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)

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 [2]. 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 [3]; 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)

And it's covered at http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece so it can go into the article. // Liftarn (talk)

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 [4] --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)

Don't be ridiculous. The last line was bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, a line like that won't survive on wikipedia, it is written with the style of a "journalist opinion piece" and not with the style of a "encyclopedia editor". The last line is not bullshit, but it is futile. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks POV I appreciate your comments. As for AndyTheGrump you should be called Mr.Delete. Instead of deleting large blocks why don't you edit them. I by no means intended for that to be the final version of the article and I was planning on going back and editing it as I had time, but people like you make that impossible and ultimately the will of the people trying to provide content gets killed. I completely agree that the article should read that Nyteknik reported what Rossi told them and add the part about the cabling but the fact that the cables were attached really means absolutely nothing and is another example of speculation because all inputs can be metered. If fraud is being commited the fact that cables are attached is really a silly side comment. The problem continues to be that you want to prove the Ecat is real but there is no proof offered and so although the article is called the "Energy Catalyzer" it should be called the "Legend of the Ecat" or something else. If you want to make another article called ECAT FACTS then andythegrump can stay there and be lonely.

As far as the bullshit journalist opinion piece I couldn't care less whether that survives or not. It is true and verifiable from Rossi's blog and the thousands of comments on the web but then again AndytheGrump is not about verifiable truth he's more about whether you can find an article like the NYT that you can quote verbatim who probably did the exact same thing I did, which was look at Rossi's blog and look at all the ecat websites.

As far as speculation is concerned there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH STATING SPECULATION on a wikipedia article so long as it is MAJOR SPECULATION and can be verified, such as "neutrinos were measured to travel faster than light by CERN, it is speculated that this is a measurement error."

Again AndyTheGrump what you do here in this article and in others of deleting large chunks of content because you disagree with some of it instead of rewording it or reposting it in talk is a injustice to the people providing content. Just because your name is THEGRUMP doesn't give you the right to wield the subjective Wikipedia policies like a sledgehammer on honest Wikipedia users trying to provide useful content.Ldussan (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wired article

Article from Wired about the event of yesterday:

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

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

Interesting. Wired evidently has its doubts too:

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

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

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

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

Wired said that cables were left connected to an external power source during the test. This make the claims of energy production by the device less than convincing. Opening a disconnect would be an obvious part of a serious test. Edison (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forbes article

Article from Forbes about the event of 28 October 2011:

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

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

Foxnews article

Article from Foxnews about the event of 28 October 2011:

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

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

Falls Church News-Press article

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

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

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

msnbc.com article

Article from msnbc.com about the E-Cat:

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

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

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)

LENR is cold fusion

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

Firstly, we are citing Rossi as saying it is LENR, not cold fusion - at the moment, we have no reliable sources that say what it is. Secondly, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, per policy. And finally, using a redirect to draw such a conclusion is original research. If Rossi thinks that LENR and cold fusion are different things, we are entitled to cite his opinion, whether he is right or wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the way the sentence is at this second [5], the problem before was that if you followed the links the sentence made no sense Bhny (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you go back and read the source, what Rossi says is that his reactor uses the weak force, but given the transformation that he's claiming to make, that couldn't be true. Weak interactions change protons to neutrons and vice versa, but they do not allow nuclei to capture hadrons, which is what his mechanism supposedly does. He is claiming to get some of his energy from weak decay (the various unstable copper isotopes decay back to nickel through emission of positrons), and by my calculations something over half of the energy produced would come from such decay, but regular old strong-force fusion is what drives the whole thing. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That may possibly be correct, but it is beside the point - we are citing Rossi for what he says, not for anything else. As for what actually drives the thing, my best bet is that it is connected to this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, everyone else disregards that. We are not bound by Rossi's misstatements of what he's doing; we can prefer other interpretations because they are accurate and he is not. It would make more sense to push his statement down into an explanation of the supposed reaction (which last I checked, we were missing). Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

True, we are missing an explanation of the supposed reaction. When a reliable source provides one, we can add it. For now all we have is Rossi's somewhat-contradictory assertions, and a lot of speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

He actually says "What I claim is a weak nuclear reactions energy". I don't think he means the weak force, he just means a weak force. But ambiguity obviously helps the alchemist and charlatan. Bhny (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR in lede

"In 1998 a similar system, but yielding considerably less power, was described in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Il Nuovo Cimento A by Focardi et al." Judging that they are similar seems like OR to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Since we don't know what the E-Cat is, we cannot possibly say what it is 'similar' to. The Focardi paper is irrelevant unless a reliable source says otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not original research: we know what the E-Cat is from the patent: "a method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reactions", and a method for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reactions is precisely what Focardi et al described in 1998.

