Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in the articles

We should not be discussing anything that isn't in reliable independent (secondary) sources. Primary only sourcing is not acceptable as per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources. There are massive sections of the article which are primary sourced. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is what WP has to say: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Surely you have been here long enough for you to have read the above. I suspect that you have a very, very selective way of interpreting policy. The policy is loose. Zedshort (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Key sentence: Unless restricted by another policy. WP:FRINGE reads "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. " IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I just read WP:FRINGE up and down several times. It does not support your crusade.

The whole "independent sources" section reads:

"The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse."

Nowhere in this section is anything mentioned about primary. And NO, primary source does not mean "not independent". They are two completely different concepts. Furthermore there are plenty of independent sources used in our article.

Waving this section around like you do in order to get your way shows a complete and profound misunderstanding of WP-policies.

About your primary source crusade. I found the word "primary" 4 times in WP:FRINGE. NOT ONE of them stated that primary is forbidden in combination with a fringe topic.

I am suprised that the more experienced editors haven't noticed or highlighted the complete mixup in your reasoning. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about independent sources, I suggest you also read Wikipedia:Independent_sources. A primary source is not an independent source. Also on fringe: Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

First: wp:Independent_sources is an essay not policy.

Just use common sense: A journalist who is present at some society's meeting and writes a report about it, produces probably a primary source. Yet the journalist is completely independent: he isn't a member of the society, he is not a neighbor of the president of the society and his editor-in-chief is not on the board of directors of a company who is sponsoring the meeting. The journalist is producing an independent eye witness report. If the society themselves write a report about the meeting in their weekly news flash, that would be primary source which is not independent.

Primary and independent are different concepts, see also Wikipedia:Secondary_does_not_mean_independent.

Your idea that primary sources are not allowed in articles about fringe topics is not compliant with WP policies. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And using common sense we can see that someone involved with the tests is not independent and distanced from the topic at hand. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Apply your "common sense" then to automotive journalists who testdrive cars and report about all kinds of self measured test data. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The uninvolved editors in reliable sources agree that they are not independent. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NyTeknik_and_Energy_Catalyzer IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor 84.106.26.81 appears to have been getting rid of sections he disagrees with. [1] IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what is being missed here in this discussion is what a particular source of information is useful for describing. Journalists are really good at telling "the human side" of the story. For example, I would trust something like NyTeknik, MSNBC, Fox News, and other "popular news" media outlets to get details like when Rossi was born, who he has worked with to make this device, when tests happened, and what people were involved with the test to be accurate. For somebody from these kind of organizations they can tells the "who", "when" and "where" part of the details. Those are important even in an article of this nature. I wouldn't trust them on "what" happened as they aren't technical experts.

The problem with this topic is that it is suffering from a lack of scholarly research on the topic. All of the really juicy details in terms of how this device works are almost exclusively from self-published reports. I think the concern here is misusing these sources for what they are and to identify when that misuse is happening. To categorically refuse to even permit an edit referencing one of these sources is flat out wrong and contrary to the policies of Wikipedia. Even self-published sources can be used, but there is room for caution as well. IRWolfie is correct that the article can't be made exclusively of primary sources, but that shouldn't be the only driving factor here either. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue with primary sources being in the article as long as they are backed up by independent sources as well. i.e A particular point or paragraph should always be present in sources with no connection to the content of this article. Obviously non-independent (i.e primary and connected secondary) sources can remain in complement to the other sources but they should not be the only sources present to make a particular point. This concern is only due to the fringe nature of the article and the extra guidelines that thus apply. I see no reason why we should deviate from the guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The way many editors read the guidelines is maybe not identical with the way you read them. You are hammering the non-independent issue so relentlessly, that I can't see how you are going to improve the article if you would have it your way. There are two points that maybe we have a similar view on though. 1) most measurement data is useless for our article, regardless of what the guidelines say. 2) currently the article still uses a lot of Ny Teknik sources. I don't think that is a problem per se, but as new secondary sources become available those should be used to improve the article. I honestly don't think you will actually do something positive to this article, because your past actions express your disgust for this topic. You wanted to have it deleted, even when numerous professional editors of real world media decided to publish about it.

If you really want to improve the article, be positive and add something. Deleting is so easy, you won't impress any of us with that. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The largest article is not always (indeed, is seldom) the best article. There is very much a reason why we are called 'editors' and not 'writers'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting something for wild policy interpretation is not in interest of the reader. The whole editing war ends up with "i can add this and there's nothing you can do about it" and "i can delete this and there's nothing you can do about it". We should have the reader in mind and we should have both possible outcomes in mind (ie fraud or success) and both are equally valid ! And then we can improve the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We have specific guidelines when it comes to fringe articles and no reasoning has been shown as to why we should deviate from this. This is no wild interpretation; it is in black and white. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

When you started this section, you firmly believed that each primary source is per definition not independent. That was your first misconception. Now you keep pushing the "not independent" riddle, for which you started a noticeboard discussion. Can you maybe inform us what exactly it is that bothers you so much ? Maybe we can just get consensus to remove it from the article without having to go through the trouble of having you interpret the letter of the policy for another round. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources are not independent. Also please see [2] where the uninvolved editors commented that they are not independent. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

Am I the only one to see a problem with 62Ni + H -> Cu + energy ? Has no one read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-62 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.61.178 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

no Bhny (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You both have it wrong. Nickel-62 has the highest binding energy per nucleon. Nickel-62 receives a proton (a nucleon) from a hydrogen atom. That proton releases energy when it is transferred from the hydrogen nuclei to the Nickel-62 nuclei, which in turn produces the Copper-63 nuclei. The energy released is equal to the increase of "binding energy" of that proton minus the decrease of "binding energy" of other nucleons. The resulting output, assuming that Hydrogen-1 is used, is 6.12241 MeV released per reaction.Signed, siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 14:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone that this isn't a forum for general discussion. Unless this aspect of the E-Cat's supposed physics is discussed in reliable sources, it isn't relevant to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I just thought it would be worthwhile point out the above lame mistake. It's the fastest way to END a discussion that doesn't deserve continuation. Sorry if that sounds elitist, but in this case, that's just how it is.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 14:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a steam generator

The article contains a notice that "An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole." I agree. The nuclear fusion controversy has obscured the simple fact that the Energy Catalyzer is a steam generator. The lead should be revised to read as follows.

The Energy Catalyzer (abbreviated E-Cat) is a steam generator. It was invented by engineer Andrea Rossi, with support from physicist Sergio Focardi. The first E-Cat was sold on October 28, 2011.

The Italian Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent for the E-Cat on April 6, 2011. The patent describes the E-Cat as "a method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reactions". The inventor claims that the E-Cat forces nickel and hydrogen atoms to fuse together and release heat, which is then used to boil water and generate steam.

AnnaBennett (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC) AnnaBennett (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

there is no proof that this thing boils water or that it was sold Bhny (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Last week I've added "thermal" at the beginning of the article in order to specify what kind of energy the E-Cat alledgedly produces. For me the description at the beginning is not that bad now.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the description of what an E-Cat is should be separated from the controversy about it. And I have realized that the E-Cat should be distinguished from the steam generator that Rossi recently sold. So the first two paragraphs of the article might read:

The Energy Catalyzer (abbreviated E-Cat) is a patented heat-generating device. It was invented by engineer Andrea Rossi, with support from physicist Sergio Focardi. On October 28, 2011 Rossi sold a steam generator powered by more than 100 E-Cats.

Rossi claims that the E-Cat forces nickel and hydrogen atoms to fuse together and release heat. His claim that the E-Cat can cause nuclear fusion has been endorsed by Nobel Prize laureate Brian Josephson and criticized by Peter Ekström, a lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden.

