Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Sources

Moving sources over from AfD. Thanks to Enric Naval, 79.24.132.112, and POVbrigand for finding them. SilverserenC 19:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Grouping sources here, some comments:

  • Italian State-owned national television stations (Rai),
    Rai 2 on TG2 (State-owned news programme, very important in Italy) reports on the E-Cat during national edition [21],
    Rai News (24-hour all-news State-owned television channel)
    1) a 25-minute television documentary [22]
    2) in-depth interviews with Professor Sergio Focardi, other scientists and patents experts about the E-Cat [23] [24]
    ( NOTE: Italian national TV stations added by me.--79.24.132.112 (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) )
  • Networkworld [28] computing-related magazine, not appropiate for science claims
  • Scotsman [33] Google points to the wrong page, the real article must be offline. If someone is suscribed, please search for "Andrea Rossi" and send me a copy of the article.
  • American Chronicle [37] no editorial control
  • Science News [38] only mentioned in comments to the article
  • e-catworld.com, ecatnews.com, ecatsite.wordpress.com Promotional websites, maybe part of a marketing campaign, who knows.
  • peswiki.com no editorial control, (mostly uncritical) coverage of fringe science, borders on promotional

--Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(minor corrections--79.24.132.112 (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC))

OK, so how many of those sources contain anything of significance that couldn't be found in Ny Teknik, or in our article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, the point is that you should be using these sources rather than primary ones (unless you're using it for straight data, which is okay). And, if you think Ny Teknik is too close to the subject, replacing it with these would be better as well. SilverserenC 19:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Which of those sources contain information – not speculation, not re-reporting of things Rossi claims, but verified, backed facts – distinct from the points I listed above? The N ray article really demonstrates that you can construct a good, concise, information-rich article with a carefully-selected list of sources. N rays were covered by hundreds of articles at the time, and have been mentioned thousands or millions of times since, but we haven't felt the need to include every he-said-she-said claim about them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The N ray article is not a good example of what you're looking for. It is start class (perhaps C), and isn't very good overall. If there are really that many sources on it, then it needs to have those added and the article itself expanded. And what do you mean by verified, backed facts? You mean what the journalists observed at the demonstrations and such? I would assume, yes, they contain those facts. Other than that, them including statements and claims from Rossi doesn't matter. Those claims should be included (and already are), my point is that many of the current sources in the article should be replaced with these, if they contain the same information, because these are at least one step removed from primary sources. SilverserenC 20:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
An article shouldn't contain links to every single thing ever written on, about, or tangentially-related to a topic. That's what's happened with this article, and what's been avoided at N ray. This article is utter crap because it's being used and written as a blog, and because there is no historical perspective available to place its teapot tempest in proper context. We're being bogged down here with trivia and minutiae, when the essential points (noted above) are being glossed over and buried. You're arguing that the device is historically notable because mentions of it have leaked into what are – relatively speaking – a very small number of mainstream press outlets, and that argument is specious. There just isn't enough meat for a proper article on the Energy Catalyzer, and discussion of it belongs in the context of Rossi's other projects. A merge and redirect isn't deletion; it's healthy pruning and organization.
If you want to know what real coverage of a genuinely notable scientific controversy looks like, consider the example of the OPERA neutrino anomaly: extensive, widespread mainstream media coverage, coupled to enormous activity in the physics community (more than 80 arXiv preprints in less than two months). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
That's an unequal comparison. The faster-than-light neutrino was initiated from inside the scientific community, and thus it is a completely accepted topic to throw preprints at. Did you know that the energy catalyzer also has a preprint about it by Y.E. Kim ? It was mentioned in the article but it got deleted by an editor that supports the AfD. One part of the editor tears this article to shreds the other part complains the article doesn't read nicely. come on ! --POVbrigand (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I note you are still including the 'Falls Church News' article that cites Wikipedia as a source in your list. As clear an indication of the problems with this sort of 'look how many sources we've got' arguments as you can have. The simple fact is that most of these sources contain next-to-nothing that wasn't in our article before they were written, except more speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is very interesting how Wikipedia is being used as a reliable source in the development of these "outside" article. I can certainly understand your deep concern here about circular referencing, as it can become a huge problem in situations like this trying to legitimize a fringe theory where concepts completely made up can become "accepted fact". That this is happening at all says a whole bunch about the success of Wikipedia as a project, the sad state of what passes for journalism today, and as you are legitimately pointing out that the actual information which is available that can be independently confirmed is pretty much limited to the patent applications, some of the demonstrations, and details about Andrea Rossi himself. The demonstrations happened with what may or may not be a real device, and even what the device does is mostly raw speculation. The trick is how to take that information, which I'll admit is very limited, and turn that into an encyclopedia article.
There is enough information here from enough sources to make a quality article of at least more than a paragraph, but the trick is how to get consensus for what that should look like. I can see this article going off into several POV forks, none of which will help in terms of actually getting something written that most people can agree with. Usually an appeal to policy is sufficient to drive out the POV pushers, but in this case I'm not so sure.
All of this goes back to the issue of this particular article turning into a clearing house of information about the device by the "Energy Catalyzer community" instead of being an independent, neutral, and peripheral article in an otherwise obscure encyclopedia. Wikipedia is becoming a part of the "e-Cat" story in and of itself. That isn't good for Wikipedia, and I'm sort of at a loss in terms of how to "fix" that problem either. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You're right. This isn't good for Wikipedia. The article isn't remotely encyclopaedic, and has no prospect of becoming so until the truth behind the E-Cat is revealed. Meanwhile, we are perpetuating the media frenzy over something which has all the hallmarks of a scam. Still, 'consensus' seems to be that we should keep this blog going, adding more circular references and vacuous speculation. When it all goes pear-shaped, the only positive result is likely to be a few 'journalists' learning to be less reliant on Wikipedia as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia could avoid these situations by a more rigorous application of wp:NOTNEWS, but I don't expect that will actually happen. Failing that, we can simply apply the RS rule against circular sourcing. If a source cites WP, we don't cite that source. Simple and reasonably effective, though still subject to the source which uses but fails to cite WP.216.239.77.208 (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The news coverage has gone into a new round, they have started to comment on the news reporting of the topic, see Meanwhile, the media coverage has been shifting away .... and ... one of the few mainstream press articles was published by the UK Wired Magazine .... So they also have noticed that there isn't much "new-s" to report. Forbes is also commenting on the conspiracy theories surrounding cold fusion.

I hope that a journalist will also do some investigative work on this and write up an article that mentions work from Piantelli, Miley, Hagelstein, Arata, to name a few. Interviewing the involved scientists is always a good start. Natalie Wolchover is certainly in the lead on that one. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Start using them?

Can we start a discussion on the list of sources higher up and how we should incorporate them? What information they cover should have them be switched out with sources already used in the article so we can have stronger sourcing than what is currently used. SilverserenC 17:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think the sources listed are any better than the ones we already use? (I assume you aren't proposing to use ones that cite Wikipedia as a source?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You're sort of missing the point. The (principal) problem with the article isn't with its sources, but rather with the remarkably poor editorial judgement and discretion used in determining the amount and weight of material to include. Putting 'better' footnotes on poor writing doesn't improve the article or the encyclopedia; trying to focus on replacing bad sources with slightly-less-bad sources is a red herring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Then you should explain what sections you think should be rewritten and explain why. All of the above sources are great (excepting the one very local news that cites Wikipedia) and it's always better to use better sources in an article if they are available. SilverserenC 20:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I've done so before on this talk page. There is, unfortunately, a great deal of resistance to removal of any content, no matter how bloggish. The multiple sections on demonstrations, for instance, are ludicrous for an encyclopedia; there's no way that we should be reporting the demonstrations in such detail or with such credulity. Whether we cite "Rossi says..." statements to Fox News or to Rossi's blog, we're falling down on the job to rely so heavily on "Rossi says..." in the first place.
Asking what sections we should rewrite is missing the point just as much as asking which sources we should replace—it's rearranging deck chairs when the article needs a wholesale rewrite. Above, I proposed a four-point structure that could easily become a six-paragraph article. As far as I can tell, you never responded to my comment there, except to drag us off into a side discussion about the size of the media response. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there was a great deal of resistance, but that was borne out of necessity to protect this article from deletionists. Stuff got deleted for no sound reason, ie. prejudice and ignorance and misconception of policy. But as this is a FRINGE topic, all tactics are allowed, the fringe-believer are the sad idiots, and the deletionists are the holders-of-sanity. Bullshit !
You offered a proposal. I am here to support any sane improvement idea, as long as it doesn't smell like a hidden agenda. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
See WP:NPA? If you think policy is being 'misconcieved', then take it to the appropriate noticeboard. I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion first, though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
zzzzzzzzz --POVbrigand (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this some form of joke? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
To to make my reply to TenOfAllTrades clear. I appreciate his effort in making a proposal, because proposals and consensus is the only way to get this article into shape. With "BS" in my reply I mean that we can only get consensus if we are willing to stop thinking black and white. And I disagree with editors that wave some policy around while deleting whole sections as has happened in the past. We should have the WP-reader in mind and this article should not imply that the E-cat is proven, nor imply that it is a scam. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Further reading" section added

CBS News has reported that "Rossi has formed a company, Leonardo Corp., which will produce and — he hopes — sell E-Cat machines" (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57318762/cold-fusion-debate-heats-up-after-latest-demo/). The URL for Leonardo Corporation is http://leonardocorp1996.com and that fact made me realize that the article's "External links" section is not an External links section; it's a "Further reading" section. I am correcting that error and adding an External links section that includes an external link to Leonardo Corporation. AnnaBennett (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No explanation is provided for why this link should be added to the external links. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO, and then explain why you think such a link is relevant and acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed the section title from "External links" to "Further reading" in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Layout#Further_reading and I still believe that this change is correct. AnnaBennett (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Furter reading sections are optional as the guide mentions. What is your reasoning for adding the link and making the change. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, the link is to a page describing "electric generators (GENSETS) fueled by vegetable oils and animal fats". It says nothing whatsoever about the E-Cat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

faulty edit

Resolved
  • edit: I cant read apparently.

