Talk:Energy Catalyzer

Articles about the 6 October 2011 test

Article from Ny Tekink (at last!!!)

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
--79.11.2.146 (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Full report from Ny Teknik: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29

--79.11.2.146 (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup - more of the same vague results, based on questionable 'science', and full of "supposedly"s and "according to Rossi"s. It tells us nothing that we didn't know before. How about this for a classic quote: "Digital bathroom scale used for weighing the E-cat. It was calibrated by two persons knowing their weight". The simple fact is that Ny Teknik journalists aren't qualified to run scientific tests - not that this was a 'test' anyway - it was another 'demonstration' - of yet another version of the E-Cat. I think the only significant content of the Ny Teknik report is the statement that the E-Cat container that Rossi was supposed to be sending to the US had been held back because, as Rossi stated, he "had a preliminary agreement with a very important party in the U.S., but when we received the final draft, it included conditions that our lawyers said that we should not accept". No surprise there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup - nothing. I also noticed the "Digital bathroom scale used for weighing the E-cat. It was calibrated by two persons knowing their weight." which just doesn't sound very scientific to me. The only positive news in this report is the 3.5h of self sustained operation. The disappointing news is 1) a device for making frequencies which we never heard of before 2) 1MW container not shipped due to non acceptable contract. Now let's see if what tone Focus.it will use in their article. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In fairness to the author his opening line of the conclusion is telling for the scientific nature of this test "The accuracy of the measurements during this test must be considered fairly low." and the bathroom scales quote is certainly going to close alot of the previously open minded scientific audience. I think we should just have a hiatus on the speculation sources, until we see someone who actually has seen in the box, can say definitively how/if it works, otherwise we will have an article on purely the media aspect of the e-cat and not from a scientific viewpoint. Cheers ^Khukri 12:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My comment: it is a small step for a cat, but a giant leap for mankind!--79.11.2.146 (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of the expression don't leap before you look? ^Khukri 13:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say I told you so, but I called it on April 12:

"...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."

My major mistake was in not guessing the delay would be 'indefinite'. Some vague contractual dispute is a good way to string along the gullible for years. By the way, whatever did happen to that factory in Xanthi we heard about?

The article also still has the same problem I highlighted on May 6:

"The current article has at least four sections (and counting) that cover the public and private demonstrations that Rossi has orchestrated. This style of coverage may be appropriate to a dedicated blog, but for Wikipedia's purposes it's probably time for a bit of editing. We should strive to produce a concise summary of the demonstrations. Briefly, all purport to show excess heat production; there has been no demonstration of ionizing radiation or neutron production; despite Rossi's claims that he has operated devices for years in his factory, there has never been a demonstration of a device that works for more than a few hours; and Rossi has not released either detailed plans or a device to any independent researcher for testing, so no other independent group has been able to replicate his experiment....It's misleading for us to create a new section in the article every time Rossi repeats the same dog and pony show; the April tests in Bologna appear to have lasted less than three hours, and Lewan's article doesn't report that any scientists were even present."

"there has been no demonstration of ionizing radiation or neutron production" -- The mechanism is unknown, so the lack of any particular "evidence" is inconclusive at best, and misleading at worst. All that is needed is a reliable (and RS-reported) measurement of significant anomalous heat, through centuries-old calorimetry, even if it cannot cannot be explained by, or is contradictory to, any known mechanism. (see this year's Physics Nobel prize) Alanf777 (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states that the mechanism is unknown? All we have is Rossi's entirely unverified claims, and a complete lack of objective tests to rule out fraudulent use of entirely known mechanisms. As always, it is for those making claims to provide verifiable evidence, rather than for others to disprove them. Rossi refuses to do this - and as long as he continues to do this, reporting every 'demonstration' as if it was somehow more significant than the last is giving them undue weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the internals of the reactor have not been revealed (reported, I think in every source),the mechanism is unknown. If opened, it could be determined to be previously known (eg chemicals) or currently unknown (LENR). Real or Fake? http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=12&blogid=972&archive=1 ? (June 2011)

As far as I can tell from all the reports, Rossi has selected the type of experiment (steam or water or heat-exchanger), power level and duration, and has forbidden ONLY the use of gamma-ray spectrographs. The observers have been free to bring whatever external electrical and calorimetric equipment they want. The failure to do so is theirs, not Rossi's. Alanf777 (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't a bog standard neutron chamber suffice? ^Khukri 21:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

All of the details from the demonstrations should be removed, and the header should be expanded to maybe state the notable people who were present for the demonstrations until such time as there is new information or the system is indepentantly tested. Listing that he demonstrated a heating element without verifiable sources of how or what it contains, falls foul of WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and taken from WP:REDFLAG "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources" as of now the only decent sources are that he has garnered media attention, for this and this only is the e-cat notable. ^Khukri 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

79.11's breathless creation of multiple talk page sections every time there's an online mention of the device is a related problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup. The article needs some serious pruning - it gives far too much weight to inconclusive 'demonstrations' and speculations about science sourced to nothing more than Rossi's claims about what is supposedly going on. As for the '79.11' IP, I generally assume, unless given evidence to the contrary, that such anon contributors are quite possibly posting on Rossi's behalf, given the endless hype from such sources. "A giant leap for mankind" - yeah, back to where we were six months ago, only with more blather and excuses from Rossi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh??? If I remember right, I did just four new sections concerning online mentions of the Energy Catalyzer in the last two months: the first for a website named "ecat", the second for the article of Wired of yesterday, the third for the report of Stremmenos, the fourth for the article of Ny Teknik of today.
--79.11.2.146 (talk)

Post Scriptum
Just to be precise, I wrote this phrase: "it is a small step for a cat, but a giant leap for mankind"
with a smiley spirit AND NOT with a sort of "hype" intention whatsoever.
--79.11.2.146 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The current separate mentioning of each demonstration does provide the reader with detailed info of what happened when, but I agree that the sheer number of demonstrations might give a false impression that there are no more doubts about the device. So instead of adding yet another demonstration, I think we should try to rewrite the section. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as we know, no other tests will be performed before the end of the month, when the 1MW plan is supposed to be inaugurated (I wrote "supposed" because we do not know if it will be inaugurated or not). IMHO it should be more logical if we write about the last test first, and then decide how to manage the "test" section.

Or not?

--79.11.2.146 (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that POVbrigand has started by summarising the demonstrations (not 'tests' - that would imply more rigour than is evident). I think we can cut the remainder down to a single paragraph - we don't need all the dates, durations etc for each one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree test section needs a re-write and as you say more aptly titled demonstrations to be more neutrally worded, as of now all we have is conjecture. I've reverted the last addition of the tests for a more neutral wording. How can the Pettersson be convinced it works without knowing how it's generating heat. As of now we still have nothing but heresay that is LENR or cold fusion or even teeny weeny monkeys running very fass on a incy treadmill. Up till now it's a glorified teapot, or a Russell's teapot at that, something taken on faith. I say re-write the article to show it's something that has gained minor media attention with zero basis in science. ^Khukri 14:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As far as we know, Rossi has forbidden any testing of his device; what he's doing are simply demonstrations. (He seems to have gone sour on independent testing after mass spec analysis of 'burned' fuel and ionizing radiation measurements around the 'operating' device both failed to show any evidence supporting his claims.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Slowly, don't start deleting just yet, wait for a few days. I want to be sure that no interesting link is lost. @Khukri, I do not agree with your understanding of OR. Your personal reasoning about what Pettersson has said is the only OR I can see. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't been shown inside the e-cat and until it is released how the e-cat works, he is taking it on faith. If you don't know how something works how can you be convinced, that's not OR that's logic. Wikipedia doesn't wait a few days just in case, it reflects actuality with what can be shown through sourcing, not what might happen WP:CRYSTALBALL. ^Khukri 15:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A quote is a quote. The quote is perfectly WP:RS. WP:OR is about what WP-editors construct themselves, not what professors are quoted as saying. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No problems with that at all so long as the quote is taken in context that someone showed him a teapot. ^Khukri 15:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what the professor said, we can't state that "an E-cat ran in a completely stable self sustained mode for over three hours". We know nothing about 'stability', or that it was actually 'self-sustained' - all we know is that claims are being made to that effect, by Rossi, and by persons not in a position to know if it is true. And concerning deletions, 'not losing interesting links' is a poor reason to retain unnecessary content - they can be found from the article history easily enough (and there is nothing to stop anyone copying the text to their own PC or whatever). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What "we know" is of course completely irrelevant since that would be WP:OR on our side. Either that's a statement found in WP:RS or it's not. Troed (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about the temperature data?

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284968.ece/BINARY/Temp+data+Ecat_6_10_11+%28xls%29

--79.11.2.146 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to think anything of the data, that is left to others. ^Khukri 15:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In any case Ny Teknik state themselves that the measurements are poor - and without proper controlled independent scientific tests, they are almost meaningless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a spreadsheet full of numbers, and I bite my tongue about further analysis because – for the nth time – Wikipedia is not a blog for the discussion of this device, and you should stop treating it as one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make a quick calculation based on the data, and this is the result I obtain: 9.2405 kW*h used 26.52864 kW*h produced.

Of course, if the data are worthless then it is meaningless that the E-Cat seems to work well.

I would like to know the list of the people present to the demonstration of yesterday, just to understand how much academics were there.