AnnaBennett (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Bhny, I have watched Steven Krivit's video of the E-Cat generating steam. Electricity goes into the E-Cat and the E-Cat produces steam; that is not controversial. What is controversial is the proposition that some of the steam is generated by heat produced by nuclear fusion.

I have proposed that the E-Cat be defined as "a patented heat-generating device". That statement is verifiable. The patent exists and the E-Cat has an electric heater built into it. So can we agree that the E-Cat is "a patented heat-generating device"?

I am trying to disentangle the definition of the E-Cat from the controversy about the E-Cat. If we can do that then the article will be much easier to read and understand. AnnaBennett (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it is impossible to 'define' something until it is accurately described. All we have is Rossi's various contradictory 'explanations' of what the E-Cat is, and how it works - which is what the controversy is largely about. As for the fact that the generator is patented, that is utterly irrelevent. A patent is no recognition whatsoever that a device works, never mind that it is of any utility. As for describing the E-Cat as a 'steam generator', that certainly isn't how reliable sources have been describing it, and nor is it being described as such in the reams of promotional material in less-than-reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Steam generator" is inappropriate. The E-Cat is an alleged thermonuclear reactor, which means it supposedly produces heat. The steam is only a consequence of heating water. Of course the heat can produce steam.--Insilvis (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We have to use other people's descriptions we can't just make up our own. This device is hard to understand because it is "one big scam" that uses deception Bhny (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a WP:BLP violation. Please redact the "fraud" statement; whether or not true, we can't say it, even on a talk page, without a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. He's making a reference to what is already in the article. "one big scam" is a quote and is in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

He did redact, changing "fraud" to "'one big scam'". Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In AnnaBennett's proposed text above, I object to throwing in "celebrity scientist endorsements" such as the name-dropping of Josephson, who won a Nobel 38 years ago, but is now retired, and whose interests now include mysticism, parapsychology, and Transcendental Meditation according to his Wikipedia bio article. Rather than celebrity scientist endorsements, there should be articles published in refereed scientific journals. If a brilliant scientist such as Josephson does hands-on independent measurement of the energy inputs and outputs, and analyzes the mode of operation, and publishes it in a respected science journal, that would be more relevant. Edison (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that a suggestion that "[Rossi's]] claim that the E-Cat can cause nuclear fusion has been endorsed by Nobel Prize laureate Brian Josephson" would be difficult to source anyway. As far as I'm aware, prof Josephson believes that in principle such a device might be possible, but he has yet to state unequivocally that Rossi's device actually works as claimed. But no, a celebrity endorsement is of no particular significance, and is instead a further indication of how little real information on the E-Cat is available. The article needs less hype and speculation, not more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Focardi

I propose that Sergio Focardi be merged into this article (Energy Catalyzer). A paragraph is all we have, and this article seems a good place for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The question that must be asked is whether he is notable independently of the subject of this article. So, he either has to meet the WP:GNG or meet one of the criteria of WP:PROF. The first thing that catches my eye is him being head of the Bologna department of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare. How prestigious is being the head of such a department? Silverseren^C 04:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I say no, this article is cluttered enough. The biographies of the various persons connected with this controversy should be kept separate from this invention. In the end there could be dozens of persons involved. Just keep working on it and provide a link. Zedshort (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Zedshort: Well, there could be dozens of not-independently-notable persons associated with this, but we haven't found them yet.

@Silver seren: Even if he were notable, we wouldn't need to have a separate article on him.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If he isn't notable, there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article on him in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Silverseren^C 07:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Um...what? If he's notable, then we do need an independent article on him. We need an article on all notable people, that's what notable means on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 07:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Just because someone is notable, it doesn't mean that there's anything we can say about him. If we have nothing to say, we shouldn't say it. And I think that's where Sergio Focardi fits in, even if notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying the same thing as SS but using terms in ways that isn't the norm in wikipedia. If there's nothing to say about him, then he's not notable. The GNG make this resonably clear. The subject specific guidelines sometimes suggest someone is notable but then there is insufficient RS coverage for a stand-alone article, but this is more an indication that the subject specific guidelines are only a shortcut to determining notability (in that it's generally true if someone meets them they have a resonable level of coverage in RS) and they therefore sometime suggest notability when it doesn't exist. If the subject specific guidelines suggest someone is notable but insufficient RS coverage for an article can be found after an extensive search, the it's generally accepted that the person is simply not notable even if the subject specific guidelines suggest they are (if this happens a lot the subject specific guidelines likely need to be re-evaluated), it usually won't be said that the person is notable but we don't need an article on them because there's nothing to write. Remember notability on wikipedia is not directly related to significance, importance or fame and instead to do with whether we can write a well sourced article on the subject. I have no knowledge whether SF is notable but one consideration here is it's likely a fair number of any sources will be in Italian making research for those who don't understand it harder. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. As NASA Langley Research Center Chief Scientist Dennis M. Bushnell said, Focardi "had been working on this for many years, and in fact doing some of the best work worldwide". Ergo,Sergio Focardi is notable for his own merits and deserves his own page.--Insilvis (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  Not. If Focardi is notable only for his work on this device, he should not have a separate article. If he is notable primarily for working on this device, then he probably should not have a separate article. Your argument (and removal of the merge tags) is, in fact, justification why the merge should be made. There have been some arguments made why he has notability outside of this, but it's not clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What??? Focardi had been working on Ni-H systems since 1994. Ergo, he deserved notability well before the Energy Catalyzer.--Insilvis (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But is his work on Ni-H systems notable? In any case, please leave the discussion here, where it belongs. You can best "protect" his article from being merged by adding reliable information about his work to his article. If there was something in his article to indicate that he was known for anything other than this device, I probably wouldn't have proposed this merge. However, even if he were known only for his work on Ni-H systems (not actually known to work), then his article should be merged into this article or a general article on Ni-H system. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Only scientists, like Dennis M. Bushnell, can aswer to these questions. What I know is that Focardi's work is a scientific work:

Focardi S, Gabbani V, Montalbano V, Piantelli F, Veronesi S (1998). "Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems" (PDF). Il Nuovo Cimento A. 111 (11): 1233–1242. OCLC 204819206. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

This is the reason why Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center stated that Focardi "had been working on this for many years, and in fact doing some of the best work worldwide".

