Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Andrea Rossi engineer?

Esowatch states article, that Rossi has a "engineering degree" (ChemE) from Kensington University inc., which seems to be a Hawaii based company and unaccredited school. This company operated from Glendale in California (Kensington University, 520 E Broadway Suite 400, Glendale, CA 91205) and was shut down by the law. ("LA-Times": Kensington University Faces Closure Hearing. April 23, 1996): citation: Kensington University has no classrooms, laboratories or dorms. Its students don't play football, join fraternities or linger dreamily on a quadrangle. In fact, the entire campus is housed in a small Glendale office building. Recruiting from across the nation, the school runs a program in which students studying entirely at home can earn anything from a bachelor's degree to a doctorate--all without ever attending a single class or even meeting their instructors face to face.. See also: [1] [2] List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_education.94.134.49.17 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "Mr." instead of "engineer" --Lundq (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed per wp:Naming conventions (people).LeadSongDog come howl! 19:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Learning has nothing to do with meeting someone or going inside a particular building. Major Universities (e.g., MIT) have Online degree programs.

New comment on Rossi's title: I have re-inserted the title Engineer of Andrea Rossi. His main title is from Università degli Studi di Milano. I have an original document obtained from this university confirming that the title is Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia, dated December 10, 1975 (I don't know if I should submit this document somewhere). As a journalist I have interviewed Rossi and he says that the title from Kensington University is an honorary title he gained because of an earlier patent regarding bio fuel. He claims he knows no more about this university.--Matslewan (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for us to apply what is usually a professional title associated with a licensed profession to someone who received it as an honour from what seems to be a degree mill. The Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia may be relevant, but without knowing what field it is in it is ambiguous. (Is it like an M.Phil. or Ph.D., which can be in any subject, or does it have special meaning?) Absent any clearly-awarded engineering degree from a suitably accredited institution or a professional engineering qualification, it is not appropriate to call someone an 'engineer'. Italy – and most jurisdictions, really – regulate the use of the term 'engineer'; does Rossi have any of the qualifications listed in our Professional Engineer article? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. Does he have a legal license to practice? Does he have a substantive degree from a credible granting institution? Is the degree relevant to the matter being discussed? But ultimately we still don't use honorifics or titles in describing someone per wp:HONORIFIC. If it was pertinent in a discussion of general relativity, we would state "While Albert Einstein held xx chair as a professor of physics at Princeton University he ..." without calling him "Professor Albert Einstein". Not that I'm implying any semblance of parallel. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question, it looks like he doesn't have any real formal qualifications in engineering (or in any science). Based on his self-published biographical sketch, his only degrees are from Kensington University (shut down as a diploma mill) and the University of Milan (which actually was a straight-up philosophy degree, albeit in the philosophy of science). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"is supposed..." or "was supposed to be inaugurated..."

I've noted that some of you have changed back and forth between "is" and "was" in the phrase "The plant which would supply heating for Defkalion's own purposes only, was supposed to be inaugurated in October 2011." Please explain your changing. As far as I know (I was the one who wrote the original piece based on my own interviews with Defkalion and Rossi) the plan for inauguration in October is still on track. --Matslewan (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Categorization and Content

I'm very much bothered by the categorization of this article and the associated content. I'm interested in the raw data (news, successes/failures), not in theories about why the E Cat may or may not work. This article is way too tied up in issues best addressed in a discussion of the history of science, and is doing little to provide a focal point for determining the actual facts. I think the whole article as it is should be scrapped -- including its designation as of physical or pseudo-scientific interest, and that it should be restarted as a report upon ongoing current events. Some of the discussion addresses the real issues, but the article itself is a worthless rehash of oft stated positions. Sphere1952 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a characteristic problem of science by press release. When we have real publications to work from, we will all be happy to use them. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article looks better today. A nice clean report of known facts. Sphere1952 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

While I suppose that the formatting is pretty, I have to disagree that it is better as an encyclopedia article. The article is entirely supported by blog entries, half by an IT writer who for the most part is just repeating the inventor's assertions, and half from the inventor's self-published web site. The article is largely structured as yet another blog, with an entry for each spate of press releases (one section for each press conference, plus one for their nearly-invisible company). Right now, this is a dreadful article that grants undue weight to unreliable sources. We are presenting claims and assertions as 'known facts', and doing a disservice to our readers. I'm beginning to believe that proper secondary sources just don't exist for this topic right now, and that it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on this at all right now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As I suppose that the it-writer is me, and also that my articles are called blog entries, I guess I have to respond. I'm a scientific journalist with more that ten years experience. I hold a Master of Science in Engineering Physiscs from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. I'm a staff writer since 2002 at Ny Teknik which is founded 1967 and has about 300,000 readers and a circulation of about 145,000. For further comments on my contribution see my talk page. I will soon provide more comments here.--Matslewan (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing info?

Perhaps I've overlooked it, but I can't find anything in any of the sources that shows the before and after mass for the whole system, just for the hydrogen tank. Did anyone else spot it somewhere? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not there. I have to say that on the whole this is engineering and experimentation, not quite science. People looking for some sort of final explanation are going to be disappointed. Either the Energy Catalyzer will prove to be exothermic or it will not. Explanations will either not be necessary or will have to be invented based upon the data. Right now this is a current event; which will have some sort of outcome. We shouldn't be in the business of predicting outcomes, but rather in the business of reporting known facts. Sphere1952 (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The device was never weighed before and after, even though this was the intention by Levi. The reason is that the precision scale that he brought had a range to 15 kg whereas the device had a weight of about 30 kg.--Matslewan (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So the conclusion that it couldn't be chemical is based on the untested premise of insufficient fuel consumption, and it was untested because Levi forgot he could use a lever arm? Wow. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Response by Mats Lewan

As my contributions in this article have been questioned, I should like to describe my background, motivation and methods here.

First some facts:

• I hold a Master of Science degree in Engineering Physics from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).

• I've been a staff writer at Ny Teknik since 2002, and have been at the same publishing company since 1999.

Ny Teknik was founded with the current name in 1967 (but is older than that) and has about 300,000 readers, mostly professional engineers, and a circulation of about 146,000. We are about 20 journalists in the newsroom. Together we cover all kinds of technologies, with focus on innovation, and we discuss all news material on a daily basis. I have been the It & Telecom editor of Ny Teknik, and still report a lot on the it-industry (I have also worked at CBS Cnet News in 2009). Occasionally I write blog posts on the blog "It-bloggen" integrated at Ny Teknik's website. Because of my academic background, however, I often get involved when we deal with complex scientific topics, specifically regarding physics.

Our readers have very high expectations of accuracy in our reporting. Therefore everything that we present is thoroughly researched, although for obvious reasons not every part of the research is presented in our articles.

In the same way, in the interests of brevity not all of the material in my articles is included in my contributions to the Energy Catalyzer article in Wikipedia (you can find my complete coverage so far here: [3])

I have been told that there might be a conflict of interest when I do contributions citing my own articles. I see the point. Looking at the conflict of interest guidelines however, it doesn't seem that this is a genuine conflict of interest, as I'm not reporting on behalf of anyone. Citing one's own material in Wikipedia is permitted under certain circumstances.

The reason I started contributing, citing my own articles in Ny Teknik, was simply the lack of information from other sources. Until now, Ny Teknik has been the only major medium in the world to cover this topic with regularity and in-depth research. All other major media have chosen to remain silent.

Out of these two options, contributing or remaining silent, we have chosen the first one for a reason. In our opinion, and I mean the newspaper not just me, the experimental data presented, the competence of the scientists presenting this data, and the possible implications of this technology, lead to the conclusion that it is of high importance to report on this topic, including as much research as possible. In this way people have a chance to ask more questions and discuss aspects that should be researched further.

And we can see that people have lots of questions and grounds for discussion -- my articles often have hundreds of comments (in the Swedish versions). I also believe that Ny Teknik's coverage has answered more of the questions regarding the Energy Catalyzer than any other source so far. And of course, we're not finished.

Wikipedia, as a source that people turn to in order to become well informed, has the same choice that other media have: refer to existing reports, even if many questions still are unanswered, or to avoid them (you can of course amend my contributions any time you like).

A few words on my methods:

• I have focused on the experimental data presented. As for the theoretical aspect I haven't touched this part of the Wikipedia article, which I find comprehensive. A theoretical explanation of the effect is of course lacking, but I don't think that this is a reason for not reporting, given that the experimental data are so convincing, and given that the implications of this technology if it works, are huge. Kullander and Essén have also pointed out to me that the knowledge of physics in this area is weak from certain points of view, which is an important aspect.

• I have interviewed all persons involved several times. As I speak Italian fluently, interviews with Rossi, Levi and Focardi have been made in Italian.

• I have investigated all potential ways of fraud or misunderstanding that people have presented to me and that I have come up with myself, and found nothing.

• I have turned to the most qualified and, as I hoped, critical scientists I could find (Essén is a former chairman of the Skeptics Society and Kullander is chairman of the Energy Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the body that decides on the Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry) to get their opinion.

• Through contacts with Rossi I succeeded in these scientists, basically chosen by me personally and thus independent, eventually getting access as observers to a test of the Energy Catalyzer in Bologna, free to investigate what they wanted, except for the inside of the reactor, and also to make analyses of the fuel powders. Their report went further than I expected.

• As for the Greek Company Defkalion Green Technologies, I have indications of proof that the company exists and is sane. I have more questions on this topic and continue to do research.

And in general terms - this is how far I have reached while others have been watching. I'm not finished, and if I find anything that would discredit this technology I will be the first to report it.--Matslewan (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How many physicists did you consult about the Energy Catalyzer before you found ones willing to be interviewed? (For scientists who don't believe the claims, there's little reason to want to be interviewed—they risk being seen as wasting their time, they risk being quoted out of context or made to look silly, they risk drawing the unwanted attention and harrassment of cold fusion followers and conspiracy theorists, and they risk frivolous lawsuits and legal threats aimed at them or their institutions. It's far easier to say "That's interesting, but it needs further study". Unfortunately, this can badly skew the resulting story.)

