Talk:Cold fusion
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Cold fusion is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
see Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 1
see Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 2
| Contents |
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)
- Taxman writes:
- 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.
- Several hundred reputable scientists have claimed a large net excess energy release, ranging from ~500 kJ to 600 MJ. I am not sure what a "verifiable setup" means, but in any case the instruments used to measure heat are called calorimeters. Many different types have been used, including some of the most sensitive large-scale macroscopic calorimeters ever devised (with 20 mW precision) and microcalorimeters. Calorimeters are mature and well-understood instruments. Most of the calorimeters used in cold fusion studies are static (or isoperibolic) designs devised by J. P. Joule in the 1840s. Electronic thermocouples or thermistors replace mercury thermometers, but in other respects the instrument is the same. Some are mass-flow calorimeters circa 1900, and others are of the Seebeck design, circa 1940. (Bomb calorimeters and other types have also been used.)
- Excess power as a percent of input ranges from 5% to 300%, except in cases where there is no input power (gas loading or heat after death), in which case all detectable heat must be caused by the cold fusion effect, because there is only a negligible amount of chemical fuel in a cell (enough to produce ~500 joules in a typical cell).
- Excess heat is not the only evidence that a reaction takes place. Cells also produce helium, tritium, charged particles, transmutations, and in some instances gamma rays. These can only be produced by a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction. The preponderance of evidence points to a nuclear fusion reaction.
- For a short review and a summary of this evidence see: http://lenr-canr.org/StudentsGuide.htm
- - Jed Rothwell
- 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)
- Pcarbon writes: "I guess it depends on whether you talk of net release over the full duration of the experiment, or during temporary power burst." All successful cold fusion experiments produce far more heat over the full course of the experiment than the total input energy. Furthermore, there has never been a reported case in which a cell "stored up" energy endothermically, except during the formation of palladium hydride. This absorbs only a tiny amount of energy; thousands of times less than cold fusion routinely produces. Pcarbon continues: "I have not seen any report of the first type, but many of the second type, using electrolytic cells." I have never seen a report of the second type describing a "temporary power burst." Pcabon should please specify what author and title he or she has in mind.
- - Jed Rothwell
- 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)
- Taxman writes: "From start point to ending if more energy is not released than the total amount input, then there is no net release." Correct. And in all cases, there is always a net release. As far as I know, there has never been a single instance of significant energy storage. In any case, no chemical reaction can either store or release hundreds of megajoules per mole of material. If there were energy storage, it would be very easy to detect, just as the energy release is. The calorimeter would show a negative balance (an endothermic reaction). This never happens. During most experiments excess heat generation lasts longer than the initial phase, so the initial phase would have a stronger endothermic reaction than the following exothermic reaction. Furthermore, in some experiments, overall energy output is far greater than all input energy. In some experiments, with gas loading an other techniques, there is no input energy. So I think we can safely conclude that the energy storage hypothesis is ruled out. In fact, we could have safely concluded that any time after September 1989, so it is odd that skeptics still make this claim. I think they should read the literature more carefully, and stop beating dead horses.
- - Jed Rothwell
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 even though reproducibility is much less than 100%. 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% [Riordan & Hoddeson] 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 works, and the results are real. (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)
- Doom writes: ". . . deeper into the article it becomes clear it was written by a Cold Fusion supporter." Obviously these statements are written by cold fusion supporters. This is like saying that the Wikipedia article on Japanese grammar is written by someone who speaks Japanese and it enthusiastic about the language. People who do not support cold fusion are not familliar with the experimental evidence, and they cannot write a description of the field. A few skeptics such as Morrison and Taubes have written papers and books about the subject, but these papers are full of incorrect statements, and they include no footnotes referencing published papers or peer-reviewed data.
- Doom continues: "Use the word 'reported' rather than 'observed.'" Experimental results are observed and then reported. This is science jargon. Statements about cold fusion should be use the same wording and conventions as statements about any other field of science. We should not make up a new and fuzzy way to write about science to satisfy the demands of skeptics.
- "Try not to assume that whatever is being observed is necessarily 'fusion'." Replicated, high-sigma experimental evidence includes excess heat 5 orders of magnitude beyond the limits of chemistry, helium production, tritium production up to a 6 orders of magnitude above background, and transmutations. If that is not evidence of nuclear fusion we will have to completely redefine "nuclear" and "fusion" -- and also throw away the laws of thermodynamics.
- "Weird electrochemisty is interesting even if there's no breakthrough in nuclear physics involved." If you define "weird electrochemistry" as something that can violate most major laws of physics and chemistry going back to 1840 of so, then yes, cold fusion might be chemistry. Otherwise it has to be a nuclear effect, since it changes the atomic nucleus. Also, as far as I know, there is not a single case in which chemical changes in a cold fusion cell were reported. Not even one gram of chemical fuel or ash has been detected in cell that would have produce several kilograms of ash to account for the heat. Since these cells only hold ~100 g of material altogether, mainly water, "weird chemistry" is ruled out. Anyone who would suggest this is chemistry knows nothing about the field. I suggest Doom should review the literature before commenting on it.
