FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy"
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [19 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2 Next
Author Message
Kirk Shanahan
science forum addict


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 12:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

So the only question is now whether you all at Wiki will try to remove
the rampant proCf bais of Rothwell from the articles.

---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}
Back to top
Bradley K. Sherman
science forum beginner


Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

In article <1146248588.724180.165210@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
<wfaxon@gis.net> wrote:
Quote:
Skeptics here will be interested to know that Jed Rothwell has
terminated his effort to update the Wikipedia cold fusion pages. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JedRothwell

Jed Rothwell no longer contributes to Wikipedia. He regrets that he
wasted time and effort at Wikipedia, when he should have heeded
Schiller's warning: "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst
vergebens." ('Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.')
(Maid of Orleans, act 3, sc. 6). ...


Hopefully Jed will return to his honest work providing the world
with CF water heaters. I ordered mine over a decade ago and I'm
still waiting for delivery.

--bks
Back to top
wfaxon@gis.net
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

Skeptics here will be interested to know that Jed Rothwell has
terminated his effort to update the Wikipedia cold fusion pages. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JedRothwell

Jed Rothwell no longer contributes to Wikipedia. He regrets that he
wasted time and effort at Wikipedia, when he should have heeded
Schiller's warning: "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst
vergebens." ('Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.')
(Maid of Orleans, act 3, sc. 6). ...

-Walter
Back to top
Chris1171
science forum addict


Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:28 am    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

Hello,

I believe the cold fusion idea was that hydrogen adsorbed into palladium
formed a part of the palladium lattice so that the elecrons of the hydrogen
became part of the electron "gas" in the metal and the protons became
incorperated by a quantum mechanical effect so that they were much closer
together than normal, in which case a quantum tunneling of mesons occured so
that the hydrogen nuclie fused, first to duterium and then to helium nuclie.
This process does not emit any neutrons but positrons would be expected and
their energetic emmission causes the heating effect as their anhilliation
with electrons and the recoil of the helium nuclei.

I don't know why electrlysis is involved, I would have thought that a tube
of hydrogen at atmosphreric pressure with a palladium filiament suspended
inside would be sufficient.

If you do this the palladium filiament glows red hot and then white hot
after a few days. It then can be used as a lamp.

I have no idea what is happening. It is only a recollection of an
experiment I did in about 1969 somewhere in England.

As my reward I had something very nasty done to me.

In Britain inventors are rewarded with punishment just like ancient Rome.
They said it was "Strategic" like my el-cheapo hydrogen bomb, only $10 to
blow up a city.

Chris.
Back to top
Kirk Shanahan
science forum addict


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

I've also now added a short section on the challenge that Brian
Clarke's paper makes to nuclear ash detection in general. Essentially
with the two sections I've added I have in a nutshell detailed why none
of the cold fusion claims can be taken seriously as of today.

---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}
Back to top
Kirk Shanahan
science forum addict


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

Against my better judgement, I added a paragraph to Wikipedia. We'll
see what happens now.

---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}
Back to top
Richard Schultz
science forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 339

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:27 am    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

In article <1146082275.477593.73190@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov wrote:

: The mass spec person you are referring to is probably Richard Murray.
: He wrote a lot a few years back. I didn't necessarily agree with all
: he wrote, but most was OK. I have also commented extensively here on
: mass spec data from SIMS experiments that are purported to prove
: transmutation. I find that the authors don't know much about mass spec.

Not to toot my own horn more than is absolutely necessary, but I was also
one of the people involved (since at least 1993) in discussions of
mass spectrometric measurements made by cold fusion researchers. I remember
discussing some of the obvious flaws in early experiments (e.g. running
the quadrupole MS at much too high a pressure) and, more recently, pointing
out that John Dash's inability to reproduce the known Pd isotopic
distribution in his "pre-transmutation" samples made all of his mass spec
results suspect.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1oz.43q@world.std.com>
Back to top
Richard Schultz
science forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 339

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:12 am    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

In article <e2o8ij$1aj$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bradley K. Sherman <bks@panix.com> wrote:
: In article <1146069800.515823.256460@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
: <wfaxon@gis.net> wrote:

:>I don't mean to denigrate s.p.f. but I think at least you'd have to
:>agree that the signal-to-noise ratio in Wikipedia is a lot higher.
:
: If Jed is active in Wikipedia cold fusion discussions but absent
: from s.p.f no sane person would agree with that supposition.

Actually, I would say that no sane person who has read any significant
number of Wikipedia articles would agree with that supposition. That might
be because of my judicious use of my kill file. On the other hand,
take a look at http://tinyurl.com/nxv2q to see what a Mozart scholar
thinks of the Wikipedia article on Mozart.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1oz.43q@world.std.com>
Back to top
Kirk Shanahan
science forum addict


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

In my opinion, Wikipedia discussion pages and/or articles are not the
place for technical discussions such as used to occur here in spf. Spf
was created to do just that, and the reason that it isn't working is
that there are no pro-CF primary researchers willing to participate.
We used to have several researchers participating, although not the
'name' ones, those have always avoided spf except for Steven Jones.
One common participant in the past was Jed Rothwell, and you have seen
Bradley's comment on him. I concurr.

I'm not interested in a pouplarity contest regarding my work. Truth is
not detmined by a vote. Having my papers in the literature is
adequate. That being said I _do_ want the Wiki article to note
_accurately_ the situation around my work, which was not initially
true, but now is close enough for me.

Of course, I did try to contribute to the base CF article several
months ago in the 'controversy' section by adding a brief explanation
of my work and pointers to my papers, but that was reverted away, and I
could not impress on the reverter that what I added was not 'opinion'
but the 'facts' of publications existing and their contents, so I gave
up.

