomena was discovered - or one might call it falsified. But it's not perpetual motion. that i'd call pathological or pseudoscience - as it directly violates the second law of thermodynamics. Cold fusion is not like polywater because the cause of the phenomena has not been discovered and hypothesis for it have not been falsified. Cold fusion is not like homeopathy because the scientific process is used in research of it. And finally, cold fusion is not like perpetual motion because it doesn't violate any fundamental laws of energy and entropy. So I don't see the relation you're trying to make when you bring these things up. None of the objectionable qualities that these things have are shared with cold fusion. Kevin Baas^talk 14:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

'And finally, cold fusion is not like perpetual motion because it doesn't violate any fundamental laws of energy and entropy.' CF does not violate fundamental laws of energy and entropy, but it would violate other laws that are similarly respected: coulomb repulsion, and expected products from deuteron fusion. Unless some fifth force is acting, cold fusion is about as likely as perpetual motion. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source for that. The DOE never said it. It just said that a new nuclear process would be needed. It didn't say this is unlikely. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there dozens of articles quoting scientists as saying cold fusion is unlikely? Also, I haven't read them, but by googling for a few minutes I found these two articles which appear to say cold fusion is unlikely: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v63/i1/p59_1 http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v63/i18/p1926_1 209.253.120.198 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources you quote are essentially saying that "fusion, as we know it, is unlikely in a cold environment". They say nothing about the possibility of a new nuclear process that DOE say would be required to explain the observations. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see: Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,[2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.[6] homeopath does not adhere to the scientific method, polywater - i don't know how that fits in - it's just disproven science - perpetual motion lacks supporting evidence or plausibility. If "otherwise lacks scientific status" wasn't so vague, it might be more helpful. Cold fusion meets all the criteria of "science", so it has the "status" of "science" in that sense. It hasn't been falsified like polywater has, so in that sense it still retains "scientific status" whereas polywater might be said to no longer have such status. But "scientific status" could mean so many other things, it's hard to say. Kevin Baas^talk 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Though in the context of that sentence, "scientific status" can be reasonable construed to mean something other than being "scientific" or not, or having supporting evidence or not, as that would make the sentence redundant. Apparently it refers to something more elusive, and possibly subjective. Kevin Baas^talk 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I read the rest of the intro to the pseudoscience article and the "identifying..." section, and it just doesn't fit. For example:

Pseudosciences have been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.

Cold fusion does not meet any of these criteria. And, in fact, the identifying section has this to say:

If the claims of a given field can be experimentally tested and methodological standards are upheld, it is not "pseudoscience", however odd, astonishing, or counter-intuitive. If claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, but the methodology is sound, caution should be used; science consists of testing hypotheses which may turn out to be false. In such a case, the work may be better described as ideas that are not yet generally accepted.

