This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Unless and until a reliable source (as opposed to some random E-Cat plugging forum) states that the patent has any relevance to the subject of this article (which is neither the Leonardo Corporation nor Defkalion), it is of no concern here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Its based on the isotope shifts seen in Lugano Report. As response to the fact that no gamma emission was observed - they conclude that a major source of energy could be a reaction between the first excited-state of 7 Li4 and a proton, followed by the breakdown of 8 Be4 into two alphas with high kinetic energy, but without gamma radiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, this is a pre-print of a paper to be published in May 2015 or so in a peer reviewed Journal (unless I don't understand the status of this paper). But don't worry - even after publishing (if published), I guess, the editors of wikipedia will find good reasons not to mention it in the main article.
Nope. Not 'interesting' for the purposes of Wikipedia unless discussed in detail in third-party reliable sources. And I note that neither author appears to have any relevant academic credentials regarding the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Andy, this article is not about CF in general, its about the "Energy Catalyzer".
I think its highly interesting for people interested in that topic - how the inventor tries to explain that impossible operation.
As there was no statement for a long period of time I think its notable and should be included.220.127.116.11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I am well aware of what this article is about. I am also well aware of Wikipedia policy. We aren't here to provide a blog for Rossi's endless self-serving and contradictory claims. If the paper is of any significance, it will be discussed in credible secondary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this unpublished paper is of little use to this article. One of the reasons we rely on secondary sources is to get independent analysis. The only thing that we could possible say here is that Rossi and Cook wrote an unpublished paper on the subject. Adding the citation to the article does not improve the article, but may serve Rossi's interests which of course is not our purpose. We should at least wait until the paper is published in a journal.- MrX 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)