Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:37, 9 March 2005

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles.

see Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 1

see Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 2

Peer review request

This seems a pretty decent and complete article; good work! I guess the only thing I think that it needs is a diagram for the "Experimental set-up and observations" section, showing the experimental setup. Also, in the lead section,, maybe there could be a little more expansion on why Cold Fusion would be such a good thing (tm) if it worked; I know it's mentioned, but perhaps it could be played up more? And for fun, Cold Fusion in the movies (I'm thinking of The Saint here...) — Matt 02:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree only about expanding the "would be a good thing if works" part. I think there's enough already, and putting too much in carries the taint of the pseudo-scientist who goes on and on about how wonderful the world will be once his anti-gravity/turn-tires-into-food/learn-calculus-while-you-sleep idea works out its last kinks. This balanced piece doesn't need that. - DavidWBrooks 15:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the lead was very clear about why it would be a good thing if it worked. But it still needs some help in making it clear that currently it doesn't work. I think I made a couple edits that moved more towards that, but let me know what you think. - Taxman 23:11, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Although I would hardly pretend to be a peer, I would not be able to recommend this article for serious recognition. As a physics major, any lecturer I have had as looked down on cold fusion. It certainly isn't consensus opinion, as acknowledged in the article. As such I would like to see a lot more objectifity. Unfortuanetly the article seems to be fighting a battle for cold fusion, which of course an encyclopedia article shouldn't --Fermion 05:12, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC).

Net release of energy?

Pcarbonn, I removed consistently, because I wasn't aware of any experiments that were even an attempt at a verifiable setup that had claimed a large net release of energy. What reputed scientist have claimed a large net release of energy for even a few of their tries? I do like the addition of convincingly because clearly none of them have been able to convince many people that the results were real. - Taxman 12:19, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether you talk of net release over the full duration of the experiment, or during temporary power burst. I have not seen any report of the first type, but many of the second type, using electrolytic cells. Many have seen both "power burst" during which the output heat significantly exceeds the input electricity. This is not explainable with conventional science. Some have also observed nuclear ashes at the same time. However, these experiments are not reproducible in a consistent manner: this is the only reason why there are not convincing. Pcarbonn 13:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Over the whole experiment is the only thing that matters for a net release, otherwise it would be useless as an energy production method. From start point to ending if more energy is not released than the total amount input, then there is no net release. A power burst during certain parts of the experiment, but overall no more production than input is just some kind of as-yet-unexplained storage, as mentioned later in the article. - Taxman 14:10, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Reproducibility of the result

The last bit of this section seems to be just a commentary, not a statement of fact, and I'm not sure that it's necessary:

Criticism of experimental data should not be based on reproducibility, it should be based on credentials of researchers and, above all, on examination of methodologies they use in particular investigations. An experimental claim, however, can not be taken for granted without one hundred percent reproducibility.

It's the word should that rings alarm bells. Whose point of view is this? Who says that the researcher's credentials are more important than the reproducibility of his results? The second sentence looks as if it was tacked on as an answer to the first, in which case we have a dialogue here, not a statement. -- Heron 13:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone here wrote:

Criticism of experimental data should not be based on reproducibility, it should be based on credentials of researchers and, above all, on examination of methodologies they use in particular investigations. An experimental claim, however, can not be taken for granted without one hundred percent reproducibility.

That is incorrect. Many experimental results are taken for granted without 100% reproducibility. For example, the success rate for most transistor production lines in the mid-1950s was well below 50%, and for some devices it was below 10% but no one questioned the existence of the transitor. Reproducibility for cloning mammals today varies from 0.1 to 3%, but no one doubts that cloning does work. (See http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/cloningrisks/). A few modern experiments, such as the top quark findings at Fermilab, have not been replicated at all, and no attempt to replicate them is planned, because the experiments cost so much money, and because it would be impossible to duplicate the Fermilab equipment for an independent test. However, the results are accepted by most scientists despite these limitations.

In cold fusion, the transmutation results reported by Iwamura et al. (Mitsubishi) cannot be independently replicated in full because the experimental apparatus costs roughly $20 million and requires a team of experts to operate. However the results have been confirmed by other labs in Japan, Italy and France using their own mass spectrometers. Confirmation is not the same as replication, but it does enhance confidence in the results.

