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)

New article on Huffington Post[edit]

A new source about the latest 'test', written by:

David H. Bailey
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (retired) and University of California, Davis
Jonathan M. Borwein
Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of Newcastle, Australia

Could be used to contrast Ethan Siegel's critique of the test. They are not exactly 'positive' nor 'negative', about the report. Explicitly stating:

"We also caution against anyone taking these results too seriously until they can be replicated by completely independent research teams. We are aware that Rossi has a somewhat checkered past, although so did the mathematician Louis de Brange until he proved the Bieberbach conjecture in 1985."

as well as:

"But, on the other hand, we see no point in rejecting, much less vilifying, a new research result simply because it departs from mainstream thinking, provided that 1) it is performed by well-qualified researchers using reasonably sound methodologies and up-to-date equipment, 2) it is documented in sufficient detail to permit third parties to reproduce the results, and 3) the researchers have at least submitted their work for proper peer review."

They also insinuate that accusations of fraud may be less likely than the actuality of a working device, but also say that errors in measurement happen even in serious peer reviewed scientific endeavours (they reference the Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly).

definitely something from this article warrants inclusion along with Ethan Siegel's comments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/fusion-energy-hope-or-hype_b_6031968.html Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still not an article subject to HuffPo's editorial review; however, if Bailey and Borwin are experts, then it might be allowable as an WP:RS. (Maybe not, it is a controversial, although fairly positive, comment about a living person. Stating that Rossi is not a fraud appears controversial.) However, none of (1), (2), and (3) have actually occurred. (Well, (3) might have, for sufficiently odd definition of "peer-reviewed", but I haven't seen documentation, and it hasn't been accepted.) I don't think it's acceptable, yet.
The question remains, what is the field of expertise required. Fusion in general? LENR? Scientific fraud? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123568626_1.pdf
--87.5.133.108 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
For those who are wondering, the above link – which I clicked on only with much trepidation, please don't post bare links without explanation! – is a purported explanation for the extra power measured.
Briefly, the author of this analysis argues that the waveforms shown in some of the ammeter photographs provided in the last two reports seem inconsistent with what would be expected given Rossi's description of his setup. Critically, the author found that the waveforms shown would be consistent if a couple of leads had been reversed on one of the ammeters. If such an error had been made in setup, the total electrical power delivered to the apparatus would have been underreported roughly by a factor of three: about the same coefficient of performance claimed in the recent energy catalyzer demonstration.
It appears to be a self-published analysis in an online forum, so it is likely not suitable for use in the Wikipedia article. (To be fair, this also places it on an even footing, reliability-wise, with Rossi and company's own self-published reports). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Rossi and company's own self-published reports? This latest report wasn't made by Rossi or industrial heat. 121.99.61.41 (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The first article Fusion Energy: Hope or Hype? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/fusion-energy-hope-or-hype_b_6031968.html covered hot and cold fusion. A new one Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: Papers and Patents http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/low-energy-nuclear-reacti_b_6189772.html -- These are quality articles by "HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors", and reputable scientists/mathematicians. They have all the "ifs" and "buts" for a balanced description (provided not only the "buts" are included). They note that "So we will continue to monitor both of these developments. At the very least, they are certain to make an interesting chapter in the sociology of science." These two articles include the new report (which is labelled as a preprint, and is said to have been submitted as a peer-reviewed paper, so it's hasn't been rejected by arxiv.). The new one also mentions Gates' interest in the subject. I don't think that you (ie the three or four editors who have deleted the ten [twenty?] or so attempts at adding this information) are the arbiters of whether this has any import beyond "self promotion" by Rossi. Alanf777 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Borwein and Bailey are mathematicians – not physicists, and certainly not experimentalists – writing a blog column in that well-known bastion of scientific thought, the Huffington Post. (The Huffington Post generously provides a platform for discredited scientific views as long as they continue to generate marketable clicks. For instance, the anti-vaccination vaccines-cause-autism activist David Kirby also has a blog there.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What is the validity of this imputation of Borwein and Bailey being mathematicians and not physicist when it is known that modern physics is essentially mathematical physics? Is there some subdomain of physics which is not mathematical?--86.125.190.134 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Another remark concerns the presence here of an association fallacy.--86.125.190.134 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Blog like nature of the article, and Inclusion of the Lugano Report[edit]

