Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Cold fusion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Summary of the Biberian and Hubler reviews

Here is my attempt at paraphrasing the abstracts:

Cold fusion has been controversial, but it has been demonstrated by experiments resulting in excess heat production in electrolytic cells and nuclear ashes such as helium-4. The lack of the usual particle emissions observed in nuclear science and high-energy physics make the phenomenon difficult to accept. Some experiments have shown low-level neutron production, X-ray emission, and transmutation of elements. There is still no satisfactory theory explaining condensed matter nuclear science, but many explanations have been proposed, several with textbook physics.[1]

More than ten groups have reported excess heat in a third of their experiments with a solid palladium cathode and an electrolyte with deuterium or D₂ gas loading of palladium powders. Most of those groups have sometimes seen 50-200% excess heat for hours to days. The groups' observed excess heat events have not diminished in frequency or magnitude, and they have improved their methods.[2]

Combined:

Cold fusion has been controversial, but it has been demonstrated by experiments resulting in excess heat production in electrolytic cells and nuclear ashes such as helium-4. More than ten groups have reported excess heat in a third of their experiments with a solid palladium cathode and an electrolyte with deuterium or D₂ gas loading of palladium powders.[3] Most of those groups have sometimes seen 50-200% excess heat for hours to days. The groups' observed excess heat events have not diminished in frequency or magnitude, and they have improved their methods.[4]

The lack of the usual particle emissions observed in nuclear science and high-energy physics make the phenomenon difficult to accept. Some experiments have shown low-level neutron production, X-ray emission, and transmutation of elements. There is still no satisfactory theory explaining condensed matter nuclear science, but many explanations have been proposed, several with textbook physics.[5]

Ok? 76.246.148.242 (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I quickly scanned your new article. You are stating things in the intro that I would not have thought possible to put in wikipedia yet: "[cold fusion] has been demonstrated by experiments resulting in excess heat production in electrolytic cells and nuclear ashes such as helium-4". If I have been POV-pushing, what are you doing ? It would be terrific if it would hold. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Why do you think it might not hold? I guess I should have used "reaction products" for "ashes". But isn't my paraphrase of the review's abstracts correct? Bill O.R.G. (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the new version of the article in details, and I like it. A couple of months ago, the sentence I quoted above would have infuriated the skeptical editors, and would have been deleted immediately. We went to the arbitration committee and the mediation process because of disagreement on statements saying that cold fusion is a still ongoing controversy, instead of closed episode of pathological science: I cannot think of what would have happened if a sentence said that it had been demostrated. If I have been uncivil recently (and I apologize if I have), you should have seen what I had to endure (you may want to read my account of the mediation in New Energy Times).

If we can now write that cold fusion has been demonstrated, this would be a major step forward, and I would be delighted by it, because there is plenty of evidence from reliable sources that this is correct, despite the deep skepticism of "most scientists" and of some skeptical editors. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "I've now read the new version of the article in details, and I like it": I will email Pierre privately and try to figure out where things went wrong. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, I'm not sure why you say that things went wrong. If I have not proposed to state that "cold fusion has been demonstrated", it's because I was afraid of the reaction of skeptical editors: I have already gone through a lot of battle, and I did not feel ready for this one yet. I do believe that it is justified, and I'm happy that Bill is taking the challenge. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pierre, the world needs people who are advocates for progress in science, and if you feel that the number of chemists and physicists who are paying attention to cold fusion needs to grow, then I'm very happy that you would be willing to fight for what you believe to be true. The world certainly could use some help with energy problems. The world also needs people who fight to maintain the quality of Wikipedia articles, especially on contentious subjects, because Wikipedia is IMO the best source of information on many of these subjects. You can't be both; you'll have to choose which is more important to you. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the need to choose, because I don't see how they could be incompatible. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding last night's changes

