Talk:Energy Catalyzer

Andrea Rossi engineer?

Esowatch states article, that Rossi has a "engineering degree" (ChemE) from Kensington University inc., which seems to be a Hawaii based company and unaccredited school. This company operated from Glendale in California (Kensington University, 520 E Broadway Suite 400, Glendale, CA 91205) and was shut down by the law. ("LA-Times": Kensington University Faces Closure Hearing. April 23, 1996): citation: Kensington University has no classrooms, laboratories or dorms. Its students don't play football, join fraternities or linger dreamily on a quadrangle. In fact, the entire campus is housed in a small Glendale office building. Recruiting from across the nation, the school runs a program in which students studying entirely at home can earn anything from a bachelor's degree to a doctorate--all without ever attending a single class or even meeting their instructors face to face.. See also: [1] [2] List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_education.94.134.49.17 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "Mr." instead of "engineer" --Lundq (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed per wp:Naming conventions (people).LeadSongDog come howl! 19:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Learning has nothing to do with meeting someone or going inside a particular building. Major Universities (e.g., MIT) have Online degree programs.

New comment on Rossi's title: I have re-inserted the title Engineer of Andrea Rossi. His main title is from Università degli Studi di Milano. I have an original document obtained from this university confirming that the title is Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia, dated December 10, 1975 (I don't know if I should submit this document somewhere). As a journalist I have interviewed Rossi and he says that the title from Kensington University is an honorary title he gained because of an earlier patent regarding bio fuel. He claims he knows no more about this university.--Matslewan (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for us to apply what is usually a professional title associated with a licensed profession to someone who received it as an honour from what seems to be a degree mill. The Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia may be relevant, but without knowing what field it is in it is ambiguous. (Is it like an M.Phil. or Ph.D., which can be in any subject, or does it have special meaning?) Absent any clearly-awarded engineering degree from a suitably accredited institution or a professional engineering qualification, it is not appropriate to call someone an 'engineer'. Italy – and most jurisdictions, really – regulate the use of the term 'engineer'; does Rossi have any of the qualifications listed in our Professional Engineer article? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. Does he have a legal license to practice? Does he have a substantive degree from a credible granting institution? Is the degree relevant to the matter being discussed? But ultimately we still don't use honorifics or titles in describing someone per wp:HONORIFIC. If it was pertinent in a discussion of general relativity, we would state "While Albert Einstein held xx chair as a professor of physics at Princeton University he ..." without calling him "Professor Albert Einstein". Not that I'm implying any semblance of parallel. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question, it looks like he doesn't have any real formal qualifications in engineering (or in any science). Based on his self-published biographical sketch, his only degrees are from Kensington University (shut down as a diploma mill) and the University of Milan (which actually was a straight-up philosophy degree, albeit in the philosophy of science). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Should 12KW fusion source produce enough gamma radiation

Regarding the 12KW demonstration, the article writes, "This result conflicts with current theoretical and experimental knowledge of nuclear fusion ... " yet it does not cite or show the math as to how much gamma radiation a 12KW fusion source would produce. Does anyone here have any idea how low 12KW is in terms of nuclear fusion radiation? If it's truth & logic we seek, then those sections of the article should be deleted or show the math. It would be interesting to see what the predicted gamma radiation should be from a 12KW nuclear *fusion* source. Lets please stick to facts on WikiPedia.

Actually, in Wikipedia we should stick to reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources for "This result conflicts with ....", then it should be deleted or a reliable source should be provided.--Nowa (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Branching ratios are known to be very different in low energy reactions so you can't really predict. Most of the energy comes in the form of heat, but small amounts of nuclear products have been detected. Edmund Storms has an informative lecture on YouTube which will probably give details. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 5, cited twice in that paragraph, refers directly to the report by Mauro Villa describing how gamma radiation measurements were undertaken during the demonstration. It describes in detail what the anticipated gamma ray production should be, given the nominal energy output of the device and the inventors' proposed mechanism of operation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. However, there is some concern that the Journal of Nuclear Physics, which published the Villa article, is not a reliable source --Nowa (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that we certainly shouldn't treat the blog on equal footing with a proper peer-reviewed journal, I think it's not unreasonable to use it in this manner. The mechanism by which gamma rays should be produced is drawn from the inventors' own patent application; the Villa reference is being used solely because it contains the gamma ray measurements, and represents the only such measurements that took place during the January 14 press conference. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just that it's a blog. It's a self published source by the people making the claims. In other words, there is no fact checking implicit in the publication. Hence it should only be used to support assertions that "he wrote that ..." If in doubt, consult at wp:RSN.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

