Talk:Energy Catalyzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Regarding change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=next&oldid=678147693[edit]

For the above change this reason is given: "Mats Lewan is neither a scientific expert nor an expert in patent law and so his opinion on what the patent is should not be included". Again, a very poor excuse for removing a quote from the article. In fact Lewan has a Master of Science degree in engineering physics, and it would be surprising if Ny Teknik would have him as its technology reporter if they did not consider he had the necessary expertise and objectivity.

And if you actually read through the patent application (and have the appropriate expertise, which I suppose you may not have) you will see that to compare the qualifications and the E-cat requires no legal training at all, and fairly minimal physics. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lewan's website is promoting his book. It is clearly in his interest to promote the E-Cat. It is not a reliable source, end of story. As for 'minimal physics', this is an irrelevance - the patent does not discuss the E-Cat, LENR, or any related field, and accordingly cannot be cited as a source making any such connection. Rossi has patented a heater for fluids, and that is all that Wikipedia will describe it as. Clearly Rossi intended that the patent would give the gullible an impression that he'd patented something he hadn't, but there is nothing compelling Wikipedia to assist him in this flimflammery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As my adviser has said, "A Master's Degree and $2 will get you a cup of coffee." Even if he had a PhD in Physics and won a Nobel Prize, however, that does not excuse the violation of the WP:FRIND issue. jps (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide a RS verifying the fact that a Master's Degree can get you a reduction in the price of coffee? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

http://fcnp.com/2015/08/27/the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-gets-a-u-s-patent/ (source: Falls Church News-Press)
Is this source more suitable than Mats Lewan's website?--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't ask! Within 5 minutes of anyone inserting that reference it will be declared unreliable and reverted. Mark my words -- editors can do this kind of thing in their sleep -- for that matter some of them probably have routines set up to do it automatically! --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes it will, because it's a minor provincial newspaper that has no obvious expertise in the field of nuclear physics. There is also the problem that NUMB3RN7NE seems to devote most of xyr time here these days to pimping Rossi. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"...09:13, 26 August 2015 JzG (talk | contribs) protected "Talk:Energy Catalyzer"‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC))‎[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)) (Persistent sock puppetry: Banned cold fusionists linking usual promotional stuff, disruptive.) (hist)..."
(see here)
Because it seems to me that we are all registered users, where is this kind of "persistent sock puppetry" you have talked about? --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The article (in the minor provincial newspaper) doesn't connect the patent with E-cat; only with cold fusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
That article connects the patent with Rossi (his name features 9 times in all), and the w'pedia article features Rossi as the inventor (his name is mentioned 4 times in the first paragraph). It is hardly OR or SYNTH to spot the connection, even if you yourself seem to have overlooked it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Another mention here:

So what? We spent years fighting off cold fusion cranks, but members of the reality-based community are not supposed to comment on news articles? I hardly think so. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/post_10010_b_8052326.html
"...Rossi was just granted a patent by the U.S. Patent Office. The patent includes some heretofore unknown details, such as the contents of the "fuel" in Rossi's reactors: it is a powder of 50% nickel, 20% lithium and 30% lithium aluminum hydride..." (plus, there is also a small recap of the whole story too) --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... It says Rossi's reactors, not precisely E-Cat. It also accepts Rossi's unconfirmed claim that there is a commercial installation. Although HuffPo is not very reliable, there is enough here for a comment in Rossi's article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he has a patent on a water heater. No doubt this will help him raise more capital, using bait-and-switch. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
HeHe/LOL! --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Why claiming that the patent application still is rejected?[edit]

Currently, the article says that the U.S. patent application was rejected, but does not mention that the same application, belonging to Rossi, was accepted in august 2015. Why? Please motivate this removal better. It would be NPOV to keep the link to the patent decision and e.g. the Huffington post article mentioned above, and also cite some criticism of the acceptance decision.Mange01 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the same application. application 12/736,193 was rejected, 13/420,109 was the one accepted. Not that that implies it works, just that an examiner thought it might be eligible. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The patent that was accepted was for a water heater; that patent application did not mention LENR or any similar new physics. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you have some reliable source claiming that this is not a patent relevant to the energy catalyzer? Mange01 (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You can't claim that a patent was granted for the energy catalyzer based on a different patent for "An apparatus for heating fluid" which makes no claim about excess energy being produced. More importantly, we can't interpret patents. If you are not able to find reliable, independent sources that say that a US patent was granted for the energy catalyzer, then it can't go in the article.- MrX 13:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You are shifting the burden of evidence. Rather than demand that others provide a source that states the patent is unrelated, you need to provide a reliable, secondary source that states that a patent application for a LENR device has been accepted. VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