In your initial(?) interview with Kullander and Essén (link), were you aware that their statements and conclusions may have been based on misunderstandings, unsupported statements, and errors of fact?

• Kullander states "But above all that they have heated a building and have done so for one year (according to Rossi)..." Is the "(according to Rossi)" a comment added afterwards by the editor of the transcript, and is Kullander therefore taking the statement at face value? Where is this building, and what do its heat and electric bills look like?
• Essén states "What I think is important in this context is that for the first time, so to speak, there is a device which is made in many units and which is being sold..." Really? How many units have been sold? To whom? I suspect that Essén was fooled by the stories about Defkalion. Essén repeats the claim that Rossi has sold devices elsewhere in the interview, citing it as evidence that Rossi is more credible than (for example) Randell Mills.

Throughout the interview, both come across as wanting very much to believe in Rossi's invention, and this interview took place well before their visit to Italy. They were on the record as expecting success before they witnessed the test in March.

I am also intrigued by Kullander's comment: "I have spoken with physics colleagues. Most are quite critical and do not believe in the experiment...". Similarly, Essén states that belief among his colleagues runs at "about 50-50". As I acknowledged above, it's difficult to find reputable physicists who want to risk associating their names and reputations with cold fusion in any way, but I find it a rather curious omission that you've never once reported the comments or opinions of any skeptical physicist – on or off the record – in any of your articles. With reporting on any scientific 'breakthrough' – or any news coverage, really – there's always a tendency towards confirmation bias, because the presence of a story is more publishable than the absence of one.

On the topic of Defkalion, what does "sane" mean? Have you identified any of their corporate officers or any non-Rossi-related sources of funding? Just about anyone can register a company and create a webpage; I have no doubt that it 'exists' in that sense, but that leaves an awful lot unsaid. On your talk page, I posted the following questions; I look foward to seeing – but don't really expect to see – good answers to any of them.

Unanswered questions about Defkalion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Have you investigated who is involved in this company? They appear to have a 'spokesperson' Symeon Tsalikoglou – about whom very little seems to be known – but no other reported staff. (The only online information I can locate about Tsalikoglou is that someone by that name is (or was) Director of International Sales for Milotos Editions ([4]), a division of the Greek publishing company Troia Publishing.) Who is the company's president? CEO? CFO or treasurer? Who sits on their board of directors? Is there anyone associated with the company who has experience in the energy industry? The company website is just a placeholder: a single page of contact information. It offers no name, but there is an office address. Has anyone actually visited their office? Do they have any employees? Are there engineers? Scientists? A marketing staff? A legal department? How are the company's activities financed? Is it all straight out of Rossi's pockets, or are there independent investors? Are there any formal partnerships with other companies or organizations (not counting Rossi's other companies, Leonardo and Eon)? There are claims that they are equipping a factory in Xanthi. Has anyone visited the site? Are there photographs? How large is the facility? Who is paying for the purchase/lease and for any equipment?

Truth be told, I'm just waiting now for the announcement from Rossi/Defkalion that production and sales of the Energy Catalyzer has been delayed due to unforeseen technical difficulties. At a guess, the announcement will push back expected delivery of the first units to the first quarter of 2012 from the original October 2011 announcement. I expect that this delay will be accompanied by the annoucement of one or more additional public demonstrations. No 'used' fuel samples will be made available for isotopic analysis by independent laboratories ever again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear TenOfAllTrades,

Thanks again for your questions. First a general comment – I can’t see that any of them is in conflict with my main message: Ny Teknik has chosen to report on this technology for a reason, while all other major media have chosen to remain silent, and I still believe that our coverage has answered more questions on the Energy Catalyzer than any other source.

Now for some answers:

• Essén and Kullander. I found Essén first. I turned to him because I knew he was both a physicist and a skeptic. Then, when I found out that he didn’t immediately turn down the technology, I tried to find a more critical physicist. I asked a couple of scientists who represented a more critical stand point, and they finally recommended Prof Kullander. When he arrived at our discussion I knew nothing about his opinion, but I expected him to be negative.

Before the discussion I asked Essén and Kullander to send me a couple of questions that I could forward to Rossi. This led to a couple of emails between them with answers and more questions.

Kullander later told me he was initially quite skeptical but that he got more satisfactory answers than he expected.

• And yes, I understood that some of their conclusions may have been based on possibly errors of fact. As an example, the “(according to Rossi)” that you mention was put in by me, editing the interview.

I also thought specifically of the expression Essén used, that the device was “being sold”. I knew this was not the case, and I supposed he knew it to – I considered it to be an error in choice of words, but as I don’t change people’s quotes I let it be. The meaning was quite clear to me: In comparison with other claims of questioned technologies/products, the difference was partly in there supposedly being a customer and a date for inauguration of a heating plant.

• Now when it comes to the skeptical physicists their arguments all boil down to two things, which I made clear in my very first articles – the Coulomb barrier and the lack of high energy gammas. Kullander and Essén also addressed this in their discussion, and they considered both of them to be difficult to explain.

These two arguments are well known and have never changed -- no news to be reported. And I have never hidden them. (Actually I now note that the issue with the Coulomb barrier is missing in the Wikipedia article. Maybe someone should add it under 'Evaluation of the device'?)

However, I would like to repeat that I have focused on the experimental data in my reporting, and have been clear with the fact that a theoretical explanation is lacking.

Lately the initial results of the first independent isotope analysis of (what is claimed to be) the fuel powder has also created discussion, and I have reported on this problem. (Maybe we should add also this to the article?)

• In a Swedish article, not translated, I invited our readers to come up with possible explanations of how the excess energy could be explained in ways different from the claimed nuclear reaction. It boiled down to two chemical reactions, which now according to Levi, Kullander and Essén is out of the question, based on the experimental data.

Still these three scientists want more data and better data. I have also reported that.

• Defkalion. My latest confirmed information is that the company is registered but that it will take another couple of weeks until it has to declare a board, CEO etc publicly. I have a name of the CEO that I am investigating. I have reported on the link between the company and University of Bologna (Prof Christos Stremmenos). And I repeat: I have more questions and continue to do research (not a very unusual situation for journalism).

I hope this helps answering your questions. Feel free to ask more – as I said before, you’re not alone ;-)--Matslewan (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me put the question this way—why do the only interviews that you've published involve people who believe in the Energy Catalyzer? Has there ever been a quotation in any of your stories from any physicist who does not endorse the conclusion that Rossi has built a fusion device? When you say that "skeptical physicists'" arguments "all boil down to two things", is that your opinion, or the statement of one of the "believers", or does it come from somewhere else? Your summary is missing at least two points (and I would be surprised if a working nuclear physicist couldn't come up with more): the absence of changes in the isotope ratios of nickel and of copper from their natural abundances, and the absence of radioactive copper-61 in the spent fuel (if we accept Rossi's assertion that low-mass nickel isotopes are being sequentially fused with several protons). Your articles focus on the evidence which might have a positive interpretation, while glossing over and minimizing the evidence and (overwhelming established and experimentally-tested) theoretical framework that argues against the Energy Catalyzer. As I noted above, it's difficult to find mainstream physicists who wish to put their reputations on the line for no benefit, but perhaps you could try Ludwik Kowalski; he's the first physicist I came across while skimming Rossi's blog.

In the 'spent' fuel, have you asked anyone (perhaps Jean Pettersson, who performed the isotopic analysis) if the material is distinguishable in any way from, for example, a mixture of commercially-available natural nickel, copper, and iron powders? Have you asked Rossi to explain the isotope ratio in his spent fuel?

When Essén repeatedly and erroneously stated in the interview that the many units of the Catalyzer had been manufactured and were being sold, did you ever correct that impression or ask any followup questions? Or did you not know that he was mistaken at the time? Were you concerned that it would detract from his credibility as a 'skeptic' if you drew attention to the fact that he was mistaken about basic background information? As well, Essén compared Rossi's claims to those of Randell Mills. In the interview, Essén stated that he found Rossi's claims more plausible in part because (he believed that) Rossi had manufactured and sold reactors, while Mills had not. I note that Blacklight Power – Randell Mills' company – has also issued press releases claiming that they have licensing agreements with four other named companies (that's more information than Rossi/Defkalion has provided), and funding from two more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Too much fuss Professor, that's my view -- gets in the way of the job of supplying interested readers with information. Have you nothing better to do with your time? -- Brian Josephson (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Ten, and thanks – questions are good for my work.

Why do the interviews I’ve published involve people who believe in the Energy Catalyzer, and not physicist who does not endorse the conclusion that Rossi has built a fusion device?

Let’s take this step by step.

• First. Neither Kullander nor Essén nor Levi say they believe it’s a fusion device. Kullander and Essén say that the only alternative they can see as the source of energy is a nuclear reaction.

• Second. I have interviewed Rossi, Focardi, Levi, Essén and Kullander in that order. That Rossi and Focardi were positive was no big surprise. As for the others I really didn’t know their opinion before interviewing them, and I would have published whatever conclusion or opinion they had.

• Third. Check the chronology. I said I didn’t expect any positive conclusion from the discussion between Essén and Kullander, at least not from Kullander. Once I had their conclusions, the next step was trying to get an independent physicist to go to Bologna as an observer. At this point it was not that easy to establish a new contact and get him or her connected with Rossi for a trip to Bologna. I was happy enough to be able to have Kullander and Essén going (did you see any other journalist aim for this as part of their research on the energy catalyzer in these months?). Anyhow – I would have published whatever conclusion they had made in their Travel Report. And at this point, a quote from any other person who was not there, whatever his or her opinion, would not add much as far as I can see, given that the story here were the experimental data.

• Fourth. There’s not much sense with a quote explaining why something is impossible if you cannot even come up with a hypothesis on how the measured excess heat should be explained. Note that these explanations have moved from wireless energy, batteries and various chemical reactions as the experimental data have become clearer and narrowed the space for alternative explanations. At this point the explanations focus on badly performed calorimetry. It’s true that the methods have not been the most precise and they can be improved, which is also being planned for as far as I know. But meanwhile it’s worth noting that the measured excess heat is more than a factor ten larger than the input power. This gives a margin for errors greater than 50 percent (and we’re now talking of kilowatts!).

