Flagged Revisions installed. Unapproved pages display a Red unchecked notice under the title. Trolls attack here by creating and archiving pages with offensive content. To verify an archived page, check the original URL. Questions about administration? Contact User talk:Abd. Limited privacy on this site, see CFC:Limited privacy

Talk:Wikiversity/Cold fusion

From CFC
Jump to: navigation, search

Disclosure of COI[edit]

Please see User:Abd#Disclosures. --Abd 19:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

extended discussion not necessary to follow to assist with the resource page, by or with Abd 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC) + 17:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Did you ever see this article? It was published in "Infinite Energy", issue 81, but last I checked is not in the library at lenr-canr.org:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cold_Nuclear_Fusion:_A_Hypothesis Objectivist 16:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think I'd looked at it. Maybe I did. The problem of cold fusion is not one of a lack of proposed theoretical explanations. As Storms has pointed out, there are too many! The problem is that testing these can be very difficult. First, before that, there must be better characterization, probably, of the conditions under which CF takes place. --Abd 18:36, 19 September 2010
Some variety of "electron catalysis" is quite likely involved. But, as we know with muon-catalyzed fusion, the branching ratio remains the same. So something else is required, and there is very substantial evidence, not proof, that what's happening is cluster fusion, where at least four deuterons fuse at the same time. This is actually pretty simple, as shown by Takahashi, fusion to Be-8 is predicted from an initial physical condition that requires very low temperature of two deuterium molecules, in confinement by a lattice.
I.e., close to absolute zero, which means, in fact, that the relative velocity of two molecules (and their rotation, probably) is near zero.
This isn't going to happen at absolute zero, because it takes energy to form this physical configuration, which requires velocity in what sets up the configuration, resulting from the Boltzmann distribution. Rather, it will be a rare configuration, but it will become more common with increased temperature, which is what is observed. I.e., the number of impinging second deuterium molecules with the right initial momentum, on a collision course with the confined D2 molecule, increases. It still will remain low.
D2 normally doesn't last long in confinement, if it even gets there, the electrons are stripped and the two deuterons, no longer with anything to bind them, expand through the lattice to the preferred configuration of one per cell. (That's an unstable configuration, 1:1, unless some kind of pressure is maintained, the D2 will leak out.)
So, D2 is in confinement, one molecule. It's only there for a little while, it arrived with the right velocity to penetrate the cell electron cloud and end up in the middle of the cell. Then comes the impinging deuterum molecule. As it approaches the trapped molecule, that molecule will attempt to do two things: recoil back away from the impinging molecule, and dissociate, which is what normally happens in the free gas, because an impinging D2 molecule with the right velocity and orientation will cause one or both D2 molecules to dissociate. The confinement, however, suppresses both of these, so the impinging molecule, we can speculate, can reach the zero temperature relationship if the initial conditions were just right. At that point, the deuterons will be polarized, neutrons in, protons out, as in the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect, something that I only realized when I edited that article and it was complained that this was related to Cold fusion. That hadn't been my intention!
In that configuration, they can approach much more closely than otherwise, plus the relative temperature causes a BEC to form, which can collapse to a far smaller size than ordinarily. This means that the entire assembly assumes a single probability function, as if it were one object, not many. The electrons are included.
There are now two papers proposing BEC cluster fusion, both published under peer review....
Storms tells me that most researchers in the field now think that some kind of cluster fusion is involved. It explains the branching ration and momentum problems. If the cluster is large enough, with nanoparticles involved, all kinds of poorly understood quantum mechanical effects may occur.
This is cutting edge.... I remember from Feynmann, when he was lecturing, being filmed, from which the book was written, mentioning that we didn't know how to do the math for complex multibody quantum mechanical interactions, that normal "quantum nuclear physics" was an approximation, based on two body assumptions that do, in fact, ordinarily hold.
So the reaction of 1989 was, bottom line, and to use the technical term, really stupid. People pretended to know, for certain, what was not known. They assumed two-deuteron fusion, which reduces the problem to two-body -- sort of! -- so, of course, they predicted that fusion would have an impossibly low cross-section.
Really good example of not becoming explicit about one's assumptions. "If we assume that the reaction is d-d fusion, it's apparently impossible at low temperatures. Except ... Except .... (i.e, muons or maybe some other kind of catalysis)."
But why assume that it was d-d fusion? Why not something else? Well, it's really difficult to refute "something else," and they very badly wanted to refute these experimental findings. You know the story, I think. Scientific politics. It's well covered in reliable source, such as Simon. Why doesn't the Wikipedia article cover this? Again, you know the reason. Wiki politics. Same old same old.
But Takahashi's TSC theory is just my favorite theory at this time. It has a problem, but it is simply an unsolved problem, not a fundamental one. What will happen to the Be-8, formed within a BEC? How long will take to decay? What will be the energy or range of energy of the two alpha particles? How much will be radiated before fission from the excited nucleus, as photons?
Hagelstein has purportedly established a quite low limit on the "birth energy" of the helium nuclei formed. I think it is well below even the ground state Be-8 decay energy. (about 90 KeV, as I recall.
And why doesn't the Wikipedia article even describe accurately, the number one piece of evidence that LENR are taking place? I.e., that helium is the ash? Again, you should know the reason. It was in the article, and it was revert warred out, by an editor who didn't give a fig about cold fusion, he cared about ... wiki politics. And they wikilawyered it to death. Supposedly the DoE review was "reliable source." Sure, but only for certain things. Not for scientific fact, nor as a way of discounting what appears plentifully in other RS, not for what was actually and verifiably self-contradictory, the anonymous reviewer misrepresented the presented review paper. So, want to do something useful there, comment carefully and civilly in the discussion that is going on now.
They are still trying to keep me away, take a look at my Talk page and my contributions today. They probably will not succeed, because I have policy and guidelines on my side, but, as you might know, that may not be enough, they will wikilawyer this to death. I have to be very careful. (One editor, complaining, is very involved with a POV, the others aren't but are just mindlessly enforcing a ban that they think clear. We'll see, I'll need to take this to ArbComm for clarification.)
Responding here, please don't mention WP editors by name. This is an attempt to communicate on the topic, and to promote overall WMF welfare, not to impeach individuals.
Now, as to my own work, it is to design kits to replicate the SPAWAR neutron evidence, which is, as yet, unconfirmed. Of course, before I sell any kits, I have to make sure that it "works." I will report my results regardless of whether or not they are positive or negative, but I am very aware that negative replication, in a field where the phenomenon isn't well understood and that apparently is dependent on a host of very particular conditions, is just that: failure of replication, not proof of error in the original report. The early researchers assumed that just any palladium would do the trick (not!), that any reasonable loading would show the effect (not!), that they could use off-the-shelf D2O (sure, as long as it is, probably, at least 99.5% or so, not having been exposed to air, which will cause it to fairly rapidly trade off heavy water for light water in air. The purer the better, apparently. Very pure D2O, though, gets pretty expensive! I'm using 99.9%, and that's about $15 per 25 g., the amount I'm putting in a cell. If I buy a kilogram at a time, which I did. It's the single most expensive ingredient in a cell. I hope to keep the whole cell cost, including labor, to $50, allowing me to sell the cells for $100.
Now, isn't that cool? For $100, and a power supply and/or some current regulators, you'll be able to run a cutting edge experiment. Or you can buy the materials from me, all of them, including LR-115 radiation detectors, which I believe but have not proven are much better than CR-39 for the purpose here. I do know that they will be much easier to etch and interpret, CR-39 is a mess, because the detection depth is such that surface radiation produces pits that grow and grow as the etching goes deeper. With LR-115, there is only a six micron detection layer, very thin. So etching is short. Increased etch time can be used to increase the visibility of lower levels of damage, extending the detection range.
Pam Boss pointed out to Jed Rothwell that LR-115 actually has an upper detection limit. Apparently, when higher-energy radiation impinges on the material, it does less damage, it zips through before it can do much disruption. I've probaably, in my tests, misinterpreted the tracks. I saw what looked like cones, and thought that the narrow end of the cone represented the lower-energy tail. Opposite, probably. That's the higher-energy particle track, but as the track is slowed down by the interactions, the damage trail gets fatter, until it goes below a level adequate to break chemical bonds.
This is fun, my friend. Welcome to Wikiversity. By all means, help out with the resource. There is far more freedom here than on Wikipedia, one can truly develop a whole course in a topic, even if it is "fringe," just as universities are now conducting seminars on LENR. Such a developed course, done well, could create a way to transcend the limitations of Wikipedia, and take what is developed back there....
Forking is encouraged on Wikiversity if there is conflict! Someone wants to create a resource about Pathological Science, and explore opinions that Cold fusion is such, they can do it! A certain published COI editor at Wikipedia has been invited to come here, I'm hoping he will show up! It could get very interesting.
See, Objectivist, I really wanted, all along, for the article on WP to be truly neutral, and truly reflect what is in reliable sources. There is nothing wrong, in this case, with the policies, just in how they were applied by some with axes to grind. I have no power to overcome a true consensus, nor would I want it! But those with axes to grind will act to prevent consensus from forming, they are terrified of the "blind, ignorant editors" who will "fall for" the blandishments and deceptive reference to sources from "fringe POV-pushers."
They will win if those who do know the field don't stand up to them, very carefully. When there is a majority knee-jerk opinion that a field is fringe, and bogus, the majority will react to simple information as if it were "POV-pushing," so it takes great care and patience to correct a situation like that.