- Jed

Nationalities

We aren't trying to blame this whole thing on Americans, are we? Martin Fleischmann FRS is a Briton (Imperial College, Southampton University) of Czech birth. I couldn't immediately see a non-clumsy way to put in both nationalities, so I just deleted the wrong attribution, pending work by someone who cares. Dandrake 00:00, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Andries was trying to correct a bias in the article. When the research was in America the article says "so and so at such and such university" but if the research is not in the US it says " swedish scientist so and so" or "german scientists" and no university name. This kind of pedantism is occuring because I put the article up as a candidate for featured article theresa knott 04:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for my bad edit. I agree that it is a minor thing but calling it pedantism, ehhhh I have to think about it. Andries 05:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about "constructive pedantry"? I withdraw the two facetious bits in my comment, but I'm still not sure what the right wording would be. If this be pedantry, make the most of it— an American allusion that ought to be illuminated by the Patrick Henry article, but I see that it isn't. Yet. Dandrake 06:00, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean pedantism in a bad way. Pedantism in an encylopedia article is a good thing IMO. theresa knott 16:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The intro

IMHO the intro is too long and not clear enough; but then, I don't like long intro sections, and most people do, it seems.

More to the point, the change by Stevenj went too far in avoiding the implication that cold fusion is an established fact. It is established, in the impractical form of muon-catalyzed fusion, but not in the Fleischmann-Pons version. Dandrake 07:59, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

A little more neutral please

As written the beginning seems reasonably neutral, but deeper into the article it becomes clear it was written by a Cold Fusion supporter.

Some suggestions for improvement:

• Use the word "reported" rather than "observed", if there's no way for an independant reviewer to know what was really observed.

• Try not to assume that whatever is being observed is necessarily "fusion". Weird electrochemisty is interesting even if there's no breakthrough in nuclear physics involved. (It's all very well to say that data is more important than theory, but the very name "cold fusion" is making a theoretical assertion.)

-- Doom 20:26, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Confusing phrase

In the third paragraph of the introduction, we find the phrase "produces only small but hard to manage amounts of radioactive waste". I'm having trouble discerning the intent here. Did the author mean to say that the waste, though small in quantity, was especially hard to manage? If so, it doesn't clearly belong in a list of advantages. But perhaps the writer meant "small amounts of hard to manage radioactive waste", in which case the "hard to manage" qualification feels unnecessary: it's clear from context that radioactive waste is bad.

I think I favor "produces only small amounts of radioactive waste" here, but without knowing the writer's intent I'm reluctant to edit.

pseudoscience -> pathological science_pathological_science">

These aren't quite the same thing.

I agree, whoever you are. A little explication would do some good, though it might require a pointer to a more throrough treatment that probably hasn't been written yet. With or without the "pathological" label, there should be a clearer distinction here between science badly practiced (of which F&P have been accused) and pseudoscience, a charge that can hardly be made against them but is made against the later attempts to salvage something from their experiments. Dandrake 17:33, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Seemingly good edits by anon, reverted by another anon with no edit summary

The following edit reverted material, but I did not know what of it was valid: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cold_fusion&diff=5426435&oldid=5424946 I may move back in the parts that seem reasonable if I have a chance, but I would like to see what other's think. Clearly a POV was being pushed by this revert. - Taxman 14:38, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Off with its head. Watch for that correct change of a bracket, though. I'd put a ref to the Talk page in the submission note, though of course your standard one-shot anonym would never read that. Dandrake 17:27, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

For clarity, here is the material removed by the anon. It has partially been put back in since, but it seems there is a bit more information here, especially the quote by P&F and the journal citation. I am not familiar enough with the experiments to add it back myself:

Pons and Fleishmann also reported in their 1989 Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry publication that "We have to report here that under the conditions of the last experiment even using D₂O alone, a substantial portion of the cathode fused (melting point 1554 °C) part of it vapourised and the cell and contents and a part of the fume cupboard housing the experiment were destroyed."

Michael Salamon, a University of Utah physicist, and his research group were allowed into Pons' lab to observe his electrochemical cells in the months after the initial reports of cold fusion were made. During the five weeks Salomon's group observed the cells, none of the nuclear emissions which Pons had reported to have been emitted in earlier experiments were observed. Salamon et. al. reported this negative result in the journal Nature on the first anniversary of the initial press release

It would seem both of these points would be fairly easy to fact check and to put back in if correct. - Taxman 22:48, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. The report of the exploding cell was circulated widely, and there's no doubt about that—the report, not the explosion. Salomon's visit is described in some detail in Too Hot to Handle, pages 310-311 or so. If anyone has a rebuttal to this, we need to hear it; meanwhile, the text belongs in the article. Dandrake 04:18, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