So I have to conclude from the article on pseudoscience that cold fusion is not pseudoscience. Kevin Baas^talk 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion research has been characterized by confirmation bias and a lack of reproducible results. Indeed, the USDOE 2004 reviewers commented on the difficulty of reproducing the results and expressed skepticism. This is why it is seen as pathological science; basically, people see what they want to see, and troll through their own data to find significance. The problem is that they have not established that they can reproduce the results of their experiments; back after the initial furor in the 1980s a ton of people tried to reproduce the results and couldn't. Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation is exactly what trolling through your data trying to find meaningful results is, and that's exactly what they've been accused of - wanting to see something that isn't there. They do not suffer from lack of openness, but other experts have been unable to duplicate their results, and a lack of progress in theory development is very evident in the field of cold fusion. So it meets most of the criteria of pseudoscience; the only one it fails to meet is openness. Exaggerated claims is part and parcel of cold fusion; indeed, that is exactly what the initial reports were, and the original authors ended up withdrawing their claims for exactly that reason, along with the lack of reproducibility. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing skepticism and rejection. Most scientists are skeptics of cold fusion, as Physics Today said: it does not mean that they reject it as pathological science. To do so would require to show that people have been tricked into false results. Yet, the DOE said that cold fusion could not be yet proved nor disproved. So, it cannot be proven to be pathological science either. Again, we decided in mediation to represent the view in proportion to the DOE panel's. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Seventeen years after the announcement by Professors Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the discovery of cold fusion in March 1989, the scientific community does not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme." - first sentence of abstract, Int. J. Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, Vol. 3, pg. 31 (2007). The author, Jean-Paul Biberian, is himself an author of cold fusion papers but acknowledges the fact that cold fusion is widely regarded as pseudoscience. I think that not 'a genuine scientific research theme' is a fine definition of pseudoscience. --Noren (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For every quote in favor of pathological science, there is one to the contrary. Here is what Bob Park, the famous author of Voodoo Science said in 2007 : "Bob Park, at the University of Maryland, US, [...] concedes that 'there are some curious reports - not cold fusion, but people may be seeing some unexpected low-energy nuclear reactions'." (source). If the guru of pathological science acknowledges cold fusion, why not the others ? In any case, no consensus --> no categorisation. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is a fallacy in your argument: "not saying A" is not the same as "saying not A". "The scientific community does not say it is a genuine scientific research theme" is not the same as "the scientific community say it is not a genuine scientific research theme." Again, this is the difference between skepticism and rejection. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that cold fusion research has been characterized by confirmation bias - but rather by people considering the probabilities and finding them to be way out of line from what is expected. If one does 20 experiments, and theory predicts 0 of them to produce anomolous results, while experience predicts about 2 of them to have erroneous results outside the 90% confidence interval (perhaps due to contamination or some measurement error), and one gets, instead, 5 of them outside the 99% confidence interval - well, that's highly improbable. That high improbability is cause for surprise - and a curious person would say "there's something going on here that i don't understand. i want to find out what it is." I would characterize someone who takes the opposite view - the view that nothing interesting is happening - as led by confirmation bias - because they're disregarding the anomolous results and thus not weighing all of the evidence - they're picking and choosing what to include in order to confirm their pre-ordained conclusion and ignoring anything that refutes it. When you weigh all of the evidence, both good and bad, you come up with something that's highly improbable. That's not confirmation bias, that's being rational.

As regards "a lack of reproducible results", firstly, results have been reproduced - historically they haven't been nearly as reproducable as the norm (but neither is cloning sheep), but they have been reproduced. the pseudoscience article says nothing about things that are difficult to reproduce (such as hot fusion, for instance), and rightly so. the phenomena observed in these experiments have been difficult to reproduce. that does not make it pseudoscience. furthermore, there are now experiments (such as those done in SPAWAR) that have very high reproducability, so your premise is critically flawed anyways.

"trolling through your data trying to find meaningful results is" called trying to find an explanation for the phenomena. That's what good scientists do.

"and a lack of progress in theory development is very evident in the field of cold fusion. " - the rate of theory development in proportion to the number of people working on it is actually very high. theories in physics don't just develop overnight. it often takes decades. (quantum physics, and relativity being two well-known examples) and the whole string theory / m-theory stuff has been around for a few. That's thousands of scientists working on one problem for a couple of decades and producing a total of two theories. Point is I think you're sense of scale is a bit off here. The rate of development of c.f. theories, esp. given the relatively small number of researchers and the mysteriousness of the phenomena, is quite impressive.

As regards exaggerated claims, it seems to me that you're taking the initial statement "there seems to be something nuclear going on here" as "exaggerated claims" that are categorically pseudoscience, and I really don't think that's what the article means to say. I've read a lot of the papers and i don't see any exaggerated claims in them - i see exact numbers and graphs and it all looks very scientific and conservative to me. it looks to me like you're cherry-picking here -- and all you've got is one cherry -- and even that's disputable. The claims made in the papers publishing results of the experiments are not exaggerated. They are very testable and specific.

So in conclusion, it does not meet any of the criteria. The only way you can make it seem to meet the criteria is by twisting the meaning around while simultaneously cherry-picking and disregarding any results that refute your hypothesis. Kevin Baas^talk 15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it IS confirmation bias; one of the things which the cold fusion community has been specifically criticized for is data mining. If you run a thousand experiments, you'd expect about ten of them to be out pretty far on the tail on the top, and about ten to be pretty far out on the tail at the bottom. If you then write a paper and take only twenty results, ten of them the high ones and ten others, and claim you have something, you're basically committing scientific fraud. People do this fairly often, unfortuantely, and it isn't always intentional - sometimes they really believe they have something because they WANT to believe it. This is the confirmation bias I'm speaking of. You simply aren't going to run a perfect experiment every time, most likely, and if you get a couple of anomalous results, which checking them out is a good thing, it doesn't mean there is ANYTHING significant. The fact that other people cannot replicate these experiments speaks volumes about the controls on them, and the scientific community at large does not take it seriously.