--Abd 18:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)modified --Abd 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you point Jed at [lenr-canr.org], to the wikisource paper, and if you personally give him permission to host it, I'm almost certain he will! If not, let me know how he responds. You might notice that lenr-canr.org isn't blacklisted here. That's because this site is far more functional than Wikipedia, when it comes to stuff like this. There is a global blacklisting, which eventually I think I'll get around to lifting, there is now good foundation for that, but ... everything takes time, especially at meta, unless you get lucky. Some pages are whitelisted at en.WP, but the entire site is whitelisted here. On en.wp, at present, to use a page you have to request whitelisting, wait for the usual suspects to scream and yell if they notice it, then hope that you get a decent admin as a closer.... Basically, it's not worth it, usually, just for a single convenience link, since that's all that site is good for on WP. It's not the original publisher, normally. --Abd 19:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I see I have a bunch of things to say, now. First, the article I pointed out includes a very specific test for it. Second, the article explains exactly how the branching ratio does not need to be the same for electron catalysis as for muon catalysis. Third, the cluster-fusion idea has at least three obvious problems, (A) cold fusion experiments are not normally attempted near absolute zero; (B) whole molecules don't collapse at ordinary temperatures, like they would in a Bose-Einstein Condensate near absolute zero (that is, what is the mechanism to strip the electrons from the molecules, so the nuclei can approach each other?), and (C) the probabilities of a four-particle collision, all at the same time and at the same very small place, are extremely much lower than the probabilities for a three-particle or a two-particle collision. Why not propose 3D->Li6->He4+D??? The probability of that happening (I guarantee that any Li6 produced that way will have too much nuclear energy to stay in one piece) is certainly going to be greater than 4D->Be8->2He4. Anyway, the article I'm talking about doesn't need anything fancier than the two-particle collision 2D->He4+(lots of energetic electrons), AND it explains in reasonable detail how the electrons can be stripped from hydrogen molecules, when permeating palladium. There is another article here ( http://knol.google.com/k/vernon-nemitz/proposed-cf-experiment/131braj0vi27a/3 ) that goes into considerable speculative detail on that single point. I recognize that if those speculations are correct, then point (B) above would be negated, heh!
Hmmm, OK, I'm writing this overall reply as I read your text above, so now I see you talk about the electrons being stripped off. Oh, well. Anyway, so far you are missing the fact that palladium is a metal with vast numbers of loose "conduction band" electrons in it. Some of them will exist in the cells of the crystal lattice, attracted by any hydrogen nucleus there. Which means they negate the repulsion of that nucleus should another nucleus enter the cell...which is all that the hypothesis article I mentioned needs, for fusion to become possible (no need for FOUR nuclei in the cell!). Next, I agree with what Feynmann said about the math, and recall that Pons/Fleischmann were specifially hoping for some such effect to enable fusion, when they began their experiments. Next, it doesn't bother me at all that the hot-fusion people in 1989 were working with what they knew, but like you it does bother me that they thought that what they knew included ALL the possible factors, and conduction-band electrons could be a huge factor -- and of course is something that does not exist at hot-fusion temperatures. Next, I wish you well with your experiments, but I won't be conducting any, any time soon, due to shortage of $ (and then I have priorities of experiments I want to do, of which CF is kind of low on the scale...). Finally, see stuff near the bottom of my Talk page at Wikipedia; I'm pretty sure Jed knows about the article. Objectivist 06:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is sprawling, so I'm pulling it all into collapse. We may refactor this later, pulling together what might improve the resource. It's fine to create a subpage here that is about particular theories, etc., and I assume we can have a subpage on cluster fusion. Should we have a subpage on your theory? We could. Original research can be done here. Now, to your points:

First, the article I pointed out includes a very specific test for it.

This test may or may not be practical, and the test may or may not be definitive. Understand that there are hundreds or thousands of leads that haven't been followed up, already. My own work will be, unless someone beats me to it, the first confirmation of the SPAWAR neutron findings, if I'm lucky and the creek don't rise. Those findings hardly elucidate the mechanism at all, because neutrons are clearly a secondary reaction product, giving very little clue as to the primary reaction, they happen so rarely.

Second, the article explains exactly how the branching ratio does not need to be the same for electron catalysis as for muon catalysis.

Sure. But the mechanism for this, that the electron may be available to carry off the energy, creates its own problem, the lack of significant bremmstrahlung radiation from what would then be quite an energetic electron. Please read Hagelstein's recent paper carefully. There is a copy available on-line, perhaps at http://newenergytimes.com, on the page where they host recent publications.

Note that with cluster fusion to Be-8, there would be three or four electrons available in the BEC, and they would presumably share in the energy released when the BEC comes unglued. The excited Be-8 nucleus (I'm not sure what "nucleus" and "excited" means inside of a BEC) will still have the electrons associated, at first.

Third, the cluster-fusion idea has at least three obvious problems, (A) cold fusion experiments are not normally attempted near absolute zero;

Sure. However, you've forgotten something, as do many when first encountering this. Temperature refers to an overall average energy. Individual particles and combinations of particles may have a different relative energy. For a four-deuteron BEC to form, the relative temperature must be close to absolute zero, but that simply requires that the two deuterium molecules involved, with their four deuterons, have close to zero relative velocity. (Which includes rotational velocity for the deuterons, I believe.)

(B) whole molecules don't collapse at ordinary temperatures, like they would in a Bose-Einstein Condensate near absolute zero (that is, what is the mechanism to strip the electrons from the molecules, so the nuclei can approach each other?),

You've completely misunderstood a BEC, I think. Without the electrons, the nuclei can't approach. With the electrons, each deuteron is overall neutrally charged, so the atoms can approach each other. I suspect that a clear explanation of this could be rather easily written. The BECs I know about have been Rubidium, and may have been single atoms. Weird stuff happens. This is all cutting edge research.

What Takahashi analyzes, in a mathematical exercise published under peer review, is the expected behavior of four deuterons that find themselves in a low-relative-energy tetrahedral configuration. That configuration requires energy to form, because four deuterons would not ordinarily approach closely enough, due to repulsion between the electron clouds.

Takahashi does not explain, at all, how the TSC (tetrahedral symmetric condensate) original condition forms. I had to develop a theory of that, discussing this with Storms. It's pretty simple, though. Thermal energy does it, I suspect. I don't have any data on how much energy is required to bring the molecules together, but they would approach in a cross-wise configuration, with sufficient relative velocity that they come to a stop at the TSC condition. Something has to hold them together at that point, or, before TSC is reached, they would dissociate. That dissociation is what happens in deuterium gas at room temperature, or any temperature, for that matter. As they approach each other, the repulsive force causes the two-deuteron pairs to separate from each other, and they become individual deuterium atoms. No BEC forms. But if they are in confinement, my thinking goes, they might stay together.

The conditions would be quite unusual, but we must remember that CF is quite unusual. Only a tiny proportion of deuterium atoms are fusing.

and (C) the probabilities of a four-particle collision, all at the same time and at the same very small place, are extremely much lower than the probabilities for a three-particle or a two-particle collision.