There should be a WP:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof tag. Maybe this device is genuine but it is so extraordinary that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Mtpaley (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Industrial Heat[edit]

Industrial Heat has apparently bailed. This looks like a press release but the published source (New Energy Times) is not reliable. A more reliable source may become available. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Their statement is so vague that it's hard to find anything useful in it for the present article. If we had an article on Industrial Heat LLC it might be worth a brief mention there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@JzG: I am not really understanding what you are referring to. Where does it say anything about the E-cat? InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
D'oh, wrong link. It's here. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, the actual statement from Industrial Heat is actually just a long-winded declaration that "We're awesome for no specific reasons, and we can neither confirm nor deny anything"—though I did get a chuckle out of their statement on the importance of "Embracing failure as well as success...". While Krivit's between-the-lines reading is probably correct in this instance, he's not really more reliable as a source of information and analysis than Lewan, Rossi, or Rossi's business partner du jour. Of course, the complete and thorough evasiveness of Industrial Heat's statement certainly shows why we're correct to continue to not mention or promote them on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, IH have been very clear that they aren't interested in publicity in the way that Rossi has been. They are at best vague and seem keen to let any information about the device and ongoings to filter through Rossi and his blog. Until IH or Darden decide to actually come forward and even say something, there isn't much to report anyway, as we can't exactly take Rossi's word about the state of their professional relationship. I am unclear about what part of the press release makes Kravit think that there is any kind of split though (he doesn't elaborate on why), as it seems too vague to make out much of anything. There is supposedly a report coming 'soon' based on the year long 'customer plant' that has apparently been being tested. If true I expect there will shortly be a flood of new articles on the subject. InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, look—it's getting even better. Rossi (and his mysterious Leonardo Corporation) are suing Darden, Industrial Heat, et al.: [1]. Totally self-published claims, and totally not appropriate for use in this article. But I'm sure we're all just shocked to see another Rossi business deal unravelling.
Oh wait, there's more. Darden and Industrial Heat have issued a statement, as quoted by the Triangle Business Journal: [2]
Darden was unable to comment on the suit Thursday. Vaughn told Triangle Business Journal in a prepared statement that Industrial Heat is aware of the lawsuit, calling it "without merit."
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success," the statement reads, adding that Leonardo Corporation and Ross "have repeatedly breached their agreements."
The defendants plan to "vigorously" defend themselves against the suit.
Delightful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems like the latter is due mention. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to wait for it to be covered by a real news outlet, honestly. The response filing by Darden et al. in the suit will hopefully be almost as entertaining as Rossi's statement of claim. (And was Darden really a sucker to the tune of $11.5 million? Wow.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
In exactly what way is the Triangle Business Journal (a publication of American City Business Journals -- also see http://www.thebusinessjournals.com/audience/interactive-map/ for subscriber information) not a "real news outlet"? (Of course, since the editors here deemed articles in Fortune -- http://fortune.com/2015/09/27/ceo-cherokee-investment-partners-low-energy-nuclear-reaction/ -- reporting the $10M investment through International Heat to be irrelevant, I'm not exactly surprised. Likewise the reversion of information about Rossi's "important U.S. patent" -- Darden's words -- because it didn't include the name "eCat") ps: Wow? ... didn't you read that Darden was actually a "sucker" by signing an agreement to pay a total of $100,500,000? Alanf777 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
For reference (but not for use in the Wikipedia article):
The schadenfreude is strong. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that wider coverage would help prevent any disputes over it being due mention. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Rossi is trying to litigate his claims into reality! Guy (Help!) 22:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless we get a high quality source representing both sides of this litigation war I find it difficult to endorse including it in the article yet. You say it "looks like Rossi is blah" but from the limited information we have it seems equally likely that IH is trying to weasel out of paying him the agreed sum following the year test. I suggest waiting until a source appears that covers the issue in depth (and i suspect we won't have to wait long). InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Only one of the two parties has a conviction for fraud and is punting a device that is disputed by most experts who have seen it. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I'm unaware of any policy or guideline that requires "a high quality source representing both sides", and I don't think for a second that "it seems equally likely" IH is at fault. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The Triangle source is marginally acceptable, but all I was saying is that I'd like to see a higher quality source, otherwise it is likely to devolve into another edit war like we've seen before over marginally acceptable sources. InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Section added, with a minimal statement of the claims and IH's response. Alanf777 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a rather succinct and accurate description of the source in question. InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I've trimmed the description a bit, and I'm wondering if it's appropriate for us to cover this in the article at all at this stage. The statement of claim for Rossi's lawsuit is essentially a self-published, self-promotional source, and about as reliable (and likely as accurate) as the rest of Rossi's claims over the last few years (or decades). I'm reluctant to try to build an article out of what are essentially a local paper's selections of quotes from press releases. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
