Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion : KEEP

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 11:06 AM 9/13/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)#Energy_Catalyzer
 
It survived deletion, despite complaints that: 

Off wiki mailing list by Alanf777, Zedshort and others here:
(vortex)

which seems to constitute off-wiki canvassing 

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Alan J Fletcher]

I went with a non-snarky fairly neutral "wait and see"
response:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)#Energy_Catalyzer
 
Keep Although the eCat has not achieved mainstream media
attention, there is sufficient
Non-WP:RS
evidence that things are happening behind the scenes (with a resolution
on a relatively short timescale -- say 3-6 months) -- that we're still in
a "wait and see" status. There is no particular reason to
delete it
now.Alanf777
(talk)
18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 
I'm wondering now whether to jump back into the editing fray.

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:04 PM 9/9/2012, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
On 10 September 2012 02:52, Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:


You do not need to satisfy people. You need to 
report the replicated, peer-reviewed facts of 
the matter. Science is not a popularity contest.



That is true, but here cold fusion science has failed.Â

Correlation of excess power and helium 
production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes

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

Here is one example of the good peer-reviewed 
paper, but where is the replication of the data?


The correlation has been confirmed, with higher accuracy.

 This finding about the correlation to be 
reliable, there should be several successful 
replication attempts published. But where are those?


Look at Storms, "Status of cold fusion (2010)," 
Naturwissenschaften. A preprint is hosted on lenr-canr.org.


Basically, any PdD experiments that measure heat 
helium serve as partial replication, or full 
confirmation if the experiments are a coherent 
series. It's not been done as much as I'd like, 
but what has been done is quite adequate to confirm the fact of correlation.


The paper is almost 20 years old. There are few, 
yes, but not good enough quality data and often 
the data is even conflicting. E.g. some studies 
suggest that both H and D are working.


There are thousands of studies in the field. You 
are lumping them together and expecting them to 
be consistent. First of all the field is named 
"cold fusion," and there are some ready 
assumptions that there is only one effect. That 
is very unlikely to be the case, though Storms 
does propose a common mechanism. His theory is 
highly speculative in certain ways (but it's 
designed to fit what is known, so it's quite 
worthy of respect, even if it might be incorrect in various ways.


PdD experiments produce helium. That is 
considered established in the field, and the 
inference that the reaction has an expected Q of 
23.8 MeV/He-4 (that of deuterium fusing to 
helium, by whatever mechanism or intermediate 
pathway) is so strong that some papers which 
measure helium then use the expected helium as a 
comparison value. But it can be quite difficult 
to accurately capture and measure all the helium.


We have no idea what is produced if there is a 
heat effect with light water. What was recognized 
early on was that light water was not a "clean 
control." However, in Pd experiments, light water 
used as a control shows far less heat than 
deuterium. In SRI P13/P14, the hydrogen control 
is essentially dead. It's noisy, when the 
bubbling gets intense as the current is ramped up, that's all.


Whether or not light water results were an effect 
from the low deuterium content of light water 
would be one idea, but there have been persistent 
reports of light water heat results, particularly with nickel.


This has *nothing to do* with PdD results. NiH 
could be wonderful or bogus. Referring to varying 
reports of NiH results as in some way weakening 
the heat/helium work is an ungrounded fantasy.


Further, the FPHE is known to be highly variable. 
That is, what appear to be the exact same 
conditions (which is typically with a single 
experimenter, since researchers vary their exact 
approaches), results can vary widely. Most 
research has had a simple goal: to increase the 
heat signal, and to increase reliability. Much 
progress has been made, to the point where many 
groups can expect most cells to show heat, but it still varies a lot.


Given that helium is accepted, and that it's 
expensive and difficult to measure, not a lot of 
work has been done. However, if I were running a 
lab doing CF experiments, with PdD, I'd want to 
routinely measure helium, even if only as cell 
samples. It's a confirmation of the calorimetry.


The work to nail down the heat/helium ratio is of 
little commercial value, so it's unwise to expect 
it to be done by commercially-funded research. 
This is a job for academia, mostly.


Now, given the variable effect, this allows 
identical experiments to be used to measure the 
heat/helium ratio. Just treat all cells the same, 
measure the heat, and measure the helium. There 
are more details than that, but this is the basic 
idea. No additional control is needed, though 
running hydrogen controls has been done. Hydrogen 
control cells do not show helium. Only deuterium 
cells producing excess heat show helium, in the 
reported work. The analyses are done blind, so 
that those measuring the helium do not know the 
history of the cell from which the sample was taken.


Perhaps the status of cold fusion could be 
better if there were better marketing of ideas.


Scientists are not trained in marketing. How Pons 
and Fleischmann were treated by the scientific 
community was a travesty. This has all been 
well-documented in the academic literature, it 
was a total break

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:01 PM 9/9/2012, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

What comes to cold fusion, there are no 
established scientific point of view, therefore 
it is impossible to write a good Wikipedia 
article on cold fusion that would satisfy everyone.


Actually, there is. The claim Jouni makes is one 
that misunderstands both the current science and 
Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not based on truth. 
Editors actually are not supposed to work from 
conclusions on truth, including "scientific 
truth." That would be SPOV, Scientific Point of 
View, and it misunderstands both science and Wikipedia.