You've ignored the effects of confinement, and you have assumed that TSC is not a "two particle collision." A two deuteron collision doesn't set up the conditions for approach. But two deuterium molecules do.

This is what I imagine the initial condition is: a single deuterium molecule is confined in a cell. This is an unstable configuration, it creates pressure on the cell that would be substantial, it might rupture the cell in time. How much time? I don't know, of course. But I have discussed the problem with Hagelstein, a bit. He has already suggested that the D2 molecule might be crucial to the phenomenon, and work exploring the abundance of that species is called for. It might not be difficult.

So, once a single deuterium molecule is confined, it is, for a short time, "held in position." Another deuterium molecule approaches, with just the right velocity to approach and stop at the TSC position. This will indeed be rare! This is the minimum configuration, though, that will form a BEC and fuse rapidly. Takahashi has studied two D2 and D2 and D2+.

Three deuteron fusion simply doesn't occur. Nor does two-deuteron, apparently. It takes the combined effect of four deuterons, where their neutrons are facing inward, in TSC configuration, to approach. The combined effect of the more intense electron screening in a BEC and the Oppenheimer-Phillips process allows the nuclei to approach closely enough for nuclear attraction to take over and Takahashi predicts collapse and fusion within about one femtosecond. So that "low temperature condition" doesn't need to last long.

Outside of confinement by the lattice, the molecules can't approach closely enough for the collapse and fusion process to take over. They will break each other apart before reaching TSC.

Why not propose 3D->Li6->He4+D??? The probability of that happening (I guarantee that any Li6 produced that way will have too much nuclear energy to stay in one piece) is certainly going to be greater than 4D->Be8->2He4.

Absolutely not true. It's not "4D." It is Two D2. D2 is common at the surface! It may also be common in internal defects, voids. There is a lot of thinking that it is these internal defects which are the reaction sites. But most evidence points to a surface reaction, or just below the surface.

You need to understand why 4D will fuse. Apparently the configuration of D2 plus D doesn't create the conditions for a collapse that will fuse. At least not as commonly as 2 * D2! If the approach isn't "symmetric," an impinging D will just bounce. If it is symmetric, it might approach a stable zero-temperature configuration for a moment, but there is no evidence that this will collapse and form a single wave-function as with TSC. I strongly suspect that Takahashi, who is a hot fusion scientist, and who first noticed anomalies in bombardment of palladium deuteride targets with deuterons, showing some level of 3D fusion, at anomalously high cross-section, has considered this. But those bombardment energies were way above "room temperature," and the evidence they were happening was the appearance of classical fusion products, I believe. Those products are absent from cold fusion, almost entirely, except for what was very rare with normal hot fusion, helium.

Since helium is forming, in levels commensurate with deuterium fusion, we must have a reaction that produces mostly helium! If the fusion process doesn't kick in until you have a minimum of four deuterons, that explains it.

Anyway, the article I'm talking about doesn't need anything fancier than the two-particle collision 2D->He4+(lots of energetic electrons), AND it explains in reasonable detail how the electrons can be stripped from hydrogen molecules, when permeating palladium. There is another article here ( http://knol.google.com/k/vernon-nemitz/proposed-cf-experiment/131braj0vi27a/3 ) that goes into considerable speculative detail on that single point. I recognize that if those speculations are correct, then point (B) above would be negated, heh!

I don't see any difficulty in explaining dissociation upon entry. Deuterium gas exists at the surface, and that gas normally can't enter, except in tiny amounts. However, there is always a certain occurrence of disocciation. When a single deuterium atom enters the lattice, it is sharing its electron. However, most of the deuterium entering the lattice is from D2O being disocciated in to D+ and OD-, so we start with a raw deuteron attracted by the palladium lattice electrons. It readily enters.

By the way, fusion probably is taking place in locations where the local abundance of deuterium exceeds that of palladium. The "loading ratio" is average loading. In gas loading experiments, D/Pd can exceed unity.

You will notice that on a very small scale, if there is more than one deuteron in a lattice cell, the "local ratio" is 2 or more. This creates high deuterium pressure.... Very high, in fact, higher than metallic deuterium at absolute zero.

Hmmm, OK, I'm writing this overall reply as I read your text above, so now I see you talk about the electrons being stripped off. Oh, well. Anyway, so far you are missing the fact that palladium is a metal with vast numbers of loose "conduction band" electrons in it.

No, not at all.

Some of them will exist in the cells of the crystal lattice, attracted by any hydrogen nucleus there. Which means they negate the repulsion of that nucleus should another nucleus enter the cell...which is all that the hypothesis article I mentioned needs, for fusion to become possible (no need for FOUR nuclei in the cell!).

Yes, this effect happens. But that cloud is quite diffuse, I think. It is only a minor influence, compared to the electrons that are part of the BEC. By the time the BEC is collapsing, the effect from the conduction band electrons would be minor, probably to be neglected.

Next, I agree with what Feynmann said about the math, and recall that Pons/Fleischmann were specifially hoping for some such effect to enable fusion, when they began their experiments.

What Fleischmann has written about this -- it's in reliable source! -- they knew that the predictions of QM were approximations, and they wanted to test the accuracy of the assumptions underlying the application of those approximations. He said that they expected to fail to find anything larger than experimental noise. They were wrong. What they were doing was trying to falsify the assumptions, doing normal basic science. They were not looking for, initially, a cheap energy source. Their whole work has been heavily slandered. They were experts at calorimetry. Not with detecting neutrons!

Next, it doesn't bother me at all that the hot-fusion people in 1989 were working with what they knew, but like you it does bother me that they thought that what they knew included ALL the possible factors, and conduction-band electrons could be a huge factor -- and of course is something that does not exist at hot-fusion temperatures.

Yes. Neither does the possibility of confinement exists at those temperatures, not even close. It's a classic scientific fiasco, all right. Just not what Huizenga thought. What's truly remarkable, though, is that Huizenga noticed the problem of heat/helium. He dismissed it in his first edition, based on a very isolated report. But in his second edition, he truly noted Miles' work, again dismissing it only because it was allegedly unconfirmed. But Miles was confirming (Bush was it?). And Miles has since been amply confirmed. A review article on this has been accepted for publication at Naturwissenschaften. Watch the mice scatter!

Next, I wish you well with your experiments, but I won't be conducting any, any time soon, due to shortage of $ (and then I have priorities of experiments I want to do, of which CF is kind of low on the scale...). Finally, see stuff near the bottom of my Talk page at Wikipedia; I'm pretty sure Jed knows about the article. Objectivist 06:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any sign of that there, and the issue would be your explicit permission. He always gets author permissions, period.

By the way, you often misunderstand the issues on Wikipedia. You really should ask me! Lenr-canr.org was illegitimately banned at meta, using the spam blacklist, and en.wiki has no control over that. However, individual pages have been whitelisted at Mediawiki:Spam-whitelist, and the whole site could be whitelisted there. This is not an RS question. Lenr-canr.org isn't reliable source for practically anything. (There are one or two papers that might slip through under "notable author self-published" exceptions.)

Rather, copies at lenr-canr.org are legitimate convenience copies of reliable sources. And that can, and has, flown. I got a dozen or so pages whitelisted. But people like JzG will insist upon removing them, giving the same rejected arguments that were, indeed, rejected by consensus. See the article on Martin Fleischmann, the talk page.

My work on en.wikipedia cannot continue unless I have serious community support. That used to exist, but the article became dominated by the "skeptics," plus "believers" who aren't sufficiently familiar with policies and guidelines to be of use. Pcarbonn was, and, my friend, where were you when he was banned again? Where are you when they are attempting to prevent me from even discussing article text on Talk? Where are the supportive comments on my Talk page? The absence of them can and will be used, formally and informally, to show that I'm just an isolated fanatic, to people who are too lazy or too unequipped to understand the issues. The truth, of course, is quite the opposite, I'm, as was Pcarbonn before me, attempting to help the article represent the balance of present scientific opinion, as shown in reliable sources, per policy and guidelines.--Abd 17:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The main thing I have to say is, please study the article. Too much of what you have written is a result of not actually knowing what it contains.