• Fifth. You know, I’m a journalist. I’m looking for news. Let’s say a blinking space-craft from a remote galaxy reportedly dropped down in Central Park one day. Then I wouldn’t actually look for quotes from people saying: “well, I and my family have been living here for many years, and my ancestors generations before me, and no one has ever seen any space-craft land in Central Park. It’s really unlikely”. That’s not the news. That’s the consensus that has always been there, for ages. What I’m interested in is a Fairly Well Documented Testimony by Highly Qualified People. Then of course the consensus part also has to be reported. I did that. But a quote... well, again I don’t see the point.

• Sixth. It’s not difficult to find physicists who declare publicly that “this is not possible, period”. And I can assure you that I have seen several documents and read hundreds of comments on my articles (the last one now has over 900 comments), and I don’t invent this: there are really two arguments when it comes to physics – the Coulomb barrier and lacking high energy gammas. Plus now, as a consequence of the last article, the discussion on Cu-63 and Cu-65. Now, the isotope discussion is new, because the result of the analysis is new. I have not yet done a follow up on this (I work also with other news...) but I will. And this could very well be the right time for the quotes you are looking for. And yes, I will also ask Rossi about it. Meanwhile, new and more detailed analyses are being made.

• Concluding. Sure, looking back I could have put in a quote or two from people who are convinced this is a scam. But following the path I have described here you can also see that it was never my plan to exclude such information – I just happened to discover that the people I turned to kept surprising me, and kept being surprised themselves. In the end I cannot see that the result is that bad. A few days ago I received an email from a news editor of a very well known scientific journal. After having explained less than a third of what I have told you, I got this conclusion from him: “Impressive reporting job too!”.

• Ah, and I checked with Essén. It was a slip of the tongue as I thought. He had understood very well that the device was not being sold physically, and he intended that Rossi had signed an agreement with Defkalion. As for his comparison with Randall Mills’ Black Light Power I won’t discuss Esséns evaluations here. If I had been aware of the agreements you mention at the time of my interview I would have asked him for a comment. However, I note that the first agreement was signed more than two years ago and there are still no official plans for production. I suppose I’ll have to have a look at BLP though. Maybe there are things to discover.--Matslewan (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• If one accepts that there really is a "nuclear reaction" occurring, then "cold fusion" is an accurate description of the phenomenon. The reaction is alleged to occur at or near room temperature ("cold") and involves the combination of lighter nuclei into heavier ones ("fusion"). Calling it something else is a distinction of semantics and marketing, not science. In the interview I linked, you use the term "cold fusion" twice – including as the first two words of the article title – and in the interview Kullander implicitly endorses it as a description of what is happening in Rossi's device.
• Yes, I realize that it's more exciting to only report positive new things about a cold fusion claim, but it's also scientifically and journalistically sloppy. (Consider a journalist reporting a controversial claim made by a politician. For the purposes of this hypothetical case, let's say that Mona Sahlin agrees with the claim while Fredrik Reinfeldt disagrees. Is it appropriate for a journalist to seek comment only from Sahlin, as long as he accurately reports what she has to say about Reinfeldt's opinion? That's what you're doing with your stories. You've only interviewed scientists on one side. Kullander and Essén have mentioned that there are a large number of scientists who have doubts about Rossi's claims, but then Essén casually dismisses the criticism with "It is a bit oversimplified, I think.") One risks crossing the line from journalism to advocacy.
• Additional scientists you might consult include Peter Ekström from Lund University, and Kjell Aleklett, from Uppsala. (Aleklett is a close colleague of Kullander, so I am sure he would be very polite in his criticism, but since his office is next door he'd be very convenient to visit.)
• The excess energy can be explained as error or fraud. I know that as a journalist you are hesitant to print that sort of thing, but it's a much more plausible explanation than Rossi's wholesale rewriting of phsyics coupled with his self-contradictory physical evidence (lack of gammas, problems with isotope ratios, etc.). Scientists are generally better at detecting honest errors than deliberate fraud; we're used to assuming good faith on the part of our colleagues.
• Having 'official plans for production' is meaningless. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but the only openly-confirmed customer for the Energy Catalyzer is Defkalion, and they haven't built a single unit in their factory. (Indeed, we know very little about their factory; see my unanswered questions about Defkalion above. Have they even started construction/renovation of their assembly line?) Further, you reported last month that the planned 1 MW device for the Defkalion site is being paid for by Rossi out of his own funds, and that Defkalion won't be paying anything until delivery of a completed, working reactor. It seems to me that the only person who has publicly acknowledged paying real money for Rossi's device is Rossi himself—have I missed something?
• I originally let this slip by, but I have to ask you—your original response noted that "Until now, Ny Teknik has been the only major medium in the world to cover this topic with regularity and in-depth research. All other major media have chosen to remain silent." Why do you think that might be? In journalism, being the first one to cover a story is a major coup. Being the only one to cover a story – even months later – is cause for reflection. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ten.

I will reflect, as I have done for several months. Future will tell whether I was wrong reporting on this, while others didn't dare.

However, you'll have to study the difference between nuclear reactions and the concept cold fusion. It's not about semantics only. I'm using the term because it helps people put it into context, but Kullander and Essén have explicitly underlined that they wouldn't necessarily call it fusion. I'm in contact with both Ekström and Aleklett. Ekström, by the way, added to this document [[5]] (see the last paragraph) that he, after my explanation of my motives and methods as here, apologizes for what he said about my reporting and now considers that I have done "an excellent journalistic work". Ekström and Aleklett are possible sources in follow-ups by me. Ah, and I don't think Reinfeldt or Sahlin ever had any experimental data. I wish they had! And please, if you have any credible explanation of how error or fraud could explain the experimental data on excess heat, please let me know! I still haven't seen anything viable.--Matslewan (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally, at this point I don't believe I have anything more to add for now. I hope the Wikipedia community will evaluate my contributions and amend them if needed. I still believe there should be a line on the Coulomb barrier and on the recent analysis of the fuel powder. Now, I've got some work to do and will keep this discussion in mind during my research and reporting. Thanks, and stay tuned.--Matslewan (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you're joking about my analogy, instead of responding to the criticism. Do let us know when you find out if Rossi has ever sold a catalyzer to anyone besides himself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If Ten and others feel material covering the other side is inadequately covered, then may I suggest, with all due respect, that they do the relevant investigatory and editing work themselves, rather than expecting others to do it for them?

Perhaps my own experience throws light on why Ny Teknik is about the only source covering this. I have contacted a number of media suggesting they cover this. Some just produced excuses, but with two where I already have good contacts (the Daily Mail and the Times Higher) the science editors showed interest but said they would need approval from above, and evidently this approval was not given. The problem is that once a person has made up their mind about something it is not easy to persuade them to change. Here is a lecture on this Pathological Disbelief as I call it. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Which Kullander?

The section on the 29 May 2011 test refers to 'Swedish physicists'. I looked up Kullander in w'pedia and got the information that SK was a biologist. I queried this with Mats Lewan and he told me there are 2 people of the same name. The person concerned actually is a physicist, and has a w'pedia page but only in Swedish.

I tried amending the link but ran into problems as there is no English page to refer to -- the instructions appear to suggest that I should call the page sv:Sven Kullander, and that gets you the right page in the search box, but appears not to work as a wiki link (the name seems to disappear). So instead I treated it as an external link, which works. This is inelegant and it would be nice if someone could figure out the right way to do it.

I did eventually figure it out myself -- there has to be a colon before the sv as well as after it. But this is now irrelevant (see below) --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think there needs to be a disambiguation page, which I may try to do myself but will give up if it proves to be time consuming. Brian Josephson (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go, hopefully not too much deviant from the guidelines. If you go to Sven Kullander now, you'll see a disambiguation suggestion at the top, with a link to a page making it clear that one is a physicist and the other a biologist. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is now an English page for Kullander and the links, both from this page and the disambiguation page, now go there. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Refinprove tag

TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs) have repeatedly inserted a refinprove template without specifying in what way more sources is needed. The article looks rather well sourced already (19 sources as of writing). More sources would be nice, but the template seems a bit excessive. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes indeed, especially in the light of Mats Lewan's clarification of his role as a science writer at Ny Teknik, which suggests his articles provide a very good source. Can the template then be lifted? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In the light of the new information I've now removed the disputed template --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

the lack of reliable sources was the main reason why the article in the german Wikipedia [6] was deleted. 87.122.151.173 (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If one discounts the primary and self-published sources that "19 sources" drops substantially. There's little left except the Ny Teknik sources. I'd suggest the {{more sources}} tag might be sufficient, but it redirects to {{refimprove}} anyhow. The question that bothers me is why would any editor object to asking fellow editors to find additional reliable sources upon which to build the article? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but It's a similar situation to what one has whenever there is a new discovery which for whatever reason is hard to duplicate. Say for example the Higgs was discovered by a group. There would only be a single publication, by the team that had the resource needed for the discovery, and maybe some articles reviewing the result. The primary source, with clarifying commentary, ought to be enough for a Wikipedia entry. Now in this case there is more than one primary source (the 2 expts.), and good commentary. The 'objection' people have is because your proposal carries the suggestion that there is a significant problem with how the article is, but it is pretty well as good as it can be given what is available at this time. More sources might be a good thing, but for sociological reasons that don't need spelling out there are few of these, and saying they are needed seems to me inappropriate. As the situation develops, more will naturally be added. I'd say also that asking editors to find new sources is redundant, as people will do that anyway. If for example some article about this were to come out in Nature or Science I'm sure people would add the reference, whether favourable or not. The tag is not needed. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that there are of course plenty of comments on the web, but in general these are not quite up to the standard needed, e.g. are basically opinion, or by an organisation (no names mentioned) that may be less objective or carry less credibility than Ny Teknik. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Without intending any disrespect to Mats Lewan and Ny Teknik, wp:RS would call for us to be leery of relying on New Scientist or Scientific American for something like this. The greater the astonishment, the more we must demand quality of sourcing. If in fact Rossi's device does work, it will certainly get published in a first-tier peer-reviewed journal such as Nature or Phys Rev. Until then most physicists will continue to regard this with the suspicion that it is some form of slight of hand. Remember, wp:NODEADLINE and wp:NOTNEWS. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Er ... what's happened here? I referenced Nature and Science. How come these suddenly morphed into New Scientist and Scientific American? But not to worry, it's not an important point, just a slip of the typing finger I suppose. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And per one of Wikipedia's core policies, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Patent issue

PhGustav claims that the failure to get a patent undermines credibility of the device; I beg to differ.

