Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Purpose of an encyclopedia

This ought not need saying, but evidently it does. Will all editors please bear in mind that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. This is of particular importance in the case of clearly significant content, such as historical reviews. Equally, arguments that would, if applied uniformly over the board, greatly diminish the value of wikipedia, should be applied only after the most careful consideration and consensus had been gained. Thank you for your consideration!
It might even be argued that the speedy deletion of a source by a cabal member actually demonstrates its importance -- if a reference were of minimal importance, aforementioned member would not go to the trouble of exerting himself in this way. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a specific point relating to this article? If so please tell us what it is. Otherwise, please note that this is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No doubt Mr. Josephson is upset that we didn't retain the link he inserted to a promotional website for a self-published book by a non-notable columnist...who has made extensive use of Mr. Josephson in his promotion, and who – I strongly suspect – gives substantial weight to Mr. Josephson's opinions in his book.

Why Mr. Josephson didn't just say so – instead of going off with undirected complaints about a "cabal" – is not clear. Of course, if I am mistaken and Mr. Josephson's comments aren't tied to the book and author that treat him so reverently, it would certainly be appropriate to hat this discussion as soapboxing unrelated to any specific article improvements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

How perceptive you are, ToAT! Indeed that is exactly what I was referring to! But surely a book by a science and technology writer for a technology magazine linked to the Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers, on a subject that he has covered for that magazine, would be considered a good source, by most people at least.
So, Mr. Lewan asked if he could include the review that I had written as a comment to a Nature article on the web page advertising his book: do you have a problem with that? And he hadn't even solicited the review -- I decided myself it was sufficiently notable that people should know about it, and included enough information to make it a mini-review. Again, do you have a problem with that?
And as for your fellow cabal member JzG ruling it out on the basis of self-publication after cogitating on the matter for fully 2 minutes, let me note the following:

• I'm sure Mr. Lewan would have had no problem finding a publisher for his book if he had wanted to take that route. But why go to all that trouble, if you have the resources to self-publish? And why let the publisher take a sizable slice of the profits as publishers do?
  
• In view of the above, self-publication can no longer be considered a sign of a book being not up to standard, and editing practice should now reflect that fact. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is wikipedia policy "self-published media, such as books, patents, ... are largely not acceptable as sources". If you want to change the policy you need to do it here- WP:SELFPUBLISH. As for this particular book, has it been reviewed anywhere? If it hasn't made any impact then referencing it here is just promotion. Bhny (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Change of policy is not required, only blind enforcement of it.--5.15.53.36 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"None so blind as those that will not see" --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That might be a valid point if the e-cat was widely accepted as a miracle energy machine. It's not. It's a device whose inventor and chief proponent has failed to provide the type of evidence necessary to persuade those who are not already predisposed to believe extraordinary claims. Skepticism is the default in the scientific method, the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim and the more extraordinary the claim, the heavier the burden and the better the proof needs to be. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement Skepticism is the default in the scientific method seems to be generated by a misunderstanding of the scientific method which deals with discriminating among competitive explanations when they are possible.--82.137.15.181 (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no. When you have an idea, the scientific method demands that you test your idea, whereas the pseudoscientific method allows you to to try to confirm your idea. The scientific method is only followed if the burden of evidence is placed on the person making the claim.