A BIT? No. You gutted the description of Rossi's claim, including the payments which have already been made, and left in an even less substantiated claim by Vaughn (three years without success etc). The court papers are now available outside of Pacer. TBJ's report was fair, and so was my summary. Alanf777 (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere has removed the section, which I think is wise. Clearly any coverage of this rather contentious matter would need careful wordsmithing to avoid presenting any statement of claims as statements of fact. The solution undoubtedly does lie in more and better sourcing. I suggest this is parked for a while to see what turns up in the next couple of weeks. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This carefullness is going too far. We have a lawsuit, in verbatim, we have press releases from the two parties, and we have an article from Triangle Business Journal. This event has enough merit to go in the article, and there is nothing wrong to state the facts from both sides, with support from the article in the journal, in an objective manner. My submission was bluntly rejected, which I object to, and I will submit it once more. Feel free to correct me as much as you like, but I do not think it is right that this event should go unmentioned at this time. -- Egil (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:V, WP:RS. When the lawsuit is described in reliable independent sources (rather than, say, press releases via PR Newswire and Dropbox links to the primary source), then we can include it. It will be fixed before the WP:DEADLINE. Remember that Rossi is a convicted fraudster, so anything originating from him needs to be fact-checked by a reliable third party before we include it. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This ties back in to the "fool me five times" thread now archived here. Let's wait until there is time to see if anything comes of this; there is no rush. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The lawsuit should be briefly mentioned, but dropbox is not a published source. If the lawsuit complaint is to be used as a (primary) source, then it can be referenced on PACER.- MrX 11:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, this does not make sense (to me). We are not arguing who is right and wrong here, just stating the facts: There is a lawsuit from Rossi claiming something, there is a response from Industrial Heath, claming something. Surely this is not disputed. It is in the article I qouted from the Triangle Business Journal, part of American City Business Journals, an independent source. Did you read it? Everything is in there. It is also in the supporting, primary sources. which I believe are also relevant and interesting to refer to. PR Newswire is simply an entirely legitimate place to publish press statements, bias is not a question here, press statements are what they are, primary sources. Thanks for the tip on referring PACER, btw. A lawsuit in this matter of wide interest is definitely notable and we have sufficient material to write a couple of sentences. (Either this is a multi-million dollar fraud, or it is the invention of the century. In any case, notable) I'm not entirely sure what is going on in this little corner of WP, but reverting objective, sourced, good faith, relevant and notable material about facts that is as far as I can see undisputed was not good style when first I came here? -- Egil (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
We can cover the lawsuit in the words of reliable independent secondary sources, precisely as we are supposed to cover everything. If there are no sources discussing it in context yet, then we don't cover it yet. That is how Wikipedia works. The Triangle piece appears to me to be based on the same press release as PR Newswire. It contains red flags such as calling Rossi a "scientist". It does not even hint at any skepticism of his claims, simply reporting the statements of proponents. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Our role is not to wait untill a source pops up that may conincide with wathever view one might have (i.e. is Rossi a scientist or not). In this case, the lawsuit is certainly notable and WP should refer to the facts that seems to be well documented, i.e. that there is a lawsuit and what the views of the two parties are in an objective manner. Actually, I would state that given the interest of this case, omitting to mention the lawsuit is actually a lack of objectivity. -- Egil (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Regretfully, I must disagree with your disagreement. Based on the history extensively documented on this talk page (cf "Fool me five times" thread and everything else) this very much looks like the usual "science by press release" approach that Rossi has followed for years. Based on that history, we know that narratives promulgated by Rossi are inherently unreliable, and it is absolutely correct and essential that we wait for proper, robust, independent sourcing. Parroting Rossi's likely fatuous legal claims here makes us a part of his media and legal strategy—no thanks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There are sufficient sources for the lawsuit without needing to rely on the press release. We should also now re-add the material about the investment to provide historical context for the lawsuit. There's no need to parrot Rossi's claims, but we do have to summarize what the lawsuit is about. We can't cite a blog and How stuff works, while ignoring actual reliable sources when they report on something relevant to the subject.- MrX 13:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
While there are independent sources (the Triangle Business News local newspaper/blog, anyway) to establish that the lawsuit exists, all that those sources do is repeat the contents of the press releases. There's no independent analysis or evaluation. Rossi filing a lawsuit larded with the same spurious claims he's been making for years shouldn't provide a backdoor to get those claims into Wikipedia. Darden and company haven't even filed a response with the court yet, so we again have a one-sided presentation of Rossi's business dealings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
"Our role is not to wait untill a source pops up..." Actually, that is our role: to ensure that the we have sources appropriate for any proposed or included content. The press at this point is early and taking Rossi's claims at face value. Editors think we need better sources. I agree given the past discussions and Rossi's history. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Some editors thought that it was irrelevant that Rossi had a deal for $10M (See Fortune etc). It now turns out to have been for $100M. This lawsuit was reported by a reliable regional news organization. There is no doubt that a case has been filed : the court documents are available on Pacer, including the contract between Rossi and Industrial Heat. I believe that our readers can be informed of the existence of the case without taking sides (though I still think my summary was fair and balanced). Alanf777 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

