User talk:Abd/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Standards[edit]

Perhaps you're not aware of the community standards, specifically RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Protection. If you do not unprotect your page on Cold fusion, I will seek to have you promoted. Hipocrite (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are always seeking what you think is harm for people, Hipocrite. The protection will expire tomorrow even if nobody does anything. You said your friends would revert your stuff back in. Certainly David Gerard can do that if he chooses. All I did was slow things down.
I did this because short-term protection of a low-activity page is superior to blocking the user who is hacking away at it. This way, you can protest on my Talk page or elsewhere. I'm opening discussion of the changes you made.
You have, so far, totally ignored all discussion of the changes you made. Yet you revert-warred intensely to keep them.
Do you imagine that I'd dislike being promoted? Idiot! Being promoted is *being promoted.* --Abd (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I already unprotected it. If Abd tries that again I'll take him to the coop myself. 'Twas bullshit. VOXHUMANA 22:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Voxhumana. That means you are responsible for what ensues, not me. Perfect. --Abd (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Gladly. It is YOUR crankworthy edits which I regard as troll-worthy, not hipocrite's. And you might want to become familiar with what "promoted" means around here. VOXHUMANA 22:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I know perfectly well what it means, VH, I've been promoted a number of times, then demoted back to sysop. Have I mentioned you are an idiot? --Abd (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abd! If there's a dispute about the contents of an article, we customarily try to have a vote on the talk page of that article. That way everyone interested can read the article and the proposed change, and then have their say. It tends to work pretty well. Maybe you could try that on cold fusion over the disputed edit?--ADtalkModerator 22:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

AD, I'd appreciate it if you take a look at what has been happening over the last months with Cold fusion.
Your comment to me, while I understand and appreciate it, is useless. I'm done with what I had to do today. My goal was for, if Hipocrite's edits were to remain, an RW sysop would take responsibility for it. That's why I protected for a day, inviting any sysop to undo it. Hipocrite expects that his "buds" will support him. That's what happened on Wikipedia, and may be what is happening here, I don't know. But he certainly expected it. It's looking like he was right.
By the way, I mentioned this elsewhere, but I was topic-banned on Wikipedia, first time, by a "cabal" administrator, while I was trying to poll users on what version to revert to after Hipocrite had gamed Requests for Page Protection to get the Cold fusion article protected in a totally outrageous version that *nobody* supported. The poll showed unanimous support for one version. The admin topic-banned me (and Hipocrite, this was part of the plan, it made it look fair), and edited the article under protection to a much older version, explicitly saying this would get people roiled up. He lost his sysop bit for this and later stuff. Hipocrite is trolling, he's practically a professional troll. Just sayin'. --Abd (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And here comes the one who has participated in this mess:

AD - Abd is a first-class nutjob, so appeals to reason are useless. His participation on a talk page will descend into endless walls of text. Here is some of the Cold Fusion chaos he created at Wikipedia:
VOXHUMANA 22:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
AD, Here is what I ask. I will raise each issue on the Talk page, being brief. I've just about finished the first issue, the claim that Andrea Rossi is a "convicted felon." I don't know if RW is concerned about libel, but that one could amount to libel. It's highly misleading, and that is easy to show. Rossi is not someone I consider reputable, and I'll put in some stuff. But convicted felon he is not.
From Voxhumana's comment above, I'm getting a sense that this is another "bud" of Hipocrite. I'm banned on Wikipedia, but what Voxumana and the others won't tell you is that I essentially *won* that ArbComm case. Yes, they shot the messenger. Wikipedia often does that. What I filed it for was obtained, the admin who had originally banned me was sanctioned for his actions. Hipocrite had set that all up. --Abd (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
And cue another of Abd's tactics - the sooper-seekrit cabal. No I don't know who hipocrite is. I know who YOU are though, as I was an Arbcom clerk at the time of your banning. (I didn't clerk your case however). VOXHUMANA 23:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Far out. If you read that ArbComm case, you'd know that "cabal" was not used by me to mean "super secret." It was used to refer to activity coordinated through affinity, not necessarily explicitly. ArbComm didn't get that, dinged me for accusing people of bad behavior without providing proof, but I'd not accused them of anything sanctionable. I merely pointed out the patterns of editing that were damaging the project, suggesting that ArbComm address the problem and set standards to deal with it. I was naive. They don't do that. As a result, they later had another, truly massive case, involving many of the same people.
I was banned much later, so I don't know at all what you are talking about. I wasn't banned until I'd completely given up on cooperation and just started DGAF editing. Which I continued after being indeffed. So what? --Abd (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You were banned from editing anything to do with CF at the time of the case in 2009. When you sockpuppeted around that, you were banned from Wikipedia in total. The cabal you continually alleged to exist was simply the uncoordinated efforts of various editors trying to remove your insane nonsense. VOXHUMANA 23:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
No. You are ignorant of the history. Care to check it? I was topic banned for a year in that case, it was basically shooting the messenger, since ArbComm confirmed the basis for the case, which I had filed. I never sock-puppeted around that ban. I was banned a second time, complied with the ban, but, after about six months, I appealed it and the appeal was not heard. I was blocked during it for allegedly violating it -- and, if I recall correctly, the appeal itself was considered to violate the ban. At that point I gave up on due process, having been patient with it for several years. I eventually created *one sock*. EnergyNeutral. And did positive editing, almost all the edits were accepted. I was, in fact, working with a Nobel Prize winner, helping to prevent him from getting banned. Wikipedia is murder on experts. So, by the way, is RationalWiki, whenever expert opinion differs from "popular skeptical" opinion, as it does on occasion.
The "cabal" was established by studying patterns of editing, involving situations that long preceded my involvement, in most cases. It was roughly the Global Warming Cabal, and was well-known, with coverage in news media off-wiki. It was not generally involved with Cold fusion. Hipocrite was the only person involved in "continually reverting" me, and that only for a short time. He was, however, sent by or was cooperating with the cabal. Before his arrival, progress was being made on the article. The cabal concern had nothing to do with cold fusion. They had promised to ban me about a year before, before I ever became involved with cold fusion, because I'd pointed out a recusal failure.
I think the original cabal evidence I presented may have been deleted. Fun. When that MfD came up, it was clear that ArbComm did not care if evidence used in its cases was deleted....
Many of the same editors came up in the Climate Change arbitration, where the filer called it a "faction." ArbComm insisted on interpreting "cabal" in a particular way that was *explicitly* not what I meant, and you are joining them in that. Kafkaesque. Later, when the ArbComm mailing list was hacked, much was revealed. As much as an ArbComm majority had wanted to ban me previously, but didn't have cover for it. A good friend was elected to ArbComm, he told me he'd run because he was inspired by what I'd been trying to do. He resigned. His family was threatened in real life, face-to-face. Underneath the surface of "collaborative community" there are some very ugly realities.
As to insane nonsense, whatever I put in the article was based on reliable sources. If you really look at the evidence in the ArbComm case, you will notice some oddities. There was evidence cited against me that had nothing to do with me. ArbComm misread the evidence presented by an adverse editor, assuming that I had said what that editor had said. It really got crazy, and I came to very much appreciate being banned, because it meant I no longer had any responsibility to deal with this pack of ignorant, vicious jackals. I found editing for scientific journals much more rewarding. And much easier. --Abd (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, Abd, I guess by now you've realized that it's not appropriate to try to call attention to an edit by reverting and protecting the page - that's what the talk page is for. And didn't we reach an agreement where you would seek approval for any major edits?
Wikipedia histories here are illustrative, but don't have much bearing. So I am completely serious about this, Abd: if you want, this is a fresh chance for you. If your edits are intelligent and backed by sources, then you can get them in the article, regardless of anyone's personal prejudice. Just make a good case for them on the talk page, backed up by reasoning and evidence. There is no jury or group that can shape or change or alter the article to either prevent or help you in this task.
You have said, before and now, that you'll work within the process to propose and vote on edits. That will help us produce the best article we can. No one is going to censor your proposals on the talk page or prevent you from making them - but you have to actually do it.
Please don't abuse your powers again, even if it's to make a point like that. Any point you might have is better made with words. Thanks!--ADtalkModerator 00:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
At some point I'd like to understand what "abuse" means, given all that I've seen RW sysops routinely do. As to me making a point better with words, really? The big complaint has long been that I use too many words!
I'd rather appreciate it if you would acknowledge that I *already* followed the procedure of proposing edits on the Talk page. I only actually made edits of any possible controversy, as far as I knew, after proposing, clearly, and waiting quite some time for any comment.
Making a proposal which doesn't even gain a "No" is worse than censorship, especially if the proposal is very simple.
What has happened with these edits is blind reversion, once they were made, with no engagement in discussion. And no attention from anyone else in the community. It's not tenable, AD. But I'll see what happens. I'm not in a rush. --Abd (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If you propose an edit on the talk page, and no one finds it interesting or controversial enough to object, then of course you're right to just make the edit after a week or so. The fact that no one says anything isn't "censorship," it's silent assent. If that is what you have been doing, then thanks, great job!
The abuse was that you locked the page, which is not an appropriate response to a contested edit. I appreciate that you've recognized this wasn't the best goal, and that you're willing to keep using the talk page.--ADtalkModerator 02:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, AD. The problem was that I'd propose an edit, or even make the edit and self-revert pending approval or at least some decent lapse of time. Nothing would be said, no response to information and arguments on the Talk page. Then finally I'd make the edit (or revert it back in). I did this twice, and with the second edit, David Gerard reverted it all without comment or explanation.
  • Since the first edit was a correction of a simple error, it's obvious that the changes were being reverted by Gerard because I'd made the edits, regardless of the welfare of the wiki and the article or the actual content. Does RationalWiki tolerate this? If so, I'd like to know.
  • Then Hipocrite showed up. I thought of accepting one of his edits, but on consideration rolled them all back. They were shifting the balance that Tweenk had created in the article, toward pure and incautious pseudoskeptical polemic. Tweenk had actually read some sources, much of his stuff was good.
  • Hipocrite threatened to add more "mean things about cold fusion fraudsters."[1]. And he's now going that way, with a slurry of additional edits. Since protecting the page wasn't considered okay, I'll start reverting him, without limit. Once again, if that's not appropriate, just tell me. You know how easy it is to undo. And so does he. But it's pretty weird to place severe restrictions on me for editing of the article and allow him to just hack away.
  • Hipocrite did much the same thing on Wikipedia. (I'd never seen any editor so willing to disregard policy, who still remained unsanctioned there.) He started hacking up the Cold fusion article, he made edits that nobody supported, not even himself, later, when more attention was focused on it. And he revert warred over them. I completely gave up editing the article for a time, he removed the most solidly sourced material -- that was being accepted by editors normally considered hostile to cold fusion. Anyway, I'll try, once, to slow this down. It's impossible to discuss the changes, they are being made so quickly.
  • I'm fully aware of possible responses. Basically, I don't want tools and editing privileges if I can't use them for the welfare of the wiki. I'd prefer to be promoted. The page protection was short, just to stop the furious editing and edit warring, without blocking him. My goal is not to exclude him, but the way he's handling the article, it's impossible to work on it.
  • I think I may have been led astray by my old habit of avoiding revert warring. I'm abandoning that. We'll see how this goes.
  • To be clear, I was making no major edits without discussion, hardly even minor ones. I don't consider reverting what is vandalism, ultimately, to be making a "major edit," it is restoring the article to what had been reasonably accepted for a long time. --Abd (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have nothing further to say about your WP history. I've provided links, and the people who want to can read it for themselves, and draw their own conclusions. As far as AD's comments, I concur entirely. This isn't WP, and you do have a chance for a fresh start. I have my expectations as to how you will behave, but I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. VOXHUMANA 00:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Fresh start? WTF? However, definitely, this isn't WP. It's a Saloon Bar, really. With a bunch of rowdy, drunk patrons. Smelly, too. I kind of like it, as long as I don't have to spend too much time here. --Abd (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Are you aware of how utterly impenetrable the majority of what you write is? I'm having an easier time following the "Productive voting construction‎" forum than many of the links to old wikipedia arguments that you're giving, and that's saying something. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 01:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Those obviously weren't written for you. The Wikipedia situation was years in development and quite complex. Those links are for someone who is *actually interested*, if such a person exists. They are more focused, I suspect, than the list of links provided above by Voxhumana. Summary: I'm seeing a pattern repeated here that happened on Wikipedia, I'm simply noting that. If this was happening with regular, previously-uninvolved RW editors, that would be one thing, but in this case there is a specific involvement of Wikipedians, who are carrying with them the ideas and conclusions that they formed on Wikipedia.
Peter, do you have any questions? I don't know what discussion you are referring to, it doesn't seem that it's the one above. --Abd (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
"I'm seeing a pattern repeated here that happened on Wikipedia" -- this pattern, whether you wish to acknowledge or recognize it or not, is a pattern of not putting up with crank bullshit and edit warring. I think you will find that it occurs often in response to incessant crank bullshit. I've never, ever had interactions with you, before, but you'd best put me in the Cabal you imagine must exist, Abd. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 07:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
No, that's not the pattern I'm referring to. It does refer to revert warring, but by cabal members, as "tag teams." It refers to refusing to allow topics considered pseudoscience by the cabal to be covered according to Wikipedia policy, based on reliable source and editorial consensus, which matter on Wikipedia. I wasn't sanctioned on Wikipedia for revert warring, nor for adding "crank bullshit." None of that was alleged, even.
Anyway, OP, if you'd care to be specific about any piece of "crank bullshit" that was allegedly involved, I'll comment. Do you think I'm inserting "crank bullshit"? Do you think I'm attempting to prevent the disclosure of "crank bullshit"? What? Where?
A cabal characteristic is knee-jerk opinion based on affiliation. You want to jerk your knees, fine with me. --Abd (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe you'va already been told this, but perhaps it bears repeating.[edit]

