Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10

←

Archive 13

→

Does anybody know if this Steve Featherstone is a scientist or not?

"Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."

Does anybody know if this Steve Featherstone is a scientist or not?--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you want us to google that for you? What is your point? People that write in reliable sources are writers. If you google you might find his linkedin profile where he says he writes for many reliable sources. Bhny (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it a scientist or not? From your answer I suppose he is not.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I too don't see the point of the question. For our purposes what matters is he's functioning as a journalist writing in a reliable source and giving an informative overview of the current state of reception of the E-Cat. This gives us a good intro to the reception section (I'm moving it to the top of the section for that reason). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't appear to be using him for scientific statements, we aren't using the source even for a critique, so I'm not quite sure what the issue is, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood. So there is not any problem to use the quotations from Mark Gibbs of Forbes for the same purpose, right?--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So long as no hard science is being proffered or fringe notion advanced, it's certainly possible. What edit have you in mind? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think Featherstone's summary would be better in the lede than Bardi's blog comment, as it's a more RS; maybe they should be switched? - thoughts? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Alex. It's certainly unusual to see a blog post so prominently featured. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC).

The reason we use Bardi is because (as has repeatedly been explained) he is a scientist with a background in renewable energy, and a professor at a leading Italian university - he is clearly better qualified to talk on the E-Cat than a journalist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's true of course, but a journalist is well-qualified to give an overview statement of how Rossi stands in relation to the scientific community, which is what Featherstone is essentially doing. Also, a blog generally isn't a great RS. I've done the switch - see what you think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bardi's blog has repeatedly been discussed as a source, and I see no reason to suddenly discount it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, not discounted so much as moved slightly to make room for a newer stronger source. Whatever local consensus we have, we need to sure to observe sourcing policy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bardi is more of a relevant expert, so he trumps the journalist for opinions, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For scientific statements probably, but as you noted above we're not using Featherstone for that purpose. Featherstone is good for a general overview of Rossi's and the E-Cat's current status (at the end of the road). There's room for both in the article, but having a blog (be it ever-so-eminent) supporting a large proportion of the lede undercuts the article's credibility and I wouldn't want to bet much on such a use surviving a going-over at RS/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't provide an overview, he catalogues his own experiences, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Typical of the bias here to use the old Popular Science article instead of the new one "Cold Fusion Machine Gets Third-Party Verification, Inventor Says. The E-Cat strikes again." Posted 5/21/2013 It wasn't Rossi reporting a test but a paper published by a scientist sponsored by Elforsk.

PopSci is a better RS than a blog. But a trade magazine is even better. Engineering News "Interest in LENR device resurges as independent report is released" http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07

I don't believe fringe science is debated in parliament. Strong Confirmations of Fleischmann Pons ‘Cold Fusion’ Effect at EU Parliament http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/06/strong-confirmations-of-fleischmann-pons-effect-presented-at-eu-meeting/ Parallel (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure it is. Politicians love bullshit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the papers that were presented and note the scientists who gave them. Robert Park used to publicly boast he had never read a single paper on LENR. Parallel (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly e-catworld.com is a totally useless source, and secondly the article says nothing about the E--Cat anyway. Totally irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As anyone who looked would see, E-Catworld simply reported the event. That was the point I made. You apparently claim to be the sole authority and your word does not require proof. Hiding behind anonymity and prone to attacking the messenger rather than the message you claim fringe science. So ALL 14,700 experiments that demonstrated LENR are wrong. Max Planck was right suggesting science advances one funeral at a time.

Regarding the E-Cat, I linked the piece in "Engineering News."

Adrian Ashfield

Parallel (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want us to discuss sources, try not wasting out time with articles that don't mention the E-Cat. As for 'engineeringnews.co.za' [1], the article merely regurgitates what we already have, from better sources. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Cold fusion (aka lenr) is fringe, that isn't debatable (convince the patent office, don't try to convince us). Politicians can talk about fringe, South African engineering web sites can talk about fringe, it is still fringe. When someone does a reproducible experiment (perhaps experiment 14,701) cold fusion may begin its journey to accepted science. Fringe is fringe because it lacks reproducible evidence. Cold fusion has a sorry history of non-reproducible experiments. Bhny (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

LENR is debatable. If you had read the history you would know that the Patent Office policy was rushed over by the likes of Robert Park in 1989. The policy was based on the flawed replication by MIT, who didn't know how to do it. Now MIT even teach a course on it and have had an open demonstration of it running since January.

Anyone can now set up a reproducible experiment by following the instructions here. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf

Defkalion claim their Hyperion can start and stop almost immediately by the flick of a switch. Of course you won't believe that until it is demonstrated at the next National Instruments Week in August.

The Martin Fleischmann Remembrance Project is currently reporting live favorable results at http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-4/271-s-g-cells-preliminary-test-findings-for-run-2

Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to debate about LENR, do so somewhere else. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes to what Andy says. I guess I wasn't clear enough. It's not debatable here on the talk page. What we believe doesn't matter. Convince the world not us Bhny (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump I don't want to debate it, How else to show the errors without mentioning them? You refused to debate it at the dispute notice I started. I don't accept your unproven word as gospel.

Rossi backed off saying the nickel and hydrogen combines to form copper some time ago. The quote from PopSci is not the current article. What is wrong with the piece from Engineering News? To suggest "the article merely regurgitates what we already have" doesn't pass the smell test.Parallel (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What specific changes to the article are you proposing, and what sources are you citing to support the proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cherry picking from Steve Featherstone: wrong wrong wrong

Someone added this sort-of quotation from journalist Steve Featherstone:

Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."

Unfortunately this is clearly "cherry picking" and therefore it should immediataly deleted. The original article is this one:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box?single-page-view=true

The citation should be this one:

...As late as this summer, when Rossi’s story seemed thoroughly debunked, he continued to make outlandish claims about his E-Cat. He looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end. Maybe he’d even conned himself...

However the article continues this way:

...To my astonishment, after three days of asking every cold-fusion researcher in the house, I couldn’t find a single person willing to call Rossi a con man. The consensus was that he had something, even if he didn’t understand why it worked or how to control it. The more I learned, the more confused I became. Could Rossi actually have something real? The only way to know for sure was to go to Italy...

So Steve Featherstone DOES NOT conclude that the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end": the article continues by affirming quite the opposite.
Misrepresenting a source is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. Therefore I propose the immediate deletion of the entire quotation from Steve Featherstone's article.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Featherstone's last significant comment on Rossi in the piece:

"If history is any guide, no such report [on University of Bologna tests] would be issued. Rossi will reset the goalposts—the only thing he does with any consistency—and forestall his day of reckoning for another few months, and then another few months after that, until finally he disappears from the stage in a puff of smoke, taking his black box with him.