Wikipedia is an organized compilation of what is 
available in Reliable Source, at least in theory. 
"Reliable" does not mean "True." It refers to a 
principle that Wikipedia developed for what 
knowledge to include in a publicly-edited 
encyclopedia. If Wikipedia had structure that 
would actually facilitate enforcement of the 
guidelines (and/or ordered improvement of them), 
in the presence of factional controversies where 
the ad-hoc methods Wikipedia uses for fast 
decision-making, the principles would be brilliant.


The principle is that independent publishers must 
make notability decisions. If no independent 
publisher will publish something on a topic, it 
is probably not "notable." Further, independent 
publishers have reputations to maintain, so they may emply fact-checkers, etc.


For science articles, the "gold standard" is 
peer-reviewed and academic publications.


But that's not "truth." It is what publishers have published, that's all.

In theory, if it has been published in a Reliable 
Source, it has a place in Wikipedia. *How* it is 
placed is another story. Is it presented simply 
as fact? Or is it attributed? Those are editorial 
decisions, and are ideally made by consensus. 
Where this breaks down is where factions 
coordinate, knee-jerk, and neglect policy and the 
seeking of consensus in favor of their point of 
view. The pseudoskeptical faction was famous for 
this. It's lost many times, when the matter was 
successfully brought to the community's 
attention. But, as well, they were able to 
successfully frame efforts of people like 
Pcarbonn as "Point of View Pushing," it was 
purely political, and Pcarbonn was banned without 
ever having violated any policy.



Cold fusion advocates have failed to market 
their ideas. Instead many cold fusion advocates 
(such as Krivit) took seriously that there would 
be evidence for Ni–>Cu transmutations, although 
scientific evidence was mostly zero. If 
Krivit-level experts are doing such mistakes in 
basic science, how it is possible that this 
field could be taken seriously by Wikipedia?


Because it is covered in Reliable Source, though 
not scientific RS. It's News. Rossi and his work 
are "notable." Jouni imagines that for something 
to be in Wikipedia, it must be "scientifically" 
established. Nope. Most content in Wikipedia is entirely non-scientific.


Tons of content also does not meet RS standards, 
but that's policy violation. Basically, your 
random Wikipedia article probably violates policy 
somewhere. It's easy to find stuff to improve, 
but it's work to actually improve it. For most 
articles, it can take a long time for someone 
with both the inclination and skill to show up and fix it.


Krivit is not ordinarily considered RS, though 
that is debatable. What "field"? What is being 
considered is an article on Rossi's E-Cat. That 
is perhaps too narrow a topic, but all this is 
pretty new. The E-Cat is notable, and so is Rossi.


Ni->Cu transmutation is merely a theory that has 
been mentioned, by Rossi. There is no scientific 
evidence for it that I know of, nothing 
confirmed. Basically, as to what is publicly 
known -- which is what Wikipedia must depend on 
-- we have no clue. We don't even know if these 
devices work for generating heat, there are only 
unverified claims. People witnessed managed 
demonstrations, which don't mean anything 
scientifically. They do mean something, though, 
for news. Where the demonstrations are reported 
in RS, they are notable. Hence this information belongs in Wikipedia.


And now to something completely different.

Although Abd is saying that there is good 
correlation with helium and excess heat, somehow 
I find it very odd, that if correlation is good, 
why it is so darn difficult to replicate?


It isn't difficult to replicate heat/helium, if 
you can set up the effect. Setting up the effect, 
specifically the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, is 
notoriously difficult. That's what people who have done it say.


 The correlation is so difficult to understand 
that even Krivit cannot understand it. 
Therefore I would say that Abd is exaggerating 
the quality of evidence. Quantity does not replace quality.


Krivit is not a scientist and has demonstrated 
that he doesn't understand certain scientific 
issues. He's a reporter, specifically an 
investigative reporter, and he's done a lot of 
work to bring out certain things

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:52 PM 9/9/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jouni Valkonen 
<jounivalko...@gmail.com> wrote:


What comes to cold fusion, there are no 
established scientific point of view . . .



Yes, there is. It is the set of facts in the 
peer-reviewed literature published in mainstream 
journals. This is the definition of an 
"established scientific point of view." There is no other definition.


These facts constitute overwhelming evidence 
that the effect is real. The people at 
Wikipedia, at Sci. Am. and elsewhere have 
replaced this standard with a set of rumors or 
nonsensical assertions made by people who know nothing about the research.


Rothwell is right. When he pointed this out on 
Wikipedia, even though it was only in suggestions 
on the cold fusion article talk page, he was 
banned, with ridiculous and clearly false charges 
heaped on top of the only real thing that could 
be said about his writing. He was blunt, and thus possibly uncivil.


In fact, I learned about cold fusion because, as 
a Wikipedia editor, interested in community 
process and neutrality policy, I noticed that 
lenr-canr.org was blacklisted. I intervened, and 
eventually this went to the Arbitration 
Committee. The Committee found that administrator 
JzG had, being involved in the topic (as a 
skeptic, based on what a friend, an 
elecrochemist, had told him years before, and 
which he very likely did not understand), used 
his tools in violation of recusal policy. JzG was 
actually an egregious violator, but he'd also 
been a very helpful volunteer in certain areas. I 
was told, before the case concluded, that he'd be 
gently reprimanded. That was correct. However, I 
was also told that he would then be on a short 
leash. That was not correct. He was careful not 
to use his adminstrative tools, *usually*, but he 
used his reputation as an administrator to get away with lying about evidence.