There are many ways to address this problem; I'd like for people to figure out the best way. I'm thinking of making a post on WP:VPP for the purpose of addressing the top-down issue: what is Wikipedia good for? What do we want to be known for? Wikipedia will always be a fantastic place to get high-quality information on military history, roads, national parks, and many other subjects where the wikiprojects have a history of cranking out high-quality information and successfully dealing with vandalism. The question is, will Wikipedia ever be a good place for people to come for information on Cold fusion? Until today, I was hopeful that the answer was "yes", but I don't know the answer now. Pierre/Pcarbonn and I were the only two editors who were looking at this article very carefully, sentence by sentence and ref by ref, during the WP:GAN, and now he's saying that he's fine with shifting the lead from saying that cold fusion is undecided to saying it's been decided.

I haven't been willing to keep up with the cold fusion debate since the early 90s, and I'm still not; it should be obvious to anyone reading this article that scientists appear not to have been in a hurry to decide the issue over the last 19 years, and that almost certainly implies disinformation as well as neglect, and there is not the slightest sign of consensus among scientists as to which information is disinformation and which is real. Wikipedia is not going to magically generate a solution that has escaped chemists and physicists. It's true that there is movement recently; it's not out of the question that at least some questions will be answered to everyone's satisfaction some time this year, but we'll have to wait until that happens before we can write about it in Wikipedia.

In the meantime, what's the goal for this article? Since cold fusion continues to occasionally be a news story (some people were replying to the Arata story at physorg.com this week implying they were getting their information about cold fusion from Wikipedia), how this article reads will affect Wikipedia's reputation in the world. Do we want people reading this article to read whatever the latest anonymous edit says is true about the cold fusion controversy? The most contentious issue in all of Wikipedia is: stability or change? Open or closed? It's possible that the appropriate answer to these questions for Cold fusion is different than for many other articles. I'd like to hear your thoughts. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, you raise good questions, and I'll be listening to what people have to say. Please note however that it's not an anonymous user that says CF has been demonstrated, but many reliable sources (Storms, Hubler, Biberian, Srinivasan, ...). As I have said before, the question is "when will cold fusion skeptics provide reliable sources in support of their views ?" How long will we tolerate them to say things without proper sources ? How long will we accept the argument that "it has not been published in Nature, so it cannot be serious" ? I don't think we need to change the wikipedia policies for cold fusion : we just need to apply them, and we'll be fine. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also said earlier that we need to distinguish between the "uninformed consensus of scientists" and the true "scientific consensus". The scientific consensus of the experts in the field is certainly that the effect is real. One way to ask your question is : "do we want to mirror the view of the uninformed majority", or the view of the somewhat-informed DOE, or the view of the experts in the field ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is what Edmund Storms said (Storms 2007, p187): "If many trained scientists are deceived by such simple experiments, how can we trust anything claimed by science ? If so many errors are made using conventional methods, how can similar measurements be trusted when applied to other behavior ? [...] These are basic questions that go to the heart of the scientific method and the integrity of the scientific profession." Pcarbonn (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pierre, let's narrow it down to this: you were part of the mediation that ended in mid-April where all parties agreed that the issue of whether cold fusion exists was not settled, and you just participated, strenously, in the WP:GAN review in which you supported the same conclusion (and thanks for your participation). Now you're saying that we should keep last night's edit: "Cold fusion has been controversial, but it has been demonstrated by experiments in electrolytic cells resulting in excess heat production and nuclear reaction products such as helium-4. Some experiments have shown low-level neutron production, X-ray emission, and transmutation of elements. There is still no satisfactory theory explaining condensed matter nuclear science, but many explanations have been proposed, several with textbook physics." So, it's all settled then? Not only excess heat, but also helium, neutrons, X-rays, and transmutation? And it's supported by textbook physics? So, let me get this straight. You believe that the 9999 out of 10000 chemists and physicists who believe, as represented in the sources for this article, that millions of atoms at room temperature don't exhibit spontaneous, coherent behavior are all wrong. The century-long history of articles in journals supporting this position are all wrong. Furthermore, you believe that NPOV doesn't apply to this article...that is, even though there are significant numbers of proponents of both sides, we should represent the issue as being settled, right up front in the lead...why exactly? Because you're right? And this is an idea that just occurred to you this morning, so you didn't have a chance to bring it up during the mediation or the article review? You can see how I'm straining to AGF here. When you say above that you can't see any conflict between working to support a cause and working to follow Wikipedia guidelines, that tells me that either you don't get it, or else you're saying that you don't get it. It's not for me to say which; I have not had any heavy involvement with issues of disruptive behavior, I try to focus on article-building. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you do wind up getting in trouble for this, I'll be happy to testify that this is not at all a matter of a Wikipedian being very difficult; it's a matter of scientists and the governments funding them behaving very badly, and of that conflict getting transferred to Wikipedia. Nevertheless, there are rules to follow, and I'll get in trouble myself if I don't make sure that they are followed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not propose this change. I just said that I support it, once it was proposed. Whether I should regret for not doing it earlier is not important. Thank you for your assistance if I get in trouble somehow.

