Talk:Cold fusion

This article was the subject of mediation during 2009 at User_talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion.

Should we split this article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If a "History of" article would include the history of the E-Cat; which has been so badly mishandled in the Energy Catalizer article then I'm all for it. That article needs an excuse to be deleted. Sphere1952 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

How cold fusion is viewed by others or by mainstream scientists places undue importance on opinions. It's my opinion that the early cold fusion media fiasco was a social phenomenon that rushed the experimental verification process and led to a social environment hostile to science and easily affected by opinions. All said I agree the article is long and cumbersome. Almost everywhere there are references to someones' opinion. An example is the section In Popular Culture... nothing but opinions. Early cold fusion is science and continued works in this art show advancements in understanding physics. I think there should be one article Cold Fusion/LNR Science and a section History Cold Fusion the Sociological Phenomenon. The early works of cold fusion by Fleischmann and Pons has been instrumental to the advancement of this science and should not be seperated to a different article. Here is an example of what might be a time relevant point to split the article at: Cold Fusion/LENR Post 2009 The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science follows a well established peer review process, "PEER REVIEW PROCESS - Submitted papers will be forwarded to an Editor who will supervise the peer review process, and contact the authors in the course of the review process. Papers submitted to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science will be reviewed under the rules and guidelines associated with the review and appeals process adopted by the American Physical Review journals." [1] This cold fusion/LERN journal is a source for papers published that are a review of works to date in the art of this science as well as papers that are scientific review (secondary replication) of previously published experimental research and theory. Cold Fusion/LENR science, "Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics", March 23, 2012 at 3:30pm. Presented at the "Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space 2012 Topical Meeting and The Lunar and Planetary Institute – 43rd Lunar And Planetary Science Conference” Organized by ANST Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology, USRA Universities Space Research Association, ANS American Nuclear Society, and NASA. [2] "A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)" Xiaoling Yang and George H. Miley, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 (104 S Wright Street, 216 Talbot Laboratory, Urbana, IL 61801 [3] "CRYOGENIC IGNITION OF DEUTERON FUSION IN MICRO/NANO-SCALE METAL PARTICLES" Y. E. Kim, Department of Physics, Purdue University Physics Building, West Lafayette IN 47907. [4] Cold Fusion/LENR peer reviewed papers are presented for scientific review at the American Physical Society. Session Y33: Cold Fusion APS Physics March Meeting 201, Volume 56, Number 1 Monday–Friday, March 21–25, 2011; Dallas, Texas. [5] --Gregory Goble (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Or my opinion that the early works of cold fusion by Fleischmann and Pons has been instrumental to the advancement of this science? Note how many times their cold fusion environment is mentioned in regards to this science within this article. Clearly LENR scientists see them (Fleischmann and Pons) as the early researchers in this art. My opinions on cold fusion/LENR science are based on the encyclopedic reading I have done at universities in the S.F. bay area and delving into the world of replicated cold fusion/LENR experiments. SEE: The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science follows a well established peer review process, "PEER REVIEW PROCESS - Submitted papers will be forwarded to an Editor who will supervise the peer review process, and contact the authors in the course of the review process. Papers submitted to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science will be reviewed under the rules and guidelines associated with the review and appeals process adopted by the American Physical Review journals." [6]

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

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

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

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

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

Cold Fusion/LENR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus !vote?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - Separation into some form of "Cold fusion as a social event" and "Cold fusion as a theory" makes sense, but Separating it into Fleischmann-Pons and LENR does not. I'd agree with a "History of Cold Fusion" which would include current events (e.g. E-Cat) and a "Cold Fusion" which would discuss theory. Sphere1952 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Poor sourcing on DARPA wild goose chase

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

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

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

Please workshop this before reinserting.

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

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

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

You are now banned for being a sockpuppet --POVbrigand (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think these two apply:

Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources

Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_deletes_the_cited_additions_of_others

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@LeadSongDog - Without some knowledge of the field you cannot see it, I agree. The author of the wired.co.uk article has done his investigation well. DARPA is funding work at SRI together with the italian ENEA. In his talks Mike McKubre (SRI) always shows where the funding comes from. see for instance [7] or in the slides he showed recently at cafe scientifique see youtube video at 5:49