For example, if someone believes in homeopathy and conducts a trial of homeopathy against a placebo without including the consultation process (i.e. the "talk therapy" element) then they are not taking into account the totality of the null hypothesis - they are engaging in pathological science. If they then publish the result asserting that homeopathy is a system of medicine that works by the energetic signature of a substance which causes symptoms similar to those of the condition, according to the law of similars, and that this result proves it works as stated, then they are engaging in pseudoscience, because none of those things are true and there is no attempt to test the base assumptions, none of which have any theoretical or empirical validity at all. To be science, you must base your conclusions on skeptical tests and theories with a solid grounding in reality. Look at the scientific reaction to Einstein's papers on relativity. And how was the debate resolved? By making specific predictions that could be verified by dispassionate observers. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The qualifier skeptical has no place near tests when it comes to applying the scientific method. Trying to confirm a hypothesis is a natural tendency for the investigator. This corresponds as reasoning to affirming the consequent starting from the consequent (experimental fact). The problem appears when different antecedents can give (explain) the same consequent or equivalently several alternative hypotheses can explain the same experimental facts. Discerning between alternatives requires the appeal to falsification (denying the negation of an antecedent). Sometimes times discerning between alternatives is not very decidable and multiple alternatives are equally valid. Some alternatives to (general) relativity are known, just to give an example. Another example of several explanations that can be given involves the ionic conductivity of electrolytes solutions, namely the minimum in conductivity is due to ion-association or not.--82.137.12.64 (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You are, I am afraid, wrong. Many tests of Prosper-René Blondlot's n-rays were carried out, but it was only when properly skeptical tests were performed that they were shown to be pathological science. Suspend belief is one of the most important facets of proper scientific inquiry. If it doesn't work without belief, then it's baloney. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes and this 'properly skeptical' ideal is also what leads to scientific persecution in spite of good evidence in support of your theory, which is exactly what happened to Alfred Wagner while attempting to gain acceptance of his theory of Continental Drift. Lacking a mechanism, in spite of overwhelming circumstantial evidence, he was laughed out of the house by the scientific community, who said that his theory was quote 'impossible'. I see some parallels here, but my point is that scientific scepticism is just as likely to be taken to the extreme as is the opposite... (i.e. looking for support of your hypothesis because you 'believe' in it). Science isn't perfect, particularly the scientific community, after all, humans are flawed, even if the scientific method isn't. Plate tectonics is real, even if it doesn't work exactly the way Wagner thought it did, he was still right, and he died before recognition of his lifes work was brought about. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

When we have credible evidence that this device is not the fraud it is generally considered to be, then we will put that in the article. Right now, we don't, so the article reflects the fact that the device is generally considered to be a fraud, and self-published books claiming the contrary are of no relevance in either case. Books on fringe claims are generally less reliable than the mainstream academic journals, because there are publishers who publish nonsense (the output of Lynne McTaggart, for example, is filed in the Science section in some bookshops!). So no thanks, we do not need laudatory books, especially self-published ones. Bring good quality mainstream peer-reviewed sources that show it works - and explain how - and then we can talk. It's not very complicated.

As an aside, the credentials of the author are irrelevant. There are people who have done super scientific work but who espouse completely ridiculous pseudoscientific notions. The appeal to authority is fallacious. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that fully 12 of the references in the article consist of articles by Mats Lewan himself. Had you not noticed that? Can the cabal please supply a good reason why a book by the same person, on exactly the same topic, should be suddenly be deemed unacceptable? This is a Kafkaesque situation! --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging that, I will review them and remove them if justified. Lewan gives a strong impression of being a True Believer, which is fine for uncontroversial facts but much less so for claims that are rejected by most independent reviewers. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Lewan's articles are used because they were published in Ny Teknik, not because they were authored by Lewan. Supposedly, Ny Teknik has a minimal level of quality control that makes the articles reliable. Lewan would need a few more publications in more than one publisher to reach the level of authority required by WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Or more coverage about his work. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And you give a remarkably strong impression of being a True Disbeliever (aka Denier) if I may say so. What is the harm done if they are all there in the article? --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a moon cheese denier, too. Being a skeptic does that for you. The good thing is, though, that the only thing that is needed to completely change my mind, is credible evidence of independently reproducible effect. And guess what? That's what we require for the article, too. It's not like this is the first time Wikipedia has been around this loop, the cold fusionists have engaged in long-term POV-pushing on cold fusion too, resulting in several of them being banned.

It really is very straightforward: if the world thinks a free energy type device is fraudulent, Wikipedia is firmly not the place to blaze the trail in promoting its legitimacy. When there are good quality independent sources showing that it works, and how, then we will cover that. In the mean time the consensus view is that this is a scam, and our default position in respect of extraordinary claims is precisely the correct one: they require extraordinary evidence. Not YouTube videos and self-published apologia.