--79.11.2.146 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also would like to know who was present, Essen & Kullander ? Scientists from USA and China, who ? --POVbrigand (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I do hope that at least someone of the media, that were present there, will make that list public: it would be foolish (and for me unconceivable) if nobody will do it!--79.11.2.146 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there is the list:

List of the persons who were present during the demonstration of October 6th, 2011

http://www.focus.it/fileflash/energia/fusionefredda/ecat/ECAT_Presenze6ott11.pdf

Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi (UNIBO - Professor Emeritus), Enrico Billi, Christos Stremmenos (OMRI), Paolo Soglia, Damiana Aguiari, Enrico Campari (UNIBO), Ennio Bonetti (UNIBO), Stefan Helgesson, Paul Swanson (SPAWAR), Niclas Sandstrom, Hahn Magnus, Stefano Riva (CONFINDUSTRIA), Nicola Parenti (CONFINDUSTRIA), Tomas Johansson, Giuseppe Levi (UNIBO), Roland Pettersson (Uppsala University - retired Professor), Loris Ferrari (UNIBO), Pierre Clauzon (CEA), Koen Vandenwalle, Alessandro Passi, Daniele Passerini, Roberto Sgherri, Domenico Fioravanti, Mats Lewan (Ny Teknik), David Bianchini (UNIBO), Sebastiano Zannoli, Edward Jobson (University of Gothenburg), Maurizio Melis (Il Sole 24 Ore), Andrea Granatiero (Focus), Massimo Brega (Focus), Raymond Zreick (Focus), Irene Zreick (Focus) --79.20.142.155 (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no surprises, but I wonder why Christos Stremmenos was there. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Article from Il Sole 24 Ore (in Italian)

(Sub-section in order to avoid 3000 threads over the same argument)

http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi

Written by scientific journalist Maurizio Melis who was present at the event.--79.11.2.146 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You're still not quite getting the 'this is not a blog' point. Telling us that yet another news article exists isn't helpful. Telling us what it says that's both novel and reliable (if anything) and which is relevant to our should be incorporated into the article would be helpful. As far as I can tell, technical details are addressed simply by reference to Mats Lewan's Ny Teknik article.

Once again, the creation of another thread (or sub-thread) doesn't address my concerns with your approach, 79.11—how does your posting of the above link lead to an improvement of Wikipedia's encyclopedia article on this topic? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok TenOfAllTrades: I can do it.

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE OF MAURIZIO MELIS:

1) Melis tells us that Swedish and American representatives of the industrial world were present, but they refused to reveal which corporations they work for

2) Melis tells us that representatives from the Universities of Uppsala and Bologna were present. The University of Bologna ordered its representatives not to talk with the press

3) Melis states that this time, although margins of error were still present, the measurements were more solid compared to the the ones taken during the previous tests thanks to the new setting for the experiment

4) In particular, the uncertainties concerning the measurement of the produced energy were eliminated (before there was the problem of the quality of the steam. This problem was completely eliminated by using a secondary circuit)

5) however, critical points remain, because the test was not performed in neutral field. Melis hopes that soon university tests will be performed in order to eliminate the problem
--79.11.2.146 (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles from Focus (in Italian)

Written by scientific editor in chief Raymond Zreick who was present at the event

• 6 OTTOBRE:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/6-ottobre_PC12.aspx

• I PREPARATIVI:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/i-preparativi_19714201_PC12.aspx

• L'ACCENSIONE:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/l-accensione_PC12.aspx

• AUTOSOSTENTAMENTO (3 ORE O 4?):

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/autosostentamento-3-ore-o-4_PC12.aspx

• CHE COSA C'E' DENTRO ALL'E-CAT:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/che-cosa-c-e-dentro-all-e-cat_PC12.aspx

• COME INTERPRETARE I RISULTATI:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/come-interpretare-i-risultati_PC12.aspx

• LE DOMANDE DEL GIORNO DOPO:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/le-domande-del-giorno-dopo_PC12.aspx

--79.10.132.219 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Relation of Professor Christos Stremmenos about the test of 6 October 2011 (in Italian)

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-test-6102011-la-relazione-di-christos-stremmenos_C12.aspx

--79.16.165.34 (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Radio Città del Capo

Apologies if this has been posted before (I've only recently become aware of this topic) but I didn't see it linked; there is an article from it:Radio Città del Capo (Original Italian) (Google Translate) "Cold fusion, the E-Cat works? Let's look inside ... the full video of the test on 6 October" that has a couple of YouTube videos of the event embedded in it. -- Limulus (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the convenience link. Radio Citta del Capo is a local/regional radio station of Bologna. So it is not very high up in the ranks of notable media outlet. It there anything new in there that the others didn't already write about ? --POVbrigand (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik and primary sourcing

I think we have a serious problem regarding the use we are putting material from Ny Teknik to in the article: in as much as it is writing about tests it conducts itself, it is clearly a primary source - and as such it should not be used as the sole cited source for statements. Indeed, given that the detailed reports are not only primary, but written on a 'scientific' topic, while describing tests carried out by unqualified persons, and totally lacking any peer review, I suggest that they arguably should not be used at all. Ny Teknik is now just too closely involved with the E-Cat to be seen as an independent third-party source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think we have a serious problem --POVbrigand (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is full of lots of original research and primary sourcing from dubious/fringe sources like Ny Teknik (it's an technology magazine!), the new energy and the cold fusion publishing journal Il Nuovo Cimento (it seems to be peer reviewed in the sense that it is reviewed by other cold fusion believers). 20:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

what is your problem with Il Nuovo Cimento ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I report here what I have already wrote before:
IMHO there was also another relevant thing that Maurizio Melis wrote in his article:
"misure indipendenti, effettuate da alcuni dei presenti, per quanto imprecise, hanno di fatto confermato le letture di Rossi"
TRANSLATION:
"independent measurements, as far as unaccurate could be, taken by some of the participating people, do in fact have confirmed the reading made by Rossi."

So it would be possible to assume that other sources, beyond Ny Teknik, are able to publish independent measurements concerning the event.
If the assumption is right then other sources, like Focus for example, should have taken measurements and hence it is reasonable to suppose they will publish these measurements.
In the end, we should have at least three sources: Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of Il Sole 24 Ore, and Raymond Zreick of Focus.
Therefore, let's wait Focus and then compare the sources in order to skim off possible "misprints".--79.16.137.6 (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Three primary sources publishing their own 'results' from the same demonstration doesn't alter the fact that they are primary sources - none of which is qualified to make any assertions regarding the science involved. The 'measurements' are meaningless in any case unless it is known what it is that is actually being measured - and as long as Rossi refuses to reveal such details necessary for independent verification to take place, they will remain so. This isn't a blog, and we don't need to detail every showing of whatever version of the teapot Rossi comes up with next. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is a reliable source and as they reports the news they are not a primary source. // Liftarn (talk)

Please refer to Wikipedia policy (and common sense). If Ny Teknik report their own measurements, they are the primary source for such measurements (or if they aren't, can you tell me who is?). AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy that the WP-article should not use the measurement data from Ny teknik because: 1) there is some truth in what Andy says about Nyteknik being a primary source for the measurements. 2) The article should not copy/paste all this technical detail. The WP-reader who is interested in the technical details should go to Nyteknik and read for themselves.

Therefore there is no real benefit for us to further discuss opinions (claim - counter claim) about whether Nyteknik made the measurements themselves, or if these measurements were done properly or how much they are involved in the setup of the demonstration. Our WP-article does not need to mention the technical measurement details.

However, the non measurement part of the Nyteknik reports is perfect secondary source for our WP-article. Which doesn't mean we can copy/paste every bit of interesting information out of each and every Ny teknik report.

To put the demonstrations into perspective: The whole demonstration "phase" we are currently seeing will be completely insignificant once we get solid proof of either LENR or not LENR (that's the question). As soon as this current phase is over, nobody will care if 3.5kW power was outputted for 1, 2, or 3 hours during some April demonstration. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The job of newspapers is to report. By reporting they are not themselves a primary source. The only thing that should matter is if they are a reliable source or not and I think we have established that already. As for the crystal ball I think the currently known facts should be in the article. If something changes down the road they may be removed if necessary. // Liftarn (talk)

I agree as to what 'the job of newspapers is': the point is that Ny Teknik, in making measurements at the demonstration weren't doing a 'newspaper' job - they are supposed to report others' results, not create their own. And you didn't answer my question - if they aren't the primary source for this data, who is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think reporting simple observations make them a primary source. It's like saying a book review can not be used since the journalist read the book. // Liftarn (talk)

I understand your position, but I also understand Andy's position. I checked at WP:PRIMARY and am quite sure it supports my view: "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, ..." and "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context.". My assessment is that the article does not need the measurement data (interested readers can look them up for themselves in the sources), therefore we might as well not use them and build a concensus. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Reporters are not directly involved in a way to make them primary sources. The measurement data (how long it ran self-sustained and power output) is what is interesting in the story. The list of spectators is less interesting. Anyway, we could bring it to WP:RSN is you want. // Liftarn (talk)

I also think that Nyteknik is a reliable source, that's not the issue for me. But I do think that taking measurement data and reporting it means primary source. So the question is not reliable source? but primary source or secondary source? for the measurement data. I fully understand your feeling, I also want to know what was measured, for how long, all the facts. The measurement data is available on the internet for everyone to read. Nothing is "lost" if we do not include it in WP. And just in case we misunderstand each other, with measurement data I mean 150W, 3.8kWh, 3 hours, 110°C. All those data points from all those demonstrations will be not very interesting anyway as soon as the "cat is out of the bag" :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, toss in a "according to measurements done by Ny Teknik". // Liftarn (talk)

We should only be reporting measurements from scientific peer-reviewed literature since extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof on wikipedia. Also they are a primary source they were actively involved in the demonstration (they were there). A secondary source would be a source, with no links to Ny Teknik or the demonstrations in any capacity, talking about the results. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now[1] we have some secondary analysis of the measurment. "Three extensive subsequent analyses have been done by the Americans Horace Heffner, David Roberson and Bob Higgins." // Liftarn (talk)

...None of which are published in a peer-reviewed journal - and all merely based on the 'results' that Ny Teknik itself admitted were unreliable. In any case, is there actually any indication that Heffner, Roberson or Higgins are qualified to make any meaningful analysis? Ny Teknik seems not to give any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

@Andy, your 'not peer-reviewed journal' defence is not even necessary, why use so strong words :-). For me it is clear that the analysis by those gentlemen is not going to improve the WP-article. I really do not see a reasonable need to use any of it, because what these assessments essentially state is already in our article. What I do like about it is that these gentlemen (who post regularly on the Vortex-l forum) undoubtedly gave it their best to perform an analysis on the collected data and could only make qualitative conclusions varying from "negative excess heat" to "significant excess heat" and all stated that the measurements were not reliable enough. We already knew that. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As we have a secondary source it can now be used in the article. The "peer-reviewed literature" requirement is bogus~as no such requirement is needed. // Liftarn (talk)

'Commercial plans'

I think that this section will need a new title - with the Defkalion agreement falling through, and now the U.S. deal apparently doing the same, there seems to be no sourced evidence for any remaining 'commercial plans' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy,

AmpEnergo does exist.