As a result of which the fanbois have exactly what they want: the primary source which contains only Rossi's untested allegations and two credulous news stories in low quality news websites. Slow clap. If this is so significant, where are the reality-based sources? Many serious journals would be interested if there was evidence of merit to this claim. Instead we have churnalism with quotes from Rossi's fan club. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
(Copied from above) : In exactly what way is the Triangle Business Journal (a publication of American City Business Journals -- also see http://www.thebusinessjournals.com/audience/interactive-map/ for subscriber information) not a "real news outlet"? They also reported on IH's investment in Rossi, and have interviewed Darden several times. Alanf777 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The article in Triangle Business Journal, despite the outlet's lofty name, is identified as a "blog" by Google's News search: "scientist+sues+raleigh+cold+fusion+startup". If it were in print rather than online, it would be a free weekly handout from one of those wire racks at the grocery or convenience store, existing principally as a way to distribute advertising for local businesses. Stuff that appears in its pages probably exists in one form or another, but its appearance is no indication of notability, importance, or accuracy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Really? Here's another little news outlet which should be discredited because it has a blog section : http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/ TBJ's Lauren Ohnesorg is a staff writer who "covers information technology and entrepreneurship." Her work appears in the (subscription) print edition, the subscriber-only web edition, the public news pages and, yes, on blog pages. Alanf777 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
"If it were in print rather than online, it would be a free weekly handout from one of those wire racks at the grocery or convenience store.. ". It is in print. And based on the number of TBJ articles proudly re-posted on corporate websites, I'd suggest it's more likely to be found in the lobbies of companies such as Red Hat, Martin Marietta, RTI International and GE Industrial Solutions (Edit - inserted at wrong place) Alanf777 (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Fanboi here (!): There are two independent, reliable sources, so I don't understand what the issue is other than WP:IDLI. Neither source seems to favor Rossi's position at all. I'm also not sure what a reality-based source is, but it assume it something published by the reality-based community, whatever that is.
Why was the paragraph WP:TAGBOMBED with two neutrality disputed tags and a primary source tag? The primary source simply provides readers a research link to the complaint. If it's going to be a bone of contention, just move it to the external links section—none of the content depends on it for verification. The content, as written, presents the briefest summary of the lawsuit and the initial response from Industrial Heat. How can it be made more neutral than that?- MrX 22:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You will find the answer in this very talk page section. Guy (Help!) 06:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I also found these tags unnecessary. I removed the nov tags as i see no reason for them, and i linked the triangle article again where you asked for a non-primary source for the lawsuit allegation. InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed "Federal Court" twice now. It makes the lawsuit sound like something special, important, official, authoritative, etc. I don't believe we have a secondary source indicating it is noteworthy in any manner. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing prestigious about a lawsuit in the federal court. It's simply information about jurisdiction, which I assume was necessary because of patent claims.- MrX 16:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The problem remains that the lawsuit has not been heard so it states only Rossi's side of the dispute. And Rossi, as I am sure I have mentioned before, has a history of fraud relating to alternative energy devices, so cannot be trusted at all, in the least, even slightly. Which is odd because the "sources" we cited last time I checked are wholly credulous. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@JzG: Actually, Rossi has no history of "fraud relating to alternative energy devices"; he was found guilty of tax evasion, or tax fraud, all other charges against him were eventually dropped or successfully appealed. You have indeed mentioned this fraud many times on this talk page recently, and I am wondering if we can keep the comments on topic rather than repeatedly resulting to ad hominem arguments. InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
"Fraud" appears accurate and most importantly DUE context. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Counterclaim by Darden and Industrial Heat[edit]