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

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

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

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

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

Note that the IP 209.2.217.151 has been banned for being a sock puppet --POVbrigand (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The budget is a primary source, and we have no idea of its relevance or importance; IMO it should be removed. If it didn't generate any secondary source, it's likely that it's largely irrelevant. It is certainly not a breakthrough that needs to be reported urgently. There is another Wired article about past DARPA budgets[8], please use that instead. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is that the DARPA funding doesn't really add much notability to the topic. DARPA funds companies to do things as 'far out' as making software for writing comic books [9] to using ultrasound to make soldiers who never need to sleep! Not exactly mainstream science. We have to be careful not to imply that DARPA believes that this stuff works and thereby give credibility where it isn't due (hence WP:UNDUE). SteveBaker (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

I am of the opinion that the funding should not be mentioned since it is not reliably quantified. The amount of money that DARPA spent on cold fusion doesn't seem to be a known quantity, and I think we can all agree that if it was a small amount mention of it in this article would be undesirable. Since we do not know the actual figure, we are relying on our personal opinions as to its significance. I compare this to the Mizzou grant which is a substantial amount of money and backed up by great sourcing. So I removed the claim. Hudn12 (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We have the primary source stating the quantity of the Budget activity (in million $) on page 51 ; FY 2011 = 16.745 ; FY 2012 = 11.650 ; FY 2013 = 5.500. We have a secondary source mentioning it (the wired.co.uk article), thus establishing the significance. And we have another secondary source (the ENEA book) mentioning the Darpa funding several times. Your or my estimation of what is significant does not count, the estimation of the secondary sources is what counts. "small amount" is irrelevant, the secondary sources mention the funding. In a field where there is virtually no funding a couple of million $ is worth mentioning. I put it back in. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This primary source is really not good enough for this because it doesn't explain whether the funding was part of a research program for DARPA or whether it was simply a blank check. It may be part of a distributed grant which is basic research and has limited oversight in which case DARPA wouldn't be supporting the research program per se and instead would just be a funding agency akin to the MacArthur Fellows Program. The ENEA book mentions funding, but it is unclear as to how significant and what the parameters of its use were because we don't have coverage from people who aren't cold fusion advocates. The problem is that we are writing a neutral encyclopedia entry rather than doing investigative reporting. The best we have right now is a claim by David Hambling who is a sensationalist reporter for wired who likes to go out on limbs. It's hard to know what to take seriously when he himself admits he can't get a straight answer from DARPA. This is all fodder for good journalism but not really an encyclopedia article. In any case, if we want to keep it in, I think we need to at least make sure that we cite this to Hambling directly who is our best secondary source as my understanding of WP:SOURCES has it. Hudn12 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Undead science - Bart Simon page 142: McKubre's research ... was initially funded by EPRI and later by IMRA and most recently by DARPA. That was in 2002. So it is not just Hambling who is stating this now, he is merely restating was has been said before. I do not mind to shorten the DARPA mentioning to the current size, but the direct cite of Hambling is not justified. It is not a secret that DARPA is funding McKubre, several secondary sources mention it. McKubre puts his funding in every talk the presents. The fact that these sources choose to mention it means it is relevant enough for WP. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The section we're discussing is about "Ongoing Research Programs" and McKubre's program isn't mentioned which is probably an oversight that I'll go in and correct (he's connected to the Sidney Kimmel and Energetics Technologies, so I'll try to fit in into that paragraph). So now, on reading this and considering it, I think it may be more appropriate to mention DARPA subsumed into the section on ENEA and the section on the Michael McKubre/University of Missouri/Sidney Kimmel/Energetics Technologies groups. But this is getting a bit too investigative journalism for me. The fact that the 60 minutes spot inspired Kimmel to donate to the University of Missouri through Rob Duncan is pretty obvious, but I haven't seen any documentation that this is what happened. (Also, it is still not clear how Duncan ended up on 60 minutes in the first place. There is something strange that went on in that whole debacle since the APS stated explicitly that there was no connection). Hudn12 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing research

McKubre connected to Sidney Kimmel ? Are you sure ? As far as I know it's Sidney Kimmel/Robert Duncan/Univ. Missouri/Energetics/60minutes and it's DARPA/SRI-McKubre/ENEA. And then there is Miley/UIUC/Hora, Hagelstein at MIT, Yeong E. Kim at Purdue and there are the Navy labs. It think that more or less sums it up for the USA at least as far as universities are concerned. Did I miss any ?

Regarding Duncan ending up at 60 minutes. I think I read that he was indeed proposed by somebody "close" to the APS, but not by the APS as an institution. That caused quite an row when 60minutes worded it wrong in their first airing of the show.