In the process of reducing the article facts seem to have changed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=next&oldid=459728771


84.106.26.81 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't see where 'facts' have been changed. Unverifiable 'claims' seem to have been removed though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  • old: ...As reported this larger version will be used in the scheduled 1 MW plant.

the 1 MW will use the LARGER one.

  • new: The Energy Catalyzer was a larger version that will be used in the scheduled 1 MW plant.

the 1 MW plant is now claimed to use the SMALLER version. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

lmao, I read the sentence like this: The Energy Catalyzer was a larger version than will be used in the scheduled 1 MW plant.
Funny mistake, sorry about that. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

University of Bologna

Can somebody find a reliable source for this:

"The University of Bologna is not involved on E-Cat experiments conducted by Leonardo Corp., the company owned by Andrea Rossi. The University of Bologna states also that: 1) none of the experiments made with E-Cat (including that of 28th October 2011) has been carried out at the University of Bologna or by any of its scientists; 2) the University of Bologna (Department of Physics) is ready to carry out direct experiments on the E-Cat as soon as the contract signed with EFA Srl (Andrea Rossi's Italian company) will be put in effect: this is the only reason why the University of Bologna researchers attended as observers to E-Cat experiments. The University of Bologna is carefully following the situation development. - University of Bologna Press Office, Bologna, Italy, 5/11/2011 5:20"

we should really add it to the article somewhere if RS exist. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


This is the official statement from UNIBO (same thing but in Italian):
http://www.magazine.unibo.it/Magazine/Notizie/2011/11/05/Lecat_lUnivesita_di_Bologna_non_e_coinvolta.htm


L'Università di Bologna - in riferimento al servizio pubblicato su FoxNews.com e a diversi articoli usciti nelle ultime settimane – precisa di non essere coinvolta negli esperimenti sull'E-Cat condotti dalla società Leonardo Corp. di proprietà di Andrea Rossi.
L'Ateneo precisa inoltre che:
1) nessun esperimento relativo all’E-Cat si è svolto presso l’Università di Bologna né il 28 ottobre 2011, né in date precedenti, né è stato condotto da ricercatori dell'Università;
2) l’Università di Bologna (Dipartimento di Fisica) è pronta a svolgere esperimenti sull’apparato E-Cat non appena il contratto siglato con la EFA SrL (la società italiana di Andrea Rossi) sarà reso attivo: a questo scopo erano presenti agli esperimenti, in qualità di osservatori, i ricercatori dell’Università di Bologna.
L'Ateneo continua a seguire con grande attenzione l'evolversi della situazione.


--79.16.129.195 (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


Ok, just to be precise, I prefer to add also the previous "episodes":

http://www.df.unibo.it/bacheca/bacheca.htm

http://www.df.unibo.it/bacheca/Avviso%20EFA%20S.r.l.2.pdf

Avviso
Bologna 19 Giugno, 2011
Il Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna desidera comunicare che:
  • è stato firmato un contratto di Ricerca con la Ditta EFA srl del valore di € 500.000 (+IVA), della durata di 24 mesi, per effettuare ricerche nel campo della efficienza di produzione di energia degli impianti della Ditta;
  • il contratto di Ricerca diverrà attivo nel momento in cui il Dipartimento riceverà il pagamento della prima rata prevista;
  • il programma di ricerca (parte integrante del Contratto) prevede sia la misurazione delle prestazioni degli impianti che l’eventuale miglioramento della prestazioni.
Informazioni ufficiali riguardo alla attività di ricerca in oggetto saranno fornite solo ed esclusivamente dal Dipartimento di Fisica o dall’Alma Mater Studiorum a cui il Dipartimento appartiene.
Il Direttore del Dipartimento di Fisica
Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna


TRANSLATION:


Notice
Bologna, 19 Giugno 2011
The Department of Physics at the Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna is pleased to communicate that:
  • a research contract, worth € 500,000.00 (+VAT) and lasting 24 months, has been signed with the EFA srl company, in order to carry out research concerning the energy production efficiency of the apparatuses built by the company;
  • the contract will become operational when the Department will receive the payment regarding the first planned instalment;
  • the planned research programme (included in the contract) involves both measurements of the performances of the apparatuses and eventual improvements of their performances.
Official information on the planned research activity will be given exclusively by the Department of Physics or by the Alma Mater Studiorum (to which the Department belongs).
The Director of the Department of Physics
Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna


--79.16.129.195 (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


Thanks, I put it in to make it clear that the Unibo is NOT endorsing the ecat. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

This edit changed an instance of "LENR" to "Cold fusion", saying "it is 'cold fusion' it says so in Forbes reference[45], LENR is a weasely way of saying cold fusion.

The headline of the Forbes article does indeed showcase the term "Cold Fusion", and that article discusses the terminology a bit. The article also says, "Rossi’s E-Cat is claimed to use a secret catalyst to react hydrogen with nickel and, in the process, transmute the nickel into copper producing considerable heat. Whether this reaction works or not and if it does, exactly how it works, has been enormously contentious and the subject of numerous learned and amateur debates."

Wikipedia's Cold Fusion article specifically concerns the 1989 Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature. The article does say, "... also called Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) ...", but does not support that. (Note -- this has touched on above in the #LENR is cold fusion section).

Wikipedia's Nuclear fusion article says, "Nuclear fusion is the process by which two or more atomic nuclei join together, or 'fuse', to form a single heavier nucleus." I'm no nuclear physicist, but I ask myself, "What two lighter elements are alleged to be fused in Rossi's E-Cat to produce what heavier element?". The nuclear chemistry hinted at in what little info I've read seems to imply that 64Ni atoms pick up a neutron somewhere, becoming 65Ni, a radioisotope with a half life of a bit under two hours, which decays by beta decay into 65Cu[46]. AFAICS (neglecting several questions -- large among them the question of where the neutron comes from), that should not produce great gobs of energy and it should produce detectable radiation (beta particles).

At the level of technical sophistication of a Forbes magazine headline writer, perhaps LENR and Cold Fusion are equivalent terms. However, I would hope for a bit more technical sophistication in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps this article needs a Terminology section where some of the above could be verifiably demystified. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

One can only have 'technical sophistication' in an article when one knows what the technology is. At the moment, there is no more verifiable evidence that the E-Cat releases energy by fusion than that it does so by capturing unicorn farts. A 'terminology' section would achieve nothing useful in such a context, unless one wished to obscure the lack of evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Rossi's device (purportedly, and implausibly) combines the elements nickel and hydrogen (protons) to form isotopes of copper (and – depending on the source, and even less believably – iron). The claim is definitely cold fusion by any usual definition. "LENR" is just a rebranding effort; click the link to LENR and see where you end up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
And watch out for gassy unicorns. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It was also discussed here: Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Cold_fusion_link_is_inappropriate, Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_40#Energy_Catalyzer_is_Cold_Fusion.3F, Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_40#LENR_vs_cold_fusion and possibly some other places.
Believe me when I say that we silly editing souls will NEVER be able to find out the "one truth" about the terminology. The field itself gives this [47] explanation. The notion that LENR is merely a "rebranding effort" to avoid the "negative connotations" is maybe one, but certainly not the only truth.
Maybe we can compare "to fuse" with "to burn". Nobody will disagree that you can have burns form heat, from cold, from radiation. And maybe in future the nuclear meaning of "to fuse" would expand to neutron capture or proton capture or proton-electron capture or bose-einstein-condensade magic. Currently for our article, it will be tough to explain all aspects of the naming issue without confusion the reader.
I personally don't care how we call it, but the current double linking to the same article is silly. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
removed 2nd link Bhny (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Rossi's papers explicitly sets forth a reaction path of the nickel nucleus capturing a proton (from the input hydrogen gas) and then emitting a positron. This has the net effect of neutron capture if one assumes that the positron annihilates an electron somewhere and modulo a neutrino/antineutrino, but it is plainly a fusion reaction; the wrinkle, by my calculation, is that the positron decay happens to be more energetic than the initial Ni-to-Cu proton reaction. I put this in the article at some point but the anti-primary-source contingent took it out. Rossi seems allergic to the phrase "cold fusion", and given the heating of the device, "cold" is a relative term. But the reaction he proposes is the fusion of two nuclei, and at far less than thermonuclear temperatures. Mangoe (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience NOT