--Insilvis (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For the purpose of argument, I agree that Bushnell is a scientist (I see we have little evidence in his article), but your quote would only be evidence of independent notability if Focardi had some notability outside of Ni-H research. (It should also be pointed out that scientists sometimes say absurd things outside of their area of expertise; I believe Bushnell is an energy scientist, but Ni-H research is probably out of his field.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Bushnell is responsible for Technical Oversight and Advanced Program formulation, with technical emphasis on areas of atmospheric sciences and structures, materials, acoustics, flight electronics/control/software, instruments, aerodynamics, aerothermodynamics, spacecraft, space access and other areas. His technical specialties include flow modeling and control across the speed range, advanced configuration aeronautics, aeronautical facilities and hypersonic airbreathing propulsion." and has most definitely taken his engineering to the level of scientist. (i.e. The guy is violently smarter than your average bear.) However, he is not a physicist. It is his (and NASA's) job to look down every rabbit hole for tech, especially fringe tech, that might have value. This is good for Rossi but we should be cautious that we don't give undue weight to Bushnell's take on things. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We discussed this before Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_4#NASA_interest. NASA is currently actively working on LENR. Bushnell as chief scientists is undoubtedly fully aware of NASA's own findings. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure he his well aware of what's going on. Unfortunately all we know is what he said in the interview i.e. "And so at that point, in 06-07 we became interested and started setting up a set of experiments that we’re just about ready to start finally, where we’re trying to experimentally validate this Widom-Larsen theory to find out -- or not -- whether or not it explains what’s going on." When NASA has some findings they'll publish them. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I wondered what happened to the "purple pigeon" department of NASA that used to be at JPL. I guess Bushnell is in charge of that. If that's the case, that department/division of NASA investigating it is not evidence that anyone at NASA thinks it would really work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it isn't the case, so your musing has no value --POVbrigand (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly see no evidence to the contrary. That's about what it was called at JPL; the advanced technology and materials department. (If you're curious about the term "purple pigeon", the concept is that we looked a large number of mundane materials/methods (pigeons) in the hope of finding something interesting (a purple pigeon).) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes and I certainly see no evidence that the Men In Black are not involved. So, by your standards, that must be the case then --POVbrigand (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I know how experimental scientists and engineers title departments so as to confuse the bean counters and Proxmires. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just did a search that I should have done originally, because it would be (and is) a clear indication of notability if it exists. From the amount of citations on papers that Focardi has worked on and also considering how specialized his area of expertise appears to be, his H-index would seem to be sufficiently high to afford him notability as being influential in his field of study. Can someone who knows how to actually calculate H-indexes do that for him, if you would please? Silverseren^C 15:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• That search is full with false positives like Sergio M. Focardi or Silvano Focardi. Is there any independent third party reliable source talking about him being a notable researcher? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Try with "Focardi" and "nickel", or "Focardi" and "nichel".--Insilvis (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• The only important paper seems to be the one on Nuovo Cimento. All the other are proceedings, patents, etc, all inside the cold fusion world. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There are 3 papers in Nuovo Cimento (co)-authored by Focardi that I know of:

• S. Focardi, R. Habel and F. Piantelli, Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems, Nuovo Cim. Vol. 107 A, pp 163-167, 1994.
• S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli and S. Veronesi, Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cim. Vol. 111 A, pp 1233-1241, 1998.
• A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona and S. Veronesi, Neutron emission in Ni.H systems, Nuovo Cim. Vol. 112 A, pp 921-9311, 1999.

--POVbrigand (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of that evidence, one could argue that the bio should as likely be about Piantelli as Focardi. I note too that the latest is twelve years old. Has Focardi not published anything more recently? Of course, the measure of scientific merit in publications is more to do with citation elsewhere in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Focardi is "emeritus," which is the usual way of saying "retired" on Wikipedia when you don't want the reader to think "retired." He was born in 1932 (meaning he's now almost 80) so having his last publication 12 years ago sounds reasonable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is better to specify that Emerito in Italy is an honorific title which is NOT granted automatically at the age of retirement. Only the most notable professors deserve this title, which is conferred by executive order of the President of the Italian Republic (Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica --> Decree of the President of the Republic).--79.6.2.187 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bad assumption to assume there is only one person named Focardi. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Or even only one person named Sergio Focardi: there appears to be an economist of the same name: [3]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'm having a bit of a tough challenge trying to find a reason to oppose this move, as I do think Focardi merits an article for notability purposes, but I am indeed having problems finding sources that go into any detail about his career or other issues of notability that are not centered around the Energy Catalyzer. About the only reason I would suggest to keep his biographical article as something separate from this article would be mainly to do a realistic job of keeping the edit wars focused just on this topic and not on his biography. One outside positions perhaps worthy of note would be with the "Coordination Committee of Italian Scientific Associations", of which he served as its president for eight years. He was also on the "Italian Physical Society" governing board for several years, but I'm not sure how significant that is in Italian society. His role as "Director of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Bologna" appears to be mainly a local contact for that particular organization in Bologna, although he may have had a supervisory role for nuclear physics related research done at his university. Much of this is contributory to notability, but not significant in and of itself.

The Italian language version of the article includes several other details and references that should also be considered in this discussion. My gut feeling is still to keep the English-language version of this article where it is at, with mainly a "wait and see" attitude about where this is all headed in terms of what will eventually happen with regards to the e-Cat. Much of this other information about Focardi is not really appropriate to include here in this article about the Energy Catalyzer, which would be the primary rationale for keeping it a separate article. It would be a border-line situation to keep that article in an AfD if the e-Cat article didn't exist or he wasn't involved with the e-Cat. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• STRONG OPPOSE - Compared to Dr. Arthur Rubin Prof. Sergio Focardi is highly note worthy. The only source I could find on Arthur Rubin was this:[4] which made me laugh hysterically for about 20 minutes. You didn't even wait for the AFD for this article to close nor did you show any initiative in creating the Focardi article. Just like with petroldragon you are just being intentionally annoying. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ehm, are you sure that the user named Arthur Rubin and Arthur Rubin are the same person? I do not think so.

Anyway, the merge proposal concerning Sergio Focardi is baseless and should be rejected therefore.

--79.6.11.122 (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLP1E; if he's known only for one thing, and known only because of that one thing, his article should be included in the article about that one thing. I'm not sure that one thing is E-Cat, but it is only Ni-H "anomalies".

Also remember WP:NOTNEWS. If I am not presently in the news, it doesn't mean I'm not notable. There are a number of references about me (as well as a few by' me) in my article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not sure that one thing is E-Cat". Ok. So, there is no need to discuss it further.--79.6.11.122 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been over a week, no one has supported a merge and most of the discussion seems to be regarding his notability, which would be better discussed at WP:AFD if any one thinks we should not have an article. It seems to me as if there is currently a consensus against a merge, so I will remove the template. SmartSE (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Loaded language in Oct 28 para

"The customer allegedly acquired the plant after the test. Independent observers were not allowed to watch the measurements or make their own, and the plant remained connected to a power supply during the test allegedly to supply power to the fans and the water pumps" [44][45][46] None of the quoted sources use the word "allegedly". Change to "reportedly" Alanf777 (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• looks at the sources* Ugh, you are right, they talk about the "misterious customer" "enigmatic customer", and they make guesses about US Navy and Darpa, but they don't put in doubt that the plant was actually sold to someone. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone has changed it to "reportedly" which looks much better. The sources do say "according to the report", "according to rossi", etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The customer loaded the container on the back of a truck and disappeared on the horizon. No one has heard or seen them ever again. the end 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Also : Evaluation of the device Links to http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-controversial-energy-generating-lacking-credibility-video.html

"According to PhysOrg, the demonstrations held from January to April 2011 had several flaws that make them lose credibility" ...

OK, but dated.

"and Rossi has refused to perform several tests that could clarify dark points.[2]"

Not supported by the article. It says that the (loaded language in the RS) "Rossi Group" neglected to do this or that, and that Levi refused to hand over data. Nowhere does it say that Rossi refused to do anything. "Dark points" is perhaps a language issue of the original poser. Not supported. In any event, Rossi subsequently allowed the Oct 6 test, which avoided the steam quality issues which PhysOrg was concentrating on. Alanf777 (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Rossi has never allowed any 'tests', by any reasonable definition of the word. His 'demonstrations' have been under his control, and have never been given proper independent scrutiny. Note that Ny Teknik, who participated in the Oct 6th demonstration, themselves wrote that "There’s still no clear indication of when a test performed by independent experts can be done, although this is still what both readers of Ny Teknik and most experts Ny Teknik has spoken to demand" as recently as Oct 29th. [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I treat everything I read at PhysOrg with shovels full of salt, but it can be useful in finding sources elsewhere. Beyond that, it is essentially an uncritical republisher of press releases, often nearly verbatim. Any assertion to the effect of it being a wp:RS for anything serious is unsupportable. Now, whether a video they host is ofany use just might be a different matter. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed "clarify dark points" to "verify his claims" Bhny (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The sentence .. "and Rossi has refused to perform several tests that could verify his claims." implies that he has done nothing since April. It might have been true then, but it isn't any more. He has (per NyTeknik and/or Focus.it and ..) held two more tests (Sep, first self-sustaining run : Oct 6, heat exchanger to answer steam-quality concerns.)

