Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

time to remove old newsy items that came to nothing

I tried to remove a bunch of paragraphs that were basically meetings that came to nothing and "Rossi said this will happen" things that didn't happen. Also there is no evidence of any factory and contradictory things like a licensee for America and Rossi saying that it's not even being built in America. Most of these paragraphs should not have been in the article in the first place WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER

Anyway my changes were reverted. I'm going to delete them again unless there is consensus otherwise. Bhny (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There was far too much in the article that was sourced to something or other that Rossi had once claimed was going to happen, but clearly hasn't. I suppose we could take the alternate approach, and include everything he claimed - including the low-energy nuclear reactions that he says aren't nuclear reactions, the invisible robotised factories that seem to wander the world looking for somewhere to operate, and the E-Cat heating system he's been using in his factory for two years that seems to require him wearing outdoor clothing, and running a gas heater, while he fills the room with large volumes of steam (invisible, even when cooled) from his latest contraption. It would be entertaining, but perhaps not encyclopaedic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to keep the demonstration portion of what was dropped, and roll it into the existing demonstration section; but the material on orders, etc. should never have been allowed to stand this long. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it to the demo section. POVbrigand did the trimming Bhny (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In the article there is no mention to all the things AndyTheGrump mentioned, and there is no need to add this kind of information. The only questionable part is the very last part, ie Rossi's claims of mass-scale production and electricity generation.--Insilvis (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sensible removals, and I endorse your edit. "Rossi claims such-and-such" has always been a short and dubious peg on which to hang these bits of the article. The mystery orders, being built by mystery companies with secret factories, were being reported far too credulously. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with the deletion as proposed by Bhny, however I do think that the article could benefit from trimming (=not deletion) the "1MW plant sale". I very much object to the mentioning of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as a reason for deletion. Those two polices are not applicable for the proposed deletion. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole Demonstrations section is newspapery. It's about events rather than the e-cat. The Commercial Plans section is all crystal ball stuff. There is still not one known device out there. There is no way pre-orders should even be mentioned. Anyone can go there and pre-order a million e-cats on that web site. AmpEnergo is nothing but a single press release Bhny (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I just moved some paragraphs around (no deletions!) Bhny (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the 1MW had ALREADY been placed in the "Demonstrations" section, then it was moved below, now it returns in the "Demonstrations": no problem (I do not remember who was responsible for this "Odyssey"). Nevertheless, please let us decide it definitively.--Insilvis (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask why, since the '1MW plant' was neither 'demonstrated' in any meaningful sense, nor sold (last I heard it was still sitting in Rossi's factory), and even Rossi hasn't claimed that it actually has ever generated 1MW, it is of any significance to the article at all? As an example of LE(N?)NR, it is an irrelevance unless someone claims it works, and likewise, it appears not to be an example of commerce either. At some point, we are going to have to "decide definitively" whether Rossi's wild and contradictory claims even merit comment in this article - since even his supporters (e.g. pesn.com) are deserting him, his patent applications are about to expire, and there is still precisely zero evidence that he is in any position to produce anything other than hype and waffle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The references say that the plant was considered suitable for delivery by engineer Domenico Fioravanti on behalf of an "undisclosed customer" (and that Fioravanti controlled the plant and measured its energy output). There is no need to illustrate personal opinions, it is enough to remain stick to the sources.--Insilvis (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No - the references say that Rossi claims this. More hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Satisfactory to accept the delivery". Signed: ing. Domenico Fioravanti ("ing." is the standard Italian abbreviation for "engineer")

Written on the last page of the document. Photo of the original document here, courtesy of Ny Teknik --Insilvis (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

We base article content on published reliable sources. We don't base them on 'original documents'. Particularly ones that appear to have been written by ten-year-olds. If that is any part of a binding legal agreement with a legitimate customer I'll eat my hat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely the reason why that primary source is not inserted in the article and the secondary sources are inserted in the article, because in this case the responsability to evaluate the primary source relies on the secondary sources. Assuming that it is a primary source (as it seems), it is not my fault (for example) if the secondary sources have accepted that primary source as reliable source.--Insilvis (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And on what grounds can we assume that in regard to this matter, the secondary sources are reliable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"Pilatus dixit ei: 'quid est veritas?' Sed Jesus nihil respondit..."

In other words, it is a matter regarding the secondary sources.--Insilvis (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Then let us regard the secondary sources:

1. Fox News, who have evidently got so much wrong in this story that it is a waste of time even commenting. SPAWAR vouching for the system? In any case, they aren't asserting that anything has happened - they are reporting what Rossi, and Sterling Allan of pesn.com, have told them. Not a source for anything. And note that pesn.com are now disowning Rossi entirely. [1]
2. Ny Teknik, who, as has already been pointed out several times, have actually been involved with the demonstrations themselves, and as such are questionable as an independent source, tell us that "It remains unclear who the customer is. Rossi has only indicated that it belongs to a particular category of organization". What exactly are we supposed to cite that for?
3. Wired, who tell us that "a group of unknown, unverifiable people carried out tests which cannot be checked". And make clear that their sources are Ny Teknik and pesn.com.
4. Focus.it, who tell us much the same thing - that Domenico Fioravanti (an engineer, a retired colonel? who knows?) was there, supposedly representing the 'customer' - and that nobody has seen the results of this 'test', nobody knows who the 'customer' is, and basically, it is all just Rossi's claims again, backed up by someone-or-other, working for who-knows-who, supposedly signing off a contract written in mangled English, with amendments in ballpoint pen... Actually, if we can get a better translation than Google translate gives for the last paragraph of this article, it might be useful - it is discussing Rossi's patent applications, and seems to be saying that they are worthless, since they don't provide sufficient detail.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Also this one (in English) of Focus ps about the question "engineer...colonel": "genio" stands for "genio militare" ie "military engineering", so he can be both engineer and colonel--Insilvis (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup: "at the end of the test, Rossi claimed the plant to be sold". Rossi claims lots of things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The complete citation is: "(1)The secret customer was satisfied and, at the end of the test, (2)Rossi claimed the plant to be sold."

The (1) is precisely what I wrote above.--Insilvis (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the meaningless pre-order count since nobody argued to keep that Bhny (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I shortened excessive ecat.com quote, and removed meeting which came to nothing- people have lots of meetings, this isn't notable and no one here has tried to justify it's inclusion Bhny (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"came to nothing", do you have proof of that fact, or is that your OR ? However, I do agree somewhat that currently we do not really need to mention this meeting in the article. It might regain importance in future, so here's the diff [2] --POVbrigand (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course if there is some reference that said meeting led to factory now being built at x then we could include it. The deleted ref had no mention of results Bhny (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fact is that you don't know if "the meeting came to nothing". If we say that we delete the meeting from the article because there hasn't been any follow up to it and we think it is not important to the story then that is a reason to delete it for now. But "the meeting came to nothing" is you personal SYNTH. (once upon a time I wasn't so pedantic, I caught it here on WP) --POVbrigand (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am synthesizing nothing? Please contradict if you find anything that came of the meeting. Of course I can't prove there is no teapot. Bhny (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 April 2012

Look, nothing was reported about any outcome of the meeting, thus we cannot conclude that nothing came of the meeting. Time will tell. But the current "no news" situation does enable us to make the consensus decision that we won't have to mention the meeting in the article. Russell's teapot really has nothing to do with this. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If something comes out of the meeting, it will be reported in a source, and we will be able to cite it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What I have been saying. And until we read something in a source we cannot make conclusions that "nothing came out", because that would be OR. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OR in talkpage discussions isn't a problem. While we shouldn't be saying that "nothing came out" in the article, we still need to make that assessment in order to justly omit the mention of Rossi's unrealized forecast that something would come out. We don't need to find a bronze plaque saying "On this spot in 2011 nothing happened", right? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OR cannot be a reason to delete something from the article. The only reason to delete this bit from the article is consensus to do so. Consensus based on the fact that we haven't heard anything about whatever happened and that it is probably not important to the story at the moment. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well that's standing policy on its head :-) Surely you don't intend to say that WP should indefinitely remain a repository of unrealized predictions solely because we have no source to say they were unrealized? They simply are not encyclopedic content.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: "OR cannot be a reason to delete something from the article. The only reason to delete this bit from the article is consensus to do so." The overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community is that original research should be deleted on sight. This consensus was carefully worked out and documented here: Wikipedia:No original research. Consensus among the editors of an article does not trump the consensus of the community as a whole, but for what it is worth I strongly support the policy as it is written, so you don't have consensus among the editors on this page to allow WP:OR. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no original research deleted and nothing was deleted because of OR. There was a paragraph about non-notable meeting and it was deleted because everybody here agreed it was non-notable (i.e. there was nothing in the references about why the meeting was notable). If someone finds an article that says a notable thing happened then we can put it in. That's not OR that's just writing an article. The real problem is that these newsy things were added in the first place. There was some confusion because I said "came to nothing" which just means we have found no reason to say that these things are notable Bhny (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog & Guy Macon. You misunderstood my wording. Of course OR does not belong in a WP article. OR must always be deleted from an article ! That's crystal clear. But that was not the case here.

