Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 11

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Edits by 79.10.133.196

Please discuss here, thank you. Tmccc (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The "video" reference is a bit "odd": why using a video instead of available written references?--79.6.3.8 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The initial edits were reverted, as per WP:BOLD changes should be discussed and a concensus reached before additions are made. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Look CAREFULLY at the page history: I am restoring the part as it was before Short Brigade Harvest Boris changed it. Short Brigade Harvest Boris changed it with this edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=prev&oldid=469152879
and the subsequent edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=469153350&oldid=469152879
--79.6.3.8 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking the sources for the section on 'positive comments' by Giuseppe Levi, I note that he is a colleague of Focardi, as the Ny Teknik article makes clear, and as such not independent. The way his (unspecified) comments were represented is thus misleading - I have deleted them, and ask that before they are restored, an agreed text be arrived at (if it can be justified at all). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Levi is already mentioned twice in the section Demonstrations. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems Levi was more than a colleague at the university but part of the E-Cat team with Focardi and Rossi. I notice that the nyteknik title is: "Scientific Analysis of Rossi, Focardi and Levi Claims" and it discusses what levi was up to: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently the section Demonstrations gives the impression that Levi is an independent observer when the primary source above shows this to not be the case. Particularly the line "The demonstration was monitored by independent scientists of the University of Bologna, including INFN physicist Giuseppe Levi. " IRWolfie- (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What you say is BASED ON SPECULATION AND SHOULD NOT BE ON THE PAGE!!! Levi is a physicist of the University of Bologna. If you start to this path then it is possible to accuse ALL THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA of collusion with Rossi!!! Find a source or remove these speculations IMMEDIATELY.--79.16.129.80 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We should use only physicists who are not Bolognese. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And on the basis of what criteria?--79.16.129.80 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the neutrality of other sources from the University of Bologna, Ny Teknik makes it perfectly clear that Levi isn't an 'outsider' commenting on the E-Cat, but is instead a colleague of Focardi, and has himself been involved in running the 'demonstrations': "In the morning of February 10, the inventor and engineer Andrea Rossi initiated a new controlled experiment in Bologna, Italy, with the heat producing 'energy catalyzer' that could possibly be based on cold fusion. With him was the physicist and researcher Giuseppe Levi from the University of Bologna, who also supervised the public demonstration in January". [2]. There is no room for speculation whatsoever here. Levi is involved, and not an outsider. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This section explicitly shows the lack of independence: [3]

Focardi, who has been working with Rossi during the development of the energy catalyzer, is Emeritus Professor at the University of Bologna, while Levi will now be responsible for researching the energy catalyzer at the Physics Department of Bologna University, commissioned by Rossi, who pays 500,000 Euro according to an agreement between his company Leonardo Corporation and the university. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

i.e He is now recieving funding through Rossi. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA WILL RECEIVE (if so) THESE MONEY, NOT LEVI ! ! ! ps The source is wrong on the issue, because the head of the research will be Campari and not Levi (if the research starts for real, and I do not not know if it starts for real or not).--79.16.129.80 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If the Department of Physics is receiving money from Rossi, it is not an uninvolved party, and any comments by its staff must not be represented as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Department of Physics is not receiving money from Rossi. However it can receive money in the future IF and WHEN an eventual commissioned research programme starts. --79.16.129.80 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Levi's relationship to Rossi's enterprise is not clear. Some sources refer to him very much as part of Rossi's enterprise, going so far as to use the hyphenated form "Rossi-Focardi-Levi" such as here. Other sources imply that he has a greater degree of independence. This is a case where considerations of both accuracy and BLP suggest we take a conservative approach: in particular, we should avoid mentioning Levi altogether until his relationship to the project becomes clearer. It is better to wait for more solid information than to inadvertently mislead (in either direction) given that there is no deadline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that Department isn't uninvolved - though we knew that already. It isn't only a question of money, anyway. Given Focardi's intimate involvement with Rossi, his colleagues at the university couldn't be represented as 'outsiders' even if they hadn't been involved in supervising 'demonstrations' for Rossi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently there is no mentioning of Levi at all in the article, which is very strange as he plays a prominent role in the whole story. Either he is not independent enough and then should be mentioned as "one of the team" or he is independent and then his comments can be presented. But completely missing a mentioning of Levi will leave many WP-readers wondering who he is. Independent or not, Levi should be added in somehow. There is definitely enough RS mentioning Levi's role. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't seem that important in relation to the Energy Catalyzer so it may be undue. Do you have a proposed addition? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald

Interesting news that could be worth adding to the article, assuming the Sydney Morning Herald is viewed as a reliable source? [4]:

"The entrepreneur Dick Smith has sent a consulting aerospace engineer, Ian Bryce, who has a science background, to assess the machine on his behalf.

If Mr Bryce, who as a member of the Australian Skeptics has experience testing the scientific veracity of all sorts of weird and wacky things, gives the technology the thumbs-up, Dick Smith will give the group $200,000." Tmccc (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"'I'll need to see some more evidence before committing the money,' [Bryce] said". Yup. Sensible. If Smith gives this the 'thumbs up', and Bryce comes up with the cash, it might merit a brief mention in the article. If.

Yes, I see no reason to see the Sydney Morning Herald as anything but a reliable source for this - but it is a non-story speculating on future events. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Episode 2. reported also in The Northern Star [5] and The Register [6] - MIRROR (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting but I don't think it would be worth adding to the article for the reason highlighted by AndyTheGrump, it is more speculation about a possible future event. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I interpret the above news reports differently. Dick Smith apparently is a bit of an activist and "a founder and a patron of the Australian Skeptics". A skeptic who knows a bit about promotion would do exactly what the news reports say Smith did: announce a big investment possibility, subject to a review. Guess what, the review said the proposal was junk. If Smith had simply issued a press release saying "someone I know thinks the Energy Catalyzer is junk", it would have been lost amid all the other press releases. But Smith gets his story out by first announcing that he will invest $LARGE_AMOUNT if the review is good. When the review finds the story is junk, that gets reported. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that may well be true - a bit of grandstanding to call Rossi's bluff. Still not much of a story though, at least until we something more concrete. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Marketing materials, sources, and product information

I'll be the first to admit here that sources like the "Pure Energy Systems Network" are dubious at best and patently unreliable in terms of any actual scientific peer review or even lay discussions of scientific theory. This said, I think there is a place for "marketing information" in terms of claimed product performance, even if you question whether the thing works at all or not. I guess the question here is going to Andy the Grump, since he is the one who has been reverting an attempt to put supposedly product performance characteristics being claimed by Andrea Rossi.

My assertion here is that the article is about the product itself, and even if the specifications don't match the actual performance of that product such previous claims of product performance are going to be both notable and significant so far as the scope of the article itself is concerned. While it would be nice to get some of this stuff from an "official website", I am asking if there could be a reliable source other than PESN for this information, or if there is any sort of question that Andrea Rossi did not in fact make these claims?