This device, if it is as its proponents claim, will win them the Nobel prize. I personally think it's unlikely to happen because I have a friend who worked in Fleischmann's lab during the cold fusion debacle, and even he doesn't believe the cold fusionists' claims re catalysed fusion, but I suspend final judgment until the results are either properly published and independently reproduced, or he's jailed. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As Lewan points out in his book, a skeptic is one who keeps an open mind when a question is in doubt, not one who is against the idea. Alanf777 (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We are redefining words now? A skeptic is someone who requires strong evidence before accepting a claim, which is precisely what JzG described. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Skepticism means being neither credulous nor incredulous. The sources that promote the e-cat seem to be almost entirely credulous, whereas the more mainstream sources adopt an approach of "really? how?". It's not as if this is the first time we've seen inflated claims for marvellous machines that will forever free the world from the tyranny of the oil companies. The path often seems to be claim -> failed reproduction -> pathological science -> conspiracy theory. There are a lot of eyes on these claims, and most of them see plenty of potential for chicanery and no robust evidence to support the claims of proponents. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Seeing this discussion I have to remark that there are also other low reproducible phenomena like wind energy. Is this a reason for including it in pathological science or it has to be accepted as a feature of the phenomenon?--82.137.15.181 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say that wind energy is a "low reproducible" phenomenon? As far as I am aware, any wind turbine placed in an airstream whose velocity is within its operational parameters will always, completely repeatably, generate electricity. Cold fusion and its anlogues, by contrast, only seem to work when the experiment is conducted by a True Believer. Pathological science is often illustrated by reference to the efforts of cold fusion proponents. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I mean that wind (and solar) energy is a variable renewable energy who generate electricity only when natural factors are available. The availability of natural factors is a random variable. --82.137.13.171 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering what this line of discussion has to do with writing this article about the Energy Catalyzer—which is what this talk page is for. As far as I know, Andrea Rossi hasn't even gotten as far as invoking 'random variables'. His position – as far as I know – is that the devices work, full stop. The problem here is that Rossi hasn't released sufficient information to allow independent reproduction/construction of one of his devices, nor has he permitted any fully independent examination and testing of any of his devices. And we do know that the last time Rossi claimed to develop a new energy technology (super-efficient thermoelectric generation panels, back around 2002-4) they worked astonishingly well right up until he delivered devices for independent testing...at which point he dropped off the radar until his next big invention: this so-called Energy Catalyzer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The conditions in which CMNR (condensed matter nuclear reactions) devices generate useful energy are also random variables, especially for people not knowing these conditions (figured out by Rossi) and trying to reproduce them for an independent testing in conditions of insufficient information.--82.137.12.64 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Rossi has yet to offer the slightest verifiable evidence that he has achieved 'condensed matter nuclear reactions', the fact that nobody else has been able to 'replicate' anything is of no relevance whatsoever. Science requires evidence, not promotional bullshit aimed at the pathologically credulous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a distinction without a difference. Coal fired generation does not work in the absence of coal, nuclear generation does not work in the absence of fissile material. To claim that because wind fluctuates, so we should accept the claims of a convicted fraudster about a device for which he has failed to provide credible scientific proof, is ridiculous and certainly not acceptable per Wikipedia policy. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It is important to specify who is world who has the consensus view that E_Cat is fraudulent.--5.15.45.12 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the book. Most editors here try to act in good faith and a self-published fringe-science book about anything has almost no chance of being referenced in any article in wikipedia. This has nothing to do with cabals or cold fusion skepticism or free-energy suppression, we are just trying to make a good article. To make the case that this book should be included we would at the very least need to see reviews in reliable sources or some proof that this book is important. Bhny (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

See my note in another section. (re-signed) Alanf777 (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This? I replied here. Generally cleaner though to keep discussion sections self-contained, since they might get archived to different pages or something. VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry (and for being logged out when adding the comment here). I added to my previous comment on Lewan, and didn't see that this section covered the same ground. Alanf777 (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bhny: Precisely. As I have mentioned, I had a friend who performed some of the experiments in Fleischmann's lab in Southampton in the late 80s, we were all full of hope back then, but that was a quarter of a century ago and there's still nothing tangible from it other than a device that only seems to work when operated by its inventor, a convicted fraudster with a degree form a university that was shut down for fraud. If the red flags were any bigger we'd be declaring a People's Republic. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Bhny's point is accurate and concise, however, I don't see how the rest of your opinion here is relevant, did you have something to add or are you just attempting to be deliberately inflammatory? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hatting

The hatting by VQuakr has been reverted because its reason is not valid. This section discusses the inclusion of a book source by the same author whose articles are cited in article.--82.137.14.18 (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Then stay on topic - we are not here to discuss the meaning of the word 'skeptical', alternatives to general relativity, or the relevance of random variables to wind power generation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing the section was valid. The self-published source has been rejected for policy-based reasons. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing has no place here. There are strong signs of admin impropriety from some admin who thinks he owns the page to force the closure of a discussion tendentiously by obstructing legitimate comments with which he disagrees using the pretext of off-topic.--5.15.31.133 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If I look for a claimed disruptive technology - I want to read about facts and opinion of experts in this field (condensed matter and electrochemistry). And if there is a book with certain quality covering that special topic - I expect wikipedia to mention that book. Is the opinion of the Journalist Steve Featherstone a reliable Source ? no, but it was published in Popular Science.

