Talk:Energy Catalyzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

More sources[edit]

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/default.aspx?programid=406 and http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2795&artikel=5872724 // Liftarn (talk)

OUTDATED: this page need serious updates[edit]

This page is highlighting old information that the E-Cat has been debunked however in October 2014 this was changed as 3rd parties have verification of an "unknown reaction". 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.124.115 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Already discussed. Not a scientific verification. Not published in a reputable science journal. And not third-party either - Rossi was involved from start to finish. Just another of Rossi's endless publicity stunts. See above, and the archives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The objection raised in the article about the coulomb barrier seems misleading to me. The claim really isn't that traditional fusion is occurring, as the hypothesis is more like LENR that involves some sort of tunneling process. Also, if I could ask a hypothetical question, if Alexander Parkhomov is able to publish the results he is now giving a number of seminars about, would this change the way the article is being presented?

The answer, as always, is "it depends." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wired UK -- Hambling[edit]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-01/30/cold-fusion-energy-advances-2015 Covers the Lugano report and the claimed Parkhomov replication. Alanf777 (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Still the same old same old. Nothing in a credible scientific journal, just the usual breathless hype we've been getting for years... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This is NOT a science article. I'll add a summary tomorrow. (Prediction : as with Gibbs -- if he's doubtful, he's in the lead. If he's even slightly positive, he's out.) Alanf777 (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not a blog either. We are under no obligation whatsoever to include every meaningless bit of unverified fluff churned out by the chronically gullible... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Same old. Hambling has been carrying credulous water for Rossi for years, as is apparent from the archives of this talk page. (If you want a Wired blog for your non-physical physics, Hambling's your man. He's also a sucker for the EmDrive.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Didn't NASA give a positive review of the EmDrive? At least enough that they said it warranted further study, so not sure why you bring that up, its fringe, sure, but so is this article. Not to say that Hambling is at all a reliable source for this article. No offence Alanf777, but whether this is a science article or not, Wired online is not going to be considered a reliable source by the crowd around here.
Although, you guys (Andy and Ten) bring up the 'blog' argument a lot but I see a big double standard in the article, for example, this quote:

In March 2012, Professor Ugo Bardi of the University of Florence wrote on his blog that claims made by Rossi regarding the emission or non-emission of gamma radiation, the location of a supposed factory – in Florida, or not in the United States at all – and the fact that some of his supporters are apparently deserting him, indicated that "... the E-Cat has reached the end of the line. It still maintains some faithful supporters, but, most likely, it will soon fade away in the darkness of pathological science, where it belongs".[13] In reply to a non-peer-reviewed paper submitted to the arXiv digital archive in May 2013, he added that "This is the n-th claim of success of a long series that has led to nothing verifiable and that has become rather boring."[14]

clearly states that it is directly from the blog of a chemist that has no background in CF research (or even physics). Also... it seems to add very little to the article in the way of concrete specific criticism. If no one objects I think that this article could be improved by removing this paragraph entirely. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Speaking only to your last comment, the problem is one of WP:PARITY. If we actually insisted on robust sourcing for the article—there wouldn't be anything left of the article. Personally, I'd be fine with deleting this puffed-up, promotional, wishy-washy, useless mess of a non-article, but I'm afraid that there are too many gullible, wishful thinkers that would like to think Rossi has something. (You know, with his third dubious company.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think a serious article could be quite simple: 1) What is it, who does it, what are the actual claims for this technology, status, evaluations 2) What does credible academic scientists in the field (of CF and LENR) think about it - ivolved in tests or doing similar research.

I think nobody is interested into the history of e-cat entrepreneurship - and Rossi said this or that 2008. The IP is owned by IH, there were tests, technology was "invented" by a questionable Mr. Rossi... Scientists in the field: Storms, Piantelli, Focardi, McKubre, ENEA, NASA, Essen, Kullander, Lugano Team,.... The truth is that there are pretty no credible academics in the field or at demonstrations with a decent negative feedback. To achieve WP:PARITY - you can add a chapter with the statement that every scientist not involved or in the field thinks that this is pathological science, with the addition that all involved former credible scientists lost (in your sense) their credibility because of this involvement. I also think that your latests comment disqualifies you for further arguments - at least concerning WP:PARITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.189.222.103 (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are optimist. The editors of this article will never admit that they are wrong. From their point of view - being biased against rossi is a "fair scientific approach" since it reflects the opinion in the mainstream. Any piece of evidence which stengthen rossi's claims is a CIRCUS, STUNTS, RIDICULOUS SHOW, etc. Every nonsense said by a scientist who don't understand what is going on in E-Cat is considered as an educated ooinion of an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.25.147 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Im no optimist. I just study these personalities. Im even not interested in the topic itself - nor am I a "believer" or whatever. Its just incredible how far these flat-world freaks extend their "fair scientific approach". Thats a very interesting topic in social science. If you even dare to insist on a minimum approach based on facts - what else - they call you a "believer". Believer of what ? That just reflects their own state of mind where a certain believe has to be defended. Thats fascinating. Its also not about "being wrong". Its about leaving the scientific path for scientific sake, creating a true scientific church and defending their believe as the most central aspect of their mind - ending up in a queer role switch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.189.222.103 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A relevant question is who are the "experts" on the subject?
  1. Rossi is undoubtedly the expert on what is going on, but we cannot use his statements.
  2. Experts in scientific fraud? They obviously haven't been asked, but few, if any, of them have spoken. If any of those were present at any of the "tests", it would be appropriate to mention their views.
  3. Experts in conventional fusion? We have no comment from them.
  4. Experts in "cold fusion"? Well, we have no real evidence that any of those are real experts in anything real. Besides, Rossi says it isn't "cold fusion", but some other nuclear reaction.
  5. Experts in unconventional "hot" fusion? They haven't spoken, or, as far as I know, been asked. As I mentioned before, I know some of these people, enough to e-mail them, anyway. I know at least one who would report honestly.
  6. Experts in unconventional science in general? It would be nice, but we really haven't heard from any of them.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talkcontribs) 04:20, 15 February 2015‎

I would define an "expert" as a person who did his own research in that field for 7+ years - and has additionally 7 yrs+ well funded background + peer reviewed papers in more than one involved fields of science - which should be electrochemistry, nuclear physics and condensed matter. Some people listed without any special order... Micheal McKubre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McKubre At least WP says he as an expert. According to M. he verifies cf claims at SRI for DARPA Edmund Storms, Hideo Ikegami, Sergio Focardi, (not relevant here because involved) Francesco Celani, Francesco Piantelli, Robert Duncan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Duncan_%28physicist%29 Scientists involved in SPAWAR, Mitsubishi, Toyota cf research.... Anyway - just a short list auf fraudsters - because their experimental outcome is not predicted by standard model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced 'quotations'[edit]