An update on the legal wrangling: Industrial Heat has, in addition to denying the validity of any of Rossi's claims, filed a countersuit alleging an assortment of torts, including various breaches of contract and outright frauds on the part of Rossi. Here is the latest substantial filing from Darden and Industrial Heat. The first bit is part of their statement of defense filed in response to Rossi's suit; the counterclaims start on page 23.
The bit that starts on page 40 – under the heading The Plant moves to Miami to service a fake “customer” – is particularly interesting reading, in that it alleges that the purportedly independent industrial customer to whom Rossi sold steam was entirely a fabrication by Rossi, right down to the letterhead, business cards, invoices, and a non-existent person pretending to be their "Director of Engineering" during a meeting with Industrial Heat.
I look forward to independent coverage of these developments; this is turning into a really interesting story (though probably not in the way that Rossi and his believers would like). *gets popcorn* TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Newenergytimes.net has details, but I'm not sure how reliable it is for anything we might want to add to this article: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2016/08/09/cherokee-investments-darden-says-rossis-claims-are-fraudulent/ --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, they're one of the sites hosting copies of the PACER downloads (I used them in the convenience link above). I would be reluctant to ever cite them as a source for anything on Wikipedia, though, just to avoid setting the precedent. That they happen to get it right with respect to Rossi is more of a broken-clock-is-right-twice-a-day situation.
I am also amused and entirely unsurprised that the purported 'news' source Triangle Business Journal has been unable to cover any aspect of this story except when someone directly hands them a press release to crib from. You would think that a 'real' news outlet would be covering this story.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Burying the lede - time for restructuring, revision, and culling[edit]

At this point, it seems that our article is making the classic mistake of burying the lede.

  1. It faffs around for 8 paragraphs of "Demonstrations", all of which follow the same pattern: a demonstration takes place under Rossi's control and/or close supervision; Rossi announces a successful demo; independent scientists express doubt; repeat.
  2. We bumble around for another 5 paragraphs of "Reactions to the claims" (some of which is also present in the preceding section), essentially summarizing the main views pro- and con-, from independent individuals who haven't any way to actually directly test Rossi's devices (or closely inspect his testing approach).
  3. The article wastes another 3 paragraphs on various "Patents", mostly rejected, with one apparently pro forma Italian patent of questionable viability.

Finally, after nearly 2000 words, we get to the "Lawsuit". Just one paragraph. As far as I can tell, it deals with the only real, verifiable, named customer (including real, verifiable, named company officers) that Rossi has ever had, with actual non-trivial amounts of money really changing hands. (The company is called Industrial Heat, and is owned by Tom Darden, a bona fide CEO of a billion-dollar investment company—and apparently is a bit of an ignorant sucker, but at least he's a real person with real money independent of Rossi.) And what does Industrial Heat – Rossi's one, real, verifiable customer – have to say? Well, Rossi sued them (he has giant brass ones, anyway), and they responded:

  • Rossi failed to complete a promised year-long performance test.
  • The Energy Catalyzer doesn't work now, and never worked, in any form, despite years of Industrial Heat's engineers working directly with Rossi.
  • The early test results that nominally fulfilled the first parts of their contract with Rossi were fabricated; Rossi lied about Italian government regulations to avoid testing the device in the agreed-upon manner; and Rossi colluded with the testing engineer to conceal problems.
  • Rossi invented an entire manufacturing company (on paper), going so far as to hire an actor to pose as the fake company's Director of Engineering, as a way to justify moving the Energy Catalyzer unit out of Industrial Heat's facilities (and supervision) in order to sell fake steam to a fake customer who paid fake invoices and thereby gave the device a fake gloss of commercial viability.

None of these claims have yet been tested in court yadda yadda yadda – though the meat of Industrial Heat's counterclaims have at least survived (the admittedly low bar of) various motions to dismiss – but the court filings by the defendants/counter-plaintiffs make for some rather gripping reading (for legal documents).