So it's a self-published claim that his own device doesn't work? Weird. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the argument to remove the sentence. There is at least one theory (Widom-Larsen) published in two reputable peer-reviewed journals that posits a mechanism in accordance with Standard Model physics for gamma ray suppression in low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) and a US Patent for gamma-ray shielding was granted to Larsen's company based on that mechanism. W-L theory may or may not be correct and/or may not apply to the configuration of Rossi's device but until either W-L is refuted or further information about the internals of the Energy Catalyzer emerges, it seems to me that a blanket declaration that the lack of measured gamma rays conflicts with accepted nuclear science is an overstatement. Links to pdf's of papers and patent below.

"Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces," Eur. Phys. J. C (2006)

"A Primer for Electro-Weak Induced Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" Pramana (Indian Academy of Sciences) 2008

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR. ABSORPTION OF INCIDENT GAMMA RADIATION ...

PDF of full patent image Frogwing (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"is supposed..." or "was supposed to be inaugurated..."

I've noted that some of you have changed back and forth between "is" and "was" in the phrase "The plant which would supply heating for Defkalion's own purposes only, was supposed to be inaugurated in October 2011." Please explain your changing. As far as I know (I was the one who wrote the original piece based on my own interviews with Defkalion and Rossi) the plan for inauguration in October is still on track. --Matslewan (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Background on Andrea Rossi, Symeon Tsalikoglou, Defkalion

Andrea Rossi

Is there someone with a stronger background in the Italian language who can look at it:Petroldragon? It looks like this guy has had some serious legal issues in the past relating to a 'green' technology company. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My Italian isn't up to much but I know he was cleared. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He's been cleared. The article on Petroldragon in Italian Wikipedia is quite comprehensive (you could maybe try using Google translate if you don't read Italian). If you want to hear Rossi's own version of the story it's here (in English): ingandrearossi.net. Note that the story is significant to understand his motives as an entrepreneur -- it is disputed whether he ever did something illegal, but it's clear that he was a pioneer within biofuel and from early years showed an interest in clean energy sources. --Matslewan (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Symeon Tsalikoglou and Defkalion

I am unable to find any information at all about this individual. Since there are press releases circulating which claim Defkalion is making investments of up to 200 million euro, it seems odd that the company 'spokesperson' has no obvious previous track record. The company itself has a one-page website, and no further information; can anyone find any information about the company's legal status or any of its officers (president, CEO, vice presidents, board of directors)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not the only one. I'm researching this and have some good indications that the company exists and is sane. Nothing yet that holds for further publication though.--Matslewan (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Categorization and Content

I'm very much bothered by the categorization of this article and the associated content. I'm interested in the raw data (news, successes/failures), not in theories about why the E Cat may or may not work. This article is way too tied up in issues best addressed in a discussion of the history of science, and is doing little to provide a focal point for determining the actual facts. I think the whole article as it is should be scrapped -- including its designation as of physical or pseudo-scientific interest, and that it should be restarted as a report upon ongoing current events. Some of the discussion addresses the real issues, but the article itself is a worthless rehash of oft stated positions. Sphere1952 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a characteristic problem of science by press release. When we have real publications to work from, we will all be happy to use them. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article looks better today. A nice clean report of known facts. Sphere1952 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