Hot fusion is very easy to reproduce, it is just very expensive and you need specialized equipment. Moreover, how it works is well known and it is fairly readily observable otherwise - just look up. Cold fusion simply doesn't work in many labs, which is very reminiscient of early polywater experiments - a lot of people are sloppy, but some people aren't. There aren't examples of it in nature, either.

There is no "twisting" here; there is a reason cold fusion research is laughed at by so many physicists. I don't think you really understand the nature of it. It is considered to be pathological science, which is why so few people pay attention to it. Its like a lot of other nonsense - the scientific community just doesn't spend much time on it unless they consider it worth their while, and they often don't find it worth their while to refute what they consider nonsense in scientific papers and the like unless they're specifically criticizing something which actually got published in a worthwhile journal. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of what you just said is conjecture, and a lot of it is just false. You mention "confirmation bias" - while it seems to me that, ironically, you're the one exhibiting the symptoms thereof. I have seen no evidence of data mining and you certainly haven't presented any - nor have i seen anyone present any. Even if you can find some people who've made the accusation - without any substantiation it's just hearsay. Now from what I can tell, it's like I said - when you take both the positive and negative results together (in other words, to NOT DATA-MINE), you get something that's very improbable and can't be explained by measurement errors and the like - if that were the case they'd occur far less often (in addition to producing a much smaller deviation from whats expected). It is only rational to conclude that "there is something interesting/unexpected going on here." To come to the opposite conclusion one would have to ignore most of the positive results and suggest that the negative results vastly outnumber the positive results when it's clear that this simply isn't the case - to do that would be confirmation bias.

And again you claim that nothing is reproducable, after i just told you that this is not true (in bold), and even gave an example. To me that looks very much like ignoring (even forgetting almost immediately!) anything that refutes your pre-established conclusion. This is a symptom of confirmation bias. (and i dare say pathological disbelief, as well.)

You have a strange definition of "easy". re: "how [hot fusion] works is well known" Yes. That's why hot fusion is currently an engineering problem whereas cold fusion is a scientific one. That's the difference between engineering and science. It's amazing how many people confuse the two. Roughly put, in engineering you apply, in science you discover. Hence by definition we don't know what's going on in these phenomena. if we did, it wouldn't be science. And there'd certainly be no point in doing any experiments.

Cold fusion hasn't worked in many labs because it's not well understood and it's very sensitive. A lot of the early negative results were because scientists were sloppy. But now, as I've said before, (and please remember it this time, so i don't have to repeat it again) there are experiments which are HIGHLY REPRODUCABLE. (bold didn't work, perhaps uppercase will.) Such as, for example, the co-deposition technique and gas-loading. But, like hot fusion, these experiments are expensive and require lots of specialized equipment and careful controls. And the scientists doing these experiments certainly weren't sloppy.

I've shown how cold fusion doesn't meet any of the criteria for "pseudoscience" listed in the corresponding article, and how your fitting it to the criteria was based on faulty reasoning and/or faulty assertions. You've responded to this largely w/conjecture and opinion. Of what you said that was logically related to the criteria, your responses were conjecture, unsubstantiated accusations, and/or demonstrably false statements. Now I don't know what's going on in these phenomena, whether it's nuclear or what have you, but I have seen nothing to convince me that it's not a valid scientific endeavor to try to find out. Kevin Baas^talk 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You can tell me it is reproducible, but they found in both 1989 and 2004 that it wasn't. Indeed, one of the things which is stated in this article is specifically that the 2004 DOE panel expressed skepticism at it.

The reality is that if the scientific community at large thought cold fusion works, there'd be absolutely enormous amounts of money thrown at it because it would have the potential to massively change world energy supplies. Look at reality: cold fusion research is looked down upon and scorned. Given the profit potential, the only reason it would happen is if the community at large thinks it is just not real.

You haven't shown how it doesn't meet the defintions of pseudoscience; you've shown you haven't done the research, or that you rejected it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should bring this thread back to the article. Does anyone have a proposed edit that might be acceptable to all of the interested parties? If not, how about any kind of improvement to the article? I think the article is pretty good right now. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this discussion could go on for ever. The point is that there are 2 different views, and no consensus about whether cold fusion is a story of pathological science or pathological disbelief. We agreed in mediation to present a balanced view of the field, in line with the notable, respected, DOE review where a significant number of reputabe scientists found the evidence convincing. All this means that a "pathological science" category is not justified. So, no other edits are necessary. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

