Jump to content

Talk:Energy Catalyzer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Insilvis (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 24 May 2013 (→‎PhysOrg article, plus comment from Ethan Siegel's blog). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Article from Popular Science on the E-Cat

Academics interviewed, plus a good recap of the story so far.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This isn't a forum. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this is not a forum, and in the PopSci article there are many notable opinions from academics and others, opinions that can be reported in the section named Reactions to the claims.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, finally a usable source for the Kensington title. (It used to be in his official biography together with the Milan title March 2010, February 2011, now the summary only mentions the Milan title, but the Kensington title is still in the detailed page[1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of the few sources we can use which doesn't cite this Wikipedia article and is a genuine independent source of information, I think it is completely appropriate to mention that some new article has appeared in a "mainstream" source, even if it is just "popular news" instead of a published scientific paper. Since most of this topic is about reaction to Rossi's announcements rather than anything concrete about the invention itself, popular news media sources seem rather appropriate too. Thank you Numb3rn7ne for noting this source even if you are just passing it on to other participants in this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Horning, thank you. I preferred to wait just a little bit and ponder what information are worth to insert in the meantime.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rossi routinely gets "mainstream" coverage. The reporter is obviously a cold fusion advocate though. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think so, the article is very well balanced.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugo Bardi's quote

I've added this line from the PopSci article:

On October 2012, during an inteview with Popular Science, Bardi affirmed that the Energy Catalyzer is "a scam. It doesn’t work."

So the text would be:

Professor Ugo Bardi of the University of Florence, noting contradictory claims made by Rossi regarding the emission or non-emission of gamma radiation, the location of a supposed factory – in Florida, or not in the United States at all – and the fact that some of his supporters are apparently deserting him, said "...the E-Cat has reached the end of the line. It still maintains some faithful supporters, but, most likely, it will soon fade away in the darkness of pathological science, where it belongs".[13] On October 2012, during an inteview with Popular Science, Bardi affirmed that the Energy Catalyzer is "a scam. It doesn’t work."[14]

--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean 'asserted' not 'affirmed' - but why do we need to quote Bardi twice in the lede anyway? What does the 'scam' comment (which probably needs to be put into context) add to what Bardi had already said? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmed/stated/said/asserted... sound all the same for me. This line is a direct statement made by Bardi on the E-Cat and it is not taken out of context, read the PopSci article: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box?single-page-view=true Bardi simply said: “It’s a scam. It doesn’t work.”
Why adding it? Simply, this is not a repetition: it is a well-said synthesis of the E-Cat story according to Bardi.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A sound-bite isn't synthesis. If this belongs in the lede (which is questionable), it needs expansion in the body of the article to explain why Bardi reached that conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the quotes from Bardi should be inverted: “It’s a scam. It doesn’t work.” should stay in the lede, and the rest should stay in the body of the article.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to give an explanation for why this sound-bite needs inclusion at all. And no, we've already discussed Bardi's 'pathological science' quote repeatedly - you don't get to remove it on a pretext. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My purpose is not to remove anything, I interpreted what you wrote in the way the two should be inverted, I simply added a referenced line and I do not undestand why you asked me to remove it. So, if you have any reason why I should not insert this line, write it. Otherwise I do not see any reason why I should not insert it.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have given multiple reasons. You have yet to provide an explanation for why this sound-bite belongs in the lede at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted in the lede for the simple fact that in the lede there is Ugo Bardi's quote. In my opinion splitting the quotes given by Bardi into two parts and placing them in two different places on the article is illogical.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to explain why it needs inclusion anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, it is a well-said synthesis of the E-Cat story according to Bardi.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a poor justification. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need of a "justification"! You asked me a motivation, and I gave you. Bardi was quoted from his blog: then why not quoting him from Popular Science? His quotation from PopSci is precise and well documented, I really do not understand why there is so much fuss for a line from a citation of Ugo Bardi from Popular Science!--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put sound-bites in article ledes. How difficult is that to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Quotes sound good but they get too much weight in the lead. In the lead it's better to summarize the conclusions. (of course, we make exceptions, for example, an important quote from an important commenter and we need to convey the exact message, like the DOE 2004 quotes in Cold fusion' lead. If Ugo Bardi's quote would have caused Rossi to be left without any important funding during a decade at a time when it desperately needed funding, like the DOE 2004 conclusions, then it would probably be included.) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E-Cat logo (official): is it possible to insert it into the article?

In the past there was a discussion about the possible insertion of the E-Cat logo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_13#E-Cat_official_logo:_is_it_possible_to_insert_it_into_the_article.3F

However, it was objected that there was no proof that it was the official E-Cat logo.

Well, here you can find the official logo:

http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123495435_1.jpg

from the Prometeon website (ie the website of the official Italian licensee for the Energy Catalyzer):

http://www.prometeon.it/index.php

Question: now is it possible to insert it into the article? Thanks.--79.20.140.210 (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the website state that this is 'the E-Cat logo', or is it just their own logo? And do you have a third-party source which confirms that Prometeon is 'the official Italian licensee for the Energy Catalyzer'? Given the often-murky relationship between various businesses involved with the E-Cat, it would be unwise to take the word of involved parties on this. Frankly though, I can see little need for a logo in the article anyway, unless and until it becomes clear that there is a product actually being sold. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems that it is written here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#Commercial_plans "In 2012 an Italian company, Prometeon Srl, became the official Italian licensee for the Energy Catalyzer.[69]"--79.20.140.210 (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that is correct, it still doesn't confirm that this is 'the E-Cat logo' rather than Prometeon's own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh? The logo of Prometeon is this one: http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123495435_2.jpg (you can see it here: http://www.prometeon.it ) --79.20.140.210 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant 'Prometeon's own version of an E-Cat logo'. It would seem to me that only Rossi's own company - Leonardo Corp - would be any use as a source for a statement that this was an official logo - though you haven't even provided evidence that Prometeon are claiming that it is an official E-Cat logo. Frankly though, per WP:CRYSTALBALL there seems little point in us showing a logo for an as-yet non-existent product. Logos are marketing tools, and so far there is nothing to market. If this ever does go on sale, I'm quite sure we will be able to find ample confirmation regarding how it is being marketed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I wouldn't worry about adding E-Cat logos (products have their own logos?) until products are being released. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about products being released either, at least before the FTC comes in and shuts down this nonsense. Everything is just two weeks or two months away from being verified...and the Rossi fan club just keeps coming. Two years from now it will still be two weeks or two months away from getting "an independent researcher" to verify that it really works. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
NyTeknik, in Swedish http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3697489.ece Alanf777 (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There have been multiple additions on this. I added the Nyteknik link to the latest. Alanf777 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [2] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
scienceblogs are generally reliable, and usaully used for the authors opinions. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Bhny removed I think you meant IRWolfie Bhny (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my fault. Corrected immediately--Insilvis (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[3] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [4]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
References are to verify the previous sentence. The section External links is for external links, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There are also notes, but notes aren't refs: Template:Efn. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 from the manufacturer.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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 ([5]) 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)[reply]

Newenergytimes is not a reliable source, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Catalyzer&oldid=556602871"