The w'pedia article cites the following reasons for this failure: 'the description of the device was based on "general statements and speculations.", and "numerous deficiencies in both the description and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility'. But since that date evidence has come into existence that supports its feasibility, i.e. the range of demonstrations and observations referenced in the article. The claim is no longer speculation, if it ever was thus.

And while inadequate description may well be a barrier to getting a patent, credibility does not depend in this: the credibility of this device stems from the observations of heat generation that have been made by scientists.

Patent applications may fail because something manifestly does not work, but that was not the issue here -- the patent examiner never went along to do measurements the way the scientists have done. Please do not regard the results of a patent application as having the same status and significance as scientific testing. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been no scientific testing of the device. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added a sentence noting that the patent office did not test the device either. Does anyone challenge that statement (if so, only sources up to w'pedia's stringent standards will accepted)? --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement is clearly true, but since patent offices never test devices, it is irrelevant. I see no merit in its inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It may help, in case some readers are misled into reading more into the patent report than it merits. We editors should always strive to ensure that readers do not get the wrong message from what we write. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Some editing seems to have clashed (I entered my text a second time in order to improve the punctuation), so people may not have read the above before deleting my sentence again, as they just luurve to do being so much more intelligent than me [sarcasm]. Can I take it that it is OK now to add it again in the light of the above clarification? Thank you for your common sense and forbearance! --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts do sometimes cause text to disappear, unfortunately - it is a known bug. Regarding the sentence under discussion, I feel that stating that the patent office hasn't tested the device is in itself a little misleading, in that this isn't their job - they are assessing the validity of the patent as a patent - that it is appropriately worded, and specifies a novel invention with the required exactness to be patentable etc. Whether something works or not is irrelevant to the application. (actually, I discover that my statement that patent offices never test devices is inaccurate, at least as far as the U.S. Patent office is concerned - apparently they demand working models of perpetual motion machines: see Perpetual_motion#Patents). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me more like a bug in Wikipedia's reviewing process actually (over-democratisation) ;-) . But anyway, in view of your discovery that sometimes patent offices do test devices there is now clear merit in stating that in this instance they did not (we are entitled to assume this, on the grounds that if they had done and found the device did not satisfy their tests, that important fact would surely have been mentioned in the report). I propose therefore that the added text be restored.

But in any case, all that failure of the patent application proves is that Mr. Rossi is not good at writing patents. The patent issue is already dealt with in the 'evaluation' section and it is at present duplicated. I suggest therefore that there be no reference to the patent issue in the preamble -- it may be of historical interest and it is fine to include it in the body somewhere, but as I said all it really proves is that the patent was not written well enough. Instead, the preamble should focus on key issues that people might want to include, e.g. how important the device would be if it does prove to be genuine, the fact that it has passed a number of scientific tests though as yet not all are satisfied etc. etc. I'm sure that anyone with experience of writing real reference books rather than ones written by the crowd would in general terms agree with this. Also, real scientists (none of the critics whom I have challenged on this point has as yet owned up to possessing a physics degree, even at the undergraduate level) would I believe agree with my describing the tests by Levi, Kullander etc. as scientific tests even if they did not totally accept the conclusions (which disagreements are after all not uncommon in science -- do people elsewhere on Wikipedia not report controversial findings in regular physics until there is universal agreement that they are valid?). --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The device has passed no single "scientific test". It's been paraded in front of some very few selected scientists with limited access in a kind of dog-and-pony show. Speculating how fantastic a non-existing device would be is a waste of time. Telepathy, sooth-saying, astrology, and Wish-granting Genie-lamps would also have important applications if real. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I pointed out that the US Patent Office requires requires working models for perpetual motion machines. Since the application was not to the US Patent Office, and nobody is (I hope) claiming that Rossi's device is a perpetual motion machine, none of this is applicable. As to whether the lede should mention the negative patent report, I agree this is perhaps debatable. What however cannot be questioned is that the lede must be phrased in such a way as to note that the device does not appear to work within the currently-accepted theories of science, has been subject to no proper examination by independent observers, has not been assessed in a recognised peer-reviewed scientific journals etc.

Regarding the qualifications or otherwise of contributors to this debate, I have seen no evidence that a lack of understanding of the finer points of physics is actually relevant, and in any case, we are not supposed to be making our own assessment of the device, but instead reflecting, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the situation regarding a 'fringe' claim based on relatively few sources. If the device works as it is claimed, and if this receives appropriate recognition in reliable sources (e.g. reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals) we can of course cover it in greater detail, no doubt indicating what a great benefit to Humankind it is. If... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be glad to accord scientific testing more weight than the patentability report as soon as some takes place. (Actually, I exaggerate slightly. The only independent scientific tests conducted completely using equipment and personnel not under Rossi's control – tests for gamma radiation and neutron emission, and isotopic analysis of spent fuel – have given results which contradict Rossi's claims. Why is it that a device that's claimed to have run for months without problems can't be demonstrated for more than a few hours at a time?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Ten's comment above, I see no objection to this point about the lack of completely independent tests being included in the text in an appropriate manner; it is quite germane. But re his last sentence: (a) 18 hours is rather more than 'a few hours', and (b) I don't see longer demonstrations, in a form that people would consider convincing, as being all that practical, but people are free to submit proposals if they can think of good ones. But it may be best simply to wait and see how the 1MW plan pans out.

I am prepared to have the patent issue referred to in the 'lede' if this is done in a way that does not give it priority over scientific testing, and will put something up in a while, and hope this can resolve our disagreements. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Patent applications may fail because something manifestly does not work". Actually, I don't think that a patent examiner is supposed to take into account whether something will work or not - merely the validity of the application. The rejection seems to be based more on the vagueness of the application. But yes, scientific testing would be interesting - or more likely, uninteresting, as it demonstrates once again that people who attempt to sell miraculous hardware which supposedly works according to unproven cutting-edge science (or beyond), before it has been properly and independently assessed, are usually fooling themselves, even if they aren't trying to fool others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I allowed mention of the patent failure to remain, as I said I would, and just added balancing comment referring to the experiments, content which seems to me to be well suited to the preamble section. PhGustav has seen fit to delete the extra, with no explanation either with the edit or on this talk page. The addition asserts that the expts. have increased credibility, a statement that I do not think anyone can reasonably object to, unless they are under the illusion that patents matter more than experiment. PhGustav appears to have done his deletion purely because the facts are not to his liking. Wkipedia is not the place for such behaviour. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the claim again. It's not fully supported by the sources, and the sources are not particularly good to begin with. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to 'balance' verifiable facts with doubtful claims. And neither is it the place for a single editor to 'allow' or 'disallow' content. The policy regarding extraordinary/fringe science is well established, and until the scientific community recognises the validity of this device, we won't. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

See next section for response. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Just one thing on the last point though: what physics qualifications do the people who have been blithely deleting my entry have? It would be most interesting to know that. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Mu. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, my highest-level qualification is in the social sciences, rather than in physics, but since all the evidence suggests that this 'phenomenon' is either a hoax, or the product of self-deception, I'd argue that makes me well qualified to comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A nice way of disputing anything you don't like. The situation demands proper evaluation, not airy fairy universals. Your field confirms my suspicion that my critics were not qualified to judge. Any advance on social sciences? Roll up! -- Brian Josephson (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about 'your critics', this is about Wikipedia policy on fringe theories. Either comply with them, or argue for them to be changed (but not here). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice one, Andy, but the fact is that you are the person making the judgement as to whether the guidelines apply to that reference or not, and the fact is that you (and the others) just ain't qualified to make that judgement. If you can show, logically and with the rigour that a journal would accept, that the evidence demonstrates that it is a hoax or self-deception, please do so -- people will be hanging on your every word to learn of your analysis. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. It isn't necessary to disprove every crackpot theory that gets put up on Wikipedia, and you know it. It if for those who wish to include content to demonstrate their relevance, reliability etc. Incidentally, I don't believe for one minute that you are qualified to make judgements on the suitability of contributors, given your obvious bias against anyone who disagrees with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Even assuming this is a physical phenomenon, when there is no peer-reviewed paper and no independent reproduction, and there are about 1500 red flags, is, at best, over-eager. My scientific qualifications are easy to ascertain for anyone who is really interested. However, WP:CIV does not really support "mine is bigger than yours" shouting matches. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to deal with silly people (such as people who can't see the connection between The Rossi claim and calorimetry) any more. 'bye, folks, have fun! But wait until Thursday -- Brian Josephson (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted a bit about the patent office not having tested the device. The patent office doesn't test devices; it's not their job. Back in the 19th century, they did ask for models, but when they got neck deep in models they stopped asking and gave or sold the models to trashy museums. PhGustaf (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff in the patent

I hadn't looked at the patent for a while, but it has some really interesting stuff in it. For instance, there's this claim:

A practical embodiment of the inventive apparatus, installed on October 16, 2007, is at present perfectly operating 24 hours per day, and provides an amount of heat sufficient to heat the factory of the Company EON of via Carlo Ragazzi 18, at Bondeno (Province of Ferrara).

Why haven't we heard more about this? Why haven't our honest skeptics who find Rossi so persuasive examined this installation? Heck, why hasn't Defkalion bought it?

