Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Energy Catalyzer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 23 |
New Paper Pending Peer-Review
A peer-reviewed paper has been published about the E-Cat.
81.201.144.199 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Any evidence that it has indeed received peer-review and has been published by a serious journal? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Of course not. It's just another manuscript that they've tried to slap up on ArXiv. Apparently ArXiv has put a hold on it. (The website that 81.201 is pointing us at – [1] – is an amusing blog, with a delightfully buzzword-laden description of itself: "Sifferkoll is about using quantitative analysis and proprietary algos on big data to verify qualitative and intuitive models covering areas that interest us, including trading, online sales, social media behaviour and black swans like the LENR paradigm shift." They are already fanning the flames of conspiracy theory about ArXiv's hold.) Note that even if the ArXiv moderators don't just kill it, it's still not peer-reviewed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Let's be absolutely clear about this - arXiv papers are not peer-reviewed: "The endorsement process is not peer review". [2] So even if arXiv were to publish the paper, it would mean next to nothing in terms of science. Unless and until Rossi gets his claims published in a credible mainstream peer-reviewed physics journal (which will of course require him providing sufficient detail for third parties to replicate his experiments), all these 'papers' are essentially meaningless. Rossi makes claims. He conducts 'demonstrations'. That isn't how science works. It may convince potential customers and/or investors (which is presumably the purpose of his circus act) but it isn't science, and Wikipedia isn't going to misrepresent it as science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I find it unsurprising that for the most potentially-convincing part of the manuscript – the limited isotopic analysis of "fuel" and "ash" – Rossi was the only person who was allowed to load and collect the sample materials which were subsequently sent for analysis; the relevant note is in the second paragraph of page 7. (And those results have problems of their own, but I'm not going to start a forum discussion here.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Details in the fourth paragraph of page 7 "in the presence of..." , and the third paragraph of page 8 "handed back to us" Alanf777 (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever - this still isn't a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal, and accordingly isn't a reliable source for scientific claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Speculation is not our priority TenOfAllTrades, assessment of the report will come in due time I am sure. I agree with AndyTheGrump that no Arxiv or internet copy of this paper will do, but if the rumours of its impending publication in The Journal of Physics D are true, we may well get a reliable peer reviewed source for this. As it stands, at least until it is mentioned in mainstream media, this does not fit wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is, of course, a world of difference between "submitted to J Phys D" and "accepted by J Phys D". It's also obvious that the document that's been linked here isn't anything like a journal article in format, structure, or content—and it's not like there isn't a history of over-promising and under-delivering from these clowns. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- In terms of the JoPD i agree with you totally. The format of the article is not unlike a journal article, it is however too long. I would expect to see a much shortened version in the JoPD, if it ever is published there. I suspect that the published the full 50+ page report so that sceptics would have enough information to analyse. "and it's not like there isn't a history of over-promising and under-delivering from these clowns" what are you implying here? and who are you talking about? Rossi, or the independent testers? if Rossi then I agree with the statement, but not its use, as Rossi was not behind this test (aside from being involved for the technical assembly, something that is fine in terms of independence so long as testers maintain control at all times). If you are talking about the testers in your quote I don't understand you at all, as these guys aren't delivering anything, they are reporting. please refrain from name calling and POV pushing.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is, of course, a world of difference between "submitted to J Phys D" and "accepted by J Phys D". It's also obvious that the document that's been linked here isn't anything like a journal article in format, structure, or content—and it's not like there isn't a history of over-promising and under-delivering from these clowns. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Speculation is not our priority TenOfAllTrades, assessment of the report will come in due time I am sure. I agree with AndyTheGrump that no Arxiv or internet copy of this paper will do, but if the rumours of its impending publication in The Journal of Physics D are true, we may well get a reliable peer reviewed source for this. As it stands, at least until it is mentioned in mainstream media, this does not fit wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever - this still isn't a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal, and accordingly isn't a reliable source for scientific claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Details in the fourth paragraph of page 7 "in the presence of..." , and the third paragraph of page 8 "handed back to us" Alanf777 (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I find it unsurprising that for the most potentially-convincing part of the manuscript – the limited isotopic analysis of "fuel" and "ash" – Rossi was the only person who was allowed to load and collect the sample materials which were subsequently sent for analysis; the relevant note is in the second paragraph of page 7. (And those results have problems of their own, but I'm not going to start a forum discussion here.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
One other point - there is nothing in the linked paper to indicate that it is in the public domain, and it isn't hosted by the authors - accordingly we have to assume that it is copyright, and that the link may be a copyright violation. Hence we can't link it in the article until it's status is clear. For that reason I've removed it from External Links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's another copy on one of Lewan's sites, with a quote from one of the authors "I got the report sent to me by Hanno Essén who said that he now considers it to be public, although not supposed to be published in any commercial journal until further notice from Journal of Physics D". See http://animpossibleinvention.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/ and paper at https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/luganoreportsubmit.pdf Alanf777 (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well if the authors wish it to be released into the public domain - or if they wish to make it available for download themselves - they can do so, in a manner that makes its status clear. Meanwhile, per policy, we don't link material if the copyright status is unclear. And even if the status is clarified, as a non-peer-reviewed and unpublished report as yet of no verifiable scientific significance, I can't think of any legitimate reason why we should link it at all, unless and until it is significantly commented on by credible uninvolved third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. "Public" is a far cry from "public domain", and indeed, many journals will not publish papers without copyright assignment, except under very limited circumstances (typically US government scientists). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well if the authors wish it to be released into the public domain - or if they wish to make it available for download themselves - they can do so, in a manner that makes its status clear. Meanwhile, per policy, we don't link material if the copyright status is unclear. And even if the status is clarified, as a non-peer-reviewed and unpublished report as yet of no verifiable scientific significance, I can't think of any legitimate reason why we should link it at all, unless and until it is significantly commented on by credible uninvolved third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Elforsk CEO in NyTeknik : (use google translate) http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece "Yesterday it was announced startling results from a month-long series of measurements on a so-called energy catalyst. The report was written by researchers from Uppsala University, KTH and the University of Bologna. It describes a development of heat that can not be explained by chemical reactions. Clear isotope changes in the analyzed fuel indicates instead that in the case of nuclear reactions at low temperatures. It suggests that we may be facing a new way to extract nuclear energy. Probably without ionizing radiation and radioactive waste. The discovery could eventually become very important for the world's energy supply." .... "Elforsk takes now the initiative to build a comprehensive Swedish research initiative. More knowledge is needed to understand and explain. Let us engage more researchers in searching coat phenomenon and then explain how it works." -- though there isn't a link to the report. Alanf777 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ny Teknik, which previously brought us the credulous non-scientist Mats Lewan, has now printed a press release. Shrug. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- The original statement from Elforsk can be found here:
- http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/
- I'd like to be able to summarize it, unfortunately I don't know Swedish ^_^
- --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- A press release from the CEO of Elforsk - an involved party. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Extreme Tech (part of Ziff Davis -- PC Mag etc) Cold fusion reactor verified by third-party researchers, seems to have 1 million times the energy density of gasoline http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline Links to the original siffercol report Edit : Extreme Tech is referenced in wiki over 500 times, several that I spotted were by Sebastian Anthony -- looks OK as an RS to me Alanf777 (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly this source is a RS (per other articles using it) for saying essentially that a mainstream media source has reported that a test has occurred. It is NOT a reliable source for scientific discourse, but that isn't the point, this article is about the Ecat device itself, AND the ongoing story (fraudulent or otherwise). Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Edit: however, I fully expect a better news source for this to be released soon (i.e. Forbes etc) so I won't enter into a longwinded argument for its inclusion. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly this source is a RS (per other articles using it) for saying essentially that a mainstream media source has reported that a test has occurred. It is NOT a reliable source for scientific discourse, but that isn't the point, this article is about the Ecat device itself, AND the ongoing story (fraudulent or otherwise). Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Still not a very good source. It's another 'tech' reporter like Mats Lewan, i.e. not a scientist or even science reporter, and definitely not an expert. He's just cranking out three or four posts per day ([3]) to drive web traffic.