hatnote

The hatnote is unorthodox and contains a word which has a pejorative meaning. This is unneccesary and reeks of battles behind the scenes which should not be reflected in article space. If we cannot do better, we should simply remove the attempt to distinguish this subject from others and simply leave the second sentence, directing people to Adobe ColdFusion if they come here expecting an article on software. 86.44.26.69 (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is fixed in the draft version coming out of the mediation. You can find it here. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but since the mediator had copied over a version of a lead, it seemed he had neglected the hatnote. Defeats the purpose of starting at the top if you don't actually start at the top ;) 86.44.28.245 (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I fully agree: mediation has been going on for a very long time, and seems to be dwindling. The current mediator's version should be copied into the article, including the hatnote. 76.225.156.160 (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, sort of. I copied over the hatnote from the mediation draft. I did not copy anything else. Although the mediation draft version seems much better. (Just took a quick look at it.) So, are there more people that think that the mediation draft should be copied over here? --David Göthberg (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I planned on copying it over a day or two ago, but I've been out of town a lot and haven't been able to do so. But I see no reason why it cannot be copied over, and if it's not done by the morning, I'll do it myself. If there are no objections. It's always open for discussion post-copy, so it's not one of those "finalized forever" versions. seicer | talk | contribs 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As discussed here, there is still one major issue to be mediated. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "proposed" should be inserted in the hatnote. The current hatnote version does not communicate the level of disagreement in the field. Does anyone object to that? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Palladium

There needs to be a mention early on that palladium electrodes were used by Pons and Fleischer and by most? nearly all? all? researchers since, as well as the fact that palladium combines with hydrogen in electrolysis. I'm not sure of the best way to do this. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, as palladium was as essential of an ingredient as heavy water was in the original cells. Not all of the researchers since have used palladium. Other metals have been used with positive results. Interestingly, at least one experiment claimed a positive result with light water using - if i recall correctly - a silver cathode. This is hard to believe. But it is actually predicted by a theory proposed by a reputable scientist whose name i unfortunately forgot - hsi theoryhad something to do with the periodicity of the lattice. But to answer your question, I would say most, not all, experiments used palladium as the loading material. Scientists have experimented with different cathodes, with some success using cathodes other than palladium. Kevin Baas^talk 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-2004 literature reviews

There were some recent peer-reviewed literature reviews mentioned during mediation which were published after 2004 (which is where the "History" section currently ends.) They are here and here. I think a summary of their abstracts and conclusions should be included in the article. What do other people think? Wide and Slow (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I fully support it (but don't have the time to do it). Pcarbonn (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to add this 2002 report: Szpak, Stanislaw & Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., eds. (2002a), Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system - Volume 1:A decade of research at Navy laboratories, Technical report 1862, San Diego: Office of Naval Research/Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.Pcarbonn (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org

No thanks. It's not a reliable source, and most of the links to it were blatant copyright violations (hint: when you cite the international journal of so-and-so, the url is not lenr-canr.org). Also, it has been shown to editorialise rather than simply republish material. It is a ocmpletely inappropriate source for this or any other article.

As a side issue, the bibliography is a laundry list of "see? we are right!" papers by cold fusion advocates and needs to be massively pruned. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What were the opinions on excluding lenr-canr.org during mediation? I am inclined to say that they should only be included in the article if a source meeting the reliable source criteria has described them. --Why? (Why not?) 10:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I do know that no amount of mediation will ever allow us to link to offsite copyright violations. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted JzG's changes. I'm willing to rediscuss these issues under mediation, if we reopen it. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

JzG, Noren, do you accept that we resolve this issue under the mediation of Seicer ? Seicer, do you accept to mediate this issue ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss this further. Until then, to prevent edit warring and etc., I've protected the page. seicer | talk | contribs 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some issues with JzG's edit:

• Noren said in the past that we should avoid repetition in the text. The first sentence that JzG added in "ongoing controversy" is already quoted in the "Experimental reports / Nuclear products". I see no need to repeat it in Ongoing controversy.
• I don't see the need to quote "Physics today"'s opinion on the 2004 DOE report in "Ongoing Controversy": Wikipedia readers are smart enough to make their own judgement.
• Replacing "cold fusion researchers" by "cold fusion advocates" is unnecessary POV pushing.
• please re-explain the issue with lenr-canr.org. Lenr-canr.org contains copies of articles published by other reliable sources: I don't see the need to remove these urls that are provided for the convenience of the reader. Why is it not reliable as a repository ? What evidence do you have of copyright violations ? Why should it be treated differently than arxiv (which is often used for citations, see here)?
• citations have been incorrectly removed: lenr-canr.org is not the publisher of these papers, it only has a copy of it, with authorisation from the author. For example, the proceedings of the 10th ICCF conference was published by World Scientific Publishing is (you can buy it here).

