Talk:Energy Catalyzer

Heads-up : 3rd party report preprint -- pending a RS

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf Preprint, not yet known who is publishing it. Alanf777 (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If and when the paper gets commentary in published reliable sources, it may well merit mention in the article. For now, as a primary source, there are no grounds for inclusion, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why a gave a heads-up in talk, rather than putting it in the article. Alanf777 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

NyTeknik, in Swedish http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3697489.ece Alanf777 (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't that surprise me...? As has been mentioned before, there are reasons to be a little wary of citing Ny Teknik yet again as a source, in that they seemed to be conducting a previous test themselves, rather than reporting on results - and Ny Teknik staff appear not to be qualified to conduct such tests. If we are to cite anything regarding this, it should however be Ny Teknik, rather than the paper - as a non-peer-reviewed submission, and a primary source, we must avoid giving undue weight to the paper itself, unless and until it is peer-reviewed, published, and receives independent notice. If the claims made are borne out, I'm sure that at some point there will be plenty more in the way of sourcing available, and meanwhile we should avoid the frantic rush to include questionable material that has happened with every previous supposed claim of 'proof' regarding the E-Cat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the one Ny Teknik reporter who still doesn't know when to cut his losses and admit that he's been duped, is there any meaningful press coverage? Of course not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Unreviewed Arxiv preprints are essentially self-published sources. While a specific and thorough critique of the document is beyond the scope of this comment (and not worth my time, and not required to determine that this is an unreliable source), I will note that it is obvious that this document isn't intended to ever be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; the format and style, omissions of details, dubious or missing controls, and paucity of references all demonstrate that this is intended as a promotional propaganda piece, rather than a serious scientific work.

To take just one example, Plots 3 through 8 are an extensive case of the lady doth protest to much, methinks. Essentially, power output (interpreted from the surface temperature of the device) is plotted against time and against power input to the device's resistive heating coils. We are instructed to believe that if the temperature changes at the surface of the device were due to resistive heating alone, it should follow the heating and cooling curves of a generic resistor element (Plots 4, 5, 6), with abrupt changes in the rate of heating or cooling as the resistive heaters are turned off or on, and asymptotic approaches to steady-state minimum and maximum temperatures – instead of the more sinusoidal pattern of temperatures observed. We are prompted to draw the conclusion that resistive heating alone cannot explain the data.

What is completely neglected, however, is any attempt to account for the heat capacity of the device or the insulating effect of the housing around it—both factors which would tend to damp (and delay) swings in temperature and which could readily yield exactly the surface temperature vs. time profiles observed.

The 'control' experiment, performed with a 'dummy' device, could not do a better job of concealing this problem if it had be deliberately designed to do so. The 'dummy' device was missing the fuel charge and container, giving it a lower mass and heat capacity. Worse, instead of cycling the resistive heater element on to full power and off again every few minutes (as was done for the 'real' device), power was increased in small increments and the device was allowed to reach thermal equilibrium after each small increase in input power. The incremental increase in input power would make it difficult to discern the shape of the heating curve, but that's irrelevant because the document doesn't provide this information anyway. Not one plot of temperature versus time and input power is shown, frustrating any attempt to glean the smallest bit of information about how the device would actually respond to resistive heating in the manner used in the experimental runs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There IS a plot (fig 7) of output power and input power vs time, plus formulae for calculating output power from temperature -- so the information is there, albeit not exactly how you would like it.

I agree that the comparison with an RC circuit is wrong (and irrelevant) : because that assumes a linear resistor. But the radiation loss goes as T^4 --- I would be VERY surprised to see a shape like an RC exponential. Anyway, this isn't a forum, so I'll let it sit for a while, and see who else picks up the story Alanf777 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been multiple additions on this. I added the Nyteknik link to the latest. Alanf777 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The material as currently written appears not to be backed up by the sources. Ny Teknik qoutes (going by Google translation) one of the experimenters as saying "We do not draw any conclusions...". How can our article then state that there were "very positive results"? I'd call that a conclusion. Also, it is not normal to include inline links, particularly ones labelled 'much more extensive investigation'. Who's opinion is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The information isn't there for the control, which was my point. They don't present – and it looks like they carefully avoided collecting – any data on what the temperature (or power output) versus time curve would look like for a control device that received the same cyclic resistive heating. Either way, though, the problem is that we only have this self-published report, and the same credulous reporter from Ny Teknik. It's not appropriate for us to announce the opinion of the one reporter (and the same reporter every damn time) who falls for a story that nobody else is buying; that's a terrible WP:WEIGHT violation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the results cannot be verified without the magic pixie dust secret "catalyst" makes the paper worthless for anything other than advertising. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a "black box" (or should I say "red-hot-box") test whose only aim is to establish the existence and magnitude of excess heat. Alanf777 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