How do you like them cherries? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Incidentally, why do you think that anyone would be surprised that 'cold-fusion researchers' don't call Rossi a con-man? Even ignoring libel laws, it wouldn't particularly help their cause. Anyway, Featherstone is reporting a 'consensus' amongst the LENR researchers he spoke to - he isn't 'affirming' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course he isn't 'affirming' anything. And this is the point: you cannot carve out a line from a nine page article to misrepresent the thought of the author! Of course he isn't 'affirming' anything, and this is precisely the reason why the citation from Featherstone's has to be removed. It is simply a misrepresentation of a source: the source did not conclude anything and now we have the same source at the top of the article that seems to conclude everything instead! Misrepresenting a source by cherry-picking: this is it.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

NUMB3RN7NE, I expect you will be accused of "debating" for pointing out an error. It was cherry picked from an old article. What I propose is a piece taken from Engineering News.

I propose this portion of the lede is removed

Rossi and Focardi say the device works by infusing heated hydrogen into nickel, transmuting it into copper and producing heat.[9][10] An international patent application[1] has received an unfavorable international preliminary report on patentability because it seemed to "offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories" and to overcome this problem the application should have contained either experimental evidence or a firm theoretical basis in current scientific theories.[11] The device has been demonstrated to invited audiences several times, and commented on by various academics and others, but no independent tests have been reported by sources independent of Rossi, and no peer-reviewed tests have been reported in scientific publications. Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."[12]

And replaced by this taken from Engineering News

“Rossi allowed third-party investigators to test an improved version of the E-Cat unit he first demonstrated in October 2011, called the Hot Cat or E-Cat HT (where HT indicates high temperature). The evaluation was performed by seven scientists: Giuseppe Levi, of Bologna University; Evelyn Foschi, of Bologna; Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, of Upssala University, in Sweden; and Hanno Essén, of Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology. Their 29-page report, titled ‘Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder’, was originally posted on May 6 on Cornell University’s scientific archive website, at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913. A revised version was uploaded four days later, but it should be noted that the paper has not yet been through a scientific peer-review process, and so its findings should be regarded as provisional. The authors were careful with their use of the word ‘indication’ rather than ‘proof’. Two separate tests were performed on the E-Cat HT – one in December 2012, which lasted 96 hours, and another in March, which tested an improved prototype running continuously for 116 hours. The scientists used a thermal imaging camera to quantify the heat output of the E-Cat HT, together with electronic equipment to measure the electrical power input that kick-starts the reaction. Both tests yielded evidence of so-called ‘anomalous heat production’ “in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional [energy] source”. More strikingly, the authors conclude that “volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source”. They state further that, “even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude (ten times) greater than conventional energy sources”. Some commentators maintain that the test might somehow have been rigged by Rossi, for example, by hiding an additional source of electrical energy input. In follow-up comments on the Web, the authors of the report say this is very unlikely.” Ref http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07 Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, no. That would be plagiarism. Also, the weird formatting, like "seven scien- tists" indicates that this website just scraped the material from elsewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Or breach of copyright - and if you intended to mark the entire section as a quotation, please read Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We do not quote huge chunks of a source, for copyright reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Does everyone realize that "engineering news" is a small South African industry magazine? (I have no idea if it is a wp:rs but it is a regional publication of little influence) The reason for the weird formatting is obviously that it is laid out for press and clumsily copied to their web site. Bhny (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Like I said above, "As for 'engineeringnews.co.za', the article merely regurgitates what we already have, from better sources". Sadly, some people seem to think that article talk pages are write-only... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Engineering News Weekly page impressions: 105 776 (monitored by DMMA)

So not that small. Certainly a better RS than somebody's blog. If AndyTheGrump thinks the news is the same as the other sources, presumably he has no objection to using it. I have emailed for copyright permission. Parallel (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That was a stupid thing to do. Even assuming that they agree to release it under the appropriate copyright licensing terms (do you even know what they are?), we won't use it. Wikipedia is supposed to be written by contributors, not copied from elsewhere. And yes, I do object to using it as a source, for the reasons already given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You were quite happy to quote extensively from Bardi. Was that different because it was a blog? If you prefer a contributor to write it, I would be delighted to do that. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As the existing editors have not corrected the factual errors noted above, that are derogatory about Rossi and misleading to viewers of this page, I propose replacing the introduction with the following. Only the first paragraph is virtually unchanged.

The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source[1][2] built by inventor Andrea Rossi[3][4] with support from physicist Sergio Focardi.[5][6] An Italian patent, which received a formal but not a technical examination, describes the apparatus as a "process and equipment to obtain exothermal reactions, in particular from nickel and hydrogen".[7][8]

There are a dozen theories of how it works, but none is widely accepted. NASA is following the theory of Widom-Larsen. (ref http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory) The US Patent Office has rejected all patents on LENR since 1989, following failed attempts to replicate Fleischmann and Pons “cold fusion” paper, although this has since been replicated, so Rossi cannot reveal proprietary details.

Rossi has publicly demonstrated several different versions of the E-Cat since January 2011, culminating in the demonstration of a plant rated at 1 MW made from 106 E-Cats, that produced 436 kW of heat in October 2011. 1 MW plants are now offered for sale through Leonardo Corporation 1331 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida-33139 USA.

Independent tests, funded by Elforsk, were carried out on the E-Cat HT, a high temperature version, by seven scientists: Giuseppe Levi, of Bologna University; Evelyn Foschi, of Bologna; Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, of Upssala University, in Sweden; and Hanno Essén, of Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology. Their 29-page report, titled ‘Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder’is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 The test in December ran 96 hours, the test in March 116 hours. The scientists say the results indicated anomalous heat production at least an order of magnitude more than any known chemical reaction, but their paper has not yet been peer reviewed. A summary has been posted on Elforsk’s web site. They are funded to continue with a six month test starting this Summer. Ref. Engineering News http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07 Forbes. Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ Elforsk http://www.elforsk.se/Aktuellt/Svenska-forskare-har-testat-Rossis-energikatalysator--E-cat/ Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. And we don't cite Wikiversity as a source. Go away and learn Wikipedia policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What Andy said. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be written as advertorials. As well, the fact that you're proposing that we put sales contact information into an article lede strongly suggests that you have no idea what might be appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion?

If, in the not too distant future, I find myself living in an e-cat powered world, cruising the internet on my e-cat powered computer, brushing my teeth with my e-cat powered toothbrush, and sitting in my e-cat powered recliner while perusing the sears e-catalogue and petting my e-kitten then I don’t think it will have mattered if Wikipedia reported the e-cat a few months late.

If, on the other hand, I’m still living in the real world where Rossi’s in jail then it will have been a damn shame if his followers were allowed to have used Wikipedia as a propaganda machine to further Rossi’s criminal endeavors.

The point is that if Wikipedia is “always behind the ball” and “not a news source” then it is expected to be behind the times, so why don’t you Rossi supporters report the “energy revolution” AFTER it happens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia lags behind 'the real world', as a matter of policy. We reflect the sources, and cannot pre-empt them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

declaring connected contributor status

I am preparing a paper for possible publication ... arxiv? ICCF? .. based on information in the Levi et al report. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf

I am therefore probably disqualified from contributing to this article (I heartily endorse the recent changes, particularly bumping Bardi out of the lead.)