About the OTHER US PARTNER of which Ny Teknik discusses: we are talking about a partner whose name has never been revealed.

--79.16.137.6 (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask how you know this? Nothing in the sources we have been shown says anything of the kind. In any case, until it is published in independent reliable sources, it is irrelevant to the article. As of now, there appear to be no 'commercial plans' that we know of. The section title is misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Search www.e-cat.com and you will discover who is the unnamed other one.--79.20.142.155 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No - www.e-cat.com is not a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My proposal: "claims of commercialization" or one step further: "claims of planned commercialization". --POVbrigand (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

both sounds reasonable IMHO.--79.16.138.239 (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTALBALL: we do not publish 'claims' sourced solely to purveyors of hype. There is no reliable source for any 'planned commercialisation' whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mmm... AndyTheGrump is right.--79.6.146.234 (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"And the E-Cat development has thrown up its own scandal. Until August of this year, Rossi was planning his big launch in Greece, and an E-Cat factory was being built in Xanthi. But the deal has somehow fallen through for unexplained reasons, vaguely blamed on pressure from "international energy interests" who may be threatened by the invention."

"The megawatt E-Cat will be unveiled in America. Rossi has licensed the technology to a start-up called Ampenergo. Though new, the company has credentials; one of its founders is Robert Gentile, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy at the US Department of Energy (DOE) in the 90's."

Licensing a technology to me sure sounds like commercialization. Reliably sourced by a secondary source.

But we might agree of another title for the section. Andy, what would your proposal for the title be ? --POVbrigand (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the report in Ny Teknik that the U.S. deal has been cancelled? [2] Frankly, until the E-Cat is actually being sold, any discussion of commercialisation is speculative, and need not go in the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has some points here. SUGGESTION: wait until the end of the month. Then deleted it if no relevant novelties emerge. This just to avoid possible do&undo.--79.6.146.234 (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Il Nuovo Cimento is the most well respected Italian scientific journal since 1855

Published by the Italian Physical Society. Fermi wrote on it, Majorana wrote on it, hence please STOP writing deceptive humbugs about IL NUOVO CIMENTO.
--79.16.137.6 (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What source do you have that it is currently the most respected italian journal? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The most respected Italian SCIENTIFIC journal: IT IS THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE ITALIAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY.

The Italian Physical Society is the Italian equivalent of the German Physical Society (for example) and both are parts of the European Physical Society, hence Il Nuovo Cimento is also part of the European Physical Journal.

We are talking about SCIENCE not fashon or Italian cuisine.

--79.10.132.219 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And we are talking about Wikipedia guidelines, such grand statements need to be backed up with sources. ^Khukri 16:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines state that facts should be verifiable. What 79.10 stated about Il Nuovo Cimento is verifiable. If you don't believe it, why don't you convince yourself of the verifiability yourself ? You really disappoint me [3] --POVbrigand (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why I'm not the one making the statement, IRWolfie asked for sources, none were given. I have no position on the journal, I just added emphasis that Wikipedia is run by verifiable sources. If an editor wants me or others to take something into consideration, bring the sources, not just hand waving and insisting it's true. Whether I disappoint you or not is something I'm not interested in, all I care about is that this article, is verifiable based on reliable source or not original research and doesn't fall foul of WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG which at this time it clearly does.^Khukri 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so NOW can we conclude that Il Nuovo Cimento is a well respected serius 100% scientific peer reviewed journal? I hope so.

--79.10.132.219 (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources still have not been supplied that it is currently the most respected italian journal, so nothing has been concluded. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Khukri, no problem. For me it is sometimes a bit bothersome having to explain that there are more peer reviewed journals that just Nature and Science. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you presume I am ignorant of the existence of other peer reviewed journals? This does nothing to address the concerns about Il Nuovo Cimento and its links to Cold Fusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There must be no concern if the journal is 100% super ultra peer reviewed like Il Nuovo Cimento.

--79.10.132.219 (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This you will prove with some good modern and up to date secondary sources surely? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because it is not my job. Scientists have pondered the work of Focardi et al before publishing it on Il Nuovo Cimento. Further scientists must take the work of Focardi et al, study it, and then repeat the experiment. This must be done by physicists and not by me as user of Wikipedia.

--79.10.132.219 (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You must misunderstand me, I am looking for secondary sources to show that "the journal is 100% super ultra peer reviewed" and that it "is the most well respected Italian scientific journal since 1855". IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, you write "It should be noted as well that Il Nuovo Cimento is also a cold fusion journal". What are you trying to imply with that ? Do you mean that you as a WP-editor can decide that the peer reviewed journal "Il Nuovo Cimento" which is published by the Italian physical society is no good, because they have published cold fusion papers ? Does that mean the other numerous well respected peer reviewed journals that have published cold fusion articles are also no good ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I said, I want some form of evidence that "the journal is 100% super ultra peer reviewed" and that it "is the most well respected Italian scientific journal since 1855" as claimed. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that our Italian IP may not have meant exactly what you understand "the most well respected Italian scientific journal since 1855" to mean. He may well mean (a) that it has existed since 1855, and (b) that it has been well respected all that time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the description 'renown national initiative by the EPJ can satisfy you: [4] "Since then, EPJ has gradually and successfully been integrated over the years through co-operation with renowned national initiatives like Anales de Fisica, Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, Il Nuovo Cimento, Journal de Physique, Portugaliae Physica and Zeitschrift für Physik.". --POVbrigand (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to establish what the Impact factor of "Nuovo Cimento A" was before it was amalgamated though, I can't seem to find it, this would establish how influential it was etc. The article says "Closely related work by Focardi was published in 1998 in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Il Nuovo Cimento A". This was about ten years before what Rossi did; it seems to be a synthesis to link it to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We have already discussed it in the past. The work is closely related because Focardi et al were the first physicists who decided to use the Nickel+Hydrogen system, instead of the ubiquitous Palladium+Deuterium one. Andrea Rossi started from the work of Focardi et al, and then advanced their system together with Sergio Focardi.--79.20.142.155 (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is closely related, but we might as well use the wording from the lead of the article: "Claims of a similar system, but yielding considerably less power, had previously been advanced by Focardi et al." --POVbrigand (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are inferring they are related, they must be explicitly linked by reliable secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to continue your personal crusade against the mentioning of "Il Nuovo Cimento". It doesn't bother me. Common sense should suffice to state that similar claims of Ni-H excess energy systems by the same Prof are indeed ... similar. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, secondary sources are required as they may not be similar but actually be different. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I will help you a bit: the secondary source you are looking for was mentioned in the "Media coverage" section before you deleted it. So it is verifiable, thank you. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Before the tone of this discussion deteriorates any further, may I point out that the subject of this article is not a journal, but a device? The only reasonable place for a discussion of how to describe Il Nuovo Cimento would be Talk:Il Nuovo Cimento. We don't normally characterize serials in the text of articles that are not about them, and we only mention them with in-text attributions when they are being quoted. Otherwise we simply use citation footnotes as normal. If there are serious questions as to whether a specific cited article in that journal is sufficiently reliable to support a specific text in our Energy Catalyzer article, please provide a wp:diff that shows the questionable insertion. If we cannot find consensus on the reliability for the purpose of that insertion, we can then refer the matter to wp:RSN to get other opinions. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Bologna, October 2011 section removed

I noticed the section

On October 6th 2011 an E-cat ran in a completely stable self sustained mode for over three hours. The power output was estimated to be between two and three kilowatts. Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who witnessed it said "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".

was removed entirely. It's sourced to a reliable source so I see no need to delete it. // Liftarn (talk)

I have already made a proposal in order to overcome all the possible issues that can be questioned.

PROPOSED SECTION:

On October 6th, 2011, reporter Mats Lewan from Ny Teknik, scientific journalist Marizio Melis from Il Sole 24 Ore, and scientific editor in chief Raymond Zreick from Focus witnessed a demonstration regarding the Energy Catalyzer in Bologna. Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who was also present, said: "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".

--79.20.142.155 (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On October 6, around 20 to 30 invited guests witnessed a demonstration. Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who was also present, said: "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements". Among the guests were reporters and journalists, several of which noted that the accuracy of the measurements was fairly low.

my proposal, NPOV, but not perfect yet. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem for me: I do appreciate your version.

JUST A THING: the list counts 33 persons.