2.45 MeV neutrons?

What's the source for the statement about 2.45-MeV neutrons from conventional fusion (in Experimental Setup)? F&P didn't have any equipment for a neutron energy spectrum. Their report of neutron production was based on gamma radiation from absorption of neutrons by hydrogen in the water. Their initial report put that peak at 2.5 MeV; physicists pointed out that that's the wrong figure; their published report put the peak at 2.2 MeV, the right value. This is from Close's book, which of course is out of date. But anyone with a Chemical Rubber handbook and a spreadsheet can confirm that gamma energy in a few minutes. Dandrake 18:06, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I put that edit in. F&P did claim that their experiment produced 2.45 MeV neutrons, a claim allegedly based on gamma ray detection (http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/fringe_science/fusion.html the J Electroanalytical Chem article in which they did so). A relevant quote:

"3) Fig. 1A illustrates the gamma-ray spectra which have been recorded in regions above the water bath adjacent to the electrolytic cells and this spectrum confirms that 2.45 MeV neutrons are indeed generated in the electrodes by reaction (vi). These gamma-rays are generated by the reaction (vii). "

I was attempting to describe what they initially claimed to observe. I now realize that the parenthetical statement after that is incorrect- it was foolish of me to expect they'd gotten that right. That was, however, the reason P&F included that bit of experimental 'evidence'.

They may well have changed their story in a later publication, but I was intending to describe the original report.- 130.20.71.114 19:00 Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Aha, that explains it. Thanks for the citation. There's a comment in Close's book to the effect that the physicists had to explain to P & F that the energy of the neutrons was not relevant to the reaction that yields gammas or to the gamma energy; this seemed to me quite cryptic. The reference you provided makes it clear where they were assuming that it was related. And that's how they were inferring the 2.45 MeV energy without having any means for direct measurement of neutron energies. It follows that this report of neutrons with the proper energy was simply wrong (apart from their getting the gamma energy wrong), a non-sequitur. The easiest and most informative step from here is to note the error; so I've done it. Dandrake 04:31, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Sparging

Why is the bubbling of gas to stir the solution referred to as sparging? (In the experimental setup section) What's being done there has nothing to do with sparging as described in the Misplaced Pages entry. Plain "bubbling" would be both clearer and more accurate, if there's not some good reason for the other term. Dandrake 07:28, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "What's being done there has nothing to do with sparging"?

Easy there. No offence meant. My evidence is the Misplaced Pages article on sparging, which says nothing of using bubbles to achieve mixing. It seems to me that the removal of anything from the system (as implied by the sparging article) was the exact opposite of what they needed to do, given the danger of explosion if the liquid level got too low. Of course if F & P used the term, that settles it; I'm not teaching chemists their subject. But the two articles at the moment are confusingly inconsistent, as a non-chemist will find out if he conscientiously tries to find out what this "sparging" stuff is. As you say, the sparging article needs to be amended. (Unless someone who knows these things says that F & P's usage was non-standard, which would call for different changes.) BTW there surely can't be copyright issues with a link to the article? It would be a fine thing to have. Dandrake 18:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm a chemist but not an experimentalist, so I'm not exactly an expert, but my understanding and interpretation is that sparging in this context refers to the action of bubbling an inert gas through a liquid. I don't think it is specific to doing so for a particular purpose as was implied in the previous edit of the sparging page. In my very brief time doing experimental work we called it sparging when we bubbled nitrogen through refluxing solvents to remove dissolved oxygen gas. (This method isn't perfect, but removes very nearly all the oxygen over the course of a few days.) I do not believe that allowing the bubbles created at the cathode to leave the solution would be classified as sparging, however, and that interpretation doesn't match the context of P&F's claim that gas sparging was used "where necessary".

Except for this, I've never heard of using sparging as a stirring method, but I'm far from an expert so I can't state whether or how often it is used for that purpose. However, lack of adequate stirring was a major criticism leveled at P&F by a number of experimental electrochemists, including Nate Lewis. This was later considered by a majority of chemists to be a non-fusion explanation of the thermochemical data which purported to show excess heat- there was no excess heat, just an inadequately stirred cell which was hotter near the thermometer than elsewhere.

What I meant about copyright is that I'm suspicious that the person hosting the link I referred to above is doing so in violation of copyright, though I have no evidence either way. Perhaps putting the link on the main page is okay anyhow, I'm just not sure what the usual practice here is. Put it in if you like.

