Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pcarbonn (talk | contribs) at 20:13, 30 November 2008 (→Trying to understand this…: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

User:Pcarbonn

Hi Pcarbonn. I just suggested on the MfD for your user page that moving it to a subpage of your userspace would demonstrate a great willingness on your part to minimize the drama that always attends commenting on other users. Would you be willing to do that? If you need technical help I am happy to assist you. --John (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus of the MfD was to keep your page, but that doesn't mean you should keep what is on it. Please consider removing the timeline section as it is causing problems. Misplaced Pages is not a webhost - you can put this information on your own website or save it in a text file on you hard disk, and email it to anyone who asks for a copy. Just please remove it from your wikipedia page where it is only doing harm. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did consider removing the timeline, but considering the lack of consensus for that request on the MfD, I have decided to keep it, for the reason I explained. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The MfD was about deleting the page, not removing the timeline. Why not remove it anyway, and add a diff for anyone who is interested? Verbal chat 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Because an inordinate amount of editors' time is lost repeating the errors of the past. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Very sad. Verbal chat 10:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing the timeline would only be positive in my opinion. Widefox (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

You're up: WP:ANI#Please review this case. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi Pcarbonn, I've been looking through your contribs, Pcarbonn (talk · contribs), and though I realize that you've been participating on Misplaced Pages for years, I have to admit that it does appear a bit unusual that all of your recent energies on Misplaced Pages are devoted solely to one article (and a controversial one, at that). Just as a friendly suggestion, it might help reduce tension, if you could also from time to time put some effort into working on other articles as well? Even if you're just helping with something at Category:Articles that need to be wikified or one of the other cleanup categories, it would help show other editors that you were here to help with the project as a whole. Plus, it can be very therapeutic to work on non-controversial articles, in places where editors are actually grateful for the help! :) Just wanted to toss that out to you as a suggestion, --Elonka 03:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. As I've said elsewhere, I have written 2 user scripts recently. I may consider stopping editing the main Cold Fusion article, but still contribute to the talk page. Would that be OK ? Pcarbonn (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pcarbonn. Elonka's suggestion seems very constructive to me. I consider contributions to article talk pages as contributions to the article. Why not take a break from the article for now? Just my thoughts after editting the article for the first time. Widefox (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

curious

I was just curious as to your experience and background in basic science? Thanks.--OMCV (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OMCV, I have noticed that you have voted for banning me from contributing on cold fusion, despite a request from Jehochman to stop that vote. This is not the way to solve a content dispute. See Galileo. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my vote was in the wrong place, my bad. If you displayed competence in evaluating and weighting scientific information I would reverse my opinion (and find the right place for it). So far it seems you are ignorant of the finer points or choose to ignore them. The way you edit right now displays a distinct agenda and pushes a POV with a willingness to use policy (similar to SA) and sophism to seek your ends. What I'm trying to determine is whether you need to be taught or stopped. Finally, I didn't ask if you knew the history of science. I just wanted to see if I need to correct my judgment on your block proceedings.--OMCV (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban

Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:Pcarbonn_from_Cold_fusion_and_related_articles. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

I have requested arbitration of the disputes surrounding Cold fusion. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Thank you. Jehochman 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RFAR formatting

I believe it is customary to restrict your comments at ArbCom, including responses to comments by other contributors, to your own section. I suggest you consider reformatting. Ronnotel (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Trying to understand this…

Hi Pierre. You’ve no-doubt seen my post on the Arbcom. From a cursory glance over the talk pages, I am unable to discern your expertise in CF. I can see from newenergytimes that you seem well placed and in the thick of things, but I still can’t tell what your involvement is at the technical level. What first-hand expertise do you have in CF? If not any first-hand, what is your interest in it? Greg L (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any first hand expertise in CF, in the sense that I have not conducted nor participated in any cold fusion experiment. My interest in it, as I explained, is that I see it as a way to provide a better world for my children. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for that pithy candor. Unfortunately, my previous posts on the Arbcom wouldn’t apply in this case. My recommendation for you is to listen more carefully to what other editors are saying. High-grade heat (high temperatures) are required in order to generate steam. Everything I’ve seen on CF suggests we’re talking about awfully low-grade heat so far. So it’s all dependent upon discovering and understanding the underlying mechanisms and optimizing them to get some serious power densities. It’s all so embryonic at this stage. CF-generated power is 30+ years in the future—if ever.