REF : also http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Rossi-Vindicated-E-Cat-Tested-by-Third-Party-Investigation.html : search site:en.wikipedia.org "oilprice.com" indicates it's referenced 34 times (oops .. 35 times) in wiki articles. I think that qualifies as a RS. Alanf777 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

http://oilprice.com/about-us "About Us

OilPrice.com is the fastest growing energy news site online. Our analysis focuses on Oil and Gas, Alternative Energy and Geopolitics. We have 3 in house writers and publish research from over 150 contributors. OilPrice works with over 250 syndication partners who re-publish our analysis. Some of our partners are: Zerohedge, Business Insider, Forbes, 24/7 Wall St, Arab News, The Street, Rigzone, Mining.com, Mineweb, Minyanville, Stockhouse + many others...

I think that lets the report in. Alanf777 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, we shouldn't be trying to game a bad report into a Wikipedia article based on scraping low-impact websites. (Pageview numbers are readily available on OilPrice's site. The author of that article typically gets fewer than two thousand hits on each of his posts; I've posted YouTube clips that have gotten more views.) Where's the BBC? The New York Times? Scientific American? Nature? The fact remains, it's a crappy report, and it's only getting coverage from crappy, credulous outlets. It's certainly possible that OilPrice is being over-cited elsewhere on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's particularly worrying that in a nine-sentence article, the OilPrice author (Charles Kennedy) manages to make at least two errors in his description of the experiment ("cameras were used to record the heat inside the reaction tube"—no, they measured the surface temperature of the vessel only, there was no measurement of internal temperature; "electrical power output was measured suing a large bandwidth three-phase power analyser"—no, there was no electrical power output from the device, only input...of course, now that my attention has been drawn to it, I do wonder about the accuracy of their power measurements, as the input power for the resistance coils employed an "industrial trade secret waveform") along with several typos, formatting and grammatical errors suggesting that his 'article' is really more of a badly-proofread blog post. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone to WP:RS/N for consideration there. Mangoe (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Mark Gibbs is in the current lede/lead ... maybe THIS will suffice? http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ Alanf777 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And it's another damn blogger. The guy writes posts about cellular phones and social networking; he's not qualified or competent to comment on nuclear physics. Once again, it's an entirely credulous recitation of the report's claims, without any hint of critical commentary or attempt to seek independent comment—you know, journalism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gee ... he's good enough for the lead as long as he's critical? Extensive quote added to the article. I have a strange feeling I can get a release for the quote. Alanf777 (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I cut back the quote to a fair use 3 sentences/paragraphs. I can get a formal release after a month. Alanf777 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why the ENTIRE quote was deleted. I added a follow-on to the Lead. Alanf777 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