Pcarbonn (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• And here are some issues with your edit: WP:OWN, WP:NBD, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and so on. Sure, you spent countless hours chipping away at the neutrality of the article and skewing it your way, and I don't have that much time to waste and am in any case not so very obsessed with legitimising cold fusion, but there is no doubt that LENR-CANR hosts offsite copyvios. And to be honest I can quite see why a CF advocate would hate the Physics Today analysis, but it is accessible to a general readership and explains in very vivid terms why the field is considered controversial. The edit was small, explained on talk, and calling it a "POV push" was not exactly a helpful or productive thing to do. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn changed the intro paragraph to ongoing controversy four hours prior to it being copied over to here, not four months. Let's not pretend that that last minute edit is a result of mediation- it's simply that that particular edit happened to occur just prior the move from draft to here rather than just after. Let's just move most of the current the first paragraph back to 'moving beyond the initial controversy', where it belongs and where it was for 99% of time of mediation, and revert the intro back to the version agreed to originally in the mediation.--Noren (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If there was not enough time to discuss this point, let's do it now. I do believe that the current version of the "ongoing controversy" section is better than the one originally in the mediation, or the one proposed by JzG, because it clearly and briefly addresses the topic of that section without duplication with other sections: "is cold fusion an ongoing controversy" ? Let's hear the opinion of others. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the original without the digression into a quote from the body of the 2004 report does a much better job of clearly and briefly introducing the topic without delving into the details of the 2004 report with this quote. The overall story of the 2004 report was that a group of people applied for federal funding for their research, their evidence and proposals were found lacking, and they were flatly denied any funding. That's what actually happened, the fact that the reviewers indicated in the body of the report that people were free to seek federal funds elsewhere for other proposals is obvious, but was included to emphasize that any new proposals should be "well-designed", "address scientific issues", "meet accepted scientific standards", and "undergo the rigors of peer review"- unlike the proposal they were evaluating. This was an emphatic 'no' to the request with a few kind words indicating how different from the proposal any new requests for funding would need to be in order to have a chance at acceptance. The quote cherry picked here is attempting to make a few kind words (intended to soften the "no funding for you" that was the actual result of the panel) into some sort of blessing for CF. It wasn't. --Noren (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any evidence in the 2004 DOE report that the researchers "applied for federal funding" (they only requested "that the Department revisit the question of scientific evidence for low energy nuclear reactions", see [4]), that they were "flatly denied any funding", that they received an "emphatic no to the request", or that they should seek funding "elsewhere". On the contrary, I see the report as much more open, although it's clearly not enthusiastic. The Physics Today article, "Cold fusion gets a chilly encore", also supports that view, saying that they can seek funding with the DOE. Now, it's perfectly OK that you have a different interpretation of the same disputed sentence. By quoting it properly in the relevant section of the article, we allow the Wikipedia reader to make his own judgement. This is not cherry picking, as it correctly reflects the panel response to charge element 3 of the report, "Determine whether there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies" (see page 4-5). Using one interpretation of the sentence to justify its demotion does not seem acceptable to me, as it is special pleading. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, DARPA has recently financed research on cold fusion, according to New Energy Times. See here. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Any other comments on the issues I raised on JzG's edit ? Again, I don't see any reason to change the mediated version as he proposes (except for Lenr-canr.org). Pcarbonn (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

lenr-canr

The lenr-canr site has to go. For example, J. Electroanal. Chem., 304 (1991) 271-278 Elsevier Sequoia S.A., Lausanne at the head of www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushBFheliumprod.pdf is, on its face, an admission of blatant copyright theft. Elsevier do not allow websites to host full text of their journal articles (I know, I have asked them). It's also been shown in the past to host supposed "copies" of material (specifically the 2004 DoE review) which started with editorial. It's also been spammed by the site's owner. Its main function is as a mirror of copyright material wrapped around with pro-CF advocacy. It fails abjectly as a WP:RS, and if the reliable sources aren't available online then we just use {{cite journal}}. Feel free to show any content it has which is hosted with permission and which comes from reliabel, independent, credible, peer-reveiwed sources, which are themselves not available online. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Although you do not provide hard evidence for many of your strong statements, I agree that there is a reasonable doubt of copy violations by lenr-canr.org. I propose to remove the links, and to correct the citations that showed incorrectly lenr-canr.org as publisher (instead of removing them). OK ? Pcarbonn (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You are reversing the burden of proof. Where a site hosts content it has not originated, the onus is on the site's owners to prove that they have a right to use it. No such assertion is made. All links to lenr-canr should be removed due to past spamming and present copyright violations and unreliability (WP:RS, WP:C). Guy (Help!) 11:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