Specifically I'm asking about this particular edit reversion that I'm questioning at the moment. Not all of it needs to be kept, but I fail to see how it would be any different had the interview been with the New York Times or even Science News. Manufacturer's claimed product performance is usually something that is included in most technological product articles and seems to me as something reasonable to include in this article, even if you may not be all that thrilled with the source of that information. Given the context of the content and how the source is being applied, I don't think this is something that can be completely dismissed out of hand simply because of the source. No, I don't think this is a slippery slope to necessarily accept everything from PESN either, but you don't need to be so picky either. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring all the other obvious problems with using pesn.com as a source (the site is full of nonsense about perpetual motion machines and wild conspiracies - and seems to have a rather 'creative' approach to copyright laws), there is the question as to how independent of Rossi it actually is. At one point, pesn claimed to be in a commercial relationship with Rossi, in that they were setting up an 'official E-Cat website for him (http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/) - though they now state that 'Andrea Rossi has removed his "official" designation from this site'. Accordingly, I see no reason to treat anything from pesn.com as meaningfully different from a press release from Rossi himself. To present what he said as coming in an "interview" seems somewhat stretching credulity. If Rossi wants to issue a press release, he can. If he wants to give a credible interview to an uninvolved and neutral journalist, he can. If he wants to present one as the other, we have every right to question its validity as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence that there is a product. There is no known customer and no independent user or tester of the claimed "product". Wikipedia doesn't usually speculate about unreleased products or list manufacturers claims about unreleased products. We should wait for independent reviews. Bhny (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that I'm highly skeptical, and I think the "promise" by Andrea Rossi that these devices are going to ship by the end of 2012 is likely to be pushed back to forever like Duke Nukem Forever (if it ships at all). The claim is that Underwriter's Laboratory is currently testing the device for safety purposes, but that really can't be independently verified without some original research. This said, Wikipedia can and has listed product specifications for products that would be released in the future and based the information solely upon press releases by the manufacturing company without independent review or analysis. Noting that such information is claimed performance characteristics is common in those circumstances and generally considered a "reliable source". As far as trusting Rossi is playing with a full desk is irrelevant. This isn't speculation, but rather asserting what is being claimed by the manufacturer.... in this case Andrea Rossi. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

a side note; Duke Nukem is probably a bad example as it was released last year. I think it would be very odd for wikipedia to list specifications for a product that most people are not even sure exists. When the devices are being sold to the general public (i.e not behind closed doors and NDAs) I think it would be perfectly fine to mention the specifications. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia can and has listed product specifications for products that would be released in the future". True (though sometimes with questionable compliance with policy), but have we done this with claims for ground-breaking technology from enterprises that seem to have so far manufactured nothing other than a few 'demonstration' models that nobody has ever had a chance to properly investigate? If we quote say Apple Inc. regarding their future plans for laptop computers, we have reasonable grounds to expect them to be able to deliver them - or something similar. After all, we know that they produce laptops. With Rossi, all we have is his claims, and his history - and the latter tends to lead to scepticism about the former. I suppose this comes down to editorial judgement though. We could (with proper sourcing) report Rossi's claims, but I've yet to see a policy-based argument that we have to. I'd suggest that we might do as well to see what independent mainstream sources have to say on the matter: so far, I've seen little real evidence that anyone beyond the enthusiasts and boosters is taking Rossi's claims to be about to go into mass production seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I just looked around and there doesn't seem to be a specific policy about future products specifications. It basically seems that it's ok if the company has a history of released products and not ok otherwise. The main policy just seems to be "wikipedia is not a crystal ball" WP:CRYSTAL Bhny (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2012

This all boils down to reliable sources again. If there is "buzz" about a product that gets stuff "out there" written by reliable sources, it becomes easier to justify adding in product specs that are discussed in those sources. In that regard, folding it back into the PESN discussion, that website really isn't a reliable source in that sense as "buzz" of the E-cat listed there really isn't any indication of notability or even remotely vetted articles that can be considered a reliable source. Perhaps that is a better way to deal with this, saying is the information "notable"... as in who is actually talking about those specs and if they are relevant to a real product.

I saw something like this happen with the SpaceX Falcon 1 where specification information was posted in the Wikipedia article before its first launch, but in that case details could be found with license applications filed with the FAA, notable journals and magazines writing about tours they took of the production facilities, and some indication that the product was more than pure vaporware. Engine test firings in Texas were pretty hard to miss and were reported upon by the Waco, Texas news media. If we tell would-be contributors to this article that the source matters, I'm fine with that. It isn't so much if the company has a history of released products, but if those products may actually be real and can be vetted by sources which can confirm those products are actually going to be made with those specs. That a company has released products earlier is a good indication of that, but "industry buzz" (to use the term loosely) coming from reliable sources to express those specs is a much better way to set the threshold.

In other words, if the New York Times or Science News starts to write articles about the E-Cat and publishes specifications about this product, those would be considered more reliable and thus legitimate to be included than somebody's blog. In this regard PESN is really only little better than a blog and not much more than that. I'll also agree that there is as of yet no confirmation that Andrea Rossi even has a product which he even could be manufacturing, much less that it may be available any time soon... other than some odd interviews where he is only saying "trust me". If Rossi gets off his behind and actually makes something, I don't think there will be a shortage of the genuine reliable sources to choose from... and until that happens there isn't anything else to draw upon to write this article. Otherwise this article is going to be more about the phenomena of the E-cat fans and their fanatical obsession with a hope for future clean energy that may never actually happen. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple interesting sources

Just worth a look

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_v401.php?print http://www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer

I refer to these as "interesting" partly because they're very skeptical (not to mention comprehensive). Definitely I am not interested by E-Cat apologism anymore at this point 69.165.136.201 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

you may well find them 'interesting'. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, neither looks remotely like a reliable source, and is therefore irrelevant to article content. As for 'E-Cat apologism', I'm sure we will see more, but unless Rossi can come up with something concrete, it isn't going to affect this article either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Skimming through the second source it appears that while not reliable per se, it does contain some potentially useful pointers to reliable sources such as articles in the Italian mainstream media. My Italian is limited to a very few essential phrases such as "prego, una birra" so someone else would need to evaluate the original sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point, though a lot of the sources cited look less-than-reliable too (including our article ;-) ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the esowatch article is wrong or at least very imprecise at first glance, it reads "Josephson has been known for a supporter of so called "cold fusion" for years and is the editor of the corresponding article in English Wikipedia" whereas we all know he is simply one of the editors. Similarly, they cite A1 publications of WO and US documents as "patents held" whereas it is general knowledge that these A1 documents are mere published patent applications. Not RS for Wikipedia, indeed. --87.174.21.173 (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

One more from me, not sure where I found this one either

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-IARPA.shtml

It's an interview steven krivitt gave some lady from the government about the state and history of cold fusion and lenr, and the distinction between the two. I don't know if it'll help satisfy someone's curiousity, I thought the first part was cool where he lists like twenty experiments 69.165.136.201 (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM - this is a talk page for discussing article content - and material from newenergytimes.com is unlikely to meet our requirements regarding reliable sourcing. We aren't interested in what anyone thinks is 'cool', only in what is significant for the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It never struck me that it could be hostilely wrong like, maybe the interview never happened, or something, and I apologize for sourcing it from such a place, and thank you for broadening my view as such 69.165.136.201 (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with flow

Hi, in the "Evaluation" section:

"The University of Bologna explicitly states that they have not been involved in the demonstrations and none of the experiments were at the university."