When Bhny deleted the meeting he mentioned that the reason for deletion was that the meeting "came to nothing". I complained that that reasoning looked like OR, because we don't know what happened. So it was not the content that was OR, but the reason behind the deletion of the content that "looked like" OR.

We have already made a consensus to delete the bit, because it doesn't seem to add anything to the story at the moment. I think there is no reason to drag this discussion further. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I did misunderstand your meaning. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I too misunderstood, thinking you were arguing to retain. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes talk pages can be a PITA when it comes to clearly getting a point across. Face to face meetings would be much easier, but significantly increase the risk of bodily harm :-) (this is a joke) --POVbrigand (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The same Sen. Bruce Tarr who invited Rossi to the Massachusetts state house, has visit the still running cold fusion NANOR demo at MIT. So one might argue that the Rossi talk did lead something even if it is not directly related to the ecat. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

pathological science

Andy, What do you mean that a link to pathological science is depreciated?

We don't normally put wikilinks into quotes: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. I think this is mainly to avoid giving the impression that the person quoted is necessarily using a word or phrase in the sense that our article describes it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style/Linking doesn't say anything about quotes. The word isn't even on the page. I only found indirect chatter about it Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_X#What_is_the_policy_for_links_in_quotes.3F. It seems like some people think it adds undue emphasis. Anyway it seems strange to use a fairly obscure term like "pathological science" without a link Bhny (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

oops I should have searched for "quotation" instead of "quote" Bhny (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is that obscure a phrase, but anyway, see 'General points on linking style... Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article'. I'm not sure a 'see also' section link to pathological science would go down too well amongst some of the E-Cat boosters though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a {{seealso}} in the section? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugo Bardi quote

The recently added quote of Ugo Bardi is very well crafted to advance the notion that this whole device is humbug. If we want to leave the quote as it is now, we should expand the Bushnell quote back to its original size to reach NPOV. But the better option would be if we shrink the line and put it with the rest of the "Other reactions to the device have been mixed." paragraph. Short Brigade Harvester Boris did a good job on that section a while ago.

I think the difference between how this quote "from a blog" enters our article unchallenged in comparison with the endless discussion about the addition of Yeong E. Kim's theory proposal (which, in the mean time, has been peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal) is interesting. I can only explain this difference in handling these two content additions with a very clear bias of the editors of this article. Not very NPOV. Strange that nobody raised concerns about WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (newsy items), WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. I wonder, could it be that this content addition suit their POV and therefore there is not need to complain ?

What I don't "like" about this particular quote is that Bardi declares it as "pathological science". If Bardi believes that Rossi is a scammer, than well that's his opinion. But he ties his assessment of one single inventor to general statements on the science. When we use this quote we draw the WP-reader's attention away from Rossi onto the science itself. I think we have already sufficiently addressed the science part by providing the Siegel and Kim paragraphs.

I think we should use another part of Bardi which much better summarizes the issue: "In the end, lacking experimental proof, the idea that the E-Cat produces energy rests only on Rossi's statements that say, basically, just "trust me" --POVbrigand (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The recently added quote was "very well crafted" to summarise what Bardi wrote. Now go away, read WP:FRINGE again, and then explain how your endless claims about how LENR is going to become mainstream science in the next five -- make that three, now ;-) -- weeks, and how Kim's 'proposal' is going to confirm everything that Rossi has claimed, don't come within the remit of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. As for "pathological science", tough. Bardi used the words: your argument is with him, not us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you silly old POV-warrior :-)

I think the quote is good as is. The problem has been that there is no more mainstream coverage, they've lost interest (I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this). This quote is well written and by a qualified person. All other articles I've seen this year have been blogs quoting other blogs and not something we can really use. By all means find differing opinions by people that aren't inside players. Bhny (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I do think that Bardi raises valid points and I sympathize with the general idea of his blog. It is good that we use him, but the quote like this in the lead is in violation of WP:LEAD. The article is not improved with it. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEDE is a guideline, rather than a set of rules - but I see your point to some extent. The trouble is that the article is structured in such a way that criticisms such as Bardi's don't really fit in anywhere. He isn't evaluating 'the device', he is evaluating Rossi's claims regarding it. And since everything we know about the device (beyond the obvious, that it is a device which seems to take cold water in at one end, and emit hot water and/or steam at the other) is solely sourced to Rossi, Rossi is now flatly contradicting things he said earlier, and is still refusing to let anyone do any meaningful independent evaluation at all, one has to ask whether we should be implying in our article that it is the device that is now the centre of attention, rather than Rossi. Perhaps the section entitled 'Evaluation of the device' should be retitled 'Evaluation of claims regarding the device' - and expanded. Bardi has actually written about the E-Cat several times, and a little more of his sceptical take on the matter might be as good thing, per WP:FRINGE, and WP:PARITY in particular. If we can show why Bardi describes the affair as 'pathological science' in more detail, we can cover some of the issues that have had to be left out for now, as lacking WP:RS. If we do this, there seems no reason why we can't also quote Bardi in the lede, if appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"He isn't evaluating the device" ? What ? The currently used quote is "...the E-Cat has reached the end of the line. It still maintains some faithful supporters, but, most likely, it will soon fade away in the darkness of pathological science, where it belongs".

The quote that I proposed "In the end, lacking experimental proof, the idea that the E-Cat produces energy rests only on Rossi's statements that say, basically, just "trust me" is much more about Rossi than about the Ecat. That quote could even be used in the lead.

I agree with you that real evaluation hasn't happened at all, so I also think the title of the section "Evaluation of the device" is not a good one, better would be "Reactions to the device" or "Reactions to the claims". --POVbrigand (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

done- "Reactions to the claims" Bhny (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

@POVbrigand, in that sentence Ugo is explaining the consequences that the failed claims are having for the product. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bhny. Now that the section is renamed to "Reactions to the claims" the reason for putting the Bardi quote in the lead as mentioned in the edit comments from Bhny [3], Guy Macon[4] and AndyTheGrump [5] has become obsolete.

As I tried to explain, the prominent placement of this quote in the lead is not in line with WP:LEAD and severely reduces WP:NPOV. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's neutral in that it's the current mainstream opinion. There hasn't been a significant mainstream article on this since about December; "soon fade away in the darkness" is apt. There was one article in Forbes last week that just talked about how e-cat used astroturfing with blogs to try to make it seem like a real thing [[6]]. Bhny (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No it is not neutral. "soon fade away in the darkness" is WP:CRYSTALBALL and negatively loaded wording. The lack of other "mainstream" articles is no excuse to violate NPOV by putting this clearly biased opinion in the lead.

Neutral would be to give positive opinions an equal prominent position in the article. Presenting the majority view so prominently in an article about a (supposed) minority view device is flat out wrong. The quote I mentioned above "In the end, lacking experimental proof, the idea that the E-Cat produces energy rests only on Rossi's statements that say, basically, just "trust me" would be ok to put in the lead, but not the current one. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What is a "minority view device"? There is a device, and there are views about it. Wikipedia should present them according to their prominence in reliable sources.

(And talking about sources, let's remember WP:FRINGE for topics that mainstream refuses to talk about.) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the most prominent reliable source we have available that mentions the energy catalyzer is Kim's peer reviewed paper, therefore following your reasoning we should put Kim in the lead and not what some frustrated biased wanker chap blogs on the internet. Whenever Mr. Bardi gets his rebuttal of Rossi's device through peer review, we can reconsider. In the mean time don't come back here talking about prominence of sources if all you have are blogs.

Please, don't get me started again on WP:FRINGE and how editors choose to interpret it as a reason to arbitrarily delete whatever isn't mainstream science. First and foremost FRINGE dictates that fringe views should not get an undue mentioning in a mainstream view article, like mentioning flat earth in an article about the earth. This article is about a fringe topic, WP:UNDUE does NOT dictate that the mainstream view must be put in the freaking lead. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand makes a good point about WP:UNDUE. Look at Flat Earth. Does it give undue weight to the flat earth theory? Of course not. Nor does WP:FRINGE call for deleting material about flat earth theory in Flat Earth. (It does justify removal from Earth, just as Energy Catalyzer is not given any weight in Energy.)

As for the mainstream view must in the lead, take a look at Flat Earth, Astrology, Polywater, Cold fusion, and Creationism for examples of how mainstream views are treated in the lead sections of articles about fringe topics. In my opinion, the current article lead is well withing that range --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree to what you say. A well balanced NPOV article about a minority view topic will discuss both the minority view and the majority view (while making it clear without doubt which of the two views is the majority one). The LEAD being a summary of the article will therefore mention both, or at least mention that more that one view exist. I am fully aware of that and I agree to all of WP-policies. Still this quote is horrible in the lead, it over-proportionally introduced this man's loaded language, it wrecks havoc on the whole article.

I should have used the wording: "WP:UNDUE does NOT dictate that the mainstream view must be put in the freaking lead like this." --POVbrigand (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how Bardi's language is more 'loaded' than Rossi's self-serving and contradictory bullshit? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Did we put a Rossi quote in the LEAD ?