  In the mean time, we could require that all automobile manufacturers have a fleet average of 35 MPG and we’d cut our foreign-oil dependence to zip. We could also do as France did, and have one single standard fission plant design that is replicated dozens and dozens of times. France did it that way and now has a 90%+ nuclear share in electrical production. Clean stuff. No mercury in the air. The old American system of having free-market competition in the construction of nuke plants (Babcock & Wilcox Company v.s. G.E. for instance) resulted in each plant being a one-off, custom design for each utility. Cost overruns were exorbitant. There are at least two intrinsically safe fission reactor designs (a GE design and a Swedish design) that I know of which are incapable of melting down—even if all pumps stopped working. We could also have Congress guarantee that crude oil prices won’t dip below $70 per barrel for instance (by taxing imported oil if it goes below that point). This would provide long-term assurances for companies looking at billion dollar investments into coal shale and coal-to-oil conversion processes; they have had the price rug pulled out from under their feet by OPEC before to kill these trends so OPEC can keep the gravy train going. My personal interest is in geothermal. I recently did a calculation of the entrained energy underneath Yellowstone. Just the entrained energy (assuming zero additional heat comes up from below) would be enough to satisfy the entire U.S. electrical consumption for many, many centuries. All these solutions require a national consensus to do any real good. What is clear is that your advocacy here on Misplaced Pages won’t advance the state of the art in cold fusion and therefore can’t impact the nation’s energy problems.

  I’m just suggesting you go with the flow some more. I’m struck with the amount of effort being expended by so many others to deal with an issue that you are at the center of. KnowwhutImean? Greg L (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. However, when Pierre Curie discovered radium, its temperature was only a few degree above ambient. Who would have thought that one could make weapons of massive destruction out of it ? Pcarbonn (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed. No one thought radium had that potential at the time. More importantly, no one thinks that today either. Radium doesn’t fission and no matter how much of it you accumulate, it will never explode. Plutonium too is an alpha emitter and a bomb pit of it feels warm to the touch. But it’s not the alpha-emitting property of plutonium that give it its potential, is it? Back in the late 30s it was uranium that fissioned and Otto Frisch very quickly realized that the energy of a single fission event was so great that it would make the two halves of the nucleus recoil apart at one-third the speed of light. Once the basic nature of fission was understood, everyone had the big *ah Haa* at the same time. There is no such epiphany yet with cold fusion and there may never be. It is troubling to me that many scientists can’t reproduce certain experiments and, even when they do, the reaction disappears in a few days. This state of affairs has many of the hallmarks of polywater, where human sweat was ultimately found to be the culprit.

  I’m not so sure you’ve recognized my main point in my previous post, above, and—at risk of reading too much into it—your response betrays what seems like an obsession here. Your advocacy and evangelizing of what you see as the potential of cold fusion will not advance the state of the art. Government grants will be based on advise from science councils that will look to the actual peer-reviewed literature; the councils won’t be coming to Misplaced Pages for guidance and inspiration. The other editors who are running into edit conflicts with you feel you are looking at the literature with biased, rose-colored glasses. They may be right and they may be wrong. This is a collaborative writing environment and there are differing interpretation of facts and values amongst editors. If you are going to participate here, you should not edit against the consensus view. Greg L (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why governments invest billions in the Large hadron collider, and peanuts in cold fusion ? You say : "Government grants will be based on advise from science councils that will look to the actual peer-reviewed literature". I would be delighted if they were to do it. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote from Greg is the answer. The LHC shows amazing promise based on firm theoretical data and experimental results, from the peer-reviewed literature. The advice from science councils, research bodies, and overview of the peer-reviewed literature, taken together, gives a much clearer return-on-investment (in view of the scientific results and economy) in supporting the LHC over cold fusion. Verbal chat 12:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How does this discussion relate to the case ? Even if I agreed, why would that prevent us from presenting the scientific evidence in the scientific controversy ? Pcarbonn (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• I see… So you, Pierre, raise various points, they are soundly trounced and refuted, and then you claim those points are irrelevant and take us full circle. I can see now that arguing with you is beyond pointless and, further, convincingly demonstrates why you mustn’t be in a position to be deciding what scientific papers support what conclusions. What just transpired above is not how science works. In the dictionary, under “pseudoscience”, it should say “n. See here” Your technical arguments (“radium”) crumble like Chinese school houses, your basic premiss for promoting CF (‘think of the children’) is pointless since there are viable alternatives to avail ourselves of that would make immediate and significant change, and you misinterpret/misrepresent what scientific papers are really saying. Furthermore, arguing with you is like squeezing a balloon: successfully press down on an inane logic bulge here and you pop up with an equally inane bulge elsewhere. No wonder everyone is so frustrated; you persist with a catch-me-if-you-can absurd logic that is simultaneously civil and has a child-like innocence. You are somewhat of an enigma to me. But I’ve seen your writing on New Energy Times and think it is more likely you know full well what you are doing. Quite masterful, really, what you’ve managed to pull off.