This potential paper relates ONLY to the Hotcat as described by Levi et al, so I am NOT posting a declaration in Cold Fusion. Alanf777 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Any possible paper is of a sufficiently low probability, and sufficiently far in the future that it does not establish me as a "connected contributor", so I have deleted my declaration. Alanf777 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to criticism

Re Wikipedia NPOV, it states Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. Editors here have demonstrated bias. For example cherry picking from an old article in PopSci to deliberately give the opposite conclusion to that reached by the author. Ignoring the later article from PopSci that was favorable. Stating Rossi believed the reaction produced copper when he later concluded this was just a minor side reaction. Inserting negative comments taken from a blog and not balancing that by positive ones from equally qualified sources. Deleting my edit correcting the article where it stated no independent test had been carried out. Ignoring these errors when they had been pointed out.

Re wiki WP.NOR The independent test was reported by Elforsk, Engineering News and Forbes.

Re citing Wikipedia as a source. I don't think it matters much which source is used just to confirm there were many theories. or that Widom-Larson was one of them. But the point is taken - Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I will change it.

To AndyTheGrump, it appears you are stating "Do what I say, not what I do."

To anonimous. How would you like to be made out to be a criminal, by name, on WIkipedia? Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has been 'made out to be a criminal, by name, on WIkipedia' - that would be a serious violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. If you have evidence to the contrary, I suggest that you raise the matter at WP:BLPN. As for the rest, since you are clearly either incapable of understanding Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or refuse to accept that they apply to you, I see no point in discussing things further. Policy is not open to negotiation. Per WP:FRINGE, this article will not state as a fact that Rossi's claims are valid unless and until his claims are recognised by mainstream science. This is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If, on the other hand, I’m still living in the real world where Rossi’s in jail then it will have been a damn shame if his followers were allowed to have used Wikipedia as a propaganda machine to further Rossi’s criminal endeavors.

or

Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."[12]

You don't think these imply criminal activity?

I understand you don't want to discuss this further because you don't like your belief system to be challenged by facts. It is not a question of policy. I wrote a factual, referenced replacement to the opinions you prefer in the introduction.

Parallel (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is not a “belief system”, it’s simply sound logic.

Furthermore you aren’t challenging anyone’s beliefs with facts, because you don’t have any facts. You have claims. The entire e-cat/cold fusion/ lenr phenomenon is merely a litany of claims with no actual proof.

Also, if you’re going to engage in flagrant sophistry you’re going to have to be a lot smarter than that. I did not call Rossi a criminal, I proposed a hypothetical future in which the laws of physics hold true and Rossi has been sent to prison which I clearly contrasted with a fantastical future in which cold fusion is real. But you know who did call Rossi a criminal? THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The government of Berlusconi and the mafia called him a criminal? Good point, son. Silent Key (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your cliché about extraordinary claims sounds good but is not logical. All claims should be tested by correct procedures and competently run. That is all. Incompetent experiments, like that run by MIT in 1989, are the problem. They didn’t bother to inquire about the requirements and not knowing them, failed. Reminds of the overconfidence of Park claiming he has never read a single paper on the subject but knew all the answers. According to the New Energy Times he admitted LENR was real in 2006. Better late than never.

I’m not challenging anyone’s beliefs, I’m merely stating facts. Others, like AndyThe Grump, may find that challenging to their beliefs, but that is not my problem. An independent, third party test has been run. This has been confirmed by Elforsk, Forbes and Engineering News. The seven professors who ran the test reported finding more than a magnitude of excess heat. Way beyond any experimental error. Those are FACTS.

You said “In the real world …when Rossi was in jail.” Not much doubt what you meant. The Italian government passed a law that retroactively made the waste Rossi had collected redefined as hazardous. He was found guilty, but the small detail you neglected to mention was that he was later acquitted. Typical ad hominem that are all too common on this page. Small wonder you remain anonymous. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Parallel, take this as a final warning. If you persist in violating WP:NOTFORUM by using this talk page as a soapbox, I shall raise the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that you be topic banned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do. It is about time fresh eyes looked at this. This is the “talk page for discussing improvements to the Energy Catalyzer article.”

How can the E-Cat be fringe science and nonexistent when you can buy a 1 MW plant? You allow anonymous to disrupt the discussion, as you agree with his pov, but want to ban me for defending myself. Parallel (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallel (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to tell whether you are trolling or not but obviously you can't buy one, you can "pre-order" which only means that someone built a web site with a pre-order form. There is no evidence that anyone has bought one. Bhny (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not true. You can order a 1 MW plant directly from Leonardo Corp or from the European agent. They quote a 4 month delivery time and give financial requirements. I have a picture of the second 1 MW plant being loaded for transport to the US over a month ago. Parallel (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

So buy one and get back to us. We can wait four months. Rossi used to say [current date + 6 months]. There is not one interview with anyone who owns one or even a name of a person that owns one. Ah, but there is a picture of a standard shipping container being loaded for transport to an unknown destination Bhny (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I have no need for a 1 MW plant. There are pictures of the inside of the plant. Many people have seen it. You are confusing the domestic E-Cat, waiting for safety certification, with the i MW plant that ALREADY has it. ::::Parallel (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this "1 MW plant" actually producing electricity, as reported by reliable sources? Last I heard, it was "producing" less than it was using.... Pictures are fine, but measured energy would be more productive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The currently advertised 1MW is the "warm" cat -- producing steam up to 130C. No announcement has been made concerning the sale of the 300C "hotcat" (as tested by Levi et al), which might or might not be coupled to a Turbine, which might or might not be made by Siemens. And even this might or might not be designed for use in a co-generation (electric and heat) plant. The acceptance tests were reported by the accepting engineer, who indicated that the COP was satisfactory -- ie 6, although the total output was 500kW, "less than" the required 1MW -- due to leaks in some reactors. The "last I heard" reports were by disbelievers. Alanf777 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the article? Accepting engineer? Bhny (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If it were reported in a reliable source which reported or verified the energy input as well as the energy output, the claim that there was a working power station should be in the article. So, I'm afraid this discussion is relevant to the article, although not to this section of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

