Talk:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

2019-07-30T00:46:58Z

Abd: about the creation of this article on me and fact

Can you produce other sources for some of these claims other than Ratwiki or Encyclopedia Dramatica? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:44, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
:This article may not be worth keeping. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:54, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
::The guy appears to be a marginal kook. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 18:57, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

I'm Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, I've been a user here but have not edited since 2012. The creator of this article is likely the same person as behind the mess that I'm in court with the WMF over, and the same person as created 9 trolling/impersonation accounts on the 27th and 28th. (IThis is a pattern I first saw on Wikiversity and the WMF meta wiki. Massive account creations, abusive article names, all that.
Account creations here the 27th and 28th:
*[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20190728005410&limit=3&type=newusers 2 impersonations and 1 ???]
*[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20190728201958&limit=3&type=newusers 3 impersonations].
*[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20190729013928&limit=6&type=newusers 3 trolling and 3 impersonations] 2 of the impersonations were of me.

going back, 10 days ago:
*19:16, 19 July 2019 User account TomSuarezDinoCrisis (Talk | contribs) was created
No edits until today, this article. The user name is immediately recognizable as from the sock family, I can tell you much about them if you want to know. This guy created the RatWiki article on me, and his brother created the ED article. It should also be realized that there is a huge cloud of confusion around what these users do. That's deliberate.

So, about the article:
*I am an American Muslim
*I am not a parapsychologist.
*I am not a "cold fusion researcher," I'm a journalist/blogger, but I have written about cold fusion under peer review in a mainstream multidisciplinary journal.
*I am indeed in court with the WMF, pro se. The case docket and links to [http://coldfusioncommunity.net/lomax-v-wmf/ all files are here.]
*The cause of action is not as described. At this point the Amended Complaint is not in its final form and it has not been served on the other defendants. That will be remedied. To make it clear, Count 4 did address the ban, but that is being abandoned, leaving the primary counts.
*Count 1 is for defamation, against all defendants, but right now only the WMF is pertinent.
*Count 2 was specific about the WMF defamation, which is not from the ban, but from the ''publication'' of the ban, which, as content they originated, leaves them without Section 230 immunity. (This is why I'm abandoning Count 4, and I don't really want to edit WMF wikis anyway. I had already almost entirely abandoned them as unsafe. What then happened ''proved'' they were unsafe.
*Count 3 is for a conspiracy to harm and defame, hatched by collusion between the sock master you saw here, (who also created the RW article, and his brother, who then recruited others, such that six persons are believed to have complained to the WMF (one confessed).
*Count 4 was a claim of violation of implicit contract, damages limited to $1000 by the TOU, legally difficult and not worth pursuing for an individual.
*I have done no "creationist" studies.
*Nor did I do a "paranormalist" study. At the request of some scientists (including a Nobel Prize winner), I created a Wikiversity resource for studies in parapsychology, which is an actual science, and which is *not* a belief in the paranormal, but which is the ''scientific study'' of the paranormal, i.e, not-understood phenomena, generally involving the mind (hence psychology). I am a strong supporter of the scientific method, and a critic of "pseudoskepticism," which is ''belief'' in the error of others disguised as skepticism. I did very little work on that resource myself, I only set it up so that it would be neutral, and it had been so judged by an administrator.
*The deletion reasons for my work on Wikiversity were not that it was "pseudoscientific," but that it had not been approved by a committee that never existed before or since. It was a pure excuse, the 'crat admitted his actions were based on private emails. Just as had been threatened. This is outlined in the Amended Complaint.
*The WMF filed a Motion to Dismiss, relatively routine at the point and also, from precedent, unlikely to succeed. The most that is likely, if my case was defectively pled, is that I will be given an opportunity to amend it.
*The Foundation indeed retained Jones Day (I spent some days with Jones Day lawyers in a case in Florid a couple of years ago. Competent, cordial, and tough. I have a suspicion that they recommended to the WMF that they settle and the WMF refused (I know that twice, they took the time to ask), but I don't know what they recommended. Their stance with me was that I was wasting my time, I have no case, etc., which is more or less what I'd expect. I don't take it personally.
*I'm happy to answer any questions, use my talk page here, or I'll make sure that email is enabled.
*Thanks --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:46, 29 July 2019 (EDT)

2012-08-05T19:23:10Z

Abd: /* the other place */ aw, ruined my day.