What is NPOV ? Which consensus do we have to represent ? This is a hard question. I just said what I would answer, i.e. the "scientific consensus of the community of scientists in a particular field of science". I also said that I'm open to other's view. This is for the purpose of writing a good article with the correct information from reliable sources. Please assume good faith.

To defend the view that CF should not be presented as 'demonstrated', according to wikipedia policies, we would need to find a recent reliable source from a peer-reviewed journal that says that cold fusion is not real, to counterbalance the existing recent reliable sources from peer-reviewed journals that say the contrary. Can someone find one ? PhysicsOrg was only able to find an obscure retired physicist to critique Arata's demonstration. Why isn't there any big wig to take a clear position against cold fusion, while some are taking a clear position for it (e.g. srinivasan) ? Why should we give a voice to the silents, against all wikipedia policies ? That is the question that the wikipedia community should answer. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If the recent reported effects are real, they will be confirmed sooner rather than later. Wikipedia is not going away; we can wait a while. Until then, the introduction should not say that cold fusion has been confirmed.

This may be none of my business, I'm not involved in this page but I do watch what you folks are doing here when I have a chance.

Let me butt my head here if I may. I am the author of a 2004 book called "The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy." I've learned a lot since I wrote it five years ago. If you look closely at my more recent writings you will no longer find me saying things like "cold fusion has been confirmed." You will, however find me saying things like excess heat and anomalous nuclear evidence have been confirmed.

It's not a trivial matter of semantics; I'm not avoiding the term "cold fusion" because of the stigma. I have my reasons, and they are expressed in my recent writings. Look them up if you want to know more, or you can shoot an email with your contact information and I'll send you copies of non-selfpub'd articles I've written lately. Best regards,

StevenBKrivit (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, people may have different views on the word "confirmed." As I have stated before, cold fusion is extremely unlikely based on existing physics (coulomb potential, strong force, etc.), so extremely convincing evidence of confirmation should be required. Two good indicators of that evidence would be endorsement by established fusion experts, and publication in the top journals in the field, which are Physical Review Letters, Science, and Nature. These journals have excellent reputations for fairness, so the lack of articles there supporting cold fusion is strong evidence that the data supporting cold fusion is weak. Keep in mind that PRL, at least, can operate very quickly. One shocking, almost revolutionary, paper was accepted within a few days of being submitted (Wu et al., March 2, 1987).209.253.120.198 (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I follow and agree up to the point where you say "...so the lack of articles there supporting cold fusion is strong evidence that the data supporting cold fusion is weak." The conjunction "so" implies a logical relationship, but the conclusion you offered does not logically follow from the premises you offered. The from of your logic looks to me like "if a, then b. not a, so not b.", which is incorrect. Again, everything else I agree with. Kevin Baas^talk 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to recognize is that the threshold for confirmation should be higher for a field like cold fusion which has had confirmation problems in the past. Many groups reported "confirmation" of some type in 1989, but as far as I can tell none of them has stood the test of time. If there are any, I would like to know about them. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Biberian and Huebler reviews in the previous talk page section? 76.240.228.188 (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to the lead. As noted in my edit summary, I think that changes to the lead on the 29th were not in line with the results of the recent mediation, or the WP:GAN review, or NPOV, or scientific consensus; I'm attempting to fix that. One change that proponents will like comes from WP:LEAD; if alternate names for the subject of the article appear in the lead section, then they're supposed to be in the first sentence in bold, and I don't think we can argue that "low energy nuclear reactions" and "condensed matter nuclear science" are not alternate terms for "cold fusion"; they are. But the main problem that needed fixing was the assertion that there are explanations of "cold fusion" that use "textbook physics"; this completely and thoroughly misrepresented the position of the vast majority of physicists and chemists.