This reads as if we ought to already understand the connection with the University of Bologna, and why they might feel the need to say such a thing, but actually it is the first mention of the place. I wonder if the flow could be adjusted here so that the context is made clear before this point is mentioned. 86.146.105.137 (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Up until recently there was content about Levi (from UniBo) before this line and the line made sense, but somebody deleted that. [7]. I already noted that Levi should be mentioned in the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it needs fixing - but in a way that makes clear who Levi is, and also makes clear that he has been actively involved in running the demonstrations etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed the order of the sentences in that paragraph. I think it makes sense now. Bhny (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Still there is no mention at all of Levi. The man is an important player in this story. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop you finding the appropriate sources, and then adding such material - as long as it is made clear that Levi is a 'player' rather than a 'spectator' or 'referee'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There are too many mainstream science zealots just waiting to revert anything I do. Why should I waste my time, why don't the editors "who really like to make this a good article" take some action. Or are they only good at deleting what other editors put in ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I just googled Levi and I only saw interviews he did with blogs. Is there some better reference we can use? Bhny (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Defkalion offers testing

I appears Defkalion now scientific and business organizations to test their cold fusion unit.[8] It sound like it's going to be a black box text. // Liftarn (talk)

The report is very confusing. It says independent tests will be allowed, but then describes details of how the "independent" tests will be done. If the tests are to be truly independent, the evaluators must be free to establish their own testing procedures. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a blind test and a black box test, but they can use their own measurement set-ups. // Liftarn (talk)

Are there enough sources out there for a Defkalion article? I know next to nothing about them so far; only what I read in this Wired article. Selery (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. A Defkalion article, even with sources, might prove problematic given the claims by Rossi that they have stolen his technology (or at last some of it - Rossi has shown his usual inconsistency in his comments on the matter). We'd likely run into difficulty in reporting the issues without appearing to give credence to claims from one side or the other. Best to wait until mainstream sources have something useful to report. And as for the 'independent tests', it seems that Defkalion shares Rossi's viewpoint on what constitutes independence: again, wait for significant reporting in independent reliable sources - we are giving far too much weight to Ny Teknik as a source as it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I remember how you posted something like 60 comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer explaining why the E-cat article should not exist in great detail. I'm sure you've learned by now how much fun such article is to work at given the amount of time you spend on this article you claim should not even exist. ha-ha Imagine all the fun we will have writing the Defkalion article when semi reasonable sources are willing to make themselves available. Surely you will be there to "help" write the article? Help as shown here:[9] 84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't base articles on 'semi reasonable' sources. Or at least, we shouldn't. Do you have anything constructive to say regarding this article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Doing a quick Google search ends up with the top pages for "Defkalion" being the company website, and many of the dubious E-cat blogs that are all talking good or bad about the company. Jumping down in the rankings you end up with a discussion of the "Defkalion Hotel" in Greece... which is completely irrelevant to this discussion and shows how little is actually written about that company and their products. It really hasn't emerged as anything more traditional news media sources are even discussing, much less something that can legitimately be shaped into a real article. I'd have to concur here with the assessment made by Andy. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Deflakion has way too few sources. I still have no idea of a) what do they build b) when it was founded and by who c) how many workers they have d) how much they sell per year, etc.

P.D.: I imagine that most sources are on Greek and/or not online. You would have better luck trying an article in the Greek wikipedia.... but they don't even appear to have an article on the Energy Catalyzer... --Enric Naval (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actively following this, but today I noticed some online info on the Defkalion testing. The following is what I saw -- there may be more info elsewhere.

E-Cat Weekly -- January 26, 2012 -- see Defkalion under Other Cold Fusion Competitor News.
E-Cat Weekly -- E-Cat Weekly -- February 2, 2012 -- see Defkalion under Other Cold Fusion Competitor News.
Green Technologies Release Video of Hyperion Testing, January 30, 2012. There's a video there and a link to some comments, but I didn't see any useful information.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither E-Cat World nor pesn.com are remotely reliable sources for anything other than their own opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Regrettable state of wiki page

Thinking w'pedia would be a good source of information about the reactor for interested people, I cited it in our 'Rossi reactor FAQ video'. In view of developments since that time, I have had to insert a warning in the notes, to the effect that the wiki page has become extremely one-sided, and thus can no longer be considered a reliable source. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can suggest improvements to the article (based on Wikipedia policy, and on reliable sources), please do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply restoring a lot the stuff that has been deleted would be a good start, but I don't suppose the editor group I refer to in the video notes would be prepared to allow this. And there have been some recent developments that might well be added. However, I have no intention of wasting any more of my own time editing the article or even making suggestions, as in the circumstances this would seem to be a pointless activity. More productive just to spread the news that the article is thoroughly biased, as I am doing. Should the situation change, I will reflect this change in the notes. The problem is largely a consequence of wiki policy, which in the main is good policy; but in a minority of cases, like the E-cat article, that policy has unfortunate consequences (are you listening, Mr. Wales?). --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that Jimbo Wales is watching this talk page. If you wish to propose a change of Wikipedia policy, this isn't the place to do it either. As for your issues with an 'editor group' (whatever that is), if you think anyone is doing anything improper, I'm sure you know the appropriate noticeboard to raise the matter. Frankly though, I'd suggest that if you wish the E-Cat to get wider coverage on Wikipedia, you are probably in a better position than most to do so elsewhere - by suggesting to Rossi that he submits his device for proper scientific analysis, rather than leading everyone on with meaningless 'demonstrations' and endless unverifiable hype about 'customers' that never seem to materialise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Brian, the only regrettable thing is that you pointed people to a Wikipedia page which changed. The changes were all for the better, bringing the article into compliance with Wikipedia policy about unproven experimental cold fusion work. I see no action we can take to help you. You can reshoot the video, or you can prove the E-Cat works. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policy about unproven experimental cold fusion work." Where is this policy located? This article does seem extremely one sided for something that is demonstrated but unexplained. 65.29.222.162 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit that this article seems to have a very skeptical POV at the moment, compared to previous versions of this article that seemed to have a more sympathetic POV. In reviewing the edit history of this article, the main thing that I've seen is a de-emphasis on the demonstrations and adding comments by skeptics. You can legitimately debate if these changes were appropriate, but as far as I can tell there is no reliable source (mentioned numerous times above) that has been intentionally left out of this article regardless of the POV of that source. If you really think there is a problem you are welcome to post a request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or even Wikipedia:Village pump and see if you can get other non-involved editor/contributors to review this article and check it for bias. Otherwise what is really needed is for Rossi to actually get somebody to critically review his device and get those results published in a way so that information can be cited as a reliable source with hopefully legitimate scientific peer-review.

I've seen this happen with other technology-related articles where the situation at the moment is mainly at a lull before it is actually released. At the moment all that is really known is mainly rumors and assorted facts that are either hyped up by people marketing this product. This is something I've seen even when there wasn't something as controversial as cold fusion or other physical science theories that don't have widespread acceptance in the scientific community. I really do appreciate your contributions on this topic, Brian, and don't let this talk you out of your support for Andrea Rossi. If there is something legitimate which can be added to this article, I for one hope to get that included including other points of view than what seems to be in this article at the moment. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to add, it not being productive use of my time to be involved further. I accept that it was an error to have mentioned Wikipedia in the video and will be careful to avoid doing to in future (on my web pages I once had a link to a specific version from the history).

Actually, however, I've just remembered that I was going to write that the problem is more that of the scientific community's entrenched attitudes than of Wikipedia, through the way that the major journals have adopted a policy of not even sending papers submitted on the subject out for review. Had editors been more open-minded, I'm sure it would by now have been generally accepted that cold fusion in general is real, and the Wikipedia pages would have reflected this view. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is verging off topic. The idea that cold fusion was not considered because of "entrenched attitudes" seems contradictory to the initial large number of papers in and around 1989 on the very topic (which then petered out). That the current attitude of the scientific community is highly skeptical only stands to reason due to the history of unverifiable claims and the lack of a clear, rigorous and independently tested experiment that shows unequivocally that something is in fact going on. "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disgusting comment. So you think it's funny to say people risk losing their brains. Now that really is verging way off topic. Marks the lowest level of discussion reached so far on this page. --87.174.25.202 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And a naive argument as well. Initially there was a degree of open-mindedness. Then hostile books and acticles led to the false view that CF was 'the fiasco of the century', which was the cause of the entrenched attitudes. See my article on Pathological Disbelief for some analysis. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a famous skeptical quote, and it's used by lots of people... Carl Sagan used it in his book The Demon-Haunted World.