{{Welcome|Abd|sig=--[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 20:25, 1 August 2012 (EDT)}}

*Hi, Michael, thanks for the welcome. I did read the guide. {{Unsigned|Abd}}
**You're welcome. It's nice seeing you again. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:49, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

== RE: Email addresses? ==

The Email function appears to be disabled. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 13:52, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
:There are many things that are strange about this website. I'm here partially because strange things amuse me. Conservapedia is a curiosity that I've chosen to explore. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 17:11, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

== Cold Fusion. ==

I must disagree with your points on cold fusion, particularily the removal of the section "psuedoscience". The Pons-Fleischmann experiment was neither reproducible, nor even consistent with the effects of nuclear physics (namely the production of deadly neutron radiation). Today's proponents, also are quite sketchy, whose proof, often flies in the face of conventional nuclear physics. Furthermore, these people often tend to shift the blame of their non-reproducible experiments onto a conspiracy, a trait often seen in cranks. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:27, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thank you. You hold a number of common opinions that are, unfortunately, myths.

:1. The Pons-Fleischmann experiment, as to the basic finding of anomalous heat from palladium deuteride under certain conditions, has been widely replicated. There are 153 papers showing the anomalous heat that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. (There are many more papers on the general topic). Recent work is continuing, and is focused on improving the reliability and level of heat, as to one approach, and another approach is attempting to explore the parameter space to gain information useful in developing theory.

:2. Neutron radiation is an expected result of the energetic collision of two deuterons, half the reactions produce a neutron and Helium-3. However, not all possible fusion reactions produce neutrons. The belief that they do is simple ignorance, produced from a assumption that if there was any nuclear reaction there, it would simply be from the very high density attained, and would be the ordinary fusion of deuterons. Quite simply, it probably is not that.

:3. There is no neutron radiation from cold fusion, not as a primary product. There are *many* reports of very low-level neutron radiation, difficult to distinguish from background. The U.S. Navy SPAWAR group made headlines a few years ago because they found good evidence of extremely low level neutron radiation. The level is extremely low, and clearly has nothing to do with the primary reaction, whatever that is. It is suggested that it's from very rare secondary reactions. The radiation was detected using solid state radiation detectors, and while there has been some criticism of earlier SPAWAR work detecting charged particle radiation (confirming much earlier work), the neutron detection was convincing because the detectors were placed such that the tracks could not be caused by chemical damage or radioactive contaminants. Complicated story.

:4. There is no suppression of cold fusion, though there has been a kind of blackout in some journals, that still exists. There has been active effort to suppress funding for research. Both U.S. Department of Energy reviews (1989, 2004) recommended modest funding, but that has never been done, and intense lobbying by hot fusion proponents -- billions of dollars of funding at stake -- is probably connected with that. This is all well-documented by sociologists of science, it's not a crank theory as you imagine.

:5. What is true about the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect (FPHE) is that it was quite ''difficult'' to replicate. It was, and remains, a quite difficult experiment in electrochemistry, taking serious expertise. There is a series of experiments done by SRI International (formerly Stanford Research Institute) under contract with the Electric Power Research Institute, that showed the nature of the effect. The very same electrode showed different behavior under repeated conditions supposedly the same. It's all well understood now, but understanding it doesn't tell us exactly how to make more productive electrodes. It's an extremely difficult problem in nanostructure. We don't yet know the *exact* characteristics that produce the effect, but, nevertheless, what is known is conclusive as to "nuclear reaction." Basically, helium, a nuclear product, is correlated with the anomalous heat, at a value that is consistent with deuterium fusion. Because some don't understand the thermodynamics of this, I'll hasten to add that this does not show that the reaction is deuterium-deuterium fusion. Any reaction that converts deuterium, in whatever form, to helium, in whatever form, and by whatever mechanism, will produce that same energy/helium ratio.

:6. We don't know what the reaction mechanism is. All we know is that in the FPHE, helium is being produced with about the right energy for the fuel to be deuterium. This is based on a reproducible experiment, it's been widely reproduced. To test the correlation, it's not necessary to have a "reliable" cell. Rather, one runs many copies of the same cell, records the heat from each, and measures (blind) the helium evolved. The "dead cells" become the controls! This has been done many times; and, in fact, some of the early "negative replications" also looked for helium and found none. It's obvious why. They also found no heat. Others who found heat did find helium, and the levels are correlated to the heat, and the levels also have been known to rise above ambient, so the common criticism that this is leakage from ambient -- which would not explain the correlation -- is simply mistaken. It couldn't be leakage, which would never rise above ambient.