The article states that 'In January 2014 Industrial Heat LLC, a U.S. Company based in Raleigh, N.C., announced that it has acquired the "intellectual property and licensing rights" to the E-Cat' - complete with quotation marks. The source cited (Popular Science [1]) does not contain the wording supposedly being quoted. Instead it merely says that IH has "bought the rights" - leaving exactly what IH has acquired open to question. IH's press release [2] does contain the phrase - but I have to suggest that the suitability of such a source is open to question. It seems to me that it is in the interests of both IH and Rossi to give the impression that large sums of money have been exchanged, but the facts are that we neither know how much was paid, nor what exactly was paid for, and accordingly shouldn't be implying that this deal is of major significance without a lot more detail to go on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

One does wonder what "intellectual property rights" means, given that the U.S. patent application was rejected, and the Italian patent is unlikely to hold up internationally. We shouldn't be blindly reproducing self-serving quotes from a press release, and we certainly should't be misattributing those quotes. (I'm reminded of that other U.S. alternative-physics energy company, Blacklight Power. While they nominally also have a miraculous technology that extracts implausible amounts of energy using dubious physical principles, it appears that their main 'product' is currently R&D tax credits and writedowns.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
At this point it would be fair to mention the recently released information on the USPTO 'SAWS' program. Patents on 'cold fusion' definitely fall under these regulations. [3] Otherwise I am wondering whats so special on the patent situation. A JackOfAllTrades should know that this is not relevant nor an extraordinary proof for the claims. But maybe he just takes every chance to share his implausible amount of dubious truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.154.9.152 (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless and until published reliable sources discuss SAWS in relation to the E-Cat, it is of no relevance to the content of this article, and this is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The FOIA response to SAWS program is available online - and I consider this as reliable source.
http://ipwatchdogs.com/materials/SAWS-FOIA-Respose.pdf
On p.12, TC1700, "cold fusion, ""hydrino reaction"", or "magnecule" as an energy source or any other production of excess heat outside of known chemistry or physisc" is mentioned as topic covered by SAWS. A reference to ::::SAWS FOIA response should be included in the article if it comes to intellectual property issues. Energy Catalyzer is definitely affected by SAWS procedure.
Can we reference the press release and the popular science article for the quote? together it seems pretty robust, not sure about the rules here though. Otherwise you could just change the quote to "bought the rights" but that is a more weasel worded version. 202.36.179.100 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
We rarely cite press releases for anything. They are invariably self-serving, and not subject to any external fact-checking. If the only source for something is a press release, it is often questionable whether it is even significant. In this particular case I suspect that Popular Science may have been intentionally vague, since they presumably don't know what 'intellectual property rights' are supposed to have been transferred either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
well I remember an interview with Tom Darden a while back that might help, [[4]] don't know if we can use it though Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, it tells us nothing concrete. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I'm confused as to what kind of source you are looking for here? A contract between Rossi and IH that you can read? Every source says that the rights to the device were obtained from Rossi to IH, and theres no one disputing that. Sure we don't know the particulars, but we don't have to, because we haven't gone into any more detail in the article than that IH purchased some kind of rights from Rossi. why are you being so nitpicky and why did you delete my addition to the lede instead of just rephrasing it to match the statement in the lower article? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No. The reliable sources say that Rossi and/or IH have stated that IH have bought unspecified rights. None of these sources have told us significantly more. And frankly, given the vagueness (possibly intentional) over what it is that has been transferred, I can see no particular reason why it belongs in the lede. If the deal is significant, it is because IH have acquired the rights to something that actually works - and if that is the case, the article will need substantial revision anyway (not by me - I'll be busy writing an article on the flight characteristics of Sus domesticus). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

So its possible to conclude that you edit and control this article as long as it fits into your personal believe. OMG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.179.141 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"Tests"[edit]

We've dealt with this before. There were "so-called" black box tests, but the power coming out of the power lines wasn't measured, and with all the Rossi-supplied "test equipment", we don't know that the "test equipment" wasn't powering the system.

None of the demonstrations yet described resembles a test. And, Insertcleverphrasehere, if you want to quote WP:Verification, not truth, none of the descriptions of demonstrations resemble descriptions of tests, except those written by backers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