There has been quite a lot of negativity toward including the Lugano report in the article, despite the fact that it represents a source no more or less reliable than the similar 2013 report.
Most of this reaction at first was to the notability of coverage of the report, but after several high profile scientists posted responses to the test even AndytheGrump agreed that the report tax notable enough to be included.
However, TenOfAllTrades was adamant that the report not be included because it violated WP:NOTBLOG in that the article was starting to look like a list of self-serving reports/and their responses by scientists.
I'd like to point out that saying that the article has been written in a bad way is a very poor reason to censor new information. This is tantamount to saying:
"Hey our article is starting to look like a blog, lets just stop adding new stuff! That will solve our problem."
no... no it doesn't.
The 2014 Lugano report is at least as notable (actually far more so) as the 2013 report.
AT THE VERY LEAST, the correct thing to do would be to rewrite the section on the 2013 report to encompass both reports, and simplify the responses to the reports as not to be too wordy.
not including the 2014 Lugano report at this point is incredibly silly in my opinion, as this report is the biggest thing that has happened in the LENR field in the recent past, and to not even MENTION it in an article on the ECat is a severe failing of our duty in creating an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think @AndyTheGrump: would be very surprised to hear his opinion on this topic.
To the more general point, if a problem is identified with an article I quite agree that that doesn't mean the article should forever be frozen. However, that doesn't mean that any or all changes are an improvement over no changes. We shouldn't make edits which make an article worse – or which make a problem more severe – purely for the sake of making edits.
Of course, this particular article hasn't been in stasis. For instance, over the last month or so the needless and confusing distinction has been removed between "tests" and "demonstrations and experiments", and the content has been edited to reduce duplication, thin out the blogginess, and – at least a little bit – better conform to WP:NPOV. There's probably a ways to go, but there has been some improvement.
That the consensus on this talk page has rejected one particular edit that you would prefer to see made is no justification to cry "Censorship!" TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't recall ever stating that the latest 'report' should be included. What I did say was that if it is included, there are specific responses on it from reliable sources which should also be included. As for the difference between this report and the last one, the previous one was at least published in arXiv (not that amounts to much, given the lack of peer review). The latest one was rejected. Furthermore, it is apparent that Rossi has changed his line again on what is going on in the E-Cat (see his latest statements regarding copper in the 'ash' [1]), making earlier reports less useful even as sources for his version of events. I see no reason whatsoever why Wikipedia should be obliged to detail every latest swerve of this moving target - if Rossi can't get his story straight, making accurate reporting of what he is claiming impossible and older material invalid, adding more of the same isn't going to do anything. This is of course a perennial problem in this article, and we have wasted a great deal of time and effort arguing over whether we should be reporting things that some people considered hugely significant (e.g. Rossi's claimed 'factory' in the United States) only to have them disappear from the Rossi version entirely. This is not a blog, and we are not obliged to cover every latest breathless report from the credulous. If this is supposed to be a science story, it needs to be based on legitimate scientific material, published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, and with evidence that it is being assessed as serious science. And if it isn't about science, what is it about? A hypothetical product? This isn't a sales brochure, and we aren't here to provide free advertising for hypothetical devices. If it were ever to go on sale (if...) we would of course include reviews of the device from significant sources, but meanwhile, as a consumer product it simply doesn't exist, so there is nothing to write about. So what exactly is this article actually about? Rossi's claims to have invented a miraculous device that would solve the world's energy problems if it actually existed - and a complete lack of verifiable evidence that Rossi's claims (which change regularly) amount to anything. As stories go, it amounts to very little really, and each new detail is of no more significance than the last. The article doesn't need more 'reports', it needs the old superseded puffery to be trimmed out. Personally, I think we can adequately cover the whole (non)story in a couple of paragraphs, if we cut out the clutter and report the verifiable facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump mentions the

"...effort arguing over whether we should be reporting things that some people considered hugely significant (e.g. Rossi's claimed 'factory' in the United States) only to have them disappear from the Rossi version entirely."