While I suppose that the formatting is pretty, I have to disagree that it is better as an encyclopedia article. The article is entirely supported by blog entries, half by an IT writer who for the most part is just repeating the inventor's assertions, and half from the inventor's self-published web site. The article is largely structured as yet another blog, with an entry for each spate of press releases (one section for each press conference, plus one for their nearly-invisible company). Right now, this is a dreadful article that grants undue weight to unreliable sources. We are presenting claims and assertions as 'known facts', and doing a disservice to our readers. I'm beginning to believe that proper secondary sources just don't exist for this topic right now, and that it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on this at all right now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As I suppose that the it-writer is me, and also that my articles are called blog entries, I guess I have to respond. I'm a scientific journalist with more that ten years experience. I hold a Master of Science in Engineering Physiscs from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. I'm a staff writer since 2002 at Ny Teknik which is founded 1967 and has about 300,000 readers and a circulation of about 145,000. For further comments on my contribution see my talk page. I will soon provide more comments here.--Matslewan (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing info?

Perhaps I've overlooked it, but I can't find anything in any of the sources that shows the before and after mass for the whole system, just for the hydrogen tank. Did anyone else spot it somewhere? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not there. I have to say that on the whole this is engineering and experimentation, not quite science. People looking for some sort of final explanation are going to be disappointed. Either the Energy Catalyzer will prove to be exothermic or it will not. Explanations will either not be necessary or will have to be invented based upon the data. Right now this is a current event; which will have some sort of outcome. We shouldn't be in the business of predicting outcomes, but rather in the business of reporting known facts. Sphere1952 (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The device was never weighed before and after, even though this was the intention by Levi. The reason is that the precision scale that he brought had a range to 15 kg whereas the device had a weight of about 30 kg.--Matslewan (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Painfully credulous reporting

This article has some pretty serious sourcing issues. If we're treating this as a scientific phenomenon rather than a political or business story, then we are essentially entirely lacking in reliable sources. The only formal independent evaluation of the claims is in the report on patentability, which found the claims implausible and unsupported by the evidence provided by the inventor.

The bulk of material that isn't in the self-published 'Journal' of Nuclear Physics blog comes from a Ny Teknik blogger, Mats Lewan. While I understand that every writer wants to cover interesting stories and dreams of being part of a big event as it happens, I am very concerned about the slant to his blog entries, and his apparent inexperience in reporting on (putative) scientific discoveries.

The latest Lewan blog post added as a source to the article illustrates the point. Lewan interviewed Sven Kullander, a professor emeritus from Uppsala University. The blog declares in bold print "Swedish physicists on the E-cat: “It’s a nuclear reaction”", followed later by "The used powder contains ten percent copper". What was actually said in the interview?

a portion of the Q&A about isotopic composition, from Ny Teknik
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results? Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural.

The samples analyzed were described as the raw nickel material used as 'fuel' for the EC, and a sample of fuel retrieved after about 2.5 months of continuous 'burning' in the EC. The raw material was predominantly nickel, as expected, while the output contained mostly nickel plus 10% copper and 11% iron(!). A naive reading of these data would suggest that Rossi's device does work as advertised, and it is somehow fusing nickel with hydrogen to produce energy without detectable ionizing radiation.

But what do the numbers really tell us? For that matter, what is Kullander really saying in his responses? First off, he notes that relative isotopic abundances of nickel and copper in the samples are exactly the same as in the naturally-occurring metals. (For nickel, that would be mostly nickel-58 and nickel-60, with about 3.6% nickel-62 and 0.9% nickel-64. For copper that's 69% copper-63 and 31% copper-65.) Kullander explicitly calls out that this is "somewhat strange". For those who don't speak 'scientist', that's code for this is very suspicious, but real scientists hate to make definitive pronouncements about things that might have happened in someone else's lab, and I'm too busy to deal with a lawsuit. Had fusion genuinely been occurring, then the 'used' nickel fuel should have been depleted of the Ni-62 and Ni-64 isotopes required to generate the observed Cu-63 and Cu-65. There is also no good reason why the probability of a nuclear process should coincidentally generate exactly the same ratio of elements observed in nature. (That doesn't mean it can't be a coincidence; it's just damn suspicious.)