  We’ve had other editors here on Misplaced Pages try to “promote” the adoption of IEC prefixes (terminology like “mebibyte” instead of “megabyte”) even though our readership didn’t even recognize the terminology. They were equally as evasive when you tried to logically pin them down. That is not  what editors try to do on Misplaced Pages: *promote* an agenda; we simply follow what the reliable sources say and, currently, all the reliable sources say that cold fusion, perpetual motion, homeopathy, opposition to the fluoridation of municipal water (“gumint” conspiracy”), aliens at Roswell, ghosts, goblins, and other such nonsense are products of overactive imaginations and aren’t well grounded in science. Thirty watts of excess heat ought to produce clear, convincing, and abundant evidence of fusion. But it doesn’t. If I had to venture a guess, CF is the product of nothing more than unidentified chemical reactions, poor design-of-experiment, and (very) poorly done measurements. I personally think these experimenters are making the world’s crappiest and most expensive batteries, which effectively passivate and crap out in a matter of hours.

  That your disruption to Misplaced Pages has gone on for so long speaks to the shortcomings of Misplaced Pages’s “pure democracy” culture. I don’t know where you reside, but here in America, they name new procedures and laws after a notable disasters (Amber alerts, Meagan’s law). Maybe Misplaced Pages will one day have a all-powerful administrator with “Pcarbonn authority” to rapidly and decisively deal with disruptive editors such as yourself. Goodbye. I will no longer waste my time with you. Greg L (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It is the other way around. You try to attack me from all sides because you don't find anything wrong with my core position. The discussion above is irrelevant to our case. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your questions above deserve a better answer than the one I gave in a angry state of mind. So, here is what I can say at second thought.

You said : "CF-generated power is 30+ years in the future-if ever". That would be assuming some decent money put in it I suppose, which is not the case today. Indeed much work is still needed to understand and control the phenomenom. Still, 30 years would be sooner than the hot fusion commercial applications, which are 60+ years in the future, with billions of euros required.

You say that CF would need to provide serious power densities to be interesting. The current literature on CF already says that the power densities in CF experiment are several orders of magnitude higher than any chemical reaction, and even higher than the one achieved with fission fuels. You say that high grade heat is required, and you are right. Fleischmann & Pons have reported one incident of melting their Palladium cathode, which requires 1800°K. In a heat-after-death event, Mizuno has reported the evaporation of 37 liters of water with a palladium cathode of 100 grams. These are occasional occurrences, and have thus a subjective convincing power. Szpak 2005 has reported hot spots detected by infra-red and crater-like features on the surface suggesting locally-high temperatures. All this gives a hint of what could become possible. (source: pp. 9-10 of this book, published by the American Chemical Society and distributed by Oxford University Press)

You seem to suggest that fission plants offer a better route for energy supplies. Unlike CF, fission creates a lot of radioactive waste. CF has no such negative aspects, based on our current knowledge. (source: p 12 of the same book)

You say that the CF state of affairs has many of the hallmarks of polywater. Unlike polywater, the experiment, although difficult, has been replicated by many scientists with a variety of set-up. It becomes hard to believe that a single, mundane explanation could be found. There are evidence of nuclear reactions (p. 11 of same book). The only explanation that is left is that the researchers are fraudsters, but I would then ask : why would they commit fraud if the only result is that they are derided by their colleagues and their career prospect is damaged.