:7. Look, you can read the history of cold fusion if you want. There was abuse of scientific protocols that resulted in some level of suppression of cold fusion research. It's well known. For example, a grad student did his doctoral thesis on work with Bockris at the University of Texas, studying the production of tritium by these experiments. The work was sound. His thesis was denied, because of the reputation of cold fusion. He was accused of fraud, and though he was exonerated, the whole affair caused grad students everywhere to avoid working in the field, which then deprived it of the normal source of most ordinary replication labor. That had an impact. And to point it out isn't crankery, or are you claiming that suppression of research never takes place? I can name a number of situations where it did, and all of them involved some critical interest that believed it would be harmed if the research continued. But this has nothing to do with the science. After all, bogus research could be suppressed too.

:8. I've never seen any cold fusion researcher, and I now know many of them, blame suppression for replication failure. You simply made that up. Some of this work is quite difficult to replicate, it can take patience. It took Pons and Fleischmann months to condition the cathode in a cell to the point where the effect appeared. The early replicators, under pressure from funding agencies to produce quick results, took weeks, found nothing, and reported that. Pons and Fleischmann, for intellectual property reasons, did not publish all their data and protocols initially, and some of the early replications simply did not have enough data. To give an idea of the advances in the state of the art developed by Pons and Fleischmann, it was not considered possible, before them, to load deuterium into palladium to a ratio of higher than about 70%. Later research, mostly by SRI, established that the necessary ratio to see the effect was higher than 90%. The early replications were doomed to failure, but they created a reputation of irreproducibility, which, as I'm seeing here, persisted, in spite of the fact that researchers did learn how to accomplish creating the effect. Miles, in fact, is cited in the 1989 ERAB panel report as having negative results. As the panel was still meeting, Miles started to get positive results. He attempted to notify the panel but they did not return his phone calls. Miles is the one who later went on, still working at the United States Navy Research Laboratory at China Lake, to find that helium was being produced correlated with the heat.

:9. The best scientific opinion on cold fusion is in a formal and featured Review published in Naturwissenschaften, "Status of cold fusion (2010)," by Edmund Storms. That's a peer-reviewed journal, Springer-Verlag's "flagship multidisciplinary journal," Einstein was published in it (it was founded in 1913). Springer-Verlag is one of the two largest scientific publishers in the world. The other is Elsevier, which is also publishing on cold fusion.

:Read the abstract: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838756]. Or read a preprint of the paper: [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf]. I'm mentioned just before the list of references, because I helped edit this paper.

:10. I would suggest that the Conservapedia article on cold fusion should be based on solid scientific fact and verifiable history. What you have asserted is not. Cold fusion is not, by anyone who knows anything about it and who knows what pseudoscience is, considered a "pseudoscience." It's falsifiable, for example. The statement that the FPHE is the result of a reaction that turns deuterium into helium is testable. And it's been tested by a dozen research groups around the world, that found both heat and helium, and there is no substantial research that has found heat and not helium, not with the basic FPHE, using palladium deuteride. The statement that the effect was not reproducible is blatant nonsense. The peer-reviewed journals are replete with reports of replication of the basic effect. Get it straight, Brenden. If you'd like to help with the article, great, but please base your work on real knowledge, not rumor and opinion.