I'd successfully gotten cold fusion removed from 
the spam blacklist on Wikipedia, but as soon as 
that possibility appeared, he went to the meta 
coordinating wiki and requested a *global* 
blacklisting. It was immediately granted, this 
was their old friend, JzG. Contrary arguments 
there were ignored. So while the Arbitration 
Committee was reprimanding JzG for what he'd 
personally done on Wikipedia, the same thing, 
with broader consequences, was done on meta. And 
meta was "outide the remit" of the Arbitration Committee.


The meta decision had been closed by a steward 
who, I later found, was abusive in a lot of ways. 
He eventually resigned, when he started losing 
debates. I then requested a reconsideration of 
the blacklisting decision. It was simple, but JzG 
appeared and presented the same lies. You can 
present a series of lies in a few words. 
Demonstrating that they are false can take a lot 
of words, and calling them "lies" can get you 
banned. (Technically, it could be said that these 
were merely errors, not lies, except that the 
same issues had been considered many times by the 
community, JzG's claims had been roundly 
rejected, so *he knew* that there was a problem 
with what he was saying. But he said it anyway, which is why I call it "lies.")


So, to respond, I needed to cover the evidence on 
each claim. I did so, keeping it as concise as I 
could reasonably manage with the time I had. (It 
takes longer to write less, if one needs to be 
complete.) Meanwhile, JzG requested, on 
Wikipedia, that I be banned. There was a 
discussion and the usual suspects collected and 
voted for a ban. A few people pointed out the 
lack of evidence, etc. An administrator looked at 
the discussion and looked at the discussion on 
meta, saw the "wall of text," and decided to ban 
me for writing walls of text. Wikipedians, 
typically, dislike "walls of text," which really 
means anything longer than their attention span 
for the topic. It doesn't matter how well the material is organized.


And then the request for delisting was granted by 
an independent administrator. And that is why it 
is now possible to link to lenr-canr.org. The 
links are often removed, using the very same 
discredited arguments that were considered *in detail* in many places.


Wikipedia does not build knowledge in the 
community. The same issues get considered over and over and over.





. . .  therefore it is impossible to write a 
good Wikipedia article on cold fusion that would satisfy everyone.



You do not need to satisfy people. You need to 
report the replicated, peer-reviewed facts of 
the matter. Science is not a popularity contest.


For Wikipedia, editors need to insert neutrally 
worded text that is referenced by the best 
possible sources. The gold standard is a 
peer-reviewed review of the field, published in a 
mainstream journal (i.e., not a specialist 
journal that might be leniently reviewed, the 
CMNS Journal would probably not be accepted, but 
Naturwissenschaften should be golden.)


Editors should remove unsourc

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Alan J Fletcher]

The page is up for formal deletion.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)
 
I haven't decided yet whether to vote for Delete or Keep.  I'll
probably go with a snarky Keep. 

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:39 PM 9/9/2012, Alan Fletcher wrote:

> From: "Kelley Trezise" 

> Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its
> truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page.

The "talk" page isn't the place to vote. If it comes up for a formal 
request for deletion then a new page will be opened up for 
discussion (though not for formal voting -- I'm not sure who decides 
what the consensus is).


Last time I argued against deletion -- this time I will support it.


Deletion is very unlikely, there is too much "Reliable Source." Don't 
confuse Wikipedia RS with an idea that the *information* is 
"reliable." It can be dead wrong, even. Wikipedia is a collection of 
information from "reliable sources," which has a very technical 
meaning. Generally, it means that the publisher is independent and 
has some kind of reputation to maintain. If RS information is 
questionable, it's still, by definition of RS, notable, so it can be 
used in an article with attribution. "According to ..., Romney is a 
"poo-poo head."


The E-Cat has been covered in newspapers (RS) and on-line news 
publications (like Mats Lewan's reports) (RS).


The Energy Catalyzer article has often contained material that 
violates RS guidelines. I'm banned on the topic of cold fusion 
entirely, and am site-banned to boot, partly because I completely 
gave up on "due process" on Wikipedia, having exhausted it (Wikipedia 
can be highly abusive, and violates its own guidelines and policies. 
The guidelines and policies are actually excellent, but the 
mechanisms for enforcing them are highly defective, and what one is 
seeing with the E-Cat article is, often, pseudoskeptics, often the 
same people who have sat on the main Cold fusion article for years.


Anyway, I did create a block-evading sock, Energy Neutral, and edited 
the E-Cat article, and most of it stuck for a while. I was largely 
removing weakly sourced stuff, and synthesis (where editors read 
sources and draw conclusions from them, presenting conclusions that 
are not found in the sources).


Last time I looked, there was material from a non-notable blog. 
Self-published material is ordinarily not allowed as RS; this was 
outrageous. There are exceptions, and the blog doesn't fit it. That 
the author of a blog is a "professor" somewhere isn't enough. If 
someone is notable as an expert in a field (they would probably then 
have their own Wikipedia article), and they self-publish something, 
it can sometimes be used to show their opinion or view.


The deletion of the page is, as I mentioned, highly unlikely. Lots of 
irrelevant claims will be raised, if the past is a guide. For 
example, "Rossi is a fraud" is totally irrelevant to the notability 
of the topic. There are articles on famous frauds, as there should be.