In any case, you keep an open mind of the possibility of cold fusion, as a good scientist should. I wonder why there is so much opposition to have wikipedia present the scientific status of CF, instead of the sociological one. Misplaced Pages deserves better. Here is what WP:NPOV says : "The principles upon which policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." and "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors." This is what I'm arguing for. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, that is a much better response. I can’t speak much to the details of your response nor the reliability of the sources you cite; that would take far more time reading the actual papers and searching for the scientific community’s reaction to those papers than I am prepared to invest. I simply don’t want to get dragged into a situation where I am playing your game of arguing what various parts of various CF papers mean. It is clear that many other Wikipedians, most of whom have infinitely more CF-writing experience than I, have tried to deal with you on that playing field and have found it to be an exceedingly frustrating experience. Yes? And from my brief dealings with you, it is clear that you have a propensity to raise points, have others soundly refute them, only to watch you declare the whole thing as beside-the-point anyway. Indeed; highly frustrating.

  I will add this: thirty extra watts averaged across the entire active area available for heat exchanging purposes isn’t my idea of “high-grade heat.” After decades, CF doesn’t seem to be any closer to becoming a practical energy source than from day-one.

  From what I have read, the general scientific community’s consensus is that there is a serious and troubling pattern with cold fusion research: some of it has been the product of extremely poor science where carefully-performed experiments by others are unable to reproduce results. This is always a warning flag. Whenever that occurs in science, others can usually figure out why they have been unable reproduce the problem (often, an error in the original research), and that’s the end of it. In the case of CF, the underlying reason for the observations isn’t understood and even highly respected researchers want—at least—to get to the bottom of it, but seem to be doing so on the assumption that it is unknown chemical reactions. I recently read in the popular press (not here or one of your referenced papers), that a researcher was claiming to have measured neutrons from CF. However, critics pointed out that his experiments entailed bombarding his apparatus with bursts of external neutrons and poor measurements made it appear that the flux of neutrons coming out of it was in excess of what he put into it. The poor quality of past experiments (and the fact that non-scientists are hip-deep in it too) is the primary reason researchers don’t even mention the term “cold fusion” in their papers!

  I know you really and truly believe there is promise here. But neither you nor I have the expertise necessary to vet the scientists who have published on this subject. Note that when I first saw a complaint against you, citing “conflict of interest,” I figured you to be some sort of CF scientist tooting your own horn. And I initially came to your defense, stating that we need to lean way over backwards and accommodate experts here on Misplaced Pages. I guess I was projecting my experience with regard to PEM fuel cells. I must have something like ten patents in PEM fuel cells since I worked in R&D at a fuel cell start-up. I was employee #2 there. Yet, I won’t even look at our fuel cell-related articles let alone touch them with a ten-foot pole. Why? Because I wouldn’t want imbeciles reverting me, nor experienced Wikipedians saying ‘where the hell did you get that information(?) – citation needed.’ After digging into all this some more, I quickly found that this is not the case with you; you are a CF enthusiast with no direct experience with CF design-of-experiment. You apparently don’t even have any experience merely helping to operate some other researcher’s CF experiment. So…

  The general consensus here in the Misplaced Pages community is that you lack the scientific experience necessary to vet the reliability of CF papers. Further, the consensus is that your enthusiasm is leading you to cherry-pick bits and pieces from papers and weave them into our Cold fusion article in a manner that is misleading. Further, your unbridled enthusiasm for CF makes reasoning with you from a logical and scientific point of view an exercise in futility. So…