And it's on-topic, since it explains why we are not accepting low-quality "proof". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And of course, there are some people sufficiently willing to believe anything to risk literally having their brains fall out: see Trepanning#Voluntary_trepanation ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is fair comment on the article that has come my way: "Skeptical argument is being presented as fact". That is surely the case, and isn't that a violation of Wikepedia guidelines? It is entirely possible, of course, that the ~~cabal~~ editors concerned have problems distinguishing between the two. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

An innocent question: might the change in tone of this article possibly be a reflection of some change in the composition of those who are allowed to edit the article (something of this kind does, I gather, happen on occasion)? --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the tone is a consequence of applying WP:FRINGE (the Fringe theories guideline) in full force. This happened after Rossi failed to deliver for the nth time, concretely the October 2011 demonstration. Prior to this date, editors were willing to ignore guidelines, in case Rossi turned out to be correct and we were treating him unfairly.

For example in December 2011 here: people repeatedly invoke WP:PARITY, a subsection in the fringe guideline, and WP:REDFLAG, a subsection of the verifiability policy that refers people to the fringe guideline. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes there were big changes to the article after it was nominated for deletion in October. The article was pretty much a mess at that time. It's much more concise and better referenced now. I don't know what you mean by "allowed to edit", everyone is allowed to edit it. Bhny (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

By 'not allowed to edit', I mean simply 'not allowed to edit', period. Perhaps you are unaware that w'pdeia has a mechanism for this (a search on something like WP:block will probably provide some enlightenment), and that it has been applied to a number of contributors to this article. Blocking cannot be done without any reason, of course, but I'm sure people who have strong views as to content can always find some rule that can be invoked, justifiably or otherwise. It surely cannot just be due to chance that the present article is as unbalanced as it now is. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more balanced now in that it reflects views of the wider world instead of a few blogs. You may argue that the wider world is unbalanced. The article still has a problem of relying too much on an obscure Swedish newspaper- Ny Teknik. The only ban I saw was User:AnnaBennett and I think you have a point with this one ban, apart from that many edits that favored the e-cat were reverted by a consensus that wanted better references Bhny (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that there is such a thing as a ban on w'pedia, Bhny, but I'm afraid you are far from the mark in thinking that the person you quote is the only case.

The real problem is that w'pedia rules allow pages to be dominated by people who have not made a proper study of the subject, and who think they know the answer and -- more seriously -- contrive in whatever ways they can to remove content added by editors who have studied the subject properly. Most people, including scientists, simply assume that LENR has been discredited, even though the totality of the science argues something different -- see for example the review by Storms in the WP:RS Naturwissenschaften, 97 (2010) 861 (the preprint of which is available at lenr.org).

PS: If it is not there already, someone should add that reference to the article on CF/LENR, and ideally include the lenr.org link, which I believe does not involve copyright violation as generally preprints are allowed (but I'm sure people can find the preprint on the web easily in a few seconds anyway as I have just done, without being given the link). --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's already there. If the majority of scientists and people (and thus the majority of sources) consider it to be discredited then that is how wikipedia should give due weight to portray it; to do otherwise violates NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You're referring to cold fusion generally, I assume, since very few people have heard of the Rossi reactor. In that regard, it's not that simple, on account of the phenomenon of Groupthink, defined as a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people ... the mode of thinking that happens when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. More to the point, asking people who hold this view what they have read about the subject would almost certainly reveal that they knew little about the published research, meaning that their opinions cannot be relied upon. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. It is odd that you apply the term Groupthink to the skeptical general community of scientists whilst you do not apply it to the much more tightly connected Cold Fusion community. No doubt of course one must also be intimately familar with the published research on Unicorns and fairies to dismiss the research of the unicorn vetinarians and fairyologists (they swear they exist but it's just not repeatable to show). Regardless though, making up baseless pop psych explanations for why people disagree with your interpration is irrelevant as it does not help improve this article (that is what this thread is meant to do right?). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A bigger problem is using Wikipedia as a way of making fringe science more believable. The video referenced this article, and this article referenced the video (creating a small feedback loop in the process) to do just that. It's good that a large amount of the credibility fluff has been removed. Normally, some device like this would need to actually do something innovative or be a very well-known fraud to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if people are going to argue that this article should remain on Wikipedia even after the device has been thoroughly discredited. Why is it so important for people to believe that there may be something to this before it can be shown by science? 92.78.153.159 (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently there is scientific evidence, but not of a very high standard. Unfortunately I cannot spare the time to enlarge on this. It would be interesting to know however, assuming you have read the relevant accounts, whether your objection to the evidence that has been presented is on grounds of fraud/deception, or error?

It was a misjudgement to have cited Wikipedia in the video, as a video cannot readily be changed when the cited source changes. I have however compensated for this by citing more reliable sources in the description that goes with the video. I cited the article in the first place primarily because I thought it would serve as a useful reference that would keep up to date as the scene changed. I did not anticipate the way it would become more and more biased through the actions of the [appropriate description deleted]. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article satisfies notability now then there is no future event that can make it non-notable.. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This device would only be notable if the claims about it being a revolutionary energy source were true. Otherwise, we would have hundreds of articles on things that people have made extraordinary claims about. This article should not exist now, and that would especially be the case if the device were conclusively debunked. Wikipedia doesn't exist to allow people to make notably grandiose claims. 94.222.182.8 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Josephson, attributing what's happening here to groupthink is a kind of ad hominem. We are really under no obligation to edit this article to make it fit with your video, and frankly, you should never have made a video which relied on the information which was removed. In my personal opinion the demonstrations which have been excised do not show that this device can produce power in a production environment over a long period, and the sale promises which were excised should not have been included in any case, whether or not the thing is eventually shown to work. Personally I think that a Fulton will come along, as he did for Redhesser, and that Rossi will be shown to be either deluded or a willful fraud. But in any case the material being pressed for inclusion is the sort of stuff which gulls the unwary and unsophisticated. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice one! But there is an important difference between the two cases, in that one group of people have made a proper study of the evidence, while the others have almost certainly not. People who make a proper study of the evidence are much less prone to groupthink than others. And you obviously don't read what I write here: I've admitted it was an error to cite Wickedpedia in the video so it is pointless making that point to me, and I have never suggested the article be edited to make it fit with my video, which was made several months ago and is thus out of date. Where do you get your ideas from? Even if it were up to date, it would only give one point of view and would be quite unsatisfactory for this article: both sides should be represented until one or the other is found to be absolutely certainly right.