my point is that blog comments and rumors are the sources for this "information". It is not useful for the article. Bhny (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) "If it were reported in a reliable source which reported or verified..."—aye, there's the rub. The problem is that this talk page gets used a forum for repeating every little shred of unsubstantiated rumor, dubious blog post, and self-published report from Rossi and his followers. You're right, Arthur, that Alanf's comment above would be relevant if it were supported appropriately—but it isn't. Similarly, his announcement below about another revision of the Essen/Levi self-published report could be relevant if a competent, reliable source had evaluated it and found it to be a major improvement—but that hasn't happened. Heck, the section below doesn't even pretend to propose or discuss a change to our article here on Wikipedia; it's just Alanf continuing to use this talk page as his personal E-cat blog. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I only added that paragraph in response to a direct question by Arthur Rubin, correcting his apparent (mis) belief about the 1MW producing electricity (whether reliably reported or not), and the "last I heard" etc etc etc. To back this up I summarized the NOT reliable rumours about the current progress (or not) on electricity generation. Alanf777 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Re "disbelievers". Science is not based up belief, or smoke and mirrors. It is based upon verifiability and repeatability. At the moment Rossi refuses to state how this thing is constructed, and key parts of its operation. The most recent experiment as published has flaws in it. Rossi is making some very big claims, which need to be verified totally independently if he wants to be taken seriously. Until such time as this experiment is repeated totally independently, i.e. rebuilt from scratch and tested independently, then there will be a lot of scepticism about Rossi's claims, and the article should reflect that scepticism. Using blogs as sources is not normally a good idea for articles like this, but when that's all that exists because the inventor won't publish key details, then that is what has to be used.Martin451 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Science is not based up belief..." That is indeed the position of "frequentists" ... but in the Bayesian view "belief" or "disbelief" IS included as a "prior". Alanf777 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"This talk page is not a forum". That indeed is the position of Wikipedia policy, and there aren't any 'buts'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Silent Key, Berlusconi became prime minister on May 10th 1994. Rossi was indicted on January 8th 1992. Maybe you should check your facts, son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Parallel,

Be it a cliché or not the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is the way the real world works. It is also perfectly logical. While the need for extraordinary proof, the burden of proof, and the scientific method may all have become your enemies in your war on reality, they are still valid concepts and you can’t simply wish them away. The truth, no matter how much it inconveniences you, is still the truth.

Once again you are not stating facts. You are making all manner of outrageous and unproven claims. If Rossi was acquitted on ALL charges then provide a source to back up that claim.

And yes, what I’m saying is quite clear. Rossi is now selling the e-cat, so if established physics isn’t wrong then he’s a criminal. I know that that’s “synthesis” if I include it in the article, but that’s not where I put it.

So, I’ll ask once again; why don’t you just leave the article alone and then report on events AFTER they unfold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reported what I consider to be repeated breaches of WP:NOTFORUM and other problematic behaviour by User:Parallel at WP:ANI. It would be advisable for all contributors to put an end to this soapboxing now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, 68.74.163.157: if you think Silvio's influence over Italian governments only began in 1994, I've got some seafront property in Urumqi you might want to buy. Silent Key (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source saying that Rossi's downfall was caused by the italian government and not by his own actions? If you have it, then you should add it Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)#Petroldragon. If you don't have it, then you should stop making that claim in wikipedia. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for claiming conspiracies against people. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

New Version of the Levi Paper

http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:53:15 GMT

It includes a new appendix on the electrical measurements. Alanf777 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is neither necessary nor appropriate to use this article's talk page as a blog for repeating and tracking every single rumor, self-published report, or blog post about the Energy Catalyzer, nor should it be used as a forum to invite discussion of same.

Please don't add more posts or threads to this talk page, Alanf, unless you are using it for its intended purpose: discussing and implementing specific improvements to its associated Wikipedia article. Before creating or adding to any more threads, please ensure that you are proposing a specific change to Wikipedia's article on the Energy Catalyzer, and that your proposed change is accompanied by reference to one or more suitable, applicable, reliable sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me .... kettle? pot? black?

(ec) Unreviewed Arxiv preprints are essentially self-published sources. While a specific and thorough critique of the document is beyond the scope of this comment (and not worth my time, and not required to determine that this is an unreliable source), I will note that it is obvious that this document isn't intended to ever be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; the format and style, omissions of details, dubious or missing controls, and paucity of references all demonstrate that this is intended as a promotional propaganda piece, rather than a serious scientific work.

To take just one example, Plots 3 through 8 are an extensive case of the lady doth protest to much, methinks. Essentially, power output (interpreted from the surface temperature of the device) is plotted against time and against power input to the device's resistive heating coils. We are instructed to believe that if the temperature changes at the surface of the device were due to resistive heating alone, it should follow the heating and cooling curves of a generic resistor element (Plots 4, 5, 6), with abrupt changes in the rate of heating or cooling as the resistive heaters are turned off or on, and asymptotic approaches to steady-state minimum and maximum temperatures – instead of the more sinusoidal pattern of temperatures observed. We are prompted to draw the conclusion that resistive heating alone cannot explain the data.

What is completely neglected, however, is any attempt to account for the heat capacity of the device or the insulating effect of the housing around it—both factors which would tend to damp (and delay) swings in temperature and which could readily yield exactly the surface temperature vs. time profiles observed.

The 'control' experiment, performed with a 'dummy' device, could not do a better job of concealing this problem if it had be deliberately designed to do so. The 'dummy' device was missing the fuel charge and container, giving it a lower mass and heat capacity. Worse, instead of cycling the resistive heater element on to full power and off again every few minutes (as was done for the 'real' device), power was increased in small increments and the device was allowed to reach thermal equilibrium after each small increase in input power. The incremental increase in input power would make it difficult to discern the shape of the heating curve, but that's irrelevant because the document doesn't provide this information anyway. Not one plot of temperature versus time and input power is shown, frustrating any attempt to glean the smallest bit of information about how the device would actually respond to resistive heating in the manner used in the experimental runs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:13 am, 20 May 2013, Monday (22 days ago) (UTC−7)

Not to mention earlier discussion of new versions

While Levi's document is on version 2, there is no obvious indication that it represents any attempt to correct the original's numerous scientific flaws, or address any criticism received. While I have neither the time nor the inclination to comb through both versions side by side, the author's own comments indicate that version 2 (uploaded less than four days after version 1) merely corrects formatting errors. .... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6:28 am, 30 May 2013, Thursday (12 days ago) (UTC−7)

Alanf777 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that I did wander deeply into forum/discussion territory with the first of those comments. I should have stopped after the first paragraph, and resisted the urge to critique. (It's a failing on my part as a Wikipedia editor, that I often don't just slap down crappy sources with a "No; WP:WEIGHT; WP:RS; go away.") My second comment was part of a post correcting your own misconceptions about arXiv as a reliable (or not) source for Wikipedia content.

I've learned my lesson about trying to address the scientific problems with the pro-Rossi sources you've been pushing, and from now on will endeavor to couch my responses to them solely in terms of the ways in which they violate Wikipedia policies and standards. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

OK : a specific proposal. Since the original paper was admitted under its own recognizance "In May 2013 a non-peer-reviewed paper describing "results obtained from evaluations of the operation of the E-Cat HT in two test runs" was submitted to the arxiv digital archive.[60 (REF to V2)]" , it is appropriate to change that sentence to "...[60], and was updated in June 2013 [REF to v3]". Alanf777 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? Has this update been commented on in reliable sources? It appears not. This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. We don't need to cover every last petty detail of the story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Commercial Plans

What on earth is the justification for deleting information on Hydrofusion's commercial plan for the eCat, as reported by Mark Gibbs? (Oh, I forgot. Gibbs has gone to the Dark Side.)