you are talking about the 2011 tests, those can reasonably be called 'demonstrations', as can the 2013 test as it was performed on Rossi's site, and he owned the testing equipment. The 2014 test however was not performed on Rossi's site, and they tested the device for a month. It was not performed to an 'audience', it was a 'test' in every definition of the word, and while there are methodology flaws with every experiment and this test might not live up to your standards, it was in no stretch of the definition a 'demonstration'. Hence why Demonstrations and Tests fits better. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Since you mentioned "every definition of the word," the appropriate dictionary definition is "a critical examination, observation, or evaluation : trial; specifically : the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or rejection." By this definition the 2014 exercise was not a "test," since the lack of independence fatally prejudices its utility for "proof or disproof or ... acceptance or rejection." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I'd say that the definition that you just gave does actually fit the 2014 test, in that it 'leads to' a higher level of proof, confidence and acceptance than existed before. Semantics aside, 'Demonstrations and Tests' fits better than 'Demonstrations' alone, why are we having this argument? Why is it that no one is allowed to make any improvements or edits to this article, up to and including minor semantic disagreements that are immediately pounced upon? I'd suggest that you guys are pushing POV to make the tests that have been done seem less relevant by calling them 'demonstrations' inappropriately. Since you used Merriam webster dictionary, here are three definitions of 'demonstration':
1: an act of showing someone how something is used or done
2: an event in which people gather together in order to show that they support or oppose something or someone
3: an act of showing or proving something
none of which describe the 2014 test as it wasn't an 'act' or an 'event' Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we are pushing a POV - the POV as arrived at through consensus in Wikipedia policy. The POV that says that we don't engage in uncritical parroting of promotional fluff from purveyors of supposed scientific miracles. If that is what you are looking for, there are plenty of websites for the chronically credulous out there. Meanwhile, we will continue to deliver what our readers expect of us - an encyclopaedic work which takes mainstream science as the starting point for articles, and which sets a high standard for extraordinary claims. Semantics have very little to do with it - the fact is that these supposed 'tests' entirely fail to comply with the scientific claims for which they are supposedly being cited. We wouldn't accept such sources as reliable for an article on a new design of electric toaster, never mind an alleged fix for the world's energy problems. If Rossi wants scientific verification of his claims, he will have to provide the necessary information science requires. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I never said that the test 'comply with the scientific claims for which they are supposedly being cited', this isn't a necessary condition for being called a 'test', only for being a good one, a badly designed test is still called a test, why you guys are arguing that it fits the description of a 'demonstration' I have no idea. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Andy, I wouldn't go that far. I can understand Rossi's not wanting to reveal the process until he gets paid for it, if it might be unpatentable. However, a "test" needs to be designed to convince non-believers, and needs to have the most obvious potential frauds detected. < OR> Simple precautions, which have not been done in any of his "tests", is to (1) have the observers bring their own monitoring equipment, and (2) have a second-party monitor on the power draw of his (Rossi's) control and monitoring equipment. As I pointed out earlier, if his device produces more energy than can be developed from conventional chemical reactions in the space available, then he either has an unconventional energy-producing (or possibly -stealing or -transmission) process or a superbattery. Either would be of interest to investors. </ OR> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/it/home/general-updates/315-black-box-testing-and-paul-s-breed (not necessarily a reliable source) points to a Google Document which suggests protocols that someone with a real unconventional energy-producing process should follow, including some precautions I didn't think of, such as supplying energy through the coolant. I would not require the Faraday cage, as unconventional energy transmission would be of interest. However, Rossi has not have even the more obvious precautions in his "tests". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
In the event that the power was being monitored, I withdraw some of this rant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin I believe you missed the late 2014 test, which was conducted at a third party location (although Rossi was present at some times during the test, so it was not independent), with regards to your points: 1) the 'observers' used all their own monitoring equipment, and 2) measured the power draw, and heat output, with their own equipment. While some people had questions and criticisms about some of the aspects of this monitoring, methodology aside, the equipment and measurements were done by the third party. They tested the device for about a month, so unlike the previous demonstrations that were very brief, they showed that far more energy was released, per their measurements of energy in->heat out than could be explained by chemical means (to address the rest of your comment). Questions to be asked for sure, and replications to be attempted (which is already underway by at least two groups I know of, the MFMP, and Alexander Parkhomov). Definitely a 'test' and not a 'demonstration' I would think, is why I've been confused. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Now that i mention it, this information (duration, independent location, and third party monitoring equipment) isn't mentioned in the article, I'll add a sentence to avoid this sort of confusion in the future. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
ArtifexMayhem seems to object to the use of the word 'test' to refer to the 2014 Lugano report, and reverted my edit attempting to clarify the article to improve the clarity about how the 'test' was different to previous demonstrations. I removed the word 'test' but would like to discuss this as I feel that the word aptly describes the 2014 Lugano report evaluation.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I've made some Edits, added criticism of the 2014 test, necessary under WP:Notability, by Ethen Siegal and Tommaso Dorigo, (both sources were previously considered as RS or possibly RS, respectively, by AndyTheGrump on this talk page). I also removed Ugo Bardi's views from the article, as he is a chemist with no background in physics, the above authors are better sources for criticism of the Ecat device, and that the quotes attributed to him had relatively little in the way of concrete criticism (unspecific), and outdated. Hopefully, you guys will agree that swapping these maintains WP:PARITY, while improving the content by means of increasing the robustness of sources.
Regarding the controversy of using 'Demonstrations and Tests' rather than 'Demonstrations', both physicists above referred to the 2014 evaluation as a 'test' repeatedly. If no one objects, I think this makes the case for changing back to 'Demonstrations and Tests' as a section heading pretty clear cut. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that there has been considerable previous discussion regarding the Bardi material, and that you have no consensus to remove the material, I've restored it. I suggest that you seek consensus before making further significant edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I did previously bring this up, see above section, and the only objection was regarding WP:PARITY, and TenOfAllTrades seemed to agree that it wasn't all that robust as a source (although he also suggested that the remainder of sources for the article aren't much better). I apologise if I overstepped my bounds, and as I'm relatively new to making significant edits to articles, I'll defer to your expertise here. I'll bring it up in a new section of the talk page.
AndyTheGrump, any thoughts about 'Demonstrations and Tests' vs 'Demonstrations'? I feel that while some of the evaluations must be called demonstrations, and by no stretch should be referred to as 'tests', the most recent one can not be reasonably called a 'demonstration' for reasons explained above, and in fact is referred to as such in the sources that I've added regarding criticism of said test. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
For reasons made clear above, none of these events can or should be referred to as tests. This an encyclopaedia and use of the word test in this context infers formal, scientifically valid results were obtained. Obviously this is not the case. "Dog and pony show" is more accurate. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Both Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, and Particle Physicist Tommaso Dorigo, in their reviews of the paper in question, repeatedly refer to the 2014 Lugano evaluation as a 'test'; Ethan Siegel even goes as far as calling the 2013 report a 'test' at one point. I feel that the opinions of our sources on the topic in question trump your own OR.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on deletion of Professor Ugo Bardi's views about the E-Cat[edit]

In March 2012, Professor Ugo Bardi of the University of Florence wrote on his blog that claims made by Rossi regarding the emission or non-emission of gamma radiation, the location of a supposed factory – in Florida, or not in the United States at all – and the fact that some of his supporters are apparently deserting him, indicated that "... the E-Cat has reached the end of the line. It still maintains some faithful supporters, but, most likely, it will soon fade away in the darkness of pathological science, where it belongs".[13] In reply to a non-peer-reviewed paper submitted to the arXiv digital archive in May 2013, he added that "This is the n-th claim of success of a long series that has led to nothing verifiable and that has become rather boring."[14]