- And of course there is the usual question—a reliable source for what? If I've said it once on Wikipedia I've said it a thousand times: sources by themselves aren't intrinsically reliable or unreliable. It's down to how sources are used. (You've used WP:RSN before, Alan. There's a reason why the box at the top asks for three distinct pieces of information – source, article (context), and content – rather than just a link to the source.)
- The only reasonably robust information we have is that there exists yet another self-published, self-serving, self-promotional report by Rossi and allies. Since Wikipedia isn't actually the Energy Catalyzer Blog, we don't need to add low-grade promotional bulk to our article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- "He's just cranking out three or four posts per day to drive web traffic." Strange, I thought that's what journalists/reporters are hired to do. (drive web traffic/sell print newspapers, magazines ...) I guess there are about five hundred wiki articles that you ought to sanitize. Alanf777 (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- The E-CAT is a technical product. A publication specializing in technical products has commented on a test of the product. It would go in a section of the article called tests. (I can leave out the link to the report if you still find that troublesome). Alanf777 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that you (and some of these publications) have adopted a definition of "technical" so broad as to be effectively meaningless. If you're going to assume that the same people are competent to comment on the new iPad and on the Energy Catalyzer because they're both "technical" or "technology"-related, I really can't help you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yup - and furthermore, the E-Cat isn't a 'technical product'. It isn't a product at all. Despite Rossi's endless tales about production facilities (where is the factory this week?), nothing remotely resembling a 'product' has been shown to exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that you (and some of these publications) have adopted a definition of "technical" so broad as to be effectively meaningless. If you're going to assume that the same people are competent to comment on the new iPad and on the Energy Catalyzer because they're both "technical" or "technology"-related, I really can't help you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- The E-CAT is a technical product. A publication specializing in technical products has commented on a test of the product. It would go in a section of the article called tests. (I can leave out the link to the report if you still find that troublesome). Alanf777 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is a sad joke. The paper even states Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. How this could be called an independent or third party test I don't know. Bhny (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Bhny, this is not a forum, and if you had quoted properly >>"Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration." It would be clear that they ensured that he didn't tamper with the test. DO NOT partially quote to promote your POV. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- We are arguing about whether to include this source in the article. I argue that it should not be included as an independent, third party, peer reviewed test, as it is not independent, third party or peer reviewed. It seems like more of the usual, a demonstration with Rossi present. My quote is an exact sentence from the paper. Maybe you misquoted because you didn't include the whole paper and the conclusion? Bhny (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the authors of that document explicitly thank Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for financial support. It is utterly clear that this report is not 'independent' or 'third party' when the research was paid for by the current patent owners. --Noren (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Companies paying a third party to independently evaluate their technology is common. This does not invalidate the independence of the test (i.e. IH and Rossi not involved in collecting results or in running the test and it is done in the laboratory of the third party). Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Commissioning independent third-party testing is a valid thing, broadly speaking. (It has issues, and different blind spots and potential conflicts of interest from proper peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal, but it has its place.) The issue here, however, is that this test wasn't done by arms-length, independent scientists, but by the same crew who's been supporting Rossi all along, with Rossi's close participation. Rossi was the only person allowed to directly control the device or collect samples of fuel or 'ash'; only very tiny quantities of material were supplied for isotopic analysis and other tests. Guiseppe Levi, the lead author of the latest report, has been writing press releases for Rossi's demos since at least 2011. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's not a justification to omit this information, but for including these facts in the article. This is not an article on a scientific subject, it's on an pseudoscientific subject. We need to cite the pseudoscientists and name their pseudopapers to make it clear what their claims are. You are too scientistic in your attitude. Censorship is always a bad thing, and science certainly doesn't need it to prevail. Don't be so afraid about the pseudoscientists. --rtc (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your sentiment, but the article is already way too bloated for such an obscure fringe topic and there are many refs of low standard, like this paper, that could bloat it further. Bhny (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's not a justification to omit this information, but for including these facts in the article. This is not an article on a scientific subject, it's on an pseudoscientific subject. We need to cite the pseudoscientists and name their pseudopapers to make it clear what their claims are. You are too scientistic in your attitude. Censorship is always a bad thing, and science certainly doesn't need it to prevail. Don't be so afraid about the pseudoscientists. --rtc (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Commissioning independent third-party testing is a valid thing, broadly speaking. (It has issues, and different blind spots and potential conflicts of interest from proper peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal, but it has its place.) The issue here, however, is that this test wasn't done by arms-length, independent scientists, but by the same crew who's been supporting Rossi all along, with Rossi's close participation. Rossi was the only person allowed to directly control the device or collect samples of fuel or 'ash'; only very tiny quantities of material were supplied for isotopic analysis and other tests. Guiseppe Levi, the lead author of the latest report, has been writing press releases for Rossi's demos since at least 2011. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Companies paying a third party to independently evaluate their technology is common. This does not invalidate the independence of the test (i.e. IH and Rossi not involved in collecting results or in running the test and it is done in the laboratory of the third party). Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the authors of that document explicitly thank Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for financial support. It is utterly clear that this report is not 'independent' or 'third party' when the research was paid for by the current patent owners. --Noren (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- We are arguing about whether to include this source in the article. I argue that it should not be included as an independent, third party, peer reviewed test, as it is not independent, third party or peer reviewed. It seems like more of the usual, a demonstration with Rossi present. My quote is an exact sentence from the paper. Maybe you misquoted because you didn't include the whole paper and the conclusion? Bhny (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Bhny, this is not a forum, and if you had quoted properly >>"Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration." It would be clear that they ensured that he didn't tamper with the test. DO NOT partially quote to promote your POV. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Further sources:
Mark Dansie http://revolution-green.com/e-cat-lenr-test-results-released/ ([4])
Brian Wang http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/third-party-report-on-32-day-continuous.html ([5]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon hurd (talk • contribs) 00:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- We don't cite websites that promote " over-unity devices, magnet motors, cold fusion, vortex, zero-point and advanced hydrogen" 'technologies' and similar credulous hogwash (see the 'Breakthrough Energy Movement' 'about us' link from revolution-green.com), and neither do we cite random blogs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- These sources are clearly not up to RS criterion.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Further sources:
Tom Whipple http://fcnp.com/2014/10/09/the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-a-new-report/ ([6])
Joe Shea http://www.american-reporter.com/5,074/1.html ([7]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon hurd (talk • contribs) 07:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Further source: Mark Gibbs http://www.networkworld.com/article/2824558/infrastructure-management/could-ultra-cheap-clean-energy-be-just-around-the-corner-the-return-of-rossi-and-the-e-cat.html ([8])
- Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia: Identifying gullible echo chambers and trolling bloggers should be a blue link... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The new report can and should be mentioned shortly in the tests section, but outlandish claims read into it should not be uncritically quoted. I mean, from common sense, it's clear that this e-cat device is fraud, but at least the report contains some specific information, contrary to much of the rest of the article (things like "I'm convinced that this works", you know....). --rtc (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not really. We've been around the merry-go-round several times now. Here are the steps:
- Rossi and his close friends self-publish some sort of self-serving report, describing an independent-but-not-really-independent test;
- a few fringe outlets get very excited;
- a handful of 'tech' bloggers post short "Is cold fusion back?" (Answer: "Maybe!") columns as click-bait filler on one or two semi-reputable news sites; and
- everything gets quiet again when there still isn't an actual product or proper independent confirmation.
