Message sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greetings. I am something of an expert on a very controversial
scientific subject: cold fusion energy. By "expert" I do not mean
that I have conducted research, but I do run an online library with
537 fulltext papers and a bibliography of 3500 papers, including
about a thousand in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. I have edited
over 100 papers and two books, and I have translated a great deal of
information from Japanese into English. The web site is here:
http://lenr-canr.org/
The library contains mainly papers by cold fusion researchers, who of
course believe the effect is real, but also a few papers by skeptics
who believe that it does not exist. I myself am completely convinced
that it does exist.
I have a working relationship with over a hundred cold fusion
researchers, and I am close friends with several.
The Wikipedia article on cold fusion has generated a lot of
controversy and many problems. Actually, I must admit that the
present version is impressive in many ways, but it still suffers from
lack of professionalism. There are many distinguished experts in this
field, but they have told me they would not consider contributing to
Wikipedia because they do not want their work to be trashed by
amateurs. I think this is an excellent test case for you to consider.
If you can make the cold fusion article editing process work to the
satisfaction of experts on both side of the controversy, you can
probably manage just about any academic subject.
(Perhaps you doubt that such a controversial subject has attracted
expert scientists. Cold fusion has been attacked and ridiculed in the
press so often you may think it is only done by marginal people. I do
not mean to boast, but to establish the bona fides of the field, let
me append a list some leading researchers to the end of this message.)
It seems to me that Wikipedia's worst problem is that all articles
reflect (or try to reflect) a unified point of view, or a false
consensus. Since there are many subjects such as cold fusion on which
experts do not agree, why not allow articles to be split, with some
sections clearly marked as representing each camp? In the case of
cold fusion you might want a section written by an authoritative
skeptic such as Robert Park, along with a version by a cold fusion
researcher such as Edmund Storms. I know their views quite well, and
I am sure there is no common ground between them. They do not agree
on anything, not even what constitutes the most basic set of
objective facts about this subject. Trying to shoehorn their views
seamlessly into a single article is futile. Neither will contribute
to much less countenance such an attempt.
It is not clear to me whether you intend to allow clearly defined
differing versions of articles under the same heading. If you insist
that all articles present only one point of view in the final
version, I do not think you will address the problem. This is like
being governed by one-party system.
I have worked for many years in this field, and I am quite familiar
with some issues that you need to think out, which are broader than
cold fusion per se. For example, consider the terms: "the majority of
scientists" and "scientific consensus." These are slippery. The
closer you look at them, the less they mean. In the case of cold
fusion, does the "majority" include all scientists in all fields? Or
should it be limited to people such as electrochemists and material
scientists, who have relevant knowledge because because they have
performed similar research? Does it only include people who have read
and can cite peer-reviewed papers on the subject? Or does it only
include people who have written peer-reviewed papers on the subject?
These are complicated questions.
I know a great deal more about the subject. I would be happy to
explain how the researchers view Wikipedia in detail, if you would be
interested.
- Jed Rothwell
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SOME LEADING COLD FUSION RESEARCHERS
Cold fusion scientists have been often criticized for lacking
credentials. However, many of them were previously considered to be
world class experts in their fields.
Martin Fleischmann is widely considered one of the top
electrochemists in the world. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society
and past president of the International Society of Electrochemistry,
and he was awarded a medal by the Society. He has published numerous
papers in leading journals. Distinguished Prof. John O'M Bockris, for
example, wrote an authoritative and widely used textbook, ''Modern
Electochemistry''. He is a Fellow of the
http://www.ise-online.org/geninfo/fellows_details.php. Heinz
Gerischer was considered a leading electrochemist. He was the
Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in
Berlin, and a prize was established in his memory. He concluded that
"there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear
processes take place in the metal alloys." Nobel laureate Julian
Schwinger was considered a leading theoretical physicist and was
respected by most scientists, but he reported being denigrated and
attacked after he began writing theoretical papers about cold fusion.
Dr. P. K. Iyengar conducted and directed cold fusion research while
he was director of BARC.
[http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IyengarPKprefaceand.pdf] He later
became the chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission
Profs. Miles, Oriani and Huggins have published textbooks and
hundreds of articles, are designated Distinguished Professors and
Fellows by universities and the U.S. Navy, and have been honored by
the Electrochemical Society, NATO and other prestigeous
organizations. Other cold fusion researchers include three editors of
major plasma fusion and physics journals, a retired member of the
French Atomic Energy Commission, and many top researchers from U.S.
national laboratories.