I'd like to propose deletion of the above quoted section of the article regarding Professor Ugo Bardi's views about the E-Cat that he posted to his personal blog[[5]]. It seems to not really be saying much of anything, except perhaps that Professor Ugo Bardi predicted that the ecat had reached the 'end of the line' in 2012, and in 2013 was 'bored' with the story. his personal views might be notable things to report on, if, for example, Professor Ugo Bardi was an authority on purported Cold Fusion/LENR devices, or even a physicist. As professor of physical chemistry, he is neither. While he may frequently write articles on renewable energy sources, the best his views could be used for is to talk about the impact that the ecat might have *if* it proved to be genuine, or about chemical reactions, neither of which is the topic of the section proposed for deletion. I fail to see how this warrants inclusion in the article, especially as we have nearly identical views expressed by prominent physicists (Peter Ekström), and experts in skepticism (James Randi) that are already included in the article, per WP:Parity. The only novel thing in this section that is not mentioned anywhere else is a suggestion that Rossi possibly lied about having a 'factory' (which purportedly turned out to merely be an apartment rented by Rossi), while this might be notable, the personal blog of a chemist is hardly a reliable source for this. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As of yet, there are no authorities on scientifically-recognised 'cold fusion/LENR devices'. And Bardi's expertise appears at least in part to involve new energy sources. And of course, on the many supposed 'new energy sources' being promoted by people with neither relevant qualifications, scientific recognition or verifiable evidence that their magic teapots and woo-water generators are anything but a product of their fertile imaginations. So no, we shouldn't reject Bardi as a source on the basis that he hasn't got expertise in a subject with no experts. Those involved in the field may think that physics is relevant. Maybe it is. But quite possibly it isn't, and those more familiar with the psychology of self-deception (or even the other sort) are better equipped to understand what is actually going on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No offence meant by this, but as per your suggestion, I've had a look through the archives of this talk page, and the single most vocal supporter of this quote has been you, who, unless I am mistaken, added the source in the first place[[6]]. The validity of this quote given its source has been brought up multiple times by different users (Tmccc, NUMB3RN7NE, POVbrigand, Liftarn) due to being from a blog, as well as concerns about violating WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RECENTISM. A lot of your statement that you just gave above is either WP:OR (the cold fusion article clearly paints physicists as the only people qualified to judge cold fusion, or cold fusion devices), or, far more damning to your point, contrary to previous statements that you have made on this talk page:
from Archive 10[[7]]: "Sadly blogs, even those run by physicists, aren't considered reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)" (which is made as a blanket statement in response to someone attempting to add a link, so I don't see how I could have taken this out of context)
Changing your argument like this to support your own personal edit (which is clearly even referred to as a blog by your original edit, you placed in the lead and then defended repeated attempts to remove), and simultaneously attack other peoples similar 'blog' sources as not being WP:RS begs the question of how objective you are on this topic, this double standard intuitively seems to me that it must be a violation of some WP policy, although I am not an experienced enough editor to know whether this is a WP:NPOV issue or something else. Please clarify this for me, as this may be an arbitration issue, and given these concerns, I'd honestly like to hear from some other people about this. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding my November 2011 comment, It is of course not entirely correct, per WP:USERG - I was probably less familiar with policy at the time than I am now. Frankly though, that you have gone to the effort of searching my entire contributions to this thread for such material probably says a lot more about you than me. And note that the blog I was referring to the time was one expressing a sceptical viewpoint. As for Bardi, it should be noted that there was a discussion on WP:RSN about his blog, and no uninvolved contributor seems to have considered it inapplicable at the time. [8] And as for your comments on 'objectivity', I think any uninvolved party would note the gross double standard being applied here by someone who's some objective on Wikipedia appears to be the promotion of what is at best fringe science - and by all available evidence more likely pure hokum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to make this an arbitration issue. Just be sure you understand the flight dynamics of curved airfoils. You do understand that this is an article about a device that cannot possibly work as described, and that "cold fusion" is a fiction, right? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand exactly what you are implying. I assume that your comment about airfoils is regards to not being as experienced with WP protocols? If so you'll note that I asked for clarification on this issue and your apparent intention to be obtuse is not helping the situation. Using the sentence 'cannot possibly work as described' seems a little heavy on the POV mate, given that this is a fringe article, not a pseudoscience article. Do you have anything constructive to say about the question posed by this section, or about the concerns I raised regarding AndyTheGrump's actions? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The curved airfoil in question is undoubtedly the boomerang. As for arbitration, I'm sure arbcom would have much to say on the way multiple single-purpose accounts have attempted to use Wikipedia as a platform for the regurgitation of Rossi's self-serving publicity stunts, in a manner entirely contrary to the expected standards of an encyclopaedia with the stated policy objectives of representing scientific consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
If referring to the fact that most of my edits are to this page, I have an interest in the subject, this is not an issue unless it applies to this situation:[9]

"single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

I feel my contributions thus far have been fairly neutral, especially more recently, as I have familiarised myself with WP:NPOV, and become more confident in my ability to remain neutral while making edits to the article. You'll note that my contributions thus far have been to both remove, and add, material critical to Rossi or his demonstrations/tests, each time only in an effort to improve the quality of the article, and maintain WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:PARITY.
I suggested that you are pushing POV about the Bardi quote, due to your apparent heavy-handed assertions (quote in bold above) that blogs, even those of physicists, are categorically not reliable sources, while simultaneously defending your own addition of a blog, all without regard or reference to WP:SPS. I maintain this claim, and have quoted evidence to the matter, weather this is serious enough to be an arbcom issue, I am not entirely sure (as I have relatively little experience with arbcom). Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The Bardi blog does not meet our criteria for reliable sources. The content above makes assertions about a living person and WP:BLPSPS is quite clear that self-published sources cannot be used this way. Bardi's opinion should only be included if and when it is cited in a secondary (reliable, independent) source.- MrX 14:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Following this up, reviews about the 2013 demonstration and 2014 test, by Ethan Siegel, Tommaso Dorigo, etc. which are also recorded in blogs, should be ok as per Self Published Sources, so long as they are "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" and that they are cited about the demonstration or test in question, but not when expressing views about their opinions of Rossi (or any other living person). This does beg the question what the 'relevant field' is, as AndyTheGrump pointed out, but I think that 'physicists' can be reasonably assumed to fit this role best. Most cold fusion scientists, however, cannot, as they mostly cannot get their work published in peer reviewed journals (however, those that have, such as Edmond Storms, might be considered an established expert by this criteria, but thats a discussion for another time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insertcleverphrasehere (talkcontribs) 14:40, 17 February 2015
So basically you are saying that self-published sources are ok as long as they meet your personal definition of the subject matter of the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
When did I say ANYTHING of the sort? I noted that WP guidelines state that self published sources are OK, so long as the aren't also BLP, and that they are an established expert and I even quoted the relevant pages for you. Could you please assume a little good faith on my part? I'm just trying to improve the article. If you'll note that most of my recent additions to the article have been critical of Rossi, or his tests, so I'm entirely confused as to what kind of POV you think I'm trying to push. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking into this further, I note that the Bardi quote was previously discussed at WP:ANI, and that again no uninvolved contributor raised objections to the source being used. [10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking into it further? I've read the archive pages AndyTheGrump, you started that arbitration. That no one objected to the source being used does not change the fact that it clearly and unambiguously cannot be used due to WP:BLPSPS, since you don't seem to want to bother going over and reading it, I'll quote it here:

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

Whether or not you consider Ugo Bardi a professional writer, this was unambiguously a blog, and not subject to any kind of editorial control but his own, thus is disqualified as a reliable source as per WP:BLPSPS. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I have to assume you are already aware of WP:BLP and fully versed in it, as you previously used it in the arbitration case that you quoted above to accuse POVbrigand of breaching it [11]. Therefore I'll ask you to either refute the evidence that I've just given, or stop being disruptive. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Pointing out that previously uninvolved contributors at WP:RSN and WP:ANI have not seen any objection to the Bardi material is not even remotely 'disruptive' - though feel free to raise this elsewhere if you think otherwise. And can you clarify whether you are arguing that material on the Energy Catalyzer falls under WP:BLP policy - or are you suggesting that it only does so if it doesn't concur with your personal opinion that it is only legitimately discussed as a scientific topic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
1) No, pointing out these previous non-rejections is not disruptive in itself, rather, using it as evidence that the Bardi quote doesn’t violate WP:BLPSPS is disingenuous, as this was not brought up as an issue at the time (the issue at the time seems to have surrounded whether the author was ‘biased’, to which it was concluded that there was no evidence.) You have still not addressed my concern regarding WP:BLPSPS, note that *I* did not bring up this issue, MrX did.
2) I never made any claim that all material on the Energy Catalyzer falls under WP:BLP. Rather, I stated that the that the Ugo Bardi quote falls under WP:BLPSPS, and specifically went out of my way to cite why some other self-published sources in the article seem not to be subject to deletion under the same rule (not BLP), also citing the relevant source for my argument: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. (Summary of my point for the asked for clarification: self published sources can be ok, depending on the author, but when they talk about a living person, as the Bardi quote does, they violate WP:BLPSPS)
3) Your final sentence seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to accuse me of POV pushing, which seems odd, as I have repeatedly cited justifications for my arguments. This is the last time I’ll tolerate you telling me what my ‘personal opinion’ is or isn’t. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
If you misunderstood my last sentence as a 'thinly veiled attempt' to accuse you POV pushing, I apologise for not being clearer - and will state outright that it is self-evident that you have repeatedly attempted to use this article to promote Rossi's pseudoscientific nonsense, in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
If you can prove that comments to "Promote Rossi's pseudoscientific nonsense" (this statement seems to constitute a WP:BLP offence) are any more common than my support of reasonable criticism of him and his device by experts (read: physicists), fine (I think you'll find that the opposite is actually true, especially with regard to my edits to the article itself). When making accusations about other Wikipedians it is important to provide references, as it otherwise constitutes a WP:personal attack. Essentially, provide sources for your accusation or you are personally attacking me. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Go boil your head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see [12], as I'm done being your strawman. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Failing to properly understand the dynamics of curved airfoils before flight may have grave consequences. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Defunct, missing source, Peter Ekström, 2011[edit]

Due to recent source confusion I was checking through sources and noticed that this link [1] (currently 13 in the article), is a missing object on fisik.org. I can't find this publication anywhere else, although it is mentioned on several other cold fusion blog sites such a PESWIKI, which seem to quote similar information about the... article? (actually it is verbatim, indicating that it was probably lifted from wikipedia). I'm not actually sure what kind of source this is, as it isn't referenced in the citation. The quote seems like it might violate WP:CRYSTALBALL, especially considering that his assertion did not occur (not verified and also not 'revealed as a scam within 1 year'). the above predictive quote is also quoted in [13], which proves that the "‘I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year.’" prediction by Ekström occurred, but gives no reference to the rest of what is said that is quoted in the wikipedia article, moreover, it used the same now defunct link as wikipedia as its source. Even if this quote could be kept, that still does not make it notable now, especially considering that it did not occur, which indicates that, in hindsight, it may have been subject to WP:RECENTISM at the time.

It seems that www.fysik.org has moved to www2.fysik.org, but the paper described above no longer appears to be on the site. i can't find it with google searches either, except where other people have tried to link to the same dead link. I went through the discussion pages for reference to this, but the best I could find was the Nyteknik article listed above that only gives the prediction quote, which by itself, especially now, is hardly notable.

The rest of what Ekström says is the most valuable IMO, the part about gamma rays, origin of extra energy, chemical abundances and isotopic measurements, but unfortunately, unless someone else can find this, we don't have a source for any of it anymore. What do we do when the link to a source disappears? I honestly don't know. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ Ekström, Peter (6 May 2011). Kall Fusion på italienska (Cold fusion – Italian style) (Swedish and English).
See WP:DEADLINK. I fixed it using archive.org. The untranslated quote is "Jag är övertygad att hela historien är en enda stor bluff, och att den kommer att avslöjas inom mindre än ett år." I don't care whether it's included, though WP:CRYSTALBALL does not forbid predictions by experts. KateWishing (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it convenient how material critical of the E-Cat is subject to WP:CRYSTALBALL, while Rossi's endless and contradictory claims about what he's going to do next are apparently immune... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
First, thanks KateWishing, didn't think about using archive. There were 6 other dead links, 3 of which I fixed and three of which I couldn't find a fix (these were redundant so I deleted them), perhaps you could check and see if archive.org can be used to resurrect them? As for AndyTheGrump, that might be a valid concern *if* we included any of 'endless and contradictory claims about what he's going to do next' (I had a quick scan of the article, and to my knowledge I don't know what you are referring to). Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A brief history of this article's dubious commercial claims[edit]

Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking back, this article was created sometime in March 2011. How has it changed since then? The following links show the article as it appeared on or about April 1 of each year, both because that allows a few weeks for development after the article was created, and because it tickles my fancy to use April Fools' Day for our baseline. Here's the section on "commercial plans" over time.