Moreover, Focardi specify it in this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmWbVH5A4gI

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what Wikipedia means by original research - your own comment is itself OR. As for anything Focardi says, as an involved party he is only citable for his own opinions, not for statements of fact. Find an independent reliable source that states the similarity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

They are similar in that they both are supposed nickel-hydrogen cold fusion devices. That's not original research it's in the links. In fact it's hard to tell how they are different Bhny (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ok "related" is good. let's go with that Bhny (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy regarding original research is better - we'll go with that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.tecnosophia.org/documenti/Articoli/SessioneI/Focardi.pdf PRODUZIONE DI ENERGIA E REAZIONI NUCLEARI IN SISTEMI NI-H A 400 C (translation: PRODUCTION OF ENERGY AND NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN NI-H SYSTEMS AT 400 C)

http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2009125444 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS

http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009125444&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription

- S. Focardi, R. Habel, F. Piantelli: Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 107, pp 163-167, 1994

- S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: Large excess in heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. Ill A pp. 1233-1241, 1998

A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi: Neutron emission in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 112 A pp 921-931, 1999

- S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano. F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: On the Ni-H systems, Asti Workshop in Hydrogeldeuterium loaded metals, pp 35-47, 1997

(All these documents are cited in the patent, and the patent stated that it is a nuclear reaction)

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Find an independent reliable source that asserts there is similarity between the E-Cat and Focardi's earlier work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy,

I just made a correction in the lede: tell me if it is ok now for you.--79.6.8.194 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No. I've removed it. Either find a proper source, or drop the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed similar OR from the article itself (roughly the same wording too). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I added previous work by Focardi, with different wording. It is not OR to add previous work by the mentioned scientist. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No independent reliable sources make the link that is done in the article so it is OR for the reasons above. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop your Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing. You are on a personal crusade against the mentioning of a paper published in a peer reviewed journal. It is not OR that Focardi has published about Ni-H in Il nuovo cimento. Your ridiculous misuse of WP:OR policy is clear Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing. Your demand that there must be a secondary source making the link between the current "Ni-H work" and previous "Ni-H work" by the same researcher is absolute nonsense. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the rights and wrongs here, repeatedly accusing other editors of 'tendentious_editing' is questionable - see WP:AOTE - and note that this article is subject to Wikipedia discretionary sanctions: "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators". If you think that other contributors are behaving inappropriately, I suggest you raise this at the appropriate noticeboard, as I have previously suggested. Your repeated accusations, combined with your unwillingness to pursue the matter, might be seen as harassment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not OR. There is no need to provide a secondary source making the link, but as you are both refuse to use common sense, here it is:

Interview with Focardi, published by Focus.it: [6] "...Today as then, the cold fusion or LENR (as it was then called to try to clean up the reputation) or condensed matter physics, is still considered the "Fairy of physics" by mainstream science. But not by researchers who have suggested the existence of a new territory to explore and interpret, such as Sergio Focardi. ... Sergio Focardi, born in 1932, Professor Emeritus of Experimental Physics of Bologna Alma Mater, from the early 90's investigates the "abnormal processes in the metal-hydrogen systems" at temperatures of 300 ° C, ie the "territory "cold fusion. In this summary of a long interview with Mario at the conference Menichella Cold fusion has become a reality? (Viareggio, July 23, 2011) Focardi says of his research in the field of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), until the first results from collaboration with Andrea Rossi and E-Cat."

--POVbrigand (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs". The fact that Focardi has previously written on cold fusion is no indication that his ideas have received any acceptance, and the reference to 'peer review' appears to be intended to imply that it is, thereby giving his work more weight than scientific consensus would support. Like it or not, cold fusion/LENR has not been accepted by the scientific mainstream (as far as can be determined from reliable sources), and we should not be suggesting that it has. The mention of Focardi's 'peer reviewed' publication (which only he seems to link explicitly with the E-Cat) in the lede seems to me to be unacceptable. This isn't an article about 'peer reviewed science', and we should avoid any implications to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think that the current wording in the lead is not appropriate, then you should provide a suggestion how to improve the article and build a consensus here on this talk page first. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please respond to my comments regarding WP:FRINGE and inappropriate attempts to imply 'peer reviewed science' is of relevance to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note: IRWolfie- and Andy claim that the mentioning is OR. Then Andy demands that somebody should find him a secondary source that mentions the relation and when I provide such a source he changes to complaints about FRINGE. There was never a consensus about the deletion, it was discussed before Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Il_Nuovo_Cimento_is_the_most_well_respected_Italian_scientific_journal_since_1855. And the last revert merely had the edit comment "per ATG", I guess that means that editor supports Andy's tactic. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus reached in that discussion (and consensus can change). Now, what are your comments regarding WP:FRINGE? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My comment about FRINGE is that I wonder why you bring this up after your complaint about OR doesn't get a consensus ? It seems that claiming FRINGE is your catchall in this article if you can't get things deleted otherwise. The fact that Focardi published a paper in a peer reviewed journal in not FRINGE. It's verifiable, go look it up. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it. Someone simply hasn't understood or has forgotten wp:BURDEN. A central idea on WP is that we'd rather leave something out than get it wrong. That's what drives much of our policy. If I add some statement that others find dubious, it should come out until I find sufficient reliable sources that can be verified so that any reasonable person will think "those sources adequately support that statement". This is the only road that gets to true wp:consensus. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"I guess that means that editor supports Andy's tactic." No. But you could infer that the editor supports Andy's reasoning. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

1. - Has Rossi said that his work is based on Focardi's work?
2. - Does Rossi cite Focardi's second paper?
3. - Does Focardi's second paper cite his first paper?