But this Robert Duncan was a perfect outsider, a mainstream physicist with mainstream understanding of the topic. When he investigated the topic he recognized that his previous understanding was not correct. Now if you talk about Duncan, the mainstream view of him is that he is just one of the group of fringe adherents and that an outsider should have a look at it before it can be believed. Well that already happened, it was Duncan. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

NASA

Here is their 2nd self published source stating WP:ABOUTSELF they are working on it. It is funded by the "Center Innovation Fund" "The purpose of the Center Innovation Fund is to stimulate and encourage creativity and innovation within the NASA Centers in addressing the technology needs of NASA and the nation. Funds are distributed to each NASA Center to support emerging technologies and creative initiatives that leverage Center talent and capabilities." --POVbrigand (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

[10] "It is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at Langley." --POVbrigand (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NASA_work_on_Low_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions

I will add the line "The Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at NASA Langley Research Center" with the 2 sources as verification. --POVbrigand (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like just more WP:NOTEBYASS but if you must please attribute the claim to Bushnell... if you must. He is the one making it. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean with NOTEBYASS ? --POVbrigand (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Using sources to establish notability by association. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot help that NASA is working on this, to argue "notability by association" or "name dropping" here is unfair. NASA has made it clear, through publications that they host on their own websites, that they are working on it. Nobody is claiming that NASA endorses LENR, they are just working on it. Several secondary sources have noticed this and reported about it. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's reliable or not doesn't mean it has due weight for the article, that is a separate issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a separate issue, so if you don't like this bit of information to enter the article I suppose you work out a detailed argumentation of why this bit of information is in your eyes undue, instead of unsubstantiatedly raising the UNDUE issue again and again and again. (this is not a personal attack) --POVbrigand (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

For due weight, do you have an independent reliable source which verifies the statement (I note that it's in the section "futurism")? Also note that your current wording is a copyvio. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems like undue weight to me. This is an encyclopedia; we shouldn't be including every report of somebody researching something. Why is this particular report of someone researching something so important? Olorinish (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie - I do not need an independent reliable source to verify ! I have multiple reliable WP:ABOUTSELF sources. Verification is perfect, stop questioning it. Copyvio can be worked around easily, and I don't even think it is a copyvio. Formost, you still haven't substantiated your UNDUE complaint. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

On NASAWatch there is an explanation from Keith Belvin, the new Chief Technologist at LaRC. He says that this work by Joe Zawodny is funded through the Center Innovation Fund. "Center Innovation Fund projects are early-stage foundational research efforts that may or may not result in scientific breakthroughs." - "there is no official agency program for LENR and NASA does not have a LENR program planned." and that this is "early-stage TRL foundational research into an elusive energy source concept where sound scientific investigation in the lab may be the best way to prove, or disprove, the LENR hypothesis." --POVbrigand (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added one line at the Widom Larsen theory, explaining that "it is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at Langley" --POVbrigand (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

On the secondary source side, it is wikipedia policy that we should preferentially rely on reliable secondary sources for text. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The nasawatch.com info is not for the article, only here on the talk page to give some background. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I am looking for the reliable secondary source, to establish due weight. The phrase, "According to a NASA website ..." looks like original research. You are looking at the NASA website and picking what you have decided is important, rather than deferring to reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a wrong understanding of OR, read the policy again. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OR Policy: Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The same OR policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

Furthermore secondary sources have also mentioned NASA work on LENR. I have discussed that here on this talk page several times. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Do the secondary sources mention the Widom Larsen theory, if so, why aren't we using them, if not, why are we mentioning it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Again WP:OR Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