:I wrote some of my changes without providing sources, but everything I wrote can be backed with citations to strong sources. I have still not received any assurance that my work here would receive proper and fair protection as needed from pseudoskeptics, so I've, so far, not been willing to invest the work to improve the article beyond the brief edits I made. I made a lot of effort on Wikipedia, was harassed by a dominant faction there, took an administrator from that faction to the Arbitration Committee, won the case, he lost his administrative privileges, yet I was banned for my trouble. I had no conflict of interest (then) and only cared about the quality of the article. I didn't edit it except seeking consensus, what was disliked was that I discussed the changes. They didn't like people who challenged administrators, even if it was done completely within due process and civilly. I don't want to repeat that, wasting my time. I don't have anything to gain personally by "promoting" cold fusion. I just happen to know a lot about it, I have the training in physics (from Richard P. Feynman) and I know the researchers and can ask them about anything. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 02:36, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
::Welcome, Abd. You are correct about Wikipedia and I am sorry that you had an unfortunate experience there. Perhaps you can add it to the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] pages. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:45, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Thank you Wschact. While I'd be happy to relate my experience at Wikipedia, I'm not eager to dive into interwiki politics. I took a look at that page, and specifically at the section [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&oldid=995462#Structural_problems_with_Wikipedia Structural problems with Wikipedia (current version)], because the Wikipedia problem is indeed a structural problem, and it's generic to wikis.
:::Different wikis propose different solutions. The problem with Wikipedia is that it presents itself as unbiased, and processes have been set up that purport to be -- and sometimes are -- unbiased, but processes are only as effective as the people who run them and use them, and Wikipedia has never set up structures that would compensate for what has been called MPOV-pushing, i.e., majority point-of-view pushing. Wikipedia assumes that the majority will be unbiased, effectively. Again, that assumption is contrary to policy, but if one looks at how decisions are actually made, they are made by the majority of those who show up to participate. In theory, decisions are made by argument, not votes, but the actual practice is such that only very highly-placed administrators can get away with making a decision contrary to a substantial majority. It's rare. More often those with high privilege just go with the flow, so a motivated faction can exert substantial control. There would be ways to compensate for this, but the Wikipedia structure became highly resistant to change. That's normal! It would take something extraordinary to avoid it.
:::Other models used include control by the founder, or sometimes almost total chaos. There are other possible governance models, but little work has been done. Control by founder or founder successor is a very common model for organizational governance, and this shades into control by a board (often self-appointed, but sometimes self-appointed implementing election results). Truly democratic organizational control is rare and has mostly not been attempted, even in organizations dedicated to advancing democracy. I could show examples. Basically, most activists don't trust the demos, the people, not when push comes to shove. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it's just what's so.
:::The example in the section cited, however, "Netball and the Olympic Movement," is itself biased presentation of fact, not merely in how it's been presented, but how fact has clearly been misrepresented. When we are looking for something wrong, we will often find it, or imagine it, and think that what we imagine is "true."
:::The article version cited does not claim that "Netball is an ''Olympic sport,''" as stated in the critique. Rather, it states that "Netball is an ''Olympic-recognized sport.''" The article makes the difference clear. While some editor may have pointed to the legislative speech, that would not ordinarily be considered a reliable source. After all, politicians say what they please. I'm not bothering to research this further, I do know Laura Hale, she's a sports academic from Australia, and is not likely to be blatantly wrong on something like this. Her alleged "radical feminism" would be completely irrelevant to this issue. That her alleged political position is considered important is an example of ad-hominem argument. Netball is Olympic-recognized or not. It's just a fact, and the fact can easily be verified or refuted. For an idea, see [http://www.olympic.org/content/the-ioc/recognised-sport-federations/federation20/]. Wikipediots might get their panties in a twist over whether or not a primary source like that can be used. However, "Verification, not truth" is an abstract principle, the majority of editors -- unless they are personally involved in a situation -- tend to go with truth, even if it comes from a primary source, if there is no reasonable controversy over the fact.
:::The Malawi photo objection is just silly, fluff. Both ways. Laura Hale may or may not know if this is really a netball team. Obviously, it would be the team plus some family members. Given her position, though, good chance she does know.
:::The ''real'' standard on Wikipedia is "editorial consensus," and that breaks down when factions prevent consensus formation, and especially if there are administrators among them, and they ban one side of a dispute, ipso facto. That happened with cold fusion; many editors knowledgeable about cold fusion were blocked and banned ''because of support -- in discussion! -- for a point of view''. It started happening long before I was involved, and simply continued, including after I was myself banned. The faction involved is the "anti-pseudoscience" faction, which generally advocates against NPOV ("Neutral point of view"), claiming that SPOV should rule. ("Scientific point of view," which is actually an oxymoron.) These people are generally pseudoskeptics. Cold fusion was, for them, a minor skirmish, they were much more concerned about global warming, homeopathy, and all forms of "superstition." If you want to find out how they define "superstition," the real meaning, in practice, is "what I and my friends believe is false." Cold fusion was a beautiful test case, because the science has actually moved on, after 2004, but these people refused to read the sources. After all, why should they read nonsense? And then they made up excuse after excuse as to why the balance of publication has radically shifted toward peer-reviewed articles that assume cold fusion is real, including the most comprehensive review of the field ever published under peer review, I've linked it from [[Cold fusion]]. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 13:29, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I just noticed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&oldid=998460#Proposed_table_entry this]. I hadn't looked at the history of [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. It was a coincidence that the netball thing leaped out at me, I really was looking for criticism of "structural problems." --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 14:44, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

== the other place ==

I demoted you to sysop again.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:49, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:Aw, ruined my day. Now I have the option of creating block log entries and harassing others, I can unblock myself, what did you have to go and do that for? --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 15:23, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Abd

2012-08-05T18:44:37Z

Abd: /* Cold Fusion. */ Just noticed that the one advocating this "netball" thing was you... I had no idea.