Find the answers and sources for these 3 questions, then dump it in "Design" section or something. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Focardi's name is on the paper in which he and Rossi describe the principles of the thing. I don't know that we need all the rest of the elaboration. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in the paper from Focardi and Rossi (the one they posted on Rossi's blog) all of Focardi's previous work is mentioned. So the three questions by Enric can all be answered with yes. But Enric's proposal means absolutely nothing, because other editors will just apply different reasoning and contest any mentioning of Focardi's previous work. As you can see above, if OR doesn't work, they'll just use FRINGE. And those editors also think the whole article should be deleted.

Currently we are doing the reader a huge disservice by not offering him info on Focardi's previous work. The wording is completely unimportant to me. But shouting OR for obvious things is a complete misuse of that policy. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Time Limit

Is there any source discussing the reason for limiting the test to a few hours (rather than running for days or weeks)? It seems like the obvious way to rule out conventional explanations. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you've probably answered your own question, though to describe Rossi's circus act as 'tests' is rather stretching things. He shows what he wants to, for as long as he wants to, and expects everyone there to take his word for what is going on. Of course, even the believers may begin to tire of this - Ny Teknik seems finally to have got fed up with the smoke and mirrors: "There’s still no clear indication of when a test performed by independent experts can be done, although this is still what both readers of Ny Teknik and most experts Ny Teknik has spoken to demand". [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the sources, shouldn't the "Demonstrations and investigations" section be renamed to just "Demonstrations"? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes - there have been no 'investigations'. There cannot be until Rossi lets independent examiners know what his system consists of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It was named just "demonstrations" for quite a while. "investigations" is not appropriate. The only thing that was investigated was the used nickel charge that Essen and Kullander had analyzed. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What about this Domenico Fioravanti fellow? Is he independent? // Liftarn (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unknown at this time. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

delete excessive "demonstration" info?

there is a very tedious list of demonstrations that doesn't add up to much information. I think this should be just reduced to a small summary Bhny (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Undoubtably (and remove "investigations" from the section header. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. If others still want all the tests mentioned, it might be a good idea to make a table giving the date, power and length of each test. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The list has already been shortened, there is no need to shorten more.--79.6.8.194 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for 'power' - none of the demonstrations have been set up in a way for independent observers to be able to make meaningful measurements. Frankly, I think the whole thing could be covered in a single paragraph, stating locations, durations and dates, with maybe a link or too to sources. The rest is just repetition and hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, feel free to do it (I'm busy at moment) Bhny (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course; if we can't get rid of this irritating and irksome subject/article entirely, let's at least work to minimize informative details -- hate to see all those poor bits wasted... Seriously, just let it be for now. Come back in a year and trim it down as appropriate when it is possible to be objective, with the wise perspective of time/distance.-96.237.13.111 (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I already started to clean up, but I got reverted. [8]. The only thing that should be mentioned about the demonstrations is when they were and what notable spectators or secondary sources reported about them. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you create a draft here, so we can come to a consensus, rather than getting involved in more reverting etc? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, you reverted it. If you don't like a version, then make positive changes to it. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No another Andy reverted it --POVbrigand (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Well, if he isn't going to engage here, I'm inclined to ignore him. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I already made a proposal a while ago [[9]], and AndyTheGrump's reply was "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)".

Now, he is just asking me to work on a proposal, which he will then dismiss anyway. AndyTheGrump is eminently good at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, his comments on the talk page are just part of his habit. I have lost faith that he is trying to improve the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If POVbrigand doesn't want to work on a draft, perhaps someone else will? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't YOU Andy work on something constructive like a proposal for a change. The only thing you're good at is pushing the undo button and filibuster. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. If you have any complaints about my behaviour, raise them at the appropriate noticeboard. Otherwise, please stay on topic.

As for me writing it, am I to assume that anything I produce is going to be acceptable by you? We have new contributors involved now, and fresh eyes on the article would be a good idea anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, if you would stop pushing so hard, I wouldn't feel obliged to keep you at bay and we could ... cooperate. In your comments there is every now and then a tiny shimmering of common sense that gives me hope that you are capable of actually contributing to improving the article. Give it a try and surprise us all. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding fresh eyes. we could both commit to a voluntary edit-stop on this article and talk page for a week and give the new contributers a chance. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason for Andy to stop editing this article. Also please assume good faith WP:AGF. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so there's no ambiguity

I've tagged this as having WP:UNDUE issues because, well, it does. There's way too much emphasis on a lot of primary source data to the point of obscuring the fundamental doubt that this thing actually works. Mangoe (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"the fundamental doubt that this thing actually works" is written:

• In the Lede, ie at the beginning of the article

• In the "Demonstration" section at the beginning

• In the "Evaluation of the device" section at the beginning

• In the "Patent" section at the beginnning, which cites that an unfavorable preliminary report on patentability at the World Intellectual Property Organization was received from the European Patent Office

So what else have we to do? Write it in each line of the article?

