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 12:48, 5 June 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Purpose of an encyclopedia

This ought not need saying, but evidently it does. Will all editors please bear in mind that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. This is of particular importance in the case of clearly significant content, such as historical reviews. Equally, arguments that would, if applied uniformly over the board, greatly diminish the value of wikipedia, should be applied only after the most careful consideration and consensus had been gained. Thank you for your consideration!
It might even be argued that the speedy deletion of a source by a cabal member actually demonstrates its importance -- if a reference were of minimal importance, aforementioned member would not go to the trouble of exerting himself in this way. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific point relating to this article? If so please tell us what it is. Otherwise, please note that this is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt Mr. Josephson is upset that we didn't retain the link he inserted to a promotional website for a self-published book by a non-notable columnist...who has made extensive use of Mr. Josephson in his promotion, and who – I strongly suspect – gives substantial weight to Mr. Josephson's opinions in his book.
Why Mr. Josephson didn't just say so – instead of going off with undirected complaints about a "cabal" – is not clear. Of course, if I am mistaken and Mr. Josephson's comments aren't tied to the book and author that treat him so reverently, it would certainly be appropriate to hat this discussion as soapboxing unrelated to any specific article improvements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How perceptive you are, ToAT! Indeed that is exactly what I was referring to! But surely a book by a science and technology writer for a technology magazine linked to the Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers, on a subject that he has covered for that magazine, would be considered a good source, by most people at least.
So, Mr. Lewan asked if he could include the review that I had written as a comment to a Nature article on the web page advertising his book: do you have a problem with that? And he hadn't even solicited the review -- I decided myself it was sufficiently notable that people should know about it, and included enough information to make it a mini-review. Again, do you have a problem with that?
And as for your fellow cabal member JzG ruling it out on the basis of self-publication after cogitating on the matter for fully 2 minutes, let me note the following:

  • I'm sure Mr. Lewan would have had no problem finding a publisher for his book if he had wanted to take that route. But why go to all that trouble, if you have the resources to self-publish? And why let the publisher take a sizable slice of the profits as publishers do?
  • In view of the above, self-publication can no longer be considered a sign of a book being not up to standard, and editing practice should now reflect that fact. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is wikipedia policy "self-published media, such as books, patents, ... are largely not acceptable as sources". If you want to change the policy you need to do it here- WP:SELFPUBLISH. As for this particular book, has it been reviewed anywhere? If it hasn't made any impact then referencing it here is just promotion. Bhny (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change of policy is not required, only blind enforcement of it.--5.15.53.36 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"None so blind as those that will not see" --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a valid point if the e-cat was widely accepted as a miracle energy machine. It's not. It's a device whose inventor and chief proponent has failed to provide the type of evidence necessary to persuade those who are not already predisposed to believe extraordinary claims. Skepticism is the default in the scientific method, the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim and the more extraordinary the claim, the heavier the burden and the better the proof needs to be. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The statement Skepticism is the default in the scientific method seems to be generated by a misunderstanding of the scientific method which deals with discriminating among competitive explanations when they are possible.--82.137.15.181 (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. When you have an idea, the scientific method demands that you test your idea, whereas the pseudoscientific method allows you to to try to confirm your idea. The scientific method is only followed if the burden of evidence is placed on the person making the claim.
For example, if someone believes in homeopathy and conducts a trial of homeopathy against a placebo without including the consultation process (i.e. the "talk therapy" element) then they are not taking into account the totality of the null hypothesis - they are engaging in pathological science. If they then publish the result asserting that homeopathy is a system of medicine that works by the energetic signature of a substance which causes symptoms similar to those of the condition, according to the law of similars, and that this result proves it works as stated, then they are engaging in pseudoscience, because none of those things are true and there is no attempt to test the base assumptions, none of which have any theoretical or empirical validity at all. To be science, you must base your conclusions on skeptical tests and theories with a solid grounding in reality. Look at the scientific reaction to Einstein's papers on relativity. And how was the debate resolved? By making specific predictions that could be verified by dispassionate observers. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The qualifier skeptical has no place near tests when it comes to applying the scientific method. Trying to confirm a hypothesis is a natural tendency for the investigator. This corresponds as reasoning to affirming the consequent starting from the consequent (experimental fact). The problem appears when different antecedents can give (explain) the same consequent or equivalently several alternative hypotheses can explain the same experimental facts. Discerning between alternatives requires the appeal to falsification (denying the negation of an antecedent). Sometimes times discerning between alternatives is not very decidable and multiple alternatives are equally valid. Some alternatives to (general) relativity are known, just to give an example. Another example of several explanations that can be given involves the ionic conductivity of electrolytes solutions, namely the minimum in conductivity is due to ion-association or not.--82.137.12.64 (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are, I am afraid, wrong. Many tests of Prosper-René Blondlot's n-rays were carried out, but it was only when properly skeptical tests were performed that they were shown to be pathological science. Suspend belief is one of the most important facets of proper scientific inquiry. If it doesn't work without belief, then it's baloney. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When we have credible evidence that this device is not the fraud it is generally considered to be, then we will put that in the article. Right now, we don't, so the article reflects the fact that the device is generally considered to be a fraud, and self-published books claiming the contrary are of no relevance in either case. Books on fringe claims are generally less reliable than the mainstream academic journals, because there are publishers who publish nonsense (the output of Lynne McTaggart, for example, is filed in the Science section in some bookshops!). So no thanks, we do not need laudatory books, especially self-published ones. Bring good quality mainstream peer-reviewed sources that show it works - and explain how - and then we can talk. It's not very complicated.
As an aside, the credentials of the author are irrelevant. There are people who have done super scientific work but who espouse completely ridiculous pseudoscientific notions. The appeal to authority is fallacious. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that fully 12 of the references in the article consist of articles by Mats Lewan himself. Had you not noticed that? Can the cabal please supply a good reason why a book by the same person, on exactly the same topic, should be suddenly be deemed unacceptable? This is a Kafkaesque situation! --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for flagging that, I will review them and remove them if justified. Lewan gives a strong impression of being a True Believer, which is fine for uncontroversial facts but much less so for claims that are rejected by most independent reviewers. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lewan's articles are used because they were published in Ny Teknik, not because they were authored by Lewan. Supposedly, Ny Teknik has a minimal level of quality control that makes the articles reliable. Lewan would need a few more publications in more than one publisher to reach the level of authority required by WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Or more coverage about his work. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you give a remarkably strong impression of being a True Disbeliever (aka Denier) if I may say so. What is the harm done if they are all there in the article? --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am a moon cheese denier, too. Being a skeptic does that for you. The good thing is, though, that the only thing that is needed to completely change my mind, is credible evidence of independently reproducible effect. And guess what? That's what we require for the article, too. It's not like this is the first time Wikipedia has been around this loop, the cold fusionists have engaged in long-term POV-pushing on cold fusion too, resulting in several of them being banned.
It really is very straightforward: if the world thinks a free energy type device is fraudulent, Wikipedia is firmly not the place to blaze the trail in promoting its legitimacy. When there are good quality independent sources showing that it works, and how, then we will cover that. In the mean time the consensus view is that this is a scam, and our default position in respect of extraordinary claims is precisely the correct one: they require extraordinary evidence. Not YouTube videos and self-published apologia.
This device, if it is as its proponents claim, will win them the Nobel prize. I personally think it's unlikely to happen because I have a friend who worked in Fleischmann's lab during the cold fusion debacle, and even he doesn't believe the cold fusionists' claims re catalysed fusion, but I suspend final judgment until the results are either properly published and independently reproduced, or he's jailed. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Lewan points out in his book, a skeptic is one who keeps an open mind when a question is in doubt, not one who is against the idea. Alanf777 (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are redefining words now? A skeptic is someone who requires strong evidence before accepting a claim, which is precisely what JzG described. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Skepticism means being neither credulous nor incredulous. The sources that promote the e-cat seem to be almost entirely credulous, whereas the more mainstream sources adopt an approach of "really? how?". It's not as if this is the first time we've seen inflated claims for marvellous machines that will forever free the world from the tyranny of the oil companies. The path often seems to be claim -> failed reproduction -> pathological science -> conspiracy theory. There are a lot of eyes on these claims, and most of them see plenty of potential for chicanery and no robust evidence to support the claims of proponents. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing this discussion I have to remark that there are also other low reproducible phenomena like wind energy. Is this a reason for including it in pathological science or it has to be accepted as a feature of the phenomenon?--82.137.15.181 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean when you say that wind energy is a "low reproducible" phenomenon? As far as I am aware, any wind turbine placed in an airstream whose velocity is within its operational parameters will always, completely repeatably, generate electricity. Cold fusion and its anlogues, by contrast, only seem to work when the experiment is conducted by a True Believer. Pathological science is often illustrated by reference to the efforts of cold fusion proponents. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that wind (and solar) energy is a variable renewable energy who generate electricity only when natural factors are available. The availability of natural factors is a random variable. --82.137.13.171 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering what this line of discussion has to do with writing this article about the Energy Catalyzer—which is what this talk page is for. As far as I know, Andrea Rossi hasn't even gotten as far as invoking 'random variables'. His position – as far as I know – is that the devices work, full stop. The problem here is that Rossi hasn't released sufficient information to allow independent reproduction/construction of one of his devices, nor has he permitted any fully independent examination and testing of any of his devices. And we do know that the last time Rossi claimed to develop a new energy technology (super-efficient thermoelectric generation panels, back around 2002-4) they worked astonishingly well right up until he delivered devices for independent testing...at which point he dropped off the radar until his next big invention: this so-called Energy Catalyzer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The conditions in which CMNR (condensed matter nuclear reactions) devices generate useful energy are also random variables, especially for people not knowing these conditions (figured out by Rossi) and trying to reproduce them for an independent testing in conditions of insufficient information.--82.137.12.64 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since Rossi has yet to offer the slightest verifiable evidence that he has achieved 'condensed matter nuclear reactions', the fact that nobody else has been able to 'replicate' anything is of no relevance whatsoever. Science requires evidence, not promotional bullshit aimed at the pathologically credulous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a distinction without a difference. Coal fired generation does not work in the absence of coal, nuclear generation does not work in the absence of fissile material. To claim that because wind fluctuates, so we should accept the claims of a convicted fraudster about a device for which he has failed to provide credible scientific proof, is ridiculous and certainly not acceptable per Wikipedia policy. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to specify who is world who has the consensus view that E_Cat is fraudulent.--5.15.45.12 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the book. Most editors here try to act in good faith and a self-published fringe-science book about anything has almost no chance of being referenced in any article in wikipedia. This has nothing to do with cabals or cold fusion skepticism or free-energy suppression, we are just trying to make a good article. To make the case that this book should be included we would at the very least need to see reviews in reliable sources or some proof that this book is important. Bhny (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my note in another section. (re-signed) Alanf777 (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This? I replied here. Generally cleaner though to keep discussion sections self-contained, since they might get archived to different pages or something. VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry (and for being logged out when adding the comment here). I added to my previous comment on Lewan, and didn't see that this section covered the same ground. Alanf777 (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhny: Precisely. As I have mentioned, I had a friend who performed some of the experiments in Fleischmann's lab in Southampton in the late 80s, we were all full of hope back then, but that was a quarter of a century ago and there's still nothing tangible from it other than a device that only seems to work when operated by its inventor, a convicted fraudster with a degree form a university that was shut down for fraud. If the red flags were any bigger we'd be declaring a People's Republic. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting

The hatting by VQuakr has been reverted because its reason is not valid. This section discusses the inclusion of a book source by the same author whose articles are cited in article.--82.137.14.18 (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then stay on topic - we are not here to discuss the meaning of the word 'skeptical', alternatives to general relativity, or the relevance of random variables to wind power generation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing the section was valid. The self-published source has been rejected for policy-based reasons. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing has no place here. There are strong signs of admin impropriety from some admin who thinks he owns the page to force the closure of a discussion tendentiously by obstructing legitimate comments with which he disagrees using the pretext of off-topic.--5.15.31.133 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I look for a claimed disruptive technology - I want to read about facts and opinion of experts in this field (condensed matter and electrochemistry). And if there is a book with certain quality covering that special topic - I expect wikipedia to mention that book. Is the opinion of the Journalist Steve Featherstone a reliable Source ? no, but it was published in Popular Science.

Is Ugo Bardi a reliable source if it comes to economic and nuclear opinions about Rossi? no. Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel is not from the field. A well written book from a journalist with background in the field (a Master of Science in Engineering Physics) - which had the chance to meet all the involved persons as well as was involved in measurements - should be mentioned. There was an endorsement by Brian Josephson - and that should be enough. Would an endorsement of Featherstone, Bardi, Siegel be credible ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of scientific claims is determined by reproducibility, not endorsement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I´m sure it makes no sense - but maybe you missed the point that I raised the question which type of endorsement should be necessary to add a reference to a stupid book covering that issue. Taken into account what kind of far-out sources are cited in this article - adding a reference to such book should need no endorsement at all.