It is also rather surprising that the mass fraction of copper in the output (10%) is greater than the combined mass fraction of fusible nickel isotopes (3.6+0.9=4.5%) in the input fuel. Either the sample of 'used' fuel is somehow not representative of the device's output, or there are some even-less-plausible-than-the-rest-of-this-stuff reactions involving (as Kullander notes) multiple hydrogen atoms fusing with each nickel nucleus.

The presence of iron is, meanwhile, just plain mysterious. Is it the result of gross contamination (throwing the relevance of the analysis further into doubt) or is it supposed to be from some even more exotic and implausible nuclear reaction?

While the mix of metals observed could have come from fusion, but could much more easily be produced by mixing together ordinary powdered nickel and copper. Lewan didn't know what he didn't know, and failed to ask the important followup questions. Worse, he headlined his pieces with bold (and bald) declarations that were inconsistent with the evidence presented.

I have similar reservations about the way that he has reported on the company, Defkalion Green Technologies, which purportedly will sell EC devices. Lewan boldly announces "Cold Fusion: Here's the Greek company building 1 MW...", but fails to investigation any of the claims or individuals involved. The only person or entities so far definitively linked with Defkalion are their mysterious 'spokesman' Symeon Tsalikoglou, and EON/Leonardo Corporation, a company Rossi recently sold.

Defkalion has made no public annoucements about any of its partners, company officers, board of directors, or sources of funding (if any), and Lewan has failed to ask about any of these points. Is Defkalion a real company, or just a front? The only online information I can locate about any Symeon Tsalikoglou is that someone by that name is (or was) Director of International Sales for Milotos Editions, a division of the Greek publishing company Troia Publishing. Is there anyone with a track record in the energy industry associated with Defkalion? Are there any energy companies involved that don't have intimate ties to the inventor(s)? Lewan's article talks about "partners" and "a consortium", but doesn't (can't?) name names.

For what it's worth, I don't think that Lewan is involved in any sort of deception himself; I consider it much more likely that he's just getting played. In any event, a blogger is not a good sole source for what would be – if true – this century's most stunning technological advance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(moved from interjection above, please don't insert your comments in other editors' signed remarks) OK, apologies.

Why are you referring to a reporter for a well-established technical newspaper as a 'blogger'? Do you not appreciate the difference between the two forms of literature? People can consult the W. article on Ny Teknik if they are unclear as to the importance of the publication that Lewan writes for. Brian Josephson (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