One could say that Wolf Blitzer isn't qualified or competent to do anything besides report the news, but I doubt that would stop his coverage from being considered RS. If you read Mark Gibbs' article you'll see that it's written in an NPOV manner. No one's trying to masquerade this report as something that's gone though the peer-review process of a respected scientific journal. Why not present it in an honest manner for what it is? After all, it was written by reputable scientists who I'd assume ARE competent to report on nuclear physics. From where I'm standing it seems the only reason you want it excluded is to satisfy your decidedly POV stance on the topic. Wikimart333 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"who I'd assume ARE competent to report on nuclear physics", I'd suggest looking up their publications and see what fields they are in. It makes for interesting reading, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ha, it claims the authors are independent, just search the archives for Giuseppe Levi to see how independent he is ^^. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibbs isn't even self-consistent in the article. He describes the test as "independent", and then goes on to say that "The authors... weren’t in control of all of the aspects of the process". What sort of 'independence' is that? Regardless of whether we report this latest Rossi 'demonstration' at all, we can't cite Gibbs for an assertion that it was 'independent' while he hedges it with qualifications (and note the 'hoax' get-out clause at the end of the piece). And note also that Gibbs seems to think that LENR is some sort of recognised scientific phenomenon one can summarise in a few words, rather than the highly-contentious and speculative field it clearly is. He simply isn't knowledgeable enough to assess the validity of the paper. Not that he seems to be trying to. This is little more than a recycled press release. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding the original arXiv paper, I have to ask whether it is normal scientific practice to use Wikipedia as a source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer to that is no; it is not normal for a scientific paper to cite Wikipedia. Also I would like to suggest a principle that, as a safeguard against the danger of circular chains of citation, Wikipedia should never cite a source that cites Wikipedia. Cardamon (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In this case, Wikipedia is a very minor source and only significant so far as Wikipedia is the data source for a chart made up of compiled data found elsewhere. I don't see any danger in a circular reference happening here... even though I'd agree that the e-Cat and its proponents seem to be trying to astroturf Wikipedia for the purposes of establishing circular references just like you are warning about. The main problem is that this paper isn't being sent through normal publishing channels and being reviewed by independent editors... other than those who are bothering here on Wikipedia. I'd have to agree with the above sentiment that this is little more than a press release dressed up like a scientific paper. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Any sort of use of a paper that cites wikipedia in some way is unsuitable for wikipedia, see WP:CIRCULAR. It's pretty much a blanket ban. The issue is that we would never know if they only relied on wikipedia for the image alone or included common knowledge information that doesn't usually need a cite, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Circular references are the most important problem of the "E-Cat", that's why I proposed this article for the deletion last year. But really, the wikipedia citation in [1] is the best. The COP now is around 3, why is a factor of 197 of the beginning reports missing? I still wonder how is it possible to proceed in this way with the supposed discovery of the century. If it is not an hoax, an ignobel will be definitely assigned for the E-Cat. By the way, coming back to wikipedia, pay attention that we are talking always of the same people: Rossi, Focardi, Levi, Essén ... so this is not an independent report. TheNextFuture (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a hoax, an ignobel is a definite possibility. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it can win any awards as it is unknown outside of blogs and this article. Its whole existence depends on circular references. It is strange that things built on nothing can persist for years Bhny (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For Google Trends Comparison for Ignobel and E-Cat, see [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellulpatrick (talk • contribs) 00:44, 26 May 2013 AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing such a convincing illustration of how each of Rossi's new circus tricks attracts less attention than the previous one. Unfortunately, as original research, we can't include it in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The abstract of Brian Josephson's E-Cat Video on the Cambridge Website, linked already in the External Links section, has been updated to note that "Towards the end of 2012, it was claimed that 'an independent third party' was carrying out tests on a new version of the reactor. Eventually, in May 2013, their very favourable report was uploaded to the physics preprint archive". see [3] Ellulpatrick (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Test is a blackbox test. It was not meant to validate science but rather show that something was creating energy with a significant higher power density than previously seen. We should focus only on criticisms regarding the blackbox nature of the test. Anything to do with LENR / Cold Fusion / reactants / etc, is irrelevant for this paper. It could be hamsters for all we care. The fact is, the test is claiming anomalous energy production and that's all that matters. Let's revert any comments about the TEST that distract from the subject at hand. Siegel's comments regarding reactants are not a critique of the test. The fact that box remained plugged in and that the testers didn't control the original energy source (so that they could properly measure it), shows that it could be rigged. Critiques around measuring the energy given off are also relevant. Anything else which doesn't criticize energy measurement (input/output) is a sideshow and feeds argument that the skeptical language being used is NON CREDIBLE (and in many eyes, evidence that Rossi is real) 24.207.125.44 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Also, language such as "supposedly independent" is very passive. You can say "Siegel argues that the independency is in question" and then cite, but altering the voice of this article to fit his perspective is very weird.24.207.125.44 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as the test is presented as science (which submitting it to arXiv clearly does), any scientific criticism is valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not valid. You don't criticize a paper for something it's not trying to claim. Nowhere did the paper make claims about what was inside the blackbox. It's sort of weak reasoning which is giving fuel to those who say that the skeptics do not know what they're talking about. It's important to appreciate, that unlike the Forbes article, Siegel's post does not have to make it past an editor or a fact checker. 24.207.125.44 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

" ... but rather show that something was creating energy with a ...", black box plugged into a wall can't show that. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

PhysOrg article, plus comment from Ethan Siegel's blog

EDIT: IRWolfie- removed the PhysOrg article so I had to revert it. IRWolfie also pointed out that this comment from Ethan Siegel:

Subsequently, Siegel added that there was not enough Nickel-62 and Nickel-64 (the only two isotopes which can fuse with hydrogen), at 3.6% and 0.9% respectively, in the reactants to explain the 10% copper output. The 10% copper also had the ratio found in nature, not after fusion. Siegel pointed out that Rossi did not allow the reactants or products to be measured and noted that "Rossi also refused to unplug the machine while it was operating" despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device, and that the "independent" testers had to rely on data supplied "from the manufacturer".

should be inserted onto the "Test" section instead of being placed on the "Reactions to the claims" section. The problem with this quotation from Siegel's blog is that it has nothing to do with the actual tests. Siegel wrote about:

• Nickel62 and Nickel64 - which are not even mentioned in the paper
• 10% copper output - which is not even mentioned in the paper
• fusion (ie nuclear fusion) - which is not even mentioned in the paper
• products (ie transmutation products from the reaction) - which are not even mentioned in the paper

moreover Siegel suggested that the scientists who performed the tests were "circumvented" by Rossi who - according to Siegel - was secretly supply hidden power to the E-Cat during the tests. It should be reminded that the tests are simply calorimetric measurements, as the title of the paper pointed out clearly: "Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device". So these tests were not performed in order to establish HOW the E-Cat works - as Siegel's comment seems to suggest -, they were performed only to establish IF the E-Cat works, ie if the E-Cat releases more energy than the input amount. Therefore this comment from Siegel is a mere potshot at the entire story concerning the E-Cat and has nothing to do with a critique regarding the paper in itself. Hence it is more appropriate to let his potshot on the "Reactions to the claims" section. --Insilvis (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PhysOrg is almost never a wp:RS. They are simply a news aggregator without fact checking. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Then it should be submitted to WP:RS/N. There are other articles from PhysOrg which are on the page so it would be better to establish if PhysOrg can be used as legit source or not. (P.S. what about Siegel's blog?) --Insilvis (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

scienceblogs are generally reliable, and usaully used for the authors opinions. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not for you to decide what part of Siegel's comment is really relevant, nor is it for you to perform your own little flawed analysis of the source in that way. He said it with respect to the current test so in that section it goes. He is pointing out flaws with past tests, and noting how Rossi has forbidden people to get those measurements now in the current test. Moving that into a different section makes no sense, and sounds like you want to stop people pointing out flaws in the current test, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bhny removed I think you meant IRWolfie Bhny (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. Corrected immediately--Insilvis (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:IRWolfie removed the PhysOrg article again, so I had to revert it again. At the moment PhysOrg is considered to be a ligitimate source, so there is no reason to delete it. Otherwise submit it to WP:RS/N. --Insilvis (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

stop moving the siegel part around the place. It belongs in that section. The onus is on you to prove a source is reliable, not on us to prove it's unreliable. Scienceblogs is reliable because of its reputation, PhysOrg not so much, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC

please, discuss it here BEFORE reverting! --Insilvis (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD; Bold change, revert discuss. It's not Bold change, revert revert revert. You made a bold change, it was rejected, now discuss it and get consensus, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You are also being deceptive by surreptitiously deleting mainstream rebuttals from Scienceblogs, which is regarded as reliable and which you don't seem to deny. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I did not delete any information. Please, if you want to change the position of the citation from Siegel blog try to do it without deleting the other sources. Maybe you did not notice that, but you are deleting two or three sources during your edits.--Insilvis (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

[4] Siegel magically disappeared then? You are using the arxiv source, despite consensus being against using a circular reference, you are using physorg despite objection to its reliability, and you are deleting unfavourable material or trying to move it away thus violating WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I added one source which is the source from PhysOrg. The arxiv source and the PopSci source were added by a5b. As far as I know, PhysOrg is a reliable source. I have already ask you to submit PhysOrg to WP:RS/N if you do not think PhysOrg should be used.--Insilvis (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PhysOrg is a poor quality source, I will let others chime in on that. You are adding the arxiv and PopSci source, don't try and pass the blame onto others for what is in your own diffs [5]. If you are inserting content into article you have to defend it. You are still not addressing your censorship of critical commentary, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Arxiv's paper is clearly not reliable, but I added it (diff) to the section to allow readers easily go to the arxiv to read the paper discussed. `a5b (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

References are to verify the previous sentence. The section External links is for external links, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it is easier to find this paper if it is added as footnote just after title “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device" early in "Test" section (check the diff) `a5b (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There are also notes, but notes aren't refs: Template:Efn. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, converted to EFN. Should we convert to EFN other SPS links, e.g. to Rossi's SPS blog named "Journal ..."? `a5b (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Insilvis, the http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html post from May 23, 2013 is about this arxiv paper too: " In a paper posted at arXiv.org, the researchers write that, ... ". And please, stop the edit war. `a5b (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

to IRWolfie: look, this is the edit made by a5b when he inserted the arxiv source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=556546492&oldid=556545684

this is the edit when a5b inserted the PopSci source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=556573068&oldid=556563580

So, a5b added these two, I added the PhysOrg source.

If you do not think PhysOrg should be used then you should submit PhysOrg to WP:RS/N. There are other articles from PhysOrg as references and nobody objected the use of this source since today. This does not mean that things cannot change, I am just underlining that if you decide to remove the source from PhysOrg because it is unreliable then you have to remove also the other sources from PhysOrg as consequence. --Insilvis (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You re-inserted them, therefore the burden falls on you. You are still not explaining your censorship of the Siegel content, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, there is your variant of Siegel note, with '====' added by me:

Ethan Siegel commented at scienceblogs saying that in the previous tests there was not enough Nickel-62 and Nickel-64 (the only two isotopes which can fuse with hydrogen), at 3.6% and 0.9% respectively, in the reactants to explain the 10% copper output. The 10% copper also had the ratio found in nature, not after fusion. ==== In the current test, Rossi did not allow the reactants or products to be measured. Siegel noted that "Rossi also refused to unplug the machine while it was operating" despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device, and that the "independent" testers had to rely on data supplied "from the manufacturer". [34]

