Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:39, 17 May 2012

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contents of the List of references to cold fusion in popular culture page were merged into Cold fusion. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 23, 2012.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

	Cold fusion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted January 6, 2006 Featured article review Demoted June 3, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 7, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 19, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted December 26, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed May 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed November 23, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Stephen Foley (Tuesday, 3 February 2009). "So is Misplaced Pages cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Misplaced Pages is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web?". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Should we split this article?

(Note: I have added a {{split-apart}} template to the top of the article).

This article is way too long (per WP:SIZESPLIT) - so I think we're long overdue for a split. It also seems to me that we have two increasingly separate topics emerging in this article - suggesting that a split would be a good idea regardless of WP:SIZESPLIT:

• The classic (and more or less completely discredited) Fleischmann-Pons work and it's immediate consequences in terms of efforts to reproduce, etc.
• The more recent "LENR" efforts that may have been inspired by Fleischmann-Pons - but are heading off in different directions that are perhaps not totally discredited and maybe even gaining some mainstream traction.

This article was originally about the former - and was largely a discussion of the history of this - and the implications for the scientific method, peer review systems and so forth. However, the addition of the LENR stuff is definitely clouding the waters here - and I think this is largely to blame for the loss of FA (and even GA!) status for this article.

We have the difficult task of clearly stating that Fleischmann-Pons is discredited while maintaining NPOV for the more recent work. This results in a highly ambiguous story for our poor readers and a bunch of unnecessary contention here in the talk page.

So I wonder if it is time to split the article?

1. Called Cold fusion, discussing only Fleischmann-Pons and the immediate reactions to it and ultimate discrediting...with a brief intro into the LENR work of today.
2. Called Low energy nuclear reactions (perhaps) discussing the modern efforts to produce clear results (and controversies resulting) - with a brief "History" section referring to Fleischmann-Pons.

This article is now up around 60kbytes in length - right at the ">60kb - Probably should be divided" recommendation of WP:SIZESPLIT. That means that the article should be split - it's just a matter of deciding how. I submit that my proposal is probably the most fitting way to manage it since it looks like it would result in two article of almost equal length and clearly separate content.

Thoughts? SteveBaker (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps you counted all the citation data in that 130k, which we don't normally do. The text alone is 60k characters including spaces. So far as the fork goes, it appears to legitimize POV terminology. Is there anyone other than the true believers who refer to LENR, except to do so in quotations? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Argh! You're right - I did count the citations. Sorry! (I've fixed my proposal, above, to reflect this correction).

But even so, WP:SIZESPLIT says that at 60k: "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". The article ain't getting any smaller - so a split is going to be needed sooner or later.

I don't see my proposed fork as legitimizing anything - and I would certainly consider alternative titles for the resulting two articles (eg Cold fusion (Fleischmann-Pons) and just Cold fusion or something) - but I think there is a clear line to be drawn between the Fleischmann-Pons debacle and everything that's happened since using different experimental techniques. I don't know whether modern "LENR" stuff is true or bullshit (although I suspect the latter). But I do believe that it's genuinely a separate topic. The proposed Fleischmann-Pons article would be essentially historical - and this should reduce the number and complexity of edits to almost zero - giving us a shot at getting the thing back up to FA status. The proposed article about more recent efforts to demonstrate cold fusion is where the controversy always seems to be - and that's not going to end, but it doesn't have to drag down the Fleischmann-Pons stuff. SteveBaker (talk)

As usual, the issue is coming up with reliable, non-fringe sources that predominantly regard it as a distinct topic. From what few modern sources I've seen, they will usually refer to the terms as synonyms, perhaps also noting that the current seekers prefer the term LENR. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

LENR is not a sufficiently distinct subject that it deserves its own article. A better approach would be to create an article called "History of cold fusion" which would include the 1989 announcements and the recent work. The "Cold fusion" article would have a summary version of the history, and the technical discussion. Olorinish (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support a "History of..." article for the Fleischmann-Pons stuff and leaving everything about modern work where it is now. SteveBaker (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd also support splitting it into "Cold Fusion" and "History of Cold Fusion". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am fearful of supporting this. I am hoping it doesn't become a POV fork in the style of Condensed matter nuclear science. I guess I can support a "Cold fusion" and "History of Cold fusion" split. Always keeping in ming that reliable sources say CF = LENR, and LENR being an alternative name preferred by supporters. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I very much support SteveBaker on this issue and I also agree with LeadSongDog's and Olorinish's arguments. Cold Fusion and LENR are synonyms or completely different things depending on the view of the scientist. If we want to split the article, then before bothering about the correct title, we should get consensus on what the two different articles should be about. The secondary sources Huizenga, Taubes and Close only discuss Fleischmann Pons Cold Fusion and the immediate time after, including the response (=rebuttal) of mainstream science. The "later phase" LENR has several secondary sources by authors within the LENR community, but lacks any awareness of mainstream science. Maybe an evaluation of what the available sources tell us can shed some light on the content bounderies of the possible articles. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