  • 1 April 2011 The Defkalion era
    Rossi claims he has an agreement with the newly formed Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies [12] as his first client. According to the agreement Rossi will supposedly deliver a one megawatt heating plant, consisting of a hundred 10 kW reactors connected in series and parallel. The plant which would supply heating for Defkalion's own purposes only, is supposed to be inaugurated in October 2011. [13]
    Rossi claims he will not be paid by Defkalion until the installation is delivered and works. [14] The company’s spokesman Symeon Tsalikoglou has confirmed the agreement. [15]
    Defkalion has also been featured on national Greek television [16] and in the national business newspaper Ependitis. [17] According to Defkalion and Rossi the agreement gives exclusive rights for Defkalion to manufacture and sell the energy catalyzer throughout Greece. [15]
    We're promised a 1 MW plant in 6 months, for October 2011.
  • 1 April 2012 The AmpEnergo era
    Originally, a new Greek company, Defkalion, was to deliver a heating plant based on the Energy Catalyzer, but this deal was terminated.[53][54] Since then Defkalion have announced that they plan to make a similar device.[55][56]
    In May 2011[57] Rossi reached an agreement with AmpEnergo,[58] an Ohio company,[59] to receive royalties on sales of licences and products built on the Energy Catalyzer in the Americas.[60][22]
    Ecat.com is a website for taking pre-orders for the device, run by four Swedish entrepreneurs, two of them particle physicists. Magnus Holm, one of the physicists, in response to a question about skeptical commentary regarding the device, replied that "Until [Rossi] makes an independent test, there is obviously a small chance that it does not work. We are willing to take that risk because it’s such an amazing technology if it works". When asked what his response was to suggestions that he was "contributing to fraud", he replied "We are not engaged in any deception, and I do not think Rossi is engaged in any fraud either. If it would turn out that it does not work, in spite of everything, I would think it is about self-deception".[61]
    On 23 November 2011, in the Massachusetts Statehouse, Andrea Rossi met with the minority leader of the Massachusetts Senate Bruce Tarr and representatives from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, and the University of Massachusetts, to explore the prospects for developing and manufacturing the device in Massachusetts, USA. According to Robert Tamarin, the Dean of Science at University of Massachusetts-Lowell, the representatives were mostly skeptical and only examined the possibilities of manufacturing within Massachusetts in case the technology turns out to work.[62][24]
    Rossi claims to have sold one 479 kilowatt unit to an undisclosed customer and that he has additional orders for thirteen more 1 MW units. He offers these for sale for $2 million.[63][64] At the end of December 2011 Rossi said he was aiming for mass-scale production of a consumer version and electricity generation.[65]
    Defkalion's out, AmpEnergo is in. Rossi has apparently sold a half-megawatt unit and will be delivering, at $2 million apiece, 13 more 1 MW units. Ecat.com is keen.
  • 1 April 2013 The Prometeon era
    Originally, a new Greek company, Defkalion, was to deliver a heating plant based on the Energy Catalyzer, but this deal was terminated.[58][59] Since then Defkalion have announced that they plan to make a similar device.[60][61] In 2012 an Italian company, Prometeon Srl,[62] became the official Italian licensee for the Energy Catalyzer.[63]
    Ecat.com is a website for taking pre-orders for the device, run by four Swedish entrepreneurs, two of them particle physicists. One of the physicists, Magnus Holm, in response to suggestions that he was "contributing to fraud" replied "We are not engaged in any deception, and I do not think Rossi is engaged in any fraud either. If it would turn out that it does not work, in spite of everything, I would think it is about self-deception."[15] In September 2012 they pulled out from investing in a new version of the E-Cat, a prototype high temperature reactor, after a test by the SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden failed to demonstrate excess output energy because there was more input energy than measured by Rossi. Holm says that they are still interested in investing in the 1MW version, which they intend to validate separately.[64]
    AmpEnergo is missing, Prometeon is in. Ecat.com tested one version that didn't work, but is still eyeing the 1 MW units. (Those are the units that should have been ready in October 2011, remember.)
  • 1 April 2014 The Industrial heat era
    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.[70][71][72][73] In 2012 an Italian company, Prometeon Srl became the official Italian licensee for the E-Cat.[74][75]
    Ecat.com is a website for taking "non-binding orders" for the device. It is run by four Swedish entrepreneurs, two of them particle physicists. One of the physicists, Magnus Holm, in response to suggestions that he was "contributing to fraud" replied "We are not engaged in any deception, and I do not think Rossi is engaged in any fraud either. If it would turn out that it does not work, in spite of everything, I would think it is about self-deception."[55][76]
    In January 2014 Industrial Heat LLC, a U.S. Company based in Raleigh, N.C., announced that it has acquired the "intellectual property and licensing rights" to the E-Cat.[69] Popular Science called the acquisition "interesting" and said, "There are many reasons to be skeptical of the technology, considering that it has never been conclusively proven to work, and claims to work via an unfamiliar chemical reaction. Rossi has also previously passed off spurious inventions, and has repeatedly backed-out of third party testing of the E-Cat, for example with NASA."[77] Triangle Business Journal reported that 14 investors have put $11.6 million into the company, as "a mixture of equity, debt and options". They noted that CEO Tom Darden is also CEO of Cherokee Investment Partners, which has "nearly $2 billion under management", and that Industrial Heat was "one of the topics he discussed with Chinese officials on a recent trip to China."[78][79] Rossi "claims to focus on his role as head of research for the technology".[80]
    Prometeon and Defkalion haven't done anything, and now Industrial Heat is in. Rossi got a title, kind of. Ecat.com is down to taking "non-binding orders", whatever that nonsense means. Nobody is promising to deliver anything anymore. The section in our article has been retitled Ownership and licensing, I guess because Commercial plans came to close to suggesting some sort of actual business and product.
  • Today Nothing has happened
    Greek company Defkalion was originally licensed to produce and distribute the E-Cat in the Balkans. The deal was terminated in 2011 and Defkalion announced plans to make their own similar device.[69][70][71] In 2012 an Italian company, Prometeon Srl became the official Italian licensee for the E-Cat.[72]
    Ecat.com is a website for taking "non-binding orders" for the device. It is run by four Swedish entrepreneurs, two of them particle physicists. One of the physicists, Magnus Holm, in response to suggestions that he was "contributing to fraud" replied "We are not engaged in any deception, and I do not think Rossi is engaged in any fraud either. If it would turn out that it does not work, in spite of everything, I would think it is about self-deception."[52][73]
    In January 2014 Industrial Heat LLC, a U.S. Company based in Raleigh, N.C., announced that it had acquired intellectual property and licensing rights to the E-Cat. Popular Science called the acquisition "interesting" and said, "There are many reasons to be skeptical of the technology, considering that it has never been conclusively proven to work, and claims to work via an unfamiliar chemical reaction. Rossi has also previously passed off spurious inventions, and has repeatedly backed-out of third party testing of the E-Cat, for example with NASA."[74] Triangle Business Journal reported that 14 investors have put $11.6 million into the company, as "a mixture of equity, debt and options". They noted that CEO Tom Darden is also CEO of Cherokee Investment Partners, which has "nearly $2 billion under management", and that Industrial Heat was "one of the topics he discussed with Chinese officials on a recent trip to China."[75][76] Rossi "claims to focus on his role as head of research for the technology".[77]
    The text is virtually identical to what it was eleven months ago. (There's been some minor wordsmithing in the first sentence.) No products. No substantial announcements. Defkalion, Prometeon, Ecat.com, and Industrial Heat altoegether have bupkis. There's still no meaningful information about what "intellectual property" Industrial Heat has "acquired".

So, that's the history we're looking at. The story changes dramatically each year, except for this one, where they've abandoned the practice of implausible announcements for radio silence. (Where are those one-megawatt plants?) And our article has been modestly successful at suppressing inclusion of the flakiest announcements which would have made the article history even more 'exciting'; this is just the silliness that's managed to dribble through our editorial filters. (Who remembers Leonardo Corporation, for example?)

How long until we recognize the dog that isn't barking, and strip out the ever-changing parade of poorly-substantiated, never-followed-up-on claims?