But the arxiv paper is not about nickel; so First part (up to ====) of this quote should be saved at other section. And second part of this blockquote (after ====) is about current test from arxiv. So, we can split parts and move second part to the "Test" section, keeping the "ref name=Siegel2" in both places. Insilvis, what you think about such variant? `a5b (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that Siegel's comment should be treated in an extreme careful way. This is the entire bit:

Subsequently, Siegel added that there was not enough Nickel-62 and Nickel-64 (the only two isotopes which can fuse with hydrogen), at 3.6% and 0.9% respectively, in the reactants to explain the 10% copper output. The 10% copper also had the ratio found in nature, not after fusion. Siegel pointed out that Rossi did not allow the reactants or products to be measured and noted that "Rossi also refused to unplug the machine while it was operating" despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device, and that the "independent" testers had to rely on data supplied "from the manufacturer".

As I wrote before, the first part is not related in any way to the paper, so it should not be put on the "Test" section. The only part that can be considered as related to the paper is the very last part, ie this one:

..."Rossi...refused to unplug the machine while it was operating" despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device, and that the "independent" testers had to rely on data supplied "from the manufacturer".

So I would rewrite this last bit this way:

Ethal Siegel from Scienceblog criticized the tests as described in the paper. According to Siegel, Rossi refused to unplug the machine while it was operating despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device. He also added that the supposedly independent testers had to rely on data supplied by Rossi.

and I would keep the rest on the "Reaction to the claim" section. One must be aware that the paper is about "calorimetric measurements": there is not any theory or explanation concerning the supposed reaction, there is not even metion of supposed "products" of the supposed reaction. It is almost a series of measurements perfomed on "black box", if we can described the devices in this way...--Insilvis (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The relevance to the paper is explicitly pointed out; the absence of the measurements is what the Siegel source draws attention to. Your rejection of that is nonsensical. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the comment from Ethan Siegel's blog should be removed. The whole story is running over blogs, if this is the problem we should delete the whole article starting from the first sentence. I still also don't understand why should we create a separate section "Test", while this is in fact just an another demonstration. TheNextFuture (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a big problem with this line: "According to Siegel, Rossi refused to unplug the machine while it was operating despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device.". First, it is suggested that Rossi refused a request to unplug the machine. This is not mentioned in the paper. Second, the paper suggests that the device needs input power to function. I don't believe Siegel is a good critic because he is effectively making a strawman argument there. I suggest using the phys.org article instead to provide a critical view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.108.126 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. The paper doesn't say that Rossi refused. It's Siegel's opinion -- so I rephrased it as "Siegel surmises that ...". (I made a previous edit, which I reverted, indicating that Siegel said that Rossi SHOULD have unplugged it. He said that too.). Siegel also put "independent test" in scare-quotes. Again, an opinion. Alanf777 (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie- Reversion of "surmises" (see previous 2 entries) and "independent" eg- "(he cautions about their independence as well.)" -- Where? He puts it in scare quotes. And how is Siegel any more expert in determining "independence" that Gibbs/Forbes or Hambling/Wired? And why are even the REFs to Gibbs#2 and Hambling deleted? Alanf777 (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

He does not treat their independence as established, nor should we (in actual fact nor does Gibbs). Gibbs does not appear to be a physicist from what I can see. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I put in two specific quotes about independence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=556949430&oldid=556935813 -- deleted -- : do reporters have to be physicists? Gibbs #2 (even the REF of which you deleted) looks into their credentials. Alanf777 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to critique what purports to be a scientific experiment, I think asking for credentials isn't way out of line. He's venturing his own opinion here, you aren't using him as a secondary source, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Who is "he ... his own opinion" ? Siegel? Gibbs? Bardi? Hamblin? Why are two personal opinions included, and two deleted? Alanf777 (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are only the opinions of scientists kept? Is that what you are asking? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK : Why are only the opinions of scientists outside of their area of expertise kept? Alanf777 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are the opinions of physicists kept but not non-scientists? Is that your question? I think the answer is fairly obvious, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Test" section and critics of the "paper"

Hi. The article is being more popular now, 1.5-7 thousands of visitors per day in four days ([6]) and mean reader will notice that there are no problems with the "independent test". But actually there are some problems like non-independent testing; strange calorimetry (not with calorimeter, but with IR camera, check Steven B. Krivit) or possible usage of hacked power wires to hide additional power supply from ammeters (Ethan Siegel). `a5b (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Newenergytimes is not a reliable source, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Why it is not reliable, but some blogs are? The author of this page, Steven Krivit was editor of some RS books and he was cited by nbc (and I believe, many other): "Steven Krivit, a journalist who covers cold fusion claims and editor-in-chief of the Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia (Wiley, 2011)". Also, note in the nbc article that problems with power wires are usual in the E-Cat tests. `a5b (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As has been explained already. Scienceblogs are well known and invitation only with a good reputation. Newenergytimes is a random SPS by a non-scientist known for cold fusion advocacy. That is the difference. Go look at RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: there is some list of blog posts, and sources, both reliable and not-reliable: pesn.com/2013/05/20/9602320_VINDICATION--3rd-Party-E-Cat_Test-Results-show-at-least-10x-gain/ -- scroll down to "Other Reports", may be "Mainstream News" `a5b (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Siegel and the test