We tend to not "collapse" talk page discussions on this website. Thanks. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 15:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool. The original revert summary was (We don't collapse talk page discussions at RW, this isn't WP). Above, you write "we tend not ... which implies a general practice with possible exceptions, either as to specific cases or as to the practice of some individuals. Surely the context matters. It also loses the fact that all edits are individually made, they are not collective decisions, though an individual may be enforcing some imaginary collective decision, or a real one. Is there a policy, i.e., a real collective decision? If not, the "we" was made up.
The people on Wikipedia who disliked that genuine consensus be found -- some of them have come here -- hated collapse, because it allowed discussions to be cleaned up, leaving only unresolved issues. They preferred to toss charges of "wall of text." Since you have repeated the reversion, without any consideration of context, i.e., utility, you are standing for a wiki that bumbles, that values endless discussion (or revert warring), that will never develop genuine consensus process. If enough of this community follows that position, the future of RationalWiki is quite predictable. It will be more of the same, which will rapidly get old.
Basically, if anyone who tries to use collapse to increase readability and efficiency is reverted, ipso facto, the "we" -- which obviously excludes them -- is validated. It's a tautology. But this would never be an actual reason to revert a collapse.
What's the real reason, TheoryofPractice? I could guess, but I prefer to ask. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The real reason is: everyone here thinks you're here to insert your own pet ideas about cold fusion, and that you are a tedious gobshite about it. Go away. You said you would on your talk page. SophieWilder 19:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I come and go as I please. It's kind of a basic principle, it applies to you, too.
  • I don't have "pet ideas" about cold fusion, at least not that I'm expressing here. What I've been expressing and advocating is accuracy in the article, as to what would meet journalistic standards, and allowing for snark. What I've been asserting would pass peer review in major journals, if necessary for an article. As to what will pass peer review, you might take a look at that Storms review mentioned in the article. Look at the abstract. Cold fusion is established as a default hypothesis, mechanism unknown. This is based on work by many labs around the world, it's amply confirmed, and there is no contrary experimental evidence. "Fusion" is not a mechanism, it is a result. (In this case, the production of helium from deuterium.) All the theoretical rejection of it was based on an assumption of mechanism. (You can't calculate a fusion cross-section without an assumed specific reaction.)
  • I helped edit that Naturwissenschaften Review. Our article makes claims about the journal that are completely false, and, again, that is easily shown. It's just stupid error, making quick assumptions without looking deeper. This is covered on the Talk page.
  • The experimental record on cold fusion has a harmonizing interpretation that explains the vast bulk of the results, including all the early "replication failures." That interpretation is what is in the abstract. The difficulty of replication of the original Pons and Fleischmann work was due to uncontrolled variations in the material, with consequent failure to load to the necessary high deuterium/palladium ratio, plus failure to create the specific surface environment that is active. It is all very well-known now. The material is still very difficult to control. It is entirely possible that cold fusions will remain a laboratory curiosity. I'm not starry-eyed over "free energy," which this wouldn't be, anyway.
  • You have a lot of stuff in the article that is myth, common error, totally false, and easily shown to be so. It's pseudoskeptical woo, stuff some people believe because it serves their purposes. You have claims in the article that are sourced from articles that show the opposite, based on simple misreadings, which is common when people ignorant of a topic read sources looking for something to confirm what they already believe.
  • And then you have stuff that has been independently corroborated, such as the 1983 meltdown incident, and you qualify it with "claimed" and "alleged" as if there was some doubt. Exactly what happened can be debated, but that there was a lab explosion/fire is not in doubt.
  • However, Sophie, thanks. You have stated the real reason. It's what people think about me, not about the actual situation or the needs of the wiki. It's obvious, because simple error corrections have been reverted, with insistence.
  • I'm not likely to edit often here, it's mostly a waste of time. I do it for fun, and it just happens that my version of fun doesn't allow me to lie or mislead.
  • I have proven performance as a skeptic, and my approach to science is a skeptical approach, and I had the training to allow this. With many others here, you base your opinions on shallow, knee-jerk assumptions. You are welcome to the mess this creates in your head. This isn't scientific skepticism at all. But if it makes you feel better to think so, who am I to complain? --Abd (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
"What's the real reason, TheoryofPractice?" Sometimes people get motivated to resurrect old discussions with new insights. I think the better question is: how self-important and how much of a bully do you have to be to decide to come into a community and just do things your way when nobody else in said community seems to support you on that? Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 21:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I come into this community and I do my own things my own way. Seems to me that this community permits that. It's a wiki. If not, it's free to promote me out of here. On some of what I've done, I've been supported. On some things, not. And I don't necessarily know which is going to be which until I try it. When I try things that are unfamiliar to some, they sometimes complain about it, and imagine that I shouldn't try, which is how they do things, terrified of disapproval, and they want others to be as timid as themselves.
I was given a reason not to collapse that was totally bogus. Above, Sophie has stated the real reason for the reversions.
ToP, if the "standards of the site" are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, what defines who is in the community? Seems to me that users here define those they like as members of the community, so "the way we do things" simply means "the way I like it," or "the way people I like do things." I'm a "bully" because I try something different? No, ToP, many in this community are bullies, demanding that others toe the line of their collective bullshit and fantasies, or else face Community Disapproval.
Why, if I step on enough toes, I might actually get promoted. It's truly funny. When I've mentioned being promoted before, some have responded as if they think I don't know what being "promoted" means. That's because they really don't understand the situation. Being promoted is a benefit, that's the whole point of the trope. The worst curse on Wikipedia was being granted admin privileges, it was a license to slave endless hours for no compensation and a lot of aggravation. Even worse: advanced privileges and ArbComm membership. The best thing that ever happened to me on Wikipedia, much better than all the victories and confirmations, was being banned. The ultimate promotion, it left me totally free to do whatever I chose.
TheoryofPractice, you did provide, at least. a reason for the "normal" practice. However, that would refer to archiving methods that actually make it more difficult to see topics and respond to them. Collapse doesn't do that, particularly not as I did it. On Wikipedia, Hipocrite used to collapse discussions with a summary like "Ridiculous nonsense." I.e., the subject was concealed. He'd also include in the collapse the whole section headers, so that the TOC didn't work.
As I did it, it would have been easy for anyone to edit the collapsed sections, and to remove the collapse if they wanted their new comments to be directly visible. I'd not have objected to that kind of removal of collapse at all, in fact I invited it.[2] My purpose was simply to clean up the Talk page so that it shows what remains to be worked on. However, to many RW users, Talk is a battleground, a site for combat, for fencing and pseudovictories, and they want as much audience for that as possible, so they can preen and prance and be seen for their brilliant reparte.
I'm not likely to use collapse again unless someone else supports it. However, the response typified here was essentially stupid. This site is full of pseudosmart juvenile bluster, transparent, fundamentally insecure. --Abd (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's a better answer - because that's just how things are done here. When a community has its rules, it is best to abide by them, at least until you have enough support to change it. I don't know why collapsing isn't welcome at RW, nor do I even care enough to find out. But I do respect that there was a community here before I got here, and I'm going to respect their conventions. VOXHUMANA 23:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Voxhumana, you've missed something. Your action here wasn't merely "respecting their conventions," it was *enforcing* the convention you imagine is a fixed rule. That is, you don't know the reason for the usual practice, so you obviously don't know what might be an exception, but you still enforce what you don't understand. So far, nobody has pointed to any rule, and I don't think it exists. But clearly it could be somewhere I haven't seen. Sophie's answer was much more straightforward, and probably more accurate.
Communities afflicted with this kind of unconsidered, blind enforcement of unwritten rules strongly tend to drive away the intelligent and creative. They end up with endless drivel, self-congratulatory, self-reinforcing, far, far from the stated purpose of the site, which I'll address below. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I was just looking above and noticed the contrast between the protest over my using collapse to clean up discussion, lowering attention on resolved issues, with the apparent support of those involved, a few months ago, for fast-archiving (2 days) of Talk:cold fusion. As in 2000, it obviously depends on whose Gore is being axed. --Abd (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of RationalWiki[edit]

First of all, the real function of a thing is not necessarily the stated function or purpose.

The RW Main Page begins with:

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

If this is an important part of the purpose of RationalWiki, the kind of exploration I've been undertaking here is very much a part of that purpose, certainly the part about exploring authoritarianism and fundamentalism. It is not only the religious who may be authoritarian and fundamentalist. I'm far from the first skeptic to point this out!

At the Cold fusion article, actual examination of evidence is discouraged, only snark is pursued. This is not "analyzing and refuting," it is "ridiculing." Now, ridicule is part of the defacto purpose of RationalWiki, and that's fine. However, when analysis and refutation become suppressed in favor of snark, the effective promise in the stated purpose of constructive dialog is defeated and made a dead letter.

If you want snark in the article, then, to maintain constructive dialog, that's what should happen on talk, I'd propose.

I was trained in the sciences, I strongly support the scientific method, and, often, the RW community is anti-science. It is, as it were, cargo-cult science that is being "protected" in the name of science. Rejection of experimental evidence based on theory -- or lack of theory -- is the essence of cargo-cult science. Real science seeks to explain and harmonize all experimental evidence, and it is a never-ending process.