I also updated the sparging wiki page, I'm not entirely happy with it but it's what I know on the subject. 130.20.71.114 21:10, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Now I see the point. (I seem to be saying that a lot currently. That's science for you.) And F & P's application of the the term doesn't contradict the one-sentence definition that introduces sparging. I may want to stick a "(bubbling)" into the text, though, as the technical word is so unfamiliar and doesn't seem to convey a lot more. As to copyright, I agree that we con't want links to copyvio pages; it would have to be checked before it'sa allowed into the article. Dandrake 17:40, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

I find that the site has a reasonable copyright policy; good enough, anyway, that linking to them should be acceptable. So I've added one, whcih should be zapped if anyone finds out the policy is misleading. Dandrake 01:01, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

There's an excellent reason to refer to it as sparging: that was the method P&F actually reported that they used to stir the cells. From the J Electroanal Chem article above, here's a quote which I originally put into the page in my 01:36, 25 Aug 2004 edit (but which was subsequently reverted):

"Stirring in these experiments (and in those listed under 1)) was achieved, where necessary, by gas sparging using electrolytically generated D₂."

In my second attempt to get this information included on the page I avoided using quotations, as that seems not to be the style used here.

You are correct that the wiki definition of sparging doesn't match the pre-edit description of (lack of) stirring, but the edit to describe the process used as sparging was a correction rather than a clarification. The production of bubbles on the cathode is not sparging- the original version of the page was in error. Not even P&F made the incredible claim the older version of this page did, that "the bubbling action of the gas kept the electrolyte well mixed and of a uniform temperature". It may well be that P&F never actually sparged there cells at all ("where necessary" is quite ambiguous) but they did include that sentence, presumably to anticipate objections concerning inadequate stirring. The "where necessary" part of the article revision was taken explicitly from the P&F quote above. It would be nice to link the P&F article in the article rather than here in the discussion, but I'm concerned about copyright issues.

The wiki definition of sparging should probably be updated as well. 130.20.71.114 16:45, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Reproducibility and all

The article has a presentation of reproducibility and other issues that's disjointed and confused; in effect, the article argues with itself, which is a too-common parody of NPOV. I'd have voted negative on WP:FAC if I hadn't been occupied elsewhere; but it has benefitted from all the attention, so who can figure?

I'm trying to work out a treatment of what reproducibility is about, briefer than the main article (or than it ought to be) and in context, for the reader who doesn't have much background. I find it easy to give examples of work that had no good theory behind it, was easily reproduced, and was accepted by the community; radioactivity will do, with its apparent violation of conservation of energy. From the same period there's a classic of work that had no theory, was not widely reproducible, was not generally accepted, and turned out to be spurious: N-rays. To show how the scientific process works, I'm looking for a good example of a contrasting situation: no theory, initially poor reproducibility, general non-acceptance, and eventual vindication and acceptance. Continental drift has some of that quality, but the problem wasn't reproducibility, really. Does anyone have a good example? I presume that the cold-fusion literature would provide something, but I haven't run into it. Dandrake 01:18, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

That's a tough one, which fact also speaks volumes about science and recognizing pseudoscience. I think some of Galileo's observations were difficult to reproduce with the technology of the time, and they were unexpected (no theory). A special case is the rings of Saturn, which he observed, but they were gone when he looked again several months later (because they happened to be edge on then). Superconductivity might also qualify. There was certainly no theory, and few labs could produce the temperatures required. Meterorites might meet your criteria, or ball lightning, but hard-to-observe-because-rare-and-transient is not the same as poorly reproducible. Art Carlson 14:52, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

Thanks, an interesting set of examples. There's a certain appeal in the Galileo observations, because there was an initial skepticism that could be justified by the difficulty of the obervations; then, within a year, the instruments got better, and acceptance was general even in those unenlightened old days before there was Philosophy of Science; and there was an ongoing, fairly small, number of holdouts on less than rational grounds. Maybe this can be worked up. Dandrake 20:31, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I would recommend a read of Jed Rothwells comments on Cold Fusion and the Wright Brothers in sci.physics.fusion, about mid-1990's. click here for a usenet search for that on Google. He brought up the subject of the Wright brothers many times, and it must be said that it is remarkable how they were ignored, even three years after the fact in Scientific American. see for example this post by Jed Rothwell. Ah, and here's a published article by Jed Rothwell on this very subject in Infinite Energy Magazine: The Wright Brothers and Cold Fusion --L 2004-10-06

Observed excess heat

Removing the following paragraph:

A team at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command has succeeded in taking infra-red video of cells generating heat, and reported that this heat was in excess of the input energy. They found that the heat was generated in localized and short-lived hot spots on the surface of the electrode, rather than evenly throughout the electrode.