Next, the article's proposed test is rather unique. If conduction-band electrons can catalyze deuterium fusion, then all we need is some "pure metallic deuterium" to find out for sure. And we have the technology to make a small amount, briefly.

Next, I see you used the phrase "the electron" as if only one electron would be responsible for electron catalysis. Sorry, but that doesn't work. One electron is too "flighty" in terms of the Uncertainty Principle. But Quantum Mechanics allows hundreds of electrons, from the conduction band, to all be partly ("cloudily") involved in the process, and all of them can as a result end up carrying away some of the energy. Read the article for more details.

Next, I do understand bell-curve distributions of energy. I'm also confident that the greater the average temperature above Absolute Zero, the very-much-rarer will be any single atom or molecule with (momentarily) essentially zero temperature. And you want two of them to be present at the same place and the same time....

Next, I also know some basics about BEC, and one of them is that BOSONS are required. A single deuterium atom is not a boson, although I do know that a deuterium molecule can qualify. So, yes, assuming BEC at the heart of the interaction, we cannot have three deuterium atoms combining. But neither do I see 4 combining at one spot if we start with two molecules; I see two nuclei combining at each of two spots (separated by the average distance between the two nuclei of a deuterium molecule).

Next, if we think of three deuterium nuclei (deuterons) instead of atoms, 'those are bosons, so they can interact BEC-fashion. Of course electrostatic repulsion is a problem, but, hey, if you have a temperature suitable for BEC, you can also have some "Cooper pairs" of electrons involved, too, because they are also bosons.

Next, you wrote, "A two deuteron collision doesn't set up the conditions for approach." --that is nonsensical. If there is a "cell" in which two deuterons are randombly bouncing about, they will, once in a while, randomly go on a near-collision course, guaranteed. All that matters is whether or not that course is near-enough of a collision course. This is where a crucial difference comes into consideration, between muon catalysis and electron catalysis. In muon catalysis, the muon is part of a "muonic atom", and the muon has enough mass that its electrostatic attraction to a second nucleus can literally let the muon drag the nucleus it orbits closer to the second, until the two nuclei are close enough to fuse. In electron catalysis, no electron can do that. All the conduction-band electrons can do is shield the deuterons so they don't repel and change course. The dueterons must randomly be moving close enough to fuse, there is nothing to help them get closer.

Next, regarding the electron cloud being too diffuse, well, even though a magazine like "Infinite Energy" may be criticized as having lower peer-review standards than major journals, the notion you pose was not enough to prevent the article from getting published. Also, keep in mind the simple fact that since a deuteron has a positive charge, we can be guaranteed that some electrons from the conduction band will always be in its vicinity. The important thing is whether or not any of those electrons are in orbit around the deuteron. If they are just passing by on the QM equivalent of hyperbolic trajectories, they can get arbitrarily close--much closer than any orbiting electron is ever allowed to do. This is the key fact that would allow electrons to keep coming in-between (and shielding) two deuterons, even when those nuclei are very close to each other.

Next, regarding reaction sites, simple logic tells us that if deuterium is entering the metal from the outside, there will be a "gradient" in which the ratio of deuterium to palladium is higher closer to the surface of the metal, than deep in its interior. Not an issue.

Finally, I did post some things in defense of Pcarbonn, but apparently did not get it into the right place soon enough, not knowing enough about wikipedia politics. (Not to mention, my life does not revolve around wikipedia.) I would say to you that if you are headed down the same path, it is partly because you are going too fast. Why not focus on just one undeniable thing at a time, and don't change the subject until you have a favorable consensus on it? At the very least it will reduce the "wall of text" that is the biggest complaint against you. Objectivist 23:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't posting true walls of text ... for the most part. The other fellow sure is! Watch what I do there, I'll pull it together. I did it many times, before. I write very differently when its an RfC! I also have other things to do, and only time at certain times. Take a look at what just got published, latest issue of Naturwissenschaften. I'm jumping up and down like a kid in a candy store. My name is mentioned! As to your theory paper, I'm not really focused on theory, the field is truly difficult. Yeah, I know that conduction band electrons are "shared," essentially, that it wouldn't be just one. But I think you need to understand something about the field. There is no shortage of theories. There is a shortage of specific predictions from theories, and work to confirm them. If you think your theory predicts a way to produce a massive reaction, you do realize that this could make you fabulously wealthy. Problem is, how much money would it take to test it, and who is going to come up with this. I certainly had an idea, in fact it truly worried me for a time. It's quite similar to your idea, and for that reason, even if the experiment worked, it wouldn't prove that it was one theory or another! I don't think that "big bang" experiments are the way to go, too damn hard to study.
I'm working much more quietly, and what I'm doing isn't the true investigation that my work will lead to. I'm designing a standard cell that's cheap, and looking for ways to measure NAE signals. Cheap standard cells means a lot of variations can be tried, likewise being able to measure NAE in real time. What happens if you dope the cell with a little beryllium chloride? Easy to test, once you have a standard cell! (If there are reasonably hot alphas produced, the beryllium would generate neutrons.)

I'm looking for optical emissions and sound, the sound is reported already, the optical emissions are inferred. If those SEM images really do show melted palladium chloride, it had to be hot enough to glow visibly for a short time. What will I see if I watch a codeposition cathode with a microscope capable of seeing ten micron hot spots? It turns out that nobody has looked, I've asked. At the same time, I'll have a DSO recording the output of a piezoelectric sensor (I forget how high the frequency response is, it might be up around a megaherz). And, of course, I'll be recording cell temp, ambient temp, and cell voltage and current, for the whole run. And all of this for a control cell with light water. I'll have stacked LR-115 for neutron detection, a very cheap but possibly very useful technique for characterizing radiation energy and vector that nobody has tried for this kind of thing. I originally wanted to do this with CR-39, but had a lot of trouble getting the material. What I'd really want is super-thin polycarbonate. Eventually I might try it if I can get the material. The LR-115 has a six micron sensitive layer, giving me a much more precise image than one gets with CR-39. Then there will be, in one configuration, two such films stacked, sensitive side together. And pin-registered. So that the images can be correlated later, after development.

Look, your idea about lead and some palladium plating, why are you bothering with a glass vessel? Wouldn't just an open piece of lead work, with a spot of palladium plating on it? The lead oxide layer would be like the glass of your jar. The trick is getting that palladium plating on clean lead, it might need to be vacuum sputtered or something like that. Look, the idea has fantastic commercial potential if it works. I have no idea if it would, but if lead or another cheaper metal could be used for hydrogen storage, this is huge! (And this is kinda why I suspect it doesn't work. One would think it's been tried. But you never know, until you do.
Lead and glass are both relatively cheap; palladium isn't. So, that particular experiment tries to minimize the cost of palladium. It is also a pressurized-gas experiment, and a container to hold that pressure will be necessary somewhere. A metal pressure container might be expected to leak hydrogen, heh. If a glass pressure container, then in essence that is what the experiment describes. While I don't know about lead's ability to hold hydrogen, I'm quite aware that its normal oxide outer layer could have previously prevented investigators from finding out. Anywy, the experiment has been "out there" posted for a significant time. If anyone does it, and gets good results, I'm sure we all will be hearing about it shortly thereafter. Perhaps sooner than later.... Objectivist 03:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not do this in a standard pressure/vacuum chamber? I'd assume there is a way to clean lead, and to do it under oxygen-free conditions, then evacuate the chamber. Why do you need palladium at all? You could just introduce deuterium/hydrogen and see what happens? If the pressure rises according to expectation from the lead not absorbing it, there you go. And if, instead, the pressure stays low, and probably the lead heats up a bit, you have formed lead deuteride. Look, I know practically nothing about this. Lead hydride is known, it's called plumbane. PbH4. Apparently quite unstable, very hard to detect even.
Dreaming up experiments for others to perform isn't a particularly fruitful occupation. It's certainly been done when seriously new theoretical work, apparently solid, leads to predictions, i.e., consider Einstein's prediction that light would be attracted by gravity. As it is, we have astonishing results from experiments already performed, and nobody is attempting replication, as far as we know. I'm attempting to replicate SPAWAR neutron findings. After that, I might try to replicate Vyosotskii's experiment with w:Deinococcus radiodurans, showing synthesis through w:Mossbauer spectroscopy demonstrating the appearance of Fe-57 in a culture medium containing deuterium and Mn-54. Stunning work, if replicated. If not replicated, who is going to believe it except those nutty CFers, who, themselves, mutter at having to allow papers on it. Of course, if CF is real, then it would not be astonishing if life figured out some way to arrange nucleosynthesis. There would be radiation damage from the process, which could be the significance of Deinococcus radiodurans, which can handle astonishingly high levels of radiation. But Vyosotskii also appears to pull of this trick with yeasts, and the yeasts which run the synthesis could be sacrificing themselves for the whole colony, providing a needed trace element.