Your move, folks. --Abd (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Move this to the saloon bar, it's not a discussion to hold on a User talk page. VOXHUMANA 01:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Start a discussion there, yourself, if you want. You aren't the boss of me. That was, for a time, the favorite phrase of my youngest daughter. Smart cookie.
I'll discuss whatever I want on my Talk page, and remove any discussion I don't want from this page, as well. This is not Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, removing things from your talk page unless they are "obviously vile trolling" or spam is one of the few things actually against the rules here. ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 01:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be much easier to ignore obnoxious walls of turgid, boring text if they were kept away from the Saloon. Right here would be best. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 01:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to the rule, ToP? There are various methods of archiving Talk pages, and they generally involve "removing things" from the talk page. So what are you talking about? In any case, Voxhumana, with maybe a whole month of additional experience here than I, seems quite ready to tell me what is and is not appropriate.
Geez, not merely boring text, it's turgid, it's a wall, and it's obnoxious! Look, I get it. The Saloon bar is for carousing, not for any kind of serious examination of issues. I'm not convinced that this wiki is for any of that, either. It's more about bashing the "enemy," about being some sort of weird mirror image of Conservapedia. "Aren't they awful?" --Abd (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
RW:CS#Talk pages. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 02:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The text of the standard is that you can't delete material without archiving it to another page unless it's "obviously vile trolling." The implementation has been that you can't delete material without archiving it unless the person you're deleting is unpopular or you're popular enough enough to get away with it. Unfortunately you don't meet that condition, Abd, so you'll need to archive anything you delete. Blue Talk 02:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Blue. As you stated, the "standard" is full of holes. the version linked by PeterL is clearer.
Of course, so what? I'll still do whatever I think best, and live with the consequences. --Abd (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Spoilsport. I was hoping to get Ace involved. VOXHUMANA 01:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You called, sir? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Delighted you could join us. In my humble opinion, this overall discussion will be enhanced greatly by the application of your significant gifts and talents. VOXHUMANA 02:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Will this do? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:AceJesus.jpg
Cold fusion, baby
This is truly beautiful. Above, several users made the point that removing material from a Talk page was contrary to community standards, pointing to a formal declaration of that, which excepts "vile trolling." Previously, similar comments had been made by Voxhumana and others about not using collapse for similar reasons. So, here, when I removed the link to the image Ace McWicked placed, and when he revert warred to keep the link on my page, and it's clearly tolling, and could easily be considered vile, especially by whomever's face photo that is, pasted on one of the lovers, and when my request to keep this off my page was ignored, not only did Voxhumana restore the image link, he also confirmed thereby the removal of my text from this page. For convenience, here it is:
Image of two men sexually involved, apparently intended to be offensive to some person whose photo is pasted on one of the heads, removed as "vile trolling" per policy. Ace, welcome to my Talk page. I have some reason to think that you might have some small shred -- or more -- of intelligence. Have some tea or coffee, your preference? Or go play with yourself, perhaps gazing longingly at that image. Whatever floats your boat. But please keep it off my talk page. --Abd (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Pile of idiots, who don't know what they are doing, believe that standards apply to others, not to them, in short, wankers. No wonder they love that picture. It gets them hot. I'm striking the comment about intelligence. This is simply an attack bot, even if he imagines he's human. --Abd (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
That's hilarious. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Ace. Glad you enjoyed it. It is obvious, though. Obviousness isn't quite so funny, usually. Whatever. --Abd (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
It is indeed funny. It's just like poking a ant with a stick, (except that ants are able to correctly assess evidence.) VOXHUMANA 05:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit more than an ant. I test evidence, I don't just passively react to it. --Abd (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ace McWicked has explained below that the face in the lover on the right is his own. Thus the image can be seen purely as a fantasy of love between him and someone who looks like a standard wimpy image of Jesus (not at all like Jesus would have looked), so the link can remain. The purpose of the link is obvious. So what? --Abd (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not a homosexual but you gotta take what you can get. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 05:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, Ace. I was a prison chaplain at San Quentin. Most people are like you. Well, not maybe quite so ugly, but Jesus doesn't care about that, that's his rep. Now, is there anything you'd actually want to discuss relevant to this wiki? --Abd (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you calling me ugly?

thumb|200px|centre|Ugly? More like sexy.

Maybe it was that low-quality image. More like weird. No wonder you don't have choices. I suppose if you can get them drunk.... But it looks you are trying to get yourself drunk. That doesn't work very well, did anyone ever tell you that? On the other hand, the top is a nice color, and so modest.... --Abd (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I actually thought so Effing waste of time. There was a short period where a reasonably knowledgeable RW editor, Tweenk, actually discussed the issues, and Cold fusion was improved. That's all being dismantled now, because the mob is utterly ignorant, unwilling to learn, and very ready to enforce their ignorance against a "crank." (What has been removed or hacked up has mostly been Tweenk's work, not mine. It's weird to watch.)
Comments like this from me are often called "complaints." No, it's just description, what's so. People are just being people, and ignorant people act in the way described. Even if they pride themselves on being "scientific" and "rational." I have no right to complain.
Well, I could invoke that "promise" on the Main page, but, in fact, I'm not naive. I know that such statements are frequently fluff, idealism not reflected in real practice. Wikipedia has fine policies and guidelines, useless because the structure to enforce them is dysfunctional and highly resistant to change. It was predictable, the early Wikipedia community was totally naive. Consensus and eternal improvement would appear by magic. A few details were overlooked.
There are some sane users here. If not, I wouldn't bother at all. (and I'd have been promoted out, it was certainly tried.) --Abd (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Way too much fun[edit]

03:27 . . Nebuchadnezzar blocked TheoryOfPractice with an expiry time of 3 seconds (about right) (account creation disabled) ‎(It's just like banhammering Galileo! Don't be a sheeple, or, much worse, an aspie fascist! Fight the establishment and its anti-cold fusion bias!).

Actually, it's just being stupid. Pseudoskeptics imagine they know how others think, it's pretty weird, it's as if they believe in telepathy, i.e., their own mind-reading. The establishment has no anti-cold fusion bias, there is nothing to fight. Cold fusion actually won the battle, in the peer-reviewed journals, turning the corner at about the time of the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review.

The users here are simply ignorant and unwilling to read the actual literature, since, like most ignorant people, they don't know they are ignorant, they think they are knowledgeable, and anyone who disagrees with them is therefore a crank. It's perfect.

There is no metric of current scientific opinion on cold fusion. Skeptics assume that they are in the majority, but, in spite of efforts, skeptical papers on cold fusion, other than skepticism within the field, aren't being published. Substantial work continues to be published; for example, Hagelstein, in 2010 or 2011, published a review of the literature establishing an upper limit of about 20 KeV for charged particle radiation from the palladium deuteride reaction known colloquially as cold fusion. That has major implications for theory. Hagelstein also suggested that stimulation in the 3-20 THz region would enhance the reaction, and that's been confirmed.

I'm not persecuted, and even if I were, it would have nothing to do with being right or not. What I've done, for a few days, because I was sick with the flu, is edit a strange, chaotic, sort-of skeptical but mostly masturbatory wiki, while having credentials in rational skepticism, and I'm probably two or three times the age -- or more -- of the average user here, I cut my teeth at Cal Tech, and I'm not about to defer to a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears wankers, more than to allow them a chance to learn something. It remains their choice.

I was promoted to ordinary user ("autopatrolled") by TheoryOfPractice, a completely legitimate action, since he'd demoted me previously; it's a basic principle of wiki governance that a person may normally undo whatever they did previously. Someone who unblocks may reblock, someone who blocks may unblock. Only if the original action were somehow obligatory would this be improper. It's rare on a wiki that any action is obligatory. (I just saw an RW standard that actually claimed deletion of contributions of blocked users was "mandatory" or something like that. This is very strange, not even Wikipedia went there. It's simple authoritarianism, whereas wikis usually follow a more situational response, considering the goals of the wiki, not whether or not a specific rule is followed.)

It was thoroughly amusing, however, to see TheoryOfPractice make such a point about community practice being against using collapse on Talk pages, and then, when I thanked him for having promoted me, he collapsed it, and then reverted me when I uncollapsed it per the policy he'd explained. He could archive it, though, in fact, the policy as it was explained only makes sense if discussions remain open for some time. He *closed* it, using collapse in repressive way, whereas I'd used collapse purely for improving Talk page efficiency, there was no attempt to repress further comment.

On the other hand, there was no question or issue raised there. It was like what I did, I collapse because there wasn't any further need for discussion on those topics, and invited anyone who disagreed with this to uncollapse.

But what TheoryOfPractice did made me think that something about what I wrote, he preferred to keep relatively hidden. On the other hand, perhaps he just wanted to avoid kibitzing. So the truly amusing thing here is that another user who also made that point, so hugely, about not collapsing discussions ... what does he do now that his friend did it?

So there goes the wiki. Of course, all this may change. It's all empty and meaningless. --Abd (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"apparently intended to be offensive to some person whose photo is pasted on one of the heads"[edit]

One of those people is me and I am not offended. Jesus on the other hand...AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my misunderstanding. Jesus loves you. Less you misunderstand in turn, I'm not a Christian. Now, is there anything you care to discuss? --Abd (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think in the picture I am loving jesus more than he is loving me. What do you reckon? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You get to say. It's your fantasy, after all. --Abd (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Jesus is just using you, Ace. C'mon man, you deserve someone who will treat you with respect. VOXHUMANA 05:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Like VOX? --Abd (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Cold Fusion....[edit]

...You know, maybe you should avoid that page? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 23:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should avoid any wiki where you edit?
"Should" depends on goals. What goal do you have in mind that I "should" avoid the page? Look, I'm an expert on the topic. You have only one editor who has shown anything close to knowledge, and he's not responded to requests he take a look. The changes I've resisted there were made not by me, but by him. If you want the RW page to reflect entrenched ignorance, classic pseudoskepticism, you are welcome to stand for that. As it stands, the article isn't even close to being accurate. --Abd (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a good idea - I am glad you agree. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It was a question, not an assertion. I know you are eager to see me vanish, but so much for RationalWiki's supposed welcome of constructive dialogue.
  • We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.
Of course, maybe I'm too close for comfort, like Truzzi and my friend Martin Gardner. You'd rather have a self-congratulatory circle-jerk, perhaps? Look, when those who welcomed me here ask me to leave, I leave.
I don't follow people around, trolling for offense with images, asking them if they'd like to see my knob, revert warring to keep it all visible. I don't threaten to revert people endlessly because of their personality. You and those who mindlessly revert anything they imagine is crankery, sources and science be damned, these are the people who destroy the promise of RationalWiki. Constructive dialogue, my ass. --Abd (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, when those who welcomed me here ask me to leave, I leave.As the person who welcomed you here, I am asking you to leave. Thank you. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 00:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A welcome template doesn't count. I definitely had someone else in mind. However, TheoryOfPractice, since you did welcome me here, I invite you to explain how my departure would benefit this wiki and/or myself. I can easily get the second part, which is why I've considered desysopping a promotion, it is not merely your trope, and why I don't GAF if I'm blocked.
But the first part, can you explain? What is it that I do -- or am -- that is harmful here? Please do consider the goals of RW as expressed on the main page, and if you don't agree with those, if there is some more important purpose, for you, then, by all means, express it. What's important to you, so important that you would depart from tradition and ask a contributor to leave? --Abd (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"A welcome template doesn't count." Moving the goalposts. Stopped reading after that. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 00:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, I've dropped welcome templates a-plenty on wikis. It isn't personal, unless it is. When it is, I add a comment. No, I meant something more personal and assuring. No problem with your stopping reading, though. Reading is kind of useless when you don't understand the language. --Abd (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I will explain this. You are regarded by all here as an annoying "crank". This means the following:

  • You have not demonstrated any interest in any topic other than CF.
  • You believe you are "correct" and nothing will sway you from your conviction
  • You routinely use the "language of reason" (eg. phrases such as "reliable sources", "evidence", "constructive dialog") but you pervert it, as you have no interest in such things - you are only here to promote your own agenda.
  • You continually refer to the "goals" of RW, yet everyone here knows that you only make those references to promote your agenda.
  • You routinely dispute some trivial point, and then pronounce that your overall thesis is thus correct (the Straw man fallacy)
  • You post massive walls of text which no-one responds to, and thus conclude you have won the argument.
  • You do not do any actual "harm" as we can (and will) revert every addition you make. However you fail to realise you are in a community. Numerous people here disagree on a variety of things, but they more or less manage to get along regardless. In your twisted worldview this constitutes a "cabal".
  • People want you to leave because (despite your own belief) the net value of your contributions is negative. I have no doubt you might contribute something accurate at some point. But most of the time you are twisting information to promote your (utterly discredited) viewpoint about CF. So you create more problems than you fix.
  • Your endless whining, absurd walls of text, self-righteousness and "victim mentality" are just tedious.
  • You simply make the place less pleasant for everyone else. We don't like you. Go away.