2004 DoE CF documents that do not start with editorials: http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/DOE.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.194.190 (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, right. New Energy Times is also a pro-CF site. The DoE documents can and should be sourced direct from doe.gov. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Our article does link directly to the report on doe.gov, so I don't see any issue here. The link to lenr-canr.org version of the DOE report has been removed a long time ago. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the risk of copyvio, we should avoid linking to it at all, even as a link of convenience. Everything that is reliable will have another publisher. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But that publisher may not be online and if it is it may not be free -- that's the trouble with scientific journals nowadays. Kevin Baas^talk 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem in WP sourcing. See WP:V. For example, if I have a copy of A Brief History of Time and you don't, can't afford to buy it and don't live near a library, never mind. It's still a reliable source. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But why link to content that no one can read when we can just as well link to the exact same content that everyone can read? Kevin Baas^talk 14:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely because the original article is likely to be copyright and available only for payment.Itsmejudith (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific papers generally aren't copyrighted, as far as i know - that would be anti-scientific. In any case, if the original article is copyright and available only for payment, then by definition, there wouldn't be the exact same content available for everyone to read. (w/o payment) Kevin Baas^talk 15:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people would agree with that the principle is anti-scientific, but look inside a journal and you will see that the publisher regards the contents as copyright. Academics write the papers for no payment, then the publisher charges their university library a heavy subscription fee for online access that costs them nothing. Hence the growing support for open access journals. Just my tuppence-worth, my opinion not relevant to WP policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific journals are frequently very expensive, and the restriction of copyright is the primary reason that they can charge thousands of dollars per year per journal subscription.--Noren (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Undisputed fair use claim

If a site like Lenr-canr.org makes a claim of fair use, and the publishers, for whatever reason, do not to dispute that claim, is Wikipedia policy really to consider them to be violating copyright? I am concerned that statments such as "U.S. Navy researchers have published more than 40 papers on cold fusion" have been removed in toto merely because they had a citation linking to lenr-canr. --Why? (Why not?) 11:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

On the first point, yes, that is the policy, because the likelihood is that the publishers have not been alerted. The rules for fair use are quite clear. You can cite excerpts of an article in order to illustrate a point but you can't put the whole text online without permission. On the second point, if lenr-canr is the only source for the statement, then I wouldn't support it being included, because it is not a sufficiently reliable source for this article. It is possible to continue with what WP calls "source research" and say the same thing on a better basis. By "US Navy researchers" I think Pamela Mosier-Boss's team is meant. The number of papers she has authored can be found in Web of Science or similar, and that would be an appropriate addition. An even better addition would be to say how that team's research has developed over the years, citing three or four of their most significant papers. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

cold fusion research laboratory page...

http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/index.html

perhaps it could be integrated into the external links... --Emesee (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

uncat tag

also please someone add the uncat tag or put categories back in --Emesee (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What categories was it in? Pseudoscience (there is no Pathological Science, apparently, it is all under Pseudoscience) and probably Physics? What else? Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

faraday efficiency section

Some proposed changes (inserted text is in italics):

Lacking any other plausible explanation, the anomalous excess heat produced during such electrolysis was attributed by Pons and Fleischmann to cold nuclear fusion. It was discovered that, in some circumstances, such excess heat can be the product of conventional chemistry, i.e. internal recombination of hydrogen and oxygen. In some electrolysis cells running at low voltage, internal recombination of hydrogen and oxygen can create the appearance of excess heat. Such recombination leads to a reduction in the Faraday efficiency of the electrolysis. The Faraday-efficiency effect is the observation of apparent excess heat due to a reduction in the Faraday efficiency. This is called the "Faraday-efficiency effect".