How cold fusion is viewed by others or by mainstream scientists places undue importance on opinions. It's my opinion that the early cold fusion media fiasco was a social phenomenon that rushed the experimental verification process and led to a social environment hostile to science and easily affected by opinions. All said I agree the article is long and cumbersome. Almost everywhere there are references to someones' opinion. An example is the section In Popular Culture... nothing but opinions. Early cold fusion is science and continued works in this art show advancements in understanding physics. I think there should be one article Cold Fusion/LNR Science and a section History Cold Fusion the Sociological Phenomenon. The early works of cold fusion by Fleischmann and Pons has been instrumental to the advancement of this science and should not be seperated to a different article. Here is an example of what might be a time relevant point to split the article at: Cold Fusion/LENR Post 2009 The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science follows a well established peer review process, "PEER REVIEW PROCESS - Submitted papers will be forwarded to an Editor who will supervise the peer review process, and contact the authors in the course of the review process. Papers submitted to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science will be reviewed under the rules and guidelines associated with the review and appeals process adopted by the American Physical Review journals." This cold fusion/LERN journal is a source for papers published that are a review of works to date in the art of this science as well as papers that are scientific review (secondary replication) of previously published experimental research and theory. Cold Fusion/LENR science, "Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics", March 23, 2012 at 3:30pm. Presented at the "Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space 2012 Topical Meeting and The Lunar and Planetary Institute – 43rd Lunar And Planetary Science Conference” Organized by ANST Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology, USRA Universities Space Research Association, ANS American Nuclear Society, and NASA. "A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)" Xiaoling Yang and George H. Miley, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 (104 S Wright Street, 216 Talbot Laboratory, Urbana, IL 61801 "CRYOGENIC IGNITION OF DEUTERON FUSION IN MICRO/NANO-SCALE METAL PARTICLES" Y. E. Kim, Department of Physics, Purdue University Physics Building, West Lafayette IN 47907. Cold Fusion/LENR peer reviewed papers are presented for scientific review at the American Physical Society. Session Y33: Cold Fusion APS Physics March Meeting 201, Volume 56, Number 1 Monday–Friday, March 21–25, 2011; Dallas, Texas. --Gregory Goble (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you not see the contradiction in stating your dislike for giving importance to opinions, and then immediately following this with your own opinion? Also, Note that serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work (per ArbCom). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mr. IRWolfe... just got back. To answer your question requires an answer... What opinion did I follow with? The media fiasco of 'cold fusion', the resignation of an MIT excecutive over falsification of data by an MIT hot fusion tech, a social environment hostile to cold fusion/LENR research, or my opinon that this is a social phenomenon (undead science). As early as November 1989 this was known, Essentially, the evidence indicates the so-called cold fusion phenomenon is not dead, http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/19/us/recent-tests-said-to-justify-more-cold-fusion-research.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Or my opinion that the early works of cold fusion by Fleischmann and Pons has been instrumental to the advancement of this science? Note how many times their cold fusion environment is mentioned in regards to this science within this article. Clearly LENR scientists see them (Fleischmann and Pons) as the early researchers in this art. My opinions on cold fusion/LENR science are based on the encyclopedic reading I have done at universities in the S.F. bay area and delving into the world of replicated cold fusion/LENR experiments. SEE: The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science follows a well established peer review process, "PEER REVIEW PROCESS - Submitted papers will be forwarded to an Editor who will supervise the peer review process, and contact the authors in the course of the review process. Papers submitted to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science will be reviewed under the rules and guidelines associated with the review and appeals process adopted by the American Physical Review journals."

Where is the contradiction... Sir, this is a discussion! Quit obfuscating, please. I have a strong opinion that opinions should not be given undue weight in an article. Doing so is not in line with respected scientific thought. Do you think it is?

Thanks for sharing the Wiki aspirations with me... I feel ya. In line with respected scientific thought.

With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. --Gregory Goble (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to go through with the splitting, it seems we have a consensus to do so. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a split along a line within the article would be better. I disagree with splitting the article into two.