A suggestion: think before you write: otherwise don't take up space in this discussion page! --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It was you that asserted that mainstream scientists have not studied the evidence yet I notice a sad lack of evidence to back this up. Perhaps, ironically, you are unwittingly engaged in groupthink which led you to believe mainstream scientists are engaged in groupthink. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice one, but in reality my statement was based on conversations with scientists that elucidated how ~~much~~ little they knew, and why they believed CF to be a delusion. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that Prof. Josephson needs to keep in mind that this is the talk page for the E-Cat article, rather than the one for Cold Fusion. It is one thing to assert that mainstream physics' rejection of claims of cold fusion in general is questionable, but another thing entirely to suggest that this somehow invalidates any scepticism regarding Rossi's device. Frankly, given Rossi's somewhat murky past, his repeated talk of anonymous partners and of deals that always seem to fall through, and his abject refusal to let anyone actually analysis his product properly, I think any rational person would treat his claims to be about to go into mass production of the device - using robotic systems no less - as less-than-entirely-credible, were he merely manufacturing electric toasters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To some extent yes. Certainly scepticism is more justified in the case of the E-cat than for CF generally. Still, it remains the case that those who have studied the evidence in full are fairly convinced it is real, and it is because of groupthink re CF that the majority (including journals no doubt) ignore the E-cat. And the fact that people like Mats Lewan and Sven Kullander have spoken out strongly in favour of the E-cat, on the basis of their detailed contact with the demonstrations, and fully aware of the reasons for scepticism, argues for a less biased approach than we have at this time. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be more accurate to say that some of those who have studied the evidence in full are fairly convinced it is real. Others appear not to be. Steven Krivet of New Energy Times for example is hardly a CF sceptic, but he seems entirely convinced that the whole thing is a hoax, or worse. As for Mats Lewan, I get the distinct impression from his comments here [10] that he is moving in a notably more sceptical direction himself. As to who is right, and who is wrong, time will tell, and the longer the device remains hidden from proper inspection while Rossi makes increasingly grandiose claims regarding its future, the less credibility it will attract - except no doubt from those who's enthusiasm seems more driven by utopian fantasies than by science (for those who have the dubious pleasure of perusing the pesn.com website, there is now speculation that the E-Cat might enable one to "jet-ski across the Atlantic"!) For someone (such as myself) with a little knowledge of the social sciences, this is all rather interesting as an example of humanity at its most creative, but it has sod-all to do with cold fusion, physics, or the natural sciences in general. As I've suggested before, those that wish the E-Cat to be treated as technology, rather than as a circus sideshow, would be best employed in trying to persuade Rossi to hand over a working example for proper inspection. Unless and until this happens, scepticism (or 'bias', if you prefer) has to be the default position for any article on the E-Cat. I can see no reason for Wikipedia to dump its usual policies regarding poorly-sourced fringe claims merely on the basis that we might prove to be wrong later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Krivit(sic!) seems to be more interested in pursuing his various agendas than in the little matter of truth -- see my article about my dealings with him, What drives Steven Krivit?, so I would not pay undue attention to anything that he writes. And I find it bizarre that you think, on the basis of the article you referenced, that Lewan is moving in a sceptical direction. I am in contact with him and I know that is not the case. In saying 'There is great skepticism about Rossi’s technology' he is merely reporting the general view, not indicating what he believes himself. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's 'Redheffer', Mangoe. Are you suggesting that the demonstration E-Cat was powered by "an old man who was turning a hand-crank with one hand and eating bread with the other"? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, a connection to an external power source is as good as a crankshaft. When one of these things sits, isolated from any other power source, for a week, powering some kind of load in such a way as to allow measure of the power output (e.g., the steam output could be run into a Stirling engine driving a generator which provides any electrical power needed to keep the thing going as well as hooked into something like a resistor bank), then I could consider taking it seriously. There's a limit to how closely I'm willing to follow this, so it's possible I may have missed something; but no demonstration I've read about thus far even comes close to meeting this level of verification. And Dr. Josephson, it's not that you shouldn't have referred to Wikipedia, but that you shouldn't have relied on the excised material at all, regardless of where you found it. By and large it was taken out because it was the sort of material you shouldn't have referred to. Mangoe (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mangoe's comments. Most utility-scale generating plants require offsite power for startup, since large pumps and other auxiliary equipment must operate before the generator is able to produce significant power. must operate. Once a generating plant is in operation, it should be able to supply its own auxiliary power. The demonstration of this generator most unfortunately did not include a visible opening in the connection to external power, so any heat produced might have come from the secret power source, or it might have come from the external power source. Edison (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up...

From an unreliable source: "Rossi's NASA Test Fails to Launch". [11]

Ok, we know we can't cite New Energy Times as a source. We know that Prof. Josephson in particular considers that Krivit is pursuing his own agenda. Nevertheless, NET is quoting NASA representatives here. I suspect that either the effluent is about to intersect the rotary-air-conditioner, or Rossi is going to have to come up with some convincing arguments fast. Things may get very interesting very quickly... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you give some pointers to what's really new here, if anything? I skimmed through it and it seemed to be a restatement of the same old issues -- namely "the absence of any kind of independent replication" as Nelson succinctly puts it in the story. Admittedly I didn't make a detailed comparison to previous reports. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that it clarifies exactly what went on between Rossi and NASA - and more to the point, what didn't. His supporters have been harping on about what Bushnell was saying, but now we have a clearer understanding of the background. Essentially, Rossi has using his NASA contacts to add credibility to his claims, while repeatedly refusing to actually perform any meaningful tests. We knew that already - the difference is that we now have a senior NASA representative telling us that Rossi was demanding cash in advance before he was even willing to do this - which completely demolishes his claims that he was the only one taking financial risks. While before, he was apparently offering to pay NASA to test the E-Cat, now he was asking NASA to pay him $15 million for the privilege. As far as I'm aware, this is the first time that Rossi's about-face with NASA, as soon as they started asking questions, has become public. Most of his previous dealings have remained opaque, to say the least. He has always had some excuse for cancellations. This one is different - he has moved from a position of offering to pay for tests to one which effectively ruled out the tests ever taking place - and with no apparent justification other than that NASA were asking for such tests to be carried out under conditions where any results would be meaningful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place for discussing this, you should take it to e-catnews.com or similar. This can't ever be included in this article as NET is grossly unreliable. This gossiping should be collapsed according to WP:NOTFORUM 94.170.237.123 (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A little bit defensive aren't we? The new energy times is unreliable though. Reliable source giving concerns: [12]:

one of the key points: ...copper byproduct, which Rossi claims is fused nickel and hydrogen, has been analyzed by Sven Kullander, a professor at Sweden's Uppsala University and the chairman of the Swedish Academy of Science’s Energy Committee, and the copper appears to be in its naturally occurring form, like what you would find in a copper mine. If the sample were actually the product of fusion, it would be composed of a very different ratio of copper isotopes (varieties).

IRWolfie- (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

An interesting article, and if msnbc.com are happy enough to talk about claims of 'fraud' - and quote multiple sources that explain why such claims are being made, it rather suggests they are confident in their sources. Definitely worth using as a reference in the article. This is why I called for a 'heads up' - the NET story seemed likely to attract more mainstream interest. It will be interesting to see if the NASA issue gets reported on too - I can't help thinking that asking NASA for an official response to the NET story would be an obvious move for any mainstream journalist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, quote the msbnc source in the article then, if you're sure it adds value. 94.170.237.123 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This Article has become useless.