Bardi's language is not more loaded than Rossi's, I didn't say that.

To make it clear to everyone, I repeat that I do think that Bardi raises valid points and I sympathize with the general idea of his blog. But we should not use this quote in the LEAD.

"and please don't make personal remarks about people we cite" --POVbrigand (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not our place to decide what is and is not "self-serving and contradictory bullshit", but rather to report what reliable sources say from a WP:NPOV. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. My personal opinion (which may change) is that the Bardi quote is OK where it is, but POVbrigand brings up a legitimate objection. We should discuss this calmly and rationally and seek consensus. In other words, more light and less heat, please. Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It is simply a blog as a source, and therefore this quote should simply be deleted.--Insilvis (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

reactions and demonstration sections

Bhny has done a lot of deleting recently. That's not bad, but we must be careful that "the flow" of the article still makes sense to the WP-reader. For instance I noted the line "Of the January demonstration..." - what January demonstrations ?. the "introduction" that demonstration took place in January was deleted. The flow is broken. Another thing I noted are the Essen, Kullander, Ekström and Aleklett split/repetition between the "reactions" and "demonstration".

We should repair the flow, maybe add an explanation here and there or some some clever rewrite might do it too. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed "the February" to "a February". I think we should delete the individual bullets in the demonstration section and merge the quotes into the reactions section; leaving just a paragraph summary for demonstrations. Bhny (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the bullets. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed 29 March 2011 demo as it repeats things from the Reactions section (Peter Ekström, ....)Bhny (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

While we are on the topic of reactions and demonstrations, the following document...

http://ecatdoteudotcom.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/brc-rossi-report-pg-01/

http://ecatdoteudotcom.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/brc-rossi-report-pg-02/

http://ecatdoteudotcom.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/brc-rossi-report-pg-03/

...appears to contradict the repeated claims of a factory in Florida (location unknown). If someone wants to use this in the article, I would suggest trying to find a better source, ideally something from the State of Florida. One never knows when reading a critical blog whether you are getting the whole story or even whether the documents have been Photoshopped. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Right after writing the above ("One never knows whether you are getting the whole story") I was closing a tab in my browser ( http://ecatdoteudotcom.wordpress.com/2012/03/ ) and noticed this: "...all 34 pages of this report" Either that was a typo (34 instead of 3) or we aren't seeing 31 of the pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems a bit confusing, but the links are http://ecatdoteudotcom.wordpress.com/2012/03/ (for pp.01-08) and http://ecatdoteudotcom.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/brc-rossi-report-pg-01/ (for p.01) ... http://ecatdoteudotcom.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/brc-rossi-report-pg-34/ (for p.34).

It's a shame the scanned text is borderline illegible as rendered on the Wordpress blog. Looking at the html, though, one finds that the page images are http://ecatdoteudotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/brc-rossi-report-pg-011.png (p.01) ... http://ecatdoteudotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/brc-rossi-report-pg-341.png (p.34) and these images are quite legible. Oddly, on http://ecatdoteudotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/brc-rossi-report-pg-081.png (p.08) the text indicates the report had been a PDF file, but for some reason they didn't leave it in that format. Still, I doubt that anyone would be so foolish as to misrepresent official correspondence that can so easily be checked under Florida's Sunshine Law. The more basic issue is that the report essentially shows that Florida got an allegation, they investigated to the extent of talking to Rossi, took his word that the devices produce only gamma photons in the 50-100keV range and that the devices were all outside the U.S., then closed their investigation. So once more this all boils down to "Rossi says". LeadSongDog come howl! 16:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for? [[7]] Bhny (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugo Bardi is the founder of the Italian branch of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas

And therefore cannot be considered NPOV. From the Wikipedia page on the association:

But ASPO has its share of critics. The current debate revolves around energy policy, and whether to shift funding to increasing fuel efficiency, and alternative energy sources like solar and nuclear power. Campbell's critics, like Michael C. Lynch, argue that his research data is sloppy. They point to the date of the coming peak, which was initially projected to occur by the year 1997, but the date was pushed back to 2000, then 2010, moved up to 2006 (in 2004) and later (2005) back to 2010. Campbell explains this with the fact that he has got better data from industry and more reliable estimates. However, Campbell and his supporters insist that when the peak occurs is not as important as the realization that the peak is coming.

Hence ASPO shows a direct preference towards some energy sources in spite of others. Moreover the peak oil theory is just... a theory! So in the article now there is a citation comining from a blog, the blog is from the founder of the ASPO Italia, and the ASPO is an association that has a direct interest in the energetic field based on an theory on energy production that is strongly debated in the scientific community (to say at least), and someone even dared to put it AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS ARTICLE! Obviously, this citation should be immediately removed from the article.--Insilvis (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this funded by oil companies? Is he promoting oil over alternatives? (I'm wondering what the conflict is, just having an interest isn't necessarily a conflict)Bhny (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that the citation comes from a blog, what Insilvis seems to affirm is that the author (Ugo Bardi) cannot be considered as a reliable source of information and cannot be considerend NPOV, because of his direct involvement in the energy field. Especially because the author

1) pushes for some energy sources instead of others

2) pushes for a theory which is considered highly debated in the scientific community (ie the peak oil theory)

This make his citation utterly inappropriate.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Peak oil might make him favor alternate energies and yes scientists do debate things Bhny (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Things are VERY different. Bardi favours RENEWABLE energies. E-Cat = the end to all the present renewable energies for at least 50 years.

So, the clash cannot be more striking.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bardi favours RENEWABLE energies. do you have a reference that somehow he only supports some kinds of alternate energies and not others? The totally weird thing about this is we would all love cold fusion to work and I'm sure Bardi and his scientist friends would love cold fusion to work, but we all hate a scam Bhny (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I am very pleased that you know also what Bardi has in his mind, good for you. After that, the point remains the same: you cannot insert a citation from a person who has a direct interest in the energy field and is known for pushing for some energies instead of others, you cannot insert a citation from a person who is the founder of an association which pushes for a theory which is considered highly debated in the scientific community (ie the peak oil theory). The reason is simple: he cannot be considered as a reliable source of information, and he cannot be considered NPOV.

(And, moreover, the citation comes from his blog!!!)--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Insilvis for letting us know this important fact about Ugo Bardi. It really sheds some different light on the use of his quote in the article. And it should be clear to everyone now that the use of his quote is troublesome and the current placement in the LEAD is absolutely and completely wrong. I propose deletion from the LEAD. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of Insilvis and POVbrigand.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

ps here the list of the articles published by ASPO Italia on its website:

http://www.aspoitalia.it/archivio-articoli-italiano

Basically, they strongly push for solar energy and criticize the othe ways to produce energy.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite not speaking Italian, a very cursory look at those archives suggest that they are interested much more broadly in renewable energy, and that their focus is not exclusively on solar as you are suggesting. To take just one example, Prospettive dell'eolico di alta quota (Prospects of high altitude wind generation) by Ugo Bardi himself, seems to be quite positive about wind energy. If anything, an organization devoted to reducing dependence on oil should be biased in favor of alternative energy sources (like the E.C.); the fact that even they can't abide by this nonsense is particularly damning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense, ASPO is in favor of new sources of energy which are not oil. Hence no bias on this. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No. It makes sense. Because they favour RENEWABLE energies over the other ways to produce energy. So, this is a serius problem because this is enough to demonstrate a clear bias towards some kinds of energy production against other kinds. They cannot be considered NPOV, especially regarding non-renewable sources of energy. Remember that, according to the patent, the E-Cat is not a renewable form of energy production because it uses hydrogen and copper as fuel. Consequently, this is enough to simply disqualify their citation. Moreover, the citation comes from the blog (!!!) of the founder of ASPO Italia, and this is an association which was founded on the purpose to promote a theory which is highly debated within the scientific community (read: Peak_oil#Criticism ), to say at least. Therefore, the source cannot be considered reliable (among the other things).--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article on the ASPO web site saying that because of peak oil we should spend more on researching fusion as an energy resource. [[8]]. Bhny (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am quite sure that this article DOES NOT FAVOUR nuclear fusion. This is the final part of the article:

In ogni caso, è bene essere coscienti che la fusione non può aiutarci per fronteggiare il picco del petrolio, è qualcosa che verrà dopo. Nel frattempo occorre anche puntare con decisione su altre opzioni, ovvero risparmio energetico, cogenerazione e fonti rinnovabili. Che poi la fusione non sia qualla fonte illimitata ed economica che si pensava nel dopoguerra, non è detto che sia così male: cosa tratterrebbe l'uomo, se fornito di una risorsa siffatta, dal ricoprire tutto il pianeta di cemento?

Per le ultime notizie sull'evoluzione della ricerca sulla fusione, si veda The FirePlace.

TRANSLATION:

However, we must be aware that fusion cannot help us to face the peak oil, because it (="fusion") is something that will exist after (=the "peak oil"). In the meanwile, we need to focus decisevely also on other options, like energy sparing, co-generation, renewable energies. And, after all, it is not a bad thing that fusion is not such a sort of unlimited and cheap source it was thought after the WW2: what could prevent man, if furnished with that kind of source, to cover all the planet with concrete (=ie cement)?