A baffling comment. Surely if EON are using it to heat their factory at low cost they'll want to keep it, not sell it to another company? Defkalion have ordered an equivalent. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting quote:

In particular, said graphs clearly show that zinc is formed, whereas zinc was not present in the nickel powder originally loaded into the apparatus said zinc being actually generated by a fusion of a nickel atom and two hydrogen atoms. This demonstrates that, in addition to fusion, the inventive reaction also provides a nickel nucleus fission phenomenon generating lighter stable atoms. Moreover, it has been found that, after having generated energy the used powders contained both copper and lighter than nickel atoms (such as sulphur, chlorine, potassium, calcium). This demonstrate that, in addition to fusion, also a nickel nucleus fission phenomenon generating lighter stable atoms occurs. It has been found that the invention fully achieves the intended aim and objects.

So, not only does the spent fuel that was recently independently analyzed fail to show plausible products of cold fusion, but it also doesn't match the (decidedly even more bizarre) composition that Rossi was claiming in his patent application. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This comment shows a complete lack of understanding of elemental analysis techniques. Did the experimenters use X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, seconday ion mass spectrometry, energy dispersive spectroscopy, or one of the other dozens analysis techniques which have differing detection limits and sensitivities? Your comment displays a complete lack of understanding of the topic.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you went to the trouble of creating a new account just to insult me. Well done. (I see you also remembered to bluelink your user and user talk page.) Are you a banned user, a former IP editor, or are you just someone capable of feeling sufficient embarrassment about your comment that you didn't want to post under your real account? I do wish that you had instead applied that effort to reviewing the sources yourself. Do let me know what technique Rossi was using that allowed him to detect trace amounts of sulphur, chlorine, and potassium (which, curiously enough, don't show up clearly in the figures accompanying his patent application) along with substantial amounts of zinc, when the independent analysis by ICP-MS found no zinc but lots of iron. And let us know what other aliases you edit under, or I won't be bothered to reply to you further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect sarcastic comments of this nature (ref: TenOfAllTrades, 04:39, 19 April 2011) violate Wikipedia principles of good practice. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

How were the samples prepared for ICP MS? Were they calibrated with appropriate blanks so that the many overlapping signals from the various species present in the sample could be suitably deconvoluted? Was the ICP MS using a time of flight spectrometer. If not did they even look for the other metals. I am sorry you think you are being insulted, feel free not to reply. My previous post contained only factual statements. Most scientists I know wouldn't make wild claims about a topic without first reading associated publications in the relevant fields. I imagine if you had bothered to look at Focardi's publications beginning in 1994 some of the questions you asked might have already been answered. His co-authors' other publications are particularly instructive. Of course the standards of wikipedia are much lower than what a true scientist might expect, and it is much easier to just impugn other editors character than to actually do any work on improving the level of information presented to the reader. Having observed your outrageous treatment of Prof. Josephson I certainly wouldn't want to waste my lesser intellect by beating it against the granite cerebella on display here. So congratulations on your defense of reason. Perhaps your creative spirit and deep insights will also be rewarded with a Nobel prize someday.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Since it seems to be considered acceptable behaviour (at least by some) to ask about academic credentials when discussing this subject, can I enquire as to what qualifications in physics you have, Enslaved robot boy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Do my credentials in physics have any bearing on the topic at hand? I have written drafts of commercial patents for microfabricated optoelectronic devices and know that the intention of any enterprise filing a patent is to have your patent granted without including enough information for a competitor to replicate your devices without a large effort. Doing anything else would be a disservice to the company's shareholders. I read patents all the time as part of my work and in my field (optoelectronic devices) every single one of them is clear as mud. Making claims about the Rossi device based on the patent filing is not useful as sphere1952 has eloquently pointed out. BTW the patent filing, as is to be expected if you have experience with these things, is already in the process of being amended. A quick search of the facts will reveal this to your satisfaction. The central consideration with regard to the energy catalyzer is whether electromagnetic energy in equals electromagnetic energy out. This question can be further reduced to fraud or not. The case for fraud is being made poorly up to this point.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"The central consideration with regard to the energy catalyzer is whether electromagnetic energy in equals electromagnetic energy out". Nope. The question is where is the supposed excess heat generated by the system as a whole coming from (if indeed it exists). As to whether it is being introduced as electromagnetic energy, or in another form, or whether it is indeed being generated by 'cold fusion' as claimed, has yet to be ascertained, but we clearly cannot assume that it is indeed being generated within the 'catalyzer'. From looking at the photos in the report, even off the top of my head I can see several ways in which an external power supply, or indeed an external source of hot water, could be surreptitiously connected. Of course, I wasn't present at the demonstration, so I don't know how carefully the system (all of it, not just the 'catalyzer') was inspected. And come to that, I don't know that it isn't entirely genuine. What I do know is that an objective study would require proper inspection of the system to eliminate the possibility of a hoax, followed by replication of the experiment by an independent third party. The claims being made regarding this device are extraordinary, and so from any rational perspective, so should the level of care over validation be. This obviously includes sufficient close inspection as to eliminate any possibility of surreptitious external inputs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. What you have just described, my good sir, is the traditional topic of calorimetry! Isolating a system and measuring the difference between inputs and outputs to determine the change of energy within that system. It makes absolutely no difference if the energy catalyzer is harnessing the power of unicorn tears inside its unknown interior, the measurement of interest to the current controversy would be the same. It appears that Prof. Josephson may have been onto something. Perhaps he is not full of hogwash after all.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

True. Rossi's device could well be using the power of unicorn tears to create the change of energy - but then again, I'd prefer to be sure that it wasn't using the power of the Italian domestic mains supply instead. Calorimetry may be ideal for the purpose of measuring changes of energy, but it is of no utility for determining how such a change is effected. If his device consisted solely of a system with a cold-water input, and a hot-water output, with no other 'inputs' at all, one could use calorimetry to show that it was doing something inexplicable by current science. Instead, it may be doing something entirely explicable by 'current' of another kind.

This brings to mind a thought experiment. Given that tapwater conducts electricity, am I right in thinking that if you were to connect one end of the above described system to earth (perhaps via a convenient pump), and the other end (via a concealed probe into the outlet tube) to a sufficiently high-voltage supply, the resistance of the water would cause it to heat up? The snag with this would possibly be that the heating effect might well be distributed all along the pipes, but by perhaps introducing a 'resistance' - a non-conductive restrictor in the flow (perhaps a ceramic bung, with a small hole) - one could concentrate the heating effect within a relatively small volume. I'm no physicist of course, so there may be a flaw in my thinking (or indeed it may be pure hogwash), but were this to work it would provide the unscrupulous with a way to produce an 'imitation' Rossi energy catalyzer. Just a thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If his device consisted solely of a system with a cold-water input, and a hot-water output, with no other 'inputs' at all, one could use calorimetry to show that it was doing something inexplicable by current science. You are free to define calorimetry in any way you see fit, but several hundred authors of extensive explorations of the boundaries of the technique would beg to differ with you. Their arguments are summarized in several shelves worth of dense writings at a local university library near you. The unfortunate truth Sir Grump is that your objections to the energy catalyzer are not of this world. I could sit here all day and explain to you why the random and completely implausible explanations you come up with for how the device is a fraud are flawed but you would never relent. The one you posted above is absolutely not supported by the readily available evidence. Please take the time to convince yourself that your ideas are sound before speculating here and derailing debate. Perhaps a skeptic website like JRef forums would be a good place for you to find like-minded posters who could vet your ideas in a more appropriate venue. These issues are not worth discussing and detract from the topic of the article. Enslaved robot boy (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So fraud/hoax is so implausible that it isn't worth consideration, while unicorn tears cold fusion is so self-evidently occurring that one need consider no other possibility? Yeah right, whatever you say... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

How could anyone read what I just wrote and think that what I said was that fraud/hoax is implausible. What my comment was meant to convey is that your off the cuff thought experiment is not supported by the most basic facts in the Swedish observers report, it is not only implausible, but less probable than cold fusion itself. You including it on this talk page without the most basic investigation of whether it was impossible based on the observers report is detrimental to the discussion. You cannot expect the editors here to entertain fantastical tales based on whimsical musings. Such speculation is more appropriate for discussion on a skeptical forum, where someone might take the time to at least explain why your idea is flawed. If your idea is good enough, it might even get transmitted to the swedish skeptics society in time for the next test, at which point, the fraud will be revealed and the name of andythegrump will ring through the ages. After your unmasking of the man behind the curtain of the rossi energy catalyzer, your contribution can be immortalized here in the pages of wikipedia as hundreds of media outlets trumpet your success. Until then your speculation is in bad taste.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't the patent issue under Commercial Plans where it belongs, but rather in the summary? This issue certainly has long term implications if the device is eventually proven, but is a rather minor current issue -- except to Rossi. The problem of finding qualified people to physically examine the device would seem to be much more relevant, and I'd like to know more about the latest examiners The Cold Fusion controversy itself is of no interest here, but the fact that there is a Cold Fusion controversy and how that effects events is of great interest, and that is the only way in which the patent issue has any relevance.Sphere1952 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to attacks on my edit

Section begun by Brian Josephson (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I added to the preliminary section material that I thought essential to correct a faulty impression that might be caused by too much emphasis being placed on that fact that a patent had not been granted. The fact that this does not signify that much has been dealt with in another section and I will not go over that again. The issue here is the repeated deletion of this added material, on the basis of it being inadequately sourced. I pointed out that surely a study involving the chairman of a board set up by a National Academy should be considered an acceptable source. The response, and I quote, was there are no 'established experts' on this topic - it isn't established science. This is a naive reaction, but it will take a little time to explain why this is so.

The primary claim made in the majority of research into this area is that of energy generation in excess of what can be explained in conventional non-nuclear terms. If this specific claim is correct (and it is a matter of experiment, which I shall come to), then either a nuclear process is involved or some process of a kind not yet understood by science. This would be of much interest scientifically, and also for practical application if the energy generated was sufficient.

What is issue in the claim is thus (in effect) energy measurement, and this is established science, in fact just the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). Assuming this law holds, if one measures the amount of energy going into the system and the energy coming out, the difference must be the change in energy content of the system. Whatever is inside the system, whether known or unknown to the experimenters, that will apply. Furthermore, there is a maximum amount of energy that can be generated or stored in non-nuclear mechanisms, and if the difference between input and output energies is significantly different from this then one would justified in saying something unusual in terms of energy is happening.