This has no visible relevance to the section. If anyone finds a better place, in the context of some dispute to which it's material, please fix. Dandrake 22:54, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

See:

Szpak, S., et al. Polarized D+/Pd-D2O System: Hot Spots and “Mini-Explosions”. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSpolarizedd.pdf

See also PowerPoint slides for same, and movie clip from IR camera, here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm

weak argument

to summarize the pro fusion argument: some experements show excess heat, but this has not been proven. However, current physics knowlege is that huge initialization energy is required (its also suspicious that the counterargument to this is that current understanding of fusion physics is wrong). Also, electrolysis of heavy water is just oxidation and reduction, a chemical reaction involving valance electrons, which has nothing to do with nuclear reaction and nuclear forces. Also, "generaly cold, localy hot", is misleading because its hot fussion on a microscopic scale, and the only example of generaly cold fussion has nothing to do with electrolytic fussion (so there is really only one established prcess by which this can occur). Has a person with a physics or chemistry degree looked at this and found the pro argument convincing? 209.197.155.118

DOE report

The DOE report recently added can be used to improve the NPOV and factual correctness of this article. It asked for the best available data and evidence from the specified proponents of cold fusion and then peer reviewed it in a few ways. A 5 page summary pdf is available here. An important excerpt is the following:

"Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented." (Page 3)

I suppose it is interesting to note that at least one of the reviewers was swayed by the evidence and did accept that there was some effect beyond the "ordinary chemical or solid state sources". Overall, two thirds of the reviewers did not find the evidence compelling, one did, and the rest were somewhat convinced.

For the second review question, the standout quote is "The reviewers raised serious concerns regarding the assumptions postulated in the proposed theoretical model for the explanation for HE production"

Good stuff. - Taxman 03:23, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

As someone who knows almost nothing about the subject, I'm asking that the article be made more clear with regard to the recent DOE work. It says that DOE decided in March 2004 to conduct a review. I'm not clear about the "unofficial Summary Paper" (and I'm having some problems with .pdf files at the moment): Was this an explanation in March of why the review would go forward? Or is it part of the December 2004 report on the review, mentioned at the end of the section on "Current understanding of physics"? Why was it "unofficial"? Also, there's POV in introducing a quotation favorable to cold fusion by noting what it "clearly states" -- the word "clearly" is emphasizing the part that fits the writer's POV. More important is that the DOE material shouldn't be quoted selectively. The skeptical comments noted by Taxman above should also be included. I suggest that the date of the decision to conduct the review is now unimportant, unless the "unofficial Summary Paper" came well before December. Would it be accurate to say this:

In 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a review of all previous research of cold fusion in order to see whether further research was warranted by any new results. Its unofficial Summary Paper stated: "The experimental evidence for anomalies in metal deuterides, including excess heat and nuclear emissions, suggests the existence of new physical effects". It recognized indirect evidence in support of the D + D --> He + 23.8 MeV (heat) reaction, although the measurement of He quantity was imprecise.

The same paragraph would also present the skeptical portions noted by Taxman. JamesMLane 00:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note that the DoE did not publish the actual commments made by the review panel members, but the New Energy Times and LENR-CANR did. They are here:

2004 US Department of Energy Cold fusion Review Reviewer Comments.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf

130 papers were submitted to the DoE by cold fusion researchers during the review. They are listed here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf

Full text versions of 41 of these papers are available here:

http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm

external links

I have trimmed several external links to news articles about cold fusion developments. (We could probably trim more!) They were repetitive and superseded by events, and[REDACTED] isn't a link farm. In general, links should be limited to deep background or source information. - DavidWBrooks 18:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 01:49, 27 Dec 2004 edit removing a section and leaving a link

While it's true that the page is quite long, I must disagree with Susurrus' removal of the "Arguments in the controversy" section for a number of reasons (Indeed, I think such a dramatic change in a feature article probably should have been mentioned here first):
First, if sub-pages are decided to be appropriate, I believe that the section heading should remain and a summary paragraph should remain in the main body- A good example of this might be the United States Constitution page has sub-pages for Preamble to the United States Constitution and United States Bill of Rights but retains a summary giving the gist of the material along with a link.
Secondly, the choice of which material should go onto a sub-page seems inappropriate to me- the arguments in the controversy section is the most important part of the article, and should remain on the main page. I would prefer to see almost any other section be summarized- perhaps the "Experimental Setup and Observations" which is rather technical and the "continuing Efforts" which is mostly a list of people rather than an explanation.
Finally, although I obviously don't know what Susurrus' motivations are, I believe there is an appearance of bias in this action of the removal of most of the skeptical material to a poorly labelled, easy to overlook link while keeping all of the nonskeptical material in the main body of the article. --Noren 17:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reference to original cold fusion paper

Prior reference linked to an incomplete version of the document. See Pg9 (Errata) for explanation of "Hawkins." -sk

Ratio?

>deuterium/palladium ratio of 100% (i.e., one deuterium atom for each palladium atom)

Isn't this a ratio of 50%?