- - Jed Rothwell
Jed, I believe that the term 'ash' refers to fusion products and waste materials. For example, in one paper I've read, spectral analysis of the palladium electrode before and after the experiment found post-experiment isotopes that were not there prior to the experiment, including Ag-110, lead, rhodium, sodium, and a number of other element isotopes that the Russian researchers theorize all fit a theory that CF involves a combination of both fusion and fission between palladium, multiple deuterium atoms, and fusion/fission into every new isotope found, post-experiment.User:Mlorrey
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
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)
- Agreed, so remove 'pseudoscience' category and change to another? Chris Wood 12:54, 23 Mar 2005 (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate/aps.ascii). 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.<p> What I meant about copyright is that I'm suspicious that the person hosting the link I referred to above (http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/fringe_science/fusion.html) 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. <p> 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)</blockquote>
<p>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):
- 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)
"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.<p>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.<p>The wiki definition of sparging should probably be updated as well. 130.20.71.114 16:45, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)</blockquote>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 (http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=wright&as_ugroup=sci.physics.fusion&as_uauthors=Jed%20Rothwell). 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 (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=J5NDIl1.jedrothwell%40delphi.com&output=gplain). Ah, and here's a published article by Jed Rothwell on this very subject in Infinite Energy Magazine: The Wright Brothers and Cold Fusion (http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue9/wright.html) --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 (http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf). 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 4HE 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 (http://www.newenergytimes.com/reports/DOE/2004-DOE-Summary-Paper.pdf) 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 --> 4He + 23.8 MeV (heat) reaction, although the measurement of 4He 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia user - KirkShanahan)
- Yes - I apologize for not putting a discussion on the Talk page; I was having wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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:
The article here in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [cite McKubre, Bockris] 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, [cite elementary chemical bond article] 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 [Stringham, Arata, Takahashi], 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. Wikipedia's Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)
Andrew wrote:
- As you say, distinguished scientists are not accustomed to having their work mercilessly edited and modified.
Actually, they are accustomed to that. 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. Wikipedia's Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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.
. . . Okay, I beefed up the previous statements with a few footnotes and some clarifications. It is attached to the end of this thread (or whatever you call these things.) It does not convert well from the Word format, and I have not added the hyperlinks, but you get the picture. This is too long, but I could reduce it to a paragraph or two. doing this for the entire article would take weeks, I think, plus I would have to run it past the researchers for review, and it takes them weeks more to respond.
- 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 wikipedia "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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.
- "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 articles 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. If you are not enthusiastic about this idea, I will drop it, and get back to editing this stack of papers from Italy and China that appeared in my in-box the other day.
- Jed
- We welcome your participation; if you feel like contributing directly, that would be welcome, but if you'd rather just feed us raw data on the talk page, that's certainly helpful too (well, within reason!). But I'm afraid your idea of moving the page to a more administered version is not going to happen. If you'd like details on how the protection process works, see [[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_page)] and [[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy)]. In spite of having many really contentious articles (Male circumcision is the site of a current battle) Wikipedia really only permanently protects pages that serve a technical purpose. There are less than about 100 articles currently temporarily protected, of Wikipedia's 490000, and none are permanently protected. This has resulted in articles on such difficult topics as Abortion, Holocaust denial, and Homosexuality. For better or for worse, the unifying principle of Wikipedia is universal editability.
- That said, we are very interested in fixing the flaws in this article. I'm sure you understand, given your position, that there are nutcases and True Believers on both sides of the issue, so finding a nicely balanced presentation will be difficult. Fortunately, there is published literature to serve as our Higher Authority.
- If you would still like to write a layman's presentation, but aren't comfortable with the way Wikipedia will treat it, I have several suggestions:
- You could just give up on writing a layman's schedule (I'm afraid that's probably starting to look tempting).
- You could write an off-site one. The Wikipedia article could link to it, and incorporate some of the facts.
- You could write an off-site one and license it under the GFDL (or a Creative Commons Attirbution ShareAlike license. Then we could just bulk copy the text into the Wikipedia article and include a link to your article. Then your text would be highly visible; people would edit it (although with references we could keep the skeptics under control) but your original would still be available as a reference no matter what happens here.
- You could contribute minor (or major) fixes to this article directly; you have no more and no less authority than any other wikipedian, but your references bear more weight than a skeptic's unsupported claims.
- You could just make suggestions here on the talk page; as long as people have time to merge them in, in they'll go, references and all.
- Anyway, enough talk; I'm going to shut up and edit now. --Andrew 23:27, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Andrew writes:
- We welcome your participation; if you feel like contributing directly, that would be welcome, but if you'd rather just feed us raw data on the talk page, that's certainly helpful too (well, within reason!). But I'm afraid your idea of moving the page to a more administered version is not going to happen.
Okey-dokey. Just thought I'd ask. I do not think you will get any researchers to cooperate in this contentious field without some sort of administered version. All the cold fusion researchers I know are fuddy-duddies. As Fleischmann says, "we are painfully conventional people." Anyway, what you have now is like a polished version of a Usenet discussion group posting. It is fine, and it has merit. Good job! But it would not pass muster at a journal or a professional encyclopedia.
- you have no more and no less authority than any other wikipedian, but your references bear more weight than a skeptic's unsupported claims.
That's good! It is good to hear that published experimental evidence overrules unsupported claims. I may have no more authority, but Fleischmann sure as heck does. FRS, one of the world's top 10 electrochemists, etc. etc. So do Bockris, Miles, Miley, Storms and the others. If you want serious input from such people you will have to reconsider this policy. With a normal field of science you would not.
