Talk:Cold fusion

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Disclosure of COI[edit]

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