To be fair, the current version of the Wikipedia article is a vast improvement over what it was a few years ago, when it was a breathless recitation of every single self-serving, self-promoting demonstration and announcement. But it seems that it might be time once again to revisit this article's structure and content with an eye to making major revisions. Dwelling on the minutiae of various Rossi-controlled tests while failing to mention that his only publicly-identified "real" customer has declared him a massive fraud seems...to be missing the point. We should be looking to find sources which have caught up with the current state of play. (A quick Googling reveals little coverage since June, which ought to – but sadly won't – be a sobering revelation to the but-the-media-covers-cold-fusion-in-a-fair-and-balanced-way-so-we-need-to-regurgitate-every-press-release crowd.)

For those who are curious, all of the court filings in Rossi et al. v. Darden et al. to date appear to be available on this Google Drive account: [3]. For a brief summary of Industrial Heat's counterarguments and countersuit, the latest document of relevance is PDF 78 (Third Amended Answer To Complaint). Page 1, paragraph 1 starts off with

Defendants deny that the energy catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology “generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy” along the lines claimed by Plaintiffs – which is that a reactor using the E-Cat technology produces more than 50 times the energy it consumes. Such claims are not scientifically verifiable or reproducible.... In addition, the procedures and mechanisms which Plaintiffs have used in their experiments and testing of the E-Cat technology are flawed and unreliable in many respects.... Lastly, the E-Cat technology has never been independently validated by a scientifically reliable methodology to produce the energy levels Plaintiffs now claim, and has failed to produce any commercially viable product. Indeed, using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been unable to produce any measurable excess energy.

The rather remarkable counterclaims start on page 27; the juicy bits about the fake company start on page 43 (paragraph 69). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What changes are you suggesting? As far as I know this lawsuit isn't finished, and both sides have equally polarized views of one another. Not much has been reported on in reliable secondary sources. Everything above is essentially he said/she said, and until we have better sources reporting on it, or else a concrete outcome of the whole thing, there isn't much sense ruminating on it. Hence the rather short section on 'Lawsuit'. InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I largely agree with InsertClever, but in any event the article needs not to be biased. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
It's true that there's been remarkably – surprisingly – little coverage. Aside from the notoriously dubious New Energy Times, there's been no coverage of Rossi at all (as far as I can tell, using Google News) since June 2016. And even before that, we're left scraping the barrel for dribs and drabs in the press-release-regurgitating Triangle Business News and a couple of other similarly low-impact outlets. At some point we – as Wikipedia editors – need to take note of the "dogs that didn't bark" and recognize using our own editorial judgement that the complete lack of follow-up on the initial positive stories can only mean that there is no positive follow-up to be had.
A dribble of positive results in marginal sources (or by marginal blogs associated with better outlets) and never any follow-up is the hallmark of crappy clickbait churnalism. "'Modern Physics Seems To Be Correct" isn't a clickable headline, but it's about the only reasonable conclusion from years of Rossi-related failures. We offer tremendous detail on extraordinarily thin "positive" reports, and even give time to doubting commentary, but we bury deep in our article any mention that every single put-up-or-shut-up commercial endeavor has failed miserably (with the most recent attempt resulting in some rather dramatic – but seemingly well-substantiated – accusations of fraud). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting some rewriting, based upon FRINGE? --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you are suggesting. we follow the sources, not 'what we think might have happened'. If you have been following the story behind the scenes, as I have been, you would know that there is an equally plausible (and just as unsubstantiated) side of the story to the one you seem to be pushing. As always if there aren't any reliable sources one way or the other, there isn't anything to say, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I too find it strange that no (even marginally) reliable source has commented on the ongoing trial (Rossi was paid $11M and filed for $89M more: IH had some accusations dismissed, and denied the remainder: IH filed a counterclaim alleging fraud, which Rossi et al have denied. Mediation failed, and discovery is still under way). Over 109 documents have been filed (with juicy tidbits on both sides), but Wiki rightly regards filings in a trial as 'primary documents'. But until the jury trial happens/case is dismissed OR a reliable source reports on it, I see no reason to change the (fossilized) article in any way, lead included. Alanf777 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you have answered your own question. No reliable sources have commented because, just like us, they are waiting on concrete developments to occur. All we have now is a soup of 'he said, she said'. InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I asked no question. However, I changed my mind on the lead/lede : it should have a 1-sentence statement that there is a trial. Alanf777 (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to your statement about finding it strange. I also do not object to a statement that there is a trial being put into the lede. InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed it. I don't think it's due, or that there's anything encyclopedic to it. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine either way, so I won't push the subject. I was just trying to address the concerns of other editors (above). InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

fitoera.ru[edit]

___123___Editing Talk:Energy Catalyzer (new section) - Wikipedia___123___ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.22.67.15 (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)