Surely this disappearance, in itself, is significant. Are there other Rossi statements that later disappeared from his site ? Might you not want to raise this as illustrating Rossi's methods ? Of course, if things have been taken down by Rossi, you would not be able to link directly to that; but surely there would be evidence elsewhere, such as posts on the blogs that support the e-cat: or, for that matter, ones that are hostile to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.204.253 (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That would constitute original research. We have to go by published sources - and there are few still interested in this story that actually bother to look into the history, rather than parroting whatever Rossi says this week. Sadly, 'man makes implausible claims, changes his mind and makes different implausible claims instead' repeated ad nauseam doesn't make for an interesting story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair point AndyTheGrump, but there are at least two reputable published sources, that you could link to, if you wished to have a small section on the contradictions. You yourself link above here to Stephen Pomp and in the current main post on the e-cat there is the link to Ugo Bardi (currently note 13) where the whole story of the American factory that never was, is given (though it is only alluded to in the Wikipedia text). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.204.253 (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
With respect to the factory, you could say something like - the address that was given as a factory turned out to be a flat lived in by Rossi. Now that would not be original research, but merely referring to Ugo Bardi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.204.253 (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Broadly speaking (and I don't speak for Andy or anyone else, necessarily), I'd rather not encourage a situation where we get into "duelling allegations" from low-impact, dubiously-reliable blog sources—or even suspiciously one-off, never-followed-up-on stories from slightly-more-reliable outlets. If we start adding more negative material from skeptical blogs, then we start getting demands for WP:PARITY and effusively-positive material from gullible blogs. We drag the article towards more he-said she-said back-and-forth wittering, instead of recognizing – as editors – that there just isn't any meaningful news to report.
Incidentally, that's the public-relations 'win' condition for proponents of any fringe theory. There isn't any ground to stand on to support conclusive positive statements, so the best they can go after is to give the (completely misleading) impression that the "science isn't settled", "there is ongoing debate", "more research is needed", and that we have a responsibility to "teach the controversy". As usual, the best examples of this sort of duplicity are readily drawn from the annals of U.S. public policy discussion: the link between cigarette smoking and cancer, the teaching of Darwinian evolution in schools, the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
Concentrating on the various and sundry alleged locations of Rossi's magical moving factories is to miss entirely that Rossi has yet to satisfactorily present a credible theory, describe his methods in adequate detail, demonstrate a working device, or ship a product. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Neue Zürcher Zeitung[edit]

Major Swiss Newspaper (In German, Swiss newspaper of record) covers Cold Fusion, Gates' visit to ENEA, Rossi,the Lugano report, Elforsk's involvement ... and possible interest by Aerobus.

Energy of dubious origin Is cold fusion is back in style? http://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/physik/wird-die-kalte-fusion-wieder-salonfaehig-1.18436786

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Fwissenschaft%2Fphysik%2Fwird-die-kalte-fusion-wieder-salonfaehig-1.18436786&edit-text=&act=url

(Obviously needs a human translation, but the gist of it is there.) Alanf777 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

They had another article in 2012 on CF and Rossi http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/das-heisse-eisen-der-kalten-fusion-1.16688814