--79.20.142.155 (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those versions give the same information as the removed section. It don't say anything about the self sustained mode or the power output. // Liftarn (talk)

Quite right too - until we see the results of independent scientific investigations published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, to describe such fluff as 'information' is a breach of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's reported in a reliable source so unless you have some equally reliable source saying it did not happen it can go into the article. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes, Ny teknik is in principle a reliable source, but I agree with Andy's opinion that the measurement data should be regarded as primary data (I explained my thoughts here: [5]). If you would support my version of the october 6 demontration we could get to a concensus. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, for new scientific results, especially if contentious, then independent scientific investigations published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal -are- required."In general, scientific information in Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources." (emphasis mine) also see WP:REDFLAG "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources.". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

straw man --POVbrigand (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Demonstrations wrap up

January to April demonstrations

Held in Bologna, January 14, 2011, the demonstration was monitored by independent scientific representatives of the University of Bologna, including a researcher in physics, Giuseppe Levi. Levi concluded that the power and energy produced was "impressive," and that the Energy Catalyzer might be working as a new type of energy source. Discovery Channel analyst Benjamin Radford wrote that "If this all sounds fishy to you, it should,"[13] and that "In many ways cold fusion is similar to perpetual motion machines. The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesn’t stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one."[14]

Another demonstration was performed in Bologna, from February 10–11, 2011, by Levi and Rossi, but was not conducted in public.[16]

On March 29, 2011 two Swedish physicists, Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and Sven Kullander, Professor Emeritus at Uppsala University and also chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Energy Committee, participated as observers in a demonstration.[17] Essen and Kullander reported, "Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production."[19] In a later conversation, a few months after the test, Essén stated "I want to wait for more facts. The facts I know add up to make this interesting and worth pursuing, but I am still very uncertain about this."[20]

On April 19[22] and April 28[23] two more demonstrations were held. The first of them[24] was also covered by the Italian 24-hour all-news State-owned television channel Rai News.[25] This time a Ny Teknik author attended and tested for some previously noted possibilities of fraud. [24]

--POVbrigand (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Any feedback to this wrap up ? If we can agree on this we replace it with the current version. --POVbrigand (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you've gone to here, but I'm sorry I still have to see what's notable about these demonstrations, when no-one knows what was being demonstrated. ^Khukri 06:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not a criteria for (dis)allowing content into an article: "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article - The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria." --POVbrigand (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you misunderstood I didn't mean the as per notability guidelines, if we are reporting on demonstration and no-one knows what it being demonstrated, it would be un-encyclopedic of us to report on something on the say so of one or two people. For me the demonstrations are not notable / irrelevant as no-one apart from Rossi has any idea of what is being demonstrated. How can we, as a serious encyclopedia, have paragraphs on demonstrations that were carried out when have zero ideas on what he was demonstrating? To do so, goes against all the guidelines I have repeatedly added above. I think we should stop this article in its tracks, using Wikipedia as the blatant publicisation of something that has zero proof, and very little from main stream science at this time. If it is what it says then we will deal that when the time comes. But as of now it is no different to snake oil, and is only notable due to the fact Rossi can get a couple of online interviews, and certainly not for his teapot. ^Khukri 11:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you will have a hard time to get consensus for your view. If you feel that the media outlets are blatantly publicising something do not not agree with, I suggest you address your complaint to the editors of those media outlets and not at the WP-editors who use those secondary sources to write a policy-compliant WP-article of it. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so looking on this talk page, there is you and COI IP, and then there's everyone else. OK question what was being demonstrated? simple question without just saying e-cat? ^Khukri 11:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that please ?--POVbrigand (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to include results of a scientific experiment, they must be in a peer reviewed journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to argue with a straw man, you must be out of real arguments --POVbrigand (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a 'straw man' - it is Wikipedia policy. If we refer to the 'results' of demonstrations, we are implying that they are scientific - and they aren't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's clear POV and I disagree on this section and it's inclusion. Might I just ask IRWolfie, Andy and others, what are your views on the demonstrations section as a whole, and can you think of any rationale why it should be included? Thanks ^Khukri 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that none of them even approximate a proper scientific trial, they can really be seen as nothing more than attempts by Rossi to get publicity - so I'd say it is questionable as to whether they merit more than the briefest mention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

LYNE ATOMIC HYDROGEN FURNACE

This invention is obviously a version of my LYNE ATOMIC HYDROGEN FURNACE derived from my Chapter VI from my 1997-98 second edition of Occult Ether Physics as in http://asse.altervista.org/lahg.pdf , published with my permission in 2003. The illustration which is included near the last page of my book shows that a "catalytic metal" is used to trigger the re-association of atomic hydrogen,though this is unnecessary. The reaction chamber of the Rossi-Focardi device however is completely filled with powdered nickel rather than using a catalytic metal trigger device at the entrance of the atomic hydrogen into the chamber as shown by my 1996 drawing. In the place of using a stream of H2 passing through an electric arc as in my drawing, Rossi-Focardi apparently used Nichrome resistance heating wire to disociate the H2 to H1 similar to how Irving Langmuir did with the exception that "no tungsten was used" as Rossi said, since Nichrome is not tungsten. There have been several other tests of this device but this is the first version of my furnace by other researchers which is industrial-grade, other than my re-design over the past 15 years which is not yet disclosed. In 2003 I was made an honorary member of a Rome group of gentlemen researchers, http://asse.altervista.org.altrascienza.html year 4, Number 20, Sept.-Oct. 2003, to which group I gave permission to distribute copies of my work to its members and associates in Italy. It is presumed that this is how the two University of Bologna professors eventually obtained copies of my work and began their experiments as did members of that Rome group did beginning in 2003.

William R. Lyne

75.104.30.83 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Bility (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable published sources - unless one states that Rossi's E-Cat is based on the 'LYNE ATOMIC HYDROGEN FURNACE', it is of no relevance to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

1MW plant: 28 October 2011

Raymond Zreick of Focus wrote:

Rossi ha appena annunciato che il 28 ottobre si terrà il test dell'impianto da 1 MW: oltre a questo non so nulla, tranne il fatto che siamo invitati.

TRANSLATION:

Rossi announced that the test concerning the 1MW plant will be held on 28 October: beside that I do not know anything else, except that we are invited.

http://www.focus.it/community/cs/forums/6/466418/ShowThread.aspx

--79.20.142.155 (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

So Rossi says he is giving yet another pointless 'demonstration' at the end of the month? See WP:CRYSTALBALL - we base articles on published material, not endless waffle and hype. Please do not spam this talk page with every last morsel from Focus - unless it is directly relevant to article content, we don't need it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Were the page not blocked, I would change the last line from the present version:

In early October, Rossi stated however that due to contractual difficulties, the container had not been shipped to the U.S. but that the 'launch' would still take place, at an undisclosed location some time that month.

to an adjourned version:

In early October, Rossi stated however that due to contractual difficulties, the container had not been shipped to the U.S. but that the 'launch' would still take place, at an undisclosed location on October 28, 2011.

--79.20.142.155 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Will you please stop making misleading postings. There is nothing in the link you provide that says anything about 'commercial plans' - all we have is 'Raymond' (who I assume works for Focus) stating that he has been invited to a test on the 28th. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump,

"commercial plan" means that someone has to commerce a product, right?

So, which is the product of Rossi? Single E-Cat module? Naaaaaaay... The product Rossi wants to sell is the 1MW plant.

Hence 28th of October is scheduled to be the date when the product will be shown, while functioning, for the first time.

--79.10.133.137 (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

POST SCRIPTUM

I have found a better source that confirms the date.

Today Raymond Zreick of Focus published a complete article with the information concerning the 28th of October:

http://www.focus.it/andrea-rossi-parla-dell-ecat-e-del-test-di-bologna-del-6-ottobre-975_C12.aspx

"Il 28 ottobre è previsto il test della mini-centrale da 1 MW, al quale saremo presenti."

TRANSLATION:

"The test of the 1MW mini-central is scheduled on 28 October, we will be present."

In the article it is also written that the test will be held in Bologna and the client of the 1MW plant will be present to the event.

--79.10.133.137 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for you, but again I tend to go with Andy's view on this one. I personally am happy that Rossi announced the 28th as the next demonstration date, but, while I am convinced that LENR effects are reality, I somehow fear that Rossi will not succeed to convince the entire world (including me) that his claims about his device are valid.

I think we should not add the announcement into the article, even if it is now sourced. When the 28th comes hopefully the identity of the important customer will no longer remain a secret. And if it happens to be a big multinational company, most of the skeptics will go into hiding. So let's just wait for that. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like Domenico Fioravanti is a repesentative of this customer: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3303693.ece/BINARY/Report+Ecat+Oct28+%28pdf%29, and it looks like someone doesn't wants us to know that he is Colonel-Engineer.

That document is a primary source. It is riddled with mistakes. We can draw no conclusion whatsoever from it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing 'commercial' about Rossi announcing yet another of his demonstrations - and he has claimed from the start that he intends to sell his device. Unless and until it is reported in independent reliable sources that Rossi has a contract to sell his devices, we should not be implying that he has - the 'commercial plans' section title needs to be changed - it is ridiculous to report cancelled contracts as 'plans'. And frankly '79.10.133.137', I am having increasing difficulty accepting your statement that you have no connection with Rossi, given your endless overblown reporting of anything remotely positive regarding the E-Cat. Wikipedia contributors are supposed to at least attempt to look neutral, rather than acting as PR agents. Incidentally, you state that "the US partner" will be present - the article you link says nothing about a partnership, nor where the 'client' is from. Can you tell us where you got this information? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry AndyTheGrump, it is my fault: I added a "US" that was not present in the original. AND "cliente" should be translated as "client".

I correct it immediately. Next time I will report also the original in Italian so it can be promptly checked.

Having said that, the substance does not change: the client is the partner, although the nationality of the client is not specified in the source.

ABOUT YOUR OTHER QUESTION: I wrote www.e-cat.com as internet address and it redirected me to Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. So I assumed that KPCB would be the partner, but of course this is not a reliable source.

--79.10.133.137 (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it not a reliable source - it isn't a source at all. All that tells us is that KPCB have a registered domain as 'www.e-cat.com'. This is no indication of any relationship with Rossi. So, we have no evidence, other that Rossi's own claims, that he is in any sort of 'partnership' with anyone. The section title needs changing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not say that KPCB have reg that domain name. Anybody can reg any d/n and point it anywhere they want for 10 bucks. Most probably it is Rossi or one of Rossi's fans aiding and abetting him in his internet-fueled hype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.168.59 (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, fully agree. This kind of "information" is maybe suitable for discussion forums like here or here, but for the WP-article it is not suitable. --POVbrigand (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles in NetworkWorld and Forbes ?