Cold Fusion/LENR

Clarify by separating the early Sociological phenomenon and subsequent Scientific phenomenon into clearly delineated aspects of the article

I have been studying encyclopedias on flight; early thought impossible though we saw proof daily. Birds and bees do it, why can't we. Eventually we flew to the moon.

Clearly cold fusion went under the radar after a media fiasco that included probable falsification of data by some MIT hot fusion tech, years of MIT internal grievance procedures, the resignation of high ranking MIT management, and a subsequent launch of strong underground interwoven in hallowed halls UNDEAD SCIENCE with a peer reviewed journal and conferences. Quality Cold Fusion/LENR research and 'scientific review' experienced strong prejudice, concerted slander, and little funding. All of this is a Sociological phenomenon. Reading 'Undead Science' by Bart Simon (and other reading within this article) lends insight to this. The Sociological Reaction to preflight research is hardly referenced in encyclopedias anymore;

In other words,,, Dis article ain't broke so far's I kin see. Jes yous' wait 'fo ya tries to fix it. Jes' give it 'lil mo' time. Time please to let this age a bit. Multifaceted heritage is the mark of the furtherance of knowledge.--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the best approach would be to create a history page and put all of the history section inside it, include a few images in that article, leave the main page text which is outside the history section untouched, keep all of the images which are currently in the main article in the new main article, and write a new history section which is only 3-4 paragraphs long and which mentions: pre-1989 work, the 1989 press conferences and multiple attempts to replicate cold fusion, the 2004 DOE review, ICCF activities, and recent reports such as SPAWAR and Rossi. After that, new unsubstantiated reports of cold fusion (Defkalion, etc.) would then be added to the history article, if at all, unless the news truly changed the reputation of the field of cold fusion. I worry that writing and maintaining the history section inside the main article could be difficult, since some people might want to add lots of less-notable reports to the main article rather than to the history article. Does anyone volunteer to actually perform this split? Olorinish (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that my proposal is not the same as putting the Pons and Fleischmann information in a history article and leaving the discussion of modern work in the main article. That would give too much emphasis to the recent work, especially considering the vastly higher notability the PF work had at the time compared to the recent notability of groups like SPAWAR and Rossi. In other words, the PF work and the 1989 reactions are not footnotes in the long and complex history of cold fusion; they are the main reasons cold fusion is notable. Olorinish (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I support Steve Baker's idea. The Fleischmann-Pons era goes in the history article. I do not understand why you would think that putting a report on Defkalion in the history article is a good idea. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

While I'm open to suggestions, I really think that splitting the Fleischmann-Pons (FP) story into a separate article is the simplest way forward - and I think we have enough support (above) to do it:

1. It is now a proper historical event. Everything surrounding it is now as well understood as it's ever likely to be.
2. It's a neat story with ramifications for the importance of the scientific method, etc.
3. It's now the realm of historians rather than physicists.
4. We'd stand a good chance of getting it back up to featured-article status since most of the changes that resulted in the loss of that status (and even the loss of "good-article" status for chrissakes!) were in the section about modern work.
5. Most of the edit warring and other nastiness that resulted in sanctions, de-sysopping and other ugly things has now calmed down. The Fleischmann-Pons article should be low-bandwidth and easy for editors to curate.
6. We have solid references for both the history and the science since much of this work happened in highly respected peer-reviewed journals.

What remains is still likely to be contentious and will be tough to polish - in part because of debate about which sources are acceptable - and in part because there are still so many people working on various off-shoots and variants. However, the debates and surrounding chaos need not infiltrate the Fleischmann-Pons part. I appreciate that titling the two branches is going to be a little harder to decide - but choosing this place to split the article really does seem to make sense.

Consensus !vote?

Proposal: To split this article into an essentially historical article that predominantly discusses the events and science surrounding the "Fleischmann-Pons" affair...and a second article that discusses the broader issues surrounding the cold fusion controversy following FP and up to the present day. The choice of names for the new article(s) will be discussed if/when we have consensus to do the split in this manner.