For the last news on the present status of the research regarding nuclear fusion, search for The FirePlace.

Basically, they do indeed portrait nuclear fusion in a quite crappy way!

(ps clearly, there is direct BIAS BIAS BIAS... They cannot be considered NPOV, and they cannot be considered as a reliable source of information - peak oil stuff and so on)--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Your translation is rather rough, but the essential point the author makes in his first sentence – that nuclear fusion is unlikely to be useful as an energy source in the near term, though it could become important further into the future – seems reasonable and self-consistent. If we assume that the author has not seen credible evidence of fusion technologies (hot or cold, plausible or not) being close to market, it is not bias but reason that would prompt him to argue that fusion won't be helpful in meeting our energy needs in the near future. Reaching a conclusion that you don't like isn't automatically evidence of bias.

Incidentally, we're hardly going to take you seriously if you feel the need to wikilink shit in your posts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not a matter of what I think or what I do not think, the matter is that they push for RENEWABLE sources of energy instead of other sources of energy BY USING AN UNPROVEN THEORY TO SYSTEMATICALLY SUBSTANTIATE THEIR THOUGHTS.

Take for example the aforemetioned passage: they affirm that nuclear fusion reactors will not be ready BEFORE THE SO CALLED "OIL PEAK".
But how can you affirm it, if you do not know when this so called "oil peak" will happen!!!
I would like to know WHEN this oil peak will happen... BUT THEY CANNOT ANSWER!!!
From the Wikipedia page on the association (already cited above by Insilvis):

But ASPO has its share of critics. The current debate revolves around energy policy, and whether to shift funding to increasing fuel efficiency, and alternative energy sources like solar and nuclear power. Campbell's critics, like Michael C. Lynch, argue that his research data is sloppy. They point to the date of the coming peak, which was initially projected to occur by the year 1997, but the date was pushed back to 2000, then 2010, moved up to 2006 (in 2004) and later (2005) back to 2010. Campbell explains this with the fact that he has got better data from industry and more reliable estimates. However, Campbell and his supporters insist that when the peak occurs is not as important as the realization that the peak is coming.

They say: "we do not know when the oil peak will happen."
Ok, so: how can you state that the oil peak will happen BEFORE a nuclear fusion reactor will be ready?
It is a true absurdity!!!
They seem like modern Nostradamus who say: "the end will come!"
And you ask them: "so, when will the end come?"
And they answer: "we do not know exactly, but it will come soon..."
In Italian I shoud say "con questi qui c'è da toccare ferro!" (rough translation: "with these guys I have to knock on wood!" - in Italian "iron" replaces "wood")
Do you understand that this is an ABSOLUTE non-scientific statement from them?
This only is enough to disqualify them as a source of information. Especially when this source is inappropriately used in order to evaluate other potential energy sources! (Moreover: the source of the citation is a blog)--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that this issue is close to your heart... but this isn't a forum. I agree, that blog reference should not be in this article. NO blog reference should be in it. We should work towards removing them all. Tmccc (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN, and ask others whether, when taking WP:FRINGE into account, Bardi is a legitimate source to quote to counterbalance all the ridiculous bullshit from Rossi's fanclub. Of course, if Bardi isn't RS, then pretty well nothing else is either. We'd be left with coverage from Ny Teknik (who seem to have swept their coverage of the E-Cat under the carpet, and apparently either dumped Mats Lewan entirely, or at least told him to cover something else), and nothing else from any decent source that attached any real credibility to the E-Cat whatsoever: at which point, article deletion would become a foregone conclusion. As a 'scientific' article it is meaningless, as 'technology' likewise. Only as an example of mass delusion/pseudoscience/hype-for-profit is it remotely interesting - and even that aspect of the story seems to attract little attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Bardi isn't RS". That's all. Its quotation has to be deleted.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. Read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Ugo Bardi is a professor at the University of Florence. He is perfectly well qualified to write about the E-Cat. As for this nonsense about him not being 'NPOV', so what? There has never been a requirement that sources are 'neutral' in articles - and in any case, his POV is exactly that of mainstream science, and of such mainstream sources generally that have bothered to report on this nonsense at all.You've offered no evidence whatsoever that he is motivated by anything but academic honesty and common sense. And do you really think Mats Lewan for example is 'NPOV' - evidently his employers don't. Either take it to RSN, or put up with it. We don't use spin-merchants and magic-teapot salesmen as the sole source of articles on spin and magic teapots. This is an online encyclopaedia, not Rossi's blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

It is not enough that "his POV is exactly that of mainstream science", we need "mainstream science" to be quoted via a mainstream scientist for this POV. A scientist, who pushes for a theory (the so-called peak oil theory) which is considered to be strongly controversial in the scientific community (to say at least), cannnot be considered a "mainstream scientist" and therefore cannot be used to represent "mainstream science". (Moreover the quotation comes from his blog!)--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit interested in your repetitive POV-pushing spin. Per WP:FRINGE, Bardi is a perfectly respectable source for the perspective of mainstream science regarding Rossi's delusional garbage. If you want to argue otherwise, take it to WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

. Your delving far into original research. Besides, from the peak oil article most of the criticism appears to come from oil company CEOs and not scientists. The concept of peak oil appears to be in the scientific mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If I say: "the world will end", am I expressing "mainstream science"? I of course I am, because science affirms that the world will end.

If I say: "the oil will end", am I expressing "mainstream science"? In a certain way I do, as consequence of the previous one for example.

But the peak oil theory insinuate that oil will end "soon". So when you ask them (the "peak oil theory" proponents) WHEN this so-called "peak oil" will happen they answer you: "soon".

Every time they proposed a date, for example a year, they have always been wrong. So, how can people like them be considered as "reliable source" or even "mainstream science" if they have always been wrong? It is something so logic it should not even be a matter of discussion.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You have responded with more original research. Take further issues to WP:RSN as Andy pointed out. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not "original research" made by me: they write it! Read this:

In ogni caso, è bene essere coscienti che la fusione non può aiutarci per fronteggiare il picco del petrolio, è qualcosa che verrà dopo. Nel frattempo occorre anche puntare con decisione su altre opzioni, ovvero risparmio energetico, cogenerazione e fonti rinnovabili. Che poi la fusione non sia qualla fonte illimitata ed economica che si pensava nel dopoguerra, non è detto che sia così male: cosa tratterrebbe l'uomo, se fornito di una risorsa siffatta, dal ricoprire tutto il pianeta di cemento?

Per le ultime notizie sull'evoluzione della ricerca sulla fusione, si veda The FirePlace.

TRANSLATION:

However, we must be aware that fusion cannot help us to face the peak oil, because it (="fusion") is something that will exist after (=the "peak oil"). In the meanwile, we need to focus decisevely also on other options, like energy sparing, co-generation, renewable energies. And, after all, it is not a bad thing that fusion is not such a sort of unlimited and cheap source it was thought after the WW2: what could prevent man, if furnished with that kind of source, to cover all the planet with concrete (=ie cement)?

For the last news on the present status of the research regarding nuclear fusion, search for The FirePlace.

This is the last part of the article indicated by Bhny [9].

So they state that the so-called peak-oil will happen before a nuclear fusion reactor will be ready.

But how can they affirm it, if they are not able to indicate a date for the so-called peak oil?

And these people should be considered as a reliable source of information or, even worse, be used to represent "mainstream science" ?!?!?!? --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You are wasting your time (and ours) arguing this here. Either take the issue to WP:RSN or drop it. If you persist in using this talk page as a soapbox for your own ridiculous speculation, I shall ask that you be banned from contributing to the article, as you are violating policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he is not soapboxing. I think you are feeling attacked because several editors have serious doubts about the use of the BLOG post you introduced in the article. May I remind that it is the second BLOG post that you, AndyTheGrump, have introduced in the article after the Siegel and Thieberger blurb. You are complaining about article quality, but stuffing it with BLOG posts isn't helping it. It is the final resort to firmly plaster mainstream bias on this article.

I don't think that any article on wikipedia uses BLOG posts in the LEAD. So I think it is very very unfair to shout foul at editors when there is obviously something wrong with the use of the quote.

Threatening banning is just plain silly.

I also think that it is tendentious to put it in the LEAD and I noticed that you didn't put it in the LEAD in the first place. So I don't understand why you are getting so worked up about it.

The use of a blog post of a recognized member of the scientific community can be used as an expert opinion, it therefor might pass RSN. I guess you are speculating on that to happen. However the mere fact that we maybe could use this source does not mean it can be used to wreak havoc on the NPOV of the article.

It is tendentious to treat expert opinions in favor of the ecat significantly different than expert opinions against it.

The Ugo Bardi opinion is nothing more than the other "against" voices like Ekström. It should be placed in the same "reactions to the claims" section.