What kind of Fools will we be for this April's Day? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for showing us the history of one small part of this article on a year-by-year basis… I guess? What’s your point? Is it that the story keeps changing, or that it hasn’t been changing in the last year? Evidence suggests that Rossi had several potential partners, many of which fell trough, until linking up with IH, this is what is reported by reliable sources, and its what we report here. Whether you think this is due to scam artistry, or something else... find a source. At Wikipedia we report on reliable sources, and what they say about this subject, we don’t strive to “recognize the dog that isn't barking”, that’s the job of reliable sources. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The point is that sources which report positively Rossi's claims (whether regarding 'science' or supposed commercial ventures) have proven to be unreliable. Time and time again. And yet some contributors still insist that the next bit of uncritical promotional showmanship is somehow different. Though it should be noted that new such sources seem to be becoming rarer. Eventually of course, they will dry up entirely - at which point we will be able to merge what little is worth retaining into the Rossi biography, and put this dog out of its misery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless the story is resolved, one way or another, little changes with regards to the status of the wiki page. This article has twice been put up for both deletion and merger, and 4 times it was denied (see the archives for arguments from better Wikipedians than I). This story is notable, at least until it is resolved. If indeed IH does own the IP rights (if there are any to own) I don't see how this could possibly be merged with Rossi's biography, so this issue would have to be resolved first, among others. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
So no comment on the fact that sources repeating Rossi's claims have repeatedly been proven to be unreliable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Essentially what AndyTheGrump has said. Rossi's publicized claims have grown steadily less grandiose and less frequent (or at least, he's been able to find fewer and fewer sort-of-reputable journalist-bloggers to report on them). Each time we get a new announcement, it seems to be unrelated to the news which came before; companies get 'forgotten'. The so-called journalists who wrote the few pieces from which this section of our article is assembled never seem to do any follow-up, so our article accumulates the detritus of old, abandoned claims. (Defkalion has been making their own device since 2011? Prometeon has been licensed to build devices since 2012? It seems odd that we haven't heard anything about these companies since, doesn't it?) We're watching the same thing happen with Industrial Heat. They made an announcement more than a year ago, and we dutifully added statements about unspecified "intellectual property" to the article, along with assorted puffery about Chinese interest and the wealthy importance of the investors. Then, as usual, nothing of substance followed.
We need to accept that there aren't good follow-ups to any of the claims made by Rossi or reported in each thinly-reported announcement, and we need to pitch this section of the article until there are multiple, independent, robust sources that confirm the existence and sale of an actual product. Everything else is just marketing and vaporware. "Nothing real to report following breathless announcement last year" is just terribly weak clickbait; it's naive or dishonest to demand news articles with that content before we remove remarkable and dubious claims that are never followed up on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this section has been a dustbin of unreliable nonsense for four years, which is why I deleted it just now. Let's wait until there's a steadily working product in the hands of happy customers before we talk about commercial use. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a decision to be made lightly, there are a lot of sources that have previously been deemed reliable. Moreover, It demonstrates the exact nature of Rossi's claims, (that multiple times, he has claimed to have business partners and nothing materialised). Edit Reverted. if you want to talk about removing some or all of these sources as unreliable or unverifiable, you'll have to take them up on a case-by-case basis. We don't just wholesale throw the baby out with the bathwater. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Lets not have an edit war please, you have called this 'unreliable nonsense' but I don't see you stating ANYTHING about the 8 sources you just deleted. Make your case, then PROPOSE deletion, then we'll hear what the consensus is, and make a decision. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that some of these sources might be unnecessary and unreliable, but they need to be discussed.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it does not need to be discussed any more than we have already. The section has been a dung heap of promotion for four years, with nothing to show for it. When the the technology is up and running successfully with one or more customers, and the world's physicists are falling all over themselves to explain it for TV shows and magazines, then we can tell the reader about the commercial aspects. Until then, there's no need. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, Binksternet, please discuss why each of these sources are illegitimate? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's already explained above; I'm not sure how much more plainly I can put it. We have, variously, an assortment of business deals that didn't go through, manufacturing that hasn't happened, and licensing agreements that have (for a year or more, depending on the nominal partner) led to no evidence of an actual commercial product. We're not a blog for collating the thinly-scattered news reports of Rossi's purported, vaguely-described business arrangements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd support the removal of all the stuff before the Industrial Heat information (as this is still apparently ongoing), and replaced with a sentence like,

Several deals with companies and attempts to licence the device have come and gone, but no product has yet been delivered. These include reports that, Industrial Heat LLC, a U.S. Company based in Raleigh, N.C., announced that it had acquired intellectual property and licensing rights to the E-Cat. Popular Science called the acquisition "interesting" and said, "There are many reasons to be skeptical of the technology, considering that it has never been conclusively proven to work, and claims to work via an unfamiliar chemical reaction. Rossi has also previously passed off spurious inventions, and has repeatedly backed-out of third party testing of the E-Cat, for example with NASA."[74] Triangle Business Journal reported that 14 investors have put $11.6 million into the company, as "a mixture of equity, debt and options". They noted that CEO Tom Darden is also CEO of Cherokee Investment Partners, which has "nearly $2 billion under management", and that Industrial Heat was "one of the topics he discussed with Chinese officials on a recent trip to China."[75][76] Rossi "claims to focus on his role as head of research for the technology".[77]

Possibly the IH information could be further pared down. But it is notable that a man as high in the business chain as Tom Darden has put his money behind Rossi. I know that you have previously raised concerns that the IH connection might be similar to the situation where Randal Mills' Blacklight Power gets most its money through tax credits by pretending to be 'alternative energy', however, I don't think we have a source for that (correct me if wrong), so we can't support that argument. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: I also apologise for Edit Warring, I should have written something like the above and suggested it rather than reverting a second time. I don't support the removal of all of this information however, as much of it is notable. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You know what they say—
  • Fool me once, shame on you;
  • Fool me twice, shame on me;
  • Fool me thrice...ugh, this is embarrassing;
  • Fool me four times...you have the commercialization section of Wikipedia's Energy Catalyzer article.
Paring the section down to only the most recent (but still year-old) vague announcement is about the only way to make the article worse, in that it hides mention of all the other companies that purportedly have or had deals or technology, but have mysteriously failed to be heard from again.
We don't have any meaningful information about Industrial Heat: no list of full-time executives, no physical factory or independent office, no information about full-time employees, no business plan, no description of the "rights" they bought. IH appears to exist primarily on paper, and a bloated description of its 'investors' doesn't change that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don´t get the point here.. I think the experts for physics and entrepreneurship are different ones. From my experience with entrepreneurship developing automated bookscanners - I can tell you that it takes some time to have a proper working product for the right customer at a competitive price. Especially for a new product of its class. The story ended up building and making money with non-automated bookscanners - because thats what the potential customer really needs - with a competitive quality, usability and good support. And thats just about the product - not about financing development and research, finding strange partners pretending to have money and so on and so on. From the experience I have in that area - TenOfAllTrades critic is nothing more than WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is the history of alleged commercial agreements interesting? Whether or not there is a real product, the section is not really relevant, except for the implication that, as no "commercial agreement" has remained in place for as much as a year, that there is nothing "commercial" to "agree" on. "143" makes the legitimate point that this implication is not necessarily valid; all the more reason to exclude the material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Photographs of plant[edit]