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What we have to do is stop misrepresenting questionable 'demonstrations' as evidence that the E-Cat works. They aren't. Such evidence can only come from proper scientific tests, conducted in appropriate conditions by qualified uninvolved third parties. As for 'evaluation', much the same applies - nobody can evaluate a device of unknown construction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And we do not do it. As the matter of fact, the misleading term "test" was replaced with the most neutral term "demonstration".

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We remove all the primary source material that is being used to suggest that the thing does work. The upshot of the demos is that the doubts make all the detail about how much power was supposedly put out etc. essentially meaningless: OK, he can get a bunch of people to get him to demonstrate it for him, but each time there are all the same doubts and criticisms. It seems to me that you can't get rid of the doubts, which is true: the science says that the doubters are right and that Rossi's device is either a scam or a failure, depending upon his intent in creating it. So the particle is being padded with all this irrelevant description of a set of unconvincing demos to keep it from being an entirely negative article. Mangoe (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The article must be neither positive nor negative. The article must be neutral and represent facts as they are reported.

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Reliable, scientifically informed sources say that the thing almost certainly doesn't work. We aren't here to argue Rossi's case against them for him. The "neutral" article you seem to want is actually biased in a positive direction. Mangoe (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Reliable, scientifically informed sources say that the thing almost certainly doesn't work." MARVELLOUS: I am looking forward to add these sources to the article in order to improve it.

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I put extra disclaimers to the demonstration section to clarify that the demonstrations do not indicate scientific proof [10]. Andy reverted it. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How many bloody times do I have to tell you? I reverted that because we don't need "not been independently verified" twice in one short paragraph. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of reverting you could have helped to improve [11] it. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Mangoe UNDUE has nothing to do with PRIMARY. The UNDUE tag is not appropriate. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in this case it does. The mass of primary source data about the demonstrations is being used to distract readers from the assessment that the demonstrations don't show that the device works. Mangoe (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically Mangoe is concerned that, because the readers of Wikipedia have an I.Q. below the average of the hominid, they can be distracted/deceived by all the numerous words put in the "Demonstration" section and hence it may happen that they can omit to read:

• the Lede, ie at the beginning of the article

• the "Demonstration" section at the beginning

• the "Evaluation of the device" section at the beginning

• In the "Patent" section at the beginnning, which cites that an unfavorable preliminary report on patentability at the World Intellectual Property Organization was received from the European Patent Office

Personally, I do not share those concerns. --79.6.8.194 (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do not like contributors who make personal attacks on others - and neither does Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

blablabla, the IP wasn't attacking Mangoe

I AGF. Mangoe thinks the demonstration section misleads the reader to think "the thing works", which is not something wikipedia is allowed to claim. The question is how we are going to solve that. Delete, delete delete until there is nothing left to mention, or WARN the reader so he can rightly assess what he is reading. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologise to all the readers and contributors of Wikipedia if they have perceived my words as offensive.

However, I am confident to have well summarised those concerns. Which are inconsistent, IMHO.

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, Mangoe feels that the sections on the demonstrations are written to leave open the possibility that the device worked, by drowning the reader in a lot of really quite irrelevant detail. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Factory acceptance tests and consistency of scam-like behavior

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

You know, if you ever get involved in purchasing of a moderately large (megawatt or so) diesel engine/generator set, the manufacturer will offer to let you attend at the factory and witness all the standard tests - you can, for very little extra change, bring your own meters if you like and don't believe the calibration stickers on the manufactuer's test equipment. It's not deep science, people have been making accurate standardized tests of power sources since James Watt's day. This is why I call "scam" on this topic and consider it to be unworthy of an independent Wikiedia article; it's the same old flim-flam that every inventor of a perpetual motion machine has tried to pull, telling us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC) That's all well and good, but your opinions don't belong here: WP:NOTFORUM. SmartSE (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Comments about deletion should go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer. Before going there, try reading how to participate in a deletion discussion and what sort of arguments are expected of participants. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC) I'm collapsing this discussion because it has nothing to do with the article itself, and in terms of the deletion discussion.... the Wtshymanski started the whole thing. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Demonstration material