But maybe you will never get the point - because you cannot read - what could explain the book issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the Claims

I would like to suggest that Reactions to the Claims be put in date order, oldest first, so it would start with: "In 1998 Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, described LENR as a "promising" technology . . ."

I would also think a recent report should be included in this section if not in History: <RESEARCH TRIANGLE, N.C., Jan. 24, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Industrial Heat, LLC announced today that it has acquired the rights to Andrea Rossi's Italian low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology, the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat). A primary goal of the company is to make the technology widely available, because of its potential impact on air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and biomass. "The world needs a new, clean and efficient energy source. Such a technology would raise the standard of living in developing countries and reduce the environmental impact of producing energy," said JT Vaughn speaking on behalf of Industrial Heat (IH). . . >

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology-241853361.html 108.205.30.247 (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases aren't reliable sources. Bhny (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bhny is correct: prnewswire is a public relations publisher, not a news source with critical reporting. Not reliable. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A big delusion: report from Gamberale and Cappiello (ex Defkalion Europe)

It should be reported that rumors from web on Hyperion Milan test in july 2013 ended up in these days (may 2014) with a report from Gamberale ( http://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/dgt-faulty-demo-140502-english.pdf ) downloadable from Mats Lewan blog ( http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/ )and in an interview at Nextme with Cappiello ( http://www.nextme.it/scienza/energia/7700-fusione-fredda-intervista-cappiello-defkalion-europe ) who clearly speak of a fraud. I do believe these two documents and the post from blogs of Mats and of Passerini (reporting the news at http://22passi.blogspot.it/2014/05/relazione-tecnica-finale-sulla-misura.html ) should be at least listed. 93.34.205.35 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the E-Cat, not Defkalion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The failed device is the Hyperion , developed by Defkalion. It's not the E-cat, but it's purposedly based on E-Cat's technology, right? If it had better sources. If the sources made a good link with the E-Cat. If If If. Then we could include it somewhere. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Purportedly is all -- Defkalion claimed to have got their system to have worked independently of Rossi and have not been using the same catalyst. What the critics claim is that the flow measurements were faulty. I said to Mats Lewan, what about the control expt. that seemed to show the measurement process was sound? He responded that in the 'real' run various adjustments were being made that were not made in the control run, and perhaps these interfered with the flow measurements. Defkalion have not yet responded and things do not look good for them, especially as (if I have understood it correctly) it was their EC branch that reported the problem.
What are the implications for the e-cat, you may ask? None, really. That has been tested by a group that were in charge of the run, and the method used in the latest test did not involve water flow, so this particular problem is not relevant there. The investigation was reported in the physics preprint archive a year or so ago and I'm not aware of any significant issues having surfaced. It is significant that Lewan has for some time been expressing doubts about the Defkalion claims. I'll also remark that I have changed the introduction to my youtube video giving a clip from the Def. demo so that it no longer presents it as an excess heat demonstration.
And what about the fraud allegation? As far as I am aware the question is open at the moment -- they may just be incompetent experimenters and not done proper checks. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here you can see a rather nebulous interview with Defkalion's CEO. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a wiki page for Defkalion. (They put out an official release saying that their R-6 is on the way, and they'll say nothing more about the R-5). I've long thought that there ought to be either an article "Commercial Cold Fusion" (or a section in Cold Fusion), with a summary of the Ecat and other systems like Defkalion which at least claim to be developing commercial systems. But none of them are ever mentioned in the general press, and those sites concentrating on cold fusion have not been regarded as "reliable" wiki sources. Alanf777 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The popular science magazine Focus (http://www.focus.it) has been covering these issues. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious procedures of obstruction of legitimate comments

One can notice some some methods of obstruction of legitimate comments by an admin on various pretexts like in an above section.--5.15.31.133 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to determine what suggestions you are making to improve this Wikipedia article. Could you be more specific, please? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed some methods used in a section above which are trying to oppose and obstruct the improvement of this article in discussion of a source.--5.15.31.133 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As already asked: are you going to tell us what this improvement is? Bhny (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re 'a section above': you might at least say which section you have in mind, even if you prefer not to be more explicit than that. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/default.aspx?programid=406 and http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2795&artikel=5872724 // Liftarn (talk)

This seems important: worth to be added/included?

(automatic translation: https://translate.google.it/translate?hl=it&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fasikter%2Fdebatt%2Farticle3830568.ece )
--Insilvis (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Catalyzer&oldid=611673796"