The insistence of people upon using it as a platform for discussing whether or not the device could work has totally ruined the article as a document for reporting upon the progress of the Energy Catalyzer as an event. I'm with people who would have the article deleted. All it does is demonstrate the editors' prejudices. I can no longer follow a timeline or discover the major actors here. It is no longer on my list of places to check to see what has been happening recently, nor to review the history. Maybe replacing this article with one where only historians were allowed as editors would be in order. Sphere1952 (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article should never be blog of press releases and staged news 'events'. The fact that this article has moved away from that style of contextless, unfiltered, infodump coverage and into organized summary accompanied by third-party assessment of the credibility and broader significance of this 'discovery' is a sign of increasing maturity on the part of the article. That said, I actually tend to agree that Wikipedia is not a news outlet, and we really shouldn't have created an article on this topic until after there was a clear and unambiguous determination about whether or not it was a hoax—but I'm afraid that ship has long since sailed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion here is in terms of what an encyclopedia article is really about. This is about trying to describe what the term "Energy Catalyzer" may be, not as news source. In that I somewhat agree with TenOfAllTrades here. If you are literally coming in from sheer ignorance (not really a bad thing in itself if you are trying to get some education on the topic) and trying to find out about the topic as you've seen the term posted on a blog, discussed on an IRC chat, or even in casual conversation between friends, Wikipedia ought to be a place you can find a neutral and hopefully unbiased summary of what this device is or even claims to be. If there are noted critics, those critics should be mentioned too. That is a reason people turn to Wikipedia for information, and on a great many topics it can be a very useful source of such summary information with legitimate links to additional information on the topic. For somebody trying to keep up with the "latest news" about a topic, this isn't it. Major developments will most likely be mentioned (like mass scale production of the device actually being sold at Wal-Mart or Andrea Rossi being indicted for securities fraud or something similar), but those would already be commonly found in the news anyway. If you want significant "news" updates, I'd suggest you frequent the Wikiversity sister site of Wikinews. Writing an article for that site about the E-cat (using site standards including reliable sources) is not only acceptable but encouraged. If you would like, you can even set up and E-cat portal to show the "latest news" about the device. If you set up such a portal, it would even be useful to add a link to that here in this article. Just know the limitations of Wikipedia though. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This started out as a review of the event. A history. Go check out any Wikipedia article on a non-controversial ongoing event (e.g. the Japanese disaster) and see how this should have been treated. It should have continued as a history. As it stands it's just another rehash of the Cold Fusion arguments. A total waste of time. The page should be deleted. Sphere1952 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is not written like a history either even though it documents a single event. Wikipedia reflects what the weighted balance of sources say, if the majority of mainstream reliable and secondary sources are sceptical then wikipedia should reflect that. There was no doubt in the sources as to whether the earthquake happened, there are plenty of doubts in the sources that the Energy catalyzer worked hence the article reflects that. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The name of the article implies it's a thing rather than an event, which is partly why the chronological stuff was removed (also it was insanely boring and repetitive). If the article was "The E-Cat scam" or "The E-Cat discovery" there would be more reason to have an unfolding story. Bhny (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

I have filed an arbitration enforcement notice related to editors who edit this article. Please see [13]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Clownerie"

A new article on the Forbes website: [14]

We now have an apparently reliable source for Rossi being offered $1,000,000 by an Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith to replicate the March 29, 2011 demonstration, in front of Kullander and Essen (the previous witnesses), where they could check the wiring, the power output etc, to dispel doubts. Rossi has apparently promptly turned this offer down, describing it as "Clownerie". I wonder whether this interesting little titbit needs incorporation into the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Gizmodo on the same story: [15]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave out all the blow-by-blow details of this soap opera. Mangoe (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added it in Smith's article. --Chris Howard (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

lots of good quotes to pick in this smith mail to gibbs [16]. gibbs is still RS right ? - MIRROR (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think thats funny you havent seen this!

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf

Almost surreal,

The pathological deniers are going to have a field day with this one.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing 'pathological ' whatsoever in requiring evidence for 'cold fusion/LENR' to come from reliable sources - which is to say mainstream peer-reviewed science journals, per normal Wikipedia policy over such matters. The only 'pathology' I see here is that of the 'reality deniers' who seem to think that if they ask us to ignore the rules and fill our articles with unverifiable junk often enough we will eventually hand the authorship of the article to the Leonardo Corporation, pesn.com and any passing tinfoil-hat-wearing magic teapot boosters. That isn't going to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree... Although i personally believe that the effects observed by LENR researchers all around the world have a lot of merit and the potiential to become the future of power, Andrea Rossi has not created an environment where many of his claims can be verified. that being said... please tone down the "tin foil hat wearing magic teapot" talk... it just shows that regardless of the truth in your words about what this Wiki can and cannot post, you clearly have a large bias. Just becasue there aren't any incredibly reliable sources to prove that something is the truth does not mean that it is not a real and profound discovery. Profound discveries only happen with the slow addition of support, not overnight, so they have to be given a chance to build. Plate techtonics, evolution, etc. are examples of what I mean. Plenty of people mocked Alfred Wegener and Charles Darwin in the exact snearing tone that you use all the time... try and raise your standards.118.93.15.111 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Greek government in test of Defkalion's technology

This[17] may be of interest, but it appears to be unsubstantiated as of now. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes, Ny Teknik is rather uncommitted as to whether the Greek government is actually involved, or whether Defkalion is merely claiming that it is. And then there is the question as to whether yet again we should be using a sole source with marginal competence regarding the subject matter for article content - I'd say we'd need other independent sources to justify adding material. In any case, Defkalion are claiming to be making their own devices, not E-Cats, so it isn't directly relevant to this article. As I've said before, should anyone start an article on Defkalion, it is going to be very problematic, due to the claims by Rossi that it is based on his technology: potentially a legal minefield. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's only relevant if Defkalion indeed uses the same technology. The basic operation is the same; heat production using cold fusion of nickel and hydrogen. // Liftarn (talk)

If the reliable sources connect it to the Energy Catalyzer then I think we should as well. If an independent source mentions it I see no problem with sticking a mention in the commercial plans sections as long as due weight is established. Nyteknik is too close to the story though. We need an independent reliable secondary source or similar to help establish due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

it is probably only relevant because they used to work with rossi, claim to be using similar technology (LENR Ni-H reactions), and claim to be building similar devices (commercial heat units of comparable output)118.93.15.111 (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

hype machine

It has been more than year now, since the first shaddy "demonstration". during this time there has been no new data/real news/products on any market or authenticated companies. Just more hype and misdirection.

I want to believe, but my brain does not let me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.222.254 (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to suggest that you'd do as well to take the advice of your brain - but see WP:NOTFORUM - this isn't an appropriate place to discuss such issues. Instead, we are trying to maintain a half-plausible article in the face of 'no new news' ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Perpetual motion machine

After a hiatus I have read this article again. I noticed this line in the "Demonstrations" section:

"In many ways cold fusion is similar to perpetual motion machines. The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesn’t stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one."

Although it is an attributed direct quote, I think it misleads the WP-reader. If LENR are a real effect, the principles do NOT defy the laws of physics in such way that LENR would be a "perpetual motion machine". It would be just another nuclear power source.

It is still OK to call the whole Rossi show "fishy", but the analysis of Benjamin Radford seems a bit out of touch with describing the actual problem. I therefore propose to delete that bit.

Interestingly on the upcoming Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting on 21-23 March [18] Yeong E. Kim will be speaking on his Bose Einstein Condensation theory [19] and George Miley will be presenting "A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)"[20]

Miley mentions Rossi in his presentation: "Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1) has been verified, confirming nuclear reactions provide output energy. While there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW LENR cells that have attracted international attention, there are important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction."

--POVbrigand (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but it's based on a hypothetical: "If LENR are a real effect, the principles to NOT defy the laws of physics." In Wikipedia we describe the world as it is, not as it might be someday. Should LENR (or creationism, or perpetual motion, or whatever) become accepted by the scientific community we can revisit the matter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not about whether LENR is accepted by mainstream science or not. I am only proposing to delete one quote. By removing that quote I do not want to make the Rossi claim more believable to the WP-reader, it is just a flawed comparison. LENR (or its hypothesis if you will) and perpetual motion have nothing in common. LENR are nuclear processes consuming nuclear fuel. Perpetual motion machines are per definition not consuming fuel.

And if LENR are not a real effect they also do not defy the laws of physics, correct ?