- Jed
- The list of suggestions from Andrew is excellent. Like him, however, I'm afraid I have to join with the other editors whose attitude is that we'd very much like to have your help in improving the article, but that producing a "fixed" version isn't currently an option. Yes, it's a contentious subject, but others are even more so. The ruckus over the George W. Bush article during the campaign got so fierce that the New York Times did a story about it. (You can read the first several words for free here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0914FC3A580C738DDDA80994DC404482&incamp=archive:search).) To clarify a point that may seem inconsistent in other editors' comments: Articles are sometimes protected for a short period of time, but never permanently. Certain pages are locked (permanently protected). Every article is a page but not every page is an article.
- There is discussion going on here about "Wikipedia 1.0", a fixed version that would include some sort of article validation process. Frankly, though, it's going to take a while for us to get there, if we ever do.
- In the meantime, there is a problem with the practicalities of how we can get the benefit of your knowledge to improve the article. One thing to remember is that, under our policy of the neutral point of view (NPOV), it's not the function of this article to adjudicate the competing evidence and reach conclusions about disputed issues. Instead, we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute. It seems to me that, in general, your comments are consistent with this principle. Just bear in mind that the article is going to retain its presentation of skeptical arguments, even those that you think are balderdash. Our format would be along the lines of "Skeptics suggest that the evidence cited for cold fusion may reflect only chemical energy storage. [elaboration] Cold fusion proponents respond that this possibility is ruled out for a number of reasons. [elaboration]" And then, if necessary, "The skeptics' rejoinder is that testing for post-reaction chemical ash has been inadequate, so its reported absence is not reliable." (I have no idea whether they claim that; I just made it up as an example.)
- What you might do is to spend the month to prepare your critique, based on a specific version of the Wikipedia article, and post that on the LENR-CANR website. If you link to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion], someone following that link will reach whatever is then the most recent version. Instead you would pick an earlier version, which wouldn't change; for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=10899113] will always link to the revision as of 07:23 (UTC), 4 Mar 2005. You could write with reference to that version and add your paper to the LENR-CANR site, as an example of rebutting some fallacies about cold fusion. The Wikipedia article includes a link to your site. There is at Wikipedia enough general commitment to the NPOV principle that I can't imagine anyone trying to remove the external link to a serious and detailed site like yours, so your original comments and corrections would be available even if their specific incorporation into the article got edited by someone else down the road. I realize that's not optimal from your perspective, but given the constraints of our structure it's probably the best we can do, at least until the 1.0 project gets somewhere. JamesMLane 01:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
JamesMLane writes:
- The ruckus over the George W. Bush article during the campaign got so fierce that the New York Times did a story about it.
That must have been a laugh and a half!
- And then, if necessary, "The skeptics' rejoinder is that testing for post-reaction chemical ash has been inadequate, so its reported absence is not reliable." (I have no idea whether they claim that; I just made it up as an example.)
Join the crowd! The skeptics always make things up, and that is exactly what they would claim. The thing is, in some cases we are talking about the ash from something like 40 kg of wood. You would have to burn the entire experimental apparatus plus the table it is sitting on plus the pile of books on the table to get this much energy. That would make a lot of ash! You couldn't miss it. It would not fit in the cell, which is the size of a small cup (200 ml). The only thing in the cell is water, which does not burn, and two pieces of metal the size of paper clips.
- What you might do is to spend the month to prepare your critique, based on a specific version of the Wikipedia article, and post that on the LENR-CANR website.
I think I will let it ride for now.
- Jed
Suggested changes by Jed
Whoa! These are not suggested changes! This is only a quick, rough and ready stab at what is needed. I batted it out in less than an hour. I would need to do much more work before making real suggestions. I was just trying to illustrate the kind of thing that I think this article needs: footnotes, many more references to actual experimental results, rigor (way more rigor than I just demonstrated!), quantitative information and so on. The whole thing has to be triple-checked and reviewed by experts, too.
[This looks way better in the original Windows format, but Windows does a terrible job of converting to HTML, so I will paste it as is. Yikes! What a mess when you paste it . . .]
Rebuttal to statements published in wikipedia.org
Jed Rothwell March 9, 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion says, in part:
“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.”
Cold fusion cannot be caused by chemical energy storage. This possibility is ruled out for a number of reasons, mainly:
1. There is no significant chemical fuel present in the solution in a cold fusion cell. The potential chemical energy and chemical storage of cells has been carefully inventoried [1-5] and it has been shown to be less than 500 joules for a typical cathode, [6] whereas many cold fusion cells have produced hundreds of thousands of joules, [2,7,8] and some have produced 50 to 600 million joules. [9-11]
2. The products of a chemical reaction (chemical ash) are never found in a cold fusion cell after an experiment. Such products would have to be present in macroscopic quantities to explain the heat, in most cases. In some cases, the volume of chemical ash would exceed the entire volume of the cell many times over.
3. No chemical process can produce (or store) more than 12 eV per atom of reactant. (The highest energy density is in covalent electron bonds in substances such as diamond, 7 eV/atom, http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/matv/pdf/ssp_3y.pdf) whereas many cold fusion reactions have produced between 200 and 100,000 eV per atom. [12] To put it another way, gasoline contains more energy per unit of mass than nearly any other chemical. (Only a few forms of rocket fuel are better.) Gasoline stores ~45 megajoules per kilogram. Cold fusion cathodes typically weight 1 g or less, but some of them have produced much more than 1 kg of gasoline, and a few have produced as much as 13 kg of gasoline.