I want to re-add this text to the article: [7]. Insilvis has objected based on his own original research. Are there any opinions from others? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the WP:OR...so no objection from me. The popsci article is also supportive. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What is supposed to be original research? It seems fine to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is, Insilvis did a bit of original research to try and say the text was unsuitable (in the preceeding sections), IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Mine was not orginal research, I simply checked if the entire quotation from Siegel's blog was related to the tests in the paper or not. I found that the last part of Siegel's comment was related to the tests in the paper, so this last part was perfectly suitable to rermain on the "Tests" section. The other part, ie the initial part of Siegel's comment, was not related to the tests in the paper, instead it was related to the E-Cat story as whole so it was more suitable to the "Reaction to the claims" section. If there are sections then the logic of the sections have to be respected. --Insilvis (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No you are wrong. It is exactly related because he is highlighting something which was not tested this time because Rossi had forbidden it but had issues last time. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

So Siegel did not criticise what was tested, he criticised what was not tested, right? --Insilvis (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

But.... you can criticize a test by saying that crucial parts were not included in the test? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the answer is simple: it depends on what the purpose of the tests is. In this case the purpose of the tests was to perform calorimetric measurements. So you do not need to analyze isotopes, find nuclear fusion reactions or trasmutation of elements, you "just" need to check if the output power is more than input. It is like if you had to measure Usain Bolt's speed and someone (for example mister Ethan Siegel) criticized you because you did not measure the lenght of his legs! This way of criticizing tests is simply pointless. --Insilvis (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You may think it a pointless criticism - Siegel didn't. And pointing out omissions in tests is very much part of the process within scientific discourse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

And the popsci article has a similar criticism of the test "The paper, which is not peer-reviewed, leaves out crucial details, for example referring to "unknown additives" instead of specifying what chemicals actually go into the reaction."

"Crucial" to establish "what chemicals actually go into the reaction", not to perform calorimetric measurements - which was the declared purpose of the paper. "To judge someone on mere intent" should be the right definition for this kind of rebuttals. (P.S. is this science?) --Insilvis (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this science? Well, the test certainly wasn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote before, this is a general rebuttal concerning the entire E-Cat story and it is not a critique of the actual tests. The tests as described in the paper are tests aimed at performing calorimetric measurements on prototype devices. It is a scientific process.--Insilvis (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And as you've been told before, the conditions for the test were not sufficient to yield any valid results. You're wasting your time, and ours, by insisting otherwise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Insilvis, you are now performing original research to delimitate what is a valid test, and what is a valid criticism of a test. How about you drop it, please. You should stop this, this just leads down a rabbit-hole of OR.

Siegel's criticism of nickel proportions is clearly related to the current test. Siegel asks "is this test the real deal", and the nickel proportions are part of the answer. Thus, that paragraph should be restored to the article because it clearly belongs there. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu: so, do you think that the conditions for the tests were not sufficient to yield valid and reliable calorimetric measurements? --Insilvis (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Insilvis, you are still missing the point that it doesn't matter a damn. The source discusses the copper yields, and then mentions that it wasn't measured this time. That is all that matters and that is why we mention it here. Trying to invalidate the source with your OR is not what we do. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not try to invalidate the source. Otherwise I'd have delete it, and I did not delete it. What I pointed out is that Siegel lamented the authors of the paper did not measure copper yields: this has nothing to do with the tests, because the tests are calorimetric measurements. Meausurements not related to isotopes or trasmutation therefore. There is not any understandable reason why not detecting production of copper can affect calorimetric measurements. However it seems that my position is not shared, so for me there is no need to further discuss this matter. --Insilvis (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you incredibly slow? It has already been explained to you why the test not looking at the reactants and products is interesting, now stop with your uninformed original research. You are flogging a dead horse. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am.

Can you repeat it here so I can understand why the test not looking at the reactants and products is interesting?

P.S.