The recent mediation suggested that the issue has not been settled, that is, most scientists believe that cold fusion is a series of experimental errors and/or invalid conclusions (although to be fair, most of them simply haven't paid much attention), but a significant number believe that it's a demonstration of fusion at ordinary temperatures and pressures, and others say they don't know. Given that the current consensus on Wikipedia is that the matter hasn't been settled, NPOV requires that we not "get in the way" of letting both sides tell their story, even though this will annoy the heck out of some proponents and some skeptics. Here's the point that some of the proponents are missing: you don't get to decide which experiments are relevant to cold fusion and which aren't. I know that some of you much prefer to look at recent experiments instead of the whole body of experiments in quantum physics; I know that some of you claim that if someone doesn't succeed in getting 95% loading of deuterium into their cathode, that means that nothing they have to say has any relevance to cold fusion. You make some good points, and we sketch the arguments in this article and point to very good references so that people can follow up these threads. But the fact that you think you know what's relevant and what's not doesn't end the argument. NPOV on Wikipedia requires that, if a significant number of people think that little green men have invaded, we have to let them tell their story; we can rebut, but we can't undercut; so NPOV sure as heck means that if 9999 out of 10000 scientists believe something, we have to let them tell their story, and their story is that millions of atoms don't spontaneously interact coherently at room temperature. They believe this is established by a century of experimentation and theory. They also believe in conservation of energy and momentum, and given those beliefs, they don't see a way to get fusion creating helium without energetic particles...at any temperature, much less ordinary temperatures. I know that some of you believe that none of their experiments and nothing they say is relevant to the current controversy, but NPOV requires us to represent their position, anyway.

As long as we clearly represent the position of both sides, I'm fine with tweaks to the lead; I gave it a shot. I don't expect everyone who wants to contribute to Wikipedia to know all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines; in fact, if you have something to contribute, I'd prefer you not worry too much about it, as long as you are willing to collaborate with experienced and trusted Wikipedians. It basically just comes down to: help Wikipedia, good; hurt Wikipedia, bad. The changes to the lead on the 29th that said that cold fusion was settled and established and followed "textbook physics" hurt Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that we are smarter than the reviewers of the International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology. The widon-larsen theory does not require new physics, according to its authors and some of their reviewers. Pcarbonn (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; let's not pretend. As I mention below, you have opened the door to a discussion among experts of what is and isn't accepted physics, so let's make sure that a full and representative discussion, respecting UNDUE, gets into this article. I'm encouraging participation by experts. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientific community position (was References)

I'm concerned that the last paragraph of the intro seems to imply that proof of cold fusion is widely accepted by experts in the field. However, that would contradict the very first sentence of the reference that seems to be the source for that paragraph:

Seventeen years after the announcement by Professors Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the discovery of cold fusion in March 1989, the scientific community does not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme.

For comparison, here is the current version of that paragraph:

Since then, several reviews of the field published in peer-reviewed journals have concluded that cold fusion has been demonstrated by experiments which result in excess heat production and nuclear reaction products such as helium-4. Some experiments have shown low-level neutron production, X-ray emission, and transmutation of elements. There is still no satisfactory theory explaining condensed matter nuclear science, but many explanations have been proposed, several with textbook physics.