This conclusion all depends on the measurements being accurate, of course. In this case, the energies involved are so large that ordinary errors are not a significant issue. But there could be something overlooked which might affect the conclusion. All that can be said is that critics, some of whom are familiar with the way heat measurements can be flawed, have been examining the experiment and have not come up with anything. In the first experiment calculations suggested that a hidden internal energy source might have been involved, and this doubt was settled by doing the experiment for a much longer period of time, so that the total energy involved was too great to be explained in conventional terms. The suggestion that Levi might have been in on some plot was dispelled by picking scientists who were previously involved to check the experiment out. They were allowed to examine everything except the innards of the energy device and found nothing untoward.

I submit therefore that the claim 'it isn't established science', while true in as far as the mechanism is involved, is not true as far as the claim of energy in excess of conventional explanations is concerned -- this is very well established science, namely conservation of energy and calorimetry.

I see, however, that there is cause for misunderstanding my recent addition. When I wrote of claims being rendered more credible by the experiments what I had in mind is what the experimenters have given as their conclusion, i.e. the production of energy in amounts in excess of what could be understood in conventional terms. I therefore propose to rewrite my addition thus: Since that time, however, there has been a demonstration of the device, and careful scientific investigations, which have considerably increased the credibility of the key claim, viz. that the energy produced by the catalyzer is in excess of what can be understood in chemical or any conventional terms. I look forward to the critics accepting this reworded form. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition of this material would violate not just one but several key Wikipedia policies. Those policies include but are not limited to the prohibition of material based on your own interpretation of what has happened, along with the requirement that extraordinary claims be backed by extraordinary sources (e.g., not self-published or popular media). The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you change your mind if say Nature were to publish something reasonably favourable on the subject? -- Brian Josephson (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the readership of Ny Teknik is mainly professional engineers. Not 'popular media', by a long stretch. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I accept your point that the credibility assertion is just a personal point of view and should be excluded. It could be replaced by something more objective, including mention of the role of Kullander and his chairmanship of the RSA energy committee. This would allow readers to judge credibility themselves. Would you have anything against that way of proceeding? I believe I have disposed of the issue of whether anyone can be an expert in this area by noting that the basic claim involves the traditional subject of calorimetry, and w'pedia guide lines do allow statements by experts to be used as references. What say you? -- Brian Josephson (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that the claim relates to "the traditional subject of calorimetry" is not only WP:OR, but utter hogwash. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The above commentator appears to be ignorant of the fact that 'calorimetry' means 'measurement of heat' (comment reworded by request). Calorimetry is the whole point of the investigations. And I don't think the use of the word hogwash conforms to Wikiquette guidelines either. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Editor_Brian_Josephson_at_Talk:Energy_Catalyzer AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of the meaning of the word 'calorimetry'. I may not be a physics Nobel laureate, but I am not an ignoramus either (and in the unlikely chance that I didn't know the meaning of the word, I would still know how to use a dictionary). The 'hogwash' I refer to isn't in regard to the relevance of calorimetry as 'part of the process of assessing the device. It instead refers to the assertion that it is somehow the only point under contention. Like it or not, any genuinely neutral observer must consider that the possibility of a hoax, or of self-deception on the part of those involved, is much more plausible, and to rule out the possibility from the start and instead rely solely on a methodology which assumes that the excess heat (if indeed there is any) is being generated by some new process. Sadly, scientists are just as capable of self-deception as anyone else (I'm sure Professor Josephson is well aware of N-rays as an example of this phenomenon), but the scientific method - which requires peer-review, replication of results etc to establish validity - tends to weed out the nonsense. At least, it should. This however depends on the process not being short-circuited by over-enthusiastic claims (regardless of who makes them). Unless and until the process under discussion has been properly assessed by independent, qualified neutral observers in a way that permits hoaxes etc to be ruled out, I see no reason to give any credibility to it. Science requires scepticism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been replication, which is what people normally ask for, and Rossi had no control over what the replicators did save requiring that they not open the box to discover commercial secrets. Have you, having studied the report carefully, found any specific way this could have been a hoax or how the experimenters might have been deceived? That should be a minimum requirement to ask of anyone before making a complaint such as yours. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not the way a proper scientific investigation is conducted. Rossi could perfectly well have got the investigators to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and then opened the box. And 'replication' in the sense that it is normally described, has not been carried out. Indeed, it cannot be unless it is stated what it is that is being replicated - i.e. what is in the box. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What replication has taken place? Who else has built and tested a Rossi device? Who has even been allowed to operate one outside of his laboratory? If a magician pulls a rabbit out his hat twice, and I personally can't explain with certainty how the trick was performed, does that mean that magical bunny teleportation is real, and supported by replicated experiments? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To a scientist (though possibly not in the topsy-turvy context in which these arcane discussions are taking place where, it seems (quoting Sphere1952), 'science has nothing to do with the contents of this article'), the Kullander et al. expt was indeed a replication of the Levi one.

A logician will tell one that from a false statement, any statement can be proved. In the same way, if science has nothing to do with the contents of an article is taken to be the case than all statements in the said article are scientifically correct, and all are incorrect, as one chooses. Using reductio ad absurdum, it follows that the second italicised premise is incorrect --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a companion article (Energy Catalyzer -- Theories on why it might or might not work) added? I might separately be interested in this matter as the only science book left on my bookshelf is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but the actual topic of the Energy Catalyzer is about people doing something, and I want a place I can turn to that tells me what has happened. The normal news media just isn't doing it in this case. I've wandered off and discovered that Rossi is actually answering hard questions on his web site....why isn't that here????Sphere1952 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We cannot have such an article until we have reliable sources that discuss the subject. Since the preliminary patent report indicates that Rossi's explanation given was unclear, and since no proper explanation has been given elsewhere in sufficient detail for others to replicate the device, there is little opportunity for anyone to say whether it might work, and if so, how. I suspect the news media are reporting little because there is actually little of verifiable substance to report, and the scientific community is unlikely to get involved until there is something concrete to get involved with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, as long as the subject material is then kept out of this article. There is a lot in this talk page that is the standard back and forth about the science and has nothing to do with the events. Bits of that keep creeping into the article in one way or another. If there isn't grounds for a separate article on the 'science' (or its lack) then there certainly are no grounds for a discussion of that in an article reporting current events.Sphere1952 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of credible scientific evidence, there's not really any grounds to have this article, let alone any other. We have one self-published blog that masquerades as a journal, copies and speculation based on that blog scattered across a whole bunch of fringe cold-fusion and conspiracy-theory online forums, and a set of news reports by one technology journalist who can't be bothered to interview or quote any of the many scientists who don't find Rossi credible. Rossi held his press conference three months ago, but oddly enough no other news source has picked up the story – despite an additional pair of demonstrations – since.

Lacking reliable scientific sources, about the only thing that we can say is that Rossi claims he has built a cold fusion device, and that he's attracted the attention of one credulous journalist and the usual coterie of bloggers who follow this stuff. That's thin gruel from which to construct an encyclopedia article. We've been waiting for reliable sources since this article was created more than a month ago; they haven't appeared. It may be time to delete this page until such time as there is sufficient material to write a proper article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Science has nothing to do with the contents of this article. The proper focus of this article is who are the actors and witnesses, what are their credentials, what do they say they did or witnessed, and when. There may be other facts that help tell the story of the Energy Catalyzer, but scientific theories are not among them. Seems to me the cast of characters and major events have been rather well filled out so far.Sphere1952 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The proper focus of the article is whatever WP:RS has to say about it - which frankly at the moment seems to amount to 'not a lot'. I like the idea of analysing it in Shakespearean terms - as a performance where all play their part, including the audience who's role is to heckle, throw orange-peel, and generally puncture the pomposity and pretensions of the major players, but sadly that isn't in Wikipedia's script. We don't write the reviews, we report them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to assemble a complete record of "who said what, when" is a valid exercise for a blog, a gossip column, or even for a court of law—but it's not the role of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia relies on the interpretations, evaluations, and summaries provided by reliable secondary sources to determine what represents appropriate coverage and weight for the topics we address. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of reliable secondary sources at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Sergio Focardi

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbmJPqDwQm0

it is possible to watch an interesting interview with Sergio Focardi about the Energy Catalyzer. English subtitles available. I hope you enjoy the information.
--79.11.3.30 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reportage on Rai News (English version available)

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/canale-tv.php?id=23074 Here you can find the reportage of Rai News about the E-Cat (in Italian).
It is said something interesting about the patent.--79.6.11.183 (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Here the same reportage on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGI12A3SWJ4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.11.183 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Here you can find the English version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzL3RIlcwbY

Regards--79.16.138.160 (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Sven Kullander and Hanno Essén (Swedish w. English subtitles)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt2JqEmaUGc

The interviewer should be Mats Lewan--79.6.11.183 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious editing

There is a prima facie case for suggesting that a number of editors of this article have been engaged in Disruptive Editing. The relevant Wikipedia article characterises disruptive editing as a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time ... that has the effect of disrupting progress toward improving an article. Tendentious editing is similar: Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. Just as some articles are likely to receive more counter-NPOV edits than others, some writers are more likely to make them. Tendentious editing is what the latter writers do. Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue

The two main manifestations of these in this article are: persistently

• attempting to discredit sources
• acting so as to prevent balance being achieved in the introductory section

I will discuss the two separately.

attempting to discredit sources

Two sources in particular where such attempts have been made are (a) articles by Mats Lewan in Ny Teknik (b) the experimental report by Sven Kullander, chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy's energy committee.

As regards the first, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC) repeatedly used the words 'blog' and 'blogger' in connection with these articles. In particular, it was said that a blogger is not a good sole source for what would be – if true – this century's most stunning technological advance. It was pointed out by LeadSongDog (wonderful nom de plume -- reminds me of my cousin-in-law's SongDogs in Nairobi that would howl together in harmony every night when we were staying with him) that Lewan was in fact the IT editor of a weekly tech magazine. Instead of admitting that 'blogger' was an inappropriate indication of Lewan's credentials, TenOfAllTrades hunted the magazine till he found a reference to Lewan being a blogger and reported this to the discussion. This was misleading: an editor can perfectly well do a blog as a secondary occupation and the two roles should not be confused. By trying to maintain the idea that Lewan was functioning as a blogger in the cited articles, TenOfAllTrades was acting disruptively.