I read these two articles by Mark Gibbs in Networkworld and Forbes and I wondered if they are useable for our article.

The Networkworld article seems to be a "column", I personally think that that could count as a RS, but he author links a few times to WP. Is that a problem ?

The Forbes article is more or less a summary of the Networkworld article. The author's status is mentioned as "contributor". What does that mean for RS ? It appears to be a regular article.

btw, both articles mention the October 28th demonstration announcement. (offtopic: I just found out that the world will come to an end on october 28, 2011. Oh no)

--POVbrigand (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, of course a source that cites Wikipedia isn't remotely RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you being serious here, or is this tongue-in-cheek? --Robert Horning (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am being serious: read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and note that "Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing" - this is a classic case of this. Even ignoring the issue of circular sourcing, it is a matter of policy that we don't consider sources that use reader-generated content as reliable, and this includes Wikipedia itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia (or for that matter any tertiary source material) is used as the primary source of the article or reference, I would have to agree with you. Merely using Wikipedia as one of several references with Wikipedia more as something incidental or to explain some more esoteric terms is something completely different. I think this would have to be something taken on a case by case basis and should not be automatically rejected just because there is a reference to Wikipedia in the body of the source. I'm just saying you don't need to follow this principle religiously but the quality of the information in such a source should be questioned. In this case, however, there is so little new information to be added from these references that it really doesn't matter. Again, that would be something you would expect from something that uses this article on Wikipedia as a primary source of background material in the creation of that content.

The "circular sourcing" of material is also of concern if something stated on the Wikipedia article was created as "original research" and then a 3rd party article citing that information on Wikipedia is then being used in the article then referenced as the "source" of that information. Such a practice should be avoided, and called out when it happens. I have seen that happen on other Wikipedia articles in the past, so it is a valid concern.

Yes, it can get ugly and I do see some of the problems which can happen with emerging technologies where reporters are becoming increasingly dependent upon Wikipedia as their source of information as they depend on the Wikipedia volunteers to provide them with the information as they are pushed into meeting deadlines instead of doing the deeper digging needed for an objective article. I think that also speaks volumes about how reliable Wikipedia has become after a fashion and how successful the Wikipedia project has become. If a technology or concept is valid, more scholarly articles that avoid this circular referencing generally become more common so the need to use these sort of more questionable references can be simply avoided altogether. These specific two articles certainly don't seem to add any useful information, except for the raw speculation (technically "original research"... but not on Wikipedia) that doesn't reference anything else. Saying "In a Forbes article, Michael Gibbs suggested this technology would immediately make the U.S.A. self-sufficient in crude oil production" could be something useful from this article... perhaps. That doesn't reference Wikipedia, but is pure speculation on the part of the article author and would be a possible piece of information from at least that Forbes article that could be added here on Wikipedia. I'm not saying it should be added, and I think such raw speculation from a non-expert in the field is sort of pointless, but it is the kind of information which could be gleaned from an article like this. In other words, it isn't so much that the source references Wikipedia but how that source is being used when added to an article like this one on the Energy Catalyzer. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This said, these articles seem to be oriented more toward a general audience just introducing the concept of this device to the general public, rather than something comprehensive which would help expand this article in any significant fashion. The Forbes article is a bit better sourced and has some better information which shows the author has put some more effort into researching his article, but it isn't really something which goes into the technology in any meaningful way. In terms of "notability" requirements to count if this concept (the E-cat device) has achieved notability, these articles certainly show the concept has reached "mainstream media", but they do little else other than that. I don't see much these sources can add to the existing article. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits

I made some edits and all these edits were reverted by AndyTheGrump.

So let's descuss the edits, and see if there is consensus about these edit.

First: quote from Mark Gibbs of Forbes on the section "Evaluation of the device"

On October 17, 2011, Mark Gibbs of Forbes wrote: "the problem with Rossi’s system is that it is too good to be true."

REF http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/ ENDofREF

NOTE: fair use of a quote from Forbes.

Second: Bologna, October 2011 demonstration

On October 6, 2011, around 30 to 40 invited guests witnessed a demonstration.

REF http://www.focus.it/fileflash/energia/fusionefredda/ecat/ECAT_Presenze6ott11.pdf ENDofREF

Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who was present, said: "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".

REF http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece ENDofREF

Among the guests were reporters and scientific journalists, several of which noted that the accuracy of the measurements was fairly low.

REF http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 ENDofREF

A delegation from Confindustria, the Italian employers' federation, was also present.

REF http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-e-fusione-fredda-la-confindustria-incontra-andrea-rossi-864_C12.aspx "E-Cat: la Confindustria incontra Andrea Rossi" TRANSLATION: "E-Cat: Confindustria meets Andrea Rossi" ENDofREF

Third: the lead

The device has been demonstrated to an invited audience several times, and has been commented on positively by Bologna physics professor Giuseppe Levi, and by the Swedish technology magazine Ny Teknik, together with the Italian popular science magazine Focus.

REF http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/come-interpretare-i-risultati_PC12.aspx "Tutto ciò dovrebbe portarci alla conclusione che l'idea di Rossi funziona" TRANSLATION: "All this might lead us to conclude that the idea of Rossi works" ENDofREF

Are these edits ok?--79.24.134.75 (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

For a start, I'm not sure you understand what "too good to be true" implies: it is a polite way of suggesting that it is quite likely not true - or even entirely bogus. In any case, we discussed the Forbes article above, and the consensus seems to have been that it wasn't any real use - it doesn't tell us anything new, and we don't need to quote from every source that writes on the E-Cat.

Regarding the Bologna demonstration, and the lede, we have discussed these, but we hadn't agreed any changes, contrary to your edit summaries. There seems to be consensus that the demonstrations are already given undue coverage in the article, and we need to significantly trim this, not add yet more. Likewise, we don't need to quote every 'endorsement' of the E-Cat, and nor do we need to describe the entire audience - this isn't an advertisement. Finally, the lede is supposed to summarise the article in a neutral way - and you have removed existing negative content, and added yet more spin - so no, your edit's aren't ok. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

FIRST: I do understand what "too good to be true" means. And for me it would be a fair line to add to the article.

SECOND: the Bologna demonstration of 6 October 2011 needs to be summarised in a way or another, and that edit is a good way to summarise it IMHO.

THIRD: the lede is supposed to report sources which are worth to report, and among these sources there should not be a self-published blog, named NEW ENERGY TIMES, by Steven Krivit. It is absolutely nonsensical: we have Focus (about 500000 copies sold each month), we have Ny Teknik (about 150000 copies sold each week), you cannot place sorts of sub-species of self-published blogs in the lede!

This does not improve the "neutrality" of the article: instead, it results in a nonsensical way of proceeding without due regard to the specific weight of the sources.--79.24.134.75 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there is nothing 'neutral' about only citing Ny Teknik for favourable comments - and what exactly does quoting Focus as stating what they 'might conclude' achieve? And no, there is no reason why yet another demonstration 'needs' to be summarised: we learned precisely nothing beyond the fact that nobody has been able to do proper controlled experiments - yet again. And that Rossi has lost his contract with a customer - yet again. It was basically just another publicity stunt, and Wikipedia isn't here to help Rossi convince people - that is up to him, not us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Now the lede is not reliable: it states that Ny Teknik made less favourable reports while the time has been passing and this is false. I repeat: it is not a matter of hype whatsover, it is a matter of reporting the FACTS as the press reports them.

And it is nonsensical that the only demonstration, which has had media coverage from a plurality of sources in a very careful way (i.e. the demonstration of 6 October 2011) is not reported in the article now.

And I have no hurry to buy an e-cat tomorrow so I do not care about customers of any sort! (But this might be a fault of mine, who knows...)--79.24.134.75 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we clearly aren't going to agree on this, I suggest we wait for others to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the points that 79.24 makes are valid. And I might add that these deletions by User:IRWolfie- were in no way agreed upon, therefore those deleted sections should be put back in. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I look at what has happened here and it seems like WP:OWN and WP:BITE, as well as WP:AEAE all apply here. The reversion of edits being made here certainly was not in keeping with the concept of assuming good faith in the editor for what were sourced additions to the article generally following Wikipedia practices. I said my piece on the quality of the sources above and I don't intend to repeat myself on that matter. Considering how these sources are being used with these reverted edits, I do not think it was reasonable for the edits to be reverted in the manner that they were. I think bringing in other outside neutral observers for these edits would agree, but Andy is certainly capable of being able to bring the issue up in appropriate forums if he chooses to do so. It is certainly coming dangerously close to the WP:3RR rule, at least in spirit if not in technical fact. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, "we don't agree, so lets wait for further input" doesn't amount to WP:OWN. Secondly, I think it is safe to assume that the IP is the same one that has been involved in discussions on this talk page for months, so WP:BITE seems less than relevant, and thirdly, I fail to see the relevance of the WP:AEAE essay at all. As for your comments on sourcing, I think your understanding of policy is different than mine - and again, I think such matters are best settle by involving others. There are however other matters of Wikipedia policy and standards that seem significant here - notably WP:BRD (by which my reverts were entirely in accord with norms - I was attempting to start a discussion, as is self-evident), secondly, the edit summaries given were not exactly honest (though I think this may well be due as much to language difficulties as anything else), and lastly and most importantly, WP:FRINGE predicates that we must be sceptical about the E-Cat, and must not make statements in Wikipedia's own 'voice' that suggests that it works - which is currently implicit in much of the article. I have repeatedly asked for input from outsiders (on multiple noticeboards) because of this concern, but have had relatively little assistance. Yes, to some extent there is an ownership issue with this article - it has largely been written by contributors with a 'pro-E-Cat' perspective, and with little concerns for broader Wikipedia interests. I will repeat what I wrote earlier, that Wikipedia isn't here to help Rossi convince people - that is up to him, not us. We are not obliged to report every publicity stunt he pulls, every report on the E-Cat in every media source, or every 'endorsement' he claims to have received. This is an encyclopaedia, not a speculative blog, and the E-Cat, if it deserves mention at all, will deserve such mention as (a) a successful commercial project, and (b) a scientific advance. So far there is precisely no evidence that either is true - though a great deal of hype about how it will be. It seems to me that the most relevant Wikipedia policy to this article is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and in particular WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Frankly, I think that the E-Cat article should have been deleted at the start, with any article creation being delayed until the device itself (as opposed to the hype around it) became 'notable' in the sense that it was proven to (a) exist, (b) work, and (c) be of scientific and/or commercial significance. On that basis, I'm going to wait a few more weeks (so we can see what happens at the next 'demonstration'), and then, unless the situation has significantly changed, propose that the article be deleted, as not meeting Wikipedia requirements regarding notability, and as incapable of meeting other wikipedia requirements regarding objective and neutral reporting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to be a little more diplomatic here, I think it is by far and away better to talk thing out than to be so quick with hitting the "undo" button or "revert" button (depending on what options are available to you as an editor). Yes, I disagree with Andy in terms of how he seems to be treating other editors, where I tend to assume good faith and act under the presumption that anything added to an article which isn't blatant vandalism tends to be for the improvement of the article and should generally be included, if perhaps reworked a bit for grammar. I understand the issues of trying to maintain a neutral point of view, and with the kinds of sources which are currently available for this article they will tend to be very favorable to the topic until many others have been able to look at it.