What is much more possible is that a decision will be made to merge 
the article with the article on Rossi himself. I don't support that, 
but I would support splitting up the matter into coverage of NiH 
claims, if there is enough RS on "Other Than Rossi," and then Rossi's 
specific history with the E-Cat in the Rossi article, or some other 
such division.


Lumping NiH claims in with "cold fusion" is problematic, but 
Wikipedia painted itself into this corner by rejecting articles on 
"Condensed matter nuclear science," or "Low energy nuclear 
reactions." Way too little is known about NiH work to come to any 
strong conclusions about it, but, remember, Wikipedia is an organized 
collection of information about what is in RS.


A merge would not result in deletion of the page, what would be done 
is to create a redirect to the new page, the "merge target." The 
original page history will remain. If you ever want to see a 
redirected page history, go to the page, your browser will 
automatically load the target. But below the name is a message that 
this was redirected from X. If you click on X, you will be taken to 
the redirect page, and you can click on the history tab there.


The writer above did not know how the deletion decision is made. 
Technically, any Wikipedia editor may close a discussion, but 
normally, only administrators make them, and only an administrator 
can implement a Delete decision. (I don't recommend non-admins 
attempt to make any controversial close, it's difficult, sometimes, 
even for users with high levels of experience.) Admins review the 
Articles for Deletion discussions and, typically after 10 days, will 
review the discussion and close it with a decision, which can be 
Keep, Delete, or No Consensus -- No Consensus keeps the article for 
the time being. Merge is sometimes a close, but it's a variety of 
Keep in that the admin will not necessarily implement the merge, 
because exactly how a merge is done is an editorial decision, and 
admins are not supposed to make editorial decisions themselves, qua admins.


Theoretically, admins can disregard the vote count. Supposedly, 
decisions are made based on the argument

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Alain Sepeda]

You want to test the Hydrobetatron/Athanor ?

as Jed repeated, good LENR experiment are expensive, and the calorimetry is
so difficult that many mainstream team failed even to make  good enough one.

Few researchers have really tested the LENR, and now they are believers,
thus nobody trust them. See Robert Duncan (Uni Missouri), Celani, Dawn D
Dominguez(spawar)

doing the experiment yourself will make the high risk of error, higher than
the risk of peer review result...

moreover there is hundreds of very good experiments, with different
protocols, having very different potential artifacts, with coherent
correlations found ...
Rather believe in UFO conspiracy (sorry for the UFOist here).

just for curiosity, can you build a theory of the reason why so many team.

a precise one, with explanation of all the results ?
I mean, the thousands of loose experiments, and the 180 good results, the
dozens of peer review one, the replicated and the non replicated, the
electrolysis, the co-deposition, the gas permeation, the NiH nanostrutured
materials, the isoperibolic calorimetry, the isothermal calorimetry, the
gaz permeation rough calorimetry...

then could you give credible explanation why a canadian economist can jump
on a fraud scheme launched by an italian, joined by a big board of
director, with an engineer team, of people who give their name in public,
one even working for a university...

you have to disprove all of that evidence to disprove LENR.
ALL.
you can use wildcard arguments, but positively, not easy excuses. and also
explain why it was so frequent (bad luck, correlation of risk, bias...).

NB: this is what I'm doing every time someone repeat the stupidities based
on obsolete and false data that I read, because when I read critics, I
cannot ignore them... And each time, I fail to reach a credible scenario
for non-existent LENR. same for the LENR businesses, where fraud is not
credible, even if the high probability scenario will be that the industrial
will be late, as usual (see last Hydrofusion press release), and some can
even fail to reach the market. I've also noticed that people here are much
more skeptical than me, and after discussing with a professional innovator,
I realize that I was even much more skeptical than professionals. LENR have
a huge database of proofs,(peer review, not reviewed, circumstantial) much
better than Higgs boson, and many officially accepted theory or databases
todays. because LENR is not a theory, but a phenomenon.

Note also that the theory that there is a pathologic consensus against is
so blatant that not considering it is a sign of a BIG PROBLEM. Benabou
effect theory is thousands more credible (even if not absolutely confirmed)
than your group fraud theory.


2012/9/10 Jouni Valkonen 

> On Sep 10, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:
> > we need to have rock-solid statements to answer the hyper-skeptics.
>
> Rock-solid answer would be that anyone could go their local university and
> do the necessary measurement by himself. With Miley's and Celani's cells
> this kind of situation would be trivial to arrange. I can personally
> sponsor demonstration set to the University of Turku, Finland.
>
> We do not need statements, we need rock-solid evidence. The problem is
> that there is no good evidence presented to support the claims, but there
> are just statements that are in science next to worthless.
>
> --Jouni
>

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Jouni Valkonen]

On Sep 10, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:
> we need to have rock-solid statements to answer the hyper-skeptics.

Rock-solid answer would be that anyone could go their local university and do 
the necessary measurement by himself. With Miley's and Celani's cells this kind 
of situation would be trivial to arrange. I can personally sponsor 
demonstration set to the University of Turku, Finland.

We do not need statements, we need rock-solid evidence. The problem is that 
there is no good evidence presented to support the claims, but there are just 
statements that are in science next to worthless.

―Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Alain Sepeda]

2012/9/10 Jouni Valkonen 

>
> I did not say that. I just said how science works and it is working very
> well. Science has (almost!) nothing to do with politics and actually it is
> surprising immune for political prejudices. And usually when someone gets
> caught on political bias (such as Climate Gate) that will lead into global
> scandal. Cold fusion research is far more valuable than puny climate
> science.
>

Is'nt climategate officially a non-event, especially on Wikipedia ? yet
it's content is confirmed by the authors, and there was clear manipulation
of peer-review process, magazine terrorism, political pressure...
Isn't CF a denied scandal already...


By the way when I ask my beloved  political expert, she said me that after
that after her PhD, workin in research prepared her well to work as NGO
lobbyist, then PM assistant...
Saying that real science is not driven by politics (palace battle, not
necessarily left/right battles) is...
lie, naiveness or incompetence.




>
> Miley et al. experiment was not expensive by any means and yet Miley was
> unable to produce an apparatus for demonstration purposes that could have
> allowed other scientists to replicate helium correlation experiment with
> their own instruments.
>

Just question to the expert, naively I've look for replication of LENR...
I'm serious, it is not (only) a rhetorical question. I might me innocent,
since my experience of science is mostly corporate and applied.

am i wrong when I quote Spawar, and claim it have been replicated after
they publish their protocol and even gave kits ?

Am I wrong when I quote Iwamura and claim it has bee replicated in china by
another japanese motorist (toyota?)

Am I wrong when I quote, like Miles in ICCF17, the experiments of CEA
Grenoble as a better replication of F&P

Am I wrong when quoting the initial loose experiment of NASA GRC in 89,
lose because the fousn anomalous heat but don't look further because no
neutrons. that have been replicated in China with an US company support,
and re-replicated by Nasa GRC in 2008.

Am I wrong quoting report 41, and the Science rejection letter, as a proof
that peer-review is not working. Was that experiment deserving respect. was
it worse than many other Science papers.

Am I wrong when I quote National Instruments claiming 10 labs have worked
on that subject... I don't know exactly who, where, and I don't know the
paper, but as I'm more corporate than longitudinal hair cutter, I can
imagine that they checked the details more than Science peer-reviewer,
before making a public claim.

Was the McKubre isothermal calorimetry lacking of reliability. The protocol
seems one of the best I've read. Was is replicated?

Can someone give me any credible paper criticizing one of the famous
replicated calorimetry with an experiment proving a real artifact in the
measures.

I assume you all have access to those article so I don't give the
references (all is on lenrforum.eu, where you can correct my errors)

as i say in my open letter, only one of that pair of replication should
have raised huge interest and heavi research... Is it wrong to assuma that
a good pair of 5 sigma experiments, without any credible experiments
proving it is artifact, is enough to assume that LENR is a reality (non
chemical, ie nuclear or alien), until proved else. Maybe I misunderstood
science method.

Finally observing that all those experiment are ignored, that the scientifc
method is not respected, is it right to assume there is a problem of non
scientific nature ...

I'm convinced to be right with the statements above, yet I know I can be
convinced an wrong. Please, if I've made false assumption, correct me.

we need to have rock-solid statements to answer the hyper-skeptics.

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Jouni Valkonen]

On 10 September 2012 07:39, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> In essence, you are saying we should ignore the data because people
> opposed to cold fusion have successfully cut off funding. We should let
> politics dictate what we believe.
>

I did not say that. I just said how science works and it is working very
well. Science has (almost!) nothing to do with politics and actually it is
surprising immune for political prejudices. And usually when someone gets
caught on political bias (such as Climate Gate) that will lead into global
scandal. Cold fusion research is far more valuable than puny climate
science.

However as I said, it is question of marketing ideas and successful
marketing is not impossible. Mark Gibbs said it well, that with all your
brain power, yet you are unable to bring even single convincing argument.
Even moderate understanding does require open mind and quite a lot
literature research.

Besides that your idea about the funding cuts is silly conspiracy theory
and if you are throwing such lazy arguments, it will not help the field.

Miley et al. experiment was not expensive by any means and yet Miley was
unable to produce an apparatus for demonstration purposes that could have
allowed other scientists to replicate helium correlation experiment with
their own instruments. If nothing else, Miley should have invited several
groups of scientists into his own lab to replicate the correlation studies.
Successful replication of his findings would have been the greatest science
news of the 90's and it would have diverted hundreds of billions of dollars
research funding to the field.

This is really important thing. Also if Celani is not going to let other
people to validate his quantum reactor with their own instruments, then
that means only one thing that Celani has nothing that has scientific
significance.

—Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> Here is one example of the good peer-reviewed paper, but where is the
> replication of the data?
>

There have been only a few replications in Italy, at SRI and elsewhere
because the experiment is expensive and time consuming, and there is no
money to do cold fusion. That is a political problem. It has nothing to do
with the quality of the science.

In essence, you are saying we should ignore the data because people opposed
to cold fusion have successfully cut off funding. We should let politics
dictate what we believe.



> This finding about the correlation to be reliable, there should be several
> successful replication attempts published.
>

Should be? Only if funding is made available. You can't do experiments
without funding.



> But where are those? The paper is almost 20 years old. There are few, yes,
> but not good enough quality data and often the data is even conflicting.
>

Nonsense. There are no conflicts in the data.