Re the second point. let me quote the following by TenOfAllTrades: Lacking reliable scientific sources, about the only thing that we can say is that Rossi claims he has built a cold fusion device, and that he's attracted the attention of one credulous journalist and the usual coterie of bloggers who follow this stuff. That's thin gruel from which to construct an encyclopedia article. We've been waiting for reliable sources since this article was created more than a month ago; they haven't appeared. It may be time to delete this page until such time as there is sufficient material to write a proper article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC). One has to infer from this that ToAT does not view the report by the chairman of the RSA's energy committee as reliable. Why is this? One gathers that it is because it has not been published in a referred journal. However, in a suitable context scientific reports can be more evidential than published papers. When people produce a report, their reputation suffers more if there is an error in the report than is the case for a published paper, since reports are expected to adhere to high standards as more depends on their accuracy, and it can be expected that they will take extra care to avoid errors. The page Wikipedia:Reliable source examples lists many types of unreliable sources, but scientific reports of this nature are not among them. And the fact that subject matter is controversial does not imply that an investigation into it is unreliable, while mere assertions that fraud might have been possible have no evidential value unless backed up by reliable indications (not based on theory or past experience since science advances) of how fraud might actually have been possible in the given case. In summary, unsustainable arguments have been used to try to discredit references.

Please excuse my ignorance, but why is the Bologna radio station Radio Città del Capo not considered a reliable source? Are you (Stephan Schulz) denying that the interview (of great historical interest as much of the material is not available elsewhere) took place? Or are you disputing the accuracy of the translation for which I gave a link? --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a prediction, by the way. As sure as night follows day, another reason will suddenly be produced as to why that reference should not be included. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've now located the interview concerned (TV programme in fact, + transcript in Italian), on the station's own web site, at http://radio.rcdc.it/archives/stremmenos-la-fusione-fredda-puo-risolvere-molti-problemi-dellumanita-77206/ Assuming that this is considered a reliable source as I think it must be, how best do we deal with the fact that it is in Italian? The obvious solution seems to be to include also the link to the translation I added previously, unless there is evidence that the translation is inaccurate. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

actions working against balance

The action begins with Short Brigade Harvester Boris adding to the introductory section (Revision as of 15:23, 16 April 2011) the fact that Rossi's patent application had fared badly. Given that this may mean only that Rossi is not good at writing patents, and that this information was already included in the Evaluation of the Device section, it seemed to me that it was inappropriate to have it in the introductory material and so I deleted it, explaining why. This was attacked by various people using rather dubious arguments:

• PhGustav, in reverting to the original, said the credibility of the device was doubtful, claiming the failure of the patent was a citable way of indicating this. In fact, as noted, it says more about Rossi's skills in writing patents than whether his device actually works.
• Stephan Shultz then came on the scene talking of 'iffy sources' and 'self-published sources' -- not applicable to this kind of report as noted above.
• AndyTheGrump then joined in, claiming in effect that the investigators could not be experts in the subject. Wrong, as the purpose of experiment was to measure excess heat, a subject in which there is plenty of expertise.
• The saga then moved to a new phase. I decided to allow the reference to the patent to remain and just add the perfectly factual statement that the patent officer didn't actually test the device.
• ATG then removed this helpful clarification with Irrelevant: the patent office doesn't test devices. It was pointed out by someone that sometimes, e.g. with perpetual motion claims in the US patent offices do test devices. ATG dismissed this and did not offer to restore the clarification, now even more needed to avoid confusion.
• A number of discussants then moved in to deny that a scientific experiment had been carried out, presumably as a reason not even to mention experiments in the introduction (TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 16 April 2011, Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC), AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2011, and again TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)).

Thus a number of people have collectively forced the irrelevant patent office situation to remain by itself, with the risk that people who don't go on to read about what has been done (rightly or wrongly) in the way of experiment may be led to conclude, incorrectly, that there is no evidence of any kind that there is anything to the Rossi reactor. The editors concerned might have suggested allowing the inclusion of such a reference, balanced with such complementary scepticism as they may wish to inject. I find it remarkable that none sought, in the interests of comprehensivity, to accept such a compromise. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Which leads one on to the subject of ... --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"It was pointed out by someone that sometimes, e.g. with perpetual motion claims in the US patent offices do test devices. ATG dismissed this and did not offer to restore the clarification". Now that really takes the biscuit. It was me that pointed out that the US Patent office asked for working models for perpetual motion machines (I presume they don't actually 'test' them - unless there is some sort of monumental conspiracy going on...). As I pointed out, the US Patent office wasn't involved in the preliminary report, and the device isn't a perpetual motion machine. This isn't a 'dismissal', it is a statement of fact. If you can provide evidence that it is a common procedure for tests to be required for preliminary reports on patentability, I could see a justification for pointing out that tests had not been carried out, but otherwise it is a complete red herring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To some extent I agree; the primary issue here is censorship, supported by tendentious arguments. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If the Rossi reactor, against all the odds, is for real and provides a viable source of fusion energy, this will naturally spell trouble for those working in projects such as ITER. It has been suggested that some working in this field are seeking to minimise interest in such subjects by infiltrating organisations such as Wikipedia and, under cover of anonymity, doing what they can to 'adjust' or even delete articles of this kind (there has even been a suggestion that the page be deleted on this discussion page (TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 20 April 2011)). Such actions, were they to be occurring (and I myself am in no way asserting that this is the case), would naturally be a serious violation of the guidelines. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So it's a conspiracy? Probably by the same group that keeps the Water-fuelled car off the market, I bet. More seriously, the fact that many different editors object to your edits does not point to a shadowy conspiracy, but rather to the fact that your edits have no consensus, in my opinion because they promote a fringe position in violation of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. And who is this "Stephan Shultz" you keep talking about? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that the reason there is no consensus on this topic, and no discussions of anything but the non-science aspects of the e-cat(i.e. the credibility of the reporters, the patent process ect.) is that actual scientists have very little interest in wikipedia. This is in part because of the incivility and ignorance displayed on the talk pages. In an academic setting, saying 'So it's a conspiracy? Probably by the same group that keeps the Water-fuelled car off the market, I bet.' would not only be considered a grave insult but would immediately render your opinion worthless in the minds of listeners (because it displays incredible ignorance of the topic at hand). On wikipedia, editors consider comments like the quote above to be witty and topical as well as convincing. Arguing about science topics with people who think that a weekly dose of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe is sufficient background knowledge to qualify them to make authoritative statements about what aspects of cold fusion should be considered fringe is fruitless at best. In a perfect world, these pages would be filled with researchers discussing meaningful details of the experiments, formulating testable hypotheses for the consideration of the group, reporting experimental findings, and debating the latest news with civility before distilling the whole down to a meaningful addition to the article. Sadly, the debate here can never reach that level.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the typo, I do not have the time to bother with trifles; you should see the number of misspellings of my own name that people dream up. And people quite often locate me in 'the other place' (Oxford), a greater offence by far. Please accept my apologies.

On the identity issue, I hear that there have been queries as to my identity. As proof of a sort (and I can't quite see why anyone should have such doubts), please note that the real BDJ while he was an undergraduate published in PRL in 1960 a paper on temperature dependence in the Mössbauer effect, which had implications for terrestrial tests of General Relativity, and that User:Brian Josephson edited the w'pedia article on the same effect, correcting a slight misapprehension in the existing article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"It has been suggested that some working in this field are seeking to minimise interest in such subjects by infiltrating organisations such as Wikipedia and, under cover of anonymity, doing what they can to 'adjust' or even delete articles of this kind..." Where has it been suggested? This looks to me to be getting dangerously close to tinfoil-hat territory, and I really don't think such conspiracy theories are a fit topic for this discussion. Unless evidence can be provided that such theories have been advanced by anyone beyond the odd crank, I see no reason to discuss this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a master's thesis on the topic (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2009/2009PownallGrant-ThesisDemarcatingScienceColdFusion.pdf). It deals with the Pons & Fleischmann announcement and the aftermath. The thesis describes aspects of the philosophy of science and how the rejection of the original experiments contradicted the fundamental precepts of falsifiability that are the foundation of science itself. If you take the time to look at it, you might understand why researchers who bother to read the published cold fusion literature get so upset by the outrageous conduct of some in the physics community. If this discovery is real the reputation of an entire branch of physics will suffer. This academic publication, is far from being in tinfoil-hat territory, and explicitly shows poor behavior by prominent scientists.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's just silly. Put up or shut up, Dr. Josephson—don't play rhetorical "it has been suggested" games. You're making the suggestion under your own signature. If you're alleging anyone has a conflict of interest here, come out and say so. Making frivolous and unsupported accusations of grossly unethical behavior on the part of your fellow editors – implicitly or explicitly – is also "a serious violation of the guidelines". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The editor explicitly states: '(and I myself am in no way asserting that this is the case)'. The masters of science thesis I linked above makes a well reasoned and well sourced case for the argument of conflict of interest in the past with regard to cold fusion, which falls into the category of 'such subjects' as described in the first post in the section. On the basis of this reasoning there was no accusation by the editor and the accusations made by others are not frivolous or unsupported. Ignoring evidence is also a rhetorical ploy.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that Prof Josephson should tell us himself which sources he is referring to when he reports these allegations of a conspiracy. As for the Master's thesis, it has no relevance to allegations of attempts to manipulate this Wikipedia article: it cannot be, given that it was submitted in September 2009, whereas this article was started in March of this year (the only reference to Wikipedia within the thesis that I can see is in the bibliography, where our Deuterium-tritium fusion article is listed). And since when has a Master's thesis been proof of anything? Not that it seems to suggest the sort of conspiracy that it is being used to support, judging from the abstract. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The bare minimum requirement for an exchange in writing is reading comprehension. Where is a conspiracy alleged exactly? Is there a conspiracy of poorly trained "skeptics" who have no interest in researching the topic to skew the POV of this article based on their irrational beliefs. Definitely not! Are poorly trained skeptics relentlessly skewing the POV of this article based on their emotional reactions to an improbable experiment? It appears that they are. I find the technique similar to the way religious people propagate their ideas: close your eyes plug your ears and bore your opponents to death.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will in fact be documenting these issues from a specific perspective (and thereby also addressing AndyTheGrump's request) when I have time to get round to it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"The bare minimum requirement for an exchange in writing is reading comprehension. Where is a conspiracy alleged exactly?" Here: "It has been suggested that some working in this field are seeking to minimise interest in such subjects by infiltrating organisations such as Wikipedia and, under cover of anonymity, doing what they can to 'adjust' or even delete articles of this kind'". Any more stupid questions?