The article at present contains a long section on demonstrations of the this cold fusion-like device; the science behind the device, however, says that it almost certainly doesn't work, so it seems to me that the lengthy discussion of the details of each demo places undue weight on the possibility that the device might actually function, by presenting a lot of almost certainly spurious "data". Readers have to decode why all this data is spurious, or simply disregard it; but in the latter case there's no reason to include it, and in the former case the effect is to confuse readers who aren't equipped to analyze the test setup and its various faults. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Stubify the article I recommend looking for sources from respected science journalists, scientists, engineers, and the like who are completely independent of the inventor and the general buzzing of the cold fusion/fringe science communities (including the protestations of the Josephsons, Stormses, and the like). The discovery.com source, for example, is a good one that should drive the organization and full-extent of the available topics on which to write. Remove technical detail that hasn't been subject to peer-review or independent verification. Generally, make the article a few paragraphs according to the prominence afforded by WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Article from Foxnews

Article from Foxnews about the event of 28 October 2011:

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

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Is For News a reliable source for anything? They have been called "the most biased news source in the western world". // Liftarn (talk)

Lede: do not perform drastic change without discussing it before

An editor is trying to make drastic changes to the lede, and I thing that these changes should be discussed here due to their imponrtance.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

They are not drastic changes. The old version was too verbose and didn't actually get around to saying what the thing was until the second sentence, and that sentence did a lot of beating around the bush. Also, it's not necessary to cite that Rossi is an inventor, given that this thing is, after all, an invention. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the removed material is under discussion in Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#WP:OR_in_lede. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

New Energy Times

This article should not be using the unreliable New Energy Times as a source. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I used that particular article is that it is the only source I could find that actually said anything meaningful about the device, including photographs. I don't know that I would accept that it is unreliable as a witness to that. Mangoe (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

NET is totally unreliable. It is not "third party," it is hardly "published," and it lacks a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get that it is not third party in this instance? Mangoe (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Steven Krivet is one of the main critics of the E-Cat. That's why 79.6.145.208, who owns a large percentage interest in the e-cat likes the fact that I think the NET is unreliable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I do agree. NET is totally unreliable.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also totally unreliable - Ny Teknik, Aleklett.wordpress.com, all of the self-published technical papers. What % interest in the E-cat do you have? Hipocrite (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How is Ny Teknik "totally unreliable" as Sweden's leading technology and IT newspaper with a weekly circulation >100,000 I would be fairly sure it is reliable. SmartSE (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that it is a primary source and not a secondary source of information. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is not a third party with respect to the Energy Catalyzer, as it's basically running parts of the tests. The circulation is so high because it's distributed to all members of The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers, not because anyone actually wants to subscribe to it. What's REALLY problematic, and why I totally disregard Ny Teknik, however, is [12]. Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And what aboout Focus, that was present along Ny Teknik and wrote a series of articles about the E-Cat? Are they all part of a conspiracy together with Ny Teknik? --79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidlines lists this for Fringe theories: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." we should be adherring to this but the article doesn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem, really, is that no source for this is really actually reliable. The guy behind the Forbes article, for example, is unqualified. Mangoe (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources should never be used. If it's unreliable it should not be used. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case all sources are unreliable they all have one time or another made mistakes large or small and made corrections, retractions or editorialized when they shouldn't. There is not an encyclopedia on earth that does not contain errors, nor books, monographs, magazines; there are no reporters especially op/ed writers, no copy editors that are perfectly reliable as you seem to expect, as we are all fallible humans prone to error. Please read the WP:Primary and such again to understand the policy is loose enough to all the use of these sources if the editor is careful in their use. Zedshort (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case it is a matter concerning Forbes, not a matter concerning us.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason some editors are chasing the PRIMARY issue is that they would like to have some sources declared illegal. Next step they will probably argue is that the secondary sources are based on "illegal" unreliable primary sources and therefore they themselves are unreliable too. In the end they will simply argue that the whole thing doesn't exist other than in the minds of Rossi and "his blind believing followers". There is no end to the ways of applying WP-policy if you are in this discussion to make a point. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The whole "independent sources" section reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

First: wp:Independent_sources is an essay not policy.

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

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

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

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

Patents

It is all well sourced:

Patents
An application in 2008 to patent the device internationally had received an unfavorable preliminary report on patentability at the World Intellectual Property Organization

International Preliminary Report on Patentability. Wipo.int. Retrieved on 2011-07-10.

from the European Patent Office, noting that the description of the device was based on "general statements and speculations" and citing "numerous deficiencies in both the description and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility" as well as incompatibilities with current scientific theories.

However, on 6 April 2011 an application was approved by the Italian Patent and Trademark Office, which issued a patent for the invention, valid only in Italy.

The patent granted 6 April, 2011, by the Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi.

Ny Teknik: Patent granted for the energy catalyzer

International, European, and U.S. patent applications are still pending.