- Lather, rinse, repeat. For a while, the Wikipedia article breathlessly reported every instance of 1, 2, and 3—but we've gotten wise to step 4. (And journalists are slowly getting wise to it, too; there seems to be less Step 3 material with each iteration.) We're not the Energy Catalyzer Blog and we're not here to help Rossi attract investors; we don't need to post an update every time Rossi posts a new report. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- What you're essentially saying is that you don't want any further news on the subject to be written into the article. This comes down to saying there should be no such wikipedia article. If you think so, fine, put it up for deletion, and you'll for sure have my vote. But simply at one point stopping to report on news is certainly not going to happen. The report is interesting, if only for the fact that it reports that no radiation was observed and Rossi keeps putting restrictions on research. That pretty much supports those who are skeptical about this obviously fraudulent device. --rtc (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that there isn't any news about the E-Cat. As a product it is non-existent, and Rossi clearly has no intention of ever allowing genuine third-party verification of his claims regarding physics (which would require providing sufficient details to allow independent replication). Instead, the 'news' is merely more of the endless cycle of press releases, 'tests' which convince only the believers, and credulous reports in sources that lack the expertise to do anything but parrot the press releases and add a few token comments to the effect that they don't necessarily believe it. None of this amounts to no more than puffery - and Wikipedia isn't here to provide Rossi with yet more free publicity so he can go through yet another cycle of more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're repeating what you already said. It's an argument against the article. Go and make another AfD if you wish. But as long as we have this article, it needs to be up to date. If that means describing an endless cycle of worthless papers on the installment plan, so be it. --rtc (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- What I've already said where? And as for the article being 'up to date', when there is actual news, we can add it - but Rossi's circus act isn't news, it is promotion - and even our articles on credible mainstream manufacturers don't parrot every bit of fluff they put out about hypothetical future products. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Articles are not merely about "actual [ie., major] news" on their topic but describing all relevant aspects. Sure, the new report is clearly promotion, yet it's relevant. It contains some new information not in the first report. This is not an article on a manufacturer, but the "hypothetical future product" (as you call it) itself. Again, what you put forward are arguments against the article in its entirety, not against mentioning this specific report. Your argument can be used against any other part of the article with the same validity. --rtc (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- 'The first report'? Rossi has been publishing 'reports' for years. Are you seriously suggesting that an encyclopaedia should include every bit of promotion on hypothetical products that is published? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I mean the other one that's mentioned before this one. Not suggesting it's the first ever--the first mentioned in that section and written by those authors. No I'm not suggesting what you say. There's a middle ground between mentioning only major news and mentioning every bit of nonsense. There's a lot in the article that's less relevant than this report. The report does, I repeat, confirm one major prediction made by the skeptics--that the device does not emit radiation and hence neither fusion nor fission can possibly be involved. --rtc (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Rossi has consistently claimed that his device doesn't produce radiation (or at least, not in levels enough to be a problem) - again, this isn't news. And as for the report 'confirming' anything, scientific claims - especially extraordinary ones - need better sourcing than a paper rejected by arXiv. We shouldn't cite it for 'no radiation' any more than we should for statements about supposed isotopic changes between the 'fuel' and the 'ash', or for a COP of 3.6. If and when a serious response to the scientific claims made in the paper is published in a qualified reliable source, we might have content worth including, but adding more uncritical puffery just because it is new seems entirely unjustified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Everyone can read and judge the report for himself. If you wish, request deletion of the article and I will support you. But I won't support your claim that only big news may now be added to the article. The rest of the article is setting low standards, and this news is far from being its worst part. --rtc (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to be contradicting yourself. Do you want the article deleted, or do you want to add content to it? As for 'low standards', that is an argument for removing material, not adding more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think the article should be deleted, but noting that two AfDs failed, I'm not going to go through the hassles of starting another one. Given that the article probably won't be deleted anytime soon, the lesser evil (to keeping it as) is is to add the news, because the existence of the second report is a fact worth mentioning. At least as much worth mentioning as the other things that are already there. There's no contradiction in that. The low standards are mostly set by parts of the article that are far worse than this. It's kind of symptomatic for those kinds of articles. See also WP:SELFPUB. Go ahead and start deleting other stuff. The preceding paragraph, for example, could use a lot of trimming. --rtc (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why on earth are you citing WP:SELFPUB as a justification for citing a primary source making claims in contradiction to elementary tenets of physics? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Because that's what the article is all about: those claims. --rtc (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why on earth are you citing WP:SELFPUB as a justification for citing a primary source making claims in contradiction to elementary tenets of physics? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think the article should be deleted, but noting that two AfDs failed, I'm not going to go through the hassles of starting another one. Given that the article probably won't be deleted anytime soon, the lesser evil (to keeping it as) is is to add the news, because the existence of the second report is a fact worth mentioning. At least as much worth mentioning as the other things that are already there. There's no contradiction in that. The low standards are mostly set by parts of the article that are far worse than this. It's kind of symptomatic for those kinds of articles. See also WP:SELFPUB. Go ahead and start deleting other stuff. The preceding paragraph, for example, could use a lot of trimming. --rtc (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to be contradicting yourself. Do you want the article deleted, or do you want to add content to it? As for 'low standards', that is an argument for removing material, not adding more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Everyone can read and judge the report for himself. If you wish, request deletion of the article and I will support you. But I won't support your claim that only big news may now be added to the article. The rest of the article is setting low standards, and this news is far from being its worst part. --rtc (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Rossi has consistently claimed that his device doesn't produce radiation (or at least, not in levels enough to be a problem) - again, this isn't news. And as for the report 'confirming' anything, scientific claims - especially extraordinary ones - need better sourcing than a paper rejected by arXiv. We shouldn't cite it for 'no radiation' any more than we should for statements about supposed isotopic changes between the 'fuel' and the 'ash', or for a COP of 3.6. If and when a serious response to the scientific claims made in the paper is published in a qualified reliable source, we might have content worth including, but adding more uncritical puffery just because it is new seems entirely unjustified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I mean the other one that's mentioned before this one. Not suggesting it's the first ever--the first mentioned in that section and written by those authors. No I'm not suggesting what you say. There's a middle ground between mentioning only major news and mentioning every bit of nonsense. There's a lot in the article that's less relevant than this report. The report does, I repeat, confirm one major prediction made by the skeptics--that the device does not emit radiation and hence neither fusion nor fission can possibly be involved. --rtc (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- 'The first report'? Rossi has been publishing 'reports' for years. Are you seriously suggesting that an encyclopaedia should include every bit of promotion on hypothetical products that is published? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Articles are not merely about "actual [ie., major] news" on their topic but describing all relevant aspects. Sure, the new report is clearly promotion, yet it's relevant. It contains some new information not in the first report. This is not an article on a manufacturer, but the "hypothetical future product" (as you call it) itself. Again, what you put forward are arguments against the article in its entirety, not against mentioning this specific report. Your argument can be used against any other part of the article with the same validity. --rtc (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- What I've already said where? And as for the article being 'up to date', when there is actual news, we can add it - but Rossi's circus act isn't news, it is promotion - and even our articles on credible mainstream manufacturers don't parrot every bit of fluff they put out about hypothetical future products. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're repeating what you already said. It's an argument against the article. Go and make another AfD if you wish. But as long as we have this article, it needs to be up to date. If that means describing an endless cycle of worthless papers on the installment plan, so be it. --rtc (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that there isn't any news about the E-Cat. As a product it is non-existent, and Rossi clearly has no intention of ever allowing genuine third-party verification of his claims regarding physics (which would require providing sufficient details to allow independent replication). Instead, the 'news' is merely more of the endless cycle of press releases, 'tests' which convince only the believers, and credulous reports in sources that lack the expertise to do anything but parrot the press releases and add a few token comments to the effect that they don't necessarily believe it. None of this amounts to no more than puffery - and Wikipedia isn't here to provide Rossi with yet more free publicity so he can go through yet another cycle of more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- What you're essentially saying is that you don't want any further news on the subject to be written into the article. This comes down to saying there should be no such wikipedia article. If you think so, fine, put it up for deletion, and you'll for sure have my vote. But simply at one point stopping to report on news is certainly not going to happen. The report is interesting, if only for the fact that it reports that no radiation was observed and Rossi keeps putting restrictions on research. That pretty much supports those who are skeptical about this obviously fraudulent device. --rtc (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that continuing to reproduce every incremental change in Rossi's claims – when the heart of those claims is backed only by self-published reports – is doing our readers a disservice and is an abrogation of our responsibility as editors. While the "Teach the Controversy" approach has some appeal, it would represent an abandonment of WP:NPOV—in particular, the bits about WP:UNDUE.
- The existence of yet another report isn't worthy of mention because Rossi has been refining his sales pitch for years now, and this is more of the same. Rossi's story about the device, about manufacturing facilities, about investors, about academic collaborations has changed repeatedly; there's no reason to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. Though this isn't a very good Wikipedia article, there's no reason we should make it worse through the addition of another round of promotional puffery.
- Byeond that, I'm saying is that there hasn't been any further news. A lack of radiation and the fact that Rossi has continued to restrict independent testing isn't news; it's been the case for as long as he has been marketing this 'invention'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- You have said that already. Now please stop reverting and go on deleting less relevant parts of the text. --rtc (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- As has already been pointed out, the copyright status of the paper is unclear, and it is NOT being hosted by the copyright owners - accordingly, we cannot link it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is no copyright violation. That dishonest claim is based on nothing but thin air. Note WP:WINC. Quoting uncritically from a source is one thing and clearly against NPOV. But it's just as wrong to not mention the existence of the source at all. You are the one who is violating NPOV. --rtc (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- The paper is not hosted by the copyright holders. There is no evidence that it has been released to the public domain. Accordingly, your statement that 'there is no copyright violation' is based on nothing whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be in the public domain to be legally hosted there. It could be legal in all sorts of ways and nothing whatsoever even remotely suggests that it might be an illegal copy. You are making up wild, dishonest claims to somehow justify keeping that paragraph out of the article. You are wasting so much energy that could be used so much better in other parts of the article. --rtc (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- So pointing out that the copyright status of the paper is unknown is 'dishonest' is it, while spouting pure guesswork about how 'it could be legal' isn't? yeah right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, right! "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" (my emphasis, WP:LINKVIO). This version is linked in many places, and the authors certainly know about it. If they would object it, it would long be gone. Note that consent, even tacitly, is enough for it to be hosted legally. You are putting forward unreasonably high standards. Copyright is certainly not any issue here. --rtc (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- More guesswork... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your argument is BS. The burden of proof is on your side. We are merely linking this material, not adding it to Wikipedia. You don't have to prove beyond any doubt that something is legal before you may link it. Your are abusing WP:LINKVIO to defend a lost position. --rtc (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- While I think Andy's arguments about copyright status are not in conformity with Wikipedia policy (copyright status of a link is mostly irrelevant other than assaying perhaps a better link where copyright status might be more certain simply for the pragmatic stability of the link over time), it is relevant to question the reliability of this document and if it adds anything new to the discussion. This particular paper is not peer-reviewed nor does it appear to offer anything of substance that wasn't known earlier other than some minor details. I still assert the E-cat is notable nonsense, but that is rehashing the AfD all over again. This paper seems mostly having Rossi make some noise all over again because he hasn't been heard from for a few months. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your argument is BS. The burden of proof is on your side. We are merely linking this material, not adding it to Wikipedia. You don't have to prove beyond any doubt that something is legal before you may link it. Your are abusing WP:LINKVIO to defend a lost position. --rtc (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- More guesswork... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, right! "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" (my emphasis, WP:LINKVIO). This version is linked in many places, and the authors certainly know about it. If they would object it, it would long be gone. Note that consent, even tacitly, is enough for it to be hosted legally. You are putting forward unreasonably high standards. Copyright is certainly not any issue here. --rtc (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- So pointing out that the copyright status of the paper is unknown is 'dishonest' is it, while spouting pure guesswork about how 'it could be legal' isn't? yeah right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be in the public domain to be legally hosted there. It could be legal in all sorts of ways and nothing whatsoever even remotely suggests that it might be an illegal copy. You are making up wild, dishonest claims to somehow justify keeping that paragraph out of the article. You are wasting so much energy that could be used so much better in other parts of the article. --rtc (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- The paper is not hosted by the copyright holders. There is no evidence that it has been released to the public domain. Accordingly, your statement that 'there is no copyright violation' is based on nothing whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is no copyright violation. That dishonest claim is based on nothing but thin air. Note WP:WINC. Quoting uncritically from a source is one thing and clearly against NPOV. But it's just as wrong to not mention the existence of the source at all. You are the one who is violating NPOV. --rtc (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- As has already been pointed out, the copyright status of the paper is unclear, and it is NOT being hosted by the copyright owners - accordingly, we cannot link it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- You have said that already. Now please stop reverting and go on deleting less relevant parts of the text. --rtc (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@Rtc: Sorry, but it looks like consensus is against your addition here, for several reasons. It's time to drop the stick and move on. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's no consensus as long as several people disagree. Granted, most of them have stupid arguments for keeping this, but on the other hand the arguments for deleting it are just as stupid. We mention the first report, so we should mention the second. This is an attempt to block the article from further added material because people were unable to get it deleted. That's censorship. I disagree with the claims of this e-cat guy, but I want them to be fully disclosed in the article. Censorship is always the worst possible way to refute pseudoscience. Don't be a dick and take back your revert, so at least people can see there's a debate going on here. --rtc (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- For future reference, the "censorship" spiel practically always backfires, and calling someone a dick is hardly conducive to dialog. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yup - personally, I long ago came to the conclusion that anyone citing WP:NOTCENSORED as a reason for including content had already lost the argument. As for "We mention the first report, so we should mention the second", the difference is obvious - the first report (not that it was the first...) was responded to by credible scientific sources. So far, the only sources responding to the latest 'science' are those not qualified to do so, parroting the puffery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I long ago came to the conclusion that anyone citing copyright concerns out of thin air as a reason for deleting content had already lost the argument. As for the rest, it's not obvious to me and it's the first time you are using that argument. Though only slightly more convincing than the others, at least it's a more rational one. --rtc (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, not the first time I used that argument. [9][10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- These claims do not involve the first report at all. But I'm not going to argue on this any further. I am obviously wasting my energy here. --rtc (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wait - isn't that the whole purpose of Wikipedia? Also see evolutionary pressure at work... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- These claims do not involve the first report at all. But I'm not going to argue on this any further. I am obviously wasting my energy here. --rtc (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, not the first time I used that argument. [9][10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I long ago came to the conclusion that anyone citing copyright concerns out of thin air as a reason for deleting content had already lost the argument. As for the rest, it's not obvious to me and it's the first time you are using that argument. Though only slightly more convincing than the others, at least it's a more rational one. --rtc (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yup - personally, I long ago came to the conclusion that anyone citing WP:NOTCENSORED as a reason for including content had already lost the argument. As for "We mention the first report, so we should mention the second", the difference is obvious - the first report (not that it was the first...) was responded to by credible scientific sources. So far, the only sources responding to the latest 'science' are those not qualified to do so, parroting the puffery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You guys are wasting breath about copyright issues. Elforsk has just put up a new permanent link to the report http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-matrapport-publicerad/ This Is a new version of the report that corrects minor spelling mistakes etc and has clearly been made public.
I hope we can move on and discuss inclusion or exclusion. Personally I agree with Rtc. Andy makes a good point that the difference is that it is primarily other people's reports ABOUT the 'first' test that are being reported in the wiki article. However, many of the concerns raised (and reported in the wiki article here) are addressed by the new report in some way or another.
To say that no inclusion can occur is tantamount to censorship, especially as at least one critical analysis by researchers (uninvolved in the test) from Uppsala University has already been published:
- as well as a quote from Michael Nelson, Alternate Discipline Leader for SLS Propulsion at NASA’s Propulsion Research and Development Laboratory:
- “I was impressed with the work that was done to insure the measurements claiming a 3.2 to 3.6 COP were accurate. Aside from the fact that this could not have been produced from any known chemical reaction, the most significant finding to me is the evidence of isotopic shifts in lithium and nickel. Understanding this could possibly be the beginning of a whole new era in both material transmutations and energy for the planet and for space exploration. This is an exciting time to live in and this is an exciting technology to witness come about.” http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/10/prweb12239416.htm
- As well as an interview with Tom Darden, of Industrial Heat about the new Ecat test:
- As well as Elforsk planning more LENR Research as a result of the Test:
- As well as several other news sources about the new report:
- http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_fusion_a_better_study_on_the_infamous_ecat-146700
- http://fcnp.com/2014/10/09/the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-a-new-report/
- http://www.networkworld.com/article/2824558/infrastructure-management/could-ultra-cheap-clean-energy-be-just-around-the-corner-the-return-of-rossi-and-the-e-cat.html
- http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2014/10/09
All this indicates that the test has had an influence upon the perception of the Ecat as well as the future of LENR research. it is NOTABLE, and to include it and any notable reactions to it is just common sense. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Now I really think Wikipedia: Identifying gullible echo chambers, self-serving press releases, and trolling bloggers should be a blue link...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Notable? Lets see:
- Ny Teknik: In Swedish, but useful.
- www.prweb.com: a press release.
- www.bizjournals.com Interview with involved party.
- NY Teknik again, but this is written by the CEO of Elforsk, who funded the 'test'.
- science20.com: A blog, but the author appears to be a physicist. Possibly RS.
- fcnp.com: from the 'commentary' section of a local newspaper. No reason to see the author as having any relevant expertise.
- www.networkworld.com: uncritical parroting of the report from an IT specialist with no obvious qualifications.
- coasttocoastam.com: an interview with Stirling Allan, the man behind the 'free energy' website pureenergysystems.com - not remotly RS for anything.