"Products" of what? --Insilvis (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Because without knowledge of the reactants and the products of the reaction the "test" tells us nothing of value. Pointing a thermal camera at the thing and doing some rather cheeseball data collection while Rossi runs the magic black box is not science (or even informative). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There is not any reason to consider such a thermal camera as unfit to measure the temperature of that kind of object. Instead, the authors of the paper adopt the most conservative possible way of calculating the amount of heat energy being radiated (ie considering emissivity as equal to one). As consequence, the paper seems to describe both precise measurments (performed with the proper instruments) and results. It is a scientific process.--Insilvis (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

How come Bardi's personal blog is good enough for the lead, while Gibbs' Forbes official blog (remind me, which is the RS?) is relegated to follow-on comments? In any case Bardi just echoes Siegel, who echoes Motl, who is wrong on several points. His earlier comment is obviously way past it's best-by date. If Forbes is ejected from the lead, so should Bardi. Alanf777 (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your opinions on what is "way past it's best-by date" are of no relevance whatsoever. As for Bardi, it has already been established that he is WP:RS - and per WP:FRINGE, it is entirely appropriate to present the mainstream position on something as implausible as the E-Cat in the lede, regardless of your opinions on who is 'wrong'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Bardi's "fade-away" prediction has not come to pass. So it's clearly an incorrect opinion, and therefore no longer suitable for the lead. I still claim parity for Gibbs' comments. His second article (currently in "reactions") reviews the credentials of the paper's authors and considers their independence. Alanf777 (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You opinions are, as usual, irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. The credentials of the authors and the test itself don't matter at all if it was not run under strictly controled conditions, which Gibbs and the testers themselves admit it was not, and if the results of the test were not published in a real peer-reviewed publication. WP:PARITY is for the mainstream view, not the fringe view. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

My arguments for parity are on the relative RS-ness of two commenters, not on fringe vs mainstream science. One on a private blog, the other on a mainstream news blog. Oh, and thanks for the WP:PARITY reference, particularly the last sentence of paragraph 4. The ECat article IS in the "fringe physics" category. Alanf777 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Youa re wrong. Scienceblogs are not private blogs; they are invite only blogs. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand paragraph 4. It is for those that argue that, for example, only an astrologer can argue about astrology, only cold fusion researchers can argue about cold fusion. Physics, and particularly nuclear physics is the relevant "encompassing field" in this particular case. Siegel is a physicist, Gibbs is a ? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

On para 4 : being a marginalized fringe subject, fringe-oriented sites are permitted to present the fringe view (with a majority-opinion counterview). On their qualifications, I was comparing Gibbs (official site) to Bardi (unofficial site), and their comments were not on the science -- but on the "environment" of the test. Siegel is a BAD physicist: (yeah, yeah, not a forum) he got his main argument against the test BACKWARDS. And when someone pointed out his error, the post was deleted (end of not a forum). Alanf777 (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you've read para 4 of WP:PARITY backwards, as I've already pointed out to you. It does not provide justification for using fringe sources to present fringe views. No he didn't get his arguments backwards but his arguments attack something for which you are a true believer; you have some balls calling someone else a bad physicist, no offence. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

He did get at least TWO things wrong. The paper describes the outside of the cylinder as steel-ceramic-paint. ONE: He read that as steel, and said the emissivity should be 0.2. TWO: the authors say that using an emissivity of 1.0 (rather than the actual emissivity in the range of 0.8 to 0.9 -- which is typical for paints, by the way) UNDER-estimates the power. Siegel says it OVER-estimates it. The authors are right, as shown in Fig 7. As a supposed "currently" astrophysicist he ought to get his radiation right. THREE: he seems to have stopped reading half-way through, because he doesn't note that the radiometry was checked when the system was driven with a resistor, both with pads of a known emmissivity AND with a thermocouple. Then he says "I — for once — will also encourage you to read Lubos’ take on this, because he seems to be the only person other than me who recognizes what awful pretend-science this is." -- of course, Motl made the SAME mistake on emissivity, and ALSO got the convection wrong -- but that's another story. So I give Siegel three strikes on one review. Pretty bad physics, right ? Alanf777 (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Siegel says none of these things in [8]. This really a benign issue about the cylinder and I have no idea why you think it is important. I don't see how whatever the emissivity values would change the main points (specifically those included here). You are just being arbitrary critical about something which seems unimportant so that you can resolve your cognitive dissonance by rejecting the entire post. So no not bad physics, not even close. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right. The statements I quoted were by Motl, who Siegel referenced. I apologize for calling Siegel a bad scientist. Alanf777 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow the money

The last test was funded by Elforsk, the research center for Swedish electricity companies. They made a statement on their website : here is the English translation.