Please respond with a Support or Oppose and brief reasons below. SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - per self-nom above. SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the Fleischmann-Pons events in 1989-1990 are history, well documented in several secondary sources. Even if (if) the future would lead science to a different assessment than back then, it will not change what happened in those days. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I vote to not rewrite the article at this time. Commercialization seems relevant to an article split. Cold fusion was notable at the time of the PF announcement and subsequent reaction because of the potential for this scientific research to lead to commercial devices with 1,000,000 times the energy density and fractions of the costs (environmental and economic) of carbon based or present day nuclear power. Cold fusion/LENR is a notable science today for the same reasons and has robust scientific review leading to advances in our understanding of nuclear active environments. Fleischmann and Pons were notable forerunners of cold fusion/LENR science.--Gregory Goble (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  I understand the points you're making - but I don't understand why those facts would cause us to not wish to split the article as proposed. The proposed "History of..." article would contain much detail that is irrelevant to the story you are telling here - and having that separate article does not preclude us from writing a paragraph or two about FP in the main article to give context to modern work. I just don't see that the article on the modern stuff needs to go into all of those details of who wrote which papers and when decrying who's results. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. At 52,983 characters of readable prose, this article is not so big that it needs to be split, and it is not so much in need of expansion. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article doesn't _need_ to be split, but I see it as an opportunity to get the Fleischmann-Pons history part back to prime status. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is still an active battleground. Since POVbrigand has stated that he is dissatisfied with the article, I fear he will use the transition to shift the resulting articles to a more pro-CF position and away from NPOV. Olorinish (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  All the more reason to split off the non-controversial part. We don't need the battleground to spill over into the FP incident stuff and gives us a chance to get that back to FA quality. Keeping the article short makes it easier for editors to discuss - it simplifies the lede - it simply reduces the scope for debate. I don't see how this feared stealth change during the transition is likely - the article is pretty much already split into two main sections...the split isn't going to be hard or to create a prolonged transition. SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Defense Intelligence Agency report 2009

In the April 18th issue of their news publication MizzouWeekly, the University of Missouri - which has recently received 5.5 Million to research LENR - mentions the 2009 Defense Intelligence Agency's report

.

I think our article should also mention this report.

--POVbrigand (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the U. of Missouri giving legitimacy to its own research (not an independent source), using an unpublished statement made by a group of scientists inside DIA that don't represent the agency's official statement. Still no replicated experiments, just more claims.

This is the network of cold fusion researchers, citing each other to build up legitimacy for their statements. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"network of cold fusion researchers" are you implying a conspiracy ? Many "regular" scientists who were skeptic at first, became convinced after they performed successful experiments themselves. Robert Duncan from Missouri University is one of those, he was introduced to cold fusion/LENR in 2009 because of the 60 minutes piece. He was a mainstream scientist until 2009 and became convinced based on the provided evidence that there is something to look into for which his university has recently received funding. And now YOU denounce HIM as one "of the network". You never will see a "non-believer" announcing that the effect is real, because once he does that he has suddenly become a "fringe adherent" in your eyes. Don't you see the logical fallacy you constantly fall for ? --POVbrigand (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Duncan's one of the "bend over backwards to demonstrate we gave it a fair hearing" school. He's also got irons in the far more mainstream Thorium cycle fire. So far I don't see anything that says he is convinced there's actual fusion going on in these CF devices, but I may have missed it. But "network" does not imply "conspiracy". It only reflects the walled garden problem of self-referential publishing. To be taken seriously, CF publishing needs to happen routinely in mainstream physics journals. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Most LENR scientists are not really sure what it is that's going on in these devices. Duncan is not giving it just a "fair hearing", he was recently quoted saying Some scientists still scoff; others even get emotional about it, Duncan said. To them, he says: “Get over it.”.

You may not be aware that for instance George Miley also has "irons" in other forms of nuclear fusion processes. Your "revelation" here doesn't imply what you think it does.

You may also not be aware that LENR papers are indeed published routinely in mainstream physics journals. I think your walled garded is only due to the Idée fixe in the heads of the "I know all about this" ignorant pseudo skeptic pathological deniers. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We had an earlier discussion about them being published, where it was noted that the volume has decreased massively since 1989. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure and a reliable source calls it "the normal publication rate in a small field that has found its natural niche." But you probably haven't read any source, so you wouldn't know. "normal" == ""routinely".

Here is my observation of the chain of argumentation which is passed around between some of the editors:

• If there is a claim of a working experiment, demand a replication.
• If there is a claim of a replication, demand a peer reviewed paper.
• If there is a peer reviewed paper, denounce the author, the journal, the notability, whatever. Foremost demand a secondary source.
• If there is a secondary source, denounce the author, the magazine, the notability, whatever.
• If the seconday source is solid, argue with WP:UNDUE, with WP:FRINGE, not promotion, not news, not now, go away, "you're a POV-pusher", "I have a scientific education", imply sock-puppeting.
• Highlight often that adding content describing the minority view is POV-pushing and fringe promotion and illegal on wikipedia.