Sincerely VOXHUMANA 00:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Not even wrong, in so many places. Too convoluted to respond to. Voxhumana, you reveal how you think, and this reveals a great deal about not only you, but Wikipedia, where you are still an administrator. You make up what you imagine I think, then attack it. It's certainly not the first time I've seen this.
The one who never admits error is you, and that's quite common among Wikipedia administrators. Something about the position must attract people like this.
Oh, okay, one point: my "viewpoint" about Cold fusion is supposedly "discredited." No, it's what is currently reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, mainstream journals, which I know and you don't. The discredited position, there, is yours. Basically, you are ignorant, but imagine yourself competent to judge others. That's "arrogant," what you ascribe to me. Not surprising. --Abd (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Nota bene - TheoryOfPractice, Voxhumana and Ace McWicked are not threatening to ban you, Abd; they are informing you of their preference to see you gone. Blue Talk 01:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Blue. However, I'm puzzled. Did I indicate that I thought they were threatening to ban me? I don't think that. --Abd (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As a moderator, I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page, so that somebody didn't go running to the Chicken Coop and start a pointless mess. Blue Talk 02:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As a moderator... I bet you had a powerful orgasm when you wrote that. And I never stated I wanted Adb gone. As a moderator I feel I should make that distinction. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
they are informing you of their preference to see you gone No, I am not. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Technically, you are correct about what you've written, Ace. However, Voxhumana was explicit on this. Blue, if you read this, I'm not about to take this mishegas to the Coop. Voxhumana's voluminous list was trolling for outrage, but I DGAF. I'm not whining and I'm not a victim. I'd have to have some critical interest here to be a victim, and I don't. Consider me like rain. It is not victimized if you ignore it or shut it out, but it also doesn't leave just because you ask or demand it. Here, mostly, I'm following the path of least resistance. People who are attached to certain positions get upset, it's always happened.
It's just fascinating to find such attachment among "skeptics." Not surprising. Truzzi confronted this in the skeptical movement. It's people who *believe* in the rightness of their position, because ... because why? It's not based on evidence, it's based, apparently, on affiliation. None of the people involved in the recent conflict with me over cold fusion have any clue about the evidence. It's all ad-hominem. And this is supposedly different from Conservapedia? Sure, it's different. In style. Not in substance.
I do not assume that a few idiots represent RationalWiki. I don't assume that the block log mess represents RationalWiki, just the set of users who get off on that. In fact, though, RationalWiki isn't a sentient being, it's just a collection of text. The community is a bunch of individuals. Some would be sane and some not. Often the least sane are the most vocal. On Wikipedia, they gradually took over. I don't see any sign, however, that this community is going to fare better. --Abd (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What would convince you that cold fusion is bunk?[edit]