In terms of submitting this article for deletion, I would ask Andy to do that today if he really wants to get it out of his system, or simply shut up about it. For myself and what I've seen, there clearly are several sources which indicate the notability of this particular topic so far as meriting a Wikipedia article, and if Andy wants to raise the issue so other editors can investigate the claim of notability, let them try. Waiting a few more weeks in terms of seeing if the upcoming "test" is a dud and Rossi is "proven" to be a fraud might be useful, but I think the notability might even be enhanced as I'm pretty sure there will be several news stories written about that issue as well. Like it or not, this topic has fixed itself into world culture and it being reported on by others, where I believe notability is firmly established. Rossi may be a crank or scam artist, or he could be one of the greatest inventors of all time to be ranked with the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison. I don't know what to make of all this right now, but either way he certainly is going to be notable for something even if it is for scamming a million dollars or more out of some "alternative energy" investors. There may be specific points within the article that are speculative and don't deserve to be put into the article because the sources aren't reliable nor can the information be verified as accurate. Then again, that is what these talk pages are all about.

If you want to go off quoting Wikipedia policies, I've been around the block on those discussions and don't go calling me a Johnny come lately here. I've been working on this project since it was Nupedia and Larry Sanger was supposedly running the show, and I've seen all kinds of crap happen. Lay off the high horse of trying to protect Wikipedia and let some people who know a thing or two about this topic the chance to contribute without you trying to make a mess of things here. Have faith that people will act reasonable if you give them a chance, and I do see some article ownership happening that is very much against the basic pillars of what makes Wikipedia work. Constant reverting of somebody's contributions to the point that editor can't making a meaningful edit is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and that simply must stop. If they are blatant vandals, you can revert that stuff, but what I am seeing here is not vandalism. Please give it a rest!

BTW, if you think I am a sock puppet here, I am not. Indeed, I haven't even contributed to the main body of this article, and with very few exceptions (mainly forgetting to log in or something silly) I have never contributed to Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project (or Wikia project for that matter) except under the account I am using right now. I don't know how much of an outsider you can get other than myself coming in right now, as somebody very well versed in Wikipedia policies and knowing you, Andy, are using those policies to further a point of view.

BTW, I think you would be surprised about what I think of E-cat in all of this, and what I'm complaining about is not the topic itself but how this edit war has been going on. If you want a flame war, I'm ready to start a flame war royale, but I refuse to get pulled into your petty games with an edit war and I will stand here to defend other editors to contribute to Wikipedia when you seem hell bent to kick them off this project! There are enough people who have left Wikipedia that it is becoming a major problem, and this kind of hostile attitude towards would-be new contributors is precisely the problem that Wikipedia has been facing for some time now. I'm standing up in this case and saying enough is enough and drawing the line here. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"this topic has fixed itself into world culture": Really? You have a source for that? If you do, it will do a great deal to settle the issue of notability: but I've certainly seen no such source. As for the rest of your comments, I note that after you've cited WP:BITE and WP:AEAE, you then go on to claim that since you've been contributing to Wikipedia since the year dot, you are somehow entitled to make pronouncements on policy. You aren't. If you think my behaviour in regard to this article has been inappropriate, then raise the matter at the relevant noticeboard - but otherwise, I suggest you stick to trying to improve the article. And no, I'm not going to "simply shut up about" Wikipedia policy on your say-so. Finally, your last paragraph, about "drawing the line here" looks to me to be a declaration that you aren't involved in this particular discussion with the intent of improving the article, but instead involving yourself in some sort of pointy campaign - If this is indeed the case, I will have little choice but to report you on the appropriate noticeboard. (BTW, look up 'diplomacy' in a dictionary sometime - it doesn't include suggesting that I'd accused you of sockpuppetry, just so you could state that you aren't one. I never thought for one minute that you were, and that sort of 'diplomatic' implication is about as far from WP:AGF as you can get). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. If and when the page is proposed for deletion then all these problems will be discussed.

The position of AndyTheGrump seems to be clear: the page is unredeemable and so it has to be rejected as whole. Adamantly clear position. Good.

Now I suggest to all the editors, who are interested in improving the page, to remain focused on the content of the page and on how this content should be managed and eventually integrated with further information. For example: should the demonstration of 6 October 2011 be reported on the article? I think it should.

--79.17.129.222 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the "demonstration" section would be an improvement. Currently it is just repeating Rossi's unsupported claims and gives the impression actual testing is going on. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Those claims are supported by professors of physics (see here for example: http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-test-6102011-la-relazione-di-christos-stremmenos_C12.aspx NOTE: it is in Italian), hence they are not unsupported.

I specify that, although university professors are supportive, there is no scientific evidence up to now that can confirm that the Energy Catalyzer works. But these are two different aspects: supported by professors of physics aye, up to now scientific evindence nay.

--79.16.165.34 (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The claims are not supported by professors of physics (or at least, not in any meaningful way - the device has never been independently tested, never mind subjected to the sort of scientific analysis necessary for it to be supported - then professors are willing to make vague assertions about the device, without evidence, proves nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I put more disclaimer in at the top. I think that is justified to compensate for the long demonstration section that could give an impression of validation to the casual WP-reader.

I put in a repetition "not independently verified", we should reword one of those repetitions. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy doesn't think so ... --POVbrigand (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think the repetition was necessary - and we don't need to explicitly state that there has been no scientific testing if the article doesn't give that misleading impression in the first place. Given the meaninglessness of the results, I can see no reason why a section on the 'demonstrations' (if we need one at all) should report them in the first place. Incidentally, I note that Ny Teknik seems to be backtracking once again [6]. Given their new scepticism - asking for "more accurate measurement methods, preferably conducted by independent persons at a neutral site", we may have to look again at some of the earlier Ny Teknik citations, as they no longer seem to be accepting the validity of the earlier 'results'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Both independent analysts and Ny Teknik’s readers ask instead for a new test of a module, but with much more accurate measurement methods, preferably conducted by independent persons at a neutral site": so independent analysts and Ny Teknik's readers but, strikingly,

not Ny Teknik.

Hence, there is no backtracking.

--79.16.165.34 (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That is your understanding of what Ny Teknik writes - it isn't mine. I see nothing 'striking' about the wording at all (it needs to be borne in mind that many Ny Teknik staff were sceptical from the beginning, and hence will have no need to backtrack at all). Whatever - Ny Teknik have also said that the tests of the new 1 Mw plant are unlikely to be any more conclusive, so Rossi seems to have lost an opportunity there, and only his 'mystery customer' will be concerned with the results. No doubt when the customer fails to pay up (which looks a racing certainty to me) Rossi will have another excuse... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how your comments here are aimed at improving the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussing a source appears to be aimed at improving the article to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

proposal by George Miley

I have reverted this edit about a proposal of George Miley, already for reason of inappropriate wording. A main basis for that (reverted) edit is a presentation which refers to Rossi and which is published in [7]; however at least a reliable source for the presentation should found, then it could be discussed further whether the mention of the proposal of George Miley is valid input for this article. I wanted to mention it here nonetheless, as I did the revert. --Chris Howard (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

From the wording, I suspect that Arian558 intended to post on this talk page, rather than the article itself. Perhaps he/she can clarify? In any case, none of this belongs in the article unless an independent WP:RS states that it is of any relevance to the E-Cat. The whole thing looks like an attempt to enhance credibility by mutual association, and to give an impression of 'scientific validity' which is totally unmerited in an article about a device which has never been described, never mind subject to experimental analysis, in a recognised peer-reviewed scientific journal. Time and again, there have been efforts to include material in this article not for any information about the E-Cat (we actually have next-to-none), but as 'endorsements' - this is totally unencyclopaedic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Miley apparently used this presentation for his speech on the World Green Energy Symposium where cold fusion was scheduled in Class D Thursday afternoon October 20th. Miley is a top notch scientist (Fellow-APS, Fellow-ANS, Fellow-IEEE, Fellow-NASA), he is an established expert on the topic. But because he is supportive of cold fusion claims, many fringe fighting WP-editors being presumptuous self-confident of possessing supreme knowledge will discredit this guy and dismiss what he is saying. Having said that, I think this presentation is (for now) not RS and if it were we could probably only use it in the "proposed theory" section that was recently deleted. What is does show is that cold fusion is slowly gaining a foothold in the mainstream science. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how this links to your final conclusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have added that if fully agree with Chris Howard's deletion. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad we can agree. Incidentally, 'fringe fighting' is Wikipedia policy, precisely because we don't have 'supreme knowledge', and have to rely on external reliable sources to sort the wheat from the chaff - and when it comes to science, the mainstream is where we look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No fringe _fighting_ is not WP-policy. Furthermore, the way of conduct of some WP-editors in cutting down any attempt to write something reasonable on the subject is certainly not within the scope of WP policy and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think an editor is doing something 'contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia', there are plenty of Wikipedia noticeboards etc available to raise the matter on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the fringe article you can look for more opinions on the fringe theories noticeboard. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotes from Hagelstein

I found some quotes from Peter L. Hagelstein from last April in this article:

"They've been keeping the technical details under wraps because they aren't patent protected, so it's hard to tell what they're doing from the photos and written descriptions. There is essentially no information that's useful to ascertain whether they've done it."