On this point, of replication of remarkable results, Kowalski attempted to replicate Oriani's finding of radiation with light water electrolysis. Bad choice. If you read the Oriani paper on which Kowalski based his work, it was a farrago of non-identical experiments with completely unclear controls, lots of uncontrolled variables, and poorly reported. So Kowalski et al came up with basically nothing but a collection of occasional anomalies, nothing consistent enough to phone home about. Noble goal, wrong target. Kowalski was a Galileo replicator, he published on it in EPJAP, was it? I wonder what the back side of his CR-39 looked like! Unfortunately, Galileo used a silver cathode, and the neutrons weren't apparently generated with that substrate. Copiously with gold, and substantially with platinum. Turns out that the original protocol gave a choice, but Krivit wanted, insisted on, one design, and Pam wasn't at liberty to disclose the neutron findings yet, she'd probably pushed the edge just suggesting gold at all! Can you wonder that the military was concerned about a technique for generating neutrons so simply? Fortunately, there are relatively easy ways to generate even more neutrons at low overall temperatures. A SPAWAR cell may be generating on the order of one neutron per second, or even per minute. It's only through the use of an integrating detector like CR-39 or LR-115, very close to the source, that it's even possible to distinguish this from background. --Abd 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in the financial position to to any experiments, and haven't been, for many years. So either I post them for others to try, or wait for someone else to independently think of them. That's all there is to it. Objectivist 05:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article[edit]

Noting that five of us (Abd, Moulton, Alison, Mike, and James) have been reverted and our contributions to the talk page discussions ignored, over-ruled, stricken, archived, or redacted, I would like to review how editors like Woonpton, Enric Naval, and Kww manipulate the content of the article by manipulating the discussions on the talk page. Do we need a subpage for List of Cold Fusion Redactors? —Caprice 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not support this and warn against it, even though I understand and even sympathize, at least to a degree. There is a subpage for commentary on the Wikipedia article, Cold_fusion#The_Wikipedia_article is the mainspace link to it, but it's deliberately not on Wikipedia editors, as such. There is a page on netknowledge.org designed for that kind of study, Wikimedia Studies:Cold fusion. Generally, Wikipedia issues, about editorial behavior, should be dealt with on Wikipedia, or, where that's not possible, on the independent sites wikipediareview.com and netknowledge.org. Our learning resource here is about Cold fusion, not Wikipedia function or dysfunction. Very important to maintain that distinction. It is a setup for unnecessary disruption to study Wikipedia editorial behavior here, beyond passing mention.
Wikipedia editors, of all stripes, are invited to participate in making our resource neutral, overall. If it's not neutral because they don't participate, tough. We'll try, anyway, but the only guarantee of neutrality is consensus, and when people with a fixed POV, unchangeable, participate in consensus process, it becomes blatantly obvious, it's one reason why such people might avoid it. Others, with a supposedly "fringe" topic is that they might think it a waste of time.
I was able to run consensus process a few times on Wikipedia, relating to cold fusion, and that's why there were some successes there. Wikipedia isn't designed for that, though, and often doesn't support it, considering it a waste of time to discuss things with "dedicated POV-pushers," which are naturally defined as "them," i.e., the people they disagree with. And "neutral" administrators frequently are clueless, don't understand the issues and don't want to, and don't have the patience and time to facilitate actual resolution. Kww is probably not "manipulating the content of the article," I'll say that much, not deliberately. He simply doesn't understand what's going on. He might or might not be "helping a friend," his behavior could certainly be criticized, and will be. But not here. I'll do it on Wikipedia Review, where it's absolutely appropriate; you, Caprice, cannot do it there because of a certain inconvenience, but you can definitely help with the resource on netknowledge.org, and you were long ago invited to do so. Maybe now you'll see the reason for that invitation!
We can, within bounds, link to external resources, like WR and NK, but we should be very careful about how we do it. Both WR are (generally) open sites, with no special bias, they simply allow more "free speech" on certain things which would, here, raise "cross-wiki issues." I'd suggest more caution, Caprice, in linking to your own blog. Cover this topic there, and link to that coverage, it could be a problem. Whether you can or should link to your own blog on NK.org is up to site management there. Which has some overlap with Wikiversity.org local administration. --Abd 22:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand your apprehension. But consider that this same issue applies to discourse on CF everywhere (including the peer-reviewed journals and secondary sources). It's virtually a foregone conclusion that there will never be consensus (in our lifetime) on CF. Nor do I even think it's possible to make coverage neutral. Think of a tug of war, where neither side can budge the other. For every incremental Newton of force on one side, the other side will counterbalance it with an equal and opposite Newton of force. At all times, the net balance is neutral, but the tension is rising. Eventually this tension will become the dominant feature of the tug-of-war. Eventually something (or someone) will snap. I notice that User:Kww is raising the tension by baleting anything and everything that he can find to smash his banhammer on. This is as much a phenomenon of note as anything in the review of the CF saga. —Caprice 23:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The problems at Wikipedia are structural. It's an error to focus on the individuals who might do this or that; but to address such individual behavioral problems, one should follow due process on Wikipedia, such as it exists. This is not the place. The article can be discussed here, and we can create an article version that reflects genuine consensus process here. (If we have difficulty finding consensus, we can create a set of articles.) This will be creating something that the primitive Wikipedia process can chew on. Wikipedia is utterly intolerant of the kind of discussion that is required to find consensus where there is conflict. That has to take place elsewhere. Why not the Wikiversity environment?
  • It's happened before that a banned editor (then called ScienceApologist) created a superior article on a sister wiki, and I supported the port back to Wikipedia. RfC there works, if the ground work has been done. Building the article there is subject to the usual flak.
  • If you choose to address individual editor behavior on Wikipedia, here on Wikiversity, I can't and won't stop you, but I will insist that it be on pages dedicated to that, so that if what could easily happen comes down, it won't damage the Cold fusion resource here, at most a link will need to be removed. I greatly prefer that such study be done on NetKnowledge.org, and a structure is already set up, with a little content.
  • I'll note, as well, that, while I mentioned Wikipedia Review above, that's not practical. WR, big surprise, being a collection of Wikipedia editors without a vision of how to move beyond Wikipedia limitations, suffers from some of the same problems. NK could as well, but, so far, so good. Key is how the site administration behaves. WR has always been erratic, often useful, but prone, like Wikipedia, to all-or-nothing solutions and intolerance for depth. Part of that is the software....
  • Basically, I did address these issues on Wikipedia Review, and it was interpreted (as a sincere error or otherwise) as an attack on you. The result (shoving of posts that were appropriately placed, into the Tar Feather section, with threads being closed, not-related threads merged, making it all unintelligible) means to me that I won't contribute there further. The site admin has the right to run the site the way they choose. The same is true for Wikipedia, and the only problem is that the promise to the public that Wikipedia represents falls short. We can help fix that latter problem. We are not so visible as Wikipedia, but individual pages here can become visible to Wikipedia. And can be seen as superior, from every aspect. We aren't there yet. It will take a lot of work. Let's do it! --Abd 15:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • One should follow due process on Wikipedia, such as it exists.
Alas, it was clearly established, some two years ago, that due process doesn't exits on Wikipedia. As you know, I pointed this out to JPS, Woonpton, and Kww, but they stuck their heads in the sand. Also, I have no expectation that anyone on the English Wikipedia will view the pages here as superior to the ones there. —Caprice 18:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You are making an unwarranted assumption, Caprice, that only those currently involved with the article would be involved in an RfC. You are right about those currently involved, for the most part. There are a few who would make a fair judgment, but they are so heavily discouraged by what has come down that they aren't really watching any more. One or two of those currently involved, if they saw a fair and complete article, might change their position, but probably not the majority. However, I've managed to get decisions made that were opposed by the faction that does maintain the article, by setting up conditions where independent review would take place by people not involved. RfC can do that. If the RfC is over a complicated issue, it won't work. You can't get neutral editors to study the topic deeply enough. But if the RfC is "this article" vs. "that article," it could work, properly handled. Look, it's really obvious that there is a severe problem with the article: just compare the abstract for the Storms review (2010) with the article! I'm not saying specifically how a better article would treat the topic, but the present article strongly implies that something like the Storms review couldn't exist, that the mainstream clearly rejects -- present tense -- cold fusion, etc. The truth is far more complex, and "the truth" is quite visible in reliable source.
Someone like Salsman has kept trying to improve the WP article, with sock after sock. It doesn't work, I'd say, and improvements by "legitimate editors" don't work either. At the same time, someone like Shanahan thinks the WP article is hopelessly biased for cold fusion, because it doesn't cover his theories. It was tried to cover his theories with a specific article on them, it was deleted as a POV fork. I had it undeleted and moved to my user space. w:User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments. Barry, I consistently tried to shift the article toward unbiased coverage, which included some appropriate level of coverage of Shanahan; his criticism is sufficiently notable to be included on Wikipedia. It isn't. Pcarbonn also tried to assist Shanahan. Shanahan, personally, seems to have been unable to see that, he blamed me for the situation with the article, see his last comments to his user talk page, even though I'd effectively been banned for more than a year, even though I conducted myself as COI, etc...., after returning. Bad situation. No facilitation of consensus. There was a mediation that was successful. Ignored. No, WP is basically impossible, directly. With enormous effort, small improvements can be, and have been, made. But then it slides back.
Due process does exist on Wikipedia, but it's unreliable, and it takes far too much skill and effort to make it more than that. --Abd 18:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You are making an unwarranted assumption, Caprice, that only those currently involved with the article would be involved in an RfC.
Huh?!? Rfc?!? The notion of an RfC hadn't even crossed my mind. I have no idea where you got that from or why you'd imagine I was even thinking about one.
  • Due process does exist on Wikipedia, but it's unreliable, and it takes far too much skill and effort to make it more than that.
The finding, some two years ago, that Wikipedia doesn't do due process, emerged from a protracted discussion in which I wasn't even a participant. The outcome of that discussion was that Lar, Sam Korn, and GRBerry (among others) noted that the absence of due process was not particularly unique to my case back in 2007, but was a general characteristic of Wikipedia, across the board. Nor has anything fundamentally changed since then. —Caprice 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I have mentioned RfC somewhere recently. Of course you weren't thinking about RfC. It's due process on Wikipedia where there may be a problem with local participation bias. Properly done -- which takes preparation, and it is often not properly done, questions are presented prematurely -- RfC can cut through piles of BS. At some point, Barry, you might start to recognize that I know what I'm talking about and have experience with it, different from your experience. That "due process" exists -- even though it's often obscure -- is not negated by what you've cited. Yes, due process often is not followed, even usually not followed. But, of course, if they want to slam you for not following it, they will. They don't follow it themselves, though. I knew how to bypass those limitations, and was successful at it. That, indeed, is why I was sanctioned at various times, it's obvious. But that's not for me to prove here. The point is that it's possible to gain real consensus on Wikipedia, it is merely difficult, and, my conclusion, way too much work for too little benefit. It's due process, all right, but you can get banned for following it if you offend an active political faction. Etc. However, setting up an article here can be done with no need to expose the writers and experts to Wikipedia flak, and then proposing the change on Wikipedia is a relatively modest task. If needed, I could ask for -- and probably get -- ArbComm permission to do it. (The current cold fusion ban on me is utterly bogus.) But I'd only do that as a representative of several editors, not on my own. --Abd 19:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Abd, you might know what you are talking about, but it's not clear anyone else has a clue what you are going on (and on and on) about. Due process on WP is about as rare an outcome as fusion occurring in a random experiment. You can put lots and lots of energy in, and get diddly squat out. —Caprice 20:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
"Due process" is not an outcome, it's a procedure. Put "lots of energy" in, you do get results, if what you were asking for is actually what will be broad consensus if you can get enough editors to consider it. You'd be surprised. But ... part of the problem is that what you get may be a transient decision that won't stick unless it's maintained, if there are enough people willing to defy consensus later, and with the protection to pull it off. To arrange maintenance is difficult, it might take not only an ArbComm decision, which is a royal pain to get, and dangerous, but someone must be allowed to go to Arbitration Enforcement and ask for enforcement. I did get ArbComm decisions, quite favorable as to the issues I'd raised, but was banned from going to AE, and who was left who understood the issues? Again, I know how to fix this situation, but ... too much work. I'm not going to do it unless there is a very clear -- and relatively simple -- purpose. My point is that it can be done, and either I can do it or someone else can do it, and I'd assist. I am not however, going to do it alone, i.e., without backing. I have far better things to do. --Abd 20:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Due process is a pipe dream. —Caprice 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Provide an example of a typical experiment[edit]