What would convince you that cold fusion is bunk? sterilesporadic heavy hitter 02:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a brilliant question, Sterile. If it is not falsifiable, Cold fusion would be pseudoscience. But first we need some definitions. "Cold fusion" is not crisply defined, its a popular term, and, further, there are known and accepted forms of cold fusion, at least one known before the discovery of Pons and Fleischmann. I'll shortcut the discussion by proposing a hypothesis that may be equivalent to what you want to ask, though it is more specific than "cold fusion":
Hypothesis: The Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, specifically anomalous heat from highly loaded palladium deuteride, is caused by a nuclear reaction that converts deuterium to helium, releasing energy without major penetrating radiation.
It's falsifiable. That's because it's based on experiments, specifically experiments that generated the anomalous heat and that measured the produced helium, and that showed that they were correlated, at close enough to the known value for deuterium fusion.
As with polywater and N-rays, it would be falsified if the findings of those experiments were shown to be artifact (or perhaps fraud). That would normally be done by replicating the experiments, then showing, through controlled experiment, that the cause was prosaic, not an unknown nuclear reaction.
Are you aware that this has never been done, Sterile? The heat findings have been *massively* confirmed. The helium findings have been confirmed by about twelve research groups (i.e, that measured both heat and helium). All this is now accepted, routinely, under peer review. There is no contrary experimental evidence. Scientifically, unless someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat, it's over.
It's really an amazing situation. The necessary work was done by about fifteen years ago. The hasty rejection of cold fusion got written so deeply in the minds of many that it was not susceptible to evidence. However, by the 2004 U.S. DoE review, the situation had shifted. Neither DoE review (1989, 2004) concluded that cold fusion was bunk, and especially not the 2004 review, where opinion was divided on whether or not evidence was conclusive or convincing or not. Basically, it was a mystery. The actual mechanism remains a mystery.
What observation would falsify it? Is there anything else that would be convincing to you? sterilesporadic heavy hitter 11:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
What observation would falsify evolution? Sterile, I'm not getting that you understand my response. The theory of "cold fusion" that I stated would be falsified by a finding that heat and helium were not correlated, that the correlations found in the work of all those groups were artifact. An observation that established that there was some sort of conspiracy to fake these results would accomplish it. An observation that established a common prosaic cause would do it. Otherwise, cold fusion now stands with most science, established by a large body of experimental evidence, without contradiction. (A replication failure is not a contradiction, and, in fact, becomes part of the positive evidence. The negative replication shows that under those conditions, the effect does not appear.) So, I'll turn this around.
Sterile, do you have an opinion that cold fusion -- as I defined it -- is bunk? What would falsify that for you?
I know that there are some common answers, they are effectively demands for gross effects, unmistakeable, requiring no instrumentation. Yet phenomena are accepted all the time, including the long-accepted form of cold fusion I mentioned, muon-catalyzed fusion, that cannot be demonstrated like that. The difference is this: MCF was predicted, theoretically, before being confirmed experimentally, so the experimental results did not rock any boats. CF was *suspected* theoretically (by Pons and Fleischmann), but not predicted as such. They actually expected to fail to find anything, they thought the fusion cross-section would still be way too low. Hence they stumbled across the effect because they were brave enough to look where nobody had looked carefully. and they risked failure. Their rough "theory" of how it worked was completely wrong. Their neutron measurements were artifact. But the heat was real, and that's the point. Until the helium correlation was found, that was the extent of the real evidence. Unexplained heat.
Before helium, many researchers were already convinced, because of the heat that they saw in their own labs. So, what would falsify *that* cold fusion? It's pretty obvious: identify the artifact. Instead, people ranted about "impossible." The heat was impossible, therefore don't bother checking the work, there *must* be some mistake. And that opinion continued, and still continues, with some, even after the heat was confirmed by hundreds of groups around the world. There *must* be some mistake. It's cargo cult science.
RW folks, do you have any hope of convincing the hordes of people out there who are afflicted by belief in pseudoscience? Start at home. Demonstrate what it is like to have an open mind (i.e., Truzzi's form of skepticism, which is self-skeptical as well as skeptical of the beliefs of others).
Back to the original question, in short, what would convince me that "cold fusion is bunk" would be evidence that it's bunk. Where is that evidence? Can you find it in the journals? What I've seen is evidence that certain ideas about cold fusion were bunk. For example, the idea that cold fusion was d+d forced by the extremely high deuterium density (somewhat equivalent to metallic deuterium) in PdD was bunk. That's what most uninformed people with at least a smattering of physics think, knee-jerk, that "cold fusion" would be. Of course they reject it. Cold fusion doesn't take place in the palladium lattice, that's been established. It's a surface effect. --Abd (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"A replication failure is not a contradiction, and, in fact, becomes part of the positive evidence. The negative replication shows that under those conditions, the effect does not appear." Um, repearted lack of reproducibility is a problem, especially once systematic error is eliminated. That is falsified. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 15:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
When an effect is understood, i.e., the conditions which produce it are understood, generally replication failures are explained. Essentially, the replication failures did not replicate the experiment. That is not entirely obvious, because the effect might include an element of randomness, but, in this case, it is known -- and I've explained in various places -- how the supposed negative replications were actually replication failure, i.e., failure to replicate. In short, with the early cold fusion experiments, there were variations: the size of the experiment at Cal Tech, for example, affected how the bubbling stirred the electrolyte. Failure to stir in the Cal Tech replication caused a false excess heat signal. When they stirred, the signal disappeared. They attempted to apply this to the Pons and Fleischmann work, speculating that this was the artifact, but the conditions were quite different. The P-F cells were designed to cause fast stirring from the bubbling, the Cal Tech cells were not. Stirring was verified by observing dye movement. In addition, the FPHE was later verified using flow calorimetry, which is not vulnerable to this kind of error. Seebeck calorimeters have also been used, ditto.
Other known variations: the loading ratio was not considered important by the early negative replicators, they assumed that, say, 70% loading would be maybe 70% as efficient as 100%. Later work, where loading was measured, and collecting data across many experiments, it was shown that loading had to be above about 90% to produce the effect at all.
Further, it was assumed that any palladium would do. Pons and Fleischmann had been very lucky. They were using a batch of specially produced palladium that worked. Further, SRI was retained by the Electric Power Research Institute to study cold fusion independently. McKubre's work showed definitively that the same palladium rod" under the same apparent conditions of loading and current, etc., would not work, not work, and then work. The palladium lattice doesn't just sit there. Loading it with deuterium produces palladium deuteride, which expands. Repeated expansion and shrinking causes the palladium lattice to crack. It appears that the cracks are crucial. If they are too large, the necessary high loading cannot be obtained. No cracks, no effect.
Before the work of Pons and Fleischmann, and the massive effort to replicate, it had been thought that palladium could not be loaded beyond about 70%. That replications were attempted by non-electrochemists was a huge part of the problem. This was one very difficult experiment. It wasn't just a matter of sticking a palladium rod in heavy water and turning on the juice.
Physicists are not accustomed to difficulty of reproduction. It's handled in other sciences all the time. Medicine, especially. It's handled through correlation and statistical analysis.
The early replications are confirmations, in general, once examined in the light of what came to be known. They confirm it! I.e., low loading, no results. Confirmed. But even more than that, the critical evidence that the FPHE is fusion comes from correlation with helium. Some of those early replications looked for helium as well as heat (and in addition to neutrons and gamma rays). They found neither heat nor helium. Thus we have strong evidence that they did not set up the reaction, since the FPHE produces correlated heat and helium. No heat, no helium. It's a very clear experimental result, and it completely knocks out the "helium leakage" theory, and demonstrates that the calorimetry is at least roughly correct. From the point of view of more extensive knowledge, those early experiments confirm what later became known.
Obviously, by itself, no heat and no helium proves nothing. It is in the context of a larger experimental series that it takes on significance. --Abd (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
And PS. You've still not answered the question, unless it's in the word salad. Conspiracy is most certainly not falisfying something. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I gave more of an example than that. Basically, there is experimental evidence X from which we conclude Y. To falsify the conclusion Y, demonstrate experimental evidence showing that Y does not follow from X.
Since this doesn't seem to be getting across, I should give examples from N-rays and polywater, to which cold fusion is often compared.
N-rays were debunked when a scientist pulled the prism that was supposedly refracting N-rays so they would display on a phosphor screen. The alleged scintillations were at the limit of vision. With the pulled prism, people still "saw" them, showing that they were artifact, a result of expectation. The original finding (people's observations of scintillations) was replicated, then shown to be prosaic in origin.
Polywater was debunked when the original finding was, again, replicated, and then the material found was shown by analysis to be produced from human sweat, apparently condensed in the original water, contaminating the glassware.
In order to debunk cold fusion experimentally, one would need to do one of a number of possible things, and this list is not exhaustive.
1. Show a systematic error from the original experimental reports. Kirk Shanahan has attempted this, but entirely inadequately. He claims, in fact, a "calibration constant shift," based on a hypothesized unknown chemical reaction, as a systematic error, but it's never been shown by experiment and is contrary to the experimental record. It would affect isoperibolic calorimetry, but not flow or Seebeck. And this totally fails to explain the helium correlation.
2. Replicate the original results. (I.e., occasional excess heat, clearly above noise. Reliable excess heat might actually be suspect! Erratic results are characteristic of the FPHE, at least the electrolytic form.) Then show, by controlled experiment, the artifact. For example, if unexpected recombination is proposed as the artifact, show that the recombined gases are missing from the exhaust gases. Perhaps show that the excess heat correlates with the missing gases. Use partitions (partitions designed to allow electrolytic current to flow while inhibiting gas movement are available) to prevent recombination and show that the effect disappears. However, some FPHE experiments use internal recombiners that cause all the gases to recombine already, eliminating the correction term for unrecombined gas (which carries away energy).
3. Show fraud. I place this in the list for completeness. One of the editors here has alleged fraud, but that's rare and unsupported, except maybe with the most extreme findings that have not been corroborated. Some people claim Rossi's results are fraudulent and that's even in the article now. It's not certain, but it's possible. In the classical cold fusion work, fraud was alleged (by Gary Taubes) with regard to tritium findings in the lab of Bockris, it was claimed that a certain person doped the cells. That was rejected by the university, and doesn't explain the many other labs which also found (similarly low levels) of tritium. Tritium is considered, now, a confirmed (but rare) byproduct of the reaction, but little is known about it.
4. Show impossibility by conclusive analysis. This is generally considered, itself, impossible. It can provide a reason to suspect results, to be very careful about accepting them, but the problem is that the analysis is only as good as the assumptions it is based on. This was attempted with cold fusion, and the assumption was, generally, that "cold fusion" was ordinary d-d fusion, and therefore if helium was being produced, there must be gamma rays (to conserve momentum). That assumes the known d-d fusion branch that produces helium. If it is some other reaction, the analysis fails. The original Pons and Fleischmann proposal, in the first paper, for the main reaction, was not d-d fusion, it was "unknown nuclear reaction." Further, this approach completely fails to explain the experimental results.
The science is well-known, now, by those who study it, and not known by those who don't. Is it different in other fields? --Abd (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Surely you're joking. Having done electrochemical experiments before, they are easy, and calorimetry is a well established field. The instruments available allow you to program in voltages (or currents) (do we want high voltages? they can't possibly be enough to mimic the thermonuclear reaction by overcoming nuclear repulsions) and the cells are easy to stir or not stir (would we want fast diffusion to the electrode surface or not?). Palladium with all sorts of Miller indices (which ones do we want?) have been produced and "cracking" would make it easy. Given that catalytic hydrogenation has been studied for at least half a century, loading it with hydrogen just isn't that hard. (Is more better? Why a "magic ratio?") I guess I don't see why people would have trouble reproducing the experiment, and again, lack of reproducibility means falsified. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 21:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Some electrochemical experiments are easy. That's fooling you. However, try to do an electrochemical experiment that must run at high current for six or eight weeks, at a voltage adequate to evolve deuterium gas. They are famous for becoming gunked up. Any cation floating around is attracted to the cathode and builds up there. Material from the glass can build up on the cathode.
You are making a pile of assumptions, it's obvious. Don't worry, it's normal. No, lack of reproduction does not mean "falsified." It means "not confirmed." That disappears when it's actually confirmed. Which happened thousands of times, actually.
Your position is like that of someone claiming that there are no fish in the lake because the first few people to fish there after someone caught a fish didn't find any. How many people must catch a fish before you'd give up the argument?
You seem to think that the electrolytic voltage is allegedly responsible for the effect. No, electrolysis is apparently and simply a convenient means to generate deuterium gas in a way that causes it to load into the cathode. The field moved on and much current work is being done with gas-loaded palladium and palladium alloys. There is no input voltage or current. The electrolytic approach is quite messy. But it's what the field started with, and a great deal is known about it.
Loading palladium with hydrogen or deuterium is easy, indeed. Up to 60 - 70% loading. Before Pons and Fleischmann, it was considered impossible to go above that. This should give a clue to the difficulty. There is no "magic ratio," but the minimum observed to produce the FPHE is about 90%. Some gas-loading work goes above that, and, in fact, the actual nuclear active environment might be locally well above 1:1. Takahashi theorized momentary 4:1. (Two deuterium molecules -- and deuterium molecules don't ordinarily exist inside the lattice. There is some current effort to look for the signatures of molecular deuterium in the lattice. It might fail.) (But it would probably exist in voids.) Remember, the effect is a surface effect. Definitely not deep in the lattice. D2, of course, does exist at the surface.
I mentioned SRI P13/P14. The full research document, commissioned by the EPRI, is available on-line now, but the chart showing the third current excursion can be seen in the 2004 DoE review document by Hagelstein et al. See Fig 1, p. 2 of the review paper. By itself, it may not mean much. So heat varies with current (or current density, the relationship is well known and reproduced). That smells like systematic error. However, what isn't shown -- and for some reason McKubre, who did this work in about 1991, doesn't emphasize it, perhaps because at that time they were embarrassed by the reliability problem -- is that this was the third current excursion with the same experimental set-up, it had been running continuously for about 500 hours (kept loaded with a small steady current most of the time). The first two times, the hydrogen and deuterium cells, which were in series electrically, tracked each other, there was no excess heat. Only with the third excursion did the deuterium cell take off. Now, you can make up all kinds of explanations, and I've seen people try it. For example, one skeptic claimed that bubble noise caused by the increased bubbling could cause mismeasurement of the input power, and that deuterium bubbles are heavier than hydrogen bubbles, so this would more affect the deuterium cell. It was a really great try, so I took it to McKubre and others. Nope. SRI does have oscilloscopes and they did look for noise. This was also analyzed by Dieter Britz, a relatively rare skeptical electrochemist. He said, no, the characteristics of bubble noise are well-known to electrochemists, and he did a calculation of the possible effect. Not relevant. (Bubble noise is relatively low-frequency, it poses little problem for the constant current power supply, which has a response in the megaherz region. But there would be minor transients as the supply adjusts to a different resistance caused by a bubble release.)
What SRI P13/P14 showed was a clear example of a maximally "the same" experiment. The same loading, the same current profile, the same circumstances, the same calorimetry. And the very same cathode, except for a different history. I.e. the third excursion happened after the first two. It shows that with everything apparently the same, results can vary drastically. My friend's noise hypothesis doesn't explain the difference between excursions 1, 2, and 3. So what do you do then?
In hindsight, it's easy. You look for correlated effects. That work was eventually done by many groups. Helium is the only product shown to be correlated with the excess heat at a level that would explain the heat. There are also persistent reports of tritium, other transmuted elements, and radiation, all at quite low levels, compared to helium. But no demonstrated correlations.
To answer some of your specific questions, the voltage is at about 1.5 v minimum, below that, deuterium is not evolved. Constant current power supplies are typically used, so voltage is allowed to vary. It might be as much as 10 V or so. Some workers use less salt in the electrolyte and go for higher voltages. (I think that the SRI work was LiOD, likewise P&F, as I recall, but LiCl is often used in codeposition work, even though the chlorine causes problems).
Stirring can be a problem with isoperibolic calorimetry, but, look, Pons and Fleischmann were arguable the world's foremost electrochemists at the time, and they knew how to do calorimetry; in fact, their calorimetry was apparently state-of-the-art. Isoperibolic has potential problems, but it was quite sensitive, that's probably why they used it. Their cells were long and thin, thoroughly stirred by the bubbling. Cal Tech used much larger cells. With inadequate stirring, that allowed a temperature difference to exist between the temperature measuring element in the cell and the general temperature of the cell electrolyte. There are actually *many* possible errors that can be made in calorimetry, it's an art of its own. Do remember, though, that controls and calibrations are used. --Abd (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but you're not producing fish directly; you are producing indirect evidence of fish, which of course is what a lot of chemistry is. But when someone actually go looking of the fish or evidence for them it ends up being like the dragon in my garage. Anyway, sorry for feeding you for so long. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize, Sterile. You were almost willing to look at this. You never answered the parallel question, what would convince you that cold fusion wasn't bogus, given the fragility of the effect? Do you want to wait for a commercial device? That might take a century. It might never happen. Or it might, but it's not likely to happen, in my opinion, until the physicists actually start to explain the effect, beyond a handful of them already working on the problem (such as Hegelstein and Takahashi; the latter is a hot fusion physicist). It's not impossible, though, that materials scientists will kick it without having the theoretical explanation, purely by exploring the parameter space. It would just be more efficient if theory could catch up with experimental results. --Abd (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Cold fusion is a chemistry experiment. Helium, however, is a fish. It's being produced. Get over it! Unless you can figure out a way to produce helium with chemistry (other than cold fusion!).
Helium production is direct evidence of a nuclear reaction. Heat is, as well, however, heat can obviously be produced by non-nuclear means. So how do we tell if heat is nuclear or not? The answer is obvious, and the search was on immediately in 1989, for the ash. Helium wasn't expected because the gammas were missing. So the search focused initially on tritium, He-3, and neutrons.
So no gammas. Lack of gammas was indirect evidence that helium would be missing. However, we know how to measure helium. Unless you want to claim that the peak at the helium Z is something else. It is difficult to resolve from D2+, but not at all impossible. Since the helium measurements were done blind, the correlation with heat by Miles was conclusive, particularly when it was confirmed. (That also rules out leakage from ambient, by the way, along with other evidence.) --Abd (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

An idea[edit]