Specifically, my concern is that a reader would interpret "several reviews... published..." to mean that those reviews are representative of the scientific community, in contradiction of the above quote.

Can we find a way to rephrase things so we won't risk misleading our readers? Also, I think it's important that we include plenty of citations in this article, including (especially?) in the intro. Finally, I'd recommend that we try to focus these discussions on how best to represent the literature, rather than trying to determine whether cold fusion is true/false, good/bad science, etc. Just my 2 cents, Gnixon (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"The entire scientific comunity does not accept cold fusion as genuine." ? That's no good, because it's ambigious: the entire community says no and the entire community does not say yes are two very diffierent propsitions. 76.240.228.188 (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"As of 2006, some in the scientific community do not accept cold fusion or CMNS as genunie." is what I added to the intro and will to the supporting mention. 76.240.228.188 (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your suggestion contradicts "the scientific community does not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme." It is clear from the DOE report that researchers who are convinced by the cold fusion experiments are in the minority. Gnixon (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point! I will adjust to state that. 76.240.228.188 (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Preparing for WP:FAC

I know everyone is a bit tired out. I'm going to make some minor style fixes today...we forgot to italicize journal names for instance...but I'll leave the fixes that will be needed for WP:FAC until we seem to have renewed interest from a number of editors. I suggest we just add anything that doesn't need to be fixed right away to this list. We can start with this feedback from G-Guy's talk page:

As for for the current article, I find the ordering of the sections a bit odd. It seems as if it fails WP:LEAD by starting with ongoing controversy, rather than history, or the original experiment. Geometry guy 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have supported several times during mediation the idea that the article should start with experiments, then present the controversy, then history. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The former featured version did have history first, as Geometry Guy suggests, and the article stayed that way until mediation. I would certainly support placing history first. That would be more standard and straightforward. I can't imagine the article in this state would be considered featured, but then again I'm surprised it's considered 'good'.--Noren (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow why you didn't say something between May 18 and now, Noren; you spoke up during the mediation, and I have asked for your feedback. I'm hoping the reason wasn't that I came across as unsympathetic. As I said above, I wouldn't take this article to WP:FAC unless it's clear we have representation from a wider range of views, especially skeptical views. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's remember why we decided to put the "ongoing controversy" section first during the mediation. We said that, if we start with history, we give the impression to the reader that cold fusion is known only for the 1989 episode and is now part of history. Also, the history section is so long that many would stop reading before reaching the other sections. Some people were opposed to the idea of starting with experimental data, as we do for example in superconductivity. There is plenty of evidence that cold fusion is an unresolved scientific controversy, and readers can be expected to want to read about the pro and con arguments: hence, we decided to start with the controversy section. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually mean FAC? WP:FAR is a strange place to go. Ruslik (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I had seen articles at WP:FAR which had talked about being at FAR before, and I thought that meant all articles that had been at FAR once would be welcome there again...not so, those were articles that never really left FAR. I should be talking about WP:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note:I just went through substituting "WP:FAC" as appropriate for "WP:FAR" so people will know what I'm talking about. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, you say "I wouldn't take this article to WP:FAC unless it's clear we have representation from a wider range of views". What evidence do you have that some views are insufficiently represented ? Pcarbonn (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The post-2004 reviews were missing. I added them. 76.246.148.242 (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pierre, I'm not saying that there is some kind of iron rule that we have to wait for X different opinions before we can proceed. I'm saying that the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS is that, when this article has been the subject of a lot of trips to WP:ANI, and when it largely represented the position of the skeptics back when it was a featured article two years ago, we can't rush to WP:FAC. We have to acknowledge that sometimes people who cared in the past might care again in the future, and give them a chance to have their input. I know that you feel that there are serious deficiencies with the input of some of the skeptics, but that doesn't change the fact that we are required to be patient and give everyone lots of time. Besides, if we don't, that will just land us at WP:FAR later on, even if the article does pass WP:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