(ec) There's a certain irony here, in that Enslaved robot boy is the only editor on this page who has taken pains to conceal his previous identity here on Wikipedia. I notice that he still hasn't told us what other names he's edited under, and it's probably best not to feed him by responding further to his remarks.

If Josephson didn't intend to draw a connection between the editors on his enemies list in the previous section and his ridiculous hot-fusion-proponents-are-infiltrating-Wikipedia warning, he wouldn't have linked the two sections with the words "Which leads one on to the subject of ...". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I see from your comments in the edit summary that you persist in claiming without any basis in fact that I am a sockpuppet. I submit that this is just further proof of your lack of critical thinking ability. It is clear from the above two sections that Prof. Josephson cannot understand why the listed editors would deliberately skew the POV of the article without any rational reason. He assumes that you are rational and therefore attributes your disruptive edits to a deliberate strategy. Obviously, the assumption of rational behavior needs to be reexamined.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You can not be serious, Mr. TenOfAllTrades! Surely that is not your real name, in which case, unlike myself and Mr. Lewan, you are concealing your own identity. Can you give us a hint, perhaps? And surely the shortage of people not declaring that they have no interest in conventional fusion is just a teeny bit revealing (I'll exempt from that comment the person who did identify his subject at least earlier on). Suspicious people might find the parallels with this article from today's paper quite revealing:

Fossil fuel firms use 'biased' study in massive gas lobbying push

Senior executives in the fossil fuel industry have launched an all-out assault on renewable energy ... Central to the lobbying effort is a report claiming that the EU could meet its 2050 carbon targets €900bn more cheaply by using gas than by investing in renewables. But the Guardian has established that the analysis is based on a previous report that came to the opposite conclusion – that renewables should play a much larger role. The report being pushed by the fossil fuel industry has been disowned by its original authors who referred to it as "biased" in favour of gas. For the last two months, company lobbyists have been besieging government officials in Europe, the US and elsewhere to push the report. Their efforts are being boosted through alliances with energy-intensive industries, which are joining in the pressure on government in the hope of securing cheap energy.

Let me however save you a little trouble by agreeing with you in advance that there are differences. All that is similar is the element of -- what shall we call it -- propaganda? No, let us not use such a nasty word -- a variant with quite respectable origins is 'economy with the truth'. It is true to point out to readers that Signor Rossi's patent application failed but there is a certain economy there, an aspect omitted that some might suggest really ought to have been included. But no matter ... .

Would that I could give you people the origins of the suggestions that I alluded to. They were passed on to me by a friend, who got them from another friend, who believes, no doubt rightly, that sometimes it is safest to remain silent about certain issues where power and money are involved. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made no effort to conceal any aspect of my track record on Wikipedia. My history of contributions and interactions with other editors are open to all, as are the logs of my administrative actions on the project. For better or worse, I stand by that record, and accept that the sum of those edits and actions forms the basis for my reputation as an editor of Wikipedia. I have made more than fifteen thousand edits to several thousand unique pages, a miniscule fraction of which have even the remotest relation to nuclear fusion (at any temperature, hot or cold). Looking at the other editors you've named as part of your imaginary 'squad', I see a similar pattern: years of contributions and thousands of edits across a wide range of topics. Have the 'hot' fusion physicists really spent more than half a decade infiltrating Wikipedia with elaborately-concealed sleeper agents?

In contrast, Enslaved robot boy created a new account purely to insult another editor on this talk page, and within two minutes also took steps to make the newness of the account less conspicuous. Through his actions and editing ability, he has inadvertently outed himself as an experienced Wikipedia editor, but curiously he has chosen to avoid linking his recent edits to any of his Wikipedia history. This may be a voluntary move to avoid linking a 'good' account with his bad behavior here, or to allow him to bring in his original account later to create the appearance of increased support for his opinions. More likely, his original account is under some sanctions which bar him from using it to edit this page.

You are quite correct that I don't publicly link my real name to my Wikipedia account. In my years as a Wikipedia administrator, I've dealt with a very extensive collection of wingnuts, kooks, and cranks. Most are harmless, but one can never be sure which ones are not. There are also several websites dedicated to stalking Wikipedia editors (particularly administrators). I have been threatened with physical violence by other (now-banned) editors on more than one occasion. Given the lengths that some individuals will go to to harass me online, I am concerned that they might escalate to (violent or non-violent) harassment of me, my family, or my employer. For my own safety, security, and peace of mind, I therefore choose not to publish my name on Wikipedia. I expect that the editor TenOfAllTrades will be evaluated on the basis of his contributions to the project, no more and no less.

Continuing to implicitly allege a conspiracy or conflict of interest ("...surely the shortage of people not declaring that they have no interest in conventional fusion is just a teeny bit revealing...") is grossly insulting to the editors here who are volunteering their time and effort in good faith. It is a a personal attack that poisons the collaborative editing environment we're trying to achieve, and if you persist in putting forth your fantasy without evidence, I will ask that you be blocked from editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for venting one's frustrations with one's enemies, real or imagined. Unless you have something concrete to add regarding allegations of attempts to subvert Wikipedia, I suggest you cease wasting your time and ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Science vs. Politics

First of all I comment that the way these discussions have proceeded can be expected to be of great interest to historians and social scientists of the future. To this end they are being saved, and will in due course be archived on the university's system.

I should make it clear that my comment about sources of the idea that a conspiracy is involved here was a joke (and it will be noted that I had already reworded my comments so that they no longer referred to conspiracies, cabals, etc.). I accept that there can be other explanations for why a number of editors insisted on the deletion of reference to the existence of experiments. My comments about conspiracies etc. were perhaps too much influenced by what happened in the case of Pons and Fleischmann, as documented by Beaudette in his book Excess Heat:

Koonin spelt out his plan for Baltimore: "I was going to hit really hard ..." He decided carefully what words he would use, "I talked to a lot of people before I settled on those words..." It was with alacrity and fervour that Koonin and Lewis prepared for what was to be Baltimore.

This at least was no fantasy on Beaudette's part, the source of these remarks being an interview with Koonin himself (Box 3-0, Coll. 4451, Kroch Library, Cornell Univ., May 8 1992).

In any event, I should like to express my regrets if any editors have felt hurt by my comments, since assuming something comparable was happening here was indeed an unwarranted extrapolation. I accept also that, through unfamiliarity with Wikipedia talk traditions, I responded to disagreements in a robust way that, while fairly normal in an academic context, does not conform with Wikipedia traditions. And given that the blocked 'conflict of interest' subsection was speculative and does not advance my main argument at all (I hadn't thought very carefully about the matter when I started it), I'd have absolutely no objection to that subsection simply being deleted.

None of this renders invalid my comments in the other subsections, which I consider of major relevance to the integrity of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Josephson (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I conclude the section on disruptive editing by noting that there are scientific disagreements and political activity, which have different ends and styles and play by different rules. I hardly need to go into any details here (I may add more as time permits) as I believe that unbiased readers of this discussion will come very quickly to the conclusion that political action is involved. My section attempts to discredit sources makes the point particularly clearly (and bear in mind that I have saved the page as it is at present for people to be able to judge for themselves), and in general the kind of language used speaks for itself. Unbiased observers may also see the entry signed as TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:39, 22 April 2011, as an attempt to silence me with threats. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that to see you acknowledge the utility of the social sciences in furthering understanding of such debates. As for archiving this page in your university system, this will be entirely unnecessary, as Wikipedia preserves all such data (even if a page is subsequently 'deleted', this merely removes it from public access, as I understand it). Still, if you wish to do this, there is nothing to prevent you, as least as far as we are concerned. As for your comments about 'threats', I will only suggest that it is your behaviour that has led to the less-that-collegial atmosphere on this page. In any case, as you indicate, history will tell one way or another, though I'd be surprised if this particular bit of 'history' gets even a passing mention in the most obscure and dusty corner of whatever institution chooses to specialise in early-21st-century internet trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

To clear up an apparent misconception, material archived in our university archiving system at http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk can be either open or closed as the user wishes. It will therefore continue to be readily available to scholars, or anyone else interested, even if wikipedia makes it invisible. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary

To summarise, the basic manifestations of tendentious or disruptive editing of this article have been mischaracterisations of references of a kind normally considered reliable as unreliable, for example referring to articles in a technical newspaper as blogs or a scientific report as a 'self-published document'. This mischaracterisation did not affect the content of the article, but did for a time lead to a banner suggesting that the article had no reliable sources. Only after much discussion was the banner removed.

More serious was the unbalancing of the lead-in section with tendentious arguments. The lead-in is supposed to indicate the general content of the article and was admittedly inadequate at the beginning, referring only to certain claims. It was not wrong to include reference to the important fact that the device failed to get a patent, but it was wrong to delete persistently the equally important fact that the device had passed a number of scientific tests. This deletion constituted bias, a personal point of view. Various tendentious arguments were used to justify the deletion, e.g. inappropriate comparision with claimed energy devices that had not passed the same kind of testing. The idea that there was something wrong with the actual experiment was based on unsupported allegations of fraud etc. It would not have been wrong to indicate the possibility of fraud in the lead-in, but systematic refusal to allow even mention of the important fact that experimental tests, with outcomes said by those who conducted the experiments to be inconsistent with conventional explanations, have been done by scientists constitutes illegitimate and disruptive censorship. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)