- Much of this is fluff, and poor evidence of notability. The first Ny Teknik report - detailing the comments of uninvolved scientists from Uppsala University - is really the only source that adds much, though maybe the science20.com comments about Rossi's direct involvement in the test "which totally invalidates any conclusions one might otherwise draw from the data alone" might be worth including. If we are going to include anything, the first thing we need is a proper translation from Swedish of the first Ny Teknik article. I've commented before on the overuse of Ny Teknik as a source, but given that it appears to be written by the university academics rather than by Ny Teknik I think we can use this one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the second Ny Teknik article is an involved party, however it sill may be notable given that they have decided to fund additional research as a direct result of the 'test'. I was not posting the other sources a hard reliable sources, but rather to point out that this is a large notable event in the Ecat story. One that should be present on the wikipedia page. Google translate will give you the gist of the comments by the Uppsala researchers, and a general summary of their comments could be written from this so long as no direct quotes are made (it would of course be better to find a swedish wiki editor to translate it) Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll point out that Rossi himself has said that he personally did not remove the 'ash' from the reactor, the researchers did, I'll find the quote later. We will have to wait for someone to confirm this from the researchers as this is a key point of contention about the report and the working of the report is unacceptably vague (saying that rossi 'intervened', without defining the term further). I think the best thing right now would be to put something on the article saying that a third report occurred, and that there has been some criticism of it by university of Uppsala researchers, with a reference to the Ny Teknik link. For now, until more reliable sources come about I think this is the best we can do, as this sums up nicely what we currently know (i.e. there has been a report, there has been some legitimate criticism of the report) Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the second Ny Teknik article is an involved party, however it sill may be notable given that they have decided to fund additional research as a direct result of the 'test'. I was not posting the other sources a hard reliable sources, but rather to point out that this is a large notable event in the Ecat story. One that should be present on the wikipedia page. Google translate will give you the gist of the comments by the Uppsala researchers, and a general summary of their comments could be written from this so long as no direct quotes are made (it would of course be better to find a swedish wiki editor to translate it) Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Much of this is fluff, and poor evidence of notability. The first Ny Teknik report - detailing the comments of uninvolved scientists from Uppsala University - is really the only source that adds much, though maybe the science20.com comments about Rossi's direct involvement in the test "which totally invalidates any conclusions one might otherwise draw from the data alone" might be worth including. If we are going to include anything, the first thing we need is a proper translation from Swedish of the first Ny Teknik article. I've commented before on the overuse of Ny Teknik as a source, but given that it appears to be written by the university academics rather than by Ny Teknik I think we can use this one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The report is now available at elforsk, which probably removes any doubt about its provenance : http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf Alanf777 (talk)
- I don't know what your point is - as far as I know, the provenance was never in question. The copyright question, weak as it is, is still not resolved - is there a reason to assume elforsk has the copyright? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Elforsk is an involved party. The provided the majority of the funding. They are directly in contact with the researchers. a new UPDATED version as been given a permanent PUBLIC home on Elforsk's web site. What do you want? for them to outright say that the copyright is open for wikipedia to link it???? Stop being disruptive, there is no reason to question the public nature of the report anymore. The burden of proof is on you via the copyright issue if it is brought up again. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I have read the report and found the problem. (Long story short, they were doing the thermography wrong (details on request) so the temperature was probably more like 875C than the claimed 1400C. This balances everything to within uncertainties of a few hundred Watts.) I have informed some of the authors and am waiting to hear back from them. Since this is Independent Research, the Wikiquette is to not put it on the main page, but people participating in the Talk should know.DMPalmer (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Since details are likely to be requested:
- The investigators used thermal imaging to determine the temperature of the ECat device, and then calculated how much thermal radiation it emitted. In both of these steps, you have to correct for emissivity: the radiation emission ratio between the object of interest and that of a theoretical blackbody. The emissivity varies with temperature and other conditions. The took an emissivity vs. temperature plot from the literature that is integrated over the entire spectrum, and this is appropriate for determining the total radiative power as a function of temperature. However, they used the same emissivity curve to determine temperature from the thermal imaging. This is inappropriate: you need to use the emissivity ratio for the 10-19 micron band that the camera detects (preferably weighted by the camera response within the band). Calculation based on published emissivity vs wavelength curves (admittedly not as good as direct calibration) predicts that they were actually measuring a much lower temperature than they thought, and so the radiated power (which scales approximately as fourth power of temperature) was much less than they thought.
- The investigators should be commended for putting in enough detail in their report that this could be caught, instead of 'Temperatures were measured by standard methods.' That's the difference between science and press conferences. DMPalmer (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a forum. This is not a place to put your personal analysis of the test. It is not our job to question the validity of the test! This is original research plain and simple, whether you are right or wrong. Only if a notable expert in the field makes such a quote is it notable. I repeat: THIS S NOT A PLACE FOR PERSONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE TEST, unless you are a notable expert in a relevant field, and even then, you should take your quote elsewhere and then it may be referenced. Any further personal comments about the validity of the test by ANYONE, unless backed up by a referenced source will be considered disruptive. THIS IS NOT A FORUM.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unless I'm very much mistaken, D.M. Palmer is a physicist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. So yes, this isn't a forum, and yes, his comments are original research in Wikipedia terminology, and thus not immediately relevant to article content - but a little politeness might go a long way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good to know. By all means, make that quote somewhere that we can reference it, also please note weather the possible emissivity error could result in the excess heat as measured (magnitude of error) and how this results to the null test as this is not clear from your post DMPalmer. As it stands it is just so much meaningless clutter on an already cluttered talk page. I was in particular taking to people in general that wish to make armchair statements about the validity of the test.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unless I'm very much mistaken, D.M. Palmer is a physicist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. So yes, this isn't a forum, and yes, his comments are original research in Wikipedia terminology, and thus not immediately relevant to article content - but a little politeness might go a long way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Before reading the comments, I put in a mention to the report in the article. Then I read the Talkpage, I see it's been verbiageated to near death. I thought of self-reverting, but I knew it would be reverted for me. Only took 2 minutes. Anyway, is there a reference refuting the claims of transmutation of Ni? From another angle, if this is a long-running fraud, isn't it valid to keep track of it's history, like 'it is a long lasting case and here's the latest chapter of this fraud/mistake/scam/whatever' ? The article is about the strange case of the E-Cat, and this is the latest news. GangofOne (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a forum. This is not a place to put your personal analysis of the test. It is not our job to question the validity of the test! This is original research plain and simple, whether you are right or wrong. Only if a notable expert in the field makes such a quote is it notable. I repeat: THIS S NOT A PLACE FOR PERSONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE TEST, unless you are a notable expert in a relevant field, and even then, you should take your quote elsewhere and then it may be referenced. Any further personal comments about the validity of the test by ANYONE, unless backed up by a referenced source will be considered disruptive. THIS IS NOT A FORUM.