> E.g. some studies suggest that both H and D are working.
>

That has nothing to do with helium correlation. Helium has only been
checked against D.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Jouni Valkonen]

On 10 September 2012 02:52, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> You do not need to satisfy people. You need to report the replicated,
> peer-reviewed facts of the matter. Science is not a popularity contest.
>

That is true, but here cold fusion science has failed.

*Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O
electrolysis using palladium cathodes*
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf

Here is one example of the good peer-reviewed paper, but where is the
replication of the data? This finding about the correlation to be reliable,
there should be several successful replication attempts published. But
where are those? The paper is almost 20 years old. There are few, yes, but
not good enough quality data and often the data is even conflicting. E.g.
some studies suggest that both H and D are working.

Perhaps the status of cold fusion could be better if there were better
marketing of ideas.

Cold fusion science is notoriously difficult and if you do not have burning
will and money to commit to research it is almost impossible to reproduce
the data. But as it is difficult and expensive, it is also huge liability
problem, that the urge to see something may cloud the judgement. If you do
not see anything, then the money is quite difficult to find. Here
e.g. Miley et al. did not see anything with light water. How is that
possible? Can we be sure that that they did not just assume that cold
fusion should not work with light water?

Because scientist are humans, science lives from replication to eliminate
the erroneous human factor.

—Jouni

PS. Thanks Edmund for your new paper!

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Alan Fletcher]

Luigi Versaggi
September 8th, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Congratulations for the Zurich E-CAT Conference.
I suppose this time the main stream media cannot ignore the facts.
We must thank you, the world must thank you.

Andrea Rossi
September 9th, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Dear Luigi Versaggi:
The main stream media need to see plants in operation: they will be satisfied 
soon.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

>
> The problem is that it is difficult to write about Rossi, because he has
> not shown any reasons why anyone should take him seriously. On the other
> hand, there are very serious reasons to believe that he
> is committing massive fraud.


I do not know of any reasons to believe that he is committing fraud. He is
flamboyant and he often says contradictory things. Many people suspect he
is committing fraud, but no one has stepped forward and said "Rossi
defrauded me."If he defrauded anyone, I suppose it would be Defkalion or
Ampenergo. I have heard from both of them. Neither says he defrauded them.

Unless you can point to actual evidence of fraud, I think you should
refrain from making such serious accusations here. It is inappropriate.



> What comes to cold fusion, there are no established scientific point of
> view . . .
>

Yes, there is. It is the set of facts in the peer-reviewed literature
published in mainstream journals. This is the definition of an "established
scientific point of view." There is no other definition.

These facts constitute overwhelming evidence that the effect is real. The
people at Wikipedia, at Sci. Am. and elsewhere have replaced this standard
with a set of rumors or nonsensical assertions made by people who know
nothing about the research.



> . . .  therefore it is impossible to write a good Wikipedia article on
> cold fusion that would satisfy everyone.
>

You do not need to satisfy people. You need to report the replicated,
peer-reviewed facts of the matter. Science is not a popularity contest.



> Cold fusion advocates have failed to market their ideas. Instead many cold
> fusion advocates (such as Krivit) took seriously that there would be
> evidence for Ni–>Cu transmutations, although scientific evidence was mostly
> zero. If Krivit-level experts are doing such mistakes in basic science, how
> it is possible that this field could be taken seriously by Wikipedia?
>

Krivit is mistaken. He is not an expert at any level. What he takes
seriously has no bearing on what is true. You need to look at journals and
professional scientists to judge what should go into an encyclopedia.



> Although Abd is saying that there is good correlation with helium and
> excess heat, somehow I find it very odd, that if correlation is good, why
> it is so darn difficult to replicate?
>

You are confused.

The quality of the correlation and the ease of the experiment are
completely separate qualities. They have absolutely nothing to do with one
another. The correlation might be very low with an experiment that is dead
simple to do; or the correlation might be high with an easy experiment; or
the experiment might be difficult and the correlation nonexistent -- which
the case with tritium.



> The correlation is so difficult to understand that even Krivit cannot
> understand it.
>

Understanding the correlation is quite easy. Anyone can see it in the
graphs. Krivit cannot understand it because he often fails to understand
simple concepts such as scientific notation. In any case, you should not
gauge the validity of the arguments by looking at Krivit's understanding of
them. This is a nutty metric.


Therefore I would say that Abd is exaggerating the quality of evidence.
>

You say this based on Krivit's (mis)-understanding? I suggest you look at
the data yourself!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Jouni Valkonen]

The problem is that it is difficult to write about Rossi, because he has
not shown any reasons why anyone should take him seriously. On the other
hand, there are very serious reasons to believe that he
is committing massive fraud.

There is very good article about Blacklight Power in Wikipedia. That is
because BLP is respectable company. Rossi instead is just nothing. There is
already an article about Andrea Rossi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)

There is no need to separate article for his latest probably fraudulent and
certainly controversial cold fusion stunt.

On 9 September 2012 23:07, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Wikipedia is dysfunctional and cannot be fixed. The problem is in the
> structure and guiding philosophy.
>
>
That is untrue. And I am sad that although you are mostly rational, you are
saying this. I fully understand that you have personal grudges, but I am
sad that this personal conflict is clouding your judgement.

What comes to cold fusion, there are no established scientific point of
view, therefore it is impossible to write a good Wikipedia article on cold
fusion that would satisfy everyone.