Theocracy

2012-08-05T18:06:55Z

Abd: /* Theocracy as tyranny */ grammar, explain "Sharia law" is redundant in this case.

'''Theocracy''' is a form of government ruled by divine means or by leaders considered to be divinely guided. [[Israel]] was a theocracy before King Saul. The Islamic Republic of [[Iran]] is a modern-day theocracy, as many commentators believe that the real power in its government lies not in allegedly "democratically-elected" leaders like [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]] but in clerics within the government since Iranian law requires Presidential candidates to be approved by the [[Guardian Council]] <ref>
Access Denied: Iran’s Exclusionary Elections Human Rights Watch [http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran0605/]</ref> and some Iranian laws on homosexuality and adultery come from the Sharia <ref>Netherlands, Sweden: Bar Deportations to Torture in Iran
- Officials Must Not Return Gay and Lesbian Asylum Seekers to Iran Human Rights Watch [http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/06/sweden14361.htm]</ref>. The [[Vatican]] is a formal Christian theocracy, with the [[Pope]] as head of both church and state.

Only two democracies reserve places in their legislature specifically for representatives of the state religion, these are the aforementioned Islamic Republic of Iran and the [[United Kingdom]] where Bishops of the [[Church of England]] sit in the upper chamber, the [[House of Lords]] under the designation of Lords Spiritual. By technicality, [[Vatican City]] is a theocracy, as it is ruled by the Pope, placed by a divine election.

==Theocracy as tyranny==

[[C.S. Lewis]] wrote:

:Of all tyrannies, a [[tyranny]] sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under [[Robber Baron|robber barons]] than under omnipotent moral [[busybody|busybodies]]. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own [[conscience]]. [http://www.tsowell.com/quotes.html]

Theocracy may also describe any government which seeks to impose religious principles or law, such as the [[Sharia]], or the Hindu laws of [[Manu Smriti]] <ref>The laws of Manu George Buhler, translated by [http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu.htm]</ref> on its population, even if the government is formally [[secular]].

One well known example of such a state is Saudi Arabia where the legal system is based on Sharia (Islamic law as interpreted by state authorities), Saudi Arabia also has a [[religious police]] <ref>Saudi Arabia - The Legal System U.S. Library Of Congress [http://countrystudies.us/saudi-arabia/51.htm]</ref>

In Israel, civil cases under the [[Halakhah]] (traditional Jewish law based on the [[Torah]]) are allowed.

==Theocracy and the Kingdom of Heaven==

In a society where most people are centered on God, and really in touch with His love and His will, the formal system of laws and courts will probably be less necessary.
[[Sun Myung Moon|Rev. Moon]] said, "Eventually we will not need elections. If people go back to their hometowns and serve they will be asked to take public offices, become a king or queen, whoever becomes the center of their hometown does not need to be elected." (unofficial sermon notes, Nov. 23, 2010)

This idea is in contrast to the a forcible theocracy, in which [[theocratic law]] is imposed with penalties.

==Arguments against theocracy==
*Stifling of speech. In a theocracy, it would be counterlogical to allow the citizens to know, or accept other religions or ideologies. Presumably, some mechanism will be placed to prevent dangerous speech, or make the ideas within artificially unwanted.
*Thought is severely engineered, to prevent "dangerous" thoughts (Atheism, etc).
*Unaccountable government. Because the government is supposedly an extension of a deity, they cannot be held accountable.
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

== See also ==

*[[Philosophy]]
*[[Jewish philosophy]]

==References==
<references/>

User talk:Brenden

2012-08-05T18:00:12Z

Abd: /* Participate in Cold fusion? */ new section

User talk:Abd

2012-08-05T17:29:03Z

Abd: /* Cold Fusion. */ thanks, Wschact. I looked at the page you mention. I'm not eager to dive in.

Talk:Cold fusion

2012-08-05T06:58:38Z

Abd: /* repeated restoration of plagiarized text */ new section

Please use original content instead of copying and inadequately citing Creative Commons licensed content from a dubious source. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:57, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
:Conservative, I'm puzzled. I removed plagiarized content, leaving older original content and added new original content. I did not source everything, but I could on request. I did cite a source, a recent Review of cold fusion in the journal ''Naturwissenschaften,'' and linked to a legal preprint of it.
:But you reverted my changes, taking the article back to exactly what you have requested not be done. A simple mistake, I'm sure. Given that assumption, I'll revert, but, of course, I'm a newcomer here. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 20:21, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

== repeated restoration of plagiarized text ==

Another editor restored the plagiarized text from another wiki. He wrote on my talk page that cold fusion should still have the "pseudoscience" label, though the field of low energy nuclear reactions is definitely not pseudoscience, it doesn't match the characteristics of pseudoscience at all. That is simply pseudoskeptical woo, a belief without basis. I have, for now, left the Fringe science category, but it's not really fringe either any more, except that many physicists haven't been reading the journals on the topic. The review linked is the most comprehensive review of the field ever published in a journal, and the basic questions from twenty years ago have long since been answered, ''except for "explanatory theory". We don't know what's happening!'' That makes some physicists uncomfortable!