Andy, please stay civil here on the talk page, you know some editors are very sensitive to incivility, they might drag YOU to ArbCom over it :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

They have been specifically asked to take their doubts to WP:RSN. I suggest you do so too rather than argue Ad nauseam. I take it you are suggesting also that we no longer use these blogs: [10] [11]?IRWolfie- (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It is tendentious to treat against-sources differently than pro-sources in giving the former a prominent placing in the lead. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, do you think these two sources should be removed? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Question back, are these two blog sources used in the LEAD ? --POVbrigand (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Evasive much? It's a simple question; do you think these two blogs should be removed: yes or no. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has hardly come down from his soapbox since arriving at this talk page, POVb, I don't think your opinion on the matter is particularly relevant. Still, free to raise the issue at RP:RSN. Or ArbCom, or anywhere else - where we can discuss your endless attempts to use this article as a coatrack for claims that LENR is mainstream science (or will be next week). This article is about the bogus device of a dubious character with a past history of relieving investors of their cash and then having his schemes collapse in lawsuits, acrimony, and (on at least one occasion) a multi-million dollar/euro cleanup at the taxpayers expense. That so many people get fooled by such 'entrepreneurs' is interesting from a psychological perspective, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with science - and Bardi saying this is hardly a revelation. And so fucking what if he says it in a blog? WP:FRINGE is policy. The E-Cat is fringe, and without blogs and the like, and the dubious promotion of the device in Ny Teknik (which they seem now to regret) there would be no significant sources for this garbage whatsoever. Clearly, given the reliance of some 'journalists' on our article as a source, and the unmerited trust that some readers may have placed in the article itself, we have become involved in the perpetuation of Rossi's deceit. That is no reason to carry on doing the same - so yes, we quote Bardi in the lede, so readers know straight away what the article is about - pathological 'science', perpetuated to raise funds from 'investors', and marked by a complete lack of evidence for anything more concrete than a few bits of plumbing, a shipping container full of shiny boxes, and a diesel generator chugging away in the background as 'scientists' and 'journalists' try to make sense of the meaningless readings on miswired meters through clouds of steam (well, there should have been clouds of steam, but curiously enough, they seem to have been mislaid...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That was a dead giveaway that you're biased like hell. You are soapboxing like there's no tomorrow. Most editors are sick and tired of your recurring streams of incivilities. But it seems your intimidation still has the desired effect, which is muting the "opposition" (battlefield mentality). You want this article deleted, you want the content deleted, you support merging so you can delete most of the content. You are defending a clear bias in the lead of the article, based on your "do-it-yourself" research, not original. No reliable sources mentioning any wronged investors, you are making it up. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you should look into a mirror. And you should avoid personal attacks. And POV pushing, while we're at it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Baseless accusations (from an admin). I have never pushed the notion that the ecat is "working" and that Rossi is our saviour, so stop attacking me as a POV-pusher. Stuffing a biased quote from a BLOG (where the blogger is shown to have an agenda) in the LEAD is über-POV-pushing and you seem to be supporting it. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Baseless? You continually refer to others being biased yet you are a SPA account who solely edits Cold Fusion related articles. Do you not think an editor who obsesses over a single topic might be more likely to have be biased? You collect all sorts of information on your userspace related to making Cold Fusion look more respectful: User:POVbrigand/papers, User:POVbrigand/ICCF, User:POVbrigand/material, User:POVbrigand/list. Does this sound like something a person who is not biased about a topic would do? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Collecting material means being biased ? That's plain silly. Other editors collect huge lists of sources that they feel support the notion that Cold Fusion is pathological science. Collecting material is one thing, writing NPOV is the other. You collect nothing at all. What does that tell us about your knowledge of this particular fringe topic ?

Other editors seem to be obsesses with keeping fringe out of wikipedia, and feel superior because they "defend" mainstream science. WP:FRINGE is not about deleting fringe from wikipedia, it's about describing fringe in a NPOV way. I think that "neutral" view is often mistaken for "mainstream" view. Mainstream (majority) view is one side of the story and fringe (minority) view is the other and NPOV means to describe both. Articles dedicated to a fringe topic can discuss the fringe view in more detail. Which again doesn't mean that the fringe view should be presented as the mainstream view. Wikipedia is about explaining what the fuss is all about and not about insinuating which side of the story is the right one.

So I feel sorry for you that you think I am an evil POV pusher who deserved to be banned from wikipedia. I am not, I am trying to keep NPOV amidst a large group of editors who want fringe content marginalised because it is not mainstream science. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no 'science' in this article. The only meaningful claims regarding such with regard to the E-Cat come exclusively from Rossi - and he has no scientific qualifications. And please step down from the soapbox, your claims to neutrality convince nobody. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If you say that this is not a article about a science topic then why are you always arguing with WP:FRINGE to delete things ? You seem to be contradicting yourself. I agree with you that some editors will never be convinced, no matter how solid the argumentation is. I understand that you feel that I am soapboxing and I think you will agree with me that you yourself are contributing a pronounced pro-mainstream-POV on this talk page and in your edit behaviour, which can also be seen as soapboxing. I assume good faith in that most of the editors here sincerely try to keep the pole straight. We are discussing the use of a biased qoute from a BLOG in the LEAD and we cannot reach consensus, so outside opinion is the way to go.

I might add that in similar cases additions were deleted and the contributing editor was told to first go to a noticeboard "for approval" and then try the content addition again. In this case it is the other way around, why so ? --POVbrigand (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bardi quote isn't 'biased'. Nobody has provided a source that says it is. Nobody has provided any evidence whatsoever that it is - just a deranged conspiracy theory, based on his support for a minority scientific opinion on an unrelated matter (which minority opinion incidentally seems to be gaining support, judging by recent developments [12]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is biased: "...the E-Cat has reached the end of the line." is a crystal ball prediction not based on any facts (you will agree with me that there are no facts) - "It still maintains some faithful supporters," this bit is acceptable - "but, most likely, it will soon fade away" is a crystal ball prediction not based on any facts "in the darkness of pathological science, where it belongs" clearly biased rhetoric.

nice that you mention that "minority opinion incidentally seems to be gaining support, judging by recent developments" I think that is very much the case for cold fusion too. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Siegel's case (for example) is a border-line case: his citation comes from his blog, therefore it can be considered unfit to remain on a Wikipedia page. However, AndyTheGrump then argued that Siegel was fit to represent the position of the scientific community because Siegel's fairness could not be put under discussion and this made Siegel fit to express judgements on the vexed question. In Ugo Bardi's case, there is a step downward because the fairness and the scientific integrity of the person who expresses these judgements can be put in doubt. So, it is something that can be evaluated as enormously worse than Siegel's case.--Insilvis (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It has already been mentioned that further arguments should be taken to WP:RSN where the source is already being discussed. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be taken to Wikipedia:NPOVN. A biased quote in the LEAD from an BLOG-author with an agenda is clearly in violation with NPOV. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What 'agenda'? The only arguments I have seen which suggest that Bardi has an 'agenda' in pointing out the truth about the E-Cat are tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. And please don't give us lectures on NPOV - you evidently don't have a clue what the term means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

WP is not about the truth, I thought you were already aware of that. I think I have a neutral point of view on what NPOV means. Unfortunately many editors here seem to have the misconception that NPOV means: "all article must always present mainstream science as the truth even if it means sticking biased BLOG quotes in the LEAD". --POVbrigand (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"mainstream science" is just called "science". The rest is not science. Also, you don't have a reference that anyone is biased. The bias is your own (conspiracy?) theory Bhny (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong about the definition of science. And you're wrong to think that I believe in conspiracy theories, even if it's tempting sometimes :-). --POVbrigand (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not my definition, It's wikipedia's definition. 'mainstream science' is just a redirect to science. I actually wasn't expecting a redirect, but there it is. Bhny (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's all science, there is the majority view on everything (=mainstream) and for some topics there are minority views (=not mainstream). majority and minority viewpoint, just like Jimbo Wales mentioned - see WP:UNDUE

If we are going to start citing Wikipedia policy, I'll point out that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too - and these ridiculous unsourced claims that Bardi has an 'agenda', or is 'biased' look to me to be in violation of the policy. The simple fact is that people are scraping around for excuses to keep Bardi's comments out of the article not because of who he is, but because of what he says - which is fully in accord with mainstream science, common sense, and any rational thought not driven by POV-pushing fringe conspiracy-mongering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think there is a BLP concern then take it to BLP/N and kindly highlight what you tend to say about Rossi too. I think I made it clear from the start that this quote should not be in the LEAD, I proposed that it can go with the other quotes in the appropriate section. I will repeat again that I think Bardi raises valid points in his BLOG, but this quote is just terrible in the LEAD. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Others see it differently - and writing in capitals doesn't make your argument any more convincing. And are you going to provide evidence for your repeated claims that Bardi is 'biased', or not? If you aren't, you should withdraw them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course the quote is biased: "...the E-Cat has reached the end of the line." is a crystal ball prediction not based on any facts (you will agree with me that there are no facts) - "It still maintains some faithful supporters," this bit is acceptable - "but, most likely, it will soon fade away" is a crystal ball prediction not based on any facts "in the darkness of pathological science, where it belongs" clearly biased rhetoric. - And writing in bold doesn't make your argument any more convincing either (see further up). --POVbrigand (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you have yet again come up with no evidence to support your assertions that Bardi's involvement with ASPO is responsible for 'bias' on his part, I shall be raising this violation of WP:BLP, and of other Wikipedia policies at WP:ANI, and suggesting that you be topic-banned from this article, as well as any others related to 'cold fusion/LENR' - it is grossly improper to misuse Wikipedia talk pages to smear respected academics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think my reasoning is in line with Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements - arguing that a quote is biased is not a BLP issue. And trying to keep NPOV is not soapboxing. I am not smearing Bardi, I mentioned several times that he raises valid points. Smearing is something completely different. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:POVbrigand is making repeated unsourced negative comments about a respected academic in relation to the Energy Catalyzer article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I still think that Bardi's quote is misplaced, it should be with all the other quotes in the "reactions of the claim" section --POVbrigand (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Insilvis (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Any you have the right to make the move all on your own? No, you don't. It seems evident that yours is the minority position. This has already been discussed, and ignoring such discussions while making arbitrary moves is hardly likely to win people over to your perspective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Illustrating the article