Cold fusion advocates have failed to market their ideas. Instead many cold
fusion advocates (such as Krivit) took seriously that there would be
evidence for Ni–>Cu transmutations, although scientific evidence was mostly
zero. If Krivit-level experts are doing such mistakes in basic science, how
it is possible that this field could be taken seriously by Wikipedia?

Although Abd is saying that there is good correlation with helium and
excess heat, somehow I find it very odd, that if correlation is good, why
it is so darn difficult to replicate? The correlation is so difficult to
understand that even Krivit cannot understand it. Therefore I would say
that Abd is exaggerating the quality of evidence. Quantity does not replace
quality.

I hope that Celani could produce first ever clear and replicable cold
fusion cell that produces, not quantity, but high quality data. That is
what we need. There is needed only one convincing demonstration, that can
be replicated at independent laboratory, and then the amount of skeptical
scientist is exactly zero. Therefore it is sad that Celani is refusing
independent replication of his cell. How could we the scientists take him
seriously if he is refusing the independent replication?

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Jeff Berkowitz]

I have been meaning to ask about this! I will start a separate thread.
Jeff

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> yes we should keep archive, for a future Nuremberg Trial on Wikipedia...
>
> same for peer-review, magazines, and other insults
>
>
> 2012/9/9 James Bowery 
>
>> Part of the value of keeping an article from deletion is the history of
>> edits doesn't disappear.
>>
>> A big part of my motivation in suggesting the use of Wikipedia as the
>> basis for the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge was
>> the virulence of the editors of Wikipedia needs to be objectively
>> analyzed.  When an article is distorted the editorial history tells a very
>> important meta-tale.  When an article is deleted, their tracks are covered.
>>
>> I don't think it is any coincidence that the E-Cat article is up for
>> deletion at this point in time.  I suspect its an attempt to delete the
>> edit history -- or at least make it harder to go back and figure out what
>> is really going on in a society that produces something like Wikipedia's
>> virulent content.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Kelley Trezise 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia but
>>> found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there are some
>>> very tennatious editiors that really, really don't like cold fusion
>>> articles in any way shape or form. Their obnoxious behavior have driven off
>>> the more moderate people and as a result have had their way and have
>>> written a very twisted article.
>>>
>>> Here is a paragraph from the article that portrays the involvement of
>>> Hanno Essen, and Sven Kullander in the E-Cat as if they are passive
>>> observers and not experimentalists that were actually involved in a test in
>>> an active way:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Swedish physicists, Hanno 
>>> Essén
>>>  and Sven Kullander
>>>  stated that if the claims that they had read were true, then it has to
>>> be a nuclear reaction. However the claims that they had read kept secret
>>> the catalysts in Rossi's device. Kullander said it was important "to
>>> consider the experimental facts and not indulge too much in speculation
>>> about what could happen in theory". Saying measurements must be made
>>> accurately and independently, which is not possible in this case, as "You
>>> have to rely on Rossi that he is true to what he conveys and through
>>> discussions with him we may try to conclude how reliable the measurements
>>> are."[27]  [
>>> 28] "
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How pathetic is that? I really can't understand why the administrators
>>> at Wikipedia allow the abusive behavior of that gang but I have the
>>> impression that those thugs have friends in the form of a few
>>> administrators.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its
>>> truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please be honest
>>>
>>> Zedshort
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Alain Sepeda]

yes we should keep archive, for a future Nuremberg Trial on Wikipedia...

same for peer-review, magazines, and other insults

2012/9/9 James Bowery 

> Part of the value of keeping an article from deletion is the history of
> edits doesn't disappear.
>
> A big part of my motivation in suggesting the use of Wikipedia as the
> basis for the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge was
> the virulence of the editors of Wikipedia needs to be objectively
> analyzed.  When an article is distorted the editorial history tells a very
> important meta-tale.  When an article is deleted, their tracks are covered.
>
> I don't think it is any coincidence that the E-Cat article is up for
> deletion at this point in time.  I suspect its an attempt to delete the
> edit history -- or at least make it harder to go back and figure out what
> is really going on in a society that produces something like Wikipedia's
> virulent content.
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Kelley Trezise wrote:
>
>> **
>> Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia but
>> found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there are some
>> very tennatious editiors that really, really don't like cold fusion
>> articles in any way shape or form. Their obnoxious behavior have driven off
>> the more moderate people and as a result have had their way and have
>> written a very twisted article.
>>
>> Here is a paragraph from the article that portrays the involvement of
>> Hanno Essen, and Sven Kullander in the E-Cat as if they are passive
>> observers and not experimentalists that were actually involved in a test in
>> an active way:
>>
>>
>> "Swedish physicists, Hanno 
>> Essén
>>  and Sven Kullander
>>  stated that if the claims that they had read were true, then it has to
>> be a nuclear reaction. However the claims that they had read kept secret
>> the catalysts in Rossi's device. Kullander said it was important "to
>> consider the experimental facts and not indulge too much in speculation
>> about what could happen in theory". Saying measurements must be made
>> accurately and independently, which is not possible in this case, as "You
>> have to rely on Rossi that he is true to what he conveys and through
>> discussions with him we may try to conclude how reliable the measurements
>> are."[27]  [
>> 28] "
>>
>>
>>
>> How pathetic is that? I really can't understand why the administrators at
>> Wikipedia allow the abusive behavior of that gang but I have the impression
>> that those thugs have friends in the form of a few administrators.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its
>> truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please be honest
>>
>> Zedshort
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[James Bowery]

Part of the value of keeping an article from deletion is the history of
edits doesn't disappear.