He is supposedly the IT editor at Ny Teknik, a weekly tech newspaper. Which says nothing about whether his words were subjected to independent fact checking. Most such papers in my experience are flush with stuff virtually straight from the press releases they get. But if in doubt there's always wp:RSN to consult. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Start at the Ny Teknik homepage and click on Bloggar. The second thumbnail is labelled IT-bloggen: Mats Lewan om idéer och utmaningar i en uppkopplad värld (roughly speaking, "IT blog: Mats Lewan on ideas an challenges in a connected world.") I identify Mats Lewan as a blogger because that's what he's identified as by Ny Teknik. Moreover, it looks a lot like Lewan is writing outside his regular area of expertise; aside from the deficiencies I've already noted, a look at his blog reveals that he generally writes about new consumer gadgets (smartphones and the like) and software applications, and he is called an IT blogger by Ny Teknik. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Painfully loose thinking by the Professor! Someone who works for a newspaper can perfectly well fulfil two different roles. If this is the case, you don't characterise that person by the lesser of the two (or, for that matter, confuse the two roles when discussing a specific contribution). --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the 'area of expertise' issue, the physics involved in the question of the amount of heat produced and whether it can be explained on conventional grounds is very elementary, school physics pretty well. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll repreat my background. I'm a scientific journalist with more than ten years experience. I hold a Master of Science in Engineering Physiscs from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. I'm a staff writer since 2002 at Ny Teknik which is founded 1967 and has about 300,000 readers and a circulation of about 145,000. I used to be the It & Telecom editor at Ny Teknik, and as such I also made comments as blog posts on a blog integrated in the website Nyteknik.se, called It-bloggen. I still report a lot on the it-sector, but given my academic background I often get involved when we deal with complex scientific topics. However, we are about 20 journalists at the Ny Teknik newsroom, a couple of them with similar background as mine. We cover all kinds of technologies and discuss all news material on a daily basis. Our readers, mainly professional engineers, expect a very high accuracy. For further comments on my contribution see my talk page. --Matslewan (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matslewan (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably not usable, but this German discussion may shed some light on the people involved. Can someone assess?LeadSongDog come howl! 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Erk. Our article on Telepolis certainly seems to put it pretty far out on the fringe. The author, Haiko Lietz, has a history of being rather...sympathetic to the pro-cold-fusion perspective: [3], [4], [5]. Unfortunately, the discussion doesn't seem to name any players not already identified, and as far as I can tell it just links back to the same soundbites and blog entries we've already seen. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. My German is pretty much limited to ordering frothy beverages. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. My German probably isn't in much better shape (I usually know what I'm ordering in a restaurant, and I can find the train station), but between that and Google Translate, I'm pretty sure that there isn't any new ground. That is the first time I've seen that article or that author, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There is at least the report by the two scientists involved (one chairman of the energy committee of the Swedish Academy, and the other former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society). But perhaps it should be made clear that the part about isotopes is not in that report. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Josephson, I know you're a cold fusion believer, but this particular horse isn't a good one to back. The only independent scientific tests for clear evidence of nuclear processes – tests for gamma emission, tests for neutron emission, and tests for changes in isotopic ratios in the fuel before and after 'burning' – have all come back negative. The only substantive independent 'news' coverage comes from an IT blogger; this story hasn't even been picked up by the useless editors of New Scientist (the ones who gave us the EmDrive). There is no independent coverage in the mainstream scientific press, peer-reviewed or otherwise. Realistically, this article shouldn't exist – and shouldn't be providing free publicity – until after there is either independent, peer-reviewed scientific reporting of the device and its mechanism (admittedly, unlikely) or until such time as a catalyzer is actually manufactured and sold to someone who can test it outside of Rossi's laboratory. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Prof. TenOfAllTrades, how are you planning to explain the observed temperature rise on conventional grounds? Numbers please, not faith! Re work previous to Rossi, an example is the work of Claytor, done at LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory) of which you may or may not have heard, which detected definitive signatures of tritium. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to prove that Rossi's device doesn't work; it's his responsibility to prove that it does. 10 kW of heat output is about 40 amps of electric resistance heating at 230 V Italian mains voltage, or less current at higher voltage; it's just not that much energy, to pretend that it can't come from non-nuclear processes is silly. Right now, it's much more plausible to conclude that the heat output and used fuel are erroneous or fraudulent than it is to conclude that nuclear fusion is going on in the absence of detectible ionizing radiation, neutrons, or the consumption of fusible nickel isotopes. I look forward to links to any of Claytor's peer-reviewed publications in reputable, non-cold-fusion focused journals, particularly if he has ever performed experiments that involve Rossi's device. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Response by Mats Lewan

As my contributions in this article have been questioned, I should like to describe my background, motivation and methods here.

First some facts:

• I hold a Master of Science degree in Engineering Physics from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).

• I've been a staff writer at Ny Teknik since 2002, and have been at the same publishing company since 1999.

Ny Teknik was founded with the current name in 1967 (but is older than that) and has about 300,000 readers, mostly professional engineers, and a circulation of about 146,000. We are about 20 journalists in the newsroom. Together we cover all kinds of technologies, with focus on innovation, and we discuss all news material on a daily basis. I have been the It & Telecom editor of Ny Teknik, and still report a lot on the it-industry (I have also worked at CBS Cnet News in 2009). Occasionally I write blog posts on the blog "It-bloggen" integrated at Ny Teknik's website. Because of my academic background, however, I often get involved when we deal with complex scientific topics, specifically regarding physics.

Our readers have very high expectations of accuracy in our reporting. Therefore everything that we present is thoroughly researched, although for obvious reasons not every part of the research is presented in our articles.