Is Ugo Bardi a reliable source if it comes to economic and nuclear opinions about Rossi? no. Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel is not from the field. A well written book from a journalist with background in the field (a Master of Science in Engineering Physics) - which had the chance to meet all the involved persons as well as was involved in measurements - should be mentioned. There was an endorsement by Brian Josephson - and that should be enough. Would an endorsement of Featherstone, Bardi, Siegel be credible ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The validity of scientific claims is determined by reproducibility, not endorsement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I´m sure it makes no sense - but maybe you missed the point that I raised the question which type of endorsement should be necessary to add a reference to a stupid book covering that issue. Taken into account what kind of far-out sources are cited in this article - adding a reference to such book should need no endorsement at all.

As you yourself have previously stated however, like many articles on pseudoscientific devices or scams, this article is not only about the scientific validity of the E-Cat and Rossi, but also about the ongoing 'story' and controversy. This book is an important part of that story, as was previously said above, if I want information about a source I expect that a major source of information in that topic to be covered by wikipedia. As the only book written about Rossi , by a credibly educated journalist who shows a (reasonably) skeptical point of view, and Endorsed by Brian Josephson, I can't accept that we can't even mention the book, even to say "A self published book about Rossi and the E-Cat "An Impossible Invention" by Mats Lewin was released in 2014' Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

But maybe you will never get the point - because you cannot read - what could explain the book issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary out of Date

I think that the summary of the article is kind of out of date, ending with the quote by Steve Featherstone in the summer of 2012. I think that the acuisition via industrial heat as mentioned below should be included here, as quite a lot has happened with this story since 2012 (thats two years ago after all). I'm not asking for any new info to be added, just an update to the summary to include new info that is already in the article. I won't add anything myself as I do not know all of the rules for posting in controversial articles such as this. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You can add things as long as you have a WP:RS reliable source. The problem with this article has always been the lack of good sources. There's been no interest at all in this topic with English language mainstream media in the last year, so I don't think anyone reported about Industrial Heat beyond the press release (a press release is not a reliable source). Bhny (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a paragraph written about it later in the article (near the end)... with sources, I am suggesting that it be added to the bottom of the summary. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The lede is intended to summarise the gist of the article as a whole - it isn't necessarily wise to include every supposed 'latest development' there, just because it is recent. And in this case, I'm not sure that anything has happened in the last couple of years that amounts to anything but 'more of the same'. 'Demonstrations' of no scientific value, accompanied by much hype and precisely nothing concrete in terms of a working product. Basically the same old story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that Popular Science ref; so it has been published in a reliable source. I'm ambivalent about whether it should be added to the lead because Pop Sci only talks about the press release, and nothing of note has come of this "acquisition". I think this whole article is about done unless they actually sell a real product, or there is proof of fraud (or self deception). Bhny (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Fundamentally, there's not a lot to the Industrial Heat story. Beyond a brief and rather skeptical PopSci column, we have a couple of fluff business articles written by Amanda Jones Hoyle (a real estate writer for a low-impact business newspaper [1]) and a plug from the ever-credulous cheerleader, Mats Lewan. At best, there's a relatively small amount of venture capital from a small number of suckers; Andrea Rossi engaging in yet more mysterious business dealings is not really news. Maybe if he actually sold a real, tangible, working device – or even let someone else test one fully independently – like he's been promising to do for the last half-dozen or so years now, then there would be a worthwhile update to the story. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Well he is allowing a fully independent review to be done, guys up in Sweden, from all reports the study is already done, and they are just writing the report now, could be up to a month though. Not reliable sources for this stuff of course just the usual Rossi says, but we will know within the next month hopefully. Skeptical as always, but hopeful. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

...and of course, it will take a while for the report to be properly peer-reviewed and revised. I mean, since you are always skeptical, I can presume that you're talking about a properly-published, peer-reviewed, scientific report, right? Not just another press-release technical report that will be slapped up on arXiv? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Big Hoax Edit War

Un-registered user/s 188.13.178.229 and 80.153.91.1 (the same person?) keeps inserting a "big hoax claim, which is not supported by any RS. Alanf777 (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

80.153.91.1 (talk) has again inserted the unsupported "big hoax" claim. What's the edit-war complaint procedure? Alanf777 (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You might start off with a warning from WP:WARN. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Featherstone Popular Science Article

This is a long article, and IMHO merits a section on its own.