Possibly insert "and Rossi has refused, as of Aug 2011, to perform" ... followed by some RS saying he has done something since then to address them. Alanf777 (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

De-dent -- ongoing question of independent/tied-to rossi and demo/experiment. (worth a new section?)

I've gone through all the reports and put together a list of experiment, attendee and instruments used.

I've hidden the link in my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alanf777#Demonstration_vs_Experiment

a) 8 named scientists with university affiliations issued reports = independent verification (plus Lewan, M.Sc Eng) eg see Celani

b) With the exception of Oct 6, and the use of Gamma Ray spectra they were allowed to bring their own instruments -- and did -- and were permitted to calibrate any of Rossi's which they used.

c) Time, Power (Volt,Amps,Watts), Flow(By weight and meter), Temperature = Calorimetry = Science

All of that adds up to Calorimetric experiments, not demonstrations. (June/Krivit was a demonstration, Oct 28 was reportedly a customer acceptance test.)

These experiments were NOT set up to identify the mechanism, which is irrelevant.

We may not have RS's that say all that ... but IMHO that's bad reporting, which can be worse than bad science.

And .... (thought better of posting that!)

Alanf777 (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Mystery customer is buying 13 ?

http://www.focus.it/scienza/dove-va-l-e-cat-e-la-risposta-di-rossi-alla-proposta-di-celani-1203/where-is-the-e-cat_PC12.aspx

... but is Rossi himself who gives Focus something more: «We are building a 130 MW thermal plant, made of 13 plant such as the one you saw on October 28th: but it's a military research and I can't reveal any further detail, not the name, nor the place, nor the nationality of the customer».

This seems to confirm the "magic 13" discussed earlier. Yeah, yeah, it's Rossi says ...

There's a zero amiss ... I think it means 13 total * 1MW = 13 MW ... unless it's a 1/4 Billion dollar scam Alanf777 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

All it confirms really is that Rossi is making more unverifiable claims about anonymous customers. Meaningless without verification (but the so is everything, when it comes to the E-Cat). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Is a RS quoting an interview with someone not reportable? Alanf777 (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This needless speculating simply needs to end. If there is something that can be reported, more especially somebody who is willing to let the press take pictures of a permanent installation and is most certainly in a reliable source, it would be worth mentioning here. Until that happens, please quit trying to prove this is legitimate through such "anonymous sources". Concentrate on what is documented from reliable sources, such as can be confirmed as factual information. This article in particular is a non-event and doesn't really convey anything new which can be added to this article, particularly as it is all speculation by "anonymous sources". As such, it isn't even verifiable --Robert Horning (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that states that Rossi has come out with yet more unverifiable bullshit about so-called 'customers' who from all available evidence could be entirely a figment of his imagination. This is all he has ever done on the subject, and quite likely all he ever will. If the believers want to see this sort of thing, they can find it on his blog, or on one of the competing 'official' E-Cat websites. It tells us nothing new however, and doesn't belong in our article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

At some point in this drama there will either be some real customers or some jilted customers who feel like they've been taken for a ride. Indeed I think the customers with complaints are likely to show up first regardless of the validity of this whole concept. I'm open to the idea but skeptical, and I'm tired of the "true believers" with these non-stories coming out as "proof". All I'm asking for is to take a breather and not go into every little piece of speculation as if it is the writ of God. This includes speculation as if this is scam or not. In response to Alanf's question in particular, an interview with somebody who is mentioned as an "anonymous source" is not really reliable as it is unverifiable. That is why this speculation in any aspect (supporting or detracting from the E-Cat) is just over the top and doesn't belong in this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the ripped-off customers aren't likely to come forward. There's embarrassment associated with being taken for a ride, and companies (or governments, for that matter) tend not to want to admit that they made a bad call. I suspect that the contracts for these early customers – if they exist – are liberally salted with all manner of non-disclosure and secrecy clauses for both parties. From a business perspective, announcing that your company bought an E.C. that didn't work has no upside and at least three major downsides: the marketplace finds out you've got bad judgement, your competitors won't make the same costly mistake, and you expose yourself to the risk of messy lawsuits from Rossi. Whether it's a cashier with her hand in the till or a 'rogue trader' losing a few million on bad investments, the company will escort the individual to the door, swallow the loss, and say nothing more about the matter.

What we're more likely to see is a dribble of periodic announcements from Rossi about new secret customers, interspersed with periods of deafening silence. The only real question is how many customers can be recruited before someone notices that there aren't any positive reports from real, substantial, credible companies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This thread seems to be turning into a general forum for discussing the topic, with crystal ball gazing about what is likely to happen in the future, and not really focussed on changes to the article, once the point was made that claims of secret customers made by an inventor/promoter don't belong in the article. Edison (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

New article from Ny Teknik

Swedish physicists run the site Ecat.com which since November 16, 2011, takes pre-orders for Andrea Rossi’s E-cat:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3347150.ece

"The site was anonymous at launch, but Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the E-cat, stated that the website represented his North Europe commercial branch."

My proposal is to add this sentence to the article:

Since November 16, 2011, pre-orders for the product have been taken on the internet.

--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the increasingly-intimate relationship between Rossi and Ny Teknik, I think we have to start questioning their suitability as an uninvolved reliable source. In any case, the Ny Teknik article is far from clear as to whether the 'pre-orders' are from Rossi, or from this mysterious British-based company set up by 'Swedish physicists', or from whoever is running the ecat.com website (they seem to wish to remain anonymous, but the domain name appears - from WP:OR, sorry - to be registered in Arizona [6]). I think that until we can be more definitive about who is taking orders for what, such material is premature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

They aren't independent (WP:RSN agreed). We should be treating them appropriately as a result. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The result ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN#NyTeknik_and_Energy_Catalyzer ) is that they are considered primary source when they actively participate to an experiment, and this is not the case.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the reliability of sources, there is no evidence whatsoever to back up an assertion that the E-Cat is actually on sale via the internet (or anywhere else). It is true that ecat.com makes vague assertions about taking orders, but they offer no evidence that they have any contract with Rossi which would enable them to meet such orders. And then, of course, there is the problem that, as yet, nobody has actually proven that the E-Cat actually exists, except as the subject of Rossi's performance art. To suggest that the E-Cat is in any state to be sold at this point in time is ridiculous, and we shouldn't be acting as Rossi's marketing department. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The press seem to have a different opinion:
Fusione fredda tra affari e misteri, "Vendiamo la macchina sul web"
Il Resto del Carlino. "Bologna, 19 novembre 2011 - ADESSO il miracolo che la scienza aspetta da anni è in vendita su Internet"
TRANSLATION: "Bologna, 19 November 2011 - NOW the miracle that science waited for years is for sale on the internet"--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The press (or at least, an Italian local tabloid newspaper) seem to have a different opionion than you - in case you hadn't noticed, they put "Vendiamo la macchina sul web" in quotes, and follow up the later comments on it being on sale with a great deal of sceptical comments. To represent this as a simple assertion that the E-Cat is on sale, in the face of overwhelming evidence elsewhere that casts this into doubt, is just ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The scepticism in the article concerns the viability of the product, ie whether the E-Cat works or not, but the article reports the news the product is purchasable on the internet without questioning it.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does it put it in quotes in the headline, then? And why do you insist that this speculative twaddle is in any way significant? If the E-Cat was actually 'on sale', one would expect Rossi to say so. He doesn't. Instead, he makes his usual vague statements about his relationship with ecat-com, taking care to confirm precisely nothing. This is a non-event. It is nothing more than hype, and Wikipedia isn't here to contribute to this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Now can I restore the line you have deleted? The article reports the E-Cat is purchasable on the internet.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take it to WP:RS/N. I don't think that the article can possibly be cited in the unequivocal way you are using it. What's the hurry anyway? This isn't a newspaper, and we don't have deadlines - why not wait for comments from others first? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Last line from the article: «Il prodotto è sul mercato e il test migliore lo faranno i clienti: se non funziona, lo restituiranno», dice Rossi.