Also have a look at WP:ABOUTSELF. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You say the secondary sources mention NASAs work, why don't we use something that they highlight instead? You want to use a primary source when this should usaully be avoided and only used with care (per policy), and cite ABOUTSELF, which is usaully for articles about themselves or their activities. Hence it seems like a pretty weak rationale. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have used the primary source to make a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact that any educated person with access to the source but without specialist knowledge is able to verify. Please explain why you are not able to do so. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't just insert random material just because it can be verified, it should have due weight as well, due weight is best demonstrated through reliable independent sources; where are they? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Due weight is not the stop gap for things you don't like to hear. Oh, I almost forgot that in the 14 May C&EN article "Reviving Cold Fusion" Ritter quotes Dennis Bushnell as saying: "From more than two decades of experiments producing heat and transmutations, _something_ is real and happening" ... "Nasa scientists are evaluating the many extant devices to determine their correspondence, or not, with the weak interaction theories." I guess you conveniently didn't think of that article, which you have admitted that you have read, while you keep trying to delete this NASA mention. You ought to be trying to improve the encyclopedia. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Maybe we should wait until NASA achieves something before putting in so much text about about it. Is it really so important that NASA is working on something? They are expected to study very speculative projects, after all. Olorinish (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"so much text" <> 1 line. As I have explained before it is important to mention that renowned institutions work on this topic as the general belief is that this topic is dominated only by crackpots. In an article about NASA it would possibly be undue to mention this activity, because it is only a fraction of all NASA activity, but this is not an article about NASA. And in a field were most of the work is done by scientists in their off hours or on shoestring budgets, this is important to mention. For information here on the talkpage: a further explanation on NASAwatch by Dennis Bushnell describes the funding around 200k USD per year, for the last 3.5 years, totalling 1 million USD by end of 2012. Tom Whipple has written an article in the Fall Church News Press mentioning NASA's verification work on the Widom Larsen theory. Previously David Hambling had already written in wired.co.uk about the same work at NASA. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition, I note that no one actually agreed to the edit and so there is no consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

1989 MIT Patents - Cold Fusion

Proposed new section title - 1989 MIT Cold Fusion Patents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, first filing on a patent amounts to little; proof of concept is when a patent becomes notable. I posted this information to illustrate that the MIT hot fusion folks discredited cold fusion while at the same time MIT files a patent on the theory of cold fusion and the provost of MIT releases a statement in support of cold fusion research. " We are pleased to see Professor Hagelstein proposing an explanation for 'cold fusion' and we are encouraging investigators both here and at other research institutions to continue their work on this most surprising phenomenon. "[12] No wonder this article is in such a sorry state. At least now I can write a sentence "cold fusion/LENR science" and not get blasted with "It ain't science... just a bunch of crackpots practicing pathological science". Reference to opinions of cold fusion/LENR research not being science should be restricted to a history section. (opinions carry undue weight in this article) The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science should be recognized by WIKI as a quality, respected, peer reviewed scientific journal publishing papers in this art. Censorship should end and the discerning Wiki reader should be given reign instead of protection by editors. "don't tell us anything about cold fusion - and giving weight to them is dangerous." With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. Thanks for the source code.--Gregory Goble (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

There is a very typical misunderstanding about patents here. Patents are very cheap to file (especially if you're MIT and have full-time patent lawyers on-staff) - and except under very special circumstances (eg Perpetual motion machines) you don't have to prove that it works - or even believe that it works. So if some idea has even a 1% chance of being earth-shatteringly important, a smart person should patent it. Even if you personally don't think it's going to work. If Pons and Fleischmann had turned out to be correct, then the patent could be worth billions, if not trillions of dollars. Against that, why wouldn't you spend a couple of hundred bucks to patent it - even if you considered the odds of it working were one in a million - and even if early verification experiments didn't show results? The patent office is littered with patents for things that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of working. This patent doesn't prove a darned thing about how anyone felt or what they believed and when and in response to what...it just shows that someone had a good understanding of economics and statistics! SteveBaker (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The third sentence in this article is out of date and erroneous - Let's fix it

What's wrong with this sentence?

It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no generally accepted theoretical model of cold fusion.

Actually after twenty + years of research both the controlled experimental environments and theoretical models (after analysis of experimental data) have been been progressing in sophistification, success, and accuracy during the past 20 + years. Clearly the effect is documented as replicable and theories are improving over time.

The fringe science of cold fusion/LENR is increasing it's visability in mainstream science as it matures. TRUE or FALSE?' What is your Editorial opinion'?

Every editor of this article should now endorse the sentence in question, or not. If the sentence is basically false... so are the editors that endorse it. The past is past... cold fusion/LENR science is presented in mainstream science now. The opening of this article should reflect this fact.