  I stick to my advise to resolve this: I believe the Physics World Mar 1, 1999 article, Whatever happened to cold fusion? should be considered as the paradigm example of a reliable source with regard to cold fusion and should serve as the template for Misplaced Pages to use in setting the tone and summarizing the current state of affairs on the subject. Anyone with a consistent pattern of editing on our Cold fusion article that has the effect of ennobling cold fusion and giving the field greater credibility than would be supported by the Physics World article should be considered as editing against the consensus. And a refusal to conform with that consensus view should be considered as disruptive. Greg L (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's funny you do not want to contribute to the PEM article "Because I wouldn’t want imbeciles reverting me, nor experienced Wikipedians saying ‘where the hell did you get that information(?) – citation needed.’" I can tell first hand that this experience is frustrating, even when I provide good sources such as the 2004 DOE. But that frustration will not stop me. You seem to follow WP:Mainstream, and as I said elsewhere, I consider it ill-conceived and contrary to WP:NPOV. This is the core of the issue. Misplaced Pages is based on scholarly sources, not on news article. I'll continue to defend our core policies. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I follow Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia. I see no conflict between that and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view; you apparently do. But then one man’s “freedom fighter” is another man’s “terrorist”.

  Based on your above post, you seem to be of the belief that you, a Wikipedian with zero  first-hand experience in cold fusion, are some sort of cold-fusion expert. I applaud your professional and civil demeanor as you deal with the daily “frustrating” experiences of sharing Misplaced Pages with the many imbeciles weighing in on our Cold fusion article. You revert their work as they push their horrid agenda that “is so mainstream sciency that it is.” Why can’t they see the *truth* in your arguments? You must subscribe to the philosophy of “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it only wastes your time and annoys the pig.” Methinks your self esteem greatly exceeds your expertise.

  Similar battles are being fought between proponents and “mainstreamers” in other fringe-science fields, such as Homeopathy, which also suffers the same misfortune of Cold fusion and has a {neutrality} tag. Believers think the water is somehow imbued with special properties after being exposed to an active agent, even though, statistically, there is less than one molecule of the active agent in the bottle. Mainstream science embraces the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; such is lacking in cold fusion.

  And, yes, I have absolutely no doubt you will continue to edit as you always have—but you may well be banned if you persist at editing against the consensus.

  Finally, please don’t come to my talk page to tell me you’ve got a better response and are inviting me to rebut. Dealing with you reminds me of the shortcomings of Misplaced Pages, which is intrinsic to its wild collaborative writing environment. I prefer not to be reminded of you and this sordid conflict. Goodbye and good luck. Greg L (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish you the best too. Let's see what ArbComm has to say. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Concern

Although my initial posts to the arbitration request were--hoping you'll agree--quite fair toward you, I've withdrawn the statement based upon these words of yours:

If I get banned from Misplaced Pages, I could certainly build up a similar attack on ScienceApologist, and I believe I could succeed. So far, I have refrained from going that route, and I believe that the ArbComm should avoid it too. I'll be happy to provide evidence, if asked, or if pushed to do it. But, what would we gain from it ?

Please note that what has been proposed against you is a topic ban, not a siteban, and no motion has been proposed that would prohibit you from interacting with ScienceApologist on any other part of the site's millions of pages. Yet your statement is not only an admission to having violated the no personal attacks policy, it treads uncomfortably close to the following.

Misplaced Pages:BAN#Coercion: Attempts to coerce actions of users through threats of actions outside the Misplaced Pages processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning.

That clause was written into policy over a year ago as a direct result of an incident in which I had been threatened. In a situation where your conduct is under scrutiny, it is a poor presentation that raises greater concerns than already exist. Please clarify your statement or amend it suitably. Best wishes, Durova 05:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing this. I agree with your analysis. Under attack, and when I drink some good wine, I sometimes loose my rationality. This is what happened yesterday. Thanks for correcting me. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't alter your statement; just withdrew my own. Suggest you amend yours as well. Hope the wine was excellent, but it's best to avoid EUI. Durova 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have realized that, and I have made the correction already yesterday. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Other parties?

I've just added Kirk shanahan to the arbitration case as a party. Is there anybody else you know about who has been causing trouble at this article?

For what it's worth, I have compiled evidence related to your editing. You can probably avoid consequences by admitting any deficiencies and saying how you would avoid them in the future. Due to your very narrow experience editing mainly cold fusion, I am willing to assume good faith that you might never have been given a proper understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. When I first came here I had problems too. I am generally in favor of helping people rather than restricting them. I understand you've been editing in a battle zone, and that you may have been copying the behavior of others. Regrettably, it seems like others may have set a poor example. Jehochman 20:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)