To make this work both logically and chronologically, I propose moving the first paragraph of Tests to a new section Internal Tests near the top and insert aFeatherstone section before the rest of the Tests section.

I have a draft on my user page if anyone wants to preview it / edit it there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alanf777/drafts#Featherstone_Popular_Science_Article Alanf777 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No objections. I'll do it this evening, then. Alanf777 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I find the tenor of your proposed text to be very charitable; probably far too much so for NPOV. To take one example, the emphasis on the quote about no one being willing to call Rossi "a con man" seems unduly positive. Aside from the general reluctance of scientists to make such specific statements and the desire to avoid nuisance defamation lawsuits, Featherstone was at an LENR conference at the time—it shouldn't be surprising that he couldn't get any other glass-house dwellers to throw stones. (Really, the statement "he had something, even if he didn't understand why it worked or how to control it" pretty much sums up the last few decades of wishful thinking in the cold fusion field.)

For another example, if the Featherstone article was from 2012 and Rossi was promising independent tests from the University of Bologna in October (2012 or 2013?), we can confirm that Rossi was once again, and entirely unsurprisingly, lying. There's no need for us to include speculation about how the then-future but now-past hypothetical event turned out—we know that the University of Bologna didn't carry out independent tests for Rossi.

It's also questionable whether we really need to add that much detail and bulk to this article – including a special, separate section – to cover the commentary from one source.

I am afraid that my internet access will be limited over the next few days; I can't add much more to this discussion at the moment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

"we know that the University of Bologna didn't carry out independent tests for Rossi" -- But individuals FROM UoB did ... in the Third Party report, which is covered in the Test section. And as far as NPOV, I included many more negative quotes than positive quotes. Alanf777 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I suspect that – through no fault of your own, Alanf777 – most editors who have watchlisted this page didn't see your original post to start this thread. A bot archived some old talk page sections just a half hour after your post; regrettably, your notification got pushed off our watchlists. I only saw this thread after your 'no objections' post popped up on my watchlist.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TOAT- I can't see the justification for this proposed change. If anything, given the complete absence of evidence that Rossi is ever going to come up with the necessary details for independent verification of his claims, we should probably be considering trimming out some of the fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why a two year old article now warrants a new section. This topic is pretty much done and trimming would be more appropriate. Bhny (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Then there should be no objection to taking the very selective Featherstone quote out of the lead? Alanf777 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The lede is fine as it is. This article has been stable for months, and lacking any significant new material, I see no reason whatsoever to go through over the same arguments yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Featherstone quote is NOT fine. Since it was a lead-in to the bulk of the article it was un-representative of the article as a whole even at he time it was inserted. I objected to it then and I object to it now. Alanf777 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your objections were noted. Consensus was that the lede was fine. You have provided no evidence for anything that is likely to change the existing consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I also have no problem with the lede as it is, and see no benefit in Alan's proposal. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Source removed

Ok what's the deal with removing valid sources from the article[2]? // Liftarn (talk)

there is an ongoing discussion concerning what content if any relating to this latest 'report' should be included. You don't get to ignore such discussions just by claiming that something is 'sourced'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's perfectly acceptable to ignore some editors that wants to keep some facts out of the article on spurious ground with no basis in Wikipedia guidelines, but OK let's see what happens. There are also articles that criticize the test.[3][4] // Liftarn (talk)

WP:WEIGHT isn't spurious; it's a core policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Then there is no problem with using these source since they combined presents "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". // Liftarn (talk)