TRANSLATION: «the product is on the market, and the best test will be the one made by the customers: if it does not work they will give it back», Rossi says.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. "Rossi says". Rossi says all sorts of things. He isn't a reliable source. We aren't a conduit for his bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Rossi says" is not the point. I report what Rossi says because you write: "If the E-Cat was actually 'on sale', one would expect Rossi to say so. He doesn't". Actually, he does.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood why you quoted that. In any case, Rossi has been rather vague about this, and certainly hasn't confirmed that ecat.com are in a position to sell anything - and it is still only Rossi's word anyway. I still don't see what the urgency is. If the E-Cat is on sale, there will presumably be more details available soon. The fact that Rossi is prepared to make vague assertions, but nothing more, can only make one suspect he is engaging in hype again. Anyway, like I said, take this to WP:RSN if it is that important to you - we obviously aren't going to agree. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Domestic 10kW eCat Pre-Order (Option)

Discussion collapsed per wp:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not in a RS, but Rossi is taking options on pre-orders for domestic 10kW eCats. Andrea Rossi November 21st, 2011 at 11:25 PM Dear Felipe From Chile: You are right, we are organizing this. BY THE WAY: WE COLLECT FROM NOW THE NAMES OF ALL THE PERSONS OR ENITITES INTERESTED TO BUY AN E-CAT OF 10 KW. IF WE WILL REACH 10,000 NAMES IN THE LIST, THE PERSONS IN THE WAITING LIST WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONFIRM OR NOT THEIR ORDER AT 400 EURO/THERMAL KW. DO NOT SEND MONEY, WE WILL ACCEPT THE ORDERS ONLY IF WE WILL REACH 10,000 NAMES IN THE WAITING LIST, COMBINING OUR LIST WITH THE WAITING LIST ORGANIZED BY OUR BROTHERS OF HYDROFUSION . WARM REGARDS, ANDREA ROSSI, LEONARDO CORP. (PRESIDENT) Disclaimer : I placed an order. Alanf777 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC) "Not in a RS". Interesting maths though: 10,000 names x 10 Kw x 400 Euro/Kw. He's looking for a prospective 40 million Euros before he can 'confirm' anything? Well I'll confirm something for free - my name isn't going on the list :P AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Also : (Can this be a RS?) http://www.statehousenews.com/skedtuesday.htm EDITOR'S NOTE: According to Sen. Bruce Tarr, Andrea Rossi, "the Italian scientist who claims to have developed the world's first nuclear cold fusion reactor is coming to the State House tomorrow to explore the prospects of developing the device and producing it in Massachusetts." Tarr's office says Rossi plans to visit Tuesday morning for two days of meeting with government officials and representatives of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University Massachusetts and Northeastern University. "Mr. Rossi's reactor, if successfully proven and developed, has the potential to change the way the world deals with energy," Tarr said in a statement. Alanf777 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC) That is a primary source. If Rossi's visit gets reported in WP:RS, it might be worth including, depending of course on what actually happened... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC) (EC) "A _____ and his ______ are soon parted." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC) How's that buggy-whip business working out for you? Alanf777 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC) The first man I saw was of a meagre aspect, with sooty hands and face, his hair and beard long, ragged, and singed in several places. His clothes, shirt, and skin, were all of the same colour. He has been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were to be put in phials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers. He told me, he did not doubt, that, in eight years more, he should be able to supply the governor's gardens with sunshine, at a reasonable rate: but he complained that his stock was low, and entreated me "to give him something as an encouragement to ingenuity, especially since this had been a very dear season for cucumbers." I made him a small present, for my lord had furnished me with money on purpose, because he knew their practice of begging from all who go to see them. Jonathan Swift: Gulliver's Travels [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC) What part of "SEND NO MONEY" don't you understand. In any case, a few lines down : "There was a most ingenious architect, who had contrived a new method for building houses, by beginning at the roof, and working downward to the foundation; which he justified to me, by the like practice of those two prudent insects, the bee and the spider." That works just fine. You build each floor and then jack it up, so all your construction is at ground level. Alanf777 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC) If Rossi is proposing to produce 10,000 E-Cats, he's going to have to get money from somewhere - whether from investors, or from customer advances. Or does the E-Cat produce free money too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) He has to get certification and set up a production line. If he's selling 1MW's at $2M each -- the profits from one or two should be enough. Once the line is rolling, it's self-financing. This is straight-forward industrial engineering and business 101. If he follows his 1MW practice he'll take substantial down-payments in escrow -- to keep away frivolous enquiries. Edit : what part of Bushnell's "And so I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now. And if it does, this is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geo-politics and of solving climate and energy." don't you understand.Alanf777 (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC) The capital needs of a startup business can be surprisingly high. George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison each practically went broke in the startup of electric generation and appliances, which was certainly no hoax. You pay money before you make money. With the pledges, it would be easier to get bank financing. Stock promotion was an historic practice with hyped and unready technologies, like wireless telephones in 1902-1911. See Archie Frederick Collins. Lots of scientists such as Marconi uncritically said that his 1908 wireless telephones worked just great. Edison (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC) The complexity is roughly that of a refrigerator : I see quotes of $200,000-$300,000 for 1 line http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/276870432/Freezer_Production_line.html Alanf777 (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I think this thread needs collapsing, per WP:NOTFORUM. None of this remotely relates to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Gee ... I see 3? 4? posts by somebody who seems to have got hold of your password. Alanf777 (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I'm not suggesting I'm not partly responsible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Book

Just noticed there's a 204-page book on the eCat, apparently since September:

• John Michell: Rossi's eCat: Free Energy, Free Money, Free People, XECNET, Sept. 19 2011, ISBN 978-0955782633

(The John Michell is clearly not the same as the one in the Wikipedia article.) No idea when XECNET was founded, or whether it's single-purpose for commercializing the eCat.

Anyone here willing to check things out, or to buy the book to see if the book is worth to be included as "Further reading"? --87.174.28.91 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

From looking at XECNET's website [8], they don't seem to publish anything other than by John Michell, and seem to be IT consultants. It looks basically self-published, and as such I doubt that it will even meet WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Whipple: Miley verifies Rossi

"Now so much energy coming from such a small and inexpensive device, in violation of what are thought to be the principles of physics, seems too good to be true. As this phenomenon had not been independently repeated and verified by other laboratories, many pronounced it a fraud, a few the greatest breakthrough of the age, and the rest of us remained agnostic while awaiting further developments.

"They were not long in coming. Last week it was learned that George Miley, a Professor Emeritus of nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois who has been conducting experiments similar to those in Italy for many years, has been observing anomalous amounts of heat emanating from test equipment similar to that being used in Bologna".

Tom Whipple (November 16, 2011). "The Peak Oil Crisis: Transitioning to Cold Fusion". Falls Church News-Press.