It would help me to get a better understanding of the general issues discussed in the course if a typical (recent or particularly noteworthy) experiment was described. What does a reactor look like? How much energy is involved? At what temperature does it run? How is the experiment conducted, monitored, measured, and analyzed? What difficulties are encountered? I recognize there is diversity in the various approaches so that any one experiment may not be representative, but I would like to understand one or two actual experiments in some detail. Thanks--Lbeaumont 11:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could talk about experiments P13 and P14, done by w:Michael McKubre at w:SRI International, under contract to the w:Electric Power Research Institute, in the early 1990s. I can come up with a formal, researched description, or you could read the technical report. This is just off-the-cuff. CF cells at this point are experimental devices, calling them "reactors" is a bit misleading. (However, Rossi, last month, demonstrated a device, operating by undisclosed means, with output allegedly on the order of 10 KW, and is promising a 1 MW version by the end of this year. This is not standard CF, uses hydrogen gas, and is, in fact, being called a "reactor." Time will tell.)
I can replace this with an accurate description, some of what I'll say could be off by quite a bit. There is a glass w:Dewar flask, containing maybe 100 ml of D2O (heavy water), with some lithium hydroxide to make it conductive. There is a platinum anode and a solid rod palladium cathode. Electrolytic current will separate the D2O into deuterium and oxygen, and the deuterium, evolved at the cathode, will be absorbed, the massive absorption of hydrogen or deuterium is a special characteristic of the metal palladium. A long period of electrolysis is required before the cathode is sufficiently loaded to start to show the Fleischmann-Pons effect. (Over 90% loading -- atom percent -- is required, this is part of what the SRI work was exploring). Early replication failures often did not get above 70%.) The cell is sealed, and a recombiner catalyst is used to recombine any evolved deuterium that is not loaded into the cathode.
In this pair of experiments, the deuterium cell was in series with an otherwise identical cell containing ordinary water rather than heavy water, so the evolved and absorbed gas is hydrogen.
After the palladium is heavily loaded, high loading is maintained by a "trickle charge," low current. The cell heat evolution is continuously monitored with flow calorimetry. The temperature of the cell is only slightly elevated above room temperature, maintained at that temperature by the flow. The calorimetry shows only normal heat from the maintenance current.
Periodically, the current was ramped up, and the normal response of the cell to this, as to "excess heat," that is, heat generated by the cell above that expected from Joule heating by the electrolytic input power, was nothing. Heat remained within calorimetry noise or error bars. However, with P13 and P14, the third high-current excursion produced excess heat, the higher the current, the more excess heat, in the deuterium cell only. In this class of experiment, the excess heat amounted to something like 5% of input power. P13/P14 were early work in the field. This heat was called an "anomaly." It was a clear effect, it's not down in the noise, but no prosaic explanation has been found and demonstrated.
I'll describe another experiment, the one I'm working on replicating. The cell is an acrylic box, 1 inch square by 2 inches high. In it is about 25 ml of D20, with some lithium chloride to make the electrolyte. A small amount of palladium chloride is added to the electrolyte. There is a platinum wire anode, and about two inches of exposed gold wire as a cathode. Electrolytic current is ramped up over about three weeks, first to build a palladium plating layer on the gold wire, then to load it with deuterium and increase the current density. This technique is called "codeposition" and is thought to trigger the F-P effect almost immediately, but in this case, the initial voltage may be too low to evolve deuterium, I'm unsure and the data isn't published.
In this experiment, heat measurement is not part of the protocol. The search here is for radiation. In the original version, the "Galileo project," -- widely replicated -- the cathode was silver and was in contact with a 2 cm square piece of CR-39 plastic, which functions as a solid state radiation detector, and SPAWAR has long claimed to have observed tracks on that plastic from radiation. Recently, the end of 2008, they were allowed by their military supervision to announce that tracks characteristic of neutrons had been found. In later publication, it became apparent that the highest concentration of tracks was with a gold cathode. Why the cathode substrate would make a difference -- it's a huge difference from silver, I'd estimate three orders of magnitude or more -- is unknown. What reaction is producing the neutrons is unknown. The levels of neutrons are far above background for the small area of the detector that displays them. However, this is still only a few neutrons detected per hour. (The neutrons are detected through knock-on protons from collisions in the detector material; in addition a few "triple tracks," characteristic of C-12 breakup to three alpha particles, were seen.)
SPAWAR has done some work to characterize the energy of the neutrons. They are consistent with D-T fusion, if I'm correct.
The neutron work has not been replicated, hence my effort. I'm using LR-115 SSNTDs instead of CR-39, it is a cleaner material to work with. I will lose some spatial resolution, due to the 0.062 inch thick cell wall, but my detectors will be outside the electrolyte (dry configuration), while the SPAWAR detectors were wet. Wet detectors introduces the possibility of chemical damage, and there is evidence that some of what SPAWAR has reported (previously, about charged particle radiation) involves chemical damage. But not the neutron findings, which are prominent on the back side of their detectors, away from the cathode. --Abd 14:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Abd, comment of Moulton[edit]