I assume good faith for this unfortunate chain of argumentation. It happens again and again. I got used to it. The article is not improving. This is not a personal attack. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@POVBrigand, that sentence is a paraphrase written by a[REDACTED] editor, the source is page 181 of Simon's Undead Science: "Data like these have lent support to the claims of the skeptics. Here we do not see life after death, just the dying gasps of the few remaining scientists blindly holding on to their belief in cold fusion. From another point of view, however, the publication data indicate not death or even life after death but rather research settling into a rather normal pattern for a small field. In terms of the overall ecology of science, CF research is simply finding its niche, with a few journals publishing a couple of dozen peer-reviewed papers a years. From this perspective the high rates of the early 90s become the anomaly. (...) Even though it is too soon to make a judgement about this, the publication rate may support the idea that some normalization of CF research has taken place. The cold fusion articles that appear tend to be published by a small cluster of specialized journals." --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know, page 181, the paraphrasing is done very well I think. You are one of the few who actually reads (and knows) some of the sources: Huizenga, Taubes and Close (and Park?) for the anti-CF view and Simon for the pro-ish view. I suppose you haven't read Mallove. Have you read any of the more recent sources: Mizuno, Storms, Beaudette, Krivit, Marwan, Kozima ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read Mallove, but I have now ordered his book Fire from Ice from Amazon. I have read parts of Beaudette, Krivit and Storms. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You say it's "not a personal attack" but it appears to be an assertion that you view other editors who disagree with you in bad faith and you still have the battlefield mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that I assume good faith for this unfortunate chain of argumentation. I do not attribute to bad faith what can be attributed to sheer ... misfortune. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Poor sourcing on DARPA wild goose chase

DARPA is a fairly huge funding agency arm of the US Defense Department which has funded all manner of out there and not so out there projects. It is unsurprising that cold fusion fans dug around and began trumpeting its "quiet" funding of LENR. The inserted prose was like this:

Darpa, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, has been "quietly pursuing LENR for some years." and for 2012 plans to continue their collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy to "Establish scalability and scaling parameters in excess heat generation processes"

I removed this for two reasons: 1) The sourcing leaves much to be desired. Wired.co.uk is not a good source for what funding and collaboration is happening nor is there a good indication for the scale on which DARPA is involved (it seems to be minimal at best). The second source is a 300+ page document listing ALL the funding that DARPA gives. This doesn't so much support the claim of relevance to the parent topic of COLD FUSION as it does show that someone can use a search algorithm. 2) There doesn't seem to have been an editorial weighting of how important this DARPA funding has or has not been to cold fusion research. In any case, this is unimpressive and poorly vetted text.

Please workshop this before reinserting.

24.215.188.24 (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are a sockpuppet of SA / VanishedUser314159. You are banned from Misplaced Pages. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet. 24.215.188.24 (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think these two apply:

Misplaced Pages:Tendentious_editing#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources

Misplaced Pages:Tendentious_editing#One_who_deletes_the_cited_additions_of_others

--POVbrigand (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources' reliability is not being disputed and the "cited additions" are clearly explained as to why they are no good.

If have a substantive critique of the analysis above, please offer it. You are under the obligation to per WP:BURDEN.

24.215.188.24 (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." the content is not lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. You should not remove it. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand is correct. You cannot remove the material based on WP:BURDEN. I have reverted the edit of 24.215.188.24. Johnnyc (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The source's reliability may not be at issue, but its application to the statement certainly should be. There's nothing I see in that 336 page linked DARPA budget that remotely resembles the statement it is being used to support. What am I missing? A page number might help.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, found the quote. It was at pp50-52/336, under the mission: "This project provides the fundamental research that underpins the development of advanced nanoscale and bio-molecular materials, devices, and electronics for DoD applications that greatly enhance soldier awareness, capability, security, and survivability, such as materials with increased strength-to-weight ratio and ultra-low size, devices with ultra-low energy dissipation and power, and electronics with persistent intelligence and improved surveillance capabilities." Is there anything about that which suggests CF/LENR/CMNS/whatever except that they mention palladium and deuterium? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