This reference should be added to the Further reading section of the article. AnnaBennett (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? I can see nothing in Wikipedia:Further reading to justify it, and it appears to be a readers contribution from "a retired government analyst [who] has been following the peak oil issue for several years". Hardly a mainstream reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to close the issue here (and hoping to channel any Wikipedia-relevant Miley-related content to a more pin-pointed place), I have created the article George H. Miley on his biography and work. --Chris Howard (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that Miley meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (I've not looked into this), can I ask that we don't turn the biography into yet another cold fusion/LENR/E-Cat coatrack article, and instead treat his work in this field with due weight (according to current sources, rather than crystal-ball-gazing). AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As a sheer matter of courtesy, if there is something to criticize rg. an article then at least look into it first. --Chris Howard (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took that as a criticism of the article - it wasn't meant that way. It was a comment regarding the ridiculous attempts to spin the E-Cat that we are currently witnessing (as is evident from the heading to this section: Miley has 'validated' nothing). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying, no offense taken. The article may of course need watching, as any other article in a controversial field. My intention here is merely to provide a firm basis rg. M's bio and main work, which may also help to somewhat stabilize and cool down surrounding discussion. --Chris Howard (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just writing exactly that on your talk page. I'd much prefer if we focused our effort on the coverage of scientific cold fusion in stead of mainstream media version. The coat rack argument seems to try to get away from the science and into the drama.

On topic, George H. Miley should be considered an authority in the field. He has the credentials, the diplomas and the extensive research background. Peter Ekström is an unknown LENR researcher but his negative bias is nicely elaborated. It has great value as journalism but we also want to cover what research scientists say. We cant limit coverage to story tellers. Science is done with your hands. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the E-Cat, not about scientific research into cold fusion. Unless and until it is subjected to proper independent examination, 'science' is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Quote. This article is about the E-Cat, we are not scientists. We can only report that exist a device which was developed by someone, that has given rise to controversy and hopes around the world. We just have to report everything in a neutral and encyclopedic way.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree, I hope the "delete, delete, delete, this is all fringe and a scam" editors will take note also --POVbrigand (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

btw, I just noticed that Falls Church is the location of the defense contractor Northrop Grumman who happens to have a name that starts with an "N" and who happens to be one of "only two companies capable of producing U.S. nuclear submarines." I am not sure who Tom Whipple is, but it might be this guy, and here. So it appears he is more than just a blogger and he could be Reliable Source. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No. It appears that you are using WP:OR to arrive at at that conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The policy about original research is in regards to what can be included on Wikipedia within the article. Citing "original research" as a reason to dismiss an "expert" or some source has nothing to do with this policy at all and doesn't apply. You can cite a source as being self-published or be critical for policy reasons about the source itself, but this is a perversion of the "original research" philosophy. You might consider some of the things published by this guy as a primary source, and I'm not suggesting here that this particular tidbit even needs to be in the article. But don't grasp and abuse policies beyond what their scope is all about. There certainly are much better ways to attack a source than to invoke WP:OR, where "original research" certainly can be used to help make the case that a source is reliable, when used on the talk page. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are suggesting that an attempt to attach credibility to a source because he lives near a defense contractor with a name starting with an "N" isn't original research? Actually, 'utter bollocks' would be a more acurate description. There is enough speculative nonsense written on the E-Cat already, and we don't need more on this talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, all I'm saying is don't misapply the wrong policy to the situation or try to belittle an attempt to demonstrate credibility of a source through a misapplication of a policy that simply doesn't fit the situation. If a source doesn't hold credibility, there are other ways to demonstrate that fact. BTW, while the "name starting with an 'N'" is something that certainly stands very weak, it can be found from other "sources" as having been said and thus isn't "original research". The problem with that "fact" is that it can't be verified, not that it may or may not be "original research". I agree that speculation needs to end within this article, but let's try to be nice to each other too. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that wp:SYNTH is one type of wp:OR. Andy might have been more specific, but he was essentially correct. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, I put this Northrop Grumman thing in small because it is just a silly coincidence. That has nothing to do with our evaluation whether the blogger Tom Whipple is a reliable source or not. To me it seems this guy is "an expert" or at least knows what he is talking about. What I do not know is whether the peak oil community is a group with an agenda. If that is the case his comments could be biased and that would then be the only reason why we should be careful. He appears reliable to me: "30 years as CIA analyst" and "Virginia senator spouse" is not your average Joe Blogger. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bologna Chronicle : Rossi contract expected to start soon

I added the link, and a translation provided by Akira Shirakawa on the Vortex mailing list, which is less garbled than google translate. I leave it to someone more adept at wiki to change the link to a ref : maybe just put the summary line in the article, and the italian + english quotes in the ref. Alanf777 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

done, hope you like it --POVbrigand (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Works for me .... I might tweak the summary and the quotes (some can be cut out) but I can do that within your template. Gotta read up on some of the how-tos ... one of these days. Alanf777 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Rephrasing completed. I'm done. Alanf777 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done. I was also thinking about putting that "peer-reviewed" promise in. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had to revert this, as use of the translation (which wasn't even attributed) is likely to be a copyright violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed your concern of copyvio, what's next Andy? --POVbrigand (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to get snarky - we have to take copyright issues seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Snarky, me ? You know, I have never seen you add anything, all you are good at is complain and delete. If you were seriously concerned about improving the article you could have done the same edit as I just did. Instead you just look for some reason to delete, delete, delete to satisfy your POV that this article does "not deserve" to be improved. Sad actually --POVbrigand (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you persist with your violations of WP:CIVIL, I shall raise this at the appropriate noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By the same measure, Michelangelo would have been a terrible Wikipedia editor—he took a perfectly good chunk of marble, and then threw most if it away. When an article is poorly organized and stuffed full of speculation and dubious statements from low-quality sources, the correct editorial response is going to be biased towards removal of content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, and Michelangelo had great skill in only throwing out what wasn't needed in contrast to WP-editors who will just throw out everything each time. Either you are an editor with skill and you can happily relate yourself with the working of great historical artists if you need that to boost your moral or you are not and then you should better compare yourself with a demolition team. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. We get the message. You don't like people who object to you using Wikipedia to push fringe 'science' and dubious miraculous 'devices' peddled by characters with a murky past. Well tough. Wikipedia has policies, arrived at by consensus after discussion, which make such objections entirely justifiable. If you wish to pursue your agenda, you have two choices: either attempt to get the policies revised (which you cannot do on this talk page), or concentrate your efforts elsewhere - there are multiple forums and websites more amenable to your POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not think you get the message. FWIW here are the policies: Wikipedia:List_of_policies. The rest is just your imagination. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability - none of that justifies ludicrous hype and speculation about dubious gizmos that supposedly work by an unproven 'science' that the inventor won't disclose, regardless of how much some contributors want it to be true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion was for Copyvio and now you talk about NPOV, OR, and Verifiability. I guess you forgot to mention FRINGE and DUE. All your complaints here are just driven by your dissatisfaction that this article didn't get deleted in the last AfD. It seems concensus is somewhere else than you are. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems reality is somewhere else than you are. How about you stop whining and look for something useful instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You ran out of arguments ? --POVbrigand (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I put in the italian and the google translate. Jones. Henry. Alanf777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

This is the original article, from the Corriere della Sera, Bologna edition:

«Il nostro interesse è fortissimo — dichiara Paolo Capiluppi, direttore del dipartimento —, c’è molta curiosità, ma per noi è vero solo ciò che possiamo misurare». Per rendere attivo il contratto ci vuole il versamento della prima rata del contributo, 500 mila euro in due anni, che Rossi si è impegnato a dare per sostenere tutti i costi. «Dovremmo partire a breve, tra qualche settimana — confida Enrico Campari, docente di fisica sperimentale e responsabile scientifico della ricerca con Giuseppe Levi —, in estate si potrebbero avere i primi report scientifici dei risultati ottenuti che divulgheremo alle riviste scientifiche».