Instead continually trying to promote your ideas on a single issue and being reverted why not write an Essay and let others debate you on the merits of your argument? Spend sometime engaging us on a social level at the saloon bar about things that interest you (other than cold fusion), edit some other pages and quit edit warring for awhile. You'll find your stay much more pleasant. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good post! Sam Tally-ho! 01:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Ace, I appreciate the advice, I'll consider it. If my goal here were about "pleasant," it would be good advice, perhaps. But there is something I prefer. I have approached the Cold fusion article one issue at a time, generally. I have not made massive changes, normally.
The problem is that nobody at RW is competent to edit that article in a way that doesn't introduce lots of errors. At the present time, nobody is willing to even look at the sources to confirm what I've been writing. I can show reliable source for everything I've written. I did write stuff that's in the article, but it was written before, so the current crop of "revert crankery" idiots don't know that I wrote it. If nobody is willing to learn what they'd need to learn to allow the article to be accurate, RationalWiki has an essentially unmaintained page, falling apart through what amounts to vandalism.
But I wonder if you care about that. And I wonder if you care about that crap on the front page about "constructive dialog." What would that mean?
Ace, you think it's "my ideas" that I'm promoting. No, what I've been doing is attempting to correct blatant errors on the Cold fusion page. I'm quite conservative on cold fusion. None of the current theories are adequate to explain it, for example. Rossi's claims are highly suspect, and might indeed be fraudulent.
What I've stated and stood for, instead, is solid science, I'm not making it up, and I have the training. What's unusual or idiosyncratic is that I'm wasting my time here.
Look at one correction I made. The article had an error about the electrodes. I described that on the Talk page -- since I was requested to discuss all changes on Talk -- and eventually corrected it.[3] I then made another correction and self-reverted, pending review. As quite a bit of time passed with no objection, I reverted the change back in.[4] It was not only reverted by David Gerard, he used rollback, so it also took out the cathode correction.[5].
Now, that other correction. It's this "irreproducible" thing. Stop and think, Ace. Do you imagine that cold fusion would continue to attract support, that it would be the subject of a major positive review in a venerable mainstream multidisciplinary journal, in 2010, if the original discovery in 1989 was actually "irreproducible"? There are, in fact, 153 confirming reports in peer reviewed journals, there is a reference in the article to that, and thousands of conference papers on this. It's preposterous. What is true is that it was "difficult to reproduce," but this has been conflated with "irreproducible," probably because, for some months, initially, nobody could replicate it. They also mostly didn't know what they were doing, because detailed information wasn't available till later.
Yet you think this is my idiosyncratic cranky idea. "Cranky," if anything, is my willingness to take the trouble to explain this to you. Now, that is evidence of insanity, right there. I might consider taking medication.
Ah, one more point. I'm not "continually promoting my ideas." I've spent a fair amount of time over the past week. That's not something I'll continue, but I expect I will periodically assemble corrections to the article, pending the time when someone will actually look at them. I don't know what happened to Tweenk. Tweenk made mistakes, the kind that anyone can make when first looking into a topic. But at least he was looking. It's mostly his work that is being taken out or hacked up. --Abd (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
TL;DR. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Predictable. If you don't want to read what I write, Ace, why are you bothering to respond at all? You think I need to know that you didn't read it? Do you think I care? --Abd (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
He's saying that you're too verbose for him to bother digging through the whole thing to find the 40 words that summarize your point. I can't speak for Ace, but he might read it if you were more concise and succinct. No, I am not going to argue with you about your reasons or the consequences of your attention disorder, because I'm not here to be an English teacher, nor are you historically very receptive to instructions otherwise. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 14:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Most people aren't very receptive to "instructions" that essentially devalue them. I'm a professional writer and editor, I know how to be concise, when I'm paid for it. I'm not writing for Ace, though. I should write for someone who dove in as practically a professional troll, invited by Voxhumana? I've put in the effort it takes, before, with people like Ace. Make it more concise for them, they don't understand it. It's no-win. No, Ace raised an issue, in this case, and I've discussed the issue, because it was raised in my space. Someone not interested in what I have to say might more profitably stay away from my space. One could create a bot to respond to every post with tl;dr, and it would be authentic. (i.e, every word from a crank is too much.) And useless for anything except the harassment of "cranks," which seems to be quite acceptable here. --Abd (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Cranks only have one interest.--ADtalkModerator 02:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Crank or not, what about "constructive dialog"? --Abd (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"What about constructive dialog?" Hence the invitation to write an essay. I've no doubt you will get plenty of people to debate you if you succinctly and methodically put all of your ideas down into an essay with the references there to back up your points. To my mind that is what constructive dialogue means, and it appears the opposite of what you have been doing. --DamoHi 03:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been attempting to have a constructive dialog on narrow points, that should be resolvable, far more easily than much larger questions. For example, was the Pons-Fleischmann experiment reproducible or not? That's a fairly simple question. It gets complicated because some people don't like simple answers, because they know that answers have implications. And they want things to imply what they want. If we can't find agreement here on a simple question like "was the damn thing reproduced," how could we possibly hope to find agreement on larger issues?
Look, a lot of this mess would be avoided if people here would read the Storms Review in Naturwissenschaften, it's linked from the article. That's representative of current scientific thought on cold fusion, it passed review at NW, which is fierce. When I simply state what is in the abstract, I'm considered a crank. That's diagnostic of too many in this community.
As to reference to back up my points, on the narrow issues that have been raised, I've provided references. There is no sign that anyone read them, and I've been reverted solely based on my alleged identity as a crank. That doesn't encourage me to write an essay here!
I'm actually not interested in debate, as such. I'm interested in seeking consensus. What is there to gain from debate? I've debated the issues, already, for something approaching three years, in many different fora, and with experts, including some who have known the field since it began, who are published authors in it. I know the points inside and out. People here are not too likely to come up with something new, though it's always possible. Is there anyone here who is interested in actually learning something about this topic? If not, it all reduces to attempts to win, to look good, to out-argue the opponent, it's a dead end.
However, again, I'll consider the suggestion. Thanks, Damo, I appreciate your concern. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If your idea of a consensus is everybody agreeing with everything that you say then I suspect you will always have difficulties. The only way to bring someone to your point of view is to convince them, which you seem to be unwilling to do. DamoHi 03:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a tad difficult to convince people who will not engage in dialog, who begin with an assumption of "crank," and who firmly enforce that with every action and response.
Actually it needs to be said that one of the biggest things holding you back is your inability to be concise. Your last reply was over 300 words, when it could have been 50. DamoHi 03:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
My effing talk page, Damo. However, point taken. --Abd (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I know nothing about this kind of science, but it stricks me that you are setting up "gotchas" to attempt to prove a larger point. I say that, because you want "a simple yes or no", "because answers have implications". Generally, anyone who starts that way is trying to get someone into a "position" by falsely setting up Yes/no questions, when often the issue is far more complex. Green mowse.pngGodotL'important c'est d'aimer 04:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure. You can imagine I have a larger point. However, one who will not accept a small point because they fear a larger point is arguing from conclusions. Yes/No questions do not require anyone to accept a false dichotomy from the questioner. When there is a revert war, there is a yes/no question, ping-ponging. If it's going back between A and B, perhaps that's because C would be mutually acceptable. But if nobody will consider or propose C, it's dead. And, in fact, what I've been proposing has generally been some kind of compromise, some attempt to accommodate various points of view. Already. "Answers have implications" does not mean that I'm trying to set up those implications. It is a comment on how many think. If you have debated with fundamentalists, you must surely be aware of this. --Abd (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This would be why Vox describes Abd as a crank just a little further up. Abd, if you're not interested in debating, you might as well sign up for a Twitter account, as Twitter is inherently a broadcast medium. Wikis are collaborative projects and require cooperation. I don't understand how you've managed to never learn that lesson despite your well-documented history of participating in Wikipedia. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 05:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikis do require cooperation, and that a few ragged idiots gather and blabber and stick their tongues out doesn't change that. I'm here because the site policy suggests "constructive dialogue." I have assumed that "constructive" refers to building content, and I've focused on specific issues with content. It seems that some want some vast, abstract, philosophical debate. I don't usually do that, it takes *way* too much time to do it properly, but I do relate specific issues to larger questions. It's dicta. As to the basic proposal here, I'll do it, but only with regard to one narrow issue at a time. I'll start with the proposition that "Cold fusion" was reproduced. If we have any success there, any value shown to the discussion, actual utility, the questions can move on. Otherwise I'm arguing with flat-earthers. I may start in my user space, but this could move to mainspace if desired. Or where? --Abd (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

An Idea II[edit]

Cold Fusion as it now appears on RWCold fusion as User:Abd's Dream article


Do a side-by-side on a subpage. Debate changes. Place compromise article into mainspace.

If you ain't willing to compromise on how to edit the article and aren't willing to change where/when changes made are made then I fear that what you want is vindication for your tenacity not superior knowledge or up-to-datedness. C®ackeЯ 15:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't a "side-by-side" what making an edit and looking at the resulting diff provides? Tisane (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Aw, Tisane, there you go again, proposing the obvious. It's more fun for them if they can push me into wasting enormous amounts of time. I suggested self-reversion for the changes I was making to cold fusion, and they thought it "cumbersome." But I'll do it anyway, and since they are so fast to revert me, I may not bother with self-reversion. I'll just make the changes I want and it doesn't matter who reverts it. Or, if asked by a moderator, I'd cheerfully self-revert all changes to cold fusion. I'm afraid that the concept makes them dizzy, though. They are not at all accustomed to thinking outside the box. Cool for skeptics, eh? Firmly attached to what they are familiar with. "We don't do things that way." Completely unconscious of the incorporated assumptions. --Abd (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Declined. Too much work. I'm totally willing to compromise on how to edit the article, and a fair amount of the present text came from me, and was accepted. But it's being hacked up, of late, by editors who will not compromise. They call that "not compromising with crankery," but they have no clue what is crankery -- as to actual content -- and what is simply what's known. And they are quite open about that, they are frank and clear that they are reverting corrections because I'm making them. And since I'm a crank, the content is crankery, end of question.
I will start an essay on a narrow issue, reproducibility of the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, considering all sides of that issue. If people participate, fine. If not, at least I haven't wasted my time with a larger project that is also ignored.
However, Cracker, this could evolve into what you are suggesting. It is simply not the first step. I don't have a "dream article." I simply recognize, from extensive experience, what is so about cold fusion and what is not so. And what is speculation and what is established. What is practical already and what is not. What's been done and what has not been done. You'd be surprised. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It's sounding more and more like you need to just say "Fuck mass-collaborative sites" and get a bliki, like mine! Then you don't have to compromise with anyone; you can just rule that shit with an iron fist, bitch-slap all dissidents (aka trolls) with an IP-range-indef-block-notice-template and smash them with your banhammer (account creation disabled), RevisionDelete their comments if they try to satirize or otherwise give you any lip (or better yet, use FlaggedRevisions to prevent them from having the satisfaction of even momentarily being able to make their remarks visible to the public), and make cold fusion This Millennium's Featured Article, which will provide an excuse (as if you needed one; but, having a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, one must keep up appearances) to perma-protect it as a highly visible page.
It's not as hard as it sounds; you can probably set it up in a day, especially since you'll probably only have two mainspace pages (including the Main Page). Then again, I notice there may still be some unexplored opportunities in the wikisphere that may be well worth exhausting before resorting to such a drastic step. If you do decide to create your own website, though, but conclude that MediaWiki isn't the content management system you want to use, there is one particular Adobe application server I might be able to recommend, which will enable you to rapidly build, deploy, and maintain Java–EE applications for your enterprise... Tisane (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I already have my own effing MediaWiki installation, so what? Too much trouble, Tisane, and for what? If I get serious about this, I'd be writing for journals. And, in fact, I will be, the research is being done. So .... Thanks for the thought and the suggestions. Today I'm working with my daughter making T-shirts for sale. Her idea. We'll be rich! Well, for her, a couple of dollars is "rich." Why not? --Abd (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that you should buy her a cold fusion (aka neopolitan ice cream). Tisane (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Framework[edit]

She is done did. Have at it. ::shrug:: Or not, I ceased caring. 16:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Thanks, Cracker. Saved me a few seconds. Actually, it's more than that. If I created it myself someone would flip out about me using RationalWiki to promote my cracky agenda. Whatever. --Abd (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Mmm, doubtful. There's all sorts of weird stuff in userspace. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, we'll go there. Thanks, Sterile and Cracker. --Abd (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just build the fuckin' thing[edit]