In the same way, in the interests of brevity not all of the material in my articles is included in my contributions to the Energy Catalyzer article in Wikipedia (you can find my complete coverage so far here: [6])

I have been told that there might be a conflict of interest when I do contributions citing my own articles. I see the point. Looking at the conflict of interest guidelines however, it doesn't seem that this is a genuine conflict of interest, as I'm not reporting on behalf of anyone. Citing one's own material in Wikipedia is permitted under certain circumstances.

The reason I started contributing, citing my own articles in Ny Teknik, was simply the lack of information from other sources. Until now, Ny Teknik has been the only major medium in the world to cover this topic with regularity and in-depth research. All other major media have chosen to remain silent.

Out of these two options, contributing or remaining silent, we have chosen the first one for a reason. In our opinion, and I mean the newspaper not just me, the experimental data presented, the competence of the scientists presenting this data, and the possible implications of this technology, lead to the conclusion that it is of high importance to report on this topic, including as much research as possible. In this way people have a chance to ask more questions and discuss aspects that should be researched further.

And we can see that people have lots of questions and grounds for discussion -- my articles often have hundreds of comments (in the Swedish versions). I also believe that Ny Teknik's coverage has answered more of the questions regarding the Energy Catalyzer than any other source so far. And of course, we're not finished.

Wikipedia, as a source that people turn to in order to become well informed, has the same choice that other media have: refer to existing reports, even if many questions still are unanswered, or to avoid them (you can of course amend my contributions any time you like).

A few words on my methods:

• I have focused on the experimental data presented. As for the theoretical aspect I haven't touched this part of the Wikipedia article, which I find comprehensive. A theoretical explanation of the effect is of course lacking, but I don't think that this is a reason for not reporting, given that the experimental data are so convincing, and given that the implications of this technology if it works, are huge. Kullander and Essén have also pointed out to me that the knowledge of physics in this area is weak from certain points of view, which is an important aspect.

• I have interviewed all persons involved several times. As I speak Italian fluently, interviews with Rossi, Levi and Focardi have been made in Italian.

• I have investigated all potential ways of fraud or misunderstanding that people have presented to me and that I have come up with myself, and found nothing.

• I have turned to the most qualified and, as I hoped, critical scientists I could find (Essén is a former chairman of the Skeptics Society and Kullander is chairman of the Energy Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the body that decides on the Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry) to get their opinion.

• Through contacts with Rossi I succeeded in these scientists, basically chosen by me personally and thus independent, eventually getting access as observers to a test of the Energy Catalyzer in Bologna, free to investigate what they wanted, except for the inside of the reactor, and also to make analyses of the fuel powders. Their report went further than I expected.

• As for the Greek Company Defkalion Green Technologies, I have indications of proof that the company exists and is sane. I have more questions on this topic and continue to do research.

And in general terms - this is how far I have reached while others have been watching. I'm not finished, and if I find anything that would discredit this technology I will be the first to report it.--Matslewan (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How many physicists did you consult about the Energy Catalyzer before you found ones willing to be interviewed? (For scientists who don't believe the claims, there's little reason to want to be interviewed—they risk being seen as wasting their time, they risk being quoted out of context or made to look silly, they risk drawing the unwanted attention and harrassment of cold fusion followers and conspiracy theorists, and they risk frivolous lawsuits and legal threats aimed at them or their institutions. It's far easier to say "That's interesting, but it needs further study". Unfortunately, this can badly skew the resulting story.)

In your initial(?) interview with Kullander and Essén (link), were you aware that their statements and conclusions may have been based on misunderstandings, unsupported statements, and errors of fact?

• Kullander states "But above all that they have heated a building and have done so for one year (according to Rossi)..." Is the "(according to Rossi)" a comment added afterwards by the editor of the transcript, and is Kullander therefore taking the statement at face value? Where is this building, and what do its heat and electric bills look like?
• Essén states "What I think is important in this context is that for the first time, so to speak, there is a device which is made in many units and which is being sold..." Really? How many units have been sold? To whom? I suspect that Essén was fooled by the stories about Defkalion. Essén repeats the claim that Rossi has sold devices elsewhere in the interview, citing it as evidence that Rossi is more credible than (for example) Randell Mills.