Ratio in this context means no. of deuterium atoms divided by no. of palladium atoms. This ratio is definitely 1 (or 100%) in that context. Another figure would be eg. no. of deuterium atoms vs. no. of total atoms present. This would be 50% as you mentioned. richardb 12:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hidden Chemistry

David, Any particular reason that you reverted my addition to the Cold Fusion main page (Hidden Chemistry)? Kirk Shanahan (new Misplaced Pages user - KirkShanahan)

Yes - I apologize for not putting a discussion on the Talk page; I was having[REDACTED] problems and the system kept timing out on me.

Your posting was way, way too long. It was more appropriate for a research publication or a Web forum; this is supposed to be an overview encyclopedia article, not an in-depth analysis of all old, new and potentially relevant research findings. You can imagine what would happen if every research lab in the world that has new data relating to cold fusion were to put in three or four paragraphs about its work here - the article would be so enormous that no browser could handle it, and no human being could read it.

If you think this work is truly new, signifcant and informative enough to make the level of this article, then one or two sentences - no more, please! - and an "external link" at the bottom would be appropriate. But in a field as cutting-edge as this, new research should be approached with extreme caution: should we perhaps wait until it gets more supporting tests from others?

By the way, why not create an account, so you can sign and time stamp your entries? No personal information needs to be given out, if you prefer. - DavidWBrooks 19:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok - when I printed out the Misplaced Pages page on CF for my files, it was 11 pages long, and only about 3/4 of a page was my contribution, so I didn't think I had been excessive. I wanted to let Wiki's readers know that there is an actual chemical explanation of CF out there, and to give a brief overview of it. As well, I pointed to the newsgroup and literature which is many, many pages to read.

What do I need to do to my section to get it included? - Kirk Shanahan

Suggest you solicit information from the cold fusion researchers

I work as an editor and translator for a group of roughly 200 retired scientists and university professors who are working on cold fusion energy. I maintain a web page on the subject:

http://lenr-canr.org/

The article here in Misplaced Pages on cold fusion is generally good, but contrary to your published policy it does express some strongly partisan points of view. This is probably unavoidable. Cold fusion is a very contentious field, and most professional scientists believe the effect does not exist. Although your article is more open-minded and comprehensive than statements published by the Scientific American and some other mainstream journals, cold fusion researchers who have evaluated it tell me they feel it is biased.

Some of my colleagues have attempted to change the article, but these changes have been deleted by skeptics. I understand that you can "lock" articles, making them read-only, and you can impose a measure of informal editing or peer-review. Because cold fusion is so controversial, and there is such hostile skeptical opposition to it, and because those who support it are a small minority in the scientific community, I suggest you lock this article. Mr. Brooks tells me articles are seldom locked, and it would require of contentious debate before a decision to protect one can be made. That is fine. There is no rush. I suggest you consider the matter for as long as you feel necessary.

I am in contact with all of the major researchers in this field, including the discoverer Professor Martin Fleischmann. If you can offer reassurances that contributions written by these researchers will not be erased or defaced, I would be happy to write material and solicit material from them directly that would represent their research more accurately than the present article does. I also have a large database of 3100 papers in EndNote format, which makes it easy for me to produce a well-documented review. Here is what I propose to do:

I will write a revised version of your article, but before I upload it, I will circulate it to the researchers whose papers I cite in the footnotes, to confirm that I have accurately described their work.

I will not delete any of the skeptical comments now in your article, although I may modify them slightly for clarity and to indicate that they are, in fact, skeptical. I would be happy to circulate the draft to whoever wrote the skeptical comments to be sure their point of view is accurately represented.

This would be a lot of work. Frankly I am not inclined to do it unless a consensus emerges here that it would be a good idea, and the Misplaced Pages powers that be agree to . You cannot expect someone like Fleischmann to submit comments that might be trashed or erased.80 year-old retired professors do not operate by those rules -- if you want information from them you must accommodate their demands and customs.

Of course they and I welcome any corrections, editing or peer review, but I will not spend weeks on an article that may be summarily erased without warning.

Perhaps I am asking for assurances that the Misplaced Pages community does not wish to make, or cannot make. In that case, I will drop the subject.

Here is one example of what I think needs to be said. The article now reads:

"Energy source vs power store

While the output power is higher than the input power during the power burst, the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalances. Since the mechanism under the power burst is not known, one cannot say whether energy is really produced, or simply stored during the early stages of the experiment (loading of deuterium in the Palladium cathode) for later release during the power burst.

A "power store" discovery would yield only a new, and very expensive, kind of storage battery, not a source of abundant cheap fusion power."

I would change that to something along these lines:

Skeptics claim that while the output power is higher . . .

. . .

