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)

What do you think about Parkhomovs publication and the MFMP attempts?[edit]

Take a look at http://www.e-catworld.com/ this days. EmTee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.216.201 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that e-catworld.com is an unreliable blog, and that if you want to discuss specific scientific publications (if any exist) then you should probably cite (and link to) them directly.
Beyond that, there isn't much to say. Article talk pages aren't supposed to be used as chat forums for general discussion about a topic. If you would like to propose specific changes to this Wikipedia article, supported by specific, reliable sources, then we would have something to discuss. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Pending Airbus patent[edit]

There is a pending german patent application from Airbus describing an LENR reactor. https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=bibdat&docid=DE102013110249A1 Its not granted yet, but quite noteable. http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/75-DE102013110249A1-pdf/ It refers to Leonardo Corporation and Defkalion....143.161.248.25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

Mentioned patent application DE102013110249A1 refers to patent WO2009125444A1: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009125444 And the named inventor of that patent is Rossi.143.161.248.25 (talk)

Echoing Andy. A patent application is of no importance to this article whatsoever, unless reliable sources choose to write about it.- MrX 14:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Patents are only of interest for things that actually succeed. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Anyone can apply for a patent - it signifies nothing. In any case, the application was turned down... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the “E-Cat”[edit]

There was a new interesting paper uploaded on Arxiv by Norman D. Cook and Andrea Rossi - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.01261.pdf

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 143.161.248.25 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A non-peer reviewed paper by Rossi says that Rossi's device works? Quelle surprise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:01, 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. [1] 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.143.161.248.25 (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)