4. Many cells have produced significant excess heat after a reasonably short incubation period (10 to 20 days), so if there were energy storage, it would show up quite clearly as an energy deficit (an endothermic reaction). Small endothermic reactions such as the initial formation of palladium deuteride are readily observable with most calorimeters. [13] For example, consider a reaction in which the reaction begins after about a week of incubation, and then 10% to 30% excess heat is produced for 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 first week. Roughly 60% of the input energy would have to be absorbed by the palladium, presumably in the formation of an exotic deuteride. This is chemically impossible, and there is 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.
5. 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 [14] and ion-beam loading, [15] or with finely divided (powder) metal targets.
Reference 4 discusses many of these issues in more detail, in section II.1.2. Quote:
“Energy can be stored either as it would be in a battery or it can form an unstable compound that later decomposes. In both cases, the storage process would be obvious as a negative power being recorded by the calorimeter. Of course, the magnitude of such negative power might be too small to be considered important, but would represent significant energy if it occurred over a long time. Consequently, samples that take a long time to turn on suffer from this possible error. However, many samples produce power and integrated energy at such high levels that this issue no longer applies and some cells turn on immediately. . . .
If energy were in fact stored as in a battery or even as in a capacitor, stored energy cannot be released unless the power supply is disconnected and the cell shorted. In practice, this is never done. If energy were stored by generating an unstable compound, this compound could be identified and detected in the electrolyte, on the electrodes, or somewhere else in the cell. No such compound has ever been found nor would the chemistry available in a LiOD + D2O electrolyte allow formation of such a compound. One reviewer suggested that the deuterium stored in the cathode, upon release and while reacting with oxygen, might provide the observed energy. Three well established facts eliminate this reaction as a source of energy. First, the cathode does not deload significantly while current is flowing through the cell. Even when current stops, deloading is very slow and does not produce detected energy. Deloading is very easy to observe in most modern cells. . . .”
1. McKubre, M.C.H., et al., Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd Systems. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1994. 368: p. 55. PDF (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6TGB-44XFXNP-CT-1&_cdi=5250&_user=458507&_orig=browse&_coverDate=04%2F25%2F1994&_sk=996319998&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWb&md5=f008e015e0b928d2c84e010cd8fdd4b0&ie=/sdarticle.pdf)
- This article describes a series of experiments that appear to produce excess power from deuterium setups but not from hydrogen setups. I can find no detailed inventory of the chemical energy budget in the cell, nor any discussion of the "power storage" suggestion; they do not observe negative surplus energy at any point. --Andrew 02:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- The inventory is Ref. 2, p. 3A-14 through 3A-16. I reproduced it, in part, here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofmc.pdf
- - Jed
2. McKubre, M.C.H., et al., Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear Processes in Deuterated Metals. 1994.
3. Kainthla, R.C., et al., Eight chemical explanations of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. J. Hydrogen Energy, 1989. 14(11): p. 771.
4. Storms, E., A Response to the Review of Cold Fusion by the DoE. 2005, Lattice Energy, LLC.
5. Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann, Calorimetric measurements of the palladium/deuterium system: fact and fiction. Fusion Technol., 1990. 17: p. 669.
6. Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Reply to the critique by Morrison entitled 'Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil. Phys. Lett. A, 1994. 187: p. 276. PDF (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6TVM-46V0M9M-55-1&_cdi=5538&_user=458507&_orig=browse&_coverDate=04%2F18%2F1994&_sk=998129996&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkWA&md5=05e0a3be7f441299b103babf8d23ae8f&ie=/sdarticle.pdf)
- Response to a criticism of one of their articles. At the end there is some discussion of the energy budget of "stage 5", in which (I think) the current is shut off and the cells remain hot; they estimate this remaining hot required 1.1 MJ and the energy available from combustion of D contained in the 1 cm3 electrode is only about 8.7 kJ. --Andrew 02:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- This cathode is much smaller than 1 cm3. It is 0.04 cm3, so the maximum release is ~650 J. Quote from paper: "We observe that at a heat flow of 144.5W (corresponding to the rate of excess enthalpy generation in the experiment discussed in our paper [2] the total combustion of all the D in the cathode would be completed in ~ 4.5s, not the 600s of the duration of this stage." That is based on 100% loading, which is unrealistic, so I estimated ~500 J instead. By the way, I get ~15 kJ from 1 cm3 of Pd loaded at 100%, which weighs 12 grams. 12 g = .11 mole Pd, holding 0.11 mole H, which converts to 0.055 mole of water, and the heat of formation of water 286 kJ/mol.
- Actually, in real life, when the hydrogen from a cathode degasses in the last phase of this experiment, it does not produce any heat in the cell, because there is no free oxygen in the headspace. It recombines outside the cell.
- - Jed
7. Schreiber, M., et al. Recent Experimental Results on the Thermal Behavior of Electrochemical Cells in the Hydrogen-Palladium and Deuterium-Palladium Systems. in 8th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. 1990. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, 2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall 246, Honolulu, HI 96822.
8. Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118. PDF (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6TVM-46MTX3T-BY-2&_cdi=5538&_user=458507&_orig=browse&_coverDate=05%2F03%2F1993&_sk=998239998&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWW&md5=b3724104edaff9e334b8fadeaaf59e62&ie=/sdarticle.pdf)
- 6 is a response to criticisms of this paper. It describes a relatively simple system and computes (I think) the total enthalpy input of one cycle (after days of operation) as 22500 J, and the enthalpy output as 102500 J. They compute a very large value (3700W/cm3) for the power per unit cathode volume. --Andrew 02:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
9. Mizuno, T., Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion. 1998, Concord, NH: Infinite Energy Press.
10. Campari, E.G., et al. Overview Of H-Ni Systems: Old Experiments And New Setup. in 5th Asti Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium loaded Metals. 2004. Asti, Italy.
11. Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
12. Hagelstein, P.L., Summary of ICCF3 in Nagoya, Feb. 16, 1993. 1993.
13. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Excess heat in a double structure deuterated cathode. Kaku Yygo Kenkyu, 1993. 69((8)): p. 963 (in Japanese).
14. Stringham, R. Cavitation and Fusion. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.
15. Kamada, K., et al. Anomalous Heat Evolution of Deuteron Implanted Al upon Electron Bombardment IV. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy.
- That's twice now that you've made comments like "chemical storage of cells has been carefully inventoried [1-5] and it has been shown to be less than 500 joules for a typical cathode, 6 whereas many cold fusion cells have produced hundreds of thousands of joules, [2,7,8] and some have produced 50 to 600 million joules. [9-11]"
- However, 500 joules falls right into that range. Or is that 50 joules just a case of sloppy writing of the type that would eventually get fixed in Wikipedia? Gene Nygaard 23:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I mean 50 million to 600 million. No conventional calorimeter could detect a heat flux of only 50 joules. (The micro-calorimeters used by Li et al. could, however.)That is supposed to be: "typical cathode [6]" (ref 6, Fleischmann). This transfer by cut & paste from Word does not work very well, and neither does voice input.
Actually, 500 J is for the cathode hydride formation with a closed cell. The worst-case estimate for an open cell would be higher. See, for example, Miles et. al:
"We can estimate from Figure 18 that the Pd-Ce cathode produced 1.1 megajoules (MJ) of excess heat over a 110-day period. No chemical process can account for more than about 20 kJ in our system (Reference 4)."
- Miles, M. and K.B. Johnson, Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems, Final Report. 1996, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, NAWCWPNS TP 8302, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf
Ref 4 is: M. H. Miles, K. H. Park, and D. E. Stilwell. “Electrochemical Calorimetric Evidence for Cold Fusion in the Palladium-Deuterium System,” J. Electron Chem., Vol. 296 (1990), pp. 241-54.
I do not see how it could reach 20 kJ, but I will review Ref. 4 again. Obviously, in order to revise the article, I would have to do quite a bit more checking and cross-checking. That is why it would take a month. When I bat out comments like that in an hour, dictating to the computer from memory, there are bound to be mistakes. That is a good example of how NOT to write a scientific article!
- Jed
Made a few changes to "Energy source vs power store"
Okay, I took a crack at editing the Cold Fusion entry in your encyclopedia. I modified the section titled, "Energy source vs power store" which seemed the most inaccurate. I am not familiar with your method of adding footnotes and so on, and I do not see footnotes in the other sections of this article, so I crammed them into this section. If that is not where they are supposed to go, please move them. For that matter, if I have gone into too much detail please feel free to delete the whole kit and caboodle. It is no big deal.
I also changed the first sentence in the section below that, “Other kinds of fusion,” adding a detail that might seem like nitpicking. I noted that the Fleischmann-Pons effect has been seen with other methods of producing hydrides, not just electrochemistry. This is important because it confirms that the effect is not an artifact of the electrochemical technique. However I did not explain that, because it seemed to be beyond the scope of that section, so perhaps it should be deleted. Perhaps the average reader will not see this.
There is a reference at the end to a paper that I tried to modify but could not for some reason. It is:
"Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium (http://newenergytimes.com/library/1989fph/1989fph.htm)": the original paper from 1989
I was going to add that a conventionally formatted version of this paper is available here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf
There are a couple dozen other places in the article that cry out for revision, clarification, and footnotes. With all due respect, this article is a peculiar combination of urban myth and actual science. But the Scientific American prints only urban myths about this subject so you are ahead of the game. Anyway, I do not have the time to do more, and as I said I cannot circulate a draft to the cold fusion researchers for peer-review if anyone else is free to come in and screw it up later.
- Jed (jedrothwell@mindspring.com)
- I've added the link to the PDF version of the original paper. As for your question about citations, "The current MediaWiki software does not support footnotes well." (So says Wikipedia:Cite sources.) We sometimes use APA style (see Wikipedia:Cite sources#An example citation style) and sometimes use embedded hyperlinks (see Wikipedia:Cite sources#Embedded HTML links for citations). JamesMLane 01:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Having gotten into the "External links" section, I edited some of the other links to try to give the reader a better idea what to expect. I removed this link:
- The Cold Fusion Reactor project by JL Naudin (http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/index.htm) A project fully based on the T. Mizuno plasma electrolysis reactor
- The link didn't work for me, and there's no other reference in the article to either Naudin or Mizuno. JamesMLane 01:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I will adjust the footnotes to the APA style in a couple of weeks. I am busy with another project just now. I wonder if EndNote handles APA? EndNote, by the way, is a marvelous program. I will find Naudin's present web page. LENR-CANR has many papers by Mizuno, and Ohmori & Mizuno.