You're missing the meaning of "significant" and "proportion to the prominence". (The latter is admittedly difficult to apply here, because it involves a division by zero.) The general idea that Rossi makes lots of remarkable claims that have never been subject to proper independent testing is already well-covered by our article; we don't need to keep a running tally of Rossi's self-serving reports, and to do so would create the misleading impression that Rossi has actually made progress. At this point, Wikipedia is by far the most prominent and enduring source for information about Rossi, and it's not this project's place to amplify his coverage. Virtually every section of WP:NOT also applies here: WP:PLUG, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SPECULATION, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Incidentally, could you please be careful to remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~)? You seem to be inadvertently using just three, which means that your comments aren't date-stamped. (You can also use the "signature and timestamp" button at the top of the edit box.) Using an undated signature has some unintended negative side-effects, like making it more difficult for other editors to follow the order of your comments (when they are spread across multiple threads) and also breaking the function of bots that archive talk pages. I mentioned this earlier on your user talk page, but I'm not sure that you saw my message. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think you are missing the meaning. You seem to be thinking that we can't use a reliable source saying one thing until we also have a reliable source saying to opposite. That's not how sourcing stuff works. And please drop the straw man attacks. They are not helping to make the article better in any way. And also drop the nagging about how I sign my posts. // Liftarn (talk)

It was not nagging, it was a polite request to follow our guidelines. As noted at that link, refusal to correctly use a signature can result in a block for disruptive editing. I agree that including this proposed content would violate WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:3TILDES applies. // Liftarn (talk)

Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel on the latest 'report'

If we agree to include content on the latest 'report', a response by Ethan Siegel (who we already cite in the article) will need citing too: [5] Exactly the sort of source that WP:PARITY considers appropriate - written by a qualified physicist, and dealing in detail with the claims made in the 'report'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Further to this, some interesting comments by Professor Stephan Pomp of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, regarding the fact that Rossi is now claiming that the copper found in earlier analysis of the E-Cat 'ash' was "probably an impurity", that he had "taken off from it the parts I did not want to disclose", and that he had warned Sven Kullander of this - something not borne out by the evidence, since Kullander (along with Mats Lewan and others) had subsequently discussed the analysis in depth without commenting on Rossi's 'impurity' and 'taken off' statements. As Pomp notes, Rossis statement regarding the manipuation of the earlier 'ash' sample still fails to explain the inconsistancy between earlier and later 'ash' samples:

..."if what you state is true, i.e., that you removed (!) something from the sample but it actually was in the "reactor" I am even more baffled. It would mean that we had a different kind of nuclear reaction than we have now? No change in the isotopic composition then but a lot of change now? I mean, you cannot get back to natural isotopic composition by removing (!) something from the sample?" [6]

Pomp further writes:

"Your statement about the 2011 sample simply is an after-the-fact construction desperately trying to save you from the mistake of going from one extreme (no isotopic change in Ni and Cu but claims of nuclear reaction) to another, contradictory extreme (complete isotopic change in nickel to consist of only Ni-62 without any (!) other of the well-known nuclear reactions and without inducing any radioactivity)."

And the funny and very interesting thing is that this desperate try to justify and explain away all contradictions seems to work with your followers! They accept your claim that you need to do all this to protect your "patent". And you simply make good use of the fact that people want to believe in miracles. So you get away with it. Again. Well played! This is pure genius and I admire you!" [7]

Again, exactly the sort of source that WP:PARITY considers appropriate, from an appropriate academic source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

it is definitely worth to be included.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

TV report New Zealand

There has been a direct discussion of the 2nd Report on NZ TV, Channel 3 News, here: http://www.3news.co.nz/world/scientist-claims-to-have-mastered-cold-fusion-2014101510 This makes it newsworthy. It is pointless having an article on the Energy Catalyzer and censoring the major germane information on it from scientists. Star A Star (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A three-minute clip in a science news segment (that I'm guessing didn't air at the top of the hour) on a New Zealand news program? Where they reiterate the point that Rossi still hasn't offered a credible demonstration? Shrug. The fact that Rossi's PR abilities persist to the point that he can pull a dribble of attention from a miniscule fraction of journalists (drawn from the pool of every journalist in the world) isn't helpful. We're still at the point where the only reliable information is that the latest iteration of Rossi's report exists, and that he hasn't done anything to bolster his credibility. If there were something worthwhile here, you wouldn't have to be scraping the newsrooms of the world to try to find a passing mention of Rossi—you'd be finding him on the front page of the BBC and CNN and Nature and Science. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You may shrug all you like. your opinion does not matter.. and also please kindly stop the straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks. its getting sad and I'm considering reporting you for misconduct.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)