Is there any video of the EC available ? it would improve the article a great deal, doesn't have to be good quality, can be simple and tranquil like this or really artistic like my own favourite, this one here, which is so aesthetically entrancing. It would be cool if Mr Rossi is as adorable looking as this loveable old man. I do gif animations, I can make them out of normal videos too, so they already run when they are in the article without being clicked on.

I can also help with advice on how to make a good video to illustrate the machine, I expect it is like the genre here, where you use metering ? The thing there is easy, because not many people have experience with electrical engineering, and phase shape to RMS metering relationships, it's so easy to get any electrician to come along with his standard multimeter and be completely convinced that a machine is producing power when it's actually sucking it up, just by changing the AC waveforms shape into a non symmetrical form, with a spike in one phase. It could easily be newsworthy, the local papers pick up on it, get the local science teacher involved, I can do the video, and hopefully most of us can stay out of jail if we don't ask for any money. I personally won't help there, I will just offer genuine help in illustrating the article with technical illustrations and animations, they are my speciality.

Does anyone mentioned in the article describe the operation of the machine ? I haven't read much in the way of all the references, I was surprised that the first external link I clicked mentioned this wikipedia article, wow! Anyhow I can make drawings from any description anyone has made, and then everyone can see at a glance just how it works, nice and encyclopedic like.

Maybe some diagrams like these (unrelated ones) would be the go ? Something nice and simple so that what someone has said about the machine is simple to understand instantly. Penyulap ☏ 15:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

While all of these are good illustrations in the sense that I would agree something of this nature ought to be created for this article to bring it to become a high quality article (good, GA, or "featured article"), the problem being faced at the moment is that Andreas Rossi has provided so little information about how the E-Cat even works that there really isn't any objective information from which to describe the fusion process. Then again this is also precisely why patents on the process are being turned down (because the patent application would need to describe the process in sufficient detail for others to reproduce the process if they understood nuclear fusion processes) and why there are so many skeptics suggesting that the whole things is simply a scam.

I wouldn't mind trying to draw a diagram in Inkscape that would be able to diagram the device and explain what is happening. I just want to understand the physics of the thing first before I go half cocked and make something up. At the moment, all I can figure out that Rossi has accomplished so far is something like this diagram:

At the moment, Rossi's device seems to be nothing more than Newcomen's device with a fancy fire running the thing, and in fact it doesn't even go that far as the steam is simply tossed into a condenser and recirculated instead of doing "useful work". If some objective information about what actually goes on inside of that device can be put forward from reliable sources, I'd be happy to create an illustration of the device. The catalyst being used to transmute Nickle into Copper is not described at all ("it is a secret" -- Andreas Rossi) nor is the general process of fusion being employed described other than being some form of cold fusion in a hand waving fashion and no extra details about what he is doing different than what Pons & Fleischmann claim to have done with their original cold fusion device. Get a clear description of the device, even if it is only what is formally claimed to be doing, and then a diagram can come from that.

Most of this article is really about the politics and salemanship (or lack thereof) of Andreas Rossi in terms of marketing this device and the fan base he has somehow developed surrounding the device. If there was an actual device or some formal way it can be described in prose, coming up with a diagram would be relatively easy. I don't think that can happen, but you can try to prove me wrong. Make sure the description is from a reliable source (see WP:RS) to back up the description as well... so that description can be added to the article --Robert Horning (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

How about a simple image of an ISO shipping container. That's the only thing he sold that we know about with any certainty. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would be good to illustrate the process itself if that were possible, on the other hand we can illustrate what the device looks like. I think I saw a pic of it sitting on a table with tubes and stuff. Now is there just one machine or has he built a few of them, and where are the best pictures out on the 'net ?

I've seen pictures illustrating space stations, and I've done some myself. Some illustrations show what it looks like from the outside

parts labelled

drawing of station

drawing of station

So there is not much in the way of a problem about needing to understand the workings in order to illustrate. On the other hand, we can just go and steal an image off the Internet under 'fair use' (Lolz, it's not actually called stealing, but it always feels that way to me) Penyulap ☏ 07:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that drawing our own pictures can always be disputed as OR, unless they are of so little detail that they are useless (cold water in - black box - warm water out). A photo (the shipping container or the "reactor" close up) would be the best, fair use from the internet. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair user on an image of this type probably wouldn't pass WP:NFCC. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hehehee, that reminds me of a gaffe someone in high standing in the wiki community once made, suggesting that pictures should be taken by notable photographers in order to be included in the wikipedia project, basically it went down as one of those spectacular putting your foot in your mouth moments.

Anyhow, it's not actually the case, because we are all most welcome to make our own illustrations for articles if we have the skill and software required of course. If not, there is actually a Wikipedia:Graphics Lab, Wikipedia:Illustration Lab, and Wikipedia:photography workshop set up to help. I've helped there before, and got help from there before. If there is a problem with that sort of thing, well, time to let them know eh ? I won't personally run in there and shout OR, but I support anyone's right to do so.

Wikipedians don't need to put away their cameras, pencils, and mice just yet. Considering that we have a big fat article with Zero images in it, there is plenty of space for half a dozen images and illustrations at the bare minimum before we need a gallery. That is, if we can find images, or make illustrations. Yep, there is plenty of room for this article to be improved, hey, what class is it ? Star class, oh well, at least it's not a Stub. Lets see if we can get it towards GA shall we ?

But we must be careful of OR for certain, it is policy. Do you mean we should be careful not to put things inside the box that we don't know for sure are there ? that kind of thing ? Penyulap ☏ 08:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have seen different assumptions floating in the blogs and the discussion boards of how the reactor might look like. I don't recall having seen anything from a reliable source. A guesstimate will not help us here and anything that is simpled down to the level of agreeable common sense will be useless to explain anything. I will most likely not be the one to complain instantly, but I feel sorry for the editor who is going to spend his precious time on drawing something up, just to have it deleted from the article for OR and unreliable sourcing. I think a photo will have the most chance of getting a consensus to use it. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the path to take is pretty simple, find an image or images that you feel are fair representations of the subject in question and base an illustration upon them, or steal it. Then find an image or image that is a bad representation of the subject and base an illustration on that, or steal them, and label it in an appropriate manner, representing fairly what problems it may have.

Now as to what is a reliable source for an illustration and what is a reliable source for textual content, you're in a whole different ballpark. Photographic images of a subject which exists are harder to distort than plain text, editing turns up easier upon examination, and retouching takes more skill than is required to simply tell lies in text. One person's head turning up on another person's body is like, so obvious, lighting, digital marks and so forth, it's pretty easy to spot if you know what to look for. Even then, it is not necessarily any kind of problem, as the part of the image being used as a source even inside a retouched photo can be just fine, plus, if there is no other source to say, hey, that is so totally not what the subject looks like, then it's all mooted by being a non-controversial image. If someone wants to dispute the illustration or diagram, that's fine, you just find an image which disputes the first. Just like in text, just because two images are contradictory, doesn't mean it's suddenly wikipedia's job to decide which is correct and which is wrong, both get documented and put into the article in many cases. Here is an example of conflicting sources. here is one subject with a lot of different images, some with extra planets and moons all in the wrong places and lined up in a preposterous way, but hey, it's all there because it's correctly described and documented.

So you might find an illustration in the article labelled ' EC operated by Mr smith in 2011 ' or ' promotional brochure block diagram ' or ' artists representation of the EC in a domestic setting ' or ' diagram of pipes, tubes and generator used in 2012 demo in Paris ' whatever is appropriate for the section they are in, or the gallery or general stuff. Now I'm pretty sure we can find some pictures of the item in question that have not been doctored, I should have a look, are you sure there are none ? Penyulap ☏ 10:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 10:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is pointless. It's a black box covered in tinfoil. There's nothing to illustrate. Bhny (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Back that assertion up with a reliable source as well. The assertion applies to those who think this is a scam as much as it does to true believers.