It's still a difficult experiment, and might remain a laboratory curiosity. On the other hand, many phenomena later turned out to be useful, once sufficiently understood. That could take many years. The theoretical problem is an extraordinarily difficult one in quantum field theory, the idea that the experimental results contradicted theory was based on poor assumptions, not actual conflict with theory. It's likely that whatever is ultimately found to explain the reaction, it will not revise basic nuclear physics, it will turn out to be something that simply wasn't considered. For example, not necessarily the real explanation, Akito Takahashi, a Japanese nuclear physicist, has calculated using quantum field theory, that if two deuterium molecules are placed cross-wise, so that the deuterons are in a tetrahedral configuration, with very low relative momentum, they will collapse into a Bose-Einstein Condensate and fuse within a femtosecond. The product would be Beryllium-8, which is very unstable and would, if free, quickly fission into two helium-4 atoms. The net result is deuterium -> helium, which is what is observed experimentally. However, that's not a complete explanation, because it's known that there is no high-energy radiation from the reaction, which would include those hot alpha particles (helium nuclei). Somehow the energy is being released in many quanta, not in one two big chunks. And that's a mystery.

Because the edit did not respect the request to avoid plagiarized material, made on this page by Conservative, I reverted that change. If there is something wrong with individual statements, please edit them individually, hopefully seeking consensus based on what is in sources. I have not sourced what I wrote, specifically. I'm a subject matter expert, and I can back up any of what I wrote with sources. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 02:58, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

Cold fusion

2012-08-05T06:42:39Z

Abd: I poke the eye out of the URL to avoid the spam trap, those captchas often are illegible. Here goes it the restoration.

Cold fusion

2012-08-05T06:40:56Z

Abd: Undo revision 998343 by Brenden (talk)This edit restored poor text copied from another wiki. Please respect the request on the Talk page.

User talk:Abd

2012-08-05T06:36:29Z

Abd: /* Cold Fusion. */ reply to Brenden. Please read up on this, I can provide suggested sources. Starting with the review I link to, which is the most comprehensive journal review ever on cold fusion.

User talk:Michaeldsuarez

2012-08-02T19:14:30Z

Abd: /* Email addresses? */ looks like email was disabled, all right. Lots of references to it in old pages.

{{Welcome|Michaeldsuarez|sig=--[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 13:33, 12 October 2009 (EDT)}}

== Good to see you! ==

Every familiar face is welcome, 
Don't you think?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:20, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

.... you wont get promoted here. You do realize this right, parodist? {{Unsigned|BiggerPaenisss|23:29, 6 September 2011}}
:[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMichaeldsuarez I know]. Promotion isn't an option for me. Making it a goal would be pointless. I'm not here to gain trust, respect, or favor. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 19:38, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Tables ==

Most likely, you don't need to "correct" those tables, since Mediawiki avoids using raw HTML syntax (like <nowiki><div></nowiki> tags) if at all possible. In fact that's the specific reasoning behind the Mediawiki content parser; it's designed to make page creation easier and less prone to error than raw HTML tags. If the page looks fine, I don't think it needs to be translated into raw HTML syntax. Chances are the Mediawiki developers understand HTML better than we do, so the code that the parser outputs into the raw page will be better than anything you or I could toss into the edit window. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 12:42, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
:This post continues [[User_talk:KevinDavis#RE:_Tables|here]]. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 17:12, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

==EDiot==
Why it's been a long time since I have seen an EDiot. Your contributions seem valid, and completely on topic, surprising give ED's content. You have gained my trust, and respect.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 20:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

==Hypocritical==
If I am not nice for deleting a comment, then by comparison, what is this [https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Conservapedia]? Like you said above, you're not here to gain trust, respect, or favor. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:36, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

== Email addresses? ==

Does Conservapedia allow email addresses to be attached to an account? Looks like not. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 12:52, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
:Let's hope I don't lose my password. The site refers to using the email function in a number of pages, but it looks like it was disabled at some point. For example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member_Accounts][http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Quick_reference#If_you_get_blocked][http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse].
:User group rights still include Sendemail. But standard MediaWiki is that you cannot send email unless you have email enabled and verified for yourself, and I see no way to do that. Looks like the sendemail function has been turned off entirely. It's rather strange. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 15:14, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Michaeldsuarez

2012-08-02T16:52:25Z

Abd: /* Email addresses? */ new section

User talk:Abd

2012-08-02T00:39:05Z

Abd: Thanks, Michael. I'm the Wikipedia editor Abd that you know.