Quote : "The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today." 91.178.9.81 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And continues "...There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces". Not that the link is any use as a source. Who wrote it? Is it any sort of official statement from Elforsk? There seems no way to tell. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

it is an official statement : it is listed on their website in the news (aktuellt) section. Also, Elforsk is cited as funding the test in the acknowlegment section of the arxiv paper. 91.178.9.81 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the purported significance of this? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Forbes and Wired

I object to the Forbes/Wired deletion. This is not a science entry. These reporters are as competent as anybody to comment on the test, and raise issues which have been discussed extensively here in talk (and in the comments to the quoted blogs). Are the testers independent? Are they in cahoots with Rossi? Did he sneak a fake past them? These are all relevant to the eCat. Alanf777 (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"This is not a science entry. These reporters are as competent as anybody to comment on the test". A slight failure of logic, I think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a science entry. These reporters are as competent as anybody to comment on the REACTION TO the test". Alanf777 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

eg Wired's full quote : "These are all individuals who have previously shown an interest in this area, and some critics have been quick to dismiss them as Rossi's friends. However, it's no small matter to put your professional and academic reputation on the line like this, especially when there are so many accusations of fraud flying around." Alanf777 (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

From my talk page : Misrepresentation of source. [edit] Just to make this entirely clear: if you misrepresent a source again by selective quotation, in the way you have done here [1], I shall have no hesitation in reporting you, and calling for you to be topic-banned per Wikipedia:general sanctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 5:52 pm, Today (UTC−7) Go ahead. I expanded the quote to remove the "selective quotation" Alanf777 (talk) 8:09 pm, Today (UTC−7) Alanf777 (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I left out "It may also be significant that the EU is hosting a session on cold fusion in Brussels on 3 June. Organised by ENEA, Italy's nuclear research agency, it's called "New advancements on the Fleischmann-Pons Effect: paving the way for a potential new clean renewable energy source" .. is that TOO selective? Alanf777 (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

And I STRONGLY object to deletions-without-discussion by User:Dominus Vobisdu Alanf777 (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Tough - if your idea of 'discussion' consists of spouting nonsense to the effect that a section describing a 'test' and a paper submitted to arXiv "is not a science entry", there is no point in bothering - it is utter crap, and you know it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary was more than abundantly clear. Gibbs opinions as a non-specialist are irrelevant. Sorry, but there is no point in firther discussion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about the objectivity of the article

It is my opinion that this article is not a reliable source of information on the topic as it gives a highly biased account of its history. In particular, non-factual negative opinions and speculations are featured prominently throughout the article with little concern for their relevance or accuracy (see for example the comparison to a perpwtual motion machine). Another problem is the omission of crucial information, in particular regarding Defkalion and ELFORSK AB.Stengl (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE dictates that fringe views should be given less weight than mainstream views, not that the quality and accuracy of comments supposedly reflecting mainstream views should be low. Making a comparison to a perpetual motion machine shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the claims being made and the history of the research. Never once in 20+ years has any cold fusion researched claimed to have built a perpetuum mobile, and Rossi doesn't claim it either. Magazines such as Forbes are explicitly allowed as sources, yet a recent positive article from Forbes was deleted twice, presumably because it was positive as a negative article by the same autohr which also appeared on Forbes has been in the article for a while.Stengl (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is 'explicitly allowed' as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources such as Forbes are explicitly allowed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sourcesStengl (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Gibbs is a journalist, so his opinion on the newsworthiness of the device is credible. He is not a scientist, so his opinion on the scientific validity of the test are not credible, all the more so that it is quite an exrtaordinary claim. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no policy which dictates that non-scientits must be excluded (if there is, about half of the sources in the article must immediately be removed). It is the hypocrisy with which positive views are marginalized that makes this article highly unreliable.Stengl (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC).

I think DV is referring to wp:REDFLAG, which is policy.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Journalists have proven to be very gullible when reporting scientific stuff. I have seen too many news pieces that report uncritically the inventor's claims, with the token opinion of a university professor to "balance" the opinions. Claims of endless sources of energy pots of gold at the end of the rainbow need extraordinary sources. Rossi makes the very extraordinary claim that he can make nuclear fusion without radiation, but he uses a nuclear reaction path that should give out radiation and consume enormous amounts of energy (from Siegel's blog). Rossi is clearly making an extraordinary claim, and thus falls under WP:REDFLAG. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

arXiv and Peer Review

Several entries have been deleted on the basis that arXiv is not "peer reviewed", or submitted to a "major publication". See arXiv, which notes "Although the arXiv is not peer reviewed, a collection of moderators for each area review the submissions and may recategorize any that are deemed off-topic." List of academic journals by preprint policy notes that "Journals focusing on physics and mathematics are excluded because they routinely accept manuscripts that have been posted to preprint servers." It should also be noted that "A majority of the e-prints are also submitted to journals for publication, but some work, including some very influential papers, remain purely as e-prints and are never published in a peer-reviewed journal." (personal opinion) It is also common to submit a "long" version to arXiv and a "short version" for publication. arXiv is a form of "open peer review", in the sense that the authors get comments from everyone, and frequently update their paper based on those comments. The Levi paper is already on Version 2, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a version 3.(/personal opinion) Alanf777 (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)