A big part of my motivation in suggesting the use of Wikipedia as the basis
for the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge was the
virulence of the editors of Wikipedia needs to be objectively analyzed.
When an article is distorted the editorial history tells a very important
meta-tale.  When an article is deleted, their tracks are covered.

I don't think it is any coincidence that the E-Cat article is up for
deletion at this point in time.  I suspect its an attempt to delete the
edit history -- or at least make it harder to go back and figure out what
is really going on in a society that produces something like Wikipedia's
virulent content.

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Kelley Trezise wrote:

> **
> Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia but
> found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there are some
> very tennatious editiors that really, really don't like cold fusion
> articles in any way shape or form. Their obnoxious behavior have driven off
> the more moderate people and as a result have had their way and have
> written a very twisted article.
>
> Here is a paragraph from the article that portrays the involvement of
> Hanno Essen, and Sven Kullander in the E-Cat as if they are passive
> observers and not experimentalists that were actually involved in a test in
> an active way:
>
>
> "Swedish physicists, Hanno 
> Essén
>  and Sven Kullander
>  stated that if the claims that they had read were true, then it has to
> be a nuclear reaction. However the claims that they had read kept secret
> the catalysts in Rossi's device. Kullander said it was important "to
> consider the experimental facts and not indulge too much in speculation
> about what could happen in theory". Saying measurements must be made
> accurately and independently, which is not possible in this case, as "You
> have to rely on Rossi that he is true to what he conveys and through
> discussions with him we may try to conclude how reliable the measurements
> are."[27]  [28
> ] "
>
>
>
> How pathetic is that? I really can't understand why the administrators at
> Wikipedia allow the abusive behavior of that gang but I have the impression
> that those thugs have friends in the form of a few administrators.
>
>
>
> Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its
> truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page.
>
>
>
> Please be honest
>
> Zedshort
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Jed Rothwell]

I think it is best to delete the article. I wish they would delete the
article on cold fusion.

Wikipedia is dysfunctional and cannot be fixed. The problem is in the
structure and guiding philosophy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Kelley Trezise]

I think Roth's reaction is a bit childish. Simply because he does not like 
the way he was treated is no reason to trash all of WP. We should not throw 
the baby out with the bath water. I wrote 75% of the article on "Soil" and 
would hate to see "my" beautiful baby destroyed.


Zedshort

- Original Message - 
From: "MJ" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion



On 09-Sep-12 15:36, Alan Fletcher wrote:

From: "Kelley Trezise" 
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM
Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia
but found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there
are some very tennatious editiors that really, really don't like cold
fusion articles in any way shape or form. Their obnoxious behavior
have driven off the more moderate people and as a result have had
their way and have written a very twisted article.
I think it's just time to give up on that wiki. Brian Josephson gave up. 
I gave up (Alanf777) . Others gave up.

It's so distorted that it's better just to delete it.

If and when something happens (and is reported in the main stream 
scientific journals and/or media) then it can be reconstructed -- one way 
or another.





http://truthfall.com/wikipedia-editor-bias-gets-in-the-way-of-facts/

MJ

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Kelley Trezise]

I can understand your frustration, but I see no reason to throw in the 
towel. Just read the article and vote at the bottom of the page so anyone 
coming there will understand that there is a problem with the article.



- Original Message - 
From: "Alan Fletcher" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion



From: "Kelley Trezise" 



Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its
truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page.


The "talk" page isn't the place to vote. If it comes up for a formal 
request for deletion then a new page will be opened up for discussion 
(though not for formal voting -- I'm not sure who decides what the 
consensus is).


Last time I argued against deletion -- this time I will support it.

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[MJ]

On 09-Sep-12 15:36, Alan Fletcher wrote:

From: "Kelley Trezise" 
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM
Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia
but found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there
are some very tennatious editiors that really, really don't like cold
fusion articles in any way shape or form. Their obnoxious behavior
have driven off the more moderate people and as a result have had
their way and have written a very twisted article.

I think it's just time to give up on that wiki. Brian Josephson gave up. I gave 
up (Alanf777) . Others gave up.
It's so distorted that it's better just to delete it.

If and when something happens (and is reported in the main stream scientific 
journals and/or media) then it can be reconstructed -- one way or another.




http://truthfall.com/wikipedia-editor-bias-gets-in-the-way-of-facts/

MJ

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Kelley Trezise" 

> Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its
> truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page.

The "talk" page isn't the place to vote. If it comes up for a formal request 
for deletion then a new page will be opened up for discussion (though not for 
formal voting -- I'm not sure who decides what the consensus is).

Last time I argued against deletion -- this time I will support it.

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Kelley Trezise" 
> Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM

> Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia
> but found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there
> are some very tennatious editiors that really, really don't like cold
> fusion articles in any way shape or form. Their obnoxious behavior
> have driven off the more moderate people and as a result have had
> their way and have written a very twisted article.

I think it's just time to give up on that wiki. Brian Josephson gave up. I gave 
up (Alanf777) . Others gave up.
It's so distorted that it's better just to delete it.

If and when something happens (and is reported in the main stream scientific 
journals and/or media) then it can be reconstructed -- one way or another.