So if LENR are real or not is irrelevant, either way they are not perpetual motion machines. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody claims they are the same, only that both violate known laws of physics. Perpetual motion machines violate basic laws of thermodynamics. Current LENR devices would, if they worked on the proposed principles, violate lesser known, but no less understood, laws of nuclear physics - as I understand it, there is no way for fusion that will not produce hard gamma rays. None of the proposed devices show signs of such gamma rays. But there is another significant similarity: Both perpetual motion and cold fusion devices have a following among people that have, at best, a marginal understanding of the physics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Marginal understanding of physics". You mean Yeong E. Kim and George H. Miley ? --POVbrigand (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He didn't say that all those involved are ignorant of physics, just that they have following among people that have a marginal understanding. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stereotypes are trite.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 21:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"LENR are nuclear processes consuming nuclear fuel". No - they are hypothetical processes claimed to produce power by consuming nuclear fuel. The source cited doesn't say they are perpetual motion machines. It says that the claims made appear to defy the laws of physics, as do perpetual-motion machines. The comparison is being made by Benjamin Radford because he suggests that "If this all sounds fishy to you, it should" and similar hype (sometimes on the same forums being used to promote this device) is created over supposed perpetual-motion devices. Frankly, I think that it is Rossi and his colleagues that are ultimately responsible for this - if they want to associate themselves with pesn.com and the like, rather than submitting the device for proper scientific scrutiny, they can hardly complain about comments regarding 'perpetual motion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

By that rationallity i might as well say that "Cold fusion is similar to a magic wand, The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesn’t stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one."

this is just stupid... LENR is an emerging science, as such, it does not yet have the background in solid evidence to support itself solidly, yet more is coming every day. This is extremely different from perpetual motion machines and magic wands, they are in only a very small way comparable... and that isn't good enough for wikipedia quality.118.93.15.111 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "an emerging science" - it is either 'science', and based on 'solid evidence', or it isn't. And predicting the results of yet-to-be-done experiments ("more is coming every day") is bad science. In any case, given that Rossi is now claiming that there are no nuclear reactions going on in his device, what has LENR got to do with the subject of this article? Or are we only to take Rossi's word for something when it promotes this hypothetical 'science'. This article is about the E-Cat - a device that as yet has never been scientifically tested, promoted by a character with a dubious past, a criminal record, and a propensity for making wild unverifiable claims. Frankly, why anyone with a serious interest in LENR as a science would want to associate the subject with Rossi's antics is beyond me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"perpetual motion machine" is a quote from a mainstream publication, criticizing a quote doesn't mean we can change it or censor it. Bhny (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes correct, there is no WP-policy prohibiting the use of this quote, it _can_ be used. The quote also seems to help to keep NPOV as it shows that the whole story should be regarded as "fishy". But, The trouble is in what the quote implies, it might mislead WP-readers to think that the energy catalyzer is a perpetual motion machine ("in many ways similar") and that the "principles defy the laws of physics", which may not be the case at all.

Note for instance this natural effect: Lightning strikes produce free neutrons, and we're not sure how (peer reviewed experimental measurements) that can be explained by the Widom-Larsen-Srivastava theory (peer reviewed theory proposal) -> see the Lewis Larsen's comments below the arstechnica article.

Does lighting defy the laws of physics ? Surely not. The proposed theory does not defy the laws of physics either. And that same theory also explains Ni-H LENRs, thus also explains what the energy catalyzer is claimed to do. Which does not imply that the energy catalyzer really does work the way it is claimed.

I am not arguing that this quote is offending policy, I am just highlighting that the usage of the quote is troublesome. We should ask ourselves how WP-readers might "parse" this line and if it will set them of in the wrong direction.

This is a consensus topic. I have highlighted it, to me it is troublesome. A clever rewrite of the quote would probably defuse this issue.

Or we might just wait another couple of days, when it becomes obvious to everyone else that this whole cold fusion/LENR field is a completely legitimate science topic. Which _still_ would not imply that Rossi claims are true.

--POVbrigand (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In your case you appear to be making an original synthesis, in the case of Bhny it is what someone stated in connection to the topic (with due weight). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not making synthesis. If it appears that way to you, then it appears to me that you haven't understood it at all. Everything I wrote is not my synthesis, read Lewis's comments. Have you watched the CERN colloquium presentation by Srivastava ? He explicitely mentioned lighting ! I have just presented it here so editors will be able to understand better why I think the quote is troublesome. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so the link is made by a primary source then? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by the authors of the peer reviewed paper, by means of a comment to an article on a technology news and information website and by a presentation at a CERN colloquium. I think you are evading the issue, trying to drag this discussion to a confrontation instead of a cooperation. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

POVb, I think you should put your crystal ball away for now. We have a comment that reflects the commonly held perspective of science as it is now - and if mainstream science changes its position on LENR (if...), the quote would still be valid as an expression of the perspective at the time it was made. And how many times does it have to be explained that this isn't an article about LENR, it is an article about Rossi's device... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the quote is valid. We _can_ use it. I think that it might mislead some WP-readers and I have explained why. And yes, the quote would still be valid if (if...) LENR is accepted as proven by mainstream science (which will probably happen in 2,5 weeks), but we would use it very differently to showcase how ignorant tech writers used popular misnomers to comment on issues they knew nothing about.

This is a consensus topic. If y'all think it is perfectly ok to leave this quote in like this, then so be it. I have made my point.

--POVbrigand (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, if in 5 weeks time the scientific consensus has changed, we can look at the article again. Though why anyone is researching into LENR, when your infinite supply of optimism is so much easier to tap into, is beyond me... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: "If in 5 weeks time the scientific consensus has changed..." (quite generous, given the original "Wait another couple of days, when it becomes obvious to everyone else that this whole cold fusion/LENR field is a completely legitimate science topic" prediction), it has been two weeks with no change in the scientific consensus. I have my calendar marked at the 5-week point. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Low-energy non-nuclear reactions?

An interesting development, though sadly only currently discussed in primary sources, and in other places unsuitable for Wikipedia sourcing.[21] In response to a complaint to the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control that Rossi was claiming to be manufacturing nuclear reaction devices in the state, but apparently had none of the certifications required for such production, enquires were made, and Rossi was contacted by a bureau inspector, Jim Stokes:

"I spoke with [Mr.] Rossi concerning the construction and operation of his E-Cat device. He stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hydrogen gas during the process. [Rossi states that] the output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low-energy photons in the energy range of 50 to 100 KeV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] does not have jurisdiction. Since there [are] no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste generated by it, the state of Florida Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction. [Rossi states that] currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas. [Rossi states that he] has arranged to meet with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufacture in the United States. I thanked [Mr.] Rossi for his time meeting with me."[22]

Two things stand out here. Firstly, contrary to Rossi's earlier assertions regarding nuclear reactions, regarding the need for lead shielding etc, and the concerning the supposed presence in used nickel powder of elements not previously present, he is now seemingly claiming that no nuclear reactions occur during the process, and secondly, contrary to his earlier claims, the E-Cats are not being manufactured in the United States at all. Now where the devices are being manufactured is actually of little significance to our article, but the fact thar Rossi himself is now saying that there are no nuclear reactions occuring will make much of the present article content outdated. Of course, as yet we have no appropriate secondary sources for this, but I suspect that it can only be a matter of days before this development is reported in the mainstream media - I'll ask everyone watching this talk page to pay particular attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There is not a prohibition for using original sources in Wikipedia. You need to be careful about how they are used and POV arguments certainly can be raised when they are misused, but it is a falsehood to suggest that original sources from something like a governmental agency can't be used in an article like this. In that sense, if you don't trust New Energy Times, all of these documents could be accessed directly from the State of Florida and thus be put into the article. I certainly would put the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control as a reliable source of information.