{{Welcome|Abd|sig=--[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 20:25, 1 August 2012 (EDT)}}

*Hi, Michael, thanks for the welcome. I did read the guide.

Cold fusion

2012-08-02T00:22:56Z

Abd: Undo revision 997498 by Conservative (talk)Correct apparent error. This removes plagiarized content.

Talk:Cold fusion

2012-08-02T00:21:15Z

Abd: Okay, will restore original content, removing plagiarized content apparently restored in error.

User talk:Edpell

2012-08-01T00:36:51Z

Abd: /* Cold Fusion */ format

{{welcome}}
[[User:DorMouse|DorMouse]] 21:17, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
==Cold Fusion==
I am going to revert a substantial part of your edits. Cold fusion, sans the immense pressure and heat, is still an impossible task. You can catalyze fusion, with Muons, or with High Z nuclides. If you can find references for them, by all means, add them, but for now, that cannot be said.[[User:DorMouse|DorMouse]] 21:17, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:This was a major error. "Cold fusion" is a popular name for "low energy nuclear reactions," and it is not known for sure if the reaction is "fusion." There are other theories. However, this much is known: the heat produced by the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, for palladium deuteride experiments, is accompanied by the production of helium, the correlation is unmistakeable, across many experiments, and across the work of many research groups. See the article I just linked from [[Cold fusion]]. That article represents a watershed, because Storms decided to call it cold fusion, because ''some kind of fusion'' -- mechanism still unknown -- is highly likely. The fuel is apparently deuterium and the ash is helium. If you can think of something other than fusion doing that, well, you might be able to win a Nobel Prize. Some people say that neutrons are being generated and that other effects mask the expected gamma rays, but this is considered unlikely by most researchers.

:"Fusion," early on, was an unsupported hypothesis, because the effect, for the first year or two, was purely anomalous heat, at levels considered too high -- by chemists -- to be chemistry. That argument continued to rage, but the extreme skeptical position has entirely disappeared from the scientific literature, after the mixed review by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2004, and peer-reviewed papers on low-energy nuclear reactions are now being routinely published. Some journals created a policy years ago that they would not publish anything in the field, and those journals are still holding to that policy, but the largest scientific publishers in the world, Elsevier and Springer-Verlag, are covering the field. Naturwissenschaften, founded in 1913, is a highly prestigious multidisciplinary journal that covers all the natural sciences (including chemistry and physics), Einstein published in it, and the editor requested the review by Storms that I linked from the article.

:Yes, Storms is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions editor at Naturwissenschaften, and that is sometimes asserted to imply that there was some conflict of interest, but, in fact, that Naturwissenschaften even needed such an editor -- they were starting to get many submissions and needed a subject matter expert -- represents a major shift. Storms did not review his own paper.

:Some journals had published all along, there are over a thousand peer-reviewed papers in the field, and many thousands of conference papers.

:DorMouse, since blocked, was essentially ignorant. Muon-Catalyzed Fusion is a known form of cold fusion (it was originally called that, long before the FPHE was discovered), but I'm unaware of any high-Z nucleide catalysis. The production of very high-Z nucleides, by collision of lower-Z nucleides, is sometimes called "cold fusion," but it's at temperatures that are *almost* those of hot fusion. This has nothing to do with the topic which is well-known as "cold fusion," which is about low-temperature reactions, well below 1000 degrees C, often at room temperature, instead of the millions of degrees necessary for hot fusion. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 20:36, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Edpell

2012-08-01T00:36:34Z

Abd: /* Cold Fusion */ respond to the comment made here, apparently Edpell didn't notice this or the edits.