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Fwissenschaft%2Fphysik%2Fwird-die-kalte-fusion-wieder-salonfaehig-1.18436786&edit-text=&act=url Alanf777 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No objections, then. Alanf777 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No objections to what? You were just blogging on this talk page again. Wish you wouldn't keep doing that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"possible interest by Aerobus"? Nope. Please don't misrepresent sources. The comment concerning Airbus (not ' Aerobus') is in relation to a Swiss company 'LENR-Cities' - nothing to do with Rossi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No objections to adding the Lugano report, Elforsk's involvement, and the referenced criticism -- in an extremely reliable source. I wasn't blogging -- I thought you didn't want editors to add things without proposing them in talk first. I summarized the entire NZZ article -- I didn't intend to add the Gates and Air(sorry)bus information. Alanf777 (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Where's the translation you said was necessary? Without that, we can't agree anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll propose a draft based on google translate, and then get any specific quotes translated. Alanf777 (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No need to bother as there's really nothing new in the NZZ articles. There are mentions of Rossi's demonstrations, the fact that there have been no independent investigations, Rossi's sloppy approach toward scientific standards (die einen saloppen Umgang mit wissenschaftlichen Standards pflegen), and so on. Nothing we haven't already covered. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No, we haven't added the Lugano report, because you (editors) claim the sources aren't reliable. This source IS reliable. This source DOES think the Lugano report is notable. The Lugano report is IN. You can then add all the qualifications/quibbles you want. Alanf777 (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Shouting doesn't actually make things true. The Lugano report isn't anything new from Rossi, and another minor news article doesn't change that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec) We haven't added the Lugano 'report' because it tells us precisely nothing we don't already know - this isn't a blog, and we are under no obligation to report every one of Rossi's circus acts. When something meaningful actually happens, we can report it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You really think your opinion is worth more than that of the editors at NZZ? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/410460/Neue-Zurcher-Zeitung "Neue Zürcher Zeitung, ( German: “New Zürich Newspaper”) , abbreviation NZZ, Swiss daily newspaper published in Zürich and generally considered one of the world’s great newspapers." ... "The paper is characterized by careful, nonsensational, thoughtful reporting, by highly informed and extremely thorough analysis, and by background information that is supplied as a context for every important story. " (Edited, re-signed) Alanf777 (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No one has questioned the status of NZZ as a reliable source. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"another minor news article" Alanf777 (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you clarify the point you are making with this quotation, so I can understand your perspective better? Stating that something is a minor news article in no way reflects on the reliability of the source in which it is published. Perhaps I am confused, and you did not intend to impute such an imputation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Or that the wiki editors above regard the Lugano report and Elforsk as notable? That's not what I get from reading the above posts. NZZ noting it makes it notable. All the conditions for inclusion are now satisfied. Alanf777 (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you really think that everything a reliable source says is automatically included in an article? How long have you been contributing to Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's see ... only 9 years. Alanf777 (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Then why are you posting nonsense like "All the conditions for inclusion are now satisfied"? There are no such 'conditions', and you know it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
All the conditions of Exclusion (un-reliability, non-notability) are now eliminated. And you've been contributing for ... Alanf777 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Please stop inventing imaginary policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Imaginary? You've invoked NON-RS maybe 200 times? I'll go through the history, if you think it's less. Alanf777 (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
A source being reliable is a necessary criteria for inclusion - it isn't however in of itself a sufficient one. as anyone familiar with Wikipedia policy should understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
And notability is next in line. Satisfied. So it's now down to the opinions of editors. I'll get a translation and add the NZZ piece on the Lugano report to the article tomorrow. Alanf777 (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Why do you keep going on about 'notability'? "notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Noteworthy then. Alanf777 (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The NZZ writes "Die Probe könnte nach dem Versuch vertauscht worden sein. " (The Sample could have been replaced after the report.) "Im Bericht ist explizit erwähnt, dass er die Probe in den E-Cat einsetzte und sie am Ende auch wieder entnahm." (In the report it is explicitly mentioned that he [Rossi] put the sample in the E-Cat and that he also removed it at the end.) I thought that was interesting. I had not read that elsewhere. 2A01:E34:EF3F:4FB0:CC9B:4FCB:97CE:759D (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Loading and unloading the e-cat was done by Rossi, witnessed by a contributor of that report. There is also some vivid chance that Rossi used invisible magnet current and had an extra generator manipulating the swiss power grid. Initially, I was interested into cold fusion and the e-cat - finding out that patho-scepticism is the even bigger story. Forget about Scientology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.72.54 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Article talk pages are solely for discussions regarding article content - which needs to be verifiable from published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Independent Testing[edit]

The Wikipedia article says that no independent testing has been done but 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 seems to indicate otherwise. Please advise.190.81.202.250 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, and not a independent test. This has already been discussed above. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Lugano report"[edit]

The discussions above resolve around a "Lugano report" without giving the reader the mean to check this document out. For those interested, here is what it is about:
On the web site of the University of Bologna (here: http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/), there is publication available dated October 6 2014, describing a test of a new version of the E-Cat, titled "Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel."
The conclusion of this paper states: "In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable."
Abstract: "New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat,is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400°C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260ºC and 1400ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume. A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using several standard methods : XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially. Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run."
A note about "independance": the paper states: "Since we required that our measurements be carried out in an independent laboratory with our own equipment, the experiment was purposely set-up and hosted within an industrial establishment which was not in any way connected with Andrea Rossi’s businesses or those of his partners. The test was thus performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at our disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA."
Authors are Giuseppe Levi (Bologna University), Evelyn Foschi (Bologna, Italy), Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér (Uppsala University), Hanno Essén (Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.). 176.188.203.178 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The report has already been linked - and there is no need to fill this page with copy-pasted material. We are all capable of clinking on a link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)