This said, it looks like Rossi wants to have his cake and eat it too. I am suspicious about this Gary Wright as well, as I don't think his motivations are as pure as he is suggesting "as a concerned citizen", but I also think that almost anybody could have started this "investigation", so his motivations for getting it started are irrelevant. That said, I don't think there are going to be radioactive materials in any of the products Rossi is trying to make, at least not until the device is activated. The laws for nuclear energy are written under the assumption you are using fission devices and heavy elements like Uranium and Thorium as fuel sources, and fusion devices aren't really covered under those laws. People who have building Fusors generally don't have problems with regulators because of that, in part because radioactive materials aren't being transported or used to make the devices. An example of such reactors being built can be found on this blog of an experimenter in New York City who is building a Polywell reactor: http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/ The blog (if you go back into the archives) talks about an investigation by the New York City Department of Public Safety (or some agency like that... I can't remember the specific agency) where they checked out what he was doing and basically said he was following the law and didn't need to be licensed.

The key part of this report from Florida is the conclusion: The devices aren't being manufactured in the USA (especially not Miami), and as such this particular agency has no jurisdiction. More fun and games from Rossi perhaps, but it is much ado about nothing. I agree that the claim of no nuclear reactions happening is something of note, but there was nothing to investigate so I wouldn't read too much into that statement either. In terms of what could be added to this article, about the only two factual items from this report is that the devices are being made somewhere else than Florida, and that Rossi has promised that Underwriters' Laboratory will be providing some sort of certification for the device before it is sold in America (setting up Rossi for legal problems if he doesn't follow through with that promise). While it seems like Rossi is being very slippery here and getting away with a huge scam, even that conclusion can't be derived from this source material. As long as it can be confirmed that this information is factually accurate, I don't see why at least a mention that the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control has investigated Rossi should be kept out of this Wikipedia article. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I concur entirely with most of that, though I've no idea what the law concerning such matters actually is. However, I do consider Rossi's assertion that there are no nuclear reactions taking place in his device to be significant, in that much of our article is based on his previous claims that they were. Given that he has now contradicted himself, to omit this rather notable occurrence would seem somewhat remiss on our part. Still, we'd perhaps do as well to wait a day or two while we see what secondary sources have to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, when we start picking information we like from primary sources and how they contradict his previous statements we start going down the road of original research and original synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the devices are being made anywhere, so we can't conclude "the devices are being made somewhere else than Florida" Bhny (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What a government official asks you is if this is a nuclear reaction according to the definition given by the law. So, according to the present US law, no nuclear reaction happens inside the E-Cat. Of course the present US law does not account LERN within the spectrum of nuclear reactions, for the simple fact that it does not recognise the existence of LERN. It's me, Francesco--79.16.164.83 (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could give us a source for your assertions regarding what the US law means by 'nuclear reaction'? Or a source for 'LERN' [sic] not being recognised in such law? I was unaware that the US legislature was involved in determining what science 'accounts'. Not that it matters, we base articles on published sources, not irrelevant bullshit based on nothing but guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I assume that they're here: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0980/ but I've not downloaded or read any of it yet - will do if I can muster any enthusiasm. Tmccc (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. It would constitute original research to attempt to apply it to the E-Cat, so it isn't going to affect article content anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Rossi energy amplifier?

On the Journal of Nuclear Physics Nuclear experiments blog there are several articles about something called a "Rossi energy amplifier". ( Example: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=275 ). Is this just a former name for the "Energy Catalyzer" or is it something else? If it is the same, we should mention the former name in the article and make a Rossi energy amplifier --> Energy Catalyzer redirect. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is only Rossi that uses the term, I can't see why we'd need to mention it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The term is used in quite a few other places. See http://www.google.com/search?q="Rossi+energy+amplifier". It looks to me like they did a lot of promotion under the amplifier name, got a boatload of skeptical reviews and comments, and then changed to the catalyst name to get a fresh start. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, nothing was heard of the device until January 2011. "amplifier" is not the former name for the ecat. It has nothing to do with Rossi trying to get a fresh start with a different name. The "energy amplifier" is merely a term that Rossi has used sometimes, I think it is not worth mentioning. Also, we know that Rossi claims his device can run in self-sustain mode, ie no external power needed. In that case the device would cease to be an "amplifier" anyway, it would be a "generator". --POVbrigand (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I am having trouble believing your claim that "nothing was heard of the device until January 2011" when I just gave you a Google link that shows multiple uses of the term earlier than that. likewise with your "merely a term that Rossi has used sometimes" claim, when the same Google search turns up thousands of websites that use the term. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at some of the ~7000 results for energy amplifier. All the ones I saw were blogs (like Rossi's bizarrely named "Journal of Nuclear Physics"), forums or comments. I didn't find anything notable. It seems like Rossi started using that term in 2010, and changed to e-cat early in 2011. 7000 results isn't much for this topic as there are over 80 dedicated blogs or boilerplate single page web sites on this topic like [[23] and [[24]]. Here's a list of most of them- [[25]] --Bhny

I completely agree about the lack of notable results. All I was trying to establish was that Rossi used the term, a bunch of blogs and online forums talked about Rossi's theories using the term, then Rossi started using another term. I think that might be enough for a "also known as" in the article, and it certainly is enough to justify a redirect. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The ecat got in the news with the demonstration in January 2011. I see that very few hits are before that date. I agree with Bhny's comment. I think the name is not notable. And there is absolutely no proof whatsoever of Rossi getting "a fresh start" by using a new name. That is really only your OR. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

btw, I was told that the number of "Google hits" prove nothing and furthermore the shown number is never correct. In fact inthis case Google only find 188 results. In the URL you can substitute the "biw=" attribute with "biw=9999" and only then will Google show the real number of hits. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rossi+energy+amplifier%22#q=%22Rossi+energy+amplifier%22&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&ei=AWqIT6OmDMf1sgaA6K2yCw&start=178&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=7f11edaceb0ef551&biw=9999&bih=680

I will try to dig out the original explanation and post it here.

--POVbrigand (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

that's what google calls 'relevant links' ie. it flushes all (most of) copypasta − MIRROR (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong about the biw parameter. The biw parameter in Google sets the Browser window in pixels and has no effect on the number of results. There is no parameter that causes Google to "show the real number of hits". but using Google verbatim removes one source of error. See http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1734130 for details.

I happen to be quite knowledgeable on the topic of Google's algorithms. Here is the information: Wikipedia:Search engine test. (I can also give you a list of different people's guesses -- none of them a WP:RS -- if you are interested.) Wikipedia:Search engine test does not say that the number of Google hits "proves nothing", but it does give some important cautions about what a Google search does and does not prove. In particular, be aware that result numbers in the hundreds or thousands are far more accurate than result numbers in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Past a certain point, Google stops counting and gives you an estimate.

Your "Google only find 188 results" claim is completely wrong. Cutting and pasting the exact URL you used gives me 6,980 results - the exact same number I get from http://www.google.com/search?q="Rossi+energy+amplifier".

Another trick is to click on the show omitted results link and them keep clicking on the page numbers until you reach the end. That gives you a 100% guaranteed minimum count. The actual count is usually at least ten times larger, but cannot possibly be smaller. In this case you end up here:

http://www.google.com/search?q="Rossi+energy+amplifier"&start=546&filter=0

...which gives you a solid 560 results, every one of which you can click on and verify.

Re: your "That is really only your OR" claim, exactly what part of "It looks to me like..." are you having trouble understanding?

Note: all the above numbers will change if you wait an hour and run the test again. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, you seem to better understand how google works than me. Back to the issue, the naming "energy amplifier" seems to be a relic from the past. You could add it as an "also called ..." in the opening line, but I think it is not worth it. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)