With warm regards and electrifying anticipation...--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

for thousands and thousands of years of science we had no accepted theories for flight... yet the fact is we saw bees, birds, and bugs flying all the time. "generally accepted theoretical models" are about theory... not fact. Let's not obfuscate the scientific process. Instead we fly to the moon and beyond.--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read some wikipedia's policies and guidelines that were pasted on your talk page: User_talk:Gregory_Goble#Welcome, particularly WP:OR and WP:V. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you're suggestion. I suggest nothing. Yet I hope your suggestions improve this article. I'm after you... wiki seniority... familiarity... and all. Still learning!--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement that you're complaining about is in the lede paragraphs of the article. In Wikipedia, we use the first few paragraphs of the article (before the first section heading) merely to summarize the remainder of the article. If there is something wrong in the lede - then either it fails to summarize what the article as a whole says (in which case, let us know that and we'll fix it ASAP) - or the article itself must be incorrect. In this case, that statement is a summary of several pages of information in sections such as "Issues" - and it's a good summary of that section. So rather than taking that statement at face value, please read the text that it's summarizing - and note that every significant fact that we state there is backed by reliably sourced, peer-reviewed, mainstream science publications - which you can find by clicking on the little blue numbers in square brackets after each statement of fact.

You may not feel that these are covering the topic the way you'd like it covered - but here at Wikipedia, we have standards for that.

• WP:V requires that we verify everything we say with third party documents.
• WP:RS sets standards by which we judge those sources of verification.
• WP:FRINGE sets out more stringent rules for the way that 'fringe' science topics are written about (sorry, but Cold Fusion is a fringe topic - only a very small percentage of scientists believe it's true).
• WP:OR says that it doesn't matter what you, personally, feel you know for a fact - we can only use things that have reliable sources.
• WP:TRUE points out that Wikipedia's standard for "truth" is not absolute truth - it's verifiable truth.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." - and that's possibly the most important lesson that new Wikipedians need to learn.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

POSSIBLE SLANDER

In wikipedia cold fusion is categorically listed as a prime example of pathological science. see wiki (pathological science) IT IS NOT.

In wikipedia cold fusion does not publish in peer reviewed journals and does not have recognition in mainstream science. Those practicing cold fusion are crackpots practicing pathological science and as such will have ruined careers. Blatently false and harmful to cold fusion researchers. EDITORIAL OPINION--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Wiki is responsible for editors actions.--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC) I love lawyers--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

1. First of all, "slander" refers to spoken statement - you mean "libel", which is the correct term when defamation is in print such as in Wikipedia.
2. Secondly, you may want to be a little careful with your inflammatory wording because an accusation of either libel or slander would constitute a legal threat - which is not allowed here (see WP:NLT) and will get you banned from the site quicker than you can blink. WP:NLT says "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended.". And if you truly believe what you just wrote, then WP:NLT says: "If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en@wikimedia.org.".
3. Thirdly, our statements are backed by reliable sources. We have no less than three references for this statement - two in this article and one more in the Pathological science article.
4. Fourthly, we don't say "Cold fusion is pathological science", we say "Cold fusion has...a reputation as a pathological science" - and that second statement is 100% true. We have totally solid references to show that cold fusion has indeed been described as "pathological science" in mainstream literature - and stating that this reputation exists is not libel (or slander).

Hence, I think you need to be far more careful about your own inflammatory statements. I suggest that you calm down, read our article more carefully and please feel free to make specific editing change recommendations - providing that you can back them up with WP:RS-quality sources and avoid making implied legal threats.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone has already brought things to ArbCom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gregory_Goble. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's kinda sad. Thanks for the heads up. SteveBaker (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Gregory Goble

Never will I ever sue or bring legal actions against Wikipedia or any of the Wiki editors. Seriously! Gregory Byron Goble My apologies; time constraints have tardied my response. In consultation while formulating dialog; two or three more days, Thank you so much for your patience. While following a Cold Fusion/LENR seminar I tried to find one person who had a reputation as a crackpot. I couldn't find one among the speakers or the registered attendees; anyone of recognizable importance had impecible reputations as far as I could determine,

As I suggested from day one.

To improve the article: 1) Wiki needs to view it as science. 2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in the art of this field of physics.

A preview of my response.

example A this edit suggestion of mine was not a waste of time... Room Temperature It used to read: "Cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR), refers to the hypothesis that nuclear fusion might explain the results of a group of experiments conducted at ordinary temperatures (e.g., room temperature)." The majority of LENR experiments require temperatures well above room temperature. It now reads: Cold fusion is a proposed[1] type of nuclear reaction that would occur at relatively low temperatures compared with hot fusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Gregory_Goble&oldid=473668504

example B this edit succeeded and then was reverted much later... Removed Sentence from Conferences Section (first part of sentence) By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science,[29] (second part of sentence) and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences. [97]

The following is part of my Wiki discourse on this edit. Please follow the rest to see sourced chapters from the book Undead Science. It’s an obscure book. One found at USF (none S.F. library system) one S.F State, none S.F or San Mateo community college. Please read the book to make a responsible response as to whether words may have been taken out of context from an authoritative source.