(I've created a new thread for this discussion, so it doesn't get lost in the thread above.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There are new photos available documenting the work on the actual plant.
http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/
Well, this is no newsticker but this article somewhat exceeds the goals of an encylopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
Having two photos in the article, one showing the first public prototype and one showing the actual prototype (which might be updated yearly) should not harm WP:PARITY and WP:RS nor WP:NEWSTICKER.
This is not about believing or non-believing - its just the simple demand to have a picture of the corpus delicti - which would give some chance to verify the extense of this fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this thread was initially talking about photos. As I'm not sure about the extent of available photos, suitable for Wikipedia's use (preferably with an appropriate license, but at most one WP:fair use photo might be included), I don't have much comment. I agree that photos as Mr. 143 suggests would improve the article, if we can verify appropriate licensing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
(I've created a new thread for this discussion, so it doesn't get lost in the thread above.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Leaving aside licensing or copyright issues for the moment, my largest concern with using these photos to decorate Wikipedia's article has similar problems to uncritically reporting the very vague claims about Rossi's various business arrangements (recently removed from our article, as discussed in the thread above). Right now, what we've got are some photos which Rossi claims on a personal website is an under-construction 1 MW reactor. (I presume it's the same 1 MW reactor that he was going to deliver in October 2011, or that he supposedly sold a dozen units of that year....) All we really know is that Rossi knows at least two guys who can smile, and that at some point in the past all three of them spent time in a shipping container (?) with some pipes, insulation, a workbench, and blinkenlights. If we present those photos (especially without any meaningful, independent, critical commentary) we're misrepresenting the available evidence to suggest that Rossi has built a real, large-scale reactor—an implication that is not supported by reliable sources.
Quit jumping the gun—when Rossi builds a real, working 1 MW plant and sells it to a real, identifiable customer, there will be lots of time for adding photos of the genuine device. Posting self-published photos in the meantime just means we're feeding Rossi's public relations effort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Even if the photo's were available for our use (they aren't), we have no reliable source stating that they are what they purport to be. This isn't a sales brochure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
That IP has a familiar style and interests. Odd how activity increases just as a partisan is topic-banned... Guy (Help!) 22:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, that IP has actually been trolling cold fusion topics for a couple of months at least (for example, [14] and [15] and [16]). I certainly agree that the IP is WP:NOTHERE and the project would lose little if he were banned; however, if the IP were associated with Insertcleverphrasehere, then ICPH would have had to have been bad-handing while logged out long before his topic ban. (In other words, the edit timing isn't particularly suggestive by itself. I'm not saying that I am ruling out the possibility that the IP belongs to another named editor, only that a pattern of behavior supporting a link hasn't been established. Further, there is a reasonable argument to be made on the basis of conduct to ban the IP anyway, regardless of whether or not he's related to any other accounts.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize my comment on banning InsertCleverPhraseHere. I respect processes and roles - because thats an important foundation for a mission like WP. It was personal attacking, unreflected and unnecessary - but an emotional response to the fact thatI believe he was pretty engaged to bring this article forward. Im a novice wonnabe contributor and still in the phase of learning whats right/accepted or wrong. And from my observation there is some 80:20% ratio of constructive/polemic content. There will be no fingerpointing from my side - the contributors should be self-reflective enough to know whats right or wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.154.228.57 (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise...I´d like to say it with Andy´s true unbiased words...
"and if that is the case, the article will need substantial revision anyway (not by me - I'll be busy writing an article on the flight characteristics of Sus domesticus)"
feel free to ban me. I have seen so much pictures with Tokamaks in lots of encyclopedias since I was a kid - which never produced a single joule net gain - with so much diagrams how the fields and the plasma that it felt ::just right away. I even know that its somewhat forbidden to make pictures of the prophet Muhammed - so pictures of an e-cat would probably be something dangerous...
"which never produced a single joule net gain". Not producing a net gain isn't the same as producing nothing at all, Second Quantization (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise there is a growing evidence that there was more net power generated with CF than with HF until now. - If we exclude the H bomb.91.115.74.75 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

I merged this article into Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur). [17]. I would like to revert this page to a redirect and revert the Andrea Rossi page to include the E-cat information (which can be paired down if necessary).

jps (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The Energy Catalyzer is more notable than Rossi himself, so if anything, Rossi's article should be merged here. KateWishing (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to hear the argument for merging, given that this subject has already been deemed to be notable. I'm open to persuasion either way, but at the moment I would lean toward merging Rossi into this article as suggested by KateWishing.- MrX 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "rights" and the ongoing industrialization of the Energy Catalyzer now belongs to the company "Industrial Heat" - even if this was neglected here permanently. My subjective opinion, reading this talk was that Andy has an obsession debunking Mr. Rossi. Merging that article into "Mr. Rossi" would follow this obsession - still neglecting that the driving force is the company "Industrial Heat". According to his comment of writing an article about flying pigs - if there would be a need to change the article - merging into "Andrea Rossi" is a way to overcome that. I think this is an online encyclopedia an no personal playground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.96.102.109 (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's right - this is an online encyclopaedia, not a platform for the propagation of endless contradictory claims about a magic teapot. As for Industrial Heat, we have no source whatsoever indicating what supposed 'rights' to what supposed technology they have purchased, how much they paid for it, and whether they even believe Rossi's claims themselves. Self-serving publicity stunts do precisely nothing to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The EC is notable by itself as a separate thing from Rossi. There has been much coverage in different sources. I would also oppose the counter suggestion to merge Rossi here. Rossi is known for his other ventures, Petradragon and the thermocouples, and these make him notable on his own. I also wonder if Petradragon is notable enough for its own article. Martin451 23:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - both subjects are sufficiently notable to merit their own articles. VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above arguments -- both are sufficiently notable. EPadmirateur (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article "andrea rossi" is a very bad written article, extremely biased against rossi, based on roumors and dis-information. Let the article "andrea rossi" die by being discredited and abandoned by the readers. Do not revive the horrible article "andrea rossi" and contaminate the article "Energy catalizer" by merging (the article "energy catalyzer" is already biased enough against rossi). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.55.78 (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both are sufficiently notable - the EC because of the public attention that this issue has received and AR because of Petroldragon, among others. --Chris Howard (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This topic is certainly big enough outside of the instigator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although both clearly frauds, they seem to be independently notable. If ECat were trimmed down to what could actually be verified (there have been no theories as to its operational method, and various demonstrations which prove nothing, and claims of interest by companies, which have not been verified, nor details available), a merger might be appropriate, but there's more here than should be there, and vice versa. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rossi's fame comes from the earlier Petroldragon criminal proceedings. The E-Cat is a different topic, notable on its own. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)