- Perhaps the site was down temporarily, or perhaps my browser was having an off day, but I now have no trouble reaching http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/index.htm (the link I had deleted). Now that I can see it, the description that I disliked before seems even less appropriate. That description introduces two new names; it uses the strange phrase "project fully based on"; and it suggests that the site is about one specific "project" (experiment?) instead of being, to my nonscientist eye, another collection of links and photos. A better listing might be:
- The Cold Fusion Reactor project (http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/index.htm) - collection of links and photos about cold fusion experiments
- I'm not sure the site should be included at all, though. We don't try to list every website that refers to a particular subject. Does this one add anything? It seems to be just a pro-CF grabbag, including this result (http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/html/cfrmhmc.htm) from "Morgan H. and Marissa C." -- quite possibly a high-school science project. I'd guess that many of the papers that Naudin links to are also on LENR-CANR. JamesMLane 17:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
JLN Site
James, I don't know that JL Naudin is the orignator of anything novel in this field. Certainly he has a sexy Web site and has created a following among amateur scientists and experimenters, but I don't know that he has published any paper, or make any presentations at any major CF conferences. I too question this placement. -Steve Krivit
- There exists a rule that vanity sites should not be included. This may be in a grey area (or may be fully in the exclude category) The original editor who added that link included the note:
- The Cold Fusion Reactor project by JL Naudin (http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/index.htm) The CFR Project is fully based on the T. Mizuno plasma electrolysis reactor - Full construction details and replicable tests results on the JLN Labs web site.
- I regarded this as way too verbose, but restricted my editing to trimming the overlong comment rather than deletion. I'm definately a skeptic on the cold fusion topic but didn't want to be too... agressively dismissive. It does seem that there's some consensus here that this particular citation is unneeded/inappropriate, and as the article is overlong already it should be removed. --Noren 19:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's already out. I removed it back when I thought it was a dead link. I raised the question here when I discovered that I was mistaken on that point, but no one has restored the link, so I think you're right about the consensus. On the other hand, even if it's a vanity site, if it turns out to have some important information that's not available elsewhere, it might merit a link (perhaps a link to that specific page within the site). JamesMLane 00:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PENDING TASKS / TO DO LIST
Nobody appears to have responded to my "to whom it may concern" note in the TO DO LIST. I propose that, unless there are objections, items 1, 2 and 4 be deleted. -SteveK
- The "To Do List" here has been there for some time and hasn't really been a focus of activity; I've had reservations about it for some time as well. It may have been put there by few people to draw extra attention to their concerns, but I don't think it represents any sort of consensus. I'd support its removal in toto; in addition to 1,2,4 as you mention- 3 is not such a bad idea but too vague to be really useful, and 5 is well intentioned but (in my opinion) would comprise too much detail for the introduction, and is already being addressed in later sections.
- Editing others' text in the talk page is often frowned upon (the idea is to allow free expression), but as that list is presented as a semi-official-looking manner and wasn't signed I think it's reasonable to remove it in this case.--Noren 21:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Update on Terminology
Please refer to papers/abstracts in recent conferences: http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR05/SessionIndex2/?SessionEventID=28515 and
http://www.newenergytimes.com/iccf11/ICCF11Abstracts.pdf -SteveK
Help Requested: Breakeven
Regarding the following existing sentence:
"There are a number of established processes by which this can occur, although currently none of these can produce more energy than is required to contain the reaction."
I am confused. Does this refer to cold fusion or TN fusion? To my knowledge, JET obtained 0.6 Q at its peak, and outside of theoretical calculations if experiements had been done with DT rather than DD, there are no actual plasma fusion experiments which have attained Q > 1.
OTOH, There are many cold fusion researchers (Storms, Swartz, Cravens, Stringham,Takahashi, De Ninno, Arata, El Boher, etc, etc) who claim to observe excess energy.
I'd like to clarify the sentence. Can anyone offer some insight as to the intention of this existing sentence?
-Stevek
- I suspect that the author of that sentence did not regard cold fusion as an 'established process', and intended to use 'established processes' as a blanket term for more widely accepted forms of fusion (muon-catalyzed, antimatter initialized, cluster impact, etc.) I don't see what else the 'established' qualifier could have been intended to mean. --Noren 15:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "this" must refer to a "nuclear fusion reaction that may occur well below the temperature required for thermonuclear reactions". That can be muon-catalyzed fusion but not JET. Any sentence that is that hard to understand and doesn't say anything essential should be thrown out. Art Carlson 16:43, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
Pseudo
The introduction paints cold fusion as protoscience, not pseudoscience. Hyacinth 23:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- While I agree we should be wary of painting cold fusion as a protoscience, I think the introduction doesn't exactly do that.
- There has been some effort to be evenhanded between the skeptical and credulous extremes. The first two parts of the intro are neutral definitions of terms, the second two are qualified by 'controversially suggested' and 'claims' the last paragraph can be summarized by 'if it actaully worked, it'd be great', which is true enough. --Noren 09:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Protoscience
Hyacinth has, in this person's view, appropriately identified the field of cold fusion. Krivit requests that if Noren can support the assertions of "Pathological science and Pseudoscience" that Noren provide such justification.
For justification on why cold fusion follows the scientific process, it is reccomended to first start here: http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm and note that empirical observations supersede incumbent theory, and are not required for an early science.