With [1], Moulton made a personal comment about me on the resource page, I've removed it. As to the substance, the top-level resource should be balanced by editorial consensus. Subpages may be short or long. Length of a page can make it less useful. Excessive brevity can make it less useful. Subpages may have authors, named, who are responsible for them. By the way, I did not originate this resource, as page history shows, the first work was done by JWSchmidt. I've become the major contributor, but that may not persist. --Abd 13:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for demonstrating the thesis that you are the dominant (and ultimately controlling) author and editor of this resource, in which points of view that are contrary to your own are presented in an openly semi-balanced, semi-visible, and foggy manner in which some of the content on one side may go on at great length, relative to the other side, and some of the content may be hidden in collapse boxes, moved to talk pages or to arbitrarily named subpages, creatively mislabeled, or buried beneath a mind-numbing, eye-glazing, coma-inducing blizzard of words in tiresome run-on sentences like this one. —Caprice 14:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Almost four years ago, I took on the project of organizing and developing this learning resource. It's still quite primitive, compared with what it could be. This is not simply a discussion forum; rather discussion is sometimes used as a tool to develop learning resources, and even to inspire original research. That requires structure be established. Caprice, who was only briefly off of a ban, did participate in some very useful discussions, it caused some actual research to be done by a scientist, and I think that's referenced. It's unfortunate that he was banned again, but he essentially demanded it. If Caprice didn't like what was done to organize discussions, to move them to subpages or sometimes into collapse, to make it all readable and accessible without censorship, which was Caprice's usual complaint, then, on Wikiversity, he could create parallel resources. We do not fight over resources here, they are not scarce. A top-level resource, even where it's under the progressivist template, should be neutral, in my opinion. Lower-level essays, discussions, seminars, etc., need not be, and can even be "owned." I.e., *my essay,* please don't touch it. But such would be signed and so indicated.
While I was gone, a fair amount of material was added to Cold fusion/Theory and some of this really doesn't belong on that page, because to have individual essays and opinions on that page, which is intended to summarize theory in the field, can be out of balance, giving undue weight to private theories. Some might say that about some of my writing, and I might even agree. One step at a time! My goal, however, is to be neutral at the top, and I would not intend to maintain any original research, for example, on the Cold fusion mainspace page. It does appear in subpages, and others are welcome to also generate original research, similarly. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Cold fusion papers[edit]

I have access to all the papers listed in the Britz database,[2] up to quite recently. That is roughly 1500 papers on cold fusion, from mainstream journals. There are many more, including many conference papers, that are not necessarily easy to obtain, but I may be able to do so. I will not provide copies of papers that are covered by copyright and protected, but I'm willing to review and discuss them on request. If anyone is interested in the content of a specific paper, contact me by email through the Wikiversity interface. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the idea of cold fusion dangerous? I just thought about how traditional fusion is not allowed to be patented, because it would disclose information. If this is the case, stuff of this nature shouldn't be published anywhere. I am reasonable to understand if you are able to explain that this is safe, or that certain details are not published. Other than this concern, this is a good research project. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing being described on Wikiversity is dangerous, outside of working with certain chemicals that could be handled improperly. There is no military application issue, it does not appear to be possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction with cold fusion. Cold fusion takes place in condensed matter, basically the solid state. That doesn't exist when stuff gets really hot. So if there is a reaction, and it gets really hot, it doesn't get even hotter, instead it shuts down, as the reaction environment is destroyed. I have worried about Rossi's e-cat, Cold fusion/Energy Catalyzer which looks a bit like a nifty pipe bomb. He has apparently had explosions, because he is working to generate very high heat. He's also had stuff melt down. These are not student projects nor would I recommend them, at all, for students. Any explosion produced would not be nuclear, it would be more like an overheated hot water heater. Very dangerous! But just from steam pressure.
(Rossi's claims are not clearly "cold fusion," nor is his work considered scientifically validated. That's a whole subject to itself.)
Mostly we will be dealing with the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect and related information, history, and what is known scientifically.
There is a lot. In July, I was at ICCF-18 at the University of Missouri,[3] and I've been to two scientific conferences at MIT. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The lede[edit]

After top matter, the current lede is the abstract from Storms, "Status of cold fusion (2010)" published in Naturwissenschaften. As this is a relatively recent review published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, this should be golden by Wikipedia standards, if the Arbitration Committee standards for fringe science were being followed. That review was considered on Wikipedia at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, and found to be reliable source. Yet fact and judgment from it remain almost completely excluded from the Wikipedia article, while far weaker material including primary sources is included.

I know that seeing this abstract as lede here could be disconcerting to one whose knowledge of cold fusion doesn't go much deeper than knowledge of what is in the Wikipedia article. That article, however, is heavily based on what was found in reviews, popular and scientific, of the field, twenty years ago. In one case, as an example, Huizenga is cited giving a very basic problem with cold fusion: no identified nuclear ash. However, in the second edition of his book, Cold Fusion, Scientific Fiasco of the Century, Huizenga pointed to the work of Miles (at that time only published as a conference paper), and wrote that, "if confirmed," it would solve a major mystery of cold fusion, i.e., the ash. The fact of Miles' discovery, the significance of it, and, then, the later confirmation of it, are all still excluded from the Wikipedia article. Note that Miles is heavily covered in reliable source.

The arguments advanced, in Wikipedia debate, against using the Storms review, have all been, so far, POV arguments, selected to appear reasonable while, in fact, violating reliable source guidelines and neutrality policy. I would hope that all these arguments are brought here, because that is a big part of what we do on Wikiversity: examine the arguments.

If there is material in reliable source that is contradictory to what is in the Storms review, we should certainly cite it. However, it is routine in scientific literature that later reviews contradict earlier ones, i.e., come to differing conclusions as "evidence is acumulated." There are, in fact, about 16 reviews of cold fusion that have appeared in mainstream journals since roughly 2004, see our Sources subpage. There are no negative reviews in that period. (The 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review was not negative, in spite of how it has often been framed. It was, however, not published under peer review, and it contains face-palm clear errors.) The skeptical or pseudoskeptical position represented by the Wikipedia article, as to overall presentation, has not been found in the scientific literature for a decade. The only appearance of which I'm aware is a letter by Kirk Shanahan to Journal of Environmental Monitoring, which appears to have been published because the editors received nothing better. Shanahan was demolished with the response, and the editors disallowed further response (Shanahan has complained about that). The Naturwissenschaften review has only had one response, a recent critique by Steve Krivit, who is essentially quibbling with details. Krivit's position is that low-energy nuclear reactions are real, he merely thinks they are neutron-activated, "not fusion." That is itself a semantic quibble. "Fusion" has two meanings, a general one and a common specific one. Krivit relies on a certain specific meaning, not the general.