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Patents are primary sources. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_patents_reliable_sources.3F IRWolfie- 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We are simply saying the there is a patent: it not used as source for the claim WITHIN the patent!!!--79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And as above "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in the articles" as per WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok: so the Italian Patents and Trademarks Office is not an independent source according to you?--79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As the guidelines clearly state patents and patent applications are primary sources. This makes the website of the Italian Patents and Trademarks Office a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so why do not erase all the references concerning the patents? If you notice they all come from websites of patent's offices around the world.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a fringe article and thus WP:FRINGE applies. There are secondary sources in the first section. If we remove the primary sources the section would probably still be kept because of the secondary sources; there may be an argument to trim it down though of any additional non-secondary statements. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Well, the Ny Teknik source does discuss the italian patents. I suppose that it's not enough? We could tweak the wording to avoid that leading "However,". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to quarrel on it, I have added a secondary source: http://daily.wired.it/news/scienza/2011/10/14/e-cat-generatore-fusione-fredda-14959.html?page=1 --Insilvis (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that NyTeknik is a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is a RELIABLE source

It is reliable, so stop arguing aganst the reliability of Ny Teknik.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's not a third party - it's far, far too involved - see the Wikipedia editing history of the lead author. Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a primary source. it's reliability is immaterial; it is still a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than edit war over it, why not take it to WP:RSN? If things continue as they are at the moment, we'll be heading to full protection pretty soon. SmartSE (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

NyTeknik is directly involved with the Energy Catalyzer and the events surronding it, that makes them primary; it's clear cut. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is reliable until provent it is non reliable. You must ask about its reliability. Until then, it is reliable.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have specifically said; I am saying it is a primary source, not whether it is unreliable or not. It must be treated as per WP:FRINGE since it is primary. "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in the articles". IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is independent source until otherwise proven. And we cannot establish it here.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What sort of nonsense is this? They were -at- the demonstrations, they were involved directly with the events, therefore they are primary. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In case of any language barrier I suggest Primary_sources is checked so you understand the unrelatedness in this case of primary sources and reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What sort of nonsense is this? They were at the demonstrations, they were involved directly with the events, therefore they are making they usual work as jounalists which consist in reporting events.

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, they were involved directly. As per WP:PRIMARY "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". In contrast to secondary sources: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event." IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A reporter is not directly involved in an event. The experimenters are directly involved and the reporters only listen to what the experimenters have to say and report that material as secondary sources. Your interpretation of primary source in this case is wrong. In addition WP policy says that primary sources may be used in the article but the writers must use care in their use. Please read the WP:Primary again. Zedshort (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The NyTeknik reporters were actually -performing- the measurements themselves and not simply listening to the experimenters. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So all the journalists who witness an event must not be cited on Wikipedia, right?--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case Ny Tekink is a secondary source concerning patents, or not?--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhetorical gotchyas like the above are not tolerated in polite society. Hipocrite (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Question --> answer.

Question --> Answer.

This is the way of proceeding in every single discussion.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You should take it to WP:RSN yourself. It's clear that Hipocrite doesn't want to because of the likelihood of it being declared not a primary source. Silverseren^C 00:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've brought it over. Wikipedia:RSN#NyTeknik_and_Energy_Catalyzer IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Patent offices are reliable sources or not?

If they are reliable sources then we keep the references to their webisites, if they are not reliable sources then we delete all the references to they website.
--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop starting multiple sections on the same topic; patent applications and related information from patent offices are primary sources, the issue is not about reliability but that it is a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If we can then we keep the references to their webisites, if we cannot then we delete all the references to their websites.
--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to quarrel on it, I have added a secondary source: http://daily.wired.it/news/scienza/2011/10/14/e-cat-generatore-fusione-fredda-14959.html?page=1 --Insilvis (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Patents count as a primary source, and you can use them as a reference. However they may not make an independent or reliable source for the claims they contain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Fringe specifically warns about using primary sources in fringe articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue of primary sources in "fringe articles" is mainly a concern about self-published research. That is of concern here as well, but a patent application does at least have something resembling a review by a patent examiner and represents a "government" publication. Not quite a scientific journal with editors and reviewers, but I would put it a notch above a news report written by a journalist on a science beat. A published patent from a government records office certainly should be considered an acceptable and reliable source, at least in terms of noting details claimed in the patent itself. It all is context to how the reference is being used in regards to the citation. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines are clear that a patent is a primary source. Fringe guidelines are clear that if something is not discussed in independent sources it should not be in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

While patent applications are primary documents, they still can support some statements. An application for a patent on my antigravity machine could be cited to say that I applied for such a patent. Similarly, the examiners smackdown rejection can be cited to say why it wasn't considered patentable. Neither can be cited to say that I invented antigravity. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In a non-fringe article relying on primary sources is acceptable, but paragraphs should not be in a fringe article consisting entirely of primary and other non-independent sources. I think independent sources have been dug up so it is now acceptable to talk about the patents in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are mixing two very different policies based upon completely different philosophies and then claiming that they are one and the same, for what I am arguing is an attempt to push a point of view into the article. I repeat, the reason why "Fringe" articles have a problem is that they are largely self-published. Heck, I'd call that the very definition of "fringe science". A patent application is not self-published, at least within the generally used term. It would be subject to the issues of primary sources in general, and on that I'd agree. Declaring something a "fringe" or "non-fringe" article as if there are completely separate Wikipedias each with their own set of policies is absurd, and indeed one of the arguments being used against such policies in the first place. Besides, WP:FRINGE is a guideline only... something to help in terms of interpreting basic policies but not to shut down debate and declare edits as bad faith. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What IRWolfie is (indirectly) saying is that primary sources should not be relied on in isolation to establish wp:Notability of a subject. That is absolutely correct, whether the subject is fringe or not. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather, on fringe topics primary sources should not be used to establish due weight for a paragraph/section, we should be relying on secondary sources. More correctly independent sources, because some secondary sources can also be non-independent. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cold fusion link is inappropriate