Why don't you just build a cold fusion reactor, pitch Earthaven on the idea of hooking their village up to it so they can upgrade from 10- to 100-watt bulbs without harming the planet, and invite the press and miscellaneous curiosity-seekers to come witness your handiwork so you can say, "See, I told you this shit was for real"? Tisane (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Because nobody knows how to do that. If I knew, the last thing I'd be doing is writing about cold fusion here. You guys think I'm some kind of free energy nut? In fact, that's exactly what some are obviously assuming, from comments. No, my interest is science. Period. Cold fusion is real. That does not equal "practical." At all. Muon-catalyzed fusion is an accepted, real form of cold fusion, and it's totally impractical.
I can build a "fusion reactor" that might work from materials I have (palladium chloride, lithium chloride, platinum and gold wire, heavy water, and acrylic plastic). Replicating work by the U.S. Navy. You know, staring at goats and the like. Published in Naturwissenschaften, as it happens (Google Pamela Mosier-Boss and "triple tracks" if you want to see it). Neutrons. Just a few. Enough to be ten times background if the detector is close enough to the source and accumulates tracks for a couple of weeks.
But wait, doesn't cold fusion not produce neutrons? Apparently, sometimes it does, but at extremely low levels. The neutrons obviously have nothing to do with the main reaction, which is neutron-free.
The scale of the experiment is very small. The heat generated might not be detectable. Dunno. SPAWAR did not report the heat. From other work, though, it would be tiny.
But it's cheap to do, under $100. --Abd (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh. The fine nuances of the matter had escaped me till now. Carry on, my good man! Tisane (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Where do the neutrons come from if not from "the main reaction?" sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Nobody knows for sure. It is clear that the main reaction in the FPHE doesn't produce neutrons. That would produce the "dead graduate student effect." However, if the main reaction produces helium -- and it does --, we know that it not only doesn't produce neutrons, it doesn't produce any charged particle radiation above about 20 KeV, according to Hagelstein's recent analysis in Naturwissenschaften. Otherwise we'd see certain effects that are not observed. Nevertheless, the "Hagelstein limit" refers to copious radiation (i.e., common for the reaction). It is possible that rare incidents could produce high-energy alphas, or rare branches, and secondary reactions from these could produce neutrons. Mosier-Boss et al speculate that the neutrons are being produced by rare D-D or D-T reactions, caused indirectly by hot alphas. See the paper.[6] There are later papers, one is [7]
I think, Sterile, you should understand that the triple tracks amount to something like 10 per detector chip, accumulated over maybe three weeks. This is an extremely low level. Background, from cosmic rays, is on the order of one triple track per chip, as I recall. More copious on the detector chips are apparent tracks from proton knock-on. That is, triple tracks are only produced by neutrons happening to hit a carbon nucleus in the detector material. Many more fast protons will be generated from neutron collisions with hydrogen in various materials, such as the polycarbonate CR-39. My rough estimate is that a track of some kind is produced in the material, a few times per hour at the most. The tracks of importance here are in a location where direct radiation from the cathode, other than neutrons, could not penetrate. In the original report, with wet CR-39, this was on the back side of the material, there is a millimeter of CR-39 intervening. In later work, SPAWAR found that tracks were far more copious if the cathode starts out as a gold wire, rather than the original silver. That's why my own design uses a gold wire. There is no known reason for this difference. It's purely experimental, like much in the field. --Abd (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it really that hard?[edit]

"Ah, well, so much for this project. RationalWiki doesn't have the will or structures to handle anything much beyond snark. Too bad. My email is being left active, but I've shut down watchlist notification except for my Talk page. I'm not promising not to edit, but I do have much better things to do." Is it really that hard to collaborate here? Yeah, one deals with a lot of hostility toward one's viewpoints, but it's still an easier environment to survive in as an editor than Wikipedia. It's not as bureaucratic and there are not as many worries about one's content getting deleted for notability reasons, since it's pretty clear what the scope of the project is; the matter is not left up for arbitrary decisions via xfD.

Anyhoo, BRD doesn't seem like that challenging of a process. You just make your change (citing what sources you can come up with), request explanations for any reversions (or just revert the reversions if they don't explain themselves from the get-go), and take any disputes to the talk page. And then if they don't respond in a reasonable amount of time, then assume that they have acquiesced to the strength of your arguments, and make another bold edit. And if people disregard the BRD process and overwhelm you by sheer numbers, then you take it to a more general forum to request uninvolved editors to participate. And you avoid writing walls of text if you can avoid it, since the tl;dr response diminishes people's willingness to participate. Maybe you should use w:Template:Nutshell? Tisane (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I can make a nuisance of myself. This site thrives on that. This is the problem, Tisane. People here believe cold fusion is bogus. It's a belief. It's not based on knowledge, it is impervious to evidence. The skeptical position on cold fusion was quite reasonable in 1989-1990. By the mid-1990s, it came to depend on ignorance of the experimental record. It became one of two things: simply ignorant, or pseudoskeptical. The pseudoskeptic has a fixed world view, and what doesn't fit in that view is bogus, ipso facto.
The original rejection of cold fusion was a political phenomenon. Those who knew and practiced the principles of science knew that, as of the 1989 ERAB Panel report, the evidence on cold fusion was inconclusive, not convincing, and that's what the report (correctly, except for some details) stated. The panel knew -- or at least Norman Ramsey, the co-chair new -- that the scientific question was open. Many reputable institutions had tried to -- hastily -- replicate, and failed. That created an easy impression of "irreproducible." Cold fusion was a huge story in 1989, I remember it well. Pons and Fleischmann were accused of incompetence, very publicly, by Lewis of Cal Tech, who had failed to replicate, and who blamed Pons and Fleischmann for sending him on a wild-goose chase.
There came to be tremendous opprobrium for engaging in cold fusion research. I remember a Wikipedia editor, who was skeptical, but who was very concerned that his employer might find out he was even discussing cold fusion.
However, this all depended on the maintenance of ignorance of the actual experimental work, which continued. Some of the work was low quality, to be sure, but there was also work by highly competent experts. By 1991 or so it was known what the ash was. It was shown that the ash was being produced at the right ratio to the heat for the reaction to be some kind of deuterium fusion. This work was all confirmed, and there is no contrary experimental evidence. Scientifically, in a sane world, it would have been over. It actually is over, in the journals. Cold fusion research papers are now routinely being published without having to prove that the topic is real. The review published in 2010 in Naturwissenschaften surpasses in scope and depth anything every published in a peer-reviewed journal previously.
Yet the pseudoskeptics labor on, finding every real or imagined flaw they can, ignoring the bulk of the evidence. It's quite a bit like creationists who seek apparent flaws in evolutionary thinking. So Naturwissenschaften is presented as a "life sciences journal." One can make the argument with a straight face, but it's entirely misleading. The argument is made because, it's thought, a "life sciences journal" would not have adequate peer review resources to consider what the skeptics think is a physics paper. But cold fusion isn't physics. Not yet. It has some implications for physics, but, experimentally, it's chemistry. And Naturwissenschaften has access to the best peer review resources on the planet, that paper was reviewed by physicists. They note that Storms, the author, is on the editorial board. Of course he is. By the end of 2009, NW was receiving so many cold fusion papers for consideration that they needed an editor to prefilter them, before sending them out for peer review. They engaged the world's foremost expert on cold fusion, Storms. Again, they want to imply that he reviewed his own paper. Nope. That paper was solicited by the editor of NW, I know, because I was involved in the editing. It was not reviewed by Storms. Does it make sense that Springer-Verlag would allow its "flagship multidisciplinary journal" to be hijacked by some fringe group?
No, the two largest scientific publishers in the world now publish papers on cold fusion, routinely, Springer-Verlag and Elsevier. Elsevier publishes an encyclopedia of electrochemistry, with articles on cold fusion. It would be immediately tagged as woo, here. But it isn't. It's science.
The pseudoskeptics confuse the science with popular opinion about it, i.e., there are people who, indeed, expect some cold fusion devices to appear at Home Depot, maybe by next year. Next century, maybe, and maybe even quite a bit sooner than that, but this confuses science (about what's so) with practical application, which, with cold fusion, is very difficult.
So what happens here on RW? There was a point where Tweenk, who is a grad student with some knowledge of physics, engaged with the article and started to write new material for it. He actually read the Storms review. As is common in this field, someone studying it for the first time often misses and misunderstands a great deal. But at least he was looking. Tweenk was trusted, whenever there was a disagreement with Tweenk, the community did not look at the evidence. Tweenk was Right, because he was One of Us. RW is rooted in affiliation, among what are mostly refugees or critics of Conservapedia. RW is a mirror, a reflection, of Conservapedia, and just as biased. It isn't censored, though, that's the difference. So I can pretty much edit whatever I please into the cold fusion article. But for what purpose? If it's accurate, about cold fusion, it will be reverted.
And reverted again and again. Without discussion. Who needs to discuss crankery? It is a tightly self-reinforcing position, quite akin to a similar position on "heresy" and "heretics" from religionists. Truzzi saw this in the skeptical movement, and confronted it. It was Truzzi who coined "pseudoskepticism," not some woo-master. It's weird that there is as yet no article Marcello Truzzi, as he was one of the founders of CSICOP.
How many other editors here, other than me, were quoted with approval by Martin Gardner? But that means absolutely nothing to the mob here. One editor being willing to engage on the issues around cold fusion could turn this around. I don't see one. On Wikiversity, there was a skeptical editor who did engage in "constructive dialog," and a great deal was accomplished, there was some actual scientific investigation done, resolving a research issue, out of that. The pseudoskeptics dismissed it all as "wall of text," which, to them, it certainly was.
There is an inverted Catch-22 here. If I edit RW, while disagreeing with a commonly-held position here, and attempt to engage in serious discussion over related content, I am obviously obsessed, crazy. A crank. I must say the argument is persuasive. --Abd (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's very important to watch out for opprobrious connotations. Well, it sounds like the cold fusion denialists are going to continue asking for one single proof, notwithstanding what's been presented. Incidentally, that text you posted reminds me that it would be fun to listen to a certain Pink Floyd album originally released on 30 November 1979... Tisane (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a single reproducible experiment, it's been done many times. However, what they want is a reliable demonstration device. John Maddox demanded the brewing of a cup of tea, followed by a second cup. Michael McKubre responded that they could have brewed many cups of tea, if that had been the object of the research. McKubre was retained by the Electric Power Research Institute to investigate cold fusion, and has replicated many experiments from others. McKubre's response is a little misleading, though. They have seen episodes of significant excess heat, lasting for days, sometimes, but they are still not producible on demand. They can be observed, and helium can be measured from them, to validate that the effect is nuclear, but this isn't close, at all, to being something you can buy at Home Depot. Not for many years, if ever.
However, there is a lot of news about Andrea Rossi and his Energy catalyzer, and about two other companies working on something similar. I do not consider this work validated. It uses secret processes or materials. It could be real, it could be totaly hype, or even something in between. Because there is scientific report of heat from nickel hydride, it's possible that Rossi has found a way to scale this up. But the big problem with cold fusion has been reliability, and the reliability requirement for a commercial device is far, far higher than for an experimental confirmation.
Yup. It's very likely, unless something shifts or breaks, that the pseudoskeptics will continue, firm in their beliefs, until the situation becomes totally overwhelming. That might take decades more. S'okay with me. "Someone is wrong on the internet" is a formula for wasting enormous amounts of time accomplishing nothing but filling hard drives with "data." Or noise, as the case may be. Noise: useless data. --Abd (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
OK Abd, I as the Knight of TL;DR have read your TL;DR. I am totally uninvolved; I have no opinion on Cold Fusion, and I don't know anything about it. However, before you write articles on it, can I ask you to do one thing first?
Please prove to me that Cold Fusion as you envision it can exist. That bold, italic condition is important. Not 'Cold fusion' as has already been documented on the page. Not cold fusion under some other definition. The cold fusion that you are arguing for. Go and show me the papers, the experiments, the researchers, that have proved, conclusively, that Cold Fusion as you envision it is possible, and possibly that it's feasible (counting for 'this occurs but only in a black hole' or something) to accomplish on earth. Right here. Reply to me with them, so I and others can evaluate them. Don't leave a long paragraph explaining about how so-and-so represses such-and-what, or how blind and stubborn RW is. Screw RW, I am me, and before you can get me to agree that something is extant, you have to show it to me. I don't believe it doesn't exist. I just don't believe it does until you show me that yes it does.
Here at RW, I at least try very hard to make articles only on subjects I am very certain not only exist, but are well-supported by evidence. If I must write about a phenomenon that is in the preliminary stages of knowledge, research, or testing, I am absolutely sure to admit that we don't know enough yet about it to consistently identify it or its properties.
If you are able to do this, and I am able to cross-reference your sources, identify their origin, objectively evaluate them with the same rigor I would do for any topic (which I do quite often; I am going into journalism, and if I cannot do this, I will be fired) and find them legitimate, I will admit, "Yes, ABD should write his article, even if it is controversial." If not, I can't admit that, and will unfortunately have to treat it as any of those phenomenons above that have not been tested with rigor.
OK? Is this reasonable? Whatever grudge you have against RW, I have never talked to you, and I hope you do not have a grudge against me. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 15:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm obligated to take you up on your request, and I assume good faith. Where do you think I should present the evidence? I do assume you are looking for evidence, not just more talk. --Abd (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll use User:Abd/cf/existence and the attached Talk page. --Abd (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Cool. I am at work, so when I get home or possibly tomorrow I will read through the document, and then do a thorough investigation of it. I'm not setting out to prove you wrong, or prove you right; investigation is just what I do. Anyway, I am asking all of this to try and get a concrete evaluation of your standpoint so more than just me can see clearly what your evidence and points are, without having to fight through the mess concerning the article itself. More than just me likely will evaluate your presented sources. This is a matter of contention in the scientific community, so unsnarling it takes clarity and organization. Something, unfortunately, that this wiki is a bit bad at. I love it anyway, but it's the truth. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 17:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Knight. From your position, this is a matter of contention in the scientific community, but from mine, not. The debate is over on the reality of cold fusion in the journals. It's possible that there will be some last gasps, but I do know that skeptical papers are being submitted and rejected. The skepticism that remains is within the field, and, believe me, debates rage. Blogs and this wiki don't represent "the scientific community," except in a very broad and unspecified sense. Scientists, outside their fields, often have opinions no more knowledgeable than those of lay persons.
This remains: ask a random physicist about "cold fusion" and you may well get "Nonsense! Impossible!" back. But that physicist's idea of cold fusion is not necessarily what has been confirmed. The physicist has paid no attention to the field and is stuck in 1989-1990. That's all. That physicist likely would be unable to express that opinion in a peer-reviewed journal, except as a crank letter. One has been published. The crank has complained that the editors would not let him "refute" the response published from scientists in the field. The tables have turned. --Abd (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just thinking the same — that I wished that text had been accompanied by some links to the journal articles that he referred to. I have academic database access! Tisane (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Tisane, to add references takes much more time than to write what I know. When asked, I can supply references to show what I claim. Remember, I was a Wikipedia editor, (originally skeptical about cold fusion) and I was not banned for adding POV material to the cold fusion article. Far from it. What I did there was extremely conservative, following the strictest Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing for science articles. --Abd (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Some advice re:Conservapedia[edit]