There are some images of what Rossi claims to have built, but I don't see any of them as being available with an open source/free content license that can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Fair use doesn't really apply as their application here in this article would be for illustrative purposes only... unless some technical drawing or other such thing was was posted from a reliable source that could also be redrawn as a sort of technical description of the device. Since those technical drawings don't exist, there isn't anything to show.

You may be correct Bhny, but you can't "prove" it is a fake at the moment either. That would take an admission by Rossi or somebody obtaining one of these "E-Cat boxes" and proving it is nothing more than an electric coil heater. Of course that could even be sufficient of a description to create an illustration, but even something like that at the moment lacks a reliable sources. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't know how it works. Rossi says he won't say how it works. There are plenty of pictures of it covered in tinfoil. It is a black box covered in tinfoil Bhny (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's more likely to be Aluminium_foil#Insulation. Tmccc (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks easy enough to draw take some pictures of tinfoil wrapped around something the same shape and then use software to cut and paste the piping to make it longer and about the same lengths as seen in the pictures. Anyone got a camera and tinfoil, and more importantly, any pipes with any similarities to those ones in the images ? Just some basic textures would do, I can modify the image once the textures are there. Penyulap ☏ 10:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC) 10:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this the EC

here it was too easy doing a quick google, is this the machine ?

here is a funny little blog thingy, a fail for a reliable source I expect, but a good read and no doubt some of what he comes up with is quite true. But the image is a lot simpler, is that the guy Rossi?

Also, looking at the pictures, there does seem to be a lot of foil involved ! :) good on him ! Penyulap ☏ 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The content is up here guys ! Well, if nobody else is going to talk about content I'll have to. Penyulap ☏ 13:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So do you think it's the machine ? Penyulap ☏ 13:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it would be, if it has the old guy with the Italian accent it's probably the one. Penyulap ☏ 13:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Should we add it to the list of things to be drawn up ? Penyulap ☏ 13:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Lets ! Penyulap ☏ 13:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

---

This article should probably be merged into Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur) since it is becoming more a story about him and his 'business ventures' than any actual device. There is already a section there [[13]]

• Strong Support Merge with redirect. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Merge with redirect, keeping the whole section to no more than three or four short paragraphs, and making clear the complete lack of evidence, the contradictory nature of Rossi's statements, and the clear dismissal of them by mainstream sources. And none of the waffle about whether 'LENR' is real science or not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support The "Energy Catalyzer" is just another one of Rossi's "inventions". —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Agree with the above. SmartSE (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose so far as almost every merge I've seen is mostly an attempt to delete the article but to do so in a more politically correct fashion. The only reason why I would support any sort of merger would be to suggest that all sources about both topics are largely the same and trying to separate one from the other simply can't be done. Based upon sources I've seen it can be said that these are two distinct topics deserving independent articles. So far I fail to see what actual role would be served to merge these articles together. Notability has been independently established for the Energy Catalyzer and Andrea Rossi, which to me further suggests they really do deserve to be separate articles. If notability was being questioned there might be some rationale for a merger. Otherwise this is re-opening the previous AfD which also included discussion as a compromise for merger.... which was previously rejected by the commenting editors in terms of any sort of consensus achieved. Notable inventions, frauds, pranks, and scams can have independent articles and I see no difference with this idea either. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a good point but I do question the notability. There were some e-cat articles in reputable sources early last year but I've not seen any significant article in a reputable source for 5 months. The only interest in this is in fringe blogs. E-cat is not even as notable as Petroldragon, which was quite notorious yet only mentioned in Rossi's article Bhny (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many notable topics that have not yet had somebody take the effort to create the article. Otherwise new Wikipedia articles would never get created. The absence of an article on Wikipedia only implies that nobody has yet taken the effort to create such an article... it doesn't imply that the topic is not notable or shouldn't have an article. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support E-Cat's "notablility" is fading; I don't think I would argue in favor of deletion, but merger into Rossi. The Petroldragon scam probably should have more coverage in Rossi's article, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per Arthur Rubin, Bhny, the Grump. Edison (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I proposed such a merger in November; my reasoning is covered in Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 8#This article could be merged.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose as regardless of what happens, the device is notable in its own right. Notability doesn't "fade".Tmccc (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is notability even a factor in deciding whether to merge articles? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Respond to Arthur Rubin's comment above?Tmccc (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am responding to him and to you. If notability is not a factor in deciding whether to merge articles, then all three statements - your original "I do question the notability", Arthur Rubin's "E-Cat's 'notability' is fading", and your "the device is notable in its own right. Notability doesn't 'fade' " are irrelevant. So again I ask, is notability even a factor in deciding whether to merge articles? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability isn't a temporary thing. Either it is notable or it isn't. The reliable secondary sources talking about this topic are well established and something which was debated and argued in the AfD, and the closing of the AfD explicitly mentions that notability was achieved. My point in raising the issue is that a non-notable topic or where notability is questioned can use a merger as a legitimate compromise where something associated with the topic which is notable (such as Andrea Rossi in this case) can have information about another topic. Raising the issue of notability is pointing out that there is no content from which to create the article. Perhaps for non-notable topics it might be a paragraph in another article because one or two reliable sources mention an association with the main topic of the article (such as an article about Rossi with a couple sources mentioning the E-Cat). Showing that the E-cat has independent notability is to demonstrate that there are sufficient references from which to create an article.... going back to my point that this merger request is re-opening the AfD in just another context and that merge requests are really just another form of a deletion request. -Robert Horning (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Merge is not another form of a deletion request, and the parts of this article which are notable and adequately sourced would fit in one paragraph. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hardly nonsense. The stated objective of those trying to perform the merger is to cull information from this article to the extent that it is only a single paragrah or perhaps just a couple and to keep it in that state as a sort of WP:OWN to force a POV onto the topic as well. Most of those advocating for a merger are openly hostile to this article even existing in the first place (by noting their support of deletion in the earlier AfD) or are constantly flouting the psuedo science card. If this article needs to be re-written and trimmed down to a single paragraph, go ahead and make those changes that you think are necessary. It doesn't need to be made into a merge request to do that. The end result of most mergers like this is to delete the article as something irrelevant and unbecoming to Wikipedia. Information is lost both ways, just that merging an article seems to be a bit easier to perform because it is easier to reverse even though in practice it produces nearly the same result. Once it is put into another article, using the same logic you can perform a simple edit and remove the content altogether. I have seen that happen with other article merges, and I fail to see why that won't happen here... given the kinds of responses being given from those who don't want to see this article on Wikipedia in the first place. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is nonsense. My position, and I assume that of some of the others in favor of a merge, is:

1. The article should be trimmed to one paragraph, because that's all that is sourced from other than press releases and copies of press releases.
2. The article should be merged somewhere.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Any notability for Rossi stems from the energy catalyzer (his article was created in response to the energy catalyzer). It makes sense to merge them. (for me, which way the merger goes Rossi-->EC or EC-->Rossi depends on how many sources discuss things other than the EC). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The Rossi biography could have been written solely on the basis of the Petroldragon scam of the 1970s, for which Rossi was judged guilty in Italian court. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• comment I think the best reason to merge is that it will give context Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger. Notability isn't even mentioned there as a merge issue. Bhny (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering this "policy" you are noting here is neither policy nor even an "official guideline", that is sort of a red herring to even bring up. Going even by this document though, the one thing that might be justified is duplicate coverage or overlap of the topic. The point is though that these are two distinctive topics: One is a biographical sketch of a person (Andrea Rossi) and the other is this specific invention that happens to involve Rossi but does involve other people as well.... details of which would be beyond the scope of the Rossi article. If you want to argue for a merger, justify how Rossi is the only player in the whole E-cat debacle and that this is one and the same thing. I don't think that can be done. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was policy. It's the relevant information page. I don't think "only player" is a necessary reason, but Rossi is the pretty much the only player here. Rossi is the only one who claims to know what the invention is. Even Focardi says he doesn't know the secret ingredient and the patent applications don't say how it works (even though that is what a patent application should say). There are no known customers, no known factories or employees. Bhny (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. This article has been the target of people who want to promote the E-Cat, to pump up its rickety reputation with fluff about press releases and publicity events even though there has never been an independent test, much less a production run. The device is a farce! Ever since I noticed this article I have been strongly against such promotional tendencies, and if this article is merged positive-POV editors will have little power, in my estimation. That would be a good result. Nevertheless, the E-Cat is a notable con game from a con artist famous for more things than this device, so it should have its own article. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I argued the same previously that it was a notable scam, but after about 3 articles in english it was dropped by reliable sources and became a blog story, so the e-cat is a pretty small-time scam that makes more sense when seen in the context of his other 'inventions'. Bhny (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If the petrol con can solely establish notability then perhaps it should not be merged. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the sources currently in that article I am not sure if they would actually establish notability of Rossi independently of the E-Cat. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You have to look beyond the current article; there is definitely not enough about Petroldragon in it yet. The Rossi biography could have been written before the E-Cat, using only Petroldragon sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose I would like to highlight that the proposer has been actively editing the article lately. Thus if his complaint is that the article is becoming a story about A.Rossi, then it might well be caused significantly by proposer's recent edits. Editing an article in a specific direction and then proposing a merge for exactly that direction, to me seems tendentious. Furthermore all the responses in the "Reactions to the claims" have the e-cat as topic, not A.Rossi. The ecat has gained notability, and notability is not temporary. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is doubting that the E-Cat is notable. The question is whether two separate articles are justified. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguing to trim this article to a single paragraph and perform a merger sounds like notability is still being questioned and that many of the sources are not reliable thus need to be removed. While that discussion can be done outside of this merge discussion, it does illustrate the contentious nature of this article and what arguments are being made in terms of justifying a merger. The suggestion of merging the Andreas Rossi article into the E-Cat article is perhaps more appropriate if Andreas Rossi doesn't have independent notability. That has been addressed below and is a separate issue though. I am asserting that a lack of notability is a legitimate argument in favor of performing a merge, or at least weak notability where little if anything will be added to the article or that almost no additional reliable sources can be found either now nor in the foreseeable future. I don't think that is the case either. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