In June 2013 HydroFusion announced that it is soliciting bids for a "Free Pilot Plant as a Showcase where external customers can be introduced to an ECAT 1 MW in operation" REFGibbs, Mark. "Psstt! Want An E-Cat LENR Generator? For Free?". Wired. Retrieved June 15, 2013. REF Hydrofusion. "Wanted: Pilot Customer for ECAT 1 MW plant". Retrieved June 16, 2013.

The CURRENT REF 71 includes a link to Lewan (cf Gibbs) and to Hydrofusion (cf the new announcement). Could it just possibly be because #71 is negative and my (deleted) #72 is positive? In the same paragraph : since HF now endorses the Levi test of the Hotcat, why does it's own flawed early rejection stand? Surely we should also document their change of mind on the hotcat? Alanf777 (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS says it all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Scheduled Installation time by late fall 2013". Since this began in 2009 there has been something that will be delivered about 6 months in the future. If something is delivered we will have news. Bhny (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

See also WP:CRYSTALBALL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place".... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The event HAS taken place. Hydrofusion HAS solicted bids. No crystal ball required. (2009? Rossi was offering the eCat in 2009??) Alanf777 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

quick search- it was patented 2009, In Jan. 29 2011 Lewan wrote, "First deliveries [of Rossi's Energy Catalyzer] will start within three months, and mass production will start by the end of 2011." So the <6 months delivery seems to have started early 2011 Bhny (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

'Soliciting bids' is an 'event' is it now? Don't be ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In terms of Commercial PLANS -- this section heading -- yes it is. From Cold Fusion (Rossi) : Other inventors and start-up companies have made similar claims in the past, however commercial devices are never available on the market. Surely ANY active plan to market ANY CF/LENR/Pixie Dust device is notable. Alanf777 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about yet another meaningless press release from one of Rossi's convoluted web of companies. The past history of the whole E-Cat saga is littered with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is notable because Forbes noted it. Forbes being a BUSINESS magazine? You are now the arbiter of whether Forbes is right or not? Alanf777 (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Forbes noted that Rossi has issued a press release. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is just about as significant as Forbes reporting that Rossi farted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

From viewing the talk page, it's obvious that it's a prime example of "Wikipedia's Shame". The personal abuse shown is quite amazing, and not needed. Tmccc (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the personal abuse by Alan. I see very little by Andy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Alan, you acknowledged a conflict of interest recently: [2]. Is there something we should know about? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

as he explained, he planned in the future to write some article or paper about e-cat, but that is hardly a coi unless it gets published etc. Bhny (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Focardi deceased

Obviously this is important and notable information. An editor keeps deleting this with no reason given Bhny (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wll, it's not obvious to me :-) As a matter of style, do we go through articles adding (now deceased) after all mentions of dead people with the understanding that everyone else is still living? The death has no relationship to the content (though conspiracists may emerge who claim otherwise?), and anybody can find out about Focardi's death on reading the article behind the link. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The death of the main scientist behind a supposed invention is not relevant? Yes, of course we do add information like this to articles like this. It may upset our younger readers but so be it. Bhny (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So your version of the Telephone article would cite the inventor as "Alexander Graham Bell (now deceased)" ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No, my version of Apple Inc. would mention the death of an important person. I don't even understand what your point is. Bhny (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My point is we don't do a kind-of global search-and-replace for somebody's name on Wikipedia adding "(now deceased)" when they die. If we did there would be cleanup required when this no longer seemed to be news-y information. What you're proposing is a kind of WP:Recentism. It's a minor thing, but since it's the article lede I think we should do it right. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is misleading to not mention that the 2nd most important person in this ongoing saga will no longer be participating. Bhny (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can point me to a source stating that this is significant, I'd be more than happy to include that finding in the article. Until then, discerning significance in his death as it relates to the E-Cat project is your OR, I think. (It's highly likely, I think, that his death will have zero effect on the E-CAT- but that's just my opinion.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

agree with OP. The fringeness or not of the topic is irrelevant. The article exists. This guy is highly notable to the topic and article. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gaijin42, I can't make any sense of Alexbrn arguments so if you or another editor would care to replace the strangely missing information please do. I would rather not try again. I'm done here for now. Bhny (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a re-think and added the dates (for both inventors) in a MOS:DOB fashion. See what you think! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

First section

In an article such as this (fringe/pseudoscience), shouldn´t the first section be something like Hypothesis/Suggested mechanism/Claims (perhaps with a "main article: Cold fusion" link), with "Reactions to the claims" following that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm yes, it is a little odd having the reaction before the thing-being-reacted-to, almost as if it's necessary to get the rebuttal in first. I'd be happy with reordered sections ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no section on how it works other than the lead. Basically the "mechanism" is a mix of contradictory "he saids" and supposed trade secrets. I don't think there is enough for a section. Bhny (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You may be right that there´s not enough material. Such a section should be based on RS:s writing about "this is how they say it works", rather than [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

They don't say how it works, it is an apparent secret. Look at that pdf you linked to "On this paper we report the results obtained with a process and apparatus not described here in detail and protected by patent in 90 countries, consisting of ...". What we have in the article is about the height of the detail: "Rossi and Focardi said the device worked by infusing heated hydrogen into nickel, transmuting it into copper and producing heat." IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Going from memory here, and based on unreliable sources, but I think that after it was pointed out to Rossi that his claim of transmutation of nickel into copper wasn't compatible with the isotope ratios of the 'transmutated' copper sample he provided, he changed his explanation to "Oh, it doesn't do that after all, it works another way entirely, which I'm not going to explain...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

User:Silent Key has again been edit-warring to try and get changes into the article, this time to label Randi as a stage magician and Steve Featherstone as a "journalist".

While I have no trouble in principle with labeling people, it must be done neutrally and accurately. Labeling Featherstone as a journalist may have the effect of calling his credentials into question (why not label him "professional science writer Steve Featherstone"?). All we know for sure is that Popular Science deemed him good enough to write a piece for them, and that fact is already neutrally recorded here through mentioning that magazine in the attribution. Anything else looks like POV-steering. Similarly, Randi has done many things - including being hired by Nature to investigate experimental technique ... so bringing mentions of the stage aspects of his career into the article is POV-steering too in my view.

I'll not revert again, but others' thoughts on this are welcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Labeling everyone in the article would end very poorly for the central figure. Best avoided. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

James Randi hasn't been a stage magician for 25 years (since he retired) and most of his notability stems from him being a skeptic, so if one were to use labels it would be to call Randi a "noted skeptic" or similar, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the James Randi article lede says:

James Randi (born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge; August 7, 1928) is a Canadian-American stage magician and scientific skeptic^[1]^[2] best known for his challenges to paranormal claims and pseudoscience.^[3] Randi is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). Randi began his career as a magician named The Amazing Randi, but after retiring at age 60, he was able to devote most of his time to investigating paranormal, occult, and supernatural claims, which he collectively calls "woo-woo".^[4]

The article continues:

Although a brilliant student,^{[citation needed]} Randi often skipped classes, and, at 17, dropped out of high school to perform as a conjurer in a carnival roadshow.^[5]

Steve Featherstone certainly seems to think he's a journalist, judging by his self-description on SlideShare:

"Journalist - Writer - Photographer - Radio Producer at Self"

and mainly, rather than exclusively, on science, according to his self-description on LinkedIn:

"I write long-form feature stories on a wide range of topics for a bunch of different magazines. Mainly subjects related to science. I'm also a photographer."