Throughout the interview, both come across as wanting very much to believe in Rossi's invention, and this interview took place well before their visit to Italy. They were on the record as expecting success before they witnessed the test in March.

I am also intrigued by Kullander's comment: "I have spoken with physics colleagues. Most are quite critical and do not believe in the experiment...". Similarly, Essén states that belief among his colleagues runs at "about 50-50". As I acknowledged above, it's difficult to find reputable physicists who want to risk associating their names and reputations with cold fusion in any way, but I find it a rather curious omission that you've never once reported the comments or opinions of any skeptical physicist – on or off the record – in any of your articles. With reporting on any scientific 'breakthrough' – or any news coverage, really – there's always a tendency towards confirmation bias, because the presence of a story is more publishable than the absence of one.

On the topic of Defkalion, what does "sane" mean? Have you identified any of their corporate officers or any non-Rossi-related sources of funding? Just about anyone can register a company and create a webpage; I have no doubt that it 'exists' in that sense, but that leaves an awful lot unsaid. On your talk page, I posted the following questions; I look foward to seeing – but don't really expect to see – good answers to any of them.

Unanswered questions about Defkalion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Have you investigated who is involved in this company? They appear to have a 'spokesperson' Symeon Tsalikoglou – about whom very little seems to be known – but no other reported staff. (The only online information I can locate about Tsalikoglou is that someone by that name is (or was) Director of International Sales for Milotos Editions ([7]), a division of the Greek publishing company Troia Publishing.) Who is the company's president? CEO? CFO or treasurer? Who sits on their board of directors? Is there anyone associated with the company who has experience in the energy industry? The company website is just a placeholder: a single page of contact information. It offers no name, but there is an office address. Has anyone actually visited their office? Do they have any employees? Are there engineers? Scientists? A marketing staff? A legal department? How are the company's activities financed? Is it all straight out of Rossi's pockets, or are there independent investors? Are there any formal partnerships with other companies or organizations (not counting Rossi's other companies, Leonardo and Eon)? There are claims that they are equipping a factory in Xanthi. Has anyone visited the site? Are there photographs? How large is the facility? Who is paying for the purchase/lease and for any equipment?

Truth be told, I'm just waiting now for the announcement from Rossi/Defkalion that production and sales of the Energy Catalyzer has been delayed due to unforeseen technical difficulties. At a guess, the announcement will push back expected delivery of the first units to the first quarter of 2012 from the original October 2011 announcement. I expect that this delay will be accompanied by the annoucement of one or more additional public demonstrations. No 'used' fuel samples will be made available for isotopic analysis by independent laboratories ever again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Which Kullander?

The section on the 29 May 2011 test refers to 'Swedish physicists'. I looked up Kullander in w'pedia and got the information that SK was a biologist. I queried this with Mats Lewan and he told me there are 2 people of the same name. The person concerned actually is a physicist, and has a w'pedia page but only in Swedish.

I tried amending the link but ran into problems as there is no English page to refer to -- the instructions appear to suggest that I should call the page sv:Sven Kullander, and that gets you the right page in the search box, but appears not to work as a wiki link (the name seems to disappear). So instead I treated it as an external link, which works. This is inelegant and it would be nice if someone could figure out the right way to do it.

I did eventually figure it out myself -- there has to be a colon before the sv as well as after it. But this is now irrelevant (see below) --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think there needs to be a disambiguation page, which I may try to do myself but will give up if it proves to be time consuming. Brian Josephson (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go, hopefully not too much deviant from the guidelines. If you go to Sven Kullander now, you'll see a disambiguation suggestion at the top, with a link to a page making it clear that one is a physicist and the other a biologist. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is now an English page for Kullander and the links, both from this page and the disambiguation page, now go there. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Refinprove tag

TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs) have repeatedly inserted a refinprove template without specifying in what way more sources is needed. The article looks rather well sourced already (19 sources as of writing). More sources would be nice, but the template seems a bit excessive. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes indeed, especially in the light of Mats Lewan's clarification of his role as a science writer at Ny Teknik, which suggests his articles provide a very good source. Can the template then be lifted? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In the light of the new information I've now removed the disputed template --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)