Gentlemen: The internal link "Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction" redirects to Cold fusion, a process which is described as occurring at room temperature. The Energy Catalyzer does not operate at room temperature. If you were to touch an Energy Catalyzer while it is operating you would get third-degree burns. I therefore believe that the link to cold fusion/LENR is inappropriate.

The lead should be revised to read: The Energy Catalyzer (sometimes shortened to E-Cat) is a device invented by Andrea Rossi, with support from physicist Sergio Focardi. AnnaBennett (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read, 'cold fusion' is intended to mean 'relatively cold'. The point is that it supposedly occurs in conditions where normal 'hot' fusion would be impossible. Of course, Rossi says LENR is different to cold fusion, and how he actually defines it is anyone's guess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I have read (but don't remember exactly where) that if the nickel in the Energy Catalyzer melts then the alleged "hydrogen + nickel = copper" process stops. If the lattice of solid nickel is that important then perhaps it would be better to describe the operation of an Energy Catalyzer as a possible example of a Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reaction (LANR).

Dr. George H. Miley recently reported that he had replicated the work of James Patterson and he compared Patterson's device to Rossi's Energy Catalyzer. See slide number 23 at http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson-names-rossi/. Miley uses the term LENR but since he is dealing with solid materials the LANR description seems more appropriate. AnnaBennett (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are straying well into WP:OR territory there - Rossi calls it LENR, and we are citing it for what he said, not for what it 'is'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that LENR is a euphemism for cold fusion since that term has such a sad history. And as said above it's cold relative to the sun. Bhny (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I found this quote in an article by Sterling Allan, who attended the October 28th test of the E-Cat: "...if the temperatures inside of the reactor cores rise too high, the nickel powder just melts, and the nuclear reactions cease." http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/ AnnaBennett (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The CF detractor camp doesn't believe neither of it for them it is all FRINGE. The researchers of the field call the field of study "Condensed Matter Nuclear Science", the observed effect "LENR" (or CANR, or LANR) and the traditional name is "cold fusion". Read this for more explanation. For me it is perfectly ok to have this LENR topic link to the Cold Fusion article. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

@Bhny. "normal" hot fusion happens at millions of degrees. One of the cells made by F&P exploded, and F&P believed that it had been caused by runaway cold fusion because "only fusion could have released so much energy". So, cold fusion cells should also be to reach critical temperatures. But they are nowhere near hot fusion temperatures. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear but yes that's what I meant, it is cold relative to fusion like the sun (which is millions of degrees), so we agree Bhny (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Article from Falls Church News-Press

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

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

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing any specific changes to the article? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that it seems to have been sourced from our article, that would be hard to justify. Not that any attention seems to be taken to sourcing when it comes to this advert for Rossi's magic teapot 'article'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Article from msnbc.com

Article from msnbc.com about the E-Cat:

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

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought...