Silent Key (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

... which rather proves the point: your edit warring, apart from being bad behaviour in itself, was also pushing a bad edit. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"best known for his challenges to paranormal claims and pseudoscience". 'nough said, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

draft for test section

In a non-peer-reviewed paper Ericsson and Pomp REF http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6364 ENDREF comment on the Levi paper (version 3) REF http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1305.3913v3 ENDREF . They criticize the authors based on their independence (Several of the other authors, at least R. Pettersson and H. Essén, have also participated in previous demonstrations arranged by Rossi and have then to some degree committed to a positive appreciation of the device), their qualifications (the task seems rather to require expertise in IR and electrical measurements) and their integrity (The simplest one is that the two curves have been forced "synchronized" for the sake of illustration by the authors. This should then have been clearly pointed out in the report, but, and this is more serious, it would then also constitute a deviation from reporting the actual experimental data as well as withholding important information that could contribute to an understanding of the device and its internal processes). Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

They list various deficiencies, particularly for the November and December tests, many of which were acknowledged by the original authors (All these issues were taken notice of in the light of the subsequent test held in March.), the data reported and the analyses performed (we find the report lacking in both technical detail, experimental and analysis methods as well as in discussing sources of possible deception). In particular they say (... the report lacks some fundamental technical information ... Any data whatsoever from the “dummy” test mentioned on page 17 of Ref [1]), although the requested data is actually on pages 18 to 20. Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

They suggest that instead of using a calibrated commercial IR camera and its associated software, the experimenters should use raw sensor data (To our understanding,the sensor of the IR camera actually provides an electrical signal proportional to the emitted power in its region of sensitivity. It would seem to us that this signal, in combination with the wavelength response of the sensor,should have been reported and used for the derivation of the total emitted power.) For the March test: (We note that there are (at least) three wires going into the E‐Cat in Fig. 10 of Ref.[1]. What is the function of each of them and how were they connected externally to the control box and internally in the device?) -- the answer to which is in the caption: (Electrical power is fed through the two yellow wires. The third connection was verified to be a PT100 sensor, used to give a feedback temperature signal to the control box in order to regulate the ON/OFF cycle.). Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the unusual waveform response of the March Hotcat, Ericsson and Pomp perform a rudimentary thermal analysis which demonstrates that a pulsed waveform (when this resistor is buried deep within the device) would explain shape of the curve. Levi et al indicate that the heaters are near the outside of the hotcat (By dividing the circumference of the base of the cylinder by the number of coils, one may infer that the 16 resistor coils in this device were laid out at a distance of 2.17 cm. one from the other.). Ericsson and Pomp also wonder: (Since there are 16 heating resistor coils [ round the circumference] it is not clear why there should be only five horizontal “footprints” seen on the [front, visible] surface). They note that (.. it does seem that more power than 810 W is required to obtain the observed surface temperature of about 300 degrees Celcius.) Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

They criticize Levi et al both for speculating (the reference to ”industrial trade secrets” with regard to the composition of the "fuel" makes all speculation about what is powering the alleged reactions meaningless.) and for NOT speculating (The authors half acknowledge the extremely high energy densities implied by their measurements, but do not carry the discussion to the logical end. The only processes we know of today that can give such energy densities are nuclear.). Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For a start, without commenting on the content as such, quotations go in quotation marks - and what's up with all the italics? Stylistically, this is a mess, and doesn't accord with the Wikipedia MOS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't intend that to be the final formatting. Quotation marks are a mess anyway because the original has multiple quotes embedded. I put quotes in brackets AND italics just to emphasize in the draft which was which. The actual quotes used in a published version could be abbreviated, summarized, or moved to a note. Alanf777 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea how you expect anyone to make any sense of your 'draft' proposal then. It needs laying out properly in the form you intend it to be added. As it stands, it is entirely unclear what is what, and seems to contain your own original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That draft's clearly better than the garbage we have now.

These belong in the dumpster:

Bardi blog ×2

Siegel blog ×2

Aleklett blog ×1

Randi self-published vid ×1

Silent Key (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This article must comply with WP:FRINGE guidelines. Your opinion on the sources we cite in order to do so is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, WP:FRINGE is for fringe theories, not inventions. Cold fusion is dealt with in its own article. Your opinion on policy is irrelevant. Silent Key (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no question whatsoever over whether a device supposedly involving 'LENR' principles presently unrecognised by mainstream science is within the remit of WP:FRINGE guidelines - it is. It is also firmly within the remit of Wikipedia:General sanctions, as referred to in the section describing 'Cold fusion and related articles'. Please familiarise yourself with the relevant policies before making any more ridiculous claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeating it won't make it true. WP:FRINGE does not mention "device", "invention", "innovation" "machine", "artifact", "object", or any other word that could describe the E-cat. If you think it does, name it. Silent Key (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If you really want to argue the point, go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for clarification and amendment and do it there. Otherwise, I suggest you drop the matter, as there has been an overwhelming consensus on this talk page that WP:FRINGE applies - even amongst those supporting the E-Cat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Name it, or drop it yourself. Silent Key (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss this matter with you further. Instead I am going to continue to assume, as everyone else has done so far, that WP:FRINGE applies to the article, and act accordingly. If you wish to dispute the matter, you will have to do so via arbitration - we couldn't unilaterally override General Sanctions here if we wanted to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Original research : For a Paper B criticizing referenced Paper A it is appropriate to point out errors in B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Caveats_about_expert_material "This may include indicating when a given authority may be wrong and presenting contradicting claims using proper weighting." In two cases I simply point to the original paragraph in paper A to indicate that the criticism in B is invalid (and there are more which I left out). In ONE case I insert words into a quote -- intending to follow the advice in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Original_wording -- putting in quotes the [ blindingly obvious] missing information from which the reader can draw a conclusion. The alternative would be to put in a specific statement that only Superman can see through a solid steel cylinder. Apart from that, there's no OR or synthesis beyond the usual job of an editor to summarize and paraphrase the source. Alanf777 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And further from "caveats (above)" .. "Following each statement with an elaborate response that disrupts the flow of the article should be avoided; if the authority needs to be qualified on several points, the reliability of that expert or particular work may be questionable." How big is "several" -- I listed four, and there are plenty more. Alanf777 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no possibility whatsoever of you being permitted to include your own original research concerning the Ericsson and Pomp paper in the article. I suggest that you drop the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Caveats_about_expert_material Alanf777 (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The essay you cite (which is neither a guideline nor policy) is of no relevance whatsoever to your attempts to include original research in order to promote your own POV. Anyway, I can see no point in discussing this further, since policy is clearly against your proposals (in as much as they can be deciphered at all), and were you to include such material, it would undoubtedly be reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So basically, you are arguing that rather than summarising the comment document, we should dissect it in order to minimise its impact? Nope. No chance. If you wish to publish a commentary on the commentary, do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy hit the nail on the head. There are plenty of other outlets on the internet where you can present your views. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We should combine the encyclopedic value of Alanf777's draft with the need for it to only be an overview, perhaps like this:

In a non-peer-reviewed paper Ericsson and Pomp (REF http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6364 ENDREF) comment on the Levi paper (version 3) (REF http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1305.3913v3 ENDREF). They criticize the authors based on their independence, noting that at least two of them have also participated in previous demonstrations arranged by Rossi, and claiming they "commited" to positive appraisals. They also question Levi et al.'s expertise in IR and electrical measurements, and their integrity in reporting the data fully and without distortion. They list various deficiencies, particularly for the November and December tests (though many of these were acknowledged by the original authors), the data reported, and the analyses performed. In particular they complain of a lack of any data on a "dummy" test mentioned on page 17 of the Levi et al paper, although there is such data on pages 18 to 20. They suggest that instead of using a calibrated commercial IR camera and its associated software, the experimenters should use raw sensor data.

For the March test, they also challenge Levi et al's detailed explanation of three wires going into the E-cat. Concerning the unusual waveform response of the March Hotcat, Ericsson and Pomp perform a rudimentary thermal analysis which demonstrates that a pulsed waveform would explain shape of the curve if a resistor is near the center of the device, though Levi et al indicate that the heaters are near the outside of the hotcat. Ericsson and Pomp also wonder why, given the sixteen heating resistor coils in the E-cat, they can see only five horizontal “footprints” seen on the front surface. They note that ".. it does seem that more power than 810 W is required to obtain the observed surface temperature of about 300 degrees Celcius."

Ericsson and Pomp criticize Levi et al for speculating about the alleged nuclear reactions, saying "the reference to ”industrial trade secrets” with regard to the composition of the "fuel" makes all speculation about what is powering the alleged reactions meaningless." However, they appear to contradict themselves somewhat by saying, "The authors half acknowledge the extremely high energy densities implied by their measurements, but do not carry the discussion to the logical end. The only processes we know of today that can give such energy densities are nuclear."

Silent Key (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No. We do not engage in original research, cherry-pick quotes out of context, and exclude the significant conclusions of sources in order to present them in a bad light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Your proposal does not even come close to complying with our policies. Andy summed it up well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Classic psychological projection. As for your assumption of bad faith in my motive, I've said before, I'm a skeptic of the E-cat. Silent Key (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(This probably should have been inserted above, but I can't find the correct place.) arXiv papers are not only "not peer reviewed", they are "self-published", and are reliable only (if at all) if the author is a published expert in the field or, to a limited extent, if it is commented on by reliable sources. As we (and the world) cannot agree whether the field is LENR, anomalous energy generation, or scientific fraud, it's difficult to determine whether an arXiv paper can be used at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think all of this just shows we have given undue significance to the test. If we mention it at all it should just be a line or two. Bhny (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

At last a scientific critique

"Comments on the report "Indications of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder" [arXiv:1305.3913 by G.Levi, E.Foschi, T.Hartman, B.Höistad, R.Pettersson, L.Tegnér, H.Essén" - Göran Ericsson, Stephan Pomp (Submitted on 26 Jun 2013)] Silent Key (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

it has its peer review now and failed. I guess we can edit down the mention in the article to a line or two. Bhny (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic and for the record; that still isn't peer review. A review by a peer != peer review, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That "coffee club" review is the best argument I've seen to date against arXiv. Not to mention that they inadvertently prove that the excess heat must have come from the CENTER of the hotcat, not from the heating resistors. At most it warrants a mention that a comment has been made : In any event, it can't be added until a RS notices it. Alanf777 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If we can cite a non-reviewed Arxiv paper, we certainly can cite reviewer comments from the same site. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The original is cited, but ONLY after RS's covered it. Sauce. Goose. Gander. Alanf777 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please give policy based responses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Alanf777, why do you think that a comments paper published in response to the original arXiv report would be less admissible than any other secondary source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See answer to duplicate question above. Alanf777 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go with Alanf777's last comment. If reliable media pick up on this report and go with it, then it will help. Mangoe (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? What policy disallows this secondary commentary on the paper, while permitting us to cite Forbes or Popular Science? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not just a commentary. It's full of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. eg over in Cold Fusion an OFFICIAL NASA announcement wasn't permitted because a RS hadn't covered it. Alanf777 (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is full of original research. That is what we cite sources for. They do the research, and we cite them for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not the way you've done it in your previous N deletions. NO primary sources, you've said. Alanf777 (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a primary source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nuts. Alanf777 (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Alan, have you read WP:OR? It does not say what you appear to think it says. Also, what's with the shouting? VQuakr (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the appropriate thing to do at this point is to suggest that we look at WP:FRINGE - and in particular WP:PARITY:

"In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory".

The arXiv paper has been cited in the article, having been referred to in secondary sources (Forbes etc), and per WP:PARITY, critiques can therefore be likewise cited - and one can't get a better 'parity' than a critique published in the same place. Frankly, I can't understand what Alanf777 is suggesting is the problem here - unless it is simply that he doesn't like the commentary. And that isn't a policy-based reason to exclude it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

My complaint wasn't about the comment paper, but as to whether or not it had to be referenced by a RS to be admitted. See my other comment on primary/secondary below. Alanf777 (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Including it is even required by WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences to the article. The third party sources I found, while not great, do appear to meet WP:PARITY. In any case, a critical response on arxiv wasn't really a primary source to begin with as discussed above. VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Much as I would like to agree with Andy, and the fact that it would improve coverage, I don't think Wikipedia policy allows unreliable critiques of unreliable papers, even if the existence of the unreliable paper is reported on in reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain your grounds for describing the critique as 'unreliable'? As I have already pointed out, WP:PARITY makes clear that peer-reviewed sources are unnecessary when providing mainstream-science responses to fringe-science sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily that critique, but the one in New Energy Times. In this case, the paper on arXiv is unreliable; only what reliable sources (such as Forbes) say about should be included. The same applies to critiques: Only what reliable sources say about those should be stated. (This is the policy; I'm not saying it makes sense.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding NET, I have no problem with it being described as unreliable - I've previously argued that we shouldn't cite it at all. As for the arXiv commentary, I still don't understand why you are suggesting that it is problematic - per WP:PARITY we don't need peer-reviewed sources to respond to non-peer-reviewed fringe-promoting material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