On page 52, "Continued quantification of material parameters that control degree of increase in excess heat generation and life expectancy of power cells in collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy. Established ability to extend active heat generation time from minutes to 2.5 days for pressure-activated power cells.". This seems to be a clear suggestion that DARPA is working with the Italian Department of Energy on CF/LENR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyc (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's what someone predisposed to find it sees, but to me, it just looks like they're pursuing the stated mission of ultra low dissipation electronics. To see LENR in those pages is purest wp:SYNTH. It would need something much more explicit to back that assertion. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that Wired's David Hambling saw it as such, which is probably the reason both the DARPA budget summary and the Wired article were used to support the statement. This is simply what was reported by Wired, and includes the source that Wired used for article. This is not WP:SYNTH from POVbrigand. It was the Wired writer's conclusion. Johnnyc (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog - Without some knowledge of the field you cannot see it, I agree. The author of the wired.co.uk article has done his investigation well. DARPA is funding work at SRI together with the italian ENEA. In his talks Mike McKubre (SRI) always shows where the funding comes from. see for instance or in the slides he showed recently at cafe scientifique see youtube video at 5:49

Forgot to mention the ENEA book (page 16 and 51) --POVbrigand (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The ENEA book is already used as a reference for the ENEA paragraph. Should we also add its pages 16 and 51 as reference to the DARPA paragraph ? --POVbrigand (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask again. Where are the wp:reliable sources? Not blogs, not a banned user's website, and certainly not Youtube. Actual. Reliable. Sources.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources are the wired article and the book published by ENEA and the reliable primary source is the DARPA budget. The McKubre presentations are only for illustration here on the talk page. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The Wired.com source is not WP:RS for showing that DARPA is funding cold fusion. Nor is the 300+ page document good enough to show what the precise type of funding is going on. The original research by the wired.com writer is not vetted by third-party reliable sourcing and therefore is rightly excluded until we get verification directly from a DARPA spokesperson who is qualified to discuss the matter or from someone who received a DARPA grant in a reliable source like a published paper in a major journal or a government publication (not a youtube video or a personal website). Otherwise, this is just hearsay conjecture and poor sourcing. Removed. 209.2.217.151 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The budget is a primary source, and we have no idea of its relevance or importance; IMO it should be removed. If it didn't generate any secondary source, it's likely that it's largely irrelevant. It is certainly not a breakthrough that needs to be reported urgently. There is another Wired article about past DARPA budgets, please use that instead. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I do think it is relevant and important. ENEA is stating that they have done a lot of experiments which leads the president of ENEA to publicly endorse the phenomenon as a reality. Also according to the ENEA book they are cooperating with SRI which is funded by DARPA. One of the researchers at SRI is Mike McKubre and in his presentations he clearly mentions funding from DARPA. The DARPA primary source mentions, although obscured, them funding LENR. Luckily there are (now) two secondary sources that link DARPA to funding LENR research.

I think it is relevant, because funding is so sparse for LENR, funding from a governmental agency is interesting to mention.

Tell me, Enric, where do you see the weak point in my reasoning ? I am always open for your view, because you read the sources. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

DARPA fund some pretty way-out speculative work. It wouldn't surprise me if they threw a little money at this on a "just in case" basis - but that shouldn't be taken to mean that they fully support/believe-in the concept. Suggesting that they are funding major research in the area on the basis of a line-item in a budget would be an extreme case of WP:UNDUE. They throw tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars at some truly off-the-wall stuff - until they are spending tens of millions on something, it's not indicative of any actual support they have for the idea. They might (for example) fund a study to disprove cold fusion just to get the idea cleanly off of the table in future. SteveBaker (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure DARPA does fund weird stuff and LENR is arguably just one of that kind. Nobody tries to push the notion that DARPA believes anything, it shouldn't be implied by the content I added. I certainly don't want to imply that anybody believes in anything, so if you feel my wording does imply that, then kindly help with toning it down. In a field where there is virtually no funding a tiny funding is worth mentioning, it is not UNDUE. You simply cannot compare funding for LENR to funding for hot fusion or any other major funding topic. If we were talking hot fusion funding this would be undue to mention, I agree, but we are talking LENR. The biggest funding I have heard of recently is the 5.5 million from the Kimmel foundation to Missouri University. So while I agree that DARPA is not supporting the idea that LENR is real, they do spend some money on it, which enables SRI to do some work together with ENEA, according to the ENEA book. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the DARPA funding doesn't really add much notability to the topic. DARPA funds companies to do things as 'far out' as making software for writing comic books to using ultrasound to make soldiers who never need to sleep! Not exactly mainstream science. We have to be careful not to imply that DARPA believes that this stuff works and thereby give credibility where it isn't due (hence WP:UNDUE). SteveBaker (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not about adding notability to the topic, cold fusion is notable enough by itself. I am not against taking great care so that the WP-reader is not misled. I do think that the funding needs to be mentioned. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Many conferences

on May 4th 2012 in Turin we have had "The Atom Unexplored" where Peter Hagelstein (MIT) has spoken about the still running (ie heat producing) NANOR device. Piantelli also spoke about "anomalous effect in Ni-H systems", but at the same time mainstream ITER and Fission technologies were presented at the conference.