Editors are welcome to come here to develop this resource, and that very much includes skeptics. If we cannot agree on the top-level page content, we will fork the resource into sections, with the top-level page being neutral by consensus. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

your argument about Huizenga and how this source is used in the wikipedia article should be brought up on the talk page for that article, as should your point about later reviews having precedence. to be honest, you should bring this whole body of argument over there.Insertcleverphrasehere (discusscontribs) 23:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I "should"? Insert, I'm banned on Wikipedia. Many things covered here have been brought up there, by me and by others, with reference to reliable sources and policy. Sometime take a look at the Talk page history. I was not a Single Purpose Account, I had history and plenty of general editing before I ever became involved in Cold fusion. I was very careful in attempting to move the article toward neutrality. However, I did make a mistake: I somehow imagined that the Talk page was a place to discuss issues. Wikipedians often dislike that. "Wiki" means "quick." The Talk page is only a place to discuss the article itself, i.e, specific edits. Now, how one can balance an article without understanding the issues is beyond me. However, this is probably why so many Wikipedia articles deviate from expert opinion. Experts get banned, routinely, if their positions differ from the dominant group there.
This is not policy. It is defacto what happens when there are factions that dominate. Much Wikipedia process is designed to defend against isolated "POV-pushing," but has never been good, at all, at what has been called "majority POV-pushing," i.e., insistence on a point of view by a faction that has a local majority of editors, and when administrators are factional, it is very poor at it. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I should be having an article in a peer-reviewed journal appear very soon, on the very subject you thought should be covered on Wikipedia. It did have to pass peer-review, the reviewer was definitely not a "believer." Because of my Wikipedia experience, everything important was sourced, though not always to peer-reviewed journals. In fact, the paper is largely a tertiary source, because it depends on reliable secondary sources (Storms, 2007 and 2010). However, the point the paper makes is primary, it is pretty much my own original argument. You would realize, of course, that this part of my paper could not be covered on Wikipedia. Many newbies make the mistake of using peer-reviewed *primary sources.* It can be allowed *with consensus.* Fat chance on this topic! --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

fr.Wikiversity on cold fusion[edit]

fr.wikiversity/Researche:Transmutations biologiques, a page on biological transmutation, which is a minor topic among cold fusion researchers, long story, has subpages on cold fusion topics. I've been working on a study of a recent report, and they have mentioned it: [4] (at the end of the section, referring to Parkhomov.) Meanwhile, there are other developments in the field. I will start to build a resource on the Parkhomov experiment, because it's a very simple experiment, and should, in theory, be quite replicable, unlike the report that it supposedly is confirming, the Lugano test of the Rossi "Hot Cat." The Lugano device is not documented, it's an industrial secret, and the Lugano report itself was not properly calibrated, it's a mess. Parkhomov, I'll say at this early stage, with little information, looks like artifact to me, but ... the approach is extremely interesting, and if there is a Rossi secret to be found independently, that cat will soon be out of the bag. Parkhomov is triggering a lot of independent testing, and that's very good news. Meanwhile, I have a paper that has passed peer review, on my Favorite Topic, which maybe, after five years of study, I might know something about, and it's scheduled for publication in February. Fingers crossed, papers on cold fusion have been accepted before, even entire collections have been accepted before, and then, mysteriously, the editors or publishers change their minds. How does that happen? Hmmmm.... I wonder. There couldn't be any pressure behind the scenes, could there?

If it's not published, I'll publish it here or in JCMNS, but ... it was a great experience, facing peer review. My first time. Better late than never. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion[edit]

A deletion request has been opened for this page. It was created by an IP user with no contribution history, and I reverted the original request because I've been tracking a long-term abuser who does things like this; however the user reverted it back in and then another IP commented, and then JzG, a Wikipedia administrator, so, because of JzG's participation, the status of the discussion creator has become irrelevant. The deletion arguments are mostly irrelevant, but the following is worth discussing:

Delete it Totally different IP here (I have an en.wp username that I will disclose privately to any admin upon request, but not in public). I just checked that page and found factually inaccurate claims from unreliable sources repeated verbatim in the lead. That's the reddest, flaggiest red flag there is. (discuss) 13:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In my view, a user deliberately editing by IP to conceal the main account, to avoid responsibility for the editing, is socking. What is argued here is highly deceptive, besides not being a deletion argument.

First of all, there is no "lead" [sic, lede], other than a rigorously neutral welcome. What the user must be referring to is the introductory quotation ("verbatim") from the abstract of Storms, accepted for Naturwissenschaften as a summary of the field and the article there, a peer-reviewed review of the topic. The user calls this "unreliable sources." But it's only one source, and I took that source, just before being banned from the cold fusion topic on Wikipedia, to the Reliable Source Noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_77#Does_"fringe_author"_affect_Reliable_Source_criteria?
[there appears to be some bug here, that link is not being parsed correctly. It was copied directly from the browser bar. The full link, copied, works.]

That is reliable source, of the highest quality (peer-reviewed review of the field in a mainstream publication). However, that it seems unreliable to the IP shows that he doesn't know the topic and the sources, but is making such a claim without evidence, and if this were Wikipedia, contrary to Wikipedia policy. I put that quotation there, because I know of none better to introduce the topic with something on solid ground. I do not actually agree with part of it. We do not know that the reaction is "between deuterons," though there is evidence that deuterium is being converted to helium, which Storms covers in the article.

What is "factually inaccurate" there, according to what reliable source? The statement is attributed, so it is rigorously true. I.e., that abstract says that. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, there is no "lead" [sic, lede], First of all, "lede" is a term from the newspaper industry which is a deliberate misspelling of "lead", referring to the first paragraph. This misspelling was done to differentiate it from "lead" (as in the metal) which was a common term used for a different meaning in the same industry. "Lede" and "lead" are equivalent terms, so your correction is purely misguided pedantry. Also, that project absolutely has a lead paragraph, so your claim to the contrary is truly bizarre.
As for the rest of your complaints; it's not worth it to discuss. You are, quite obviously, here to push a pro-cold-fusion POV and advocate for cold-fusion. You were banned from en.wp for exactly that. Nothing I say would be convincing to you in the slightest, and you have already demonstrated your willingness to engage in dishonesty, so the notion of causing you any cognitive dissonance that might result in you re-evaluating your arguments is simply not an option.
tl;dr: I stand by everything I said 100% and don't believe for one second that you are capable of engaging in a productive discussion about anything to do with cold fusion. (discuss) 16:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I do engage in such discussions where allowed, and have done so within this resource, with skeptics. My Wikipedia ban had far more complex causes than the common allegation, but it was not for "pushing a POV." However, this is all irrelevant, besides being grossly uncivil. No "factual inaccuracy" has been alleged, just a shotgun claim. If the page is believed to be imbalanced, there are ready ways to fix that, which have not ever been attempted. Deletion almost never the answer on Wikiversity. The actual lede is this:
Welcome to the Cold Fusion learning project. The Wikipedia article on cold fusion is here.
These resources and seminars may present personal opinions of the writer(s). As the resources mature, controversial statements should be clarified and sourced, and any contrary opinions presented. Opinions expressed as original research, and not as a general consensus, should be attributed. Please help make this top-level resource neutral.
And there are some templates and an announcement. There is invitation to help balance the resource, if it is unbalanced, which the IP above has ignored. That could actually be done, or the process started, with a few minutes editing. Some Wikiversitans have experience with this, Wikipedians often don't.
The paragraph being called the "lede" is an introductory quotation from a major peer-reviewed journal on the topic (2010) there are more recent reviews that could be so used in an introduction. Any suggestions? One might look at the subpage on Recent Sources, and if one really wants to be useful, one could actually extend that Recent Sources page. That particular page is for mainstream peer-reviewed and academic publications. All of them, not just ones supporting some point of view. This is what a neutral study looks like.
To make the matter clear, I have added a section head "Introduction" and others are invited to add or suggest abstracts or brief quotations from mainstream peer-reviewed journals or academic publications, to introduce the study. As could have been done beginning years ago... --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)