"There are a lot of other researchers who've been exploring technologies that are related and they've reported similar results," Hagelstein said. "[Rossi and Focardi] reported an immediate power gain of a factor of 10 and a long-term one of 20. There are other researchers who have reported the same power gain, so it's not out of line with the cutting-edge state of the art in the field."

For those who don't know, Hagelstein is the principal investigator of the "Energy Production and Conversion Group" of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Research Laboratory of Electronics.

I would like to use these quotations if there are no objections. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You want to use 'lifeslittlemysteries.com' as a source? Note the previous sentence: "Without seeing the guts of Rossi's and Focardi's machine, [Hagelstein] has no idea if it actually works". Whatever, the article is months old, and only tells us that someone who doesn't know how (or if) the E-Cat works thinks it might. Basically, another 'endorsement' from a believer. So yes, I object on the basis that it is old, poorly sourced, and contains no useful information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you outright dismiss lifeslittlemysteries.com as source. The media outlet is part of TechMediaNetwork and it has an editorial team and staff writers, fully within WP-policy. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't dismiss it outright - I just queried whether it was a particularly appropriate source. In any case, you've not responded to my other comments. Why should we quote Hagelstein as saying he doesn't know whether the E-Cat works? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad we can agree that this article is RS. Now let's see what other editors think about the quotations. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Times ago the section concerning the "Evaluation of the device" was requested to be expanded: provided that there is not copyright infringement, these quotes seem to be acceptable as expansion of that section IMHO.

--79.10.132.29 (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hagelstein has not evaluated the device. He makes clear he doesn't have the information to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources never will have evaluated the device themselves, for by doing so they would be primary sources. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant - Hagelstein has said nothing of any significance on the E-Cat beyond that (a) he doesn't know if it works, and (b) he thinks that it might. He is no sort of 'source' at all for anything relevant to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Where in this quote do you read that he thinks that it might work ? :"There are a lot of other researchers who've been exploring technologies that are related and they've reported similar results," Hagelstein said. "[Rossi and Focardi] reported an immediate power gain of a factor of 10 and a long-term one of 20. There are other researchers who have reported the same power gain, so it's not out of line with the cutting-edge state of the art in the field."

Your argument on relevance and significance is .. irrelevant. To me this sounds like WP:I_just_don't_like_it. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"it's not out of line with the cutting-edge state of the art" sounds to me like 'it might work', coming from a cold-fusion believer, but whatever. What is it I'm supposed to 'like'? What content are you actually proposing to add to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to explain that when I wrote :"I would like to use these quotations if there are no objections.". Maybe you didn't understand so I'll rephrase. "I would like to add these quotations if there are no objections." --POVbrigand (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the point in quoting Hagelstein for "essentially no information" on the E-Cat? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

He is an expert in the field, that is why it is good to add his quotes. See also the points 79.10 makes. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether he is 'an expert in the field' is clearly dependent on 'the field' (cold fusion/LENR) actually being found scientifically credible, which is at the moment rather questionable. But no, I can see no point in adding quotes from someone who states that he knows nothing about the article subject - the E-Cat. This looks like another attempt to bring 'credibility by association', rather than to include anything that actually informs the reader about the device. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments boil down to WP:I_just_don't_like_it. It is clear that you will object to any addition to this article. The only goal you have here is to obstruct, hinder and filibuster and you would like to see this whole article deleted. Completely against the spirit of wikipedia. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather, it appears that yours come down to wp:IDHT. You asked "if there are no objections". Andy objected, and further has repeatedly said why, yet you persist. Is it perhaps that you really intended "whether or not there are objections"? Haggelstein is willing to be considered as a CF researcher, per his own website. Other such might agree, though that would need sourcing. Rossi isn't calling the eCat a CF device. Unless you have an excellently RS that supports asserting the eCat is a CF device, there's no reason to assume it is, particularly in the face of the overwhelming predominance of informed opinion that CF (in the sense discussed by P&F) doesn't really exist. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

outdent - It appears to me that you don't know what WP:IDHT is all about. As far as I understand IDHT is for editors that refuse to accept the consensus long after it has been reached by the community. Your use here to discredit me is laughable.

Hagelstein is one of the CF researchers that was asked to prepare the DOE 2004 presentation. I think we don't need any "website" to safely assume that he is indeed an expert on the subject regardless of what the standing of this subject in mainstream science has.

The rest of your comment puzzles me even more.

There is no predominance of informed opinion that CF doens't really exist. There is a predominance of ignorant opinion that CF was debunked in the early 1990s and that nothing has happened since then.

But let's remind ourselves that Wikipedia is not about truth  :"Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

Now if I understand you correctly you say: Hagelstein may or may not be an expert on CF and the Rossi device is not a CF device. And with that you try to convince us that Hagelstein's quotes on the Rossi device are meaningless. Sorry, but if your comment truly reflects your knowledge about this subject then I suggest you read a few sources first. I don't say that you should believe CF claims afterward, but at least our discussion would be more efficient. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "knowledge about this subject". It is pseudoscience until we have actual real science published via WP:RS. Your POV pushing will have a limit. No data, no sources, no science == Not published in Wikipedia. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. with "knowledge about this subject" I meant CF/LENR in general and how Ni-H excess heat systems fall into that category, regardless of how one calls it. And that Hagelstein is an expert in that field.

I agree with you that there are no scientific grade RS about Rossi's device. But several non scientific grade RS (ie. news stories) report about Rossi's device so we can write this WP-article. Your view "No data, no sources, no science == Not published in Wikipedia. " is not in line with wikipedia, please do not advocate misinformation.

I think you possibly meant it differently than I understood, I agree with you that this article should not pretend to be a science article and should in no way present the ecat as scientifically proven. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The first quote from Hagelstein very much expresses the skeptical view: "There is essentially no information that's useful to ascertain whether they've done it." Isn't that what we are all saying ?

If you are really concerned about the bias of this article, then this quotation will actually help you with keeping the pole straight. I can't see why that first quote should not be added to the article.

My proposal: I will add the first quote, but not use the second quote, just to keep the peace. You see, I am a reasonable editor. All agree win-win ? --POVbrigand (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why bother? Granted, it's almost harmless, but it is neither very informative nor accurate. Hagelstein could have qualified his statement, e.g. "...no information I've seen that's useful..." to be accurate, though that would still be uninformative. He might just as well have said "There is essentially no information that's useful to ascertain whether Godzilla is presently frozen in an Antarctic glacier." It is a non-statement. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, but that would be an interesting quote the use in an article about Godzilla or melting glaciers if coming from a Godzilla expert :-) I think the quote tells us about the quality of the experiments and I do not think it is non-statement. But for now I'll just let it be, it's not that important. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit to Undisclosed Customer

I felt the last sentence was incomplete to the point of being misleading. It originally read "The demonstration would be performed under the control of this unidentified customer who could acquire the plant, provided that the power consumption can be verified by the customer."

The referenced article mentions the ratio of heat output to heat input. Since it is the ratio of the two that matters I corrected the sentence to read: "The demonstration would be performed under the control of this unidentified customer who could acquire the plant, provided that the power consumption to heat output ratio can be verified by the customer."

It is unfortunate that the original quote itself is a bit misleading as they mention power and heat as if they are equivalent but are not as power is energy/(unit of time) and heat is a measure of energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I prefer your correction over the original quote. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Thanks for the correction. Sadly, there has been a notable amount of confusion over issues like this - I suspect partly because of language difficulties, and partly due to less-than-qualified journalists etc trying to explain unfamiliar concepts. AndyTheGrump AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have noticed even scientists using their native language in a very slipshod manner.Zedshort (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the customer accepted the test of friday oct 28th. Any references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.234.214.108 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that? In any case, until it is reported by an independent reliable source, it can't go into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(It wasn't me, ie Francesco, ie the usual contributor with an IP starting with 79XXXXXXX)--79.10.161.200 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

dead link tag & sources in Italian

Re this edit, it looks like I'm the one who placed the dead link tag for this link, in this edit. The edit fixed/clarified several cites, and I'm guessing that I misunderstood the Italian language web page to which that link navigates. That web page presents, I see after a closer look, the result of a search for "Mr. Kilowatt" on the linked website. That search result is a page of Italian text containing a link to this other page which appears to be a short article in Italian about a radio interview relating to fraudsters in the power industries in Italy. It contains a link to the audio of the interview here. This was apparently my mistake, but this could have been clearer. I don't understand Italian and can't be of much help in clarifying it, but see WP:NONENG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I explain the mistery. The link was needed only to testify that Maurizio Melis is a scientific journalist. So, this page is the page of his popular science programme named "Mr Kilowatt" (Mr Kilowatt is Maurizio Melis himself):

http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?dirprog=Mr%20Kilowatt

On the left there is a brief CV of Maurizio Melis:

Maurizio Melis è giornalista scientifico, (english translation: Maurizio Melis is scientific journalist) scrive per riviste come Newton ed Equilibri. Dal 2007 è tra le voci della trasmissione di scienza Moebius in onda su Radio24. Sulla stessa emittente, dal 2009 conduce Mr Kilowatt, una pillola di informazione quotidiana dedicata a efficienza energetica e fonti alternative. E' musicista e autore di teatro scientifico.