upcoming on June 18-21 in Santa Clara, CA "CleanTech 2012" where George H. Miley will speak about his Lenuco company commercial plans (Thursday June 21 2:00). Cleantech is a mainstream conference AFAIK.

so together with the already mentioned mainstream conferences and presentation, I think we should mention something about them in our article. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTCATALOG, no secondary sources explaining why readers need to know about these conferences in order to understand the topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not thinking of listing them of course, but a short line like Olorinish proposed: "It would probably be good to change the introduction sentence "A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion..." to something like "Some researchers continue to investigate cold fusion, reporting on their work in journals and at conferences ..." A sentence in the "Conferences" section could mention the post-2009 presentations. Olorinish (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC) "

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can understand the Politecnico de Turin conference. It does have some coverage, and it clearly states it's about LENR (under the names of "piezonuclear fision" and "Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions").

But why the CleanTech conference? It's about clean technologies, and the only relevant part is a half an hour presentation of Miley's company. And where is the coverage? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The point I want to highlight is that LENR talks are taking place on mainstream conferences. In some way that is a remarkable development for which we have remarkable evidence.

We know that we have a number of regular dedicated LENR meetings: the ICCF, the "hydrogen-workshop" in italy, in Russia, in Japan. We also know that the ACS and the APS have (regular ?) LENR sessions in the annual meetings. But lately LENR speakers are speaking also on non-LENR-dedicated conferences, like the CleanTech, the World Green Energy Symposium, World Sustainable Energy Conference. So a summary statement that that seems to be the case is justified. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

But the paper in CleanTech 2012 appears to be about the company and its business model - not the technology behind it. I don't think it's relevant - and it doesn't show that LENR is "mainstream" - only that discussing the nature of companies (that happen to claim to be using LENR) is mainstream. It's a tenuous link at best. SteveBaker (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to highlight one particular conference or sum up all the conferences and I am not trying to imply LENR is mainstream or proven. Just that scientists with a LENR technology are getting possibilities to talk about them at mainstream venues. In our article we have a section about conferences. Currently the reader is informed that there is a ICCF, and sometimes a session on the ACS and APS. We can bicker about the significance of each meeting separately, but the overall "picture" is that LENR is presented at far more venues than the ones currently mentioned in the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have a reliable source that states specifically that then it's original research (i.e an original synthesis). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Each conference or colloquium is a reliable source for the fact that a LENR talk was given there. It would indeed be OR if we would attach an interpretation to it, but we're not doing that. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A seminar on May 15 at INFN looks very similar to the recent CERN colloquium. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a synthesis because you are arriving at a conclusion that is not present in any source. You are combining sources to try and arrive at a conclusion. We wait for sources themselves to state things. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no conclusion. It's a fact that LENR researchers are speaking at mainstream venues lately. Counting the number of conferences is not SYNTH. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Enough wikilawyering. We need a reliable source to show that such appearances matter. Is this hard to understand? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::Dense brains matter. Crackpot scientists, pathological science, not accepted by mainstream, loose your career and reputation; all falsehoods presented with regularity by tenacious editors here. We need a reliable source to show that such appearances matter. Why Mr. LeadSongDog do you think a reliable source is needed to show that many of the aforementioned falsehoods are based on old or uninformed opinions that are no longer relevant. Cold Fusion/LENR research is good science presented in mainstream venues by respected scientists; it is a fringe science experiencing robust scientific review of papers published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals.--Gregory Goble (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please make yourself familiar with wp:RS, it is a core policy. While you are at it you might want to read wp:CIVIL.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. You're a good wikilawyer. Enough wikilawyering. Such appearances (slander) matter. Is this hard to understand?--Gregory Goble (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We have mentioning the NASA workshop, the CERN colloquium and the MIT short course "Cold Fusion 101." --POVbrigand (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