{{welcome}}
[[User:DorMouse|DorMouse]] 21:17, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
==Cold Fusion==
I am going to revert a substantial part of your edits. Cold fusion, sans the immense pressure and heat, is still an impossible task. You can catalyze fusion, with Muons, or with High Z nuclides. If you can find references for them, by all means, add them, but for now, that cannot be said.[[User:DorMouse|DorMouse]] 21:17, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:This was a major error. "Cold fusion" is a popular name for "low energy nuclear reactions," and it is not known for sure if the reaction is "fusion." There are other theories. However, this much is known: the heat produced by the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, for palladium deuteride experiments, is accompanied by the production of helium, the correlation is unmistakeable, across many experiments, and across the work of many research groups. See the article I just linked from [[Cold fusion]]. That article represents a watershed, because Storms decided to call it cold fusion, because ''some kind of fusion'' -- mechanism still unknown -- is highly likely. The fuel is apparently deuterium and the ash is helium. If you can think of something other than fusion doing that, well, you might be able to win a Nobel Prize. Some people say that neutrons are being generated and that other effects mask the expected gamma rays, but this is considered unlikely by most researchers.

:"Fusion," early on, was an unsupported hypothesis, because the effect, for the first year or two, was purely anomalous heat, at levels considered too high -- by chemists -- to be chemistry. That argument continued to rage, but the extreme skeptical position has entirely disappeared from the scientific literature, after the mixed review by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2004, and peer-reviewed papers on low-energy nuclear reactions are now being routinely published. Some journals created a policy years ago that they would not publish anything in the field, and those journals are still holding to that policy, but the largest scientific publishers in the world, Elsevier and Springer-Verlag, are covering the field. Naturwissenschaften, founded in 1913, is a highly prestigious multidisciplinary journal that covers all the natural sciences (including chemistry and physics), Einstein published in it, and the editor requested the review by Storms that I linked from the article.

:Yes, Storms is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions editor at Naturwissenschaften, and that is sometimes asserted to imply that there was some conflict of interest, but, in fact, that Naturwissenschaften even needed such an editor -- they were starting to get many submissions and needed a subject matter expert -- represents a major shift. Storms did not review his own paper.

Some journals had published all along, there are over a thousand peer-reviewed papers in the field, and many thousands of conference papers.

:DorMouse, since blocked, was essentially ignorant. Muon-Catalyzed Fusion is a known form of cold fusion (it was originally called that, long before the FPHE was discovered), but I'm unaware of any high-Z nucleide catalysis. The production of very high-Z nucleides, by collision of lower-Z nucleides, is sometimes called "cold fusion," but it's at temperatures that are *almost* those of hot fusion. This has nothing to do with the topic which is well-known as "cold fusion," which is about low-temperature reactions, well below 1000 degrees C, often at room temperature, instead of the millions of degrees necessary for hot fusion. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 20:36, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Cold fusion

2012-08-01T00:17:01Z

Abd: clean this up. better. Remove weak source, refer to definitive recent review.

Cold fusion

2012-07-31T23:59:52Z

Abd: /* References */ fix cat

'''Cold fusion''' is the hypothetical effect resulting in excess heat that some scientists have claimed could be produced from nuclear fusion near room temperature. In 1989, electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah claimed to have produced such an effect by placing [[palladium]] electrodes in a glass of heavy water, <ref>http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1258</ref> and some speculated that this could become a source of cheap energy in the future. After Fleischmann and Pons made their claim, the effect initially was unable to be replicated by scientists, and the claim was generally discredited. After work by Mike McKubre of SRI and Miles and Bush at the Navies China Lake Research Laboratory it was show that a deuterium to palladium loading of >0.9 was need to see the effect. The initial failures at MIT and CalTech used loading of <0.8. Further they showed that helium was produced from the deuterium. Somehow D+D -> ??? -> He releasing the expected 23.8MeV per He atom of energy. This field is being actively researched today (circa 2012).

Research is ongoing in the US at SRI in California, in Italy at several universities, in Japan at Toyota and various universities, and in several other countries.

The field has expanded from deuterium in palladium to also include hydrogen in nickel and nickel nano-powder, low energy glow discharge experiments and transmutation experiments (mostly in Japan). Research funding sources in the US include the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration (DARPA), and the Department of Defense, Threat Reduction Agency.

The next international conference will be the 17th International Conference on Cold Fusion in Deajeon, Korea, August 12-17, 2012.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]][[Category:Chemistry]][[Category:Fringe physics]]

Cold fusion

2012-07-31T23:59:18Z

Abd: /* References */ Stereotypically, chemists say cold fusion is not chemistry, and physicists say it's not physics. The experimental work is chemistry, though.

Cold fusion

2012-07-31T23:57:43Z

Abd: /* References */ It can be argued that Cold fusion is "fringe." Not that it is "pseudoscience." It's testable, it doesn't meet the pseudoscience characteristics at all.