A series of experiments that repeated the findings of excesss heat and helium production are listed here: http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/Heat&NuclearProductCorrelation.htm
A listing of peer reviewed journals which have published cold fusion papers is here: http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/PublishedPapers.htm
The irony of cold fusion is that the laboratories which supposedly disproved cold fusion - didn't. They were false negatives. Full documentation for this claim is here: http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/HistoricalAnalysisSummaryCharts.htm
A condensed version of this analysis in a slide presentation, given at the APS meeting in March 2005 is here: http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/APS2005/2005KrivitS-APS.pdf
A collection of good papers that show the observations, hypothesis, experiments and results (a.k.a. Scientific Process) are here: http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/Review20ColdFusionPapers.htm
Several hundred other cold fusion papers are here:http://www.lenr-canr.org
Keep something in mind about Bob Park, the pathological science cheerleader of the U.S.. Park -is not- an expert in cold fusion BY HIS OWN ADMISSION (see link below) and cannot seriously be taken as an authority. In the past, cold fusion was a favorite target of his satire and acrimony. If you track his statements publicly over the last few years, you will see that he is keeping his options open and slowly changing his attitude toward this field. Nature magazine, 02 December 2004, "Park says that although the quality of research has improved, no one should buy into cold fusion just yet." Bob has not known much about cold fusion in the last decade: http://newenergytimes.com/critics/park.htm but he is starting to pay attention, according to a fellow APS member, and Navy scientist who happens to be friends with him, and also is a leading cold fusion researcher. Park cannot be cited as an authority.- Steven Krivit
- Certainly. From the Wikipedia page on Pseudoscience: "A pseudoscience is any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method."
- The judgement of the mainstream scientific community is best represented by the 2004 DOE peer review (http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf). Excerpts:
- "Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented."
- "The preponderance of the reviewers’ evaluations indicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented. One reviewer believed that the occurrence was demonstrated, and several reviewers did not address the question."
- The majority of the peer reviewers representing the mainstream scientific community did not find the body of "cold fusion" work to be plausable, and gave specific objections to the methods used.
- as to Pathological science, the six criteria are, if we are to use that Wikipedia page:
* The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. * The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results. * There are claims of great accuracy. * Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested. * Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses. * The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
- "Cold fusion" meets each of these criterion, though the fall to oblivion seems to be particularly slow in its case.
- Giving "cold fusion" a label of Protoscience is very generous, considering the length of time and amount of funding which has gone into it without the production of sufficient evidence for a peer review to find indicates that the effect even exists.
- A shorter answer is that, if it actually worked, cold fusion plants would be selling electricity on the open market. --Noren 09:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Noren wrote: "'Cold fusion" meets each of these [pathological science] criterion . . ."That is incorrect. Cold fusion does not meet any of these criteria.
1. "The maximum effect that is observed is not of barely detectable intensity . . ." Heat has been measured at sigma 90, and it has occasionally melted and vaporized metal and ceramic cathodes. In 1990 tritium was measured at 60 times background, and in some subsequent experiments it was several million times background, and beyond the upper detection limit of the instruments.
2. "The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability." This is completely wrong.
3. "There are claims of great accuracy." There are not. Cold fusion researchers use ordinary, off-the-shelf equipment and claim only ordinary levels of accuracy. In some cases, such as at Mitsubishi, extremely expensive and accurate equipment has been made, but the levels of heat, gamma rays and transmutations these researchers observe could easily be detected with ordinary instruments.
4. "Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested." Theories have not been proposed. Cold fusion is based on experimental evidence, not theory.
5. "Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses." Criticisms of the experiments have only been published in one peer-reviewed paper, and it was answered by the authors in detail.
6. "The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion." This ratio is impossible to measure, but in any case, it would reflect political power or the ability to influence public opinion, not the scientific validity of the claims.
I think Noren should base his statements on a close reading of the actual experimental literature, instead of repeating empty and incorrect critiques that have circulated since 1989.
- Jed Rothwell
Is "Pathological" and "Pseudo" NPOV?
It is my opinion that Noren has not presented convincing data to demonstrate that the field of cold fusion, as a whole, lacks scientific merit. There are are also several points to Noren's argument that are invalid. Because of this, it is my opinion that the representation of the topic of cold fusion, and sub-topic of "science" by Wikipedia, as presented by Noren, does not reflect well on Wikipedia. But let me put my opinions aside for the moment and focus on where I agree with Noren.
I agree that an influential political body, the United States Department of Energy, has concluded that the claims of cold fusion are still unproved after 16 years. I agree that a panel of experts in science have largely concluded that many of the claims of cold fusion are unconvincing.
I also agree that it would reflect poorly on Wikipedia if it were to be unscrupulous in what it represents. I respect what I presume is Noren's unstated care and concern in this regard with the choice to use the denigrating label of "pseudoscience" and "pathological science."
Without going further into the granularity of the Krivit and Noren arguments, I see that there is a larger disagreement, and decision at hand. I would appreciate some feedback from the Wiki community before proceeding futher.
And that is this:Does the core value of the Wiki community place a greater value on popular, accepted opinion, or does it place a greater value on original data and specific expertise?
Does the core value of the Wiki community place a greater value on taking the position that a new field, which may or may not be scientific, is guilty until proven innocent, or is it of greater value to maintain a neutral point of view?-Steven Krivit
I'm not sure I understand your questions exactly, but I believe you are touching on an important and difficult issue. I have my own (often strong) opinions about what is pseudoscience and what is pathological science, but I'm not sure that can be objectively determined. You notice the problem when you try to make a foolproof list of criteria to differentiate them from real science. (In the case of cold fusion, I think it is bad science, but I'm not sure if it is really "fake" or "sick" science.) Although these categories can be interesting and useful, does the implied value judgement make them inherently POV? Do they really have a place in Wikipedia at all? Art Carlson 19:57, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
Are "Pathological" and "Pseudo" and "Proto" NPOV?