In 1991-1993, a group of investigators[46][47] led by Zvi Shkedi, built in 1991-1993 built several well-insulated light-water electrolysis cells and calorimeters which included the capability to measure the actual Faraday efficiency in real time during the experiments. The cells were of the light-water type; with a fine-wire nickel cathode; a platinum anode; and K2CO3 electrolyte. A total of 64 experiments were performed in which the actual Faraday efficiency was measured. The results were analyzed twice; once with the popular assumption that the Faraday efficiency is 100%, and, again, taking into account the measured Faraday efficiency in each experiment. The average Faraday efficiency measured in these experiments was 78%. With this taken into account, the calculated excess heat was 0.13% +/- 0.48% of input power. If instead a Faraday efficiency of 100% was assumed, the apparent excess heat was 21%. The first analysis, assuming a Faraday efficiency of 100%, yielded an average apparent excess heat of 21% of input power. The second analysis, taking into account the measured Faraday efficiency, yielded an actual excess heat of 0.13% +/- 0.48%. In other words, when the actual Faraday efficiency was measured and taken into account, the energy balance of the cells was zero, with no excess heat. The investigators concluded their publication with the following word of cautionthat: "All reports claiming the observation of excess heat should be accompanied by simultaneous measurements of the actual Faraday efficiency."[48][page # needed] Jones et al. confirmed the Shkedi et al. findings with the same conclusion: "Faradaic efficiencies less than 100% during electrolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in 'cold fusion' cells."[49]

Making the section read:

In some electrolysis cells running at low voltage, internal recombination of hydrogen and oxygen can create the appearance of excess heat. This is called the "Faraday-efficiency effect".

In 1991-1993, a group of investigators[46][47] led by Zvi Shkedi built several well-insulated light-water electrolysis cells and calorimeters which included the capability to measure the actual Faraday efficiency in real time. The average Faraday efficiency measured in these experiments was 78%. With this taken into account, the calculated excess heat was 0.13% +/- 0.48% of input power. If instead a Faraday efficiency of 100% was assumed, the apparent excess heat was 21%. The investigators concluded that: "All reports claiming the observation of excess heat should be accompanied by simultaneous measurements of the actual Faraday efficiency."[48][page # needed] Jones et al. confirmed the Shkedi et al. findings with the same conclusion: "Faradaic efficiencies less than 100% during electrolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in 'cold fusion' cells."[49]

Edmund Storms observed that "[the] values attributed to Jones et al. [...] gives a good example of biased reasoning. They measured the recombination fraction at very low currents, where [uncertainty] is high, and used these values to dismiss all measurements using open cells, without acknowledging that most successful studies used much higher currents or closed cells where this correction is unnecessary."[50]

Fleischmann did measure Faraday efficiency in his experiments: it was better than 99%.[51] Fritz Will, former president of the Electrochemical Society, noted in his review of Jones' paper that "[the] fraction of O2 recombining with H2 decreases significantly with increasing current density. [...] On the basis of their results at low current densities, a group of researchers recently concluded that H2 + O2 recombination is the source for the "excess heat' reported by other groups and attributed by some to 'cold fusion'. However, reported excess heat values, ranging from a low of 23% at 14 mA/cm2 to a high of 3700% at 6 mA/cm2, are much larger than can be explained by recombination. Whatever the explanation for the large amounts of excess heat reported by various groups, H2 + O2 recombination must be rejected as a tenable explanation."[52]

Kevin Baas^talk 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. I fully support it. In fact, the shorter we make it the better. We might even delete it as this hypothesis has no notability, in line with WP:Undue. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that most of the original text was copied straight from the faraday efficiency effect article, which explains why it was so - ironically - inefficient. It strikes me as kind of odd to have a section that reads like "x claims y, however, they're obviously full of sh*t." Then why mention it? It might also violate WP:FRINGE. However, I'm afraid to touch it because it was part of the version formed via mediation. In any case, I'd like more opinions before implementing the changes. Kevin Baas^talk 17:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