As a long term fan of Conservapedia I applaud your efforts to improve its Cold Fusion articles. Unfortunately you appear to have chosen poorly in attempting to gain the support of a moderator. The chief science expert at conservapedia (in fact I believe he has quite some achievements academically in science and related subjects) is Ed Poor. You will find Ed Poor to be a very reasonable man, always open to new ideas and he will be very interested in learning from you. He is also a very good writer, known especially for his conciseness and exactitude. Might I suggest that you make contact with him, perhaps submit a 'writing plan' to him for his approval. He is a very carefree and relaxed spirit who is well versed in the collaborative process of creating a wiki. Good Luck. --DamoHi 04:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't care sufficiently, Damo. I saw the article there had some problems, cleaned them up. Quick. "wiki." I haven't acted to 'gain the support' of anyone. But it's been offered by some. They don't have email enabled at CP, so I don't know what's happening there unless I explicitly look. Thanks for the advice, however. --Abd (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked. You must have been referring to Conservative's response to me. The question I'd asked him was due to his previous action reverting my edits to cold fusion there. I asked if he'd like me to work on the article. His response was neither encouraging nor discouraging. I'll take the recommendation re Ed Poor under advisement. Probably, though, I'll just make occasional edits to the article and see how it goes. It's okay for now, not terribly wrong anywhere that I've noticed. --Abd (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You have an abundance of willing mentors! How come you never got a mentor on Wikipedia? Actually, I found out they don't always do you much good, when the ArbCom is intent on dropping the banhammer. Tisane (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, they don't believe in mentorship on Wikipedia. When people got a mentor, problems didn't go away. Since they believed that problems were caused by the mentee (rather than structure or abusive admins) they concluded that mentorship did not work. However, they wrote a mentorship clause into my decision, but didn't pass it. Nevertheless "mentor" was incorporated into the "MYOB" ban (which was the ban mostly used to block me. It was entirely made up for me, and unrelated to any actual alleged offenses, so interpreting it later had no foundation. Admins just made up what it meant. ArbComm absolutely did not like having a user who would notice admin abuse and take it to the committee successfully, as I'd done twice.) An Arbitrator offered to be my mentor. He was privately told that, no, he couldn't do that.
Who was telling an arbitrator that the arbitrator could not mentor? What rule was violated? That arbitrator was already, at the time, recusing with respect to anything involving me. So what was the problem? Guess.
Lucky guess. --Abd (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
One thing that you will find if you are going to work at Conservapdia is that you will never see any abuse of process by the admins. They will certainly never take you to arbcomm and make up evidence against you in order to impose a ban. Conservapedia is much more efficient and doesn't have all that bureaucracy. I am starting to think that Conservapedia is the sort of site you will thrive on. You may even gain acceptance for your views at one of the the fastest growing websites around!! I hear that some of the traffic that is being lost by TV cable news companies is going to conservapedia, so as an emerging market for ideas, you can't go wrong! DamoHi 00:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a common error to assume that my agenda is promoting the topic of cold fusion. No, I'm interested in, as has been mentioned by others -- it's noted on my rationalwikiwiki page -- the demarcation problem, and in community process. My study of cold fusion came out of that, and I am involved in the actual research now, but I don't find wikis, in general, to be great places to build content, it's gloriously inefficient. Now, Conservapedia might be fine, but it's apparently using strong central decision-making, ad hoc, as a governance method. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as it is open. It's as sound as the one (or ones) controlling.
I kind of doubt that Conservapedia is a big competitor for cable news traffic. However, my intention there is to occasionally improve the cold fusion article. I looked at a few other articles where I know something and the task seemed too big. Thanks again for your advice and helpful intentions. Right. Conservapedia sysops won't be taking me to ArbComm. They will block me or not. I'm not particularly expecting trouble though Trouble sometimes has a way of seeking me out. I've been open on my Talk page with another Conservapedia editor. He was, at least, welcoming. I'm afraid I wasn't necessarily so congenial. We'll see how that goes. --Abd (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
No worries. I really am trying to get you to fulfil your potential. I wish you all the best for your future endeavours. If there is anything that I can help you with, don't be afraid to ask. DamoHi 01:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Damo. Now, might I ask you from time to time to look at something here? --Abd (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I gotta give you props, you sure know how to handle a troll. Tisane (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Aw, I don't assume "troll" and I don't assume "non-troll." How about I just deal straight with what is said?
(When I call a troll a troll, I know what I'm saying. Might be wrong, but that's different.... --Abd (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC))
"How about I just deal straight with what is said" That is the proper way to deal with trolls! If you bore them, they stop trolling. Or at any rate, their impact is lessened. Of course, on Wikipedia the situation is more dire because if you let them provoke you, you can get banned for incivility. Here, that's much less likely, to say the least. Tisane (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Nah, you got me all wrong. I am just trying to give Abd a legup in promoting his goals. I don't know the first thing about cool fusion but I want Abd to have the benefit of my experience to help him with his endeavours. I don't like to see good men get down over good causes. I don't see anyone else helping so I thought I'd step in. Sorry if that offends you Tisane, but I am a man for the underdog. DamoHi 10:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, well maybe I jumped to conclusions too fast. That's the problem with attempting to identify trolls; there's always at least a theoretical possibility that the person is being sincere; therefore it's probably best to not use the T-word. I have to admit, it might be worth giving Conservapedia, Citizendium or even Metapedia a try on the cold fusion front, although it will be necessary to conform to the local culture. Then again, on some wikis (most notably Conservapedia), that can be viewed with suspicion too, as possible parody. I got banned from Metapedia for articles like this. Of course, Mises Wiki is an option but I haven't figured out yet how to give the topic an Austrian spin. Tisane (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to consider Citizendium, where there is a vibrant community without Wikipedia's emphasis on rules and bureaucracy. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant idea. I think abd would fit in very well at Citizendium. Your expertise will be valued there as only those with the requisite skills are allowed to contribute. I imagine with all your knowledge on cold fusion you could end up being in charge of the whole area. As I understand it, Citizendium was once predicted to grow bigger even that Wikipedia, so there is a definite market for your knowledge there! DamoHi 04:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, not to put down Citizendium, it was a Bad Idea. If we want a reliable encyclopedia, we'll probably have to pay for it. One way or another. Wikipedia could actually work if the money were used to fund a basic, responsible review structure with teeth, but all that was delegated to the "community," i.e., to nobody. "They" do it. Reliability happens by magic on wikipedia. Wikiwoo. --Abd (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your folk[edit]

should try the Reproducibility Initiative. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 23:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that by "my people" you mean the cold fusion research community. Cold fusion is a term that is generally used to refer to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), and there are hundreds of approaches that have been tried. Some have been replicated, some not. The general result of anomalous heat from highly loaded palladium deuteride, under some conditions, has been reproduced by hundreds of researchers. The specific result that anomalous heat from PdD is correlated with helium production, at the value expected if the reaction were deuterium fusion, has been reported and confirmed by about a dozen research groups. There is no contrary evidence. By the standards explained in that article, this is solid science.
The project described is for single reports that have not been confirmed. There are tons of these, in many fields. There are certainly some results in cold fusion that could benefit from this. For example, Vysotskii has reported nuclear effects from certain microorganisms, such as deinococcus radiodurans. Amazing report, apparently flawless technique. No reports of any attempted replication. In appearance, not a difficult experiment.
One comment about the report you pointed to. It seems to assume that replication failure is some kind of proof that a report was wrong. That is not necessarily so. Replication failure when there has been no confirmation does put the original report in question. However, it would be a mistake to simply discard, reject, or retract the original paper (unless the authors retract or fraud or blatant error is found). Sometimes a failure is just a failure. Experiments in the messier sciences, like biology and chemistry, often depend on unknown or difficult-to-control variables.
Generally, when there is replication failure, scientists in the field will attempt to identify the artifact or difference between the experiments. Speculating on it is not adequate, though occasionally a careful analysis of one or the other report will reveal an error. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)