--79.10.161.200 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

About 28 October 2011

First article, from Ny Teknik:

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

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

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

Please do not add sources from non-reliable sources. It seems that within one or two days Peter Svensson (who was present at the event) from the Associated Press will publish something, hence it would be better to wait and see what further reliable sources are going to write.--79.10.161.200 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Look I have written the skeleton of the article and the format we could follow to properly record this IF REAL. So I encourage people to add to it with references capturing the chronological order of events written in past tense.

If it ends up being a hoax we will capture that too. Only put FACTS people. If its speculation then state it but make sure it's group speculation not just yours. Howver don't fill the article with speculation as that is not what wikipedia is all about. Some historically significant speculation is okay. Speculation about minute details is not.Ldussan (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not altogether happy with a simple statement that an'undisclosed customer' was at the inauguration - it seems to me that Ny Teknik only has Rossi's word that the customer is genuine. The Ny Teknic article seems a little non-committal too: they write"according to the customer’s controller...", "assuming that the report is correct..." etc. What do others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as it is verifiable with RS it can be included. Wikipedia is not about truth or what single editors believe to be the truth. Wikipedia is about verifiability in RS. I encourage you to present RS that express what you want to say. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that all "reliable sources" don't mention the name of the customer, and those who were reporting on the tests either signed NDAs or voluntarily have withheld the name of the customer from their reports. If you think that this customer was a fraud, I'd have to agree you need to find a reliable source to state that conclusion as well. I have my doubts, but I do accept the logic behind why this customer supposedly doesn't want to disclose their name at the moment. The Associated Press article should be interesting if/when it comes out (it still could become a spiked story), but for non-technical information about this device it would seem to be about as reliable as it can get. I certainly wouldn't trust an AP reporter to give accurate descriptions of how this device actually works. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

From the source I would presume that the customer is a business so saying the customer was present wouldn't make sense; it seems ok to mention that the controller for the customer was present. Also it seems relevant to mention that none of the guests were able to check any measurements. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Another issue is still that nyteknik is a primary source, we should be relying on secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

When an accredited journalist (regardless if nyteknik, focus.it or AP) is present at an event and reports about it, is this primary or secondary ? We should be preferring secondary source, which doesn't mean primary sources are up for deletion. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is primary, see WP:PRIMARY about using primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We had plenty of secondary sources in the article until you deleted them [8] --POVbrigand (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What's up with the deletion. Everything in there was verifiable and unbiased. People will be coming here to find up to date data and we can also correctly capture things in chronological order by writing in past tense. You need to get off your high horse and let wikipedia users write something for goodness sake. We had a good thing going.Ldussan (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh? How does is this relevant? We are discussing about secondary sources on this undisclosed customer having the machine demonstrated. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete relevant information Grumpy. If you want to have it properly cited then just do cite it, there are plenty of relevant articles out there. It is up to the community over time to cite the articles. Somebody has to provide the framework and structure of each section. Ldussan (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the way Wikipedia works. If you want to include information, you need to cite a source. In any case, we don't fill articles with speculation - see WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. And no, there aren't 'plenty of articles'. If you only count the WP:RS ones, we have Ny Teknik and Wired so far on the 28th events - and neither tell us much more than the raw details - that the mysterious customer is reported to have inspected and approved the device. We have no reliable source for what was done during approval, since self-evidently neither Rossi or the 'anonymous customer' are third-party sources. Actually, the 'customer' isn't a source at all until it can be named. As for speculation about the customer being DARPA, frankly, I think this is highly implausible, and in any case not relevant without a source actually in a position to know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WRONG! what you mean is that's not the way you work. If you have actually been following this as closely as I and others have you would know what is real and what is made up. First of all, for example, any quote from the Journal of Nuclear Physics, which would be considered a secondary source by your standards, is absolutely fine if quoting what Rossi says. Second, an accepted way to write wikis is people write the content and then others come in and fill the required references but without the content it's harder to place references and you get chaotic mumbo jumbo at the end, all nicely referenced but not coherent. OR barely nothing gets printed and the result is a pathetic useless summary that says nothing about what really happened. Case in point, look at the horribly anemic summary of the Oct 6th test. This may have been all cited by prime sources but it is a pathetic summary of everything that we know to be true from that date. Additionally another way to write wikipedia articles is to write the sections here but often times they get lost and no attention is paid and nothing gets written. Lastly you will find that this particular phenomena will be hard pressed to get reported on by prime sources, so you miss so much.68.202.237.129 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't up to us to decide "what is real and what is made up". And no, Wikipedia isn't written by people who fill up articles with unsourced material, and expect others to find sources for the - at least, it shouldn't be. If you are getting the material from a reliable source, cite it. If you aren't getting it from a reliable source, it doesn't belong in the article. This isn't a blog. If you want to contribute, do it the Wikipedia way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL what? First, if it's not up to us then who, case in point, even when properly cited, as you saw in the DARPA reference, you decided it was "not real". So that's just BS. Second the article is a work in progress and without having a structure out there people don't see it and can't contribute to it. If nobody puts the proper sources I eventually will but at least I put the names of the sources or that sources exist and are only a google query away. At least have the decency to copy the deleted items in the talk page and ask for references, but don't take the lazy way out. What you are doing you THINK is a value to wikipedia, and it sometimes is, but you are getting carried away and it is now not a value.Ldussan (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see deleted material, look at the article history. As for the rest of your comments, you seem to be under the misapprehension that adding unsourced speculation is useful. It isn't. Either comply with policy, or find somewhere else to write about the E-Cat. This is a controversial subject, and we need to apply high standards - if you want to speculate, or report rumours, this isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The deleted edit was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Er..No...

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

Not that simple. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No it is not simple, that's probably the reason why some editors repeatedly delete whole sections with quoting far fetched policy violations and still believe they are right.

So, tell me, what is unsourced in the edit ? Where is the speculation ? Where is the OR ? --POVbrigand (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What is unsourced? "The initial reports on the 29th by NyTeknik and others stated that there was an avg of 470kW produced by this thermal power plant". Actually, that is not so much unsourced as blatant misrepresentation. Ny Teknik reported that they had been told that this (alleged) 'power plant' produced an average of 470kW "according to [Rossi's] customer". They went on to write that "Neither Ny Teknik nor any other of the guests had any possibility to check the measurements made". With regard to 'speculation', the section uses the word four times - this is self-evident. As for original research, see the final sentence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you're backing off of the unsourced bit. That's good. One thing I agree about is that "Neither Ny Teknik nor any other of the guests had any possibility to check the measurements made" must be used in our article, otherwise you have a point about misrepresentation.

Original research is when an WP-editor starts making personal unverifiable theories of what could be. Whatever a journalist or a scientists publishes in a verifiable source is not OR. And even if it is speculation by the journalist, that doesn't mean that it can't be used in the article. The last line by the editor tries to paint the atmosphere. Such writing style normally doesn't survives on WP, because of the hordes of nitpickers, but it is not unverifiable even if it is obviously not a direct quote from a RS. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wired article

Article from Wired about the event of yesterday:

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

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

Interesting. Wired evidently has its doubts too:

"But this does not mean we can crack open the champagne and celebrate the end of fossil fuels quite yet. Skeptics have plenty of grounds to doubt whether the new test really takes us any further forwards".

"For a start, the US customer remains anonymous. In other words, a group of unknown, unverifiable people carried out tests which cannot be checked".

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the only ones who haven't got reason for doubts are Andrea Rossi himself and the mistery customer. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forbes article

Article from Forbes about the event of 28 October 2011:

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

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

Not a nuclear reactor?

This is not a forum for general debate on the E-Cat

Is it or not a nuclear reactor?--79.119.214.86 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC) This is a talk page for discussions on improving out E-Cat article, not a general forum for debate - but the short answer to your question is that there are claims to that effect made by the inventor, but no verifiable evidence that it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC) As already AndyTheGrump stated, there is no scientific proof that it is a nuclear reaction. In my opinion, only university tests able to check transmutation (from nickel to copper) can give an undisputable scientific answer concerning the matter. --79.24.134.204 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC) It' me, Francesco So, a published results with isotopic analysis would suffice?--79.119.214.86 (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC) FIRST: university tests, BETTER if conducted with the same protocol by more than one university. SECOND: the transmutation must be verified. It is not difficult: you measure the apparatus at the beginning, and specifically nickel & hydrogen, then you activate the apparatus (ie the E-Cat) and let it on for approx. 6 months (at least). After 6 months (at least) you turn the apparatus off, and check if nickel has transmuted into copper. It is so simple that it would be undisputable. BEFORE THAT DAY it is impossible to affirm with certainty that a nuclear reaction happens. --79.24.134.204 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC) It' me, Francesco Verifiable evidence What verifiable evidence would be needed? It seems obvious that if it transforms Ni into Cu, it is a nuclear reactor.--79.119.214.86 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC) "If." Since you apparently already claim to know the answer to your question, this discussion is closed, per WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC) I don′t claim anything, I′ve just put a question!--79.119.214.86 (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC) To 79.119.214.86 : see my answer above. --79.24.134.204 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC) It' me, Francesco

Francesco, why don't you get an account ? It is much easier for the rest of us to keep names apart instead of IPs. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am pondering on it.

Off-topic: Rossi has now stated that he is currently building another 1MW plant for another customer. I do very hope that not all the customers have the same will of anonymity!

--79.24.134.204 (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC) It' me, Francesco

People who've just traded the family's last cow for magic beans tend to be reluctant to publicize their acumen at trading. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

i'm not willing to accept this unless you provide WP:RS... 62.30.137.128 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)