shortening seems like a good idea. I'm not happy with "Edmund Storms observed", as it appears to endorse Storms' view. This section reports a disagreement between scientists in the field, so should be reported as neutrally as possible. Since there are two papers on one side of the debate and Storms on the other, this would seem to be a notable issue in the cold fusion controversy and therefore should stay in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that isn't indisputably an observation is the first part ("..gives a good example of biased reasoning."). So it gives a good description of what storms is indisputably doing, notwithstanding the first sentence. And Mr. storms is not disagreeing with the results of the experiments. The only think he disagrees with is jones' logic (or lack thereof). --and note: jones is the only one making the claim - while both storms and flieshman are disputing it) And the people who did it (including jones) aren't disagreeing with storm's observations. And they don't logically contradict each other. You said that "there are two papers on one side of the debate and storms on the other" - this is a misrepresentation. Every scientist studying cold fusion is clearly on the other side of the debate, and they vastly outnumber jones, who is actually the only one who opines against c.f. on the basis of the faraday efficieny effect. Furthermore, to be on jones' side, a scientist would have to believe that 1) the faraday efficiency effect is significant at high current densities, and that 2) the faraday efficiency effect is applicable in a closed cell. Neither of these beliefs are mainstream scientific views. Hence, WP:UNDUE. Kevin Baas^talk 18:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose alternatively one could believe that 1) all cold fusion experiments where done at unusually low current densities, and 2) no cold fusion experiments used a closed cell. And in either case, one would have to believe that 3) flieschmann did not measure the faraday efficiency. All of these are results of ignorance, and 1) and 2) are implausible in light of scientific norms. In any case, even giving the benefit of the doubt, these beliefs are still WP:FRINGE. Kevin Baas^talk 18:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to add that they would also have to believe that cold fusion excess heat results where in the range of those observed by the faraday efficiency effect experiments - about 21%. Again, attributable to ignorance, but nonetheless a minority view. As far as I can tell, there is only one scientist who ever held the view in question: Jones. That doesn't exactly elevate it to the level of notability. add to the fact that this view goes against numerous mainstream scientific beliefs, as pointed out above, and, well, that certainly doesn't help. Kevin Baas^talk 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several thousands of articles on cold fusion, and only 2 on this topic. Are we going to write a full section on each of the other disputes too ? Pcarbonn (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have sections on all the issues where there has been a genuine scientific controversy and this seems to be one of them. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a scientific controversy here. What I see is "make sure you take this into account...", followed closely by "already did that. but thanks." Kevin Baas^talk 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I want to get at least two approvals for my suggested changes. Itsmejudith, do you think this is better?:

Edmund Storms labeled Jones' conclusions "a good example of biased reasoning", observing that "[Jones et. al.] measured the recombination fraction at very low currents...

And are you okay with the proposed changes (including that one if you prefer it)? Kevin Baas^talk 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good wording. And as far as I understand the question, I don't disagree with your summary of it. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that there are actually three people listed in this section as disputing Jones. I propose the last line of the second paragraph be split off, and the remaining material be re-ordered from storms,pons,fritz to fritz,storms,pons, each with their own paragraph, plus two more wording changes:

Jones et al. confirmed the Shkedi et al. findings with the same conclusion and concluded that: "Faradaic efficiencies less than 100% during electrolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in 'cold fusion' cells."[49]

Fritz Will, former president of the Electrochemical Society, noted in his review of Jones' paper that "[the] fraction of O2 recombining with H2 decreases significantly with increasing current density. [...] On the basis of their results at low current densities, a group of researchers recently concluded that H2 + O2 recombination is the source for the "excess heat' reported by other groups and attributed by some to 'cold fusion'. However, reported excess heat values, ranging from a low of 23% at 14 mA/cm2 to a high of 3700% at 6 mA/cm2, are much larger than can be explained by recombination. Whatever the explanation for the large amounts of excess heat reported by various groups, H2 + O2 recombination must be rejected as a tenable explanation."[52]

Edmund Storms observed that "[the] values attributed to Jones et al. [...] gives a good example of biased reasoning. They Edmund Storms labeled Jones' conclusions "a good example of biased reasoning", observing that "[Jones et. al.] measured the recombination fraction at very low currents, where [uncertainty] is high, and used these values to dismiss all measurements using open cells, without acknowledging that most successful studies used much higher currents or closed cells where this correction is unnecessary."[50]

Fleischmann did measure Faraday efficiency in his experiments: it was better than 99%.Fleischmann measured Faraday efficiency in his cold fusion experiments and found it to be better than 99%.[51]

The first wording change was because jones' conclusion is actually different from shedki's (as shedki's didn't mention cold fusion). The second because it's style is more encyclopedia (the original was rhetorical).

If there are no objections to all these changes I'll propose it to an admin when I have some time tomorrow. Thanks for your input. Kevin Baas^talk 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Implemented. Kevin Baas^talk 18:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should also consider this publication: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 44 (2005) pp. 396-401. Quote: We have observed as much as 80 times more hydrogen generated by plasma electrolysis than by conventional electrolysis at 300 V Melethron (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)