When I was a featured article reviewer, I would need a really good reason to even consider passing something with an open {{todo}} list. That's the first and best place to start right now.. 76.246.148.242 (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Mr. to do list is old and has lost its relevancy. I say it should be scrapped. Kevin Baas^talk 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; done. 76.240.228.188 (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Organization

This is what the contents was when I started:

   * 1 Ongoing controversy
         o 1.1 Lack of reproducibility of the result
         o 1.2 Missing nuclear products
         o 1.3 Lack of theoretical explanations
   * 2 Experimental reports
         o 2.1 Excess heat
         o 2.2 Nuclear products
         o 2.3 Nuclear transmutations
         o 2.4 The original Fleischmann and Pons experiment
   * 3 History
         o 3.1 Early work
         o 3.2 Pre-announcement and announcement
         o 3.3 Post-announcement
         o 3.4 Moving beyond the initial controversy
   * 4 Notes
   * 5 References
   * 6 Bibliography
   * 7 Further reading

That seemed absurdly anti-chronological to me. This is what the contents is now:

   * 1 Experimental reports
         o 1.1 Excess heat
         o 1.2 Nuclear products
         o 1.3 Nuclear transmutations
   * 2 History
         o 2.1 Early work
         o 2.2 The original Fleischmann and Pons experiment
               + 2.2.1 Pre-announcement and announcement
               + 2.2.2 Post-announcement
         o 2.3 Controversy
               + 2.3.1 Lack of reproducibility of the result
               + 2.3.2 Missing nuclear products
               + 2.3.3 Lack of theoretical explanations
         o 2.4 Beyond the controversy
   * 3 Notes
   * 4 References
   * 5 Bibliography
   * 6 Further reading

That, as I understand it, may be how Pcarbonn wants it. This is, I believe, how Noren wants it:

   * 1 Early work
   * 2 The original Fleischmann and Pons experiment
         o 2.1 Pre-announcement and announcement
         o 2.2 Post-announcement
   * 3 Controversy
         o 3.1 Lack of reproducibility of the result
         o 3.2 Missing nuclear products
         o 3.3 Lack of theoretical explanations
   * 4 Beyond the controversy
   * 5 Experimental reports
         o 5.1 Excess heat
         o 5.2 Nuclear products
         o 5.3 Nuclear transmutations
   * 6 Notes
   * 7 References
   * 8 Bibliography
   * 9 Further reading

I have to go with Noren on this one. What do other people think? 76.246.148.242 (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go with Noren's arrangement, too. Both sides have valid arguments, but when you just cancel them out and just look at it without reasoning -- i.e. what feels "right" -- the most natural -- it's to tell the story first, then give the details. Kevin Baas^talk 15:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I really think the article would be easier to read if it were more chronological and less disjointed. I strongly dislike using the phrase "beyond the controversy" because the controversy has not gone away at all. Placing a "Beyond the controversy" section just after a "Controversy" section as in the current article strongly suggests that the controversy in the past, which is simply not true. Here is my proposal which incorporates these ideas:

   * 1 History 
         1.1 Early work 
         1.2 Fleischmann-Pons announcement 
         1.3 Reaction to the announcement
         1.4 Developments after 1989 
         1.5 2004 DOE panel 
         1.6 Recent developments 
   * 2 Evidence for cold fusion
         2.1 Excess heat 
         2.2 Nuclear products 
         2.3 Nuclear transmutations 
   * 3 Incompatibilities with established physics

The basic cell description would be in section 1.2, near the top of the page as it should be. Criticism of experiments (reproducibility, contamination, etc.) would be placed just after the results are presented in sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. The current "lack of theoretical explanations" section would be moved and become section 3. Any thoughts? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would name section 3 as "criticism" and include the 3 subsections (reproducibility, ...). Doing that, I'm not sure what would be left to say for 1.5 2004 DOE panel. If you want to keep it, you would also need a section on the 1989 DOE panel, for good balance. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)