The first paragraph above is an example of an attempt to shift the burden of proof in an unreasonable fashion. The burden of proof is on those who make an extraordinary claim which is said to be scientific, not on the rest of the community to have "presented convincing data to demonstrate that the field of cold fusion, as a whole, lacks scientific merit." If I were to make a claim that I am an alien from the planet Zarquon it would not be reasonable to expect Steven Krivit to present convincing data that I am not; rather, it would be my responsibility to prove my own extraordinary claim.
As to the presentation of original data, Wikipedia has a specific Wikipedia:No original research policy; for the most part I don't think it's being violated here, but it is something to keep in mind. This may not be what you intended by the phrase, I thought it should be reiterated.
You're correct that I think that we should be scrupulous in minimizing the amount of bias presented in articles. Wikipedia often presents opposing views on the same subject in the same article, either one of which might be seen as biased if the counterarguments were not presented at the same time. The above focuses on my edit, neglecting that the "Protoscience" category had just been added, while in the same edit the "Pseudoscience" label was removed. I find the "Protoscience" label questionable for reasons which may be similar to the reasons you object to the "Pseudoscience" category. Leaving the categories list with only the (incorrectly biased in my opinion) Protoscience category would give the incorrect impression to the reader that this topic is considered a protoscience by the community. The presence of both labels in the category listing gives the reader a more balanced picture. This is why I left Steven Krivit's addition of the Protoscience category when I restored the Pseudoscience label (that he had deleted) and added the Pathological label.
If we're going by a "it must be clearly proven to be included" standard, none of the three categories meets that criterion; if we go by a "a reasonable, if not compelling, argument can be made that it belongs in this category" standard, all three should be included.
- That's a good way to phrase the question. With the former it is difficult to find consensus, so the latter is probably more practicable and is probably the way it has been implemented in practice. But then a note to that effect should be included in each of the categories. Art Carlson 19:34, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
- I found a Wikipedia statement on this point in Wikipedia:Categorization#When to use categories, though I'm not sure to what extent it is Official Policy, or even reasonable:
- Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.
- And also in Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating subcategories:
- Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed.
Art Carlson 14:42, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
I would also be satisfied if none of those three categories were included, but if we were to leave only the Protoscience category it would not be NPOV. It's already muddled enough (see Hyacinth's comment.)
(I am also tempted to challenge the Nuclear Fusion category on the basis that none occurs, but I'm attempting to find a middle ground.) --Noren 14:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is Science NPOV?
Categories are such an annoying necessity.
I stand corrected regarding the responsibility for shouldering the burden of proof. Yes, I agree that it is on those who make and support the claims. I thought I had already referenced the proof but I can see from others’ perspectives that it is not necessarily so.
After careful consideration, it is clear to me that neither “Science” or “Pathological /Pseudo-Science” are as definable and objective as we would all like them to be.
For example, the core terminology that we are using in this discussion is likely to be subjective from one person to another. I challenge anyone to provide objective definitions for these terms with regard to “extraordinary claims.”
Reputable Peer-Review JournalMainstream Scientist
Reputable Scientist
Reproducible
Highly Reproducible
Experimental Replication
Nuclear Evidence
Evidence of Fusion
Independent researchers
Additionally, I challenge anyone to answer the following, also with regard to “extraordinary claims”:
How many published papers are required to satisfy a scientific requirement?How many replications are required to satisfy a scientific requirement?
How large of a signal to noise ratio is required to satisfy a scientific requirement?
How large of an effect is required to satisfy a scientific requirement?
How commercially viable must an effect be to satisfy a scientific requirement?
How many control samples are required to satisfy a scientific requirement?
What would be a suitable control for a cold fusion experiment and why?
Is an accepted theory required to satisfy a scientific requirement?
Is a theory which does not contradict accepted theories required to satisfy a scientific requirement?
Is an experiment which does not contradict accepted theories required to satisfy a scientific requirement?
If an experiment cannot be replicated without specialized tools, facilities and expertise does this indicate a failure to satisfy the scientific requirement?
If a claimant stands to gain financially from the acceptance of a claim, does this indicate a failure to satisfy the scientific requirement?
If an effect is not well-understood after 16 years of research, does this negate its scientific validity?
If an effect is not commercially viable after 16 years of research, does this negate its scientific validity?
And just for fun, with regard to the posted comment, ““if it actually worked, cold fusion plants would be selling electricity on the open market.” Where can I buy some hot fusion electricity?
-Steve Krivit
Cluster Impact Fusion
I noticed that there existed no Cluster Impact Fusion page, though as is accepted wikipedia practice the existing Cold Fusion page linked to it, so I did a bit of searching on it with the intent of making a stub or page on it. Unfortunately, the link in that paragraph labeled as "Recent research" was a paper published in January 1992. A bit more searching revealed that other researchers (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1992/cluster-0513.html) had found substantial problems in the experimental setup of that experiment and had concluded that the effects reported were due to these problems rather than to fusion. The comment as it stand didn't include the original BNL authors of that paper's erratum showing that the fusion rate dropped by a factor of 100 when a magnetic field was applied to deflect charged deuterium contaminants. The fusion observed thus appears not to be a result of the impact of neutral heavy water clusters.
I did find one post-1995 cluster impact fusion paper I found (in an admittedly brief search) was in this abstract (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maik/hite/2003/00000041/00000003/00470538), though I've only seen that abstract. This does make me think that there may be something happening with the impact of charged heavy water clusters, but the lack of other mentions leaves me still skeptical. The old description that was in the Cold Fusion page was was fatally flawed in my opinion, and the existence of the phenomenon appears controversial. If there's more source material I've missed on the topic a new entry on the topic might be appropriate. --Noren 06:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)