Simon argues that in spite of widespread skepticism in the scientific community, there has been a continued effort to make sense of the controversial phenomenon. “Researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work. In this manner cold fusion research continues… “ and “The survival of cold fusion {research} signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and the lay public; and the conceptualization of failure in the history of science and technology.” {author} Bart Simon is an assistant professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. [97] Note that the author is an assistant professor of sociology not physics. To reference part of a sentence from this book may be taking the intent of the author out of context.

Conferences (after my edit removal) Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since.[29] With the founding[97] in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science—an example of the approach the cold fusion community has adopted in avoiding the term cold fusion and its negative connotations.[73][75][98] Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[99] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[73] http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=474082175

NOW Conferences (many weeks later someone reverted my delete) Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. Attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics;[99] thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science.[100] Critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences, with the notable exception of Douglas Morrison,[101] who died in 2001. With the founding[102] in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (the reasons are explained in the "ongoing" section).[73][75][103] Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[104] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[73]

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Gregory_Goble&oldid=473668504

Clearly Undead science is about cold fusion SCIENCE continuing after a bad start. One chapter is about how it gained this “bad reputation” while the rest is how it survives as science… (increased sophistication of instrumentation and review) hence the title ‘Undead Science” not undead pathological science. To source his book as reasons for the wiki reading public to reason that cold fusion is pathological science or bad science shows poor judgment. The author is not taking such a stance. Wiki influences the public. Care by administrators and editors should be taken to not take authors content out of context if it may cause harm. … a wiki editor or three or four… are using his words to promote a stance harmful to this art; that it is pathological science. --Gregory Goble (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by IRWolfie- User:Gregory_Goble appears to have very severe competence issues that essentially waste the time of other editors. See some recent examples here: Talk:Cold_fusion#POSSIBLE_SLANDER, Talk:Cold_fusion#The_third_sentence_in_this_article_is_out_of_date_and_erroneous_-_Let.27s_fix_it Talk:Cold_fusion#In_Popular_Culture_-_Cold_Fusion. Most of his comments appear to be borderline incoherent with some going pretty far into the realm of craziness: User_talk:Gregory_Goble#hi. The rambling isn't a new feature: [19]. I suggest there is a very severe issue of WP:INCOMPETENCE rather than negative intent. When he accuses other editors of wikilawyering I'm not even sure he knows what he is saying. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by SteveBaker His post: Talk:Cold_fusion#POSSIBLE_SLANDER (I think he means "libel") where he accuses us of being defamatory towards cold-fusion researchers because we use the term "pathological science". That post was followed three minutes later by an additional post. (It's easy to miss that addition inside his signature blocks.) It says "I love lawyers". I didn't notice when I made my reply - but now that I see it, this constitutes a clear WP:NLT. His threat is unjustified because we don't say that cold fusion is pathological science - we say that it has a "reputation as pathological science" - for which we have plenty of WP:RS showing mainstream scientists saying exactly that in published journals. Aside from the (many) other issues, I believe we have clear grounds for indef-blocking him under WP:NLT without further delay - which means we can take our time deciding whether some other grounds would justify heavier measures. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by POVbrigand Many of the contributions that Gregory makes on the talk page are hard to understand for me. Lately I did get the idea that some of his contributions were getting better. He seems to have a problem that cold fusion is disposed of as pseudo science. It is a widely held belief in the real world, so it is absolutely correct to incorporate that view in the wikipedia article. I do not see his latest "slander" comment as a legal threat. I think he is again trying to make the point that it is, in his eyes, unfair that cold fusion is treated the way it is. I think everyone should chill and Gregory should think if he really want to contribute constructively or not. As IRWolfie noted above, Gregory's conduct is not malicious. Involuntary mentorship could be a solution. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts and much more--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Bias by selective (and purposeful) omission seems to be still an issue

See the discussion on a rather telling detail concerning the amazingly sensitive word "NASA" - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&oldid=476490280 ("All mention of NASA has been deleted from this article").

As promised, I now gave this article a lower objectiveness rating and I encourage others to consider doing the same. It's a pity, as I think that overall it's a good article. Harald88 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Widom-Larsen theory

Should there be a seperate article about Widom-Larsen theory? This article doesn't give much information about it and I came here to find how Widom-Larsen theory differs from cold fusion. This article seems to suggest they do differ: http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html