1989 MIT Patents - Cold Fusion

Proposed new section title - 1989 MIT Cold Fusion Patents

Shortly after the "claim by scientists from Utah and England that they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature" MIT filed patents for cold fusion in the U.S. --Gregory Goble (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that a whole section on 1989 cold fusion patents would be undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The important thing to note about patents is that anyone can patent almost anything - they don't prove that something works or is somehow government tested or even that the idea is original or belongs to the author (patents are challenged all the time). From Misplaced Pages's perspective, just about the only thing a patent is useful for is as proof of it's own existence. It doesn't even (necessarily) show that the author of the patent believed what he/she was saying. So I agree with IRWolfie - going into any detail about them beyond a brief mention that they exist is to give undue weight to documents that don't really convey much information. SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a patent is useful as proof of it's own existence, but also as a reliable source to describe the patented device and the claims of the applicant, if this is useful in the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Goble's isn't suggesting using patents as sources but having a section on them. Note that patents themselves are viewed as primary sources on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Yes, a patent is a primary source and there is nothing against using primary sources as long as you don't make your own synthesis with them. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And as long as due weight is established. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

...which is the entire problem here. People are going to read this and assume that all of these devices exist, work, are based on sound science, that the people who own them are active in the field - whatever. In truth, the existence of a patent doesn't prove any of those things because just about anyone can patent just about any harebrained scheme - workable or not. So patents really don't tell us anything about cold fusion - and giving weight to them is dangerous. SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, first filing on a patent amounts to little; proof of concept is when a patent becomes notable. I posted this information to illustrate that the MIT hot fusion folks discredited cold fusion while at the same time MIT files a patent on the theory of cold fusion and the provost of MIT releases a statement in support of cold fusion research. " We are pleased to see Professor Hagelstein proposing an explanation for 'cold fusion' and we are encouraging investigators both here and at other research institutions to continue their work on this most surprising phenomenon. " No wonder this article is in such a sorry state. At least now I can write a sentence "cold fusion/LENR science" and not get blasted with "It ain't science... just a bunch of crackpots practicing pathological science". Reference to opinions of cold fusion/LENR research not being science should be restricted to a history section. (opinions carry undue weight in this article) The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science should be recognized by WIKI as a quality, respected, peer reviewed scientific journal publishing papers in this art. Censorship should end and the discerning Wiki reader should be given reign instead of protection by editors. "don't tell us anything about cold fusion - and giving weight to them is dangerous." With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. Thanks for the source code.--Gregory Goble (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You are mixing the timeline. That NYT article is from April 13th. The Baltimore meeting that turned the tide of opinion was in May 1st. The negative results of MIT were presented in the Baltimore session, that's more than two weeks later "Among other major research groups that gave details today of experiments failing to validate the Pons-Fleischmann results were representatives of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (...)" . Did they realize the experiments were negative during those two weeks? Did MIT keep pursuing patents after the Baltimore session? Did Hagelstein continue pursuing the patents all by himself? What happened to those patents? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, yet I think not. I believe the tests had run, the provost and the theorist heard of or saw the data, the patents were filed, the falsification of the positive results took place, the MIT hot fusion funding continued (no net gain yet... good science), an MIT excecutive resigned over the falsification controversy, and cold fusion research continued in many labs following the provosts' request. I could be wrong, I'll get back to you on this after I finish sourcing it all. Hack Hack... excuse me. Got to get over this cold F. On top of it all, I am busily engaged in a social phenomenon. My Wiki works, does yours?--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Chemical & Engineering News article

in the May 14 issue of the Chemical & Engineering News published by the American Chemical Society there is an article of Cold Fusion titled "Reviving Cold Fusion".

Maybe somebody can get hold of this article, I assume it gives a good overview of the status of the field.

I think that the ACS is a mainstream science association and their periodical "Chemical & Engineering News" is an RS.

Before other editors complain about me "pushing POV", I would kindly ask them to read that article first. I believe it will make it much easier to understand the point I am trying to make.

Thank you --POVbrigand (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read it. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. It talks about some people who have founded companies in the area, mostly Rossi ("Rossi has been unable to patent the invention and he is reluctant to divulge scientific details. His actions are fueling speculation in some quarters that he is a con artist trying to pull off an elaborate get-rich-quick scheme."). Here is the link for those interested: . IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In Popular Culture - Cold Fusion

LENR Nonsense is Infecting More Respectable Educational Institutions This is an example of a contemporary popular culture view on cold fusion. Perhaps it could be included in this section. --Gregory Goble (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to have actually suggested anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well now let's see... Perhaps it could be included in this section (In popular culture)--Gregory Goble (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What should be included exactly? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This:

Claims of cold fusion are popularly used as parody in regards to science on the web, "LENR Nonsense is Infecting More Respectable Educational Institutions".

--Gregory Goble (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Race for cold fusion: Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern peer through the keyhole David Hambling, Wired.co.uk 27-Feb-2012
2. Darpa FY2013 Budget Estimates

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Selected anniversaries (March 2012)
• Articles on probation
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of High-importance
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press