I know that Italy has a reputation for somewhat uneven application of laws (though I'll not suggest that this reputation is necessarily deserved), but it occurs to me that even there one would presumably need planning permission for a nuclear power plant - particularly if one proposed to discharge cooling water into the drains, as Rossi seems to suggest he has done. Have any sources (even unreliable ones, which might at least give us a clue where to look for better ones) actually mentioned this? Do we know what the legal position is, and whether Rossi has actually taken any steps to ensure compliance? Has he been in contact with the IAEA regarding plans to export his device - one would think that they might take an interest... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Rossi, "Domenico Fioravanti is a NATO Colonel-Engineer". If NATO is the "undisclosed buyer" then they are likely to tell the IAEA to "Stay out of our way or we will do to you what we recently did to Libya." AnnaBennett (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just mentioning a source for the first part of that: [13]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, that infallible 'reliable source', Rossi himself. I notice he has taken to wearing a tinfoil hat: "Probably you did not understand that there is a war against us". Yup. lead by general scepticism, and major incredulity, who both outrank his mystery 'colonel'. Why would NATO need E-Cats anyway, they've cornered the market in oil? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cornered or not, oil is still expensive. NATO's strategic planners probably expect the Greeks to vote "No" in January and for the international exchange value of the Eruo to collapse soon thereafter. If that happens, they will want to be able to install sea-worthy Energy Catalyzers in their naval fleets. AnnaBennett (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculously speculative, and of no significance to an article intended to be based on published reliable sources. I should clearly have never asked the first question. Consider this topic closed. Next time, I'll keep my ideas to myself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Responding to AndyTheGrump, my intent was not to privide a source supporting what Rossi had said, but rather to provide a source supporting an assertion that Rossi had said what he was asserted to have siad. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds as if AndyTheGrump wants to have it both ways. On the one hand he is certain that it does not work but on the other hand wants to call it a nuclear reactor. Zedshort (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. If Rossi believes it is a nuclear reactor, he should be attempting to conform with any applicable laws regarding such devices. Is he? In the unlikely event that it is, and he isn't, he could possibly end up receiving his Nobel prize in jail. Most embarrassing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure of where you are going here. I know several people who have Fusor reactors, something that indisputably is producing nuclear reactions that can be measured and is acknowledged as valid by almost any physicist who has looked at the concept, and there isn't any threat of them going to prison or even being investigated by federal agents for operating the reactor. One of them was built within a few miles of where I'm writing this reply by an undergraduate physics student who just wanted to say he had reactor. The only danger is to have some stupid law enforcement agent who doesn't know the law to over react and confiscate something like this as if it was a bomb or something else real stupid simply because they also don't understand the technology. This is about like people who don't mind outlawing DHMO because of how dangerous that chemical is. Perhaps Rossi is going to be convicted for dumping DHMO down sewers as a discharge of toxic chemicals. The logic is about the same as being proposed here for what might be happening if Rossi is convicted for operating his equipment. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do **NOT** Delete

but improve; Please. Thanks. --Wda (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To participate in the discussion on the possible deletion of the article, you need to post comments etc here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Copper isotope ratios

Dr. Rainer W. Kühne has written, "The nickel included 30% of copper, where the ratio of the copper isotopes was Cu-63 / Cu-65 = 1.6, whereas the natural ratio of the isotopes is Cu-63 / Cu-65 = 2.2" ( http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/257667 ). Kühne's report differs from that of Peter Ekström, who wrote, "The detection of 10% of copper isotopes[2] in the residue from the E-Cat is difficult to understand, especially since only stable copper isotopes (63Cu and 65Cu) are detected. The isotope ratios of the stable copper isotopes in the residue are the same as that of natural copper" ( http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion.pdf ).

Who is right: Kühne or Ekström? Should the article be revised to cite Kühne's article? AnnaBennett (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Kühne didn't perform the isotope ratio measurements himself. He's simply repeating what Rossi claimed. The only independent test of the isotopic composition of the 'burned' nickel is in Ekström's report. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ekström's paper cites a NyTeknik article ( http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144772.ece ), which includes the following: "Förutsatt att koppar inte är ett av additiven som använts som katalysator kan kopparisotoperna 63 och 65 bara ha bildats vid processen. Deras förekomst är alltså ett bevis på att kärnreaktioner ägt rum i processen, kommenterar Sven Kullander (se utförligare redogörelse nedan)". I cannot read that language but it does not appear to state an isotope ratio.

Rough translation: "If it is assumed that copper is not one of the additives that have been used as catalyzer, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed by the process. Their existence is thus an evidence/proof that nuclear reactions have taken place in the process, comments Sven Kullander (see more detailed account below)".

English version of the article: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

“Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process,” Kullander said (see further details below).

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the isotope ratio is extremely important. The non-natural ratio stated by Kühne supports Rossi's assertion that transmutations do occur in the E-Cat while it is operating. Furthermore, the large amounts of copper and iron production is similar to data published by Dr. Miley (see slide 18; http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson-names-rossi/ ). AnnaBennett (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The only source for the non-natural isotope ratio claim is Rossi himself; Kühne makes this clear in the article that you linked (my emphasis added): "Rossi says that after the experiment he examined the nickel via secondary ion mass spectroscopy. The nickel included 30% of copper, where the ratio of the copper isotopes was Cu-63 / Cu-65 = 1.6...". It would be an important, significant, and very suggestive result if it could be confirmed independently. Unfortunately, Kühne is only repeating Rossi's claim; he's not confirming the data.

The English version of the Ny Teknik article you're looking at is available here. Both the Swedish and English versions have a Q&A section at the bottom which mentions the copper isotope ratio. Even Kullander, a believer, acknowledges that it's "..somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural." Rossi has refused to provide any additional samples to any outside scientist to repeat the measurement of isotope ratios. This is all old news; you may want to review the archives of this talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This article could be merged...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"If you are interested in the details of all this, the account in Wikipedia under 'Energy Catalyzer' gives a reasonably balanced version of the story thus far" (http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/10419-the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-redux.html). I agree that the Energy Catalyzer article is "reasonably balanced". It contains sufficient qualifiers so that readers are not misled about the validity of claims about the E-Cat. The article does not need to be merged into Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur). AnnaBennett (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)