E-cat is notable, but not as notable as Petroldragon. E-cat is another of his inventions that would be better off listed together. (This section is for talking about a merge. There are other sections for talking about edits). Bhny (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest the other way around, the E-Cat seems to be far more notable than petroldragon, demonstrated by the fact that we have many more sources, the reliable sources that mention Petroldragon do so in the context of the E-cat. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's only because Petroldragon was pre-web and most of the articles are in Italian. It was a ~$30million dollar company employing 150 people before it collapsed with Rossi facing over 50 court cases and imprisonment. E-cat is a shoestring budget with no employees and a lot of astroturfing blogs. Bhny (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah. The English Language bias and the post-www bias working together. Now that the above problem has been identified, we need to give each proper weight. In my opinion, that would be best accomplished by merging; Give the Rossi article a longer section on Petroldragon and a shorter section on E-Cat. In my opinion, putting them in one article will give the reader important context, especially when the next Rossi energy miracle appears. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth- the Italian wikipedia has no article about the e-cat and a medium sized one about Petroldragon. It redirects e-cat to cold fusion (where there is a section about it) and they have a dedicated article about Petroldragon [[14]] Bhny (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Nonsense proposal. P.S. I already voted THE SAME PROPOSAL some months ago, why voting AGAIN on a proposal that has already been rejected?--Insilvis (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You haven't provided any reasons why. Also note that consensus can change. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already expressed my reasons when the previous proposal was voted. I repeat them now: the E-Cat is a team work, based also on the previous scientific publications of Sergio Focardi. Focardi did participate in the development of the E-Cat, and therefore merging the E-Cat page together with the page on Andrea Rossi is simply nonsensical.--Insilvis (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Rossi built the device by himself. Focardi only helped to test it. Focardi doesn't know what the catalyst is Bhny (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - The E-Cat needs a separate article because that is the focus of interest -- not Rossi himself. It should have a separate article especially if the ultimate conclusion is that it was a fraud, just for that fact. The proposal to merge seems to me to be motivated by the desire to bury the fact of something that's notable in its own right, for whatever reason. --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, it would add context to merge it with the other business ventures. We all agree it is notable to some degree but it is strange to have a dedicated article about something that might not even exist and is mainly known through blog posts Bhny (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not strange that WP has articles on things that might not exist. Example: Yeti might not exist. The non-existence of something is no reason to merge. Tmccc (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The real reason of this proposal is well explained by the above intervention made by Bhny: deleting the article. The article was proposed for deletion, and the proposal was rejected. The decision was appealed, and the appeal gave the same result. The article was proposed for merging with Andrea Rossi, and the proposal was rejected (it was already rejected). The article was even proposed to be merged with Sergio Focardi!!! Result: proposal rejected. So, it is always a continous attempt to circumvent the previous rebuttals in order to reach the final goal: deleting the page. This is simply an unfair behaviour.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(Wrong- go back to the archives. I opposed deleting the article and I still do. Also criticizing people's intentions isn't relevant.) The question is- would this be better in the context of the article on Rossi or does it somehow stand on it's own. The original interest in e-cat has died down and there's not been anything written about it reliable sources all year (afaik) which is why it seems less able to support it's own article Bhny (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No. This is not right. This is an article on Focus: [15]. Rai 2 (Italian state-owen television channel) dedicated a 20 minutes speacial on the E-Cat just two months ago (19 march 2012) in prime time (see here: [16]). I remember it because I watched it. I did not make any research on the internet, but I suppose to be able to find other stuff if I would. However, I did not know that I had to insert each article, each programme, ie the entire media coverage on the E-Cat, just to demonstrate that the media do still deal with the E-Cat! If I knew it, I did it.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've only been looking for english articles of which I still believe there are almost none this year. The first of your links seems to be someone speculating that an e-cat might be more useful at making copper than as a heat engine. It's not anything we can use in our article. Is there a transcript of the TV show? I see there is about 5 minutes on the e-cat starting around 17m9s [[17]]Bhny (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Naaaaay, watch more carefully. At the beginning the presenter introduces the subject, after one minute they start to discuss directly about the E-Cat. Then they interview some scientists about cold fusion. After that, they interview Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi about the development of the E-Cat. Some prototypes are shown.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Would this be better in the context of an article on Rossi or can it stand alone?" The real question here is if there are sufficient sources of information about either Andreas Rossi or the E-cat, including reliable sources that stand independent for each of these two topics, to create articles about these topics. It doesn't matter if interest has died down as that is completely irrelevant for Wikipedia. You can't find too many current news articles discussing the assassination of Franz Ferdinand either, so are you suggesting that article ought to be merged in as a single paragraph into the World War I article or even both articles merged into War, since they are no longer of current interest? The same logic could move every single Wikipedia article into just one modest sized article. This is why I raised the issue of notability, which is not current notability but rather is there anything from which an article can be created and written that conforms to the basic 5 pillars of Wikipedia? These are clearly two distinctive topics we are talking about here where the E-Cat is a device and Andreas Rossi is a person.

If we were talking a merger of articles between two very related things like an E-cat mark 2 or some alternate device that was also an invention claiming to do the same thing that the E-cat device does (such as Defkalion's device), I'd agree that likely needs to stay within this article instead of being made into separate articles, particularly because information about those other devices would be thin (lacking independent notability). So does Andreas Rossi have independent notability beyond what he had done (or not done) with the E-cat? --Robert Horning (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, his main notability is with the "ecotruffa" (eco-fraud) Petroldragon not the e-cat. Bhny (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support The mechanism only operates in close context to Andrea Rossi, it has no notability away from him. The petroldragon is not a proven process like Thermal depolymerization, and doesn't get a separate article, because the petroldragon is tied to Mr Rossi. If his catalyser is tested independently and then used elsewhere by separate people then propose a new article again. If the performance could be separated from the performer, like Michael and the moonwalk, then it has separate notability then it gets a separate article, if there is no separation, it's the same article, so whilst a close connection to Mr Rossi is prerequisite to the machines operation, they belong in the same article. Penyulap ☏ 01:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As I have already written, the E-Cat is a team work based also on the previous scientific publications of Sergio Focardi. Focardi did participate in the development of the E-Cat, and therefore merging the E-Cat page together with the page on Andrea Rossi is simply nonsensical.--Insilvis (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as the device (regardless if it works or not) has had enough coverage to stand on it's own. If it should be merged to would make more sense to merge into cold fusion. // Liftarn (talk)
• Oppose. Subject is notable enough for its own article. We need to guard against the article becoming too lengthy and thereby making the claims seem more important and significant than they really are, but provided the article is kept within bounds I believe it should stay. 81.159.105.59 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the device only works with Rossi. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think a merger would strengthen both articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (conditional) I have never edited this article myself, but I've been following its development and this talkpage regularly. I consider the current form of the article very informative, not unduly speculative, and remarkably balanced wrt the "hoax or breakthrough science/engineering" question. I could imagine supporting a merge if it would be clear that none (or only very little) of the information present today gets lost after the transfer. The reason being that, as time passes by without actual results and without relevant media reports, the ECat importance and form of presentation needs to be reevaluated. That said however, 'support' comments like "And none of the waffle about whether 'LENR' is real science or not..." make me believe this merge proposal serves a different purpose in reality, more specifically, to get rid of the parts of the article that try to represent the scientific and popular estimation of the likelihood of a working E-Cat. And a discussion about this question needs to be kept separate from a merge discussion. --Minvogt (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• comment It looks to me (brief glance) like the consensus is against the merger, I can remove the templates etc or do we need an admin close? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean there wasn't a consensus. I've been meaning to write a summary of reasons for and against. I'll try to do that tomorrow. Bhny (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok sure sounds good. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary

support ~11

• fringe, undue weight
• just one of Rossi's inventions
• not notable
• merge gives context to inventions
• e-cat and rossi are inseparable (it only works in his presence)
• merger would strengthen both articles

oppose ~10

• it is notable
• notability doesn't fade
• team work with Focardi
• merge is proposed for reasons beyond merging
• would make more sense to merge into cold fusion
• current article is good

Bhny (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.