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Did I get this right? From the comment on the last deletion "AndyTheGrump : (Undid revision 629396194 by GangofOne (talk) see talk page discussions - if we are to include this, we MUST also include criticism of the science involved)". So the very existence of the report is being suppressed because no reliable source has criticized it strongly enough? Alanf777 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, you got it wrong. We have sources criticising the report - and per WP:FRINGE (and indeed WP:NPOV, the policy from which WP:FRINGE is derived) including uncritical material on the report while not also including the criticism from qualified scientists is contrary to policy. We are having an ongoing discussion here as to what we should include, and as is noted above, the most significant criticism so far comes from Uppsala University - in Swedish. Given the controversy regarding the E-Cat, it would seem important to ensure that this material is accurately translated, which has yet to be done. And for the record, this is not a newspaper, there is no deadline, and an unseemly rush to include 'news' does little for the credibility of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, rather than part of Rossi's publicity machine, and we are under no obligation to assist him in his quest to promote his device - accordingly, we will take whatever time is required to come to a consensus regarding any content concerning this latest report. Article quality is what matters, not whether we report every last breathless detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is not the company website where every press release or secret demonstration is published, and it is not a place to amplify the latest space-filler comments on such promotions. It's pretty simple stuff—if there is a magic box which emits substantial amounts of energy for weeks at a time, it should be released for widespread trials. WP:REDFLAG tells us that a lot more than veiled glimpses of a miracle are required to publish purported evidence of the miracle's existence. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Also disagree with mentioning every press release or publicity stunt blow-by-blow per WP:NOTNEWS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Disagreeing is unnecessary, press releases and publicity stunts aren't notable (unless they are notable). You get the point. This is a major piece of news. The first that warrants inclusion in the article in over a year. As soon as we decide how to deal with the Nyteknik article (in Swedish)about the Swedish researchers at Uppsala we can include this source. stop stating your 'opinion' that non notable stuff shouldn't be included... this is obvious.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- As it concerns to Wikipedia, "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." All we have is a claim that has not published in any reliable scientific journal BECAUSE it has been peer-reviewed. We can report that, and remain neutral by saying that they have done a couple of exhibitions that remain unverified and untested. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, so this new paper got quite a lot of attention in various, not necessarily "scientific" media - e.g. on Slashdot, Forbes, Reddit, chip.de and such - and people are curious what's the take of scientific community on it. If people are interested in it (my personal opinion, but substantiated by the amount of discussion in this Talk page), then the issue itself becomes somewhat notable and begs for a reference in the article, no matter what's the opinion of the majority of the scientific community. If it is that the report is sub-standard or plain inaccurate or fake or.... , so be it, but, in my personal opinion it should be referenced here. Adom11 (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Adom11. Also, as the article references the first article by the same academics, it should reference the second article. These two articles are on the most germane tests. Talking about other tests but not mentioning this one is clearly censorship. Star A Star (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I mean, "as the Wikipedia entry references" etc. Star A Star (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- In November 2011, Star A Star wrote (diff): "... There has been media exposure in known journals and peripheral involvement by reputable scientists. Commercial sale reality or lack of it will become evident within months. Then if necessary the article can be cut or altered to function as an historic record..."
- I take his point; we now have the luxury of looking back on experience that we didn't have then to see how things panned out. Three years later, there's no credible evidence of a commercial product, nor a meaningful patent, nor a peer-reviewed publication (not even in a crappy journal with dubious credibility). It's time that this article be rewritten to acknowledge that this phenomenon has run its course; it definitely shouldn't be treated as an ongoing blog of Rossi's self-serving announcements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- TenOfAllTrades, if you are just going to keep saying the same thing over and over to be deliberately inflammatory, save your breath. There is still news on this, therefore it is still a notable subject. There is no concrete evidence of fraud that would indicate that the story has 'run its course' (circumstantial claims of how a test might have been faked don't count sorry). Three years later and Rossi has sold his IP to Industrial Heat and Tom Darden for many millions, and now a new test with improved rigour and independence adds even more credibility to the claims (note: 'adds' not 'proves'). Although i admit that this is circumstantial evidence of a commercial product, it also indicates that someone is convinced of its validity enough (Tom Darden) to put serious money behind it. Also I'll note that Tom Darden explicitly states (reference above) that the reactor used in the most recent test was NOT MADE BY ROSSI, but by the team at IH... This means that IH has not been 'duped' by rossi as you have claimed in the past but rather that they would have to be in on the scam too. This all indicates continued development of the story, further supporting that this has NOT 'run its course' at all, but rather that the story continues. It is the Duty of Wikipedia to report on notable news about the subject. This new report is at least as notable as the previous one, perhaps more so. Notable enough that within DAYS it has attracted the notice of numerous scientific researchers around the world. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Numerous scientific researchers" may possibly have noticed it - you fail to provide evidence that they have seen fit to comment. Instead, you have cited the usual puff-pieces from people clearly not qualified to comment on the validity or otherwise of Rossi and co's latest circus act. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- TenOfAllTrades, if you are just going to keep saying the same thing over and over to be deliberately inflammatory, save your breath. There is still news on this, therefore it is still a notable subject. There is no concrete evidence of fraud that would indicate that the story has 'run its course' (circumstantial claims of how a test might have been faked don't count sorry). Three years later and Rossi has sold his IP to Industrial Heat and Tom Darden for many millions, and now a new test with improved rigour and independence adds even more credibility to the claims (note: 'adds' not 'proves'). Although i admit that this is circumstantial evidence of a commercial product, it also indicates that someone is convinced of its validity enough (Tom Darden) to put serious money behind it. Also I'll note that Tom Darden explicitly states (reference above) that the reactor used in the most recent test was NOT MADE BY ROSSI, but by the team at IH... This means that IH has not been 'duped' by rossi as you have claimed in the past but rather that they would have to be in on the scam too. This all indicates continued development of the story, further supporting that this has NOT 'run its course' at all, but rather that the story continues. It is the Duty of Wikipedia to report on notable news about the subject. This new report is at least as notable as the previous one, perhaps more so. Notable enough that within DAYS it has attracted the notice of numerous scientific researchers around the world. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Insertcleverphrasehere, you shouldn't go making your own assumptions about the reasoning behind Rossi's secretive and very-poorly-described business arrangements. For all we know, Darden and his hedge fund needed a source of operating losses or research expenditures for tax purposes. (Lest you believe I'm being facetious, this is how BlackLight Power – another non-traditional-physics-based venture – has raised at least some of their funds. In 2013, they raised at least $1.1 million through sale of R&D tax credits and tax losses.) In contrast to Rossi's recurring, grandiose,and mutually inconsistent declarations, Darden has been conspicuously silent about assembly lines, real products, delivery dates, or any concrete claims whatsoever. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion you're mistaking validity of his discovery, or possibility of ecat becoming a valid commercial device with notability. These are not the same. There are many claims of discoveries not accepted by the majority of the scientific community which are notable. And we write about them, because they are interesting to many (notable) Adom11 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- If the supposed 'discovery' can be demonstrated to meet our notability guidelines, we may well write about it - we are not however obliged to parrot every bit of promotional fluff. This paper is being touted as a serious scientific account, and as such needs to be weighed for relevance by that standard. If and when the scientific community gives it serious consideration, then so should we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The first 3rd party test said that they were planning a longer study, so I think this is self-notable. Since it met at least some of the objections (eg DC power) noted in the present article, it is deceptive not to provide an update, or even admitting that there IS a report. Since the "official" announcement (and now the hosting of the paper) came from Elforsk I suggest we lead with that -- either the NyTeknik version or the (earlier) official version. Pomp et al wrote a rebuttal in NyTeknik, and call it straight-out fraud. (There's also a reply to that from Elsforsk). Mats Lewan's NyTek article is neutral : it briefly summarises the claims of the report, and quotes some of the detractors, with an explanation by Essen on Rossi's involvement. The most-quotable ANTI article is science20 -- and we already have an earlier article by him in the refs. The most balanced scientific report I've seen is by McKubre of SRI international, at http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html And by the way, doing a quick count of attempts at inserting something and comments here, I don't think you have a consensus any more on omitting it. Alanf777 (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The 2nd Report is mentioned on this NBC News item: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/cheaper-coal-fusion-concept-aims-bridge-energy-gap-n223266 "An outside review of experiments involving the controversial E-Cat reactor reports evidence of "anomalous heat production." That has raised hopes among E-Cat's fans that cold-fusion technology — also known as low-energy nuclear reaction, or LENR — just might work. Critics have said the heat production is probably due to less exotic reactions that haven't been properly accounted for, but this week's report sides with the view that something nuclear is going on. For more, check out this report from ExtremeTech's Sebastian Anthony." Star A Star (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Even though it's a footnote, it follows up on NBC's report on the first test. Author : Alan Boyle is the science editor for NBC News Digital. That easily moves it over the "notability" and the "reliable source" thresholds Alanf777 (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- What is the proposed wording? Anything which suggests that a box can output energy beyond known science is not supportable per WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. This article is not available to promote a claim that a breakthrough has overturned known science—when there is sufficient evidence that the box works, it will be part of science and will be in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see no reason why the claims cannot be summarized. It confirms the previously-reported COP, extends the time frame to 32 days, and presents some evidence of transmutation (The lack of which was a major objection to the first test). "In Oct 2014 a new report was issued by the same team, which claimed a COP of 3.2 to 3.6 over 32 days, and presented some evidence of transmutation of Lithium and Nickel. REF: elforsk's announcement (NyTeknik and Elforsk) REF: elforsk's copy of the paper. Four professors at Uppsala and Lunds responded to the announcement, claiming that the transformation results were impossible, and that since Rossi was involved in part of the test it must be fraud. REF: NyTek. NBC and Extremetech reported positively on the report REF: NBC REF: EXtremetech , while science20 criticized it REF: science 20." ... followed by specific quotes. Alanf777 (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- NBC: Boyle mischaracterizes Levi et al as an outside review, which is patently absurd. Of course that was just the afterthought paragraph Boyle added to an article on hot fusion designs. It hardly constitutes a substantive discussion. ExtremeTech: Anthony is a veteran software blogger from AOL, but has no evident special expertise on fusion or calorimetry. He does not cite his sources, so we must treat the post as primary as well. So we're back to NyTek. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I put up a bare-minimum entry that there is a new test, a statement of its claims, and the response by Pomp et al that it must be fraud. Alanf777 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have undone your change for the moment, as the content is still very much the subject of active discussion on this talk page. Please establish consensus before you reinsert your proposed material. The mere fact that Rossi and supporters have re-stated their claims in a new report, and that the response from qualified, competent, independent scientists ranges from silence to skepticism, isn't actually anything new; it's the same cycle Rossi has been part of for years now.
- The proposed change remains very much at the 'blogging' stage. Much as proponents would like to believe otherwise, there still hasn't been any serious examination of Rossi's claims (either the most recent ones, or the ones he's made in the past), not in the least because Rossi has not made such examination possible. Until that changes, there's no justification for us to post about every 'update'. Passing news blurbs and blogs establish reliably that Rossi has made certain claims, but the mere fact that those claims exist is not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia to cover in further detail. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- The latest edit I made[11] adds two reliable sources. Not from a peer reviewed journal, but still a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. No consensus is necessary to include more reliable sources into an article. // Liftarn (talk)
- TenOfAllTrades thinks that his opinion is the only one that matters, and is willing to support it with any logical fallacy he deems fit, be it ad hominem, strawman etc, I'm getting sick of it. there are plenty of reliable sources for this the problem now is deciding HOW it will be entered into the article not IF. Stop making arguments to the contrary, and I will only say this one more time, stop using the word blog. There are no blogs being considered as reliable sources, nothing even like a blog (some were proposed above but were rejected). Serious examination isn't required to state that a test has occurred, especially as we have about a dozen or more reliable and notable sources, including preliminary examinations by notable scientists. Any further straw man argument about blogging will be considered disruptive.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I put up a bare-minimum entry that there is a new test, a statement of its claims, and the response by Pomp et al that it must be fraud. Alanf777 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- NBC: Boyle mischaracterizes Levi et al as an outside review, which is patently absurd. Of course that was just the afterthought paragraph Boyle added to an article on hot fusion designs. It hardly constitutes a substantive discussion. ExtremeTech: Anthony is a veteran software blogger from AOL, but has no evident special expertise on fusion or calorimetry. He does not cite his sources, so we must treat the post as primary as well. So we're back to NyTek. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see no reason why the claims cannot be summarized. It confirms the previously-reported COP, extends the time frame to 32 days, and presents some evidence of transmutation (The lack of which was a major objection to the first test). "In Oct 2014 a new report was issued by the same team, which claimed a COP of 3.2 to 3.6 over 32 days, and presented some evidence of transmutation of Lithium and Nickel. REF: elforsk's announcement (NyTeknik and Elforsk) REF: elforsk's copy of the paper. Four professors at Uppsala and Lunds responded to the announcement, claiming that the transformation results were impossible, and that since Rossi was involved in part of the test it must be fraud. REF: NyTek. NBC and Extremetech reported positively on the report REF: NBC REF: EXtremetech , while science20 criticized it REF: science 20." ... followed by specific quotes. Alanf777 (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- What is the proposed wording? Anything which suggests that a box can output energy beyond known science is not supportable per WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. This article is not available to promote a claim that a breakthrough has overturned known science—when there is sufficient evidence that the box works, it will be part of science and will be in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)