TRANSLATION

«Our interest is very strong - Paolo Capiluppi, Director of the Department [of Physics], states -, there is much curiosity, but for us only what can be measured is real». To activate the contract the first instalment of the contribution, 500000 euros within two years, must be paid by Rossi who will cover all the expenses. «We hope to start soon, within a few weeks - experimental physics teacher Enrico Campari, who will supervise the research together with Giuseppe Levi, confides -, the first scientific reports concerning the obtained results will probably be ready during the summer and we will disclose them to the scientific journals».

http://corrieredibologna.corriere.it/bologna/notizie/cronaca/2011/23-novembre-2011/fusione-fredda-svolta-o-bluff-cat-sotto-esame-ateneo-1902274913518.shtml

--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is a translation of one paragraph - Corriere Di Bologna starts the next paragpaph "It is the invention of the century or a bluff?", and later mentions Rossi's dubious background: "Not to mention that Rossi has a past tied to no clear plan to transform industrial waste into oil" - the latter evidently missing something in Google translation. I think we perhaps need to ask if the quotation isn't being a little selective here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking at the language desk (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#.22Un_passato_non_chiaro.22_-_can_someone_please_translate_from_Italian.3F), it seems that a better translation of the phrase would be "a shadowy past" - they seem to be dropping hints, without saying too much outright. Not exactly a glowing endorsement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Un passato non chiaro" means "a not-so-clear past". So it is literally: "Rossi has a not-so-clear past linked to the project of transforming industrial waste into oil." (Rossi ha un passato non chiaro legato al progetto di trasformare rifiuti industriali in petrolio.)--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering when the (little tiny piece) of the mainstream media covering this will notice that this is actually Rossi's third alternative-energy-related technology. While Petroldragon's story tends to get lost in the political and legal battles, the Leonardo Technologies thermoelectric tale is one of unambiguous technical failure in independent lab tests (despite Rossi's initial claims of wild success and initial demonstrations). Remarkably, it seems that Leonardo is now going to be Rossi's U.S. partner. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, have any MSM/RS mentioned Rossi's mail-order degree? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Or indeed his alleged involvement with gold smuggling? Given that almost everything positive said about the E-Cat comes down to Rossi's word, his "not-so-clear past" would seem relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(Undo didn't work?)Alanf777 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I made a comment for which I have no RS ... I clicked undo but it's still here ... I'll delete it by hand, too. Alanf777 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Where did that "so" come from? "non chiaro" translates directly to "not clear" or "non-clear". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The direct translation is "not clear" or "non-clear".--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Added a sentence indicating scientific concerns, Rossi's past and Campari's response. If you want to take his past further, start a new section? Google-translate, feel free to improve. Alanf777 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to the deletion of that sentence. Campari is identified in the already-listed paragraph as being the supervisor of the research Alanf777 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the current policy ... post (or delete) and discuss, or discuss and then post (or delete) if there seems to be consensus.

EV World seems to be a website specialising in electric vehicles - and yet again all we have is them telling us what Rossi has told them about his mysterious 'customer'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet you allow a "Rossi claims ... 13" from Wired? There's also the focus.it saying the same thing, with a direct quote (rather than a summary). I'll add the focus.it link and quote Alanf777 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved a bunch of proposed changes for clarity, and deleted them from here Alanf777 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, Josephson's open letter to Rossi.

Interesting article on Focus.it - see here: [9]. One gets the impression that Josephson is getting somewhat impatient with Rossi's persistent refusal to actually allow proper investigations (as opposed to stating that he will do later - he's been doing that for months...). I'll leave a message on prof Josephson's talk page, to see if he has any comments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm ... we've gone from requiring RS to soliciting comments from the original person quoted in an article? Can we all do that -- I've got lots of questions I'd like to ask Rossi ... Alanf777 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that prof Josephson has been a regular contributor on this talk page, it seems only polite to inform him that we are discussing his open letter. But yes, I'd like to ask Rossi questions too, though I wouldn't expect straight answers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Here the answer from Rossi: [10] --79.17.131.145 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting: "I don't intend to give any other dimostrative test: the last one has been the one of Oct, 6th. We are selling plants to customers who run their own tests and decide whether to buy the E-Cat or not relying on their results: they don't mind what's inside the reactor. Meanwhile, the university of Bologna will take scrupulous care of the scientific work. If the DECC, or any other public or private organization, has taken an interest in this technology, I suggest them to get in touch and discuss any possible business agreement with me". So Rossi is now saying that customers have either got to commit to buying an E-Cat and testing it afterwards (presumably getting their money back if it doesn't work), or wait until Bologna University finally publishes results (which will no doubt lead to calls for peer-reviews etc). A strange way to do business, I'd have thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned? (Sorry, pre-signed by IP) Rossi requires people who place orders to put the money into escrow, which is released only after the customer-defined acceptance test. Alanf777 (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a link to evidence of that? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

www.leonardo-ecat.com has been de-rated as an offical site, but (for instance) http://pesn.com/2011/11/17/9601958_ECat.com_Launched_by_N._Europe_Licensee/ says : "If you are a 1 MW customer and want guidance about what parameters to include in your test set-up (to be passed prior to release of escrow deposit), you're more likely to find that at our website than at ECat.com." I believe it's in the order form http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/1MW_Offer_Template.docx at http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/index.html : I only have Office 2003 which doesn't like .docx I couldn't see a RS ... but this is TALK. Alanf777 (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but if you make a specific claim it is nice to see where you got the information from. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I coulda sworn I just did that: Follow the links, Luke. If you can read .docx, please report back what it says. Alanf777 (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

From the leonardo-ecat.com website: "that this content is by Sterling Allan and does not represent an official stance of Leonardo Corporation" - and no mention of escrow. The docx document seems to be some sort of 'order form' - Open Office screws up the formatting, but I can't see any mention of escrow on that either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I explained all that. At the time the site was put up, it WAS endorsed by Rossi. In response to the CHAT that YOU started .... unsigned/BELATEDLY signed, I see. And don't you even THINK of collapsing this section because of "not a forum". IF you include your comment on his business practices IN THE ARTICLE .. THEN I'll find an RS. Google ecat escrow ... Alanf777 (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I forgot to sign my post. A common enough mistake - why get in a tizzy over it? In any case, the Rossi 'endorsement' was withdrawn, as Rossi stated the website contained factual errors. And nothing from the PESN website is remotely WP:RS, full stop. It is a blog run by Sterling Allan, nothing more. If you can find a reliable source that cites Rossi as saying money will be held in escrow, then we can think about mentioning it - we find sources first, and then write the article, remember? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Here you go : [11] interview with the owners of the official ecat.com site : "3. Ensure that all payments are done through an escrow account with a full refund if the products do not meet the specifications." That's specific to their "Northern Europe" sales , but it sure seems to be Rossi's policy. Alanf777 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And NyT online Q&A with Rossi : [12] "Our Customers pay money only after Successful Testing of our E-Cats: the money, in case of plants sale, remains in the Customer's escrow account Until Successful testing is made. " Alanf777 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and look what the first source actually says: “This is a difficult question as it’s Rossi’s responsibility that the product works. We only act as agents... because there are powerful forces who want to argue that it’s all about fraud, we will make one or more of the following to prove our honesty... 3 Ensure that all payments are done through an escrow account with a full refund if the products do not meet the specifications..." Note that they say "one or more of the following" - there are 5 options, and escrow is only one possibility - and they are only "agents" anyway. So that doesn't back up a claim that Rossi has stated he will hold money in escrow either. As for Rossi's comments (from March this year, and a lot has happened since then) " Our Customers pay money only after successful testing of our E-Cats: the money, in case of plants sale, remains in the Customer´s escrow account until successful testing is made. So any stupid trick could only damage ourselves, not the Customers". This doesn't actually say who is doing the testing, or what qualifies as "successful". Escrow accounts are no sort of a panacea against fraud anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Boy, you sure like to cherry-pick anything negative you can find. Edit -- Holm : " I do not have much sympathy for the crowd of skeptics who insist in spending substantial time and energy, just to be able to boast a ‘what did I say’ if it should turn out to be wrong.” Alanf777 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the mystery needs to be explained.