Cold fusion researchers point out a number of flaws in this argument:

1. There is no significant chemical fuel was present in the solution. The potential chemical energy and chemical storage of cells has been carefully inventoried and it shown to be less than 500 joules, whereas cold fusion cells have produced between 50 and 300 million joules.

2. No chemical process can produce (or store) more than 10 eV per atom of reactant, whereas many cold fusion reactions have produced between 1,000 and 100,000 eV per atom.

3. Many cells have produced significant excess heat after a short incubation period, so if there were energy storage, it would show up quite clearly as an energy deficit (an endothermic reaction). Small endothermic reaction such as the initial formation of palladium deuteride are readily observable with most calorimeters. For example, with some cells, about a week after the experiment begins, 10% to 30% excess heat begins and it continues for about a month continuously. If this were caused by a storage mechanism, there would have to be an energy deficit large enough to capture all of the heat during the one-week start up phase. Roughly 60% of the input energy would have to be absorbed by the palladium, presumably in the formation of an exotic deuteride. As far as anyone knows, this scenario is chemically impossible, and there is absolutely no evidence that such deuterides have been formed, but if they were, the 60% deficit would show as clearly as the 30% positive excess does.

4. Some cold fusion reactions have started up with little or no incubation time, sometimes as short as 20 minutes, and many occur without any significant input energy, especially with gas-loaded, cavitation and ion-beam loading , or with finely divided (powder) metal targets.

. . . and so on.

Please let me know if you would be interested in a contribution of this nature.

Sincerely,

Jed Rothwell

JedRothwell@mindspring.com

Thank you for your comments! I hope that with your help we can improve this article, removing some of its bias (without replacing it by counter-bias, of course) and making it more informative. However, we must work within the limitations of (and take advantage of) the Wiki environment.

"Locking" or protecting a page is really a last-resort, temporary measure, designed to let edit wars cool off rather than to fix a page in a "correct" state (after all, how would new discoveries be merged?). It is generally agreed to be a very destructive act to the Wiki in general (for example, frustrated editors may make inappropriate changes to other pages - in this case, edit wars might spill over to fusion power).

As you say, distinguished scientists are not accustomed to having their work mercilessly edited and modified. However, this is not the correct place to put their original writings anyway. Misplaced Pages's Misplaced Pages:No original research policy explicitly forbids this sort of thing - after all, original research does not belong in an encyclopedia. What I would suggest is that you write up your article, as you suggest; it could be based on the Misplaced Pages text or not, as you prefer, and then post it in some other location. You or others could then edit this article, using (and referring to) yours as an authoritative reference. Of course, this article could be edited again by others, but it's very difficult to make a wild claim stand when it contradicts a concretely-referenced fact.

Alternatively, simply providing concrete references to papers contradicting what's in the article now (here on the Talk page, say) would probably spur users here into amending the article. For example, if you could give specific references for points 1 through 4 above (ideally in the form of web links, even if only to journals accessible only to subscribers, but many of us do have access to university libraries) I for one would be happy to try to merge them into the article.

If you feel that you are making edits well-supported by references, and they are still being ripped out, we have various dispute-resolution mechanisms, the first of which is simply to post here discussing the specific change.

In short, we cannot "lock" your edits in as the Final Word, but if you (or someone, anyway) provide concrete references, they are unlikely to be removed. If you feel a particular edit has introduced bias (or re-introduced), please discuss it here.

I hope we can take advantage of your knowledge, one way or another. This article could certainly stand to be improved! --Andrew 16:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Archibald wrote:

As you say, distinguished scientists are not accustomed to having their work mercilessly edited and modified.

Actually, they are. they fight like cats and dogs. Any researcher still working on cold fusion has very thick skin. That is not the problem. What bothers them about this kind of article is:

Accountability; they want to know who wrote this stuff. They do not care whether people have PhDs, but they want your return address.

Rigor. This article makes many statements which are not footnoted and not in evidence (as far as I know).

Accuracy. Many of the statements in this article are contradicted by textbook physics and chemistry. If I were to write something like this and then circulate it for comments, they would tell me: "do your homework! Don't bother me with a half-baked paper!"

"However, this is not the correct place to put their original writings anyway. Misplaced Pages's Misplaced Pages:No original research policy explicitly forbids this sort of thing - after all, original research does not belong in an encyclopedia."

I propose to summarize the present research in layman's terms.

"What I would suggest is that you write up your article, as you suggest; it could be based on the Misplaced Pages text or not, as you prefer, and then post it in some other location."

I have written and ghost written many papers, and posted them at LENR-CANR.org, but most are not for the layman, and they are too long and detailed for an encyclopedia entry.