Your concept of 'every voice being heard' is just another version of a
popularity contest, and I fully agree with the Wired magazine quote
that Pcarbonn posted (The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly:
'Experts are scum').

Re: Rothwell's last word: it takes too long to get to the point where
Rothwell will admit his lack of expertise. The extended discussions
you all are having over at Wiki demonstrate this. The view isn't worth
the climb. Rothwell is nothing but a rabid proCF advocate.

The mass spec person you are referring to is probably Richard Murray.
He wrote a lot a few years back. I didn't necessarily agree with all
he wrote, but most was OK. I have also commented extensively here on
mass spec data from SIMS experiments that are purported to prove
transmutation. I find that the authors don't know much about mass
spec. Most of the 'transmutation products' are just gas phase metal
hydrides sputtered off the surface. Further peaks are never shown to
not be contamination, which is always the default assumption one starts
with when unusual elements are detected. Ergo, no evidence fpr
transmutation.

---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}
Back to top
Bradley K. Sherman
science forum beginner


Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

In article <1146069800.515823.256460@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<wfaxon@gis.net> wrote:
Quote:
Dr. Shanahan:

I don't mean to denigrate s.p.f. but I think at least you'd have to
agree that the signal-to-noise ratio in Wikipedia is a lot higher.

If Jed is active in Wikipedia cold fusion discussions but absent
from s.p.f no sane person would agree with that supposition.

--bks
Back to top
wfaxon@gis.net
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

Dr. Shanahan:

I don't mean to denigrate s.p.f. but I think at least you'd have to
agree that the signal-to-noise ratio in Wikipedia is a lot higher. And
if you want your critique heard by the largest audience possible you
might want to make sure that your words -- not just Storms' or
Rothwell's -- appears in a subsection that _you_ can relabel as "The
Shanahan Critique" or whatever. The point in Wikipedia is that
everyone -- or at least everyone who is a reasonably relevant and
competent writer -- has a chance to have their voice heard.

Other s.p.f. writers might make their voices heard there, too. I
recall someone who interpreted mass spectrographs for a living writing
that a spectrograph in some Japanese paper claiming CF transmutations
was indistinguishable from noise. And of course there's the ubiquitous
Harry C. and his opinions.

In other words, please don't let Rothwell have the final word in
Wikipedia, particularly when the CF'ers refuse to deal with you
seriously.

Best of luck,
-Walter Faxon
Back to top
Kirk Shanahan
science forum addict


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:28 am    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

I'm not going to try to have a technical discussion in the comment
pages of wikipedia. First off, this forum, spf, is the appropriate
place for it. Secondly, I have already had _years_ of debate with Ed
Storms on this. He writes a CF claim, I rebutt, he attempts to rebutt
my rebuttal. I show how his rebuttal proves my points, etc. etc. You
can see some of this in prior posts to spf. Tell Jed to tell Ed to
participate in the scientific Internet community and post his concerns
to spf.

I looked at Jed's comment on wiki, and it is a little lame. He could
have referenced my paper rebuttting Ed's, but he chose to ignore it.
Technically, he probably shouldn't have put up Ed's Thermo. Acta
article either, as the journal is copyright protected, and posting a
copyrighted article is probably not legal. As well, I doubt he has
tried to understand my argument. Every time in the past I have tried
to get technical with Jed, he opts out by claiming he's not technical
(but only afte several go-rounds). I finally decided to believe him.

Ed on the other hand is different. Every time, _every_ time, Ed tries
to offer up more data showing how my explanation is wrong, I show him
how his new data fits my theory. I know that Ed does understand it,
but he just refuses to accept it. However, he can never explain why he
won't. That all would fit well into a paragraph on wiki wouldn't it?

At this point the debate is in the literature. The ball is in Ed's
court.

---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}
Back to top
wfaxon@gis.net
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

Dr. Shanahan:

Since you have been reading the discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion_controversy#Shanahan_-_Storms_debate

Jed suggests you add a paragraph or two describing your critique to the
original subject article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion_controversy

Ed Storms will reply, then you and he can alternate responses until a
critical mass is reached.

-W;)ter
Back to top
Kirk Shanahan
science forum addict


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

Jed has now separated the one line comment about my work from the SciAm
stuff. Still no ref to my rebuttal tho...

---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}
Back to top
Kirk Shanahan
science forum addict


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Wikipedia "Cold fusion controversy" Reply with quote

Mr. Rothwell's only mention of my work is in a section where he
associates my work with a Scientific American issue he had with the
Editor. I have added a comment to the discussion of the article
pointing out that the SciAm stuff has zip to do with my criticisms. I
also listed refs to my papers for the Editor, as they are discussing
what needs to be edited. This is relevant since Jed links to an
article by E. Storms criticizing my prior papers, but fails to present
the rebuttal to that article that appeared back to back with it. I
would also add that my second paper refers to work by Szpak,
Mossier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann, not Storms. Rothwell at his
misdirectional usual.

---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [19 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:03 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Are Wikipedia's rules of inference correct? Mike H Math 4 Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:56 pm
No new posts Cold fusion in hyper space? Fusion Fred in Fractallan Fusion 0 Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:49 am
No new posts Fusion experiments you can do The Real Chris Fusion 0 Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:54 pm
No new posts Why don't gases glow themselves cold? curious11 Research 6 Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:57 am
No new posts Why can't particle accelerators produce fusion? eastmond@yahoo.com Fusion 2 Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:04 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1304s ][ Queries: 16 (0.1087s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]