When did "New Energy Times" become a reliable source? With respect to the Ericcson paper, I've reread Primary/Secondary sources, and it DOES seem to qualify as "Secondary" -- "at least one step removed" and "It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Also : my comments that it contains OR of their own seems to be permitted in a secondary source. Alanf777 (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

arXiv is probably better than New Energy Times, but I thought NET was only listed as notable criticism, not reliable criticism, and possibly allowable if referred to in reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I put up a DRAFT of an extensive Ericsson and Pomp extension -- and then deleted it : see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&oldid=562780098 I put a lot of quotes in (paren and italics) -- these could be trimmed back and/or moved into notes. Where E&P make a specific invalid criticism of Levi et al I've put in a counter-quote from the original. Alanf777 (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what possible purpose adding and removing this clearly unacceptable material to the article could serve? Other, of course, than using the temporary version off-Wiki to legitimize pseudoscientific claims? VQuakr (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a draft of an extension. It is composed almost entirely of quotes from E&P (except as clarified) -- which I put in specifically to support my proposed text. I don't think I left out anything important. Alanf777 (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to propose drafts, do so on article talk pages: that is what they are for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The formatting doesn't really work for that --- eg REFs don't work. Alanf777 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

use your own userspace then, don't mess around with articles for no good reason, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling Levi report a "Thirdy part report" must have been a joke: Levi was heavily involved in the 2011 Rossi's demos and should not be considered a "Thirdy part". The report itself proves nothing more than a poor ability to write "a report", with its two major reviews AFTER publication (where were the peers? Should not they be supposed to check BEFORE and allow a publication only AFTER?) and a FINAL appendix to dismiss last critiques of a DC trick - stating AT THE END that AT THE BEGINNING cautions have been taken and any DC trick checked? Truly, how could this be taken seriously? 93.34.157.79 (talk)

Defkalion

After this line: "Originally, a Greek company Defkalion was supposedly going to produce the E-Cat, but this deal was terminated in 2011 and Defkalion announced that they planned to make a similar device", it should be said the device has been tested by Mats Lewan for Euope Defkalion (in Milan) and the tests ended miserably (npt only with even a claim to an unbeliavle 1,6 tesla magnetic field as "measured" at 20 cm from source, but even with Euope Defkalion freezing any commercial activity with Greece Defkalion), and that Europe Defkalion site (http://defkalion-energy.com/) is disappearing.

Moreover it should also be known that, till the day before, the Hyperion was also known as the "Greek E-Cat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.56.183 (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Defkalion seems to have attracted little attention in credible third-party sources, and accordingly there is little justification in going into details here - this article isn't about their 'product' anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Defkalion - nonetheless, the article is ending with Defkalion, but it does not tell how the story ended up - as Defkalion story IS ended, and as long as Defkalion is named, the truth on it should be stated: Gamberale (Europe Defkalion) himself spoke on a web program named "Moebius" ( http://www.moebiusonline.eu/fuorionda/fusione_fredda_defkalion.shtml ) to tell he found "problems in measuring" and that "commercial relations with Greek Defkalion" have been frozen. Even the believers understood this was a real blunder. I agree that from a believer point of view, there is very little interest in "going into details". As always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.157.79 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

redundant "see also" section

The "See Also" section only has two things "cold fusion" which is the first link in the article and hence not needed here; and a battery which isn't even related to the article. It is obvious both are redundant and we've gone over this battery thing before (consensus that there was no source saying it is related- [4]). Anyway I propose deleting the section. Bhny (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The original "see also" was to LENR ... which just goes to CF, so I put CF as primary and a comment on the alternative name. There's some justification for "cold fusion", because it's just another blue link in the lead, which could easily be missed or skipped on first reading. Therefore probably good to have it again at the end, but I don't feel strongly about it. I agree that the battery thing can be deleted. Alanf777 (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's get rid of that section. See also is for things not linked in the text.

Extensive notes in Reference section

The extensive notes in the Reference section should be moved to a Notes section using the refn template. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the notes in the references and the excessive multiple references themselves could just be deleted. I have no idea why we need 5 references for the boring fact that it wasn't tested by a university. Bhny (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It is symptomatic of the non-encyclopedic route by which many of these pathological articles about pathological science are developed (see also Blacklight Power). Proponents tend to treat these articles as blogs about their favorite magic energy technology rather than as encyclopedia articles; each new press release and announcement gets a shiny new sentence or paragraph, no matter how self-serving or uninformative the source may be.

In this instance, Rossi and company announced that they would be working with the University of Bologna to perform independent testing, using the university's name to add a gloss of credibility. In practice, the university didn't endorse, support, fund, or collaborate on the proposed tests; Rossi just signed a contract with the university in which he would pay them to carry out certain unspecified tests at some unspecified time in the future. Eventually and unsurprisingly, it trickled out that no, the university didn't endorse the project; no, Rossi hadn't actually gotten around to paying them for the work he would like done; no, there hadn't actually ever been and wouldn't ever be any tests; and no, Rossi never let the university touch his equipment...and so we end up with a bunch of follow-up sources just because we need to cover the fact that the original crappy source was nonsense.

In general, proponents like to take advantage of the "credibility window" – the time between the positive press release (and favorable coverage by a small number of credulous bloggers and second-rate columnists) and the time when more responsible sources get around to following up the announcements and finding that they lack substance – to put a favorable slant on these fringe articles for a few days, weeks, or months at a time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

^ "Sullivan", Walter (July 27, 1988). "Water That Has a Memory? Skeptics Win Second Round". The New York Times.
^ Cohen, Patricia (February 17, 2001). "Poof! You're a Skeptic: The Amazing Randi's Vanishing Humbug". The New York Times. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
^ Rodrigues, Luis F. (2010). Open Questions: Diverse Thinkers Discuss God, Religion, and Faith. ABC-CLIO. p. 271.
^ Randi, James (February 9, 2007). "More Geller Woo-Woo (Wayback Machine archive)". SWIFT Newsletter. James Randi Educational Foundation. Retrieved August 19, 2012. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ "Floridian: The 'quack' hunter (Wayback Machine archive)". Sptimes.com. April 14, 1998. Retrieved August 19, 2012.

[nyt_1988-07-27-1] "Sullivan", Walter (July 27, 1988). "Water That Has a Memory? Skeptics Win Second Round". The New York Times.

[nyt_2001-02-17-2] Cohen, Patricia (February 17, 2001). "Poof! You're a Skeptic: The Amazing Randi's Vanishing Humbug". The New York Times. Retrieved May 5, 2010.

[Rodrigues-3] Rodrigues, Luis F. (2010). Open Questions: Diverse Thinkers Discuss God, Religion, and Faith. ABC-CLIO. p. 271.

[Randi-4] Randi, James (February 9, 2007). "More Geller Woo-Woo (Wayback Machine archive)". SWIFT Newsletter. James Randi Educational Foundation. Retrieved August 19, 2012. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[5] "Floridian: The 'quack' hunter (Wayback Machine archive)". Sptimes.com. April 14, 1998. Retrieved August 19, 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]