There is a standard contract, which is identical to the one signed by the 28th Oct customer. The contract allows a binding proof, ie you can test the plant BEFORE BUYING IT but if the the test is successfully performed then you cannot draw back: you have to buy the plant.

Of course, if the test goes wrong you can draw back and decide not to buy the plant.

--79.10.163.86 (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please give us your source for that? I'm sure we'd like to see the contract signed by the mysterious 'customer'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

So, are you some sort of 'insider'? You seem to be suggesting that you have access to the full text of both contracts purportedly signed by Rossi. As AndyTheGrump requests, an explanation of your source(s) would be very helpful. I am also very curious to see the 'gag' terms imposed by the contracts—under what circumstances are the elusive customers allowed to publicly comment on their Energy Catalyzers? Dollars to doughnuts they're not allowed to talk about them without Rossi's permission.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to seek in terms of 'gag' terms. The terms of the contract are very simple: the plant is devised to deliver a minimum guaranteed COP of 6. In other words, you immit 1 and the plant must emit at least 6 (in terms of output of heat). This is one of the main conditions to be met during the test.--79.16.165.182 (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please tell us the source for all this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Dunno if someone else posted it:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B__Wi_DF2CjJNTMyZTdlYjAtYzM3OC00ZGFjLTlkMjAtOWFkYWExODI4NmQ3&hl=en_US
This is supposed to be a sales brochure marketing the 1 MW E-Cat plant [13][14][15].--Insilvis (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd need a way to ascertain that it was genuine before we used it in any way in the article. It doesn't really tell us anything new though, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

You can see them WITH ref's properly rendered on my talk page

Three changes to the Evaluation section.

• [16] Extend Bushnell quote, WL (now that we have an eCat tie in -- see the patent : it covers Proton+Metal Hydride = Hydrogen +Nickel) and Patent application.
• [17] Put back my Nov 23 extension ... two versions offered
• [18] : added date as a hint that their last comment is out of date.

Add to Commercial plans :

• Rossi interview on evworld [19]

and/or focus.it saying the same thing with a direct quote.

I'll get a formal clearance for evworld if we go with it. That's right, the official wiki release !! (BTDT) Alanf777 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Change to Demonstrations :

• [20] Change "not scientific" to "calorimetric only".

Time, Power (Volt,Amps,Watts), Flow(By weight and meter), Temperature = Calorimetry = Science

I moved these from another section ... I'll go back and delete the duplicates Alanf777 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'Extended Bushnell quote' looks like synthesis, for a start. EV World (a website specialising in electric vehicles) is only repeating Rossi's claims - and we have those already. Your 'Change to Demonstrations' proposal looks like OR/synthesis too, I think. I'll need to look at this further though - its getting late, and my brain needs a catalyzer refill or something ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"The 'Extended Bushnell quote' looks like synthesis" : How so? All I provided was a tie-in between HL and WL with "Heavy electrons are an essential requirement" so that a reader can easily see the relationship, and look up what HE's are. I couldn't find a 1-line quote from the patent or from WL's paper. Alanf777 (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Bushnell paragraph with a one-clause summary of the WL theory followed by a sentence which is fully main-stream nuclear science. Alanf777 (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"EV World (a website specialising in electric vehicles) is only repeating Rossi's claims" : I cut down Moore's comment to include only new information. I don't object to leaving it with focus.it only. Alanf777 (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Google 'site:evworld.com "alternative" "energy"' About 6,030 results shows they have a long history in this area. eg Nov 2000 : [evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=34] Interest in the eCat came up with the Bushnell interview, who put it as #1 of his list of emerging technologies. Alanf777 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Modified Evaluation/physorg to include date : changed "has" to "had" Alanf777 (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Added focus.it, without any evworld quote. Alanf777 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Changed "not scientific" to "calorimetric only". Put a note in Calorimetry discussion that I plan to add a section on flow calorimetry. Alanf777 (talk)

How do I make a formal wiki complaint concerning AtG's assertion that "calorimetry" is not "scientific"? All of the ref'd articles and reports state that calorimetry was performed. Show me ONE that says that it was NOT. Alanf777 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that '"calorimetry" is not "scientific"'. I'm asserting that the calorimetry carried out at the demonstrations wasn't done in an appropriately scientific way. As for complaints, you could try WP:Wikiquette assistance, [[WP:RfC/U] or WP:ANI - but I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording yet again. Bhny (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Slightly cumbersome phrasing, but no fundamental objection. Alanf777 (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Cumbersome phrasing is a wikipedia specialty. I would prefer something simpler but we need enough adjectives, verbs and adverbs to satisfy everyone Bhny (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Insilvis came up with a nice, short phrasing. Alanf777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

I've tweaked it slightly, to make clear that the excess heat is only a claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. Alanf777 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Last call on the revised bushnell quote -- see the ref's properly formatted at [[21]]

Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, described LENR as a "promising" technology and praised the work of Rossi and Focardi. Bushnell also said that they were starting an experiment to test the Widom-Larson theory, in which a Heavy electron combines with a proton, through the Weak Nuclear Force (and thus avoiding the Coulomb barrier), creating a neutrino and a neutron. The neutron can then enter a nearby nucleus, causing additional nuclear reactions. On Oct 6, 2011 the US Patent Office published an application by NASA Langley scientist Joseph Zawodny for a patent "Method For Producing Heavy Electrons", which quotes the Widom-Larsen theory and includes "by reference in its entirety" Larsen's Patent No. 7,893,414. Alanf777 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything beyond the first sentence is off-topic in an article on the E-Cat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Then take out " He cites the unlikelihood of a chemical reaction being strong enough to overcome the Coulomb barrier, the lack of gamma rays, the lack of explanation for the origin of the extra energy" .... " The principles defy the laws of physics" ...

We previously had WL in a separate "Theoretical Explanations" section, but you disallowed WL because it only described deuterium-palladium : but now Zawodny has opened the door with "Proton=Hydrogen" + "Metal Hydride=Nickel" and therefore applies to the eCat. My two-sentence summary avoids the technical language of the paper and patent. Alanf777 (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. I don't think anyone has said "E-cat is based on Widom-Larson theory", so it's off-topic Bhny (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're all quite right. If I stand on my head , pat my stomach and say "Flat Earth" very quickly three times, I can convince myself that although Bushnell referred to WL and the eCat in the same interview, and it's components in the same paragraph "Back in 05-06 Widom-Larsen came out with a theory that said, no it’s not cold fusion, it’s weak interactions using the Standard Model of quantum mechanics, only the weak interaction part. Says that if you set up one of these cells, and you don’t have to use deuterium, hydrogen works fine, nickel works fine, you don’t need palladium. " -- the fact that he did not use them in the same SENTENCE means that he meant that WL had nothing at all to do with the eCat, but everything to do with deuterium-palladium. Flat Earth. Flat Earth. Flat Earth. OK? Alanf777 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Bushnell has no more idea than the rest of us as to what Rossi's E-Cat consists of, how can he possibly say that WL is relevant? This is just speculation, once again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The eCat doesn't use hydrogen and nickel. FE! FE! FE! Alanf777 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We have no reliable source that states that the E-Cat 'uses' anything. All we have is Rossi's waffle... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)