Arthur Rubin added to the article the category Pseudoscience. I very strongly disagree with that addition. As a refutation of Mr. Rubin's assertion of "pseudoscience", I am adding a reference to an article about George Miley's LENR device, which runs "continuously at levels of a few hundred watts". AnnaBennett (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not a battleground. The correct procedure is to discuss the validity of the category, rather than add other material - and unless you can find a reliable source that links Miley's work with the E-Cat, it has no relevance to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so where is the reference(s) stating "it's pseudoscience"?
And where did Arthur Rubin discuss this change before making it?--79.6.2.187 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I see you added a link to e-catsite.com: this is totally inappropriate, and contravenes WP:ELNO guidelines. I have removed it, and suggest you discuss the matter properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I demand that Arthur Rubin personally remove the pseudoscience category that he added to the article. AnnaBennett (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You can demand what you like - though this is more likely to result in you being blocked from editing than anything else.
In answer to the original question, the article is currently in the following categories: Nuclear physics, Fringe physics, Discovery and invention controversies, Pseudoscience, Nuclear fusion. Given that there is no reliable source that states outright that the E-Cat works by nuclear fusion, that category seems inappropriate - as obviosly is the nuclear physics one. I'm inclined to agree that 'pseudoscience' is inappropriate, as the article shouldn't be implying that there is any 'science', pseudo or otherwise involved - this simply cannot be properly sourced until Rossi releases sufficient details for independent verification. On that basis, I think that 'Discovery and invention controversies' might possibly be valid, as might 'fringe physics' - though I'm not 100% sure about the merits of either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The proprietor of the e-Cat Site does not disclose his identity. He has probably chosen to remain anonymous because he does not want to be attacked with "Pseudoscience" and other pejorative labels. That label can only be used to attack Dr. Rossi and his E-Cat if Dr. Miley's excellent and publicly disclosed experiments are ignored, and all references to them deleted. I believe there has been to much attacking. Wikipedia articles should not be battlegrounds where the Big-Fat-Donut Fusionists (who receive billions from the public treasury) are free to defame Little Fusionists like Dr. Rossi and Dr. Miley. If you want to remove "Pseudoscience" from the article on behalf of the originator then, as far as I am concerned, my demand will have been met. AnnaBennett (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is clearly pseudoscience, as his explanation doesn't make any sense. However, we do would need a reliable source for that fact for it to be included, just as we would need a reliable source for the Nuclear categories. For that matter, we would need reliable sources for much of the material in the article, per WP:BLP. It contains a lot of controversial statements about Dr. Rossi, mostly made by Dr. Rossi. BLP doesn't cover only negative material.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the motivations for having somebody add the Psuedoscience category to this article, it smacks as a strong POV statement regarding the tone of the article and really doesn't do any good to either the article or Wikipedia for it to be present here. Ditto with the "fringe physics" category. Unless you can legitimately point out that somebody is going to be searching for this article through those categories or that you can find some bona fide reliable sources that can flesh out a "criticism" section from some reputable people asserting this is something that fits into either category, I think these categories need to be simply removed. If this was a scientific theory like Free Energy trying to gain acceptance in mainstream physics, I might be a little more inclined to accept this category. An article like Nickel-Hydrogen Fusion (yes, a red link and I hope it stays that way for now) certainly would fit into that category... assuming there were even "self-published" sources with enough details to even explain that concept. This isn't even about physics, but rather about a device. Category:Fusion reactors might be a legitimate addition, although I can see that as being almost as controversial and should be left off for similar reasons at the moment. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

AnnaBennett, the e-cat website is utterly irrelevant to the 'pseudoscience' category. And I suggest you stop making meaningless 'demands' - they are achieving nothing. Further, this isn't a forum for conspiracy theorists - have you any evidence whatsoever that 'Big-Fat-Donut Fusionists' are taking the slightest interest in this article?
Arthur Rubin, if we cite Rossi for statements he makes about himself, I can't see how WP:BLP comes into it - what we shouldn't do is imply that his ideas have any credibility. The problem is though, that there don't seem to be reliable sources that state outright that the E-Cat is pseudoscience - and until they do, our opinions on the matter are just that - opinions (even when they seem also to be common sense). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Look closely at WP:BLP, particularly WP:SELFPUB
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Here, we need specifically to watch 1, 2, and 5. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I think our more general sourcing policies are just as applicable here. In any case, I don't see what that has to do with the 'pseudoscience' category, which is what we were discussing. Can we try to sort this issue out, rather than going off at a tangent? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The Pseudoscience category does seem like POV pushing. We should wait until either the E-cat is shown to work (thus it would be regular science) or the media interest in the subject falls apart because they agree it isn't real and doesn't work. For now, we're still in the middle ground, in that without it being properly tested by outside scientists, the device is still just a product and not really even science yet. SilverserenC 00:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Even if a reactor can be conclusively shown to be producing power over a long period of time from an apparent nuclear reaction (aka it is producing power far longer than can be accounted for through chemical reactions), it still isn't science. I don't even know if the the term "pseudoengineering" even exists at all, but that would have to be about the right definition here. What is being described with this device is an engineering effort, not a scientific effort. Scams and fraud sort of fit in with "pseudoengineering" in the sense it has the trappings of real engineering, but may not actually work as claimed. Still, the use of that term would be original research in and of itself. The whole point of categories is to make it easier to find an article, with the categories acting as a way to reference related articles. The trick here is to identify legitimate categories to which this article might belong. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I haven't found any reliable source asserting that it's pseudoscience. That certainly doesn't mean it isn't pseudoscience, but that's the standard we use on Wikipedia. There are words like "scam" and "fraud" bandied about, but not "pseudoscience." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, without a doubt, it is WP:FRINGE. Thinking about it, it's probably not science of any stripe, pseudo-, fringe, or mainstream. Perhaps it isn't Fringe physics, because it isn't exactly physics, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen either any RS calling this pseudoscience. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A plasma physicist named Eric Lerner has written about the suppression of a Little Fusion energy generating device (http://www.progressiveengineer.com/pewebbackissues2002/peweb%2028%20jul%2002-2/28editor.htm). That suppression is an example of how the Big-Fat-Donut Fusionists have used and abused their power. Dr. Miley (vita) has been subjected to similar ill treatment by the Big-Fat-Donut Fusionists, and they now blithely ignore the fact that he has built a LENR energy generating device. His device produces significant amounts of iron and copper, like Dr. Rossi's E-Cat, but this fact cannot be brought to the attention of Wikipedia's users because it is all alleged to be "Pseudoscience". This is just more suppression of truths that threaten the vested interests of the Big-Fat-Donut Fusionists and their friends, the Big-Oil Oligopoly. It's suppression and it stinks. AnnaBennett (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. Please confine your comments to matters concerning the article, based on reliable sources - until mainstream science recognises such 'truths', Wikipedia won't. This isn't up for negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a distinction between pseudo science and fringe science. Pseudo science pretends to be science but isn't, whereas fringe science uses scientific method, but is not accepted by mainstream. The question is where to put cold fusion/LENR on the fringe science "scale", more towards protoscience or more towards pseudoscience ?
If you take into consideration the number of high level scientists and adjacent "outside" condensed matter scientists or laser fusion scientists who are supportive of the claims, or supportive of some aspects of the claims, or merely not dismissive of the claims, it can be argued that, had it not been for the mishap in 1989, cold fusion would have been protoscience ever since Pam Mosier-Boss showed the CR39 results.
There are people claiming all sorts of things about free energy generation devices, but that doesn't mean the whole field of "Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" can be regarded as being junk level. The anti-CF fraction and the casual uninformed reader seems to be unable to make this distinction.
So what about Rossi, did he take what is known about the effects and make a workable machine out of it, or not. Interestingly, the cold fusion dismissing scientists (see Garwin) have always said that they will only believe the claims when a reliably working device can be constructed. So the effort to actually build such a device is more or less needed to advance to protoscience.
The Rossi demonstration of his device were not scientific experiments. Our article clearly states "None of these were set up to provide scientific evidence.". The only science so far was the analysis of the used nickel sample.
The pseudoscience category is completely wrong here and the editor who put it in seems to be unable to distinguish anything which is beyond mainstream science and as such, frankly, clueless on this topic. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Mind WP:NPA please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Rossi audio interview

Can someone summarize the pressure-higher-than-a-neutron-star statement in English? I'm curious to see how he explained it. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It is the whole statement that it is useless in this form:
"During an interview, Rossi stated that the inter-atomic pressure inside an operating E-Cat can reach as high as the pressure inside a white dwarf star, and that such extreme pressure can exceed the force of the Coulomb barrier (an inter-nuclear repulsive force that, under ordinary conditions, prevents atoms from fusing together). By supposedly generating pressures greater than the Coulomb barrier, Rossi claims the E-Cat forces hydrogen and nickel atoms to fuse together and to release large amounts energy as heat."
This is the original statement of Rossi, just a bit more precise:
"To make it extremely simple, what happens is that nickel has a particularity that protons spread from it's surface with extreme efficiency. And very close to the nucleus, even if repelled by the so called coulomb barrier forces. And when we in the reactor inject the hydrogen the protons of hydrogen at high pressures and temperatures, will go pretty close to the nucleus of the nickel. And at those points, we have nuclear effects that produce gamma rays which add more energy and using a particular system to increase the pressure arriving to extremely high pressures... similar to ones that happen to be in the White Dwarf stars. In those situations, is possible that physically that so called Gamow Factor which is a probabilistic calculation of the coulomb repelling forces is overcame, and at that point enough energy is produced to make it worth to be recorded"
In my opinion this statement is so vague that basically everything is possible. I mean, he DOES NOT specify WHERE it happens: above the surface of the white star? Below its surface? Inside its nucleus? There is a huge difference, as you can imagine...--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm no physicist, but it doesn't make sense to me - and if it doesn't make sense, it can't be paraphrased. We should probably either quote it verbatim, or omit it entirely. What we can't do is change the summary to reflect what we think Rossi means - that would be WP:OR. Sadly, Rossi's English isn't very fluent - and I'm not entirely sure the transcription is accurate (for example, the 'physically' in the last sentence sounds to me more like 'statistically'). I'd like to see what others think about this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You got right: he says "statistically", and not "physically".--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
(OT. The only valuable news since I've heard of the E-Cat, unfortunately it seems to be coming from an unreliable source and it is unconfirmed up to now:
http://pesn.com/2011/11/10/9601953_National_Instruments_signs_to_do_E-Cat_controls/ ) --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this your own transcription, or from elsewhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Ehm... Lazily, I just sough on the net if someone else made it and I found it here: http://pesn.com/2011/07/14/9501869_EV-World_Interviews_Andrea_Rossi/
But there are also other transcripts:
h t t p : / / f r e e r e p u b l i c . c o m/focus/chat/2756283/posts
"To make it simple, what happens is that nickel has a particularity that protons spread from it's surface with extreme efficiency very close to the nucleus, even if repelled by the so called coulomb barrier forces. When we inject protons of hydrogen at high pressures and temperatures, they go pretty close to the nucleus of the nickel. At those points we have nuclear effects that produce gamma rays which add more energy. We increase the pressure leading to extremely high pressures... similar to ones that happen inside White Dwarf stars. In that situation the so called Gamow Factor, which is a probabilistic calculation of the coulomb repelling forces, is overcome. At that point enough energy is produced to make it worth being recorded." --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The freerepublic.com transcription seems to have been 'edited for clarity' - I doubt they are WP:RS, but neither is pesn.com. I'm not at all sure what policy is with this sort of problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Concerning clarity, it seems to be recorded in a better way here:
http://www.evworld.com/modules/win_audio.cfm?player=wma&storyid=2004 (media player)
http://www.evworld.com/modules/win_audio.cfm?player=qt&storyid=2004 (quicktime)
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=2004 --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence entirely for now, as it doesn't reflect what Rossi said. I think we may need to seek help regarding the way to handle this - it might be better to find another explanation from Rossi elsewhere though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the elaboration. I'd agree, PESN isn't useable in the article, but it is instructive to know what they're saying. No doubt if it is truly significant someone will eventually comment on it in a RS publication. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Rossi states that his device is not based on cold fusion (but on LENR), but then in this interview he states that within his device something overcomes the coulomb barrier by pressure and temperature. He states "the E-Cat forces hydrogen and nickel atoms to fuse together". All this shows to me is that the discussions we had lately about "it's cold fusion" - "no, it's LENR" were useless. The whole explanation is so vague, we would just confuse the reader with it. It doesn't add anything useful. We should wait for Rossi to publish his theory as he has promised a while ago. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the work of George Miley, it appears that discontinuities in the lattice of a solid metal (such as palladium) function as sites where hydrogen can collect and undergo fusion reactions. See slide number 33 at https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20498ES%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems/Nuclear%20Battery%20using%20Clusters%20in%20Nanomaterials.pptx
The existence of lattice discontinuities in Rossi's nickel powder is probably important to the functioning of an E-Cat because, according to Rossi, if the powder melts the E-Cat stops generating energy. If the nickel powder becomes a liquid then discontinuities in the nickel lattice disappear (because the lattice no longer exists). I wonder if the "white dwarf pressures" that Rossi referred to occur in nickel lattice discontinuities. And I wonder if lattice discontinuities would become more plentiful if the nickel powder were heated to 1,000 C and then quenched in liquid nitrogen. See thermal shock and crystallographic defect. Such heating and quenching might be one of the trade secrets that Rossi is trying to protect. I will be searching the Internet for statements/reports/articles about this. AnnaBennett (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You can do that for your own purposes of course, but remember that per WP:OR any conclusions you reach are of no relevance to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section

why don't we have a criticism section ?

Steve Krivit is a long time observer of the cold fusion / LENR field. He has edited and authored several books on LENR, I think he can be considered an expert on LENR at least from a journalistic point of view.

In his site New Energy Times he offers harsh criticism to Rossi and his E-cat.

Can we at least make notice of this in our article ?

points of criticism: - secrecy - using demonstrations for propaganda - no scientific evaluations performed / demonstration gave no scientific relevant data - the claimed huge power gain / generation has not been observed in the LENR field before (altough Miley seems to beleive he can get similar gains, but this is an unclear source) - Rossi has not published his theory

--POVbrigand (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think single-purpose "Criticism" sections are frowned upon. Instead, the points should be worked into the main text of the article, in the appropriate places. 86.177.105.143 (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


Steven Krivit is simply a non-reliable source. His website (ie his self-bublished blog) should theoretically push for LENR, instead he dedicates his work to attack Rossi and the E-Cat sistematically. Such a behaviour is quite strange. You got a very unusual situation indeed: the so-called "mainstream" scientists who directly observed a working E-Cat are positive on it, instead the supposed "advocates" of LENR are the harshest critics.

I want to add a personal consideration. This situation remembers me a dialologue I had once with an ufologist. "Dear friend - he told me - we are not interested in finding UFOs, because if we find them our work (and our job) is over." It would be over, because real scientists would step in, and for all the dawdlers, loafers, bummers, and idlers in that field the story would be over. For me, there are people in the LENR field who think and behave like that ufologist.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections are often a problem. We already have criticism in every section now and I think it works better this way Bhny (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(to NUMB3RN7NE) Because of WP:FRINGE (and yes, this is "fringe"), Krivit's comments should only be included if he is a recognized expert, which means having articles published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject (either fusion, or fringe physics), or having had clearly non-fiction books published by reputable science publishers. (Velikovsky and von Däniken had "non-fiction" books published by reputable publishers.)
However, your statement on behaviour seems misguided. There seems no analog of James Randi in the fringe science field; someone who is particularly trained or able to see trickery in "scientific" demonstrations. Hence, if Rossi is a trickster, you would expect exactly the behavior you report. Observers, even if scientifically trained, would be supportive, and experts, even experts in the fringe field, would be opposed. I'm not saying Rossi is a trickster, just that the observed "behavior" would be expected, if he were. In other words, Krivit may be correct, even if not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
"someone who is particularly trained or able to see trickery in "scientific" demonstrations": up to now I can't see anyone of such kind.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested small change

Hi, I suggest we remove the word "yet" from "The device has not yet been independently verified." "yet" implies that there is some prospect of independent verification in the future, which is hardly likely. 86.176.212.32 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

MSN says that PESN says that...

From the MSN "Cosmic log":

"Today, Pure Energy Systems News reported that Leonardo's Andrea Rossi signed an agreement with Texas-based National Instruments to build instrumentation for E-Cat cold-fusion reactors". [[48]

This is being cited for this statement in our article:

"On November 10, 2011, Andrea Rossi signed an agreement with National Instruments to supply all the instrumentation for the E-Cat plants".

Given that PESN isn't remotely WP:RS, and that MSN isn't reporting that an agreement has been signed, but only that PESN says it has, I'm going to remove this for now. It may well be that the agreement between Leonardo and NI can be verified from a proper source, but the MSN one isn't it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

PESN have provided evidence in the form of an email from Trisha McDonell | Corporate PR Manager | National Instruments. who writes:
Subject: Re: final Re: contact info for E-Cat / NI contract
Thank you Sterling for allowing us to review. We approve the text, especially the National Instruments portion of the story that includes Stefano's quote and information.
Best regards
Trisha
With this evidence PESN is sufficient RS for the news that NI will provide the instrumentation for the e-cat.
--POVbrigand (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly news that they are going to buy some instruments. I don't get the significance of this at all Bhny (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It looks like another attempt at 'credibility by association' to me. Just because NI are selling things, there is no reason to assume they validate the use to which they are put. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
@Bhny: That is a good angle, we can discuss. But deleting for RS is not correct, that is why I am "protesting" the deletion.
We can wait for a day or two regarding the instruments, but if it is true, it will inevitably go in, I guess.
@Andy your "credibility by association" is wrong (as usual). Read the full PESN news. It is a matter how we paraphrase this news. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, MSN isn't RS for the agreement. It doesn't state that there is one. It states that PESN states that there is one. I fail to see what you can possibly 'protest' about. As for what PESN says, they aren't RS, so are of no significance to article content. And that National Instruments sell instruments to people isn't news anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be pleased to know if NI's involvement can be inserted or not. Personally, I am keen to support POVbrigand's stance. However it is a bit strange that we have not further reporting sources so far.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

buying something from someone doesn't mean they are involved in the project Bhny (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't have a proper source for this, so it can't go in yet. As for whether it should if a source can be found, I can see no reason to if all NI are doing is selling instruments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
We need reliable sources because it seems more than just "selling instruments". I'd point out the E-Cat will need some very robust software controls in order to avoid possible failures. It's not like "National Instruments sold me two cables and a Chassis", it's a bit more complicated than that.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
@Andy, PESN fully falls in the category of a questionable source. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Very limited does not mean "no never".
@Number, you are right and if other news stories will also mention NI (after checking with NI), we can put it in. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
No. Without reliable sources actually stating that NI are doing more than simply supplying instrumentation, it isn't worth inclusion. And no, I don't give as toss what PESN claims - we don't give any credibility to blogs that suggest that critics of Rossi may be "mind controlled" or "on the payroll of vested interests". [49]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
PESN fully falls in the category of a questionable source. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Very limited does not mean "no never".--POVbrigand (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, just tried to revert the NI edit but POVbrigand beat me to it. Need to wait for RS.Tmccc (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ni.com/legal/trademarks/

NI sometimes permits the use of certain of its logos on a case-by-case basis for specific purposes. If you desire to display a particular logo, you may request permission to display that logo by sending an email to LogoPermissionRequests@ni.com, and by providing any requested information to NI. If NI approves of your request, you will be notified by email and provided with the terms and conditions applicable to the permission. Whether or not to grant any permission, and if so, on what terms and conditions, is in the sole discretion of NI. Upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions prescribed by NI, the permission will be granted and you will be provided with access to the necessary artwork and other materials as determined by NI.

In other words, the use of National Instruments' logo is not automatically guaranteed. And why should their logo appear on the 1 MW plants? If it happens, this may be a notable information.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The above is a standard legal blurb for any trademark. Obviously the devices they make and sell will have their logo (depending on device size). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This can only be 'notable' if it is actually 'noticed' by reliable sources. As for the NI statement, as IRWolfie says, this is normal practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/11/11/national-instruments-and-cold-fusion/
OMG! In the magic world of the media no one seems to be able to pick up the phone and check it directly.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sterling Allan would do such a thing. He is a real journalist. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
"According to a posting on the blog Free Energy Truth, the first client for Andrea Rossi’e E-Cat system (which I discussed here, here, and here) is Austin, Texas, based National Instruments...Neither Pure Energy Systems or Free Energy Truth cite any sources for their assertions...". Please read linked articles before posting them. Again, all that the Forbes article (blog?) tells us is that another unreliable source says something. AndyTheGrump (talk)
It is much ado about nothing. Look at the Forbes article at the moment where a statement from the VP of marketing for National Instruments is being quoted. No agreement has been made, other than for National Instruments to provide equipment to Andrea Rossi and his company. More of a reason to remember WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is also why it is useful to "second source" something, particularly if it is "breaking news". --Robert Horning (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

An update has been added, the update confirms that the news is real:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/11/11/national-instruments-and-cold-fusion/

Update#1: A statement from John Pasquarette, Vice President of Corporate Marketing and eBusiness, National Instruments:

There are thousands of researchers and engineers in the world trying to solve alternative energy challenges and National Instruments provides tools to many of these scientists. One example is the Leonardo Corporation who intends to use NI tools for various applications. Specific details are still in development.

The mission of National Instruments is to equip engineers and scientists with tools that accelerate productivity, innovation, and discovery. We apply this mission by working with customers across a variety of industries such as automotive, mobile devices, robotics as well as energy and physics. For example, we have been working closely with many research labs and physics institutions in the areas of control, measurement and diagnostics for nuclear fusion, particle accelerators, synchrotrons and telescopes.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so we have a source from NI which states that they are selling instrumentation to Leonardo. This still amounts to nothing much. NI are a business. They are doing business with Leonardo. Common sense says you don't diss your customers. And note that it says nothing whatsoever about NI being a 'client' for the E-Cat./ This needn't go into the article per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and per it not being much in the way of 'news' anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
in their statement NI downplays the connection they have with Leonardo Corporation as one of many of thousands. If one of the parties downplays it at this point in time, we should not put it in our article. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

offtopics

Nothing here relates to material of significance to the article - collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM
Indeed, who would have thought we'd have to rely on a piece of capitalised blog content from Rossi to be able to decide what goes in the article and what doesn't. Truly an interesting development. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, Rossi has recently complained on his blog that his blog is being attacked and hacked. Now his blog is unreachable and it is impossible to verify that the abovementioned "WARNING" is genuine. So I very much doubt that the "WARNING" is genuine.

I verified the authenticity of the new Leonardo Corporation E-Cat website before I posted a link to it. I noted that Sterling Allan is listed as the "Technical" contact for that new website but that did not surprise me because Rossi had invited Sterling to attend the October 28 demonstration of the 1 MW E-Cat.

The enom.com domain name record for Leonardo-ECat.com includes the two following sentences: "Leonardo-ECat.com is a domain name registered by Andrea Rossi. The site is based in Bedford, NH, US."

The individual who posted the "WARNING" has only posted 5 times in Wikipedia, and all on the same day, and only on this Talk page. Does that seem a little strange to you?

This whole thing looks very suspicious. I strongly suspect that we are being jerked around. AnnaBennett (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

AnnaBennett, I'm not the slightest bit interested in your conspiracy theories, and you are in no position to 'verify' anything - that is WP:OR. The only people being 'jerked around' are those who refuse to work within Wikipedia policy, and to base article content on reliable sources. We don't have one that states the website is 'official'. We don't have one that says it isn't. Until we have such sources, the link cannot go into the article, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy, why is enom.com not a reliable source? Please note that as of this writing Rossi's blog ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com ) is still unreachable. AnnaBennett (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:OR. As for Rossi's blog being offline, so what? This is not a forum for crackpot conspiracy theories. If you want to speculate, do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy, Please take note of the fact that I have not proposed that two or more people have collaborated in the conduct of nefarious or criminal activities. AnnaBennett (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
AnnaBennett, please take note that the term 'conspiracy theory' is not constrained by a narrow legalistic definition. And then take your crackpot theories elsewhere. This is a talk page for discussing the E-Cat article, not a forum for wild speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy, the Energy Catalyzer article has been semi-protected in order to keep vandals and crackpots from editing it. But the same protection has not been applied to this Talk page and I have the right to question the accuracy of messages posted by someone who is not eligible to edit the Energy Catalyzer article, especially when a cited confirming source is being subjected to denial of service and hacking attacks. AnnaBennett (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a forum. What part of "this isn't a forum" don't you understand? Please take your deranged conspiracy theories elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

LENR is cold fusion

LENR just redirects to cold fusion and says that they are the same thing, so it makes no sense to say- it's not cold fusion it's LENR. Bhny (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The 2 topics share 1 article. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, we are citing Rossi as saying it is LENR, not cold fusion - at the moment, we have no reliable sources that say what it is. Secondly, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, per policy. And finally, using a redirect to draw such a conclusion is original research. If Rossi thinks that LENR and cold fusion are different things, we are entitled to cite his opinion, whether he is right or wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with the way the sentence is at this second [50], the problem before was that if you followed the links the sentence made no sense Bhny (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
If you go back and read the source, what Rossi says is that his reactor uses the weak force, but given the transformation that he's claiming to make, that couldn't be true. Weak interactions change protons to neutrons and vice versa, but they do not allow nuclei to capture hadrons, which is what his mechanism supposedly does. He is claiming to get some of his energy from weak decay (the various unstable copper isotopes decay back to nickel through emission of positrons), and by my calculations something over half of the energy produced would come from such decay, but regular old strong-force fusion is what drives the whole thing. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
That may possibly be correct, but it is beside the point - we are citing Rossi for what he says, not for anything else. As for what actually drives the thing, my best bet is that it is connected to this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, everyone else disregards that. We are not bound by Rossi's misstatements of what he's doing; we can prefer other interpretations because they are accurate and he is not. It would make more sense to push his statement down into an explanation of the supposed reaction (which last I checked, we were missing). Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
True, we are missing an explanation of the supposed reaction. When a reliable source provides one, we can add it. For now all we have is Rossi's somewhat-contradictory assertions, and a lot of speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
He actually says "What I claim is a weak nuclear reactions energy". I don't think he means the weak force, he just means a weak force. But ambiguity obviously helps the alchemist and charlatan. Bhny (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This article could be merged...

Note for new editors. It appears that the recent AfD drew a lot of off-wiki attention, particularly among bloggers with an interest in cold-fusion-related topics. That coverage ranged from the moderate to the amusingly paranoid (This concerned citizen suggests that the CIA has hired Wikipedia editors to suppress the E.C., for instance.) While I am always pleased to see new faces join the Wikipedia project, I hope that the new editors who might arrive on this talk page will take the time to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's basic principles for editing and discussion. Remember that we don't make decisions by voting, but by seeking to reach consensus, and that that consensus building process should be guided by Wikipedia's core policies. New editors are welcome to participate in this and any Wikipedia discussion, but everyone is reminded that discourse should be civil and free of personal attacks on your colleagues here. Well-reasoned arguments which address points of Wikipedia policy are always more effective than yelling and bickering. Please assume that other editors are contributing in good faith, even if you happen to disagree with their stated positions or beliefs.

Reminder of discretionary sanctions. We all know that cold fusion topics can be contentious, and bring out heated discussions and even more heated feelings. I will caution all participants in this page's discussions that this article falls under discretionary sanctions, and that editors who fail to adhere to Wikipedia's core goals can and will be asked to leave. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I think that a lot of the problems about this article could be solved by a merger to Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur) (which was recently created and came to my attention). It obviously couldn't be a copy-and-paste, throw-everything-in-including-the-kitchen-sink, no-footnotes-left-behind grafting; we would have to be judicious and careful in our use of only the best sources to come up with a reasonable summary.

The fundamental problem that we've been having with this page is that it masquerades as a scientific and technical article. The title implies that we're talking about a particular device: how it works, what it does, and so forth. This framing distorts everything that we write, and it forces us to rely on unreliable primary and self-published sources full of guesswork and spin because there isn't anything else addressing the technical and scientific aspects of this device.

As the recent AfD emphasized, we have this article not because it's a bona fide scientific story (at least, not at the moment) but because it's a social and economic tale. What this is really about right now isn't about whether or not the device works, but whether or not Rossi can sell it. The press releases, the secret customers, the mysterious companies, the on-again-off-again factory deal, the carefully-orchestrated demonstrations belong to the world of business, not the world of science.

Consequently, the best place for the Energy Catalyzer in Wikipedia – right now – is in Andrea Rossi's article, alongside his other business ventures. This is at least Rossi's third major business venture, and the third to involve novel, secret energy technologies. That social and business context is an essential part of the Energy Catalyzer story right now, and it is supported by much more rigorous sources that we generally have relied on here.

The Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur) biography, despite its newness, seems to be doing a pretty solid job of covering Rossi's history and ventures in a neutral, evenhanded way. Placing the Energy Catalyzer within that article's framework would encourage a disciplined approach to covering this new device and business venture, and might discourage some of the more overt problems we've had here as a consequence of WP:RECENTISM.

While I certainly wouldn't presume to suggest a firm timeline – and I feel there's no need to rush this process – I think we should seriously consider a merge of this article. I welcome comments on this proposal and suggestions for alternative courses. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"If you are interested in the details of all this, the account in Wikipedia under 'Energy Catalyzer' gives a reasonably balanced version of the story thus far" (http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/10419-the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-redux.html). I agree that the Energy Catalyzer article is "reasonably balanced". It contains sufficient qualifiers so that readers are not misled about the validity of claims about the E-Cat. The article does not need to be merged into Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur). AnnaBennett (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose All of the reasons given above indicate that this article needs to be rewritten, not that it needs to be merged. If the article isn't properly representing the information that the many reliable sources covering it are saying, then the article needs to be changed so that it is a proper reflection. The bulk of the coverage of the device spans a whole year, so WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply at all. The large amount of reliable sources found and discussed in the AfD do seem to be missing from this article, so that should be rectified, but as it is, there is far to much information to merge to Rossi's article and would be WP:UNDUE for the device, especially when the device appears to be highly notable in its own right. SilverserenC 03:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't dispute that there are a very large number of sources, but my major concern is that their actual content of (reliable, independent) information is rather low. The amount that we know about the E.C. and about the purported business(es) that surround it is actually quite quite limited. Your comment pretty much sums up the entire 'recentism' issue; you've somehow managed to determine the ultimate historical importance of the E.C. before a single device has been tested by an independent scientist outside of Rossi's lab. Given the track record of Rossi's past energy companies, it seems more likely than not that the E.C. will eventually end up as just another historical footnote in Rossi's decidedly colorful biography. This article really only contains a few essential points, which could fit perfectly well within Rossi's biography:
  • Rossi claims to have built a nickel-hydrogen cold-fusion generator that (curiously) produces no radioactivity and operates by implausible physical processes.
  • Rossi claims that his devices can operate for years. In a few demonstrations that Rossi has conducted in his lab for members of the media and selected scientists, he has shown operation for periods of up to several hours. Concerns have been raised about the reliability and credibility of these demonstrations.
  • Rossi plans to construct the devices with a U.S. based company, after a planned deal in Greece fell through.
  • Rossi claims that a customer has been found for the first E.C. The customer's identity is a secret.
Everything else in this article is fluffy window dressing, a blog about the E.C. that is exactly the sort of problem that WP:RECENTISM describes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yup. That just about hits the nail on the head. Merge with the Rossi bio, as it his claims that are the story, not his 'device' - we have no verifiable evidence that it exists, much less does anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It is these claims and the media response to them that makes it notable. That is exactly why we have notable hoaxes in the first place, they are all claims by a person that something is true and the large media or social response to those claims. This isn't any different than any of those articles. And, again, there is far too much information (too much that is claimed and too much of a media response) for this to merged into Rossi's article. SilverserenC 17:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
But what 'information' do we have, beyond the four points that TenOfAllTrades lists? We have plenty of speculation, and multiple 'sources' recycling Ny Teknik (and our article for that matter) but adding nothing new. Incidentally, including the E-Cat in a list of hoaxes would seem (for now at least) to contravene WP:BLP policy, at minimum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it would be accurate to portray the E.C. as having garnered a "large media or social response". Despite Rossi's best efforts to attract and inflate popular media attention (while simultaneously avoiding scrutiny by serious scientists), the only regular, repeated coverage of the E.C. is in Ny Teknik; other media outlets have published occasional, one-off, generally brief stories. The blogosphere's echo chamber is not a good place to measure the actual social relevance of a story. Perversely, in a very real sense Wikipedia itself has become the center of the Energy Catalyzer controversy. The recent influx of new editors recruited by cold-fusion bloggers has somehow made Wikipedia the clearinghouse for news and speculation about the device; this attention gives a woefully distorted impression to other Wikipedia editors about the relative importance of this topic.
An interesting contrast might be to examine Wikipedia's coverage of N rays. The putative discovery of N rays led to at least 300 published scientific articles by about 120 authors between about 1903 and 1905. Their existence, implications, and interpretation were almost certainly the hottest question in that era's world of physics. (At least until Einstein showed up in the second half of 1905.) International rivalry, conspiracy theories, self-deception, fraud—N rays had it all. In one of science's more dramatic moments, the discoverer's claim was publicly debunked when he unwittingly participated in a blinded trial (...of the sort that Rossi adamantly refuses to allow...).
Without being blinded by the bright lights of recentism, we're able to dispassionately describe the 'discovery' and its proper historical context in a half-dozen paragraphs. We use high-quality secondary and tertiary sources, coupled with a selected reference to the few most important primary documents. In other words, our article on the N ray does everything right that this article doesn't and can't do, filling page after page with breathless claims and speculation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you seriously saying that there hasn't been a large media response? Have you looked at the sources from the AfD? In fact, here, i'm going to copy them over here, since we'll want them on the talk page anyways so they can be used and not lost in the AfD. SilverserenC 19:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per all the reasons given by the OP. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At the moment there's no need to make such a move.--Insilvis (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

double sentence

  • "The university explicitly states that they have not been involved in the demonstrations and none of the experiments were at the university."

should be:

  • "The university has not been involved in the demonstrations."

There is no need to linguistically trick the reader with negative bias. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, the fact that the university thought it necessary to state this explicitly may be noteworthy in itself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how this is 'a trick', but even if it is, it is the university that is doing the tricking: we are merely paraphrasing their press release. Note that this was a response by them to misleading media statements regarding their involvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a very good trick if you could see it. It's bullshit and it needs to go.84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not negative bias. The university found it necessary to explicitly state that they are not involved, so that is what we put in. The WP-reader might otherwise be confused, therefore the "explicit" should stay, it adds clarity. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Rossi is the only one who claims they will validate it?

This still pretty much says it all: "The University of Bologna will begin experiments on the E-Cat as soon as the contract signed with EFA Srl (Andrea Rossi's Italian company) is put into effect." There is no need to repeat the same sentence 3 times. Peter Ekström mentions what it will cost: "Rossi will pay 500,000 euro to the University of Bologna to do research on the E-Cat" If we can use him as a source that would be more informative. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

biography living person

Peter Ekström states "I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year." You need a credible source for this accusation.

Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball states literally: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." 84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a credible source that Ekström said it - Ny Teknik. There is no crystall ball involved in reporting that he said it. As for BLP concerns, this works both ways, and if we were to remove all the speculative comments about Rossi, Foucardi etc, there wouldn't be much left of the article. If you think this violates WP:BLP, I suggest you raise it at WP:BLP/N. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.
What part you don't understand?84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
How is a statement that someone has verifiably said something speculation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I cant even read the document. I should just take your word for what it says? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you read it? [51] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Because I was looking at the wrong link. 84.106.26.81

Thats not the right link,

The fraud prediction is illegal, you can not just accuse people of being frauds without having anything substantial to show for it. We should not lend ourselves for defamation. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think this, then take it to WP:BLP/N. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
84.106, what is your problem ? Arguing the letter of the policy is a tactic used by the cold fusion detractors (the saviours of truth). It's already a pita to have to waste time on them.
The Ekström quote is perfectly RS. It stays. Thank god we have some RS that we can use to show the other side of the story, otherwise this article would be a complete fan page. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This is how IP editors are suppose to work here. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
lol @ fan page. I'm not at all a fan. The problem we have here is that all those peer reviewed cold fusion scientists are not getting any media attention. So we are stuck with this.... Italian inventor physicist business man.
This is what we want: [52] Not stories from Rossi. :/ 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is about Rosssi's E-Cat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This whole section is off-topic. This article is about a supposed invention. It isn't a biography Bhny (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

About 28 October 2011

First article, from Ny Teknik:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece

--79.10.161.200 (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC) (Ok, now it's me)

B/S! This was the first piece of information. Don't Play pretend to be so uber important... http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/10/e-day-thread-rossis-1-mw-e-cat-plant-tested-by-first-customer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.234.214.108 (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add sources from non-reliable sources. It seems that within one or two days Peter Svensson (who was present at the event) from the Associated Press will publish something, hence it would be better to wait and see what further reliable sources are going to write.--79.10.161.200 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Look I have written the skeleton of the article and the format we could follow to properly record this IF REAL. So I encourage people to add to it with references capturing the chronological order of events written in past tense.
If it ends up being a hoax we will capture that too. Only put FACTS people. If its speculation then state it but make sure it's group speculation not just yours. Howver don't fill the article with speculation as that is not what wikipedia is all about. Some historically significant speculation is okay. Speculation about minute details is not.Ldussan (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not altogether happy with a simple statement that an'undisclosed customer' was at the inauguration - it seems to me that Ny Teknik only has Rossi's word that the customer is genuine. The Ny Teknic article seems a little non-committal too: they write"according to the customer’s controller...", "assuming that the report is correct..." etc. What do others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
As long as it is verifiable with RS it can be included. Wikipedia is not about truth or what single editors believe to be the truth. Wikipedia is about verifiability in RS. I encourage you to present RS that express what you want to say. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem here is that all "reliable sources" don't mention the name of the customer, and those who were reporting on the tests either signed NDAs or voluntarily have withheld the name of the customer from their reports. If you think that this customer was a fraud, I'd have to agree you need to find a reliable source to state that conclusion as well. I have my doubts, but I do accept the logic behind why this customer supposedly doesn't want to disclose their name at the moment. The Associated Press article should be interesting if/when it comes out (it still could become a spiked story), but for non-technical information about this device it would seem to be about as reliable as it can get. I certainly wouldn't trust an AP reporter to give accurate descriptions of how this device actually works. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
From the source I would presume that the customer is a business so saying the customer was present wouldn't make sense; it seems ok to mention that the controller for the customer was present. Also it seems relevant to mention that none of the guests were able to check any measurements. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Another issue is still that nyteknik is a primary source, we should be relying on secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
When an accredited journalist (regardless if nyteknik, focus.it or AP) is present at an event and reports about it, is this primary or secondary ? We should be preferring secondary source, which doesn't mean primary sources are up for deletion. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It is primary, see WP:PRIMARY about using primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
We had plenty of secondary sources in the article until you deleted them [53] --POVbrigand (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
What's up with the deletion. Everything in there was verifiable and unbiased. People will be coming here to find up to date data and we can also correctly capture things in chronological order by writing in past tense. You need to get off your high horse and let wikipedia users write something for goodness sake. We had a good thing going.Ldussan (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Eh? How does is this relevant? We are discussing about secondary sources on this undisclosed customer having the machine demonstrated. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't delete relevant information Grumpy. If you want to have it properly cited then just do cite it, there are plenty of relevant articles out there. It is up to the community over time to cite the articles. Somebody has to provide the framework and structure of each section. Ldussan (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
That isn't the way Wikipedia works. If you want to include information, you need to cite a source. In any case, we don't fill articles with speculation - see WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. And no, there aren't 'plenty of articles'. If you only count the WP:RS ones, we have Ny Teknik and Wired so far on the 28th events - and neither tell us much more than the raw details - that the mysterious customer is reported to have inspected and approved the device. We have no reliable source for what was done during approval, since self-evidently neither Rossi or the 'anonymous customer' are third-party sources. Actually, the 'customer' isn't a source at all until it can be named. As for speculation about the customer being DARPA, frankly, I think this is highly implausible, and in any case not relevant without a source actually in a position to know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
WRONG! what you mean is that's not the way you work. If you have actually been following this as closely as I and others have you would know what is real and what is made up. First of all, for example, any quote from the Journal of Nuclear Physics, which would be considered a secondary source by your standards, is absolutely fine if quoting what Rossi says. Second, an accepted way to write wikis is people write the content and then others come in and fill the required references but without the content it's harder to place references and you get chaotic mumbo jumbo at the end, all nicely referenced but not coherent. OR barely nothing gets printed and the result is a pathetic useless summary that says nothing about what really happened. Case in point, look at the horribly anemic summary of the Oct 6th test. This may have been all cited by prime sources but it is a pathetic summary of everything that we know to be true from that date. Additionally another way to write wikipedia articles is to write the sections here but often times they get lost and no attention is paid and nothing gets written. Lastly you will find that this particular phenomena will be hard pressed to get reported on by prime sources, so you miss so much.68.202.237.129 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
It isn't up to us to decide "what is real and what is made up". And no, Wikipedia isn't written by people who fill up articles with unsourced material, and expect others to find sources for the - at least, it shouldn't be. If you are getting the material from a reliable source, cite it. If you aren't getting it from a reliable source, it doesn't belong in the article. This isn't a blog. If you want to contribute, do it the Wikipedia way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL what? First, if it's not up to us then who, case in point, even when properly cited, as you saw in the DARPA reference, you decided it was "not real". So that's just BS. Second the article is a work in progress and without having a structure out there people don't see it and can't contribute to it. If nobody puts the proper sources I eventually will but at least I put the names of the sources or that sources exist and are only a google query away. At least have the decency to copy the deleted items in the talk page and ask for references, but don't take the lazy way out. What you are doing you THINK is a value to wikipedia, and it sometimes is, but you are getting carried away and it is now not a value.Ldussan (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to see deleted material, look at the article history. As for the rest of your comments, you seem to be under the misapprehension that adding unsourced speculation is useful. It isn't. Either comply with policy, or find somewhere else to write about the E-Cat. This is a controversial subject, and we need to apply high standards - if you want to speculate, or report rumours, this isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that a minor issue with sourcing can be left inplace, tagged and brought to talk. However, the edit in question had major sourcing problems and some WP:OR i.e. "To be sure this was not the only customer being speculated by thousands of people all over the web." and "At this point while Andrea Rossi played tennis and rested, the small portion of the blogosphere that had followed this story for months waited for confirmation of the amazing event or the horrible joke."

AndyTheGrump has repeatedly defended his actions based policy and pointed out the policies used. I tend to agree with him. If you disagree with how a policy is being applied then we need to discuss it as a policy issue and get some consensus. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia content must be verifiable, a missing ref is no reason to delete large blocks of content.

The deleted edit was:

On October 28th 2011 in Bologna, Italy multiple sources reported that a 1MW version of the energy catalyzer had been tested by an unknown customer. [1] Multiple sources reported that the 1MW boiler was actually a collection of over 100 small E-cats like the one tested on Oct. 6th.

The initial reports on the 29th by NyTeknik and others stated that there was an avg of 470kW produced by this thermal power plant. This was lower than the promised 1MW of power but allegedly the customer was satisfied enough, and according to Andrea Rossi the 1MW boiler was sold. Previous articles had speculated the anonymous customer to be from the US government's DARPA program [2]. Another article on the 29th, speculated that the title of "colonel" found on some paperwork and overheard at the Oct. 28th event could also point to a military institution as the customer. To be sure this was not the only customer being speculated by thousands of people all over the web.

Although the Associated Press's Peter Svensson had the exclusive, by the evening of the 29th, no AP articles had been published confirming any of the comments by Rossi. Neither had any company or group claimed responsibility for the purchase of the 1MW boiler and so the mystery customer continued to be a mystery. It was speculated that the AP would report on Monday, October 31. [3]. At this point while Andrea Rossi played tennis and rested, the small portion of the blogosphere that had followed this story for months waited for confirmation of the amazing event or the horrible joke.

  1. ^ http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece
  2. ^ Hambling, David (October 6, 2011). "Cold fusion rears its head as 'E-Cat' research promises to change the world".
  3. ^ Hambling, David (October 29, 2011). http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "titleSuccess for Andrea Rossi's E-Cat cold fusion system, but mysteries remain" ignored (help)

The edit summary said: "(Removed unsourced material and speculation once again. Take this to the talk page, and discuss (after finding appropriate sources))

Sources were used. Attribution was done in clear text. Most of the edit is completely acceptable.

The deletion and the reason for deletion are moot. --POVbrigand (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Er..No...

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three.

Not that simple. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
No it is not simple, that's probably the reason why some editors repeatedly delete whole sections with quoting far fetched policy violations and still believe they are right.
So, tell me, what is unsourced in the edit ? Where is the speculation ? Where is the OR ? --POVbrigand (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
What is unsourced? "The initial reports on the 29th by NyTeknik and others stated that there was an avg of 470kW produced by this thermal power plant". Actually, that is not so much unsourced as blatant misrepresentation. Ny Teknik reported that they had been told that this (alleged) 'power plant' produced an average of 470kW "according to [Rossi's] customer". They went on to write that "Neither Ny Teknik nor any other of the guests had any possibility to check the measurements made". With regard to 'speculation', the section uses the word four times - this is self-evident. As for original research, see the final sentence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so you're backing off of the unsourced bit. That's good. One thing I agree about is that "Neither Ny Teknik nor any other of the guests had any possibility to check the measurements made" must be used in our article, otherwise you have a point about misrepresentation.
Original research is when an WP-editor starts making personal unverifiable theories of what could be. Whatever a journalist or a scientists publishes in a verifiable source is not OR. And even if it is speculation by the journalist, that doesn't mean that it can't be used in the article. The last line by the editor tries to paint the atmosphere. Such writing style normally doesn't survives on WP, because of the hordes of nitpickers, but it is not unverifiable even if it is obviously not a direct quote from a RS. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. The last line was bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said, a line like that won't survive on wikipedia, it is written with the style of a "journalist opinion piece" and not with the style of a "encyclopedia editor". The last line is not bullshit, but it is futile. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks POV I appreciate your comments. As for AndyTheGrump you should be called Mr.Delete. Instead of deleting large blocks why don't you edit them. I by no means intended for that to be the final version of the article and I was planning on going back and editing it as I had time, but people like you make that impossible and ultimately the will of the people trying to provide content gets killed. I completely agree that the article should read that Nyteknik reported what Rossi told them and add the part about the cabling but the fact that the cables were attached really means absolutely nothing and is another example of speculation because all inputs can be metered. If fraud is being commited the fact that cables are attached is really a silly side comment. The problem continues to be that you want to prove the Ecat is real but there is no proof offered and so although the article is called the "Energy Catalyzer" it should be called the "Legend of the Ecat" or something else. If you want to make another article called ECAT FACTS then andythegrump can stay there and be lonely.
As far as the bullshit journalist opinion piece I couldn't care less whether that survives or not. It is true and verifiable from Rossi's blog and the thousands of comments on the web but then again AndytheGrump is not about verifiable truth he's more about whether you can find an article like the NYT that you can quote verbatim who probably did the exact same thing I did, which was look at Rossi's blog and look at all the ecat websites.
As far as speculation is concerned there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH STATING SPECULATION on a wikipedia article so long as it is MAJOR SPECULATION and can be verified, such as "neutrinos were measured to travel faster than light by CERN, it is speculated that this is a measurement error."
Again AndyTheGrump what you do here in this article and in others of deleting large chunks of content because you disagree with some of it instead of rewording it or reposting it in talk is a injustice to the people providing content. Just because your name is THEGRUMP doesn't give you the right to wield the subjective Wikipedia policies like a sledgehammer on honest Wikipedia users trying to provide useful content.Ldussan (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wired article

Article from Wired about the event of yesterday:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success

--79.10.161.200 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Wired evidently has its doubts too:
"But this does not mean we can crack open the champagne and celebrate the end of fossil fuels quite yet. Skeptics have plenty of grounds to doubt whether the new test really takes us any further forwards".
"For a start, the US customer remains anonymous. In other words, a group of unknown, unverifiable people carried out tests which cannot be checked".
AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the only ones who haven't got reason for doubts are Andrea Rossi himself and the mistery customer. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Wired said that cables were left connected to an external power source during the test. This make the claims of energy production by the device less than convincing. Opening a disconnect would be an obvious part of a serious test. Edison (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We have reliable sources saying that Rossi says that there is an organization that is interested in bying the device. the fact here is only a statement by the person who is deeply interested in propagating this idea. I think therefore, that the possible (in a doubble sense) customer is of no encyclopedic interest. --Ettrig (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the only encyclopedic interesting bit about the customer is that it is undisclosed. We do not need to include any of the reliably sourced speculation regarding who the customer is. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat on the Russian popular science website Membrana:

http://www.membrana.ru/particle/17047

--79.10.133.133 (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

American Reporter wrote an article about the E-Cat: http://www.american-reporter.com/4,321/1.html --79.10.133.133 (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable Reliable Sources? (general question, but it relates to a wired quote in the article "He offers these for sale at a rate of $2000/kilowatt, making the price for a 1 MW unit $2 million")

He actually offers them at €2000/kilowatt ... but THAT's from an unreliable source. Alanf777 (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Forbes article

Article from Forbes about the event of 28 October 2011:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/30/believing-in-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/

--79.24.134.204 (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC) It' me, Francesco

Foxnews article

Article from Foxnews about the event of 28 October 2011:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail article

Article from the Daily Mail, similar to the one from Foxnews about the E-Cat:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2057611/Italian-scientist-Andrea-Rossi-claims-achieved-cold-fusion.html

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Falls Church News-Press article

Article from Falls Church News-Press concerning the event of 28 October 2011 and the E-Cat in general:

http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/10419-the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-redux.html

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

msnbc.com / CBS News articles

Article from msnbc.com about the E-Cat:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrLv5PTz2So

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Same article on CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57318762/cold-fusion-debate-heats-up-after-latest-demo/

( also here http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?feed_id=4&catid=57318762&videofeed=40 )

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

American Chronicle article

Article from American Chronicle about the E-Cat:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/257667

The author, physicist Rainer Kühne, reviews some aspects of the Rossi experiment and asks critical/skeptical questions and makes critical comments. Why does Rossi not let his scientific collaborators know what his E-Cat consist of? Why are the scientists who are allowed to take measurements not allowed to test the current meters and whether they measure the entire current input? Is the water flow really constant? Why is the presumed best evidence (radioactive rays) not presented? Kühne points out that nuclear fusion under desktop conditions is possible if pyroelectric crystals are used. He argues that real scientific breakthroughs are always published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, just like his theoryabout the Salam magnetic photon (as he claims). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.189.249 (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are the author, right ? --POVbrigand (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
What makes you think that, POVb? In any case "This website and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content". Not remotely WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The IP made two edits on Wikipedia Special:Contributions/217.92.189.249, in the other edit he states "My critical views on the E-cat can be found here: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/257667"
The source is way too close to a OR publishing. Man, Andy we agree ! --POVbrigand (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifiable evidence

What verifiable evidence would be needed? It seems obvious that if it transforms Ni into Cu, it is a nuclear reactor.--79.119.214.86 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"If."
Since you apparently already claim to know the answer to your question, this discussion is closed, per WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don′t claim anything, I′ve just put a question!--79.119.214.86 (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

To 79.119.214.86 : see my answer above. --79.24.134.204 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC) It' me, Francesco

|}

Francesco, why don't you get an account ? It is much easier for the rest of us to keep names apart instead of IPs. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I am pondering on it.
Off-topic: Rossi has now stated that he is currently building another 1MW plant for another customer. I do very hope that not all the customers have the same will of anonymity!
--79.24.134.204 (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC) It' me, Francesco
People who've just traded the family's last cow for magic beans tend to be reluctant to publicize their acumen at trading. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
i'm not willing to accept this unless you provide WP:RS... 62.30.137.128 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_8&oldid=1090557004"