Alternatively, simply providing concrete references to papers contradicting what's in the article now (here on the Talk page, say) would probably spur users here into amending the article. For example, if you could give specific references for points 1 through 4 above (ideally in the form of web links, even if only to journals accessible only to subscribers, but many of us do have access to university libraries) I for one would be happy to try to merge them into the article.

I could do that. I would be happy to make a few other suggestions.

- Jed

(edit conflict)

Firstly Welcome to wikipedia! We always welcome well referenced material but not original research. So provided the facts that you state above have been published in a reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal than yes please! However you have been misinformed about page locking. We don't lock pages. We never have done, and there are no plans to do so in the immediate future (although long term who knows?)Perhaps you have been confused by page protection. We sometimes protect a page from vandalism or edit warring (where two opposing factions repeatedly edit the article to their preferred point of view instead of trying to come up with a neutral point of view that they may not love but can both live with)but this is only ever a temporary measure - a few days to a couple of weeks at most. We have found that out controversial policy of allowing everyone and anyone to edit, generally produces a better, more neutral, more informative article than anything a panel of experts can produce. If you live with the very real possibility (no probability) that anything you add will be edited to kingdom come, then we welcome you with open arms. If OTOH an open environment where literally anyone can edit is not for you, then we understand. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 17:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa Knott wrote:

"So provided the facts that you state above have been published in a reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal than yes please!"

Yes, they are. I was going to mention that the article as written does not meet that standard. Many of the assertions and it are not documented, and some are contradicted by the literature.

Well that's excellent news, because i agree, the article needs improving.

"However you have been misinformed about page locking. We don't lock pages."

D. Brooks and Wired magazine say you do in rare cases. I believe the special nature of cold fusion -- the fact that it is so controversial and there is so much misinformation about it -- make it a good candidate for locking. Perhaps some other method can be devised. You might have two articles about cold fusion, one written by experts which cannot be changed, and the other written by your usual methods.

The "rare cases" are pages like the main page (because if it gets vandalised our visitors may get a very strange impression of[REDACTED] "did you know: that paul is gaaaaaayyyyy!!! Ha I am an uber1337 haxor!" doesn't go down too well. As far as I am aware none of our articles are permanently locked.

"We have found that out controversial policy of allowing everyone and anyone to edit, generally produces a better, more neutral, more informative article than anything a panel of experts can produce."

The article about cold fusion is better than most, but it is highly opinionated from my point of view, and it has many technical errors and facts not in evidence. I think a panel of experts could do a better job, but they will not do it unless you let them work the way they are accustomed to.

I understand where you are comimg from. Many academics do not take to the Misplaced Pages way of editing at all. But some do, and we always want more. But we do not give special treatment to anyone I'm afraid. I'll explain why below.

"If you live with the very real possibility (no probability) that anything you add will be edited to kingdom come, then we welcome you with open arms."

No, I cannot ask the researchers to contribute on that basis, and I myself am not willing to spend a month on that kind of project. If you would like a more technically accurate article on cold fusion you will have to adjust the rules somewhat, and make this section more like a conventional journal or encyclopedia. I do not know how flexible your methods are, and I am certainly not here to tell you how to run this web site. If you are allowed to improvise new rules for a peculiar situation I recommend you do so.

- Jed

No we wont do that, for the following reason. When Jimbo started Misplaced Pages he started another encylopedia at the same time. It was called Nupedia. Nupedia was much more traditional, your article would be reviewed by a panal of experts who would pass it (or fail it) based on thier opinion of it's accuracy tone etc. Nupedia in principle sounded great. But in practise it was a dismal failure. Meanwhile Misplaced Pages has grown from nothing into a pretty darn good encylopedia in the space of 3 years. It's not perfect, many of our aticles need a lot more work to be up to the best possible standard, but we are getting there, and we are better than many other encylopedias already. We are not going to change our working practices that have served us so well so far. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa Knott wrote:

"No we wont do that, for the following reason. When Jimbo started Misplaced Pages he started another encylopedia at the same time."

I suggest that the situation with cold fusion calls for a unique approach. Your procedures and rules may work well in most cases, but flexibility is called for in this case. I see no reason why you should dogmatically stick to one and only one approach, without regard to unique circumstances, history, or social factors. A one-size-fits-all editoral policy is too restrictive, in my opinion.

"It's not perfect, many of our articles need a lot more work to be up to the best possible standard, but we are getting there, and we are better than many other encyclopedias already."

Most may be good, but this one is not. I agree it is better than other encyclopedias -- I said so in the introduction -- but I have pointed out some major flaws that could be fixed.

I think I have stated my case pretty clearly, so I will not trouble you by reiterating it.

- Jed

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists