Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 20

Let's all get over it

I'm actually having a hard time finding a decent list of robberies, frauds or scandals that you could put this guy on, if he is actually up to no good. There is List of corporate scandals which has no indication of the size of each 'scandal' in dollars, rats, I think some are well over 100 billion according to the 'net. There is the Category of Commercial crimes with something called 'Sweethearting' amongst a otherwise boring list, there is a List of bank robbers and robberies which hey, this is interesting, you thought the great train Robbery at £2.6million was big ? well screw that by 3,000 times over, because the biggest one of all time is 3,000 times larger. Interesting nobody hears about that one on the news, hmm, I wonder why (sarcasm).

Does what he is up to even go on the list of Confidence tricks ? I doubt it, somewhat of an epic fail for anything really. The Category:Crimes is a brilliant variety including things you may not have heard of, like Cony-catching which is closer to what this guy is up to than crimes against humanity ever will be. There are fascinating terms on there like Embracery, Lotoko, Calunnia, and maybe Mopery describes this guy ? Who knows.

One thing is for sure, if this guy can use $50 worth of copper pipes and half a dozen rolls of tinfoil to part $2 billion dollar fool from their money then I for one would say, well, good on you for not pointing a gun at anyone, not using the laws of the government to make your crime legal, which is upsetting to people who think government is good, thank you for not using nuclear weapons or raping children and so on and so forth.

Actually I'd invite the guy to dinner and love to hear how he did it. Coffee at the drop of a hat really. I'd probably suggest to him that rather than going to prison he should invest a few of his very well earned dollars in a legal firm and marketing team, so he can do exactly the same thing that every advertiser on television does everyday by delivering nothing but promises after taking your money. You buy it, get it home and it's either broken or not working, but those corporations do actually have a cashflow and this poor old man doesn't, I feel so bad for him I should see if I can use paypal to send him a few dollars, he looks rather hungry to me in the videos, I like grandfather types. well, oops I must apologise for waffling on here, where were we ? oh yes, I think we are all arguing about what is inside the tinfoil. He's got everyone upset over it doesn't he, now where are we up to ? Penyulap 10:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Before someone collapses this, let me state once more: It's more likely to be Aluminium_foil#Insulation. Tmccc (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia article talk pages are not a forum. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Penyulap's point is interesting. It's all about poisening the well. First claiming Rossi is a fraud and then asking who in his right mind is going to believe a fraud, surely nobody. And if nobody believes him, he surely is a fraud. That's all fairly logical to some. Screaming murder about all the innocent investors he's going to rip of their money then seems to be a noble duty. I think the underlying resentment about Rossi is not even so much about frauding investors, but about staining mainstream science credibility. That cannot be tolerated. The claimant must be shown to be untrustworthy and his claim crackpot. But it doesn't stop there, journalists who write about it are discredited as having no expertise or "in on the deal" and only fringe promoters. Scientific journals that publish papers are denounced as not credible journals and non-RS for WP (this was actually argued here on WP, you can't believe it). WP-editors that work on NPOV are denouced as POV-pushers that WP doesn't need.
If you really want to write NPOV about this, you should first ask yourself how much you are influenced by (and defending) mainstream science dogma.
WP is not about defending mainstream science dogma. It is not about defending any dogma. It is about presenting all significant views in a NPOV way. I think that this article can be improved when all editors are clear why they have a certain POV and if their conduct really is in line with the goals that WP has set. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Science is the opposite of dogma. "scientific dogma" doesn't even make sense. Also an editor's POV isn't relevent. The POV of the article is all that matters Bhny (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The wording "scientific dogma" makes perfect sense to journalists of respected newspapers. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
if you read that article 'dogma' is in scare quotes from sheldrake -In particular, he takes aim at the "scientific dogmatism". Bhny (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then look at this peer reviewed paper that has "scientific dogma" in the title. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes you have found a paper that uses the oxymoron 'scientific dogma'. Please feel free to use it yourself now Bhny (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note. I collapsed this section per WP:NOTFORUM and per WP:BLP - which applies to talk pages too. POVb has reverted the collapse on the dubious grounds that this discussion is "about improving the article". If so, can people pleas indicate what changes to artiucle content are being proposed, and what sources are being cited for such changes. I'd also strongly suggest that Penyulap redacts some of the more definitive accusations of fraud made above. It is one thing to point out that many have suggested Rossi may be up to no good, and another thing to assert that he definitely is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What I'm addressing is we don't need to fill up the talkpage, as has been going on and on and on page after page after page giving a toss as to whether or not anything is true or not. My point is, why care at all people ? Why care ? why spend so much time and effort discussing this, when we can simply 'get over it' and report what's notable and don't care for what's not. If Queen Elizabeth tomorrow woke up and stated to the press that she was abducted by aliens, we simply determine if she made a statement to the press and what she said. We don't give a toss if she was abducted, and we shouldn't care less if there is electricity coming out of the machine or not, this is about reporting and documenting the machine. There is no need to touch your tongue across the output terminals of the machine in order to write about it.
As for content, the lede section requires context suitable for a subject of this nature. If the article was merged it would become a BLP and that's different. As it is an article about an object, it needs to be brought up to WP:MOSINTRO, at the moment it has nothing. Sources are not such a problem here, because for context they are not required the same way, it's more putting the subject into it's setting amongst other similar items. With some apologies we can't actually compare it to a packing crate covered in foil, sorry guys ! have to be serious here. Penyulap 19:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Can you make proposals to improve the lead ? --POVbrigand (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
We don't simply report what's notable (in fact we report what is WP:DUE), we reflect what the balance of sources says. On the Queen, we would report what the reliable sources say about the incident and not just the initial claim. Specifically we are documenting the machine by reporting what the sources say. You appear to have a set up a strawman so you can take it down again. There is no comparisons to a packing crate covered in foil in the article, so quite frankly, what are you talking about? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The balance of sources ? WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. ...". If you count all the science textbooks as sources too, the "balance" would always be on the mainstream view. That would in contradiction with giving the minority view more attention and space. I nearly forgot to mention that some editors are also very selectively arguing that some sources (the ones "supportive of the claims") are not reliable, like for instance the argument that Nyteknik is "participating in the experiment" and thus not an independent source, ie not reliable or that sources in a foreign language newspaper are not significant for an english WP. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's right some editors are "very selectively arguing" that we can't use Ny Teknik as a reliable source for the results of an 'experiment' it participated in. This argument is however based on the facts of the case. Unlike your endless bullshit about 'NPOV' and your endless attempts to use Rossi's unverifiable and contradictory claims and meaningless demonstrations as a coatrack for your pet 'science' that is always about to become 'mainstream' next week. Far too many rational contributors have been taken in by this nonsense. Endless Wikilawyering over what WP:UNDUE etc means is a complete irrelevance. The E-Cat is nothing more than a circus sideshow, and no more deserving of a Wikipedia article than all the other 'perpetual motion machines', 'gasoline pills' and 'anti-gravity' generators that and the like promote - except of course that even has distanced itself from Rossi's contraption. Rossi probably deserves an article on the basis of Petroldragon, and no doubt his other failures deserve a sentence or two, but this particular magic teapot has run out of steam.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
uh, no. PESN has Rossi on #1 of its "Top 5 Exotic Free Energy Technologies". I observe that: 1) PESN is not a reliable source. 2) you choose to take this none RS to build an argumentation that Rossi has "run out of steam". 3) you obviously misquote the source. 4) based on all this rubbish you are attacking me of coatracking and wikilaywering. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I don't know who is for or who is against, but I'd like to ask who is against it can they outline why that is? I just took a look at the article and seems there is are a lot of references to Ny Teknik already, including some awesome PDF with lots of technical descriptions to aid making an illustration. Cool. Penyulap 13:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Far too many rational contributors have been taken in by this nonsense. It looks like you are on a mission here to set the record straight. What is "deserving" a wikipedia article is very well explained in the policies and last time I checked none of those policies was referring to AndyTheGrump's personal view for guidance. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I really doubt that Andy is trying to settheblah blah some essay, he's more of a straight shooter on policy, and we seem to be losing track of the content now, so lets keep on track. Penyulap 13:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I understand and agree with "We don't simply report [only] what's notable (in fact we report what is WP:DUE), we reflect what the balance of sources says. On the Queen, we would report what the reliable sources say about the incident and not just the initial claim. Specifically we are documenting the machine by reporting what the sources say." but what do you mean by "You appear to have a set up a strawman so you can take it down again.", yes i know what a straw man is, but I don't know what you mean, can you explain ?
In regards to "There is no comparisons to a packing crate covered in foil in the article, so quite frankly, what are you talking about?" well someone was mentioning foil, and the fact is, there is a lot of foil covering a substantial portion of the device a lot of the time during demonstrations, as for a packing crate, no I don't think there is a packing crate underneath. But to make an artists impression of the machine, foil is indicated by a lot of the sources. Penyulap 12:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
What source was dismissed because it was a foreign language, that doesn't sound right at all, this guy is Italian isn't he ? all the best sources may well be Italian who knows. What is the source you speak of ? Penyulap 12:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Off to search google for 'magic teapot'... I so want that in the article. Penyulap 12:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Only 15,100 returns for googling "magic teapot" energy catalyser. I think I'll invoke !WP:GreenEggs&Ham on that one. Penyulap 13:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
120 returns for including Rossi, but I can't view one of them,

blogen | Første post 10 Jan 2007 – ... [url= ] ...... andrea lowell picture playboy ..... anytime brian mcknight lyrics verasun energy corp chemetron ...... Posted by: catalytic converter random technology at 2008/11/20, 05:43 .... Posted by: lesbian magic teapot at 2008/11/20, 17:03

it won't come up on the computer. Rats ! Penyulap 13:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hang on, this is getting a bit SISO here sorry there are no green eggs and ham I haven't uploaded it yet. plus, almost all references to magic teapot are mirrors. Still, we do need comparisons to similar items. Maybe not magic teapots however, something else. Penyulap 13:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Noone has suggested that magic teapot be added to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it has been used in conversation as a summary of the device, but it seems to rare a description to use in the article. Penyulap 13:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I always thought that "magic teapot" was used similarly as the "pink unicorn" to ridicule other editors' contributions and express solidarity amongst the editors who use it. see WP:BATTLEGROUND--POVbrigand (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
That's funny, I thought the same about references to "mainstream science dogma". IRWolfie- (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
As Bhny correctly understood "scientific dogma" is used in peer reviewed papers. I haven't seen that for the above pejorative phrases. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You probably haven't checked, here is usage of Pink unicorn in an academic journal: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, good find. Scientific sourcing on the notion that the use of "Pink Unicorn" raises a "lingering suspicion that the intention is to satirise, parody or mock." Can you find such evidence for "Magic Teapot" too ? --POVbrigand (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
"scientific dogma" is mostly used by fringe people in weird strawman arguments about why their insane ideas aren't accepted by science. Maybe I wasn't clear enough- "scientific dogma" doesn't make sense. Science is opposed to dogma. It's an oxymoron and incorrect to say "scientific dogma". That paper that used it was wrong. They were being hyperbolic. If people use a term incorrectly it doesn't mean it is now correct Bhny (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not disagreeing with you. I used the term the way the authors of the peer reviewed paper used it. Real pure science cannot be following dogma, it would be a contradiction. But science is done by humans and sometimes "science" is not guided by real pure scientific reasoning, but by dogma. Calling something science or somebody a scientist does not guarantee that it is free of dogma. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

context for lede

I shall put a section here in case someone wants to make a proper suggestion in this regard. The conversation is a bit long and off topic to get through otherwise. Please be on-topic in this section, thank you. Penyulap 12:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Move Ugo Bardi's quote into the proper section

This way:
--Insilvis (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

ACS magazine source

This source may be of use: [2]. Some quotes:

"The lack of information about the E-Cat process is one reason many people are having trouble believing Rossi. Another is his checkered past."
"Rossi has been unable to patent the invention and he is reluctant to divulge scientific details. His actions are fueling speculation in some quarters that he is a con artist trying to pull off an elaborate get-rich-quick scheme."
"Rossi isn’t certain of the mechanism, but he assumes a self-sustaining nickel-hydrogen low-energy fusion process is taking place that is transmuting nickel to copper. The excess energy is given off as heat and some residual radiation, he says."

Mostly just a summary of what's already known though. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot have access to it. Is this just a problem of mine?--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem of yours, I believe you have to join the ACS. The article is reviewed at e-catworld though. As IRWolfie- says, it's a review aimed at a mainstream scientific community. Tmccc (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Most scientific societies have some form of glossy magazine. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Having totally ruined the article you may as well close it now.

I see that the history of the event has been totally removed. No dates at all. No list of actors. No biographies. By focusing on petty conflicts about whether this could or could not be real rather than treating it as an ongoing event you have made the article totally worthless. Sphere1952 12:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a notable WP:EVENT Bhny (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
What we need is the equivalent of a Royal_Commission to root out Wikipedia corruption. First, we need some whistleblowers... Tmccc (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
what are you talking about? (I have no idea at all) Bhny (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, should have added ;) to the above. Tmccc (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I know very little about the editing protocols of Wikipedia but would like to propose the Website as a source. They have posted a number of articles about this subject and have found evidence that the Pentagon (more specifically DARPA) are interested in the work of Mr Rossi. If is considered a legitimate source then surely this warrants inclusion in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's already referenced in the demonstrations section- Energy_Catalyzer#cite_note-47

primary sources making exceptional claims

In reference to this edit.

Rossi claims that he is certifying his machine, but he doesn't say which certificate he is getting, and he doesn't say who certifies it:

"We have to get the certification from an official certifier for sale in the U.S. We are under a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the certifier and all I can say is the U.S. certifier works for one of the most well-known worldwide certification companies and I can not say whom they are because we will be only be able to explain their name after the certification has been reached. This is based off of the contract that we have with them."[3]

And this coming from an interview, not published in an reliable source, and not cross-checked against anything. Please see WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF (they are on the same page). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Rossi says this. He says lots of things. If you want to read what Rossi says, there are plenty of websites that tell you. Wikipedia isn't one of them, and for very good reasons. We aren't here to publish vacuous puffery - particularly when this week's vacuous puffery contradicts last week's, which contradicted the week before... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Small size:

Large size:

This is the official logo of the E-Cat.

Is it possible to insert it into the article?


-- (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No. There is nothing saying this is the official logo Bhny (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Bhny. I would have doubts if this showed up on one of Andrea Rossi's website, but in this case it is something completely out of the blue and seems like fan art. Show some reliable source to show it is an actual logo, and hopefully something formatted a little bit better instead of a case logo as a mock up. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

notability by number of articles.

Just trying to judge whether this topic is notable by looking at secondary sources. Ny Teknik totally dominates sources with about 19 articles. There are only about 10 other articles by any reliable source (after removing blogs etc.). Nearly all of these are from 2011. Only one that I can see (ACS) is from 2012.

Each of these other sources has only one article each- PhysOrg, Wired, Daily Wired, Wired UK, EETimes, EVWorld, Gizmodo, Fox news (video), Focus (Italian magazine), ACS magazine. Even amongst these, Wired, EVWorld and Gizmodo are pretty much blogs. There are ~3 serious articles- PhysOrg, EETimes, ACS.

Personally, I think that is pretty weak for an article. Remove Ny Teknik and articles responding to Ny Teknik and there's not much left. I'm in favor of merging e-cat with Rossi bio, but anyway I thought I'd put these number up for discussion. Bhny (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

To add to that, it seems evident to me that some of the 'other' sources have been doing little more than repeating what NY Teknik (or even Wikipedia) has written, with little evidence of any effort to engage in independent journalistic investigation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep they are pretty poor. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Focus has a quite number of articles about the Energy Catalyzer, partly of them are also translated into English. Inserting all the sources regarding a specific matter is reduntant. If needed, a complete research of all the sources available can be easily performed.--Insilvis (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugo Bardi Quote in the Introduction

I have done no original research except to point out assertions in a quoted article which are dated and no longer relevant. It's like quoting Vincenzo Maculani as if it were current. Alanf777 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If you continue to waste other editors time with your original research, the next step is arbitration enforcement

I made a small edit, but this whole paragraph is WAY past its expiration date. I plan to delete it in its entirety when I've finished this talk paragraph.

For example, the supporters who have supposedly deserted him (Sterling Allen, in particular) have not.

2012 E-Cat Conference Report: 1 MW E-Cat Ready

Although UB said that the contract with Rossi was not finalized they have made subsequent statements that individual UB employees are not prohibited from working with him.

Ironically, on about the same date as Bardi's article, NASA Langley / Boeing Research and Technology released a report concerning LENR as a possible power source :

Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research
Phase II: N+4 Advanced Concept Development
Section 6.2.3 (Their p 81, PDF page 96)
Limited testing is ongoing by NASA and private contractors of nickel hydrogen LENR systems. Two commercial companies (Leonardo Corp. & Defkalion) are reported to be offering commercial LENR systems. Those systems are advertised to run for 6 months with a single fueling cycle. Although data exists on all of these systems, the current data in each case is lacking in either definition or 3rd party verification. Thus, the current TRL assessment is low.

This sure doesn't sound like Bardi's "it will soon fade away in the darkness of pathological science".

Similarly Bardi claims that, if nuclear, an eCat will NEVER be certified : yet Rossi claimed at the recent eCat "convention" that the 1MW "warm" eCat has been certified by SGS. Whether this is true or not should be resolved relatively soon.

Alanf777 (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read the NASA paper? I did, and it essentially says that, if LENR works, it would be appropriate energy technology for that application. There is no implication that anyone actually thinks it works. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes I did. They identify it as high risk/high payoff -- but they certainly don't dismiss it as pathological science. btw Even Rossi thinks it will be DECADES before the eCat could be used for aircraft : this report postulates 15 years Alanf777 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As a result of the group discussion, the workshop focus shifted the expected outcome to picking a concept and then subsequently identifying what power application should be used; a summary of the result and recommendations from the group is outlined below:
1) LENR – Very high payoff/very high risk. Recommend small study to set goals and watch tech feasibility and development Alanf777 (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Still irrelevant. NASA says there is no evidence that Leonardo's system does anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly - and isn't a remotely reliabe source for anything. Please don't waste our time with irrelevances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Umm .. reliable or not, if Bardi says Allen has withdrawn -- pointing to Allen's site : -- and now Allen HIMSELF appears not to have withdrawn, you mean that Bardi's March outdated quote still takes precedence? -- and btw, since when do we even treat a blog as a WP:RS Alanf777 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
On Bardi's quote "The University of Bologna had wisely disengaged from Rossi already in January." the very document he points to as proof of their withdrawal of support says
The Department of Physics states that the contract signed in June 2011 between the Department of Physics and the EFA srl (Italian society in which Rossi is involved) has been terminated due to non-fulfillment of the conditions laid down at the end of contract. There is no longer any relationship between the Department and the EFA Ltd. in connection with this contract. Nevertheless, the Department of Physics has made ​​available its experience and its equipment to carry out independent measurements on the production of heat by the equipment called E-cat in order to provide an answer to the whole scientific community and the public about the phenomenon. The measurement results will be published.

Alanf777 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The Bardi article (which has already been widely discussed with regard to its suitability as a source, and a consensus formed that it is) gave multiple reasons justifying the "pathological science" statement - and it isn't our job to second-guess Bardi on what he'd write differently now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Another Bardi paragraph slides into oblivion :

No matter how we want to see this story, it is clear that Rossi has been victim of his own "no-win" strategy. First, he claimed that he had developed a nuclear device, but he never could provide convincing proof. So he said that he didn't need proof because he could just produce and sell the device - the market would judge it. But if he wanted to produce and sell the device, then he would have to obtain the necessary certifications. And how to obtain the necessary certifications after having declared that the device is based on nuclear reactions and it emits gamma rays? Surely, Rossi's word is not enough to prove that shielding with lead foil is sufficient to remove gamma rays. Maybe there are arcane reasons (as claimed in this paper) that reduce, or even eliminate, gamma ray emission. But just the possibility of such an emission would required extensive investigations and years of work in order to provide the necessary certifications. So, you see? If it is nuclear, Rossi can't sell it. If it is not nuclear, who would buy it? A classic no-win situation.

Alanf777 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Safety Certificate

A primary source of unknown provenance - not WP:RS, and as such of no relevence to article content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Added a link to the jpg -- I think it's self-documenting as a WP:RS Alanf777 (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My, that was quick! Alanf777 (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Just so you don't have to dig through the history. Alanf777 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time with nonsense. If you don't know by now what a WP:RS is by now, I have to question whether you are competent to edit at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's a waste of time. It will go in soon. When someone reports it. Tmccc (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It has absolutely zero point in being in the article. It's a primary sourced; and no, we don't even know if it is genuine but it wouldn't matter anyway because it has no weight. You are presumably well aware of this. It isn't important in any way even if genuine; my kettle is safe and has safety certification, it doesn't mean it's a nuclear device.IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It's genuine, or he's getting sued by SGS. We've got a number of these, as a company. Still, we'll need for it to be reliably reported first. I do think it is relevant to this article though. Tmccc (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It is a waste of time because it is a primary source, downloaded by unknown persons to Scribd, reporting nothing of significance even if it is what it purports to be. All it tells us is that a piece of unknown machinery (which might or might not be the E-Cat as described in the article) passed a safety inspection according to tests which have nothing to do with nuclear energy and don't test power output. It is meaningless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think Tmccc self-defeats his own argument here: "We've got a number of these, as a company.", and so does every company; they aren't significant or encyclopedic; they are run of the mill. What is happening here is that something run of the mill is being used to claim or hint at something exceptional along the lines of "This unknown device passed a safety check. Ergo it's a cold fusion wonder machine!". Or it's being used to suggest; ah, there's a safety certificate, the product will be on the shelves soon. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It has absolutely zero point in being in the article. It's a primary sourced; and no, we don't even know if it is genuine but it wouldn't matter anyway because it has no weight. You are presumably well aware of this. It isn't important in any way even if genuine; my kettle is safe and has safety certification, it doesn't mean it's a nuclear device.IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The directive under which it was issued "2006/32/ce"!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32006L0032 doesn't go into the nuts and bolts of how certificates are issued or what exactly they certify. -- but I believe that it VERIFIES the claim of "peak 200kW IN, 1MW Out" -- and does not need to explain HOW that COP is accomplished.

Article 3 (b) : (b) "energy efficiency": a ratio between an output of performance, service, goods or energy, and an input of energy;
To claim that a certificate from a nationally approved laboratory is NOT WP:RS is NUTS. Unless, of course, you are claiming that the certificate is forged. For that, I point you to the document experts at Alanf777 (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
"A leading figure in the "birther" movement" is the document expert? It's a safety test, not a product works test, if it wasn't just a safety test, it wouldn't be called a safety test. That is part of being a safety test, they tend to be called safety tests and they test safety. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. In any case, the document is a primary source, even if it is genuine. It isn't for us to engage in WP:OR to guess what it means. Stop wasting our time with irrelevances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
He's also done a red herring here: [4] is about 2006/32/EC, the safety certificate is for 2006/42/EC: [5]. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A better copy is now available at (admittedly NON-WP:RS) which confirms on page 2 that it is a safety certificate and not a certification that the product performs to specification. Alanf777 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the directive : appears to be the correct link. Article 5 and Annex I indicate that this certificate is at least a pre-requisite to commercial sale. As such it is of relevance to the commercial plans for the eCat -- whether you choose to buy one or not. Alanf777 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete this article

deletion discussion is thataway

In wikipedia you can find article like Human defecation postures or Toilet paper orientation, but it doesn't mean that now wikipedia can be transformed into the trash of the web. This article is just a free advertisement to a claim done by only one person and independent source of the device cannot be found. Unless there will be the definite disclosure of the hoax or of the success of the machine (i.e. very likely never), this article must be deleted. Wikipedia is not the place for the pathological science, accordingly to the definition of Bardi. --TheNextFuture (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We have article about notable topics, even pathological science. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
And the last deletion debate resulted in keeping the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The last deletion debate was some months ago if I don't mistake. There are a lot of changes since then. Even better, there aren't changes related to the device, but meanwhile a lot of promises of Rossi are failed. Let us analyze just only the first sentence of the article:
The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source[1][2] built by inventor Andrea Rossi,[3][4] with support from physicist Sergio Focardi.[5]
  • "is a purported cold fusion" purported by whom? Sources? The last year the Higgs mechanism was a purported theory for the electroweak interactions too, but the situation is clearly different from the E-Cat. There are no independent sources to this claim. Also considering only the Rossi's declarations, they are often in contrast between each others. At the moment, the relation between E-Cat and cold fusion is still unclear (see also below).
  • "Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR)": again, sources to the reactions involved? Recently it seems that there aren't nuclear reaction at all, Rossi declared that "no nuclear reactions occur inside the device."
  • "heat source": accordingly for example to Krivit and Bardi, the presence of an heat source remains impossible to demonstrate, After having been unable to show that his device produces energy and here.
  • "with the support from physicist Sergio Focardi". The source to this sentence is just the list of the professors of the Bologna university (the same as support that I have won the Nobel prize with the list of inmate of my apartment). The problem here is that Focardi doesn't know anything about the inside of the device, as he said clearly the last year. The Italian patent reports as only inventor "Andrea Rossi", without any mention to Focardi.
This is just only the first sentence. In this way, I can ensure to you that I am able to write an article referred to alien origin of Barack Obama. --TheNextFuture (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to start an AfD. Personally, I think that the complete lack of any further coverage in mainstream sources provides ample grounds to support a (minimalist) merger with the Andrea Rossi article, as was proposed back in April - see Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 12#proposed merger. Given that even fringe sources are no longer reporting much on the E-cat as described in the article, but are instead pumping out their usual credulous waffle about another alleged 'high temperature' device about which nobody but Rossi seems to know anything, the E-cat itself (i.e. the one all the 'demonstrations' were about, with the supposed 'patents') seems to be very much a dead cat, and now nothing remains but a nasty smell. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the need for another AfD or merge request. Whether dead or not, the sources and facts that led to the article are still presumably present. Whilst presence of other articles isn't (necessarily) a justification for the presence of an article in question, there are plenty of others in Wikipedia that you would be better off targeting, if you want to do something useful. Yet another AfD for this seems a waste of effort on behalf of the commentators and the poor old admin who eventually closes it. Tmccc (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
If there's another deletion discussion I will !vote to keep. The topic will be forever notable because it once was. Many reliable sources commented on it. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand of what sources or facts you are talking about. Already the first sentence is an unsupported misleading. This is obvious, the first sentence usually contains the definition of the topic of the article, like "The domestic cat (Felis catus or Felis silvestris catus) is a small, usually furry, domesticated, carnivorous mammal." But how can you define a black box of the miracles (in the scientific meaning)? If then you cannot even have a clear definition of the E-Cat with independent source, how can you create and then keep an article about it? I would say that everything is related only to Rossi, Rossi claims once that his device produces radiations as signature of the nuclear reaction, once that it does not, and finally that there are no nuclear radiations at all. Rossi claims that there will be a power station in Greece in October 2011, while in August there were still problems with the contracts and nothing was built. The same Rossi says than that he has a contract with a unknown company and with the army of a unknown state. And so on. Maybe are those the facts that you are referring to? I agree with AndyTheGrump, at maximum you can merge the essential points with the article of Rossi as useful information for characterizing the person and the media attention to him (and not to the device, "there's no real news", as already written in the page). A lot of other hoaxes are now present on wikipedia just as brief summary related the authors or they are not present at all. My words are just a suggestion for improving wikipedia, then you are free to fill it with unsupported news about unknown black boxes. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The truth of Rossi's claims is irrelevant. So long as source's have reported them, and they are correctly referenced in the article. Wikipedia is not about one person's (or should NOT be about one person's) perceived truth, but only about what is verifiable in other independent sources. I'm not entirely sure why you're so interesting in deleting it. It reflects what has been said in the reliable sources people have used. Not liking the subject is no reason to delete it. Tmccc (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, this article should be deleted. Andrea Rossi already has one page and certainly he does not deserve another. He has not shown any convincing evidence neither for ecat nor his company. On the other hand, there are very serious reasons to believe that he is committing massive fraud. Fraud or not, this has still significant media value, therefore Rossi's own page should be somewhat more detailed on ecat than it is now. But separate page at this scale is just unnecessary and it may have ethical problems if this is just free advertisement of a fraud. --Jouni Valkonen (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Polarising the issue by shouting yay or nay to fraud isn't relevant. As I've said before The Truth isn't relevant to Wikipedia and history isn't erased as time progresses, though we may gain or lose sources as time goes on. If you want to delete, assess whether the sources no longer exist. Tmccc (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that the article should be deleted for the points that I have written before and at the end because the whole article is just an undue weight to a claim of only one person. It is right that "wikipedia is [...] only about what is verifiable in other independent sources", but the E-Cat does not belong to this definition. I stress again E-Cat, the device, not the declarations of Rossi and the media articles about them. Let me clarify one point: I don't think that wikipedia is the temple of truth, so I will never propose the deletion of the article about Telepathy. In this case, at least we have a clear definition of the "phenomenon", it doesn't matter if it is possible or not. At the moment, for the same will of Rossi, the E-Cat is a black box impossible to define as I have demonstrated above. The sources for the definition do not exist and a definition with independent sources is the minimal request for an article. It doesn't matter if it works or not. In general the whole cold fusion is a "border-science", but actually wikipedia has not separate articles for example for the machine of Fleischmann–Pons or of Arata. Those devices are surely controversial, but the media and scientific attention to them was definitely higher than to the E-Cat and moreover they are not a black-box. So for this reason I agree with Jouni Valkonen, this article is just an undue weight to a recent claim of only one person. --TheNextFuture (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The device is notable, if it exists or doesn't exist. Significant reference is made in reliable sources. If you really must continue this conversation, then please raise an AfD and we can discuss it there. Tmccc (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Many things with significant references in reliable sources aren't notable. (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Notability isn't temporary, and besides the issue of notability was established in the previous AfD. I would even go so far and suggest that the reason you are posting here at all is because of notoriety of this topic. It may be infamous or ignoble and you may think Rossi is a scam artist or at least a lunatic for coming up with the concept, but that doesn't diminish the notability of the topic. This topic certainly attracts editors with strong opinions on the topic. Besides, the point of the notability guidelines is to see if there might be sufficient material from which to build an article. I think for this particular topic, that standard has been met even if you throw several sources out as unreliable. I'm not saying this article is perfect and can avoid a revision in the future, but continued questioning of the existence of topic seems to demonstrate ignorance of Wikipedia policies rather than trying to actually help out Wikipedia and improve content.
The issue of merger can be debated elsewhere, but I'd think out right deletion is not going to happen... although you can try for a second AfD. Make sure you are raising a legitimate issue that seems to have not been debated earlier though, and something which pertains to the current article. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
No, most of what you wrote doesn't apply to me. There are many things in reliable sources that are not notable. Reliable sources write about me, but I am not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, a majority decision by a small, self-selected group does not make something notable. (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Since I don't know who you are (particularly because you insist upon an IP address rather than registering an account on Wikipedia) or why you think you aren't notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia, I can't make an evaluation of what you are talking about. It isn't a "majority decision by a small, self-selected group", but rather if there is anything from which to create an article in the first place. Somehow I don't think you can point to any reliable sources which talk about you to any great length that would be sufficient from which to write an article about you. The "self selection", as it were, is book publishers, newspapers, television news reporters, or scholarly journals of some sort talking about you or whatever it is that you or anybody else does. There is so much competition in those arenas of human endeavor that there isn't a committee of any sort who can be said to determine reliability, other than the organization which produces those books, newspapers, or other such things has over time earned a reputation of having some quality to the things they publish. There certainly are newspapers that are not reliable, just as there are random blogs which aren't reliable. So far you haven't raised a rationale for why this particular topic is not notable and trying to deflect the conversation away from even discussing that notability. --15:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It's hard to say what you are writing about, but people are arguing that a group of Wikipedians voting to keep an article establishes notability that persists until the end of time. (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Current conference and independent test report


Presented without comment or endorsement:

Worthless hype. We base article content on reliable sources, not on Rossi's bullshit. Please do not waste our time posting such irrelevance here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be precise, the report is this one:

In my personal opinion it is completely unusable, for the simple fact that it is a primary source.--Insilvis (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree, it's complete garbage -- the supposed work of one person. The article shouldn't be deleted, but it should highlight how Rossi spurned NASA independent testing and his shady background. That would be a service to the readers. Krivit and Rothwell are in agreement that Rossi and Defkalion are frauds. I'm sorry I upset Andy. Forgive me, Andy, please. (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not say it was garbage, I simply wrote that in my opinion it was unusable for Wikipedia.

  • Fabio Penon , M.Eng. (Nuclear Engineer, Product Certification Specialist)
  • Fulvio Fabiani, M.Eng.
  • David Bianchini, M.Sc (Physicist, Radiation Measurements Specialist)

are the people who signed that report. I have enough esteem for the work of physicists and engineers (I mean, physicists and engineers in general) to trust them until proven otherwise.--Insilvis (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This thread is a waste of time. Neither this supposed 'report' nor anything from meets WP:RS requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Oxford University Press has a higher opinion of Krivit than you do. Producing tertiary sources under the supervision of an academic press is a somewhat different experience than doing so as a volunteer. Krivit has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, but I suppose that's no consolation to those who believe every aspect of the LENR field is just as much of a fraud as Rossi. Good luck with that. (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not interested in debating abstract questions regarding the reliability of Krivit. New Energy Times doesn't pass Wikipedia WP:RS requirements for matters concerning Rossi and the E-Cat, which is all that matters here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Krivit's report on how Rossi refused NASA's offer to test his equipment is based largely on NASA documents, some of which were released voluntarily, and some of which were released in response to FOIA requests. His report on Rossi's previous scams are based on Italian news and government publications. Which of the reliable source criteria for accurate and fact-checked journalism are you suggesting he fails? (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
New Energy Times clearly doesn't meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP requirements - it isn't a peer-reviewed journal. Neither does it meet WP:NEWSORG - it isn't a 'well-established news outlet'. It is a website promoting topics on the fringes of mainstream science. If you wish to determine whether NET can be used as a reliable source for a specific statement, you could try asking at WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Everyone appears to acknowledge that the sources aren't suitable or reliable for wikipedia, therefore there is nothing to discuss. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Since this convention (and by reference, its reports) has now been covered by a WP:RS (Wired) -- in what section do you suggest it should go? Alanf777 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the Wired article?--Nowa (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
To Nowa:
--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like a good reference.--Nowa (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

australian skeptics report

Months ago an Australian enterpreneu wanted to invest $200.000 but he waited until the Australian Skeptics had tested the E-cat.

The E-cat was not tested directly but a member of association made a report pointing out a crucial flaw in the wiring that could invalidate all previous tests.

This looks relevant enough to include in "Reactions to claims"?. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

For sure it can be added here as reference (there is just a primary source):
Australian skeptic Ian Bryce, after investigating for investor and skeptic Dick Smith, believes that the power attributed to fusion is being supplied to the device through the earth wire.[25]
--Insilvis (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Just added. Thanks.--Insilvis (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding the Bryce claim. But this is the first entry (I think) which discusses a specific possible fake (and which is, of course, a theory in its own right. It's one thing to say that the device doesn't work, it's quite another to propose alternatives). Is the door now open for adding references to other WP:RS which discuss fakes? Alanf777 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I added information from lewan's detailed Oct 6 report.

I don't believe it is "synthesis" to say that the current through the resistor is independent of Bryce's "wiring error". Alternatively, I could just give the two currents and let the reader figure out that they are substantially the same. Specifically

12:32 Power was set to “9.”

Overall current 12.05 A. Voltage 224 V.

Current through resistance 11.88 A.

The Bryce para starts "The six published demonstrations" -- so that includes Lewan's Sept 7 test -- where he also measured the current through the resistor. He also reports that "The electrical connection was made through a residual-current device to make sure that no current was fed through the ground cable." Alanf777 (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Pure WP:OR. I have deleted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It's OR to quote from a referenced document? I'll repost it with the values Alanf777 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
You are cherry picking from a primary source of questionable reliability to imply something not claimed by the source. Lewan isn't remotely qualified to make such tests, and his impartiality has already been brought into question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Bryce says he "believes that" ... but Lewan specifically made measurements to refute it. Since Bryce refers to six experiments -- "Bryce firstly examined all six published tests of Rossi’s E-CAT from December 2010 to July 2011" ie He read Lewan's reports, including Sep 7, where Lewan SPECIFICALLY outlines the precautions he took, and which ELIMINATE Bryce's hypothesis in two of the six cases. Alanf777 (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't blame me if I'm skeptical with inferring things from a document that doesn't appear to know the difference between resistance and a resistor. This is what it says "To start up the reaction and reach equilibrium, electric power was fed to a resistance inside the E-cat for about four hours"; it has no direct connection to do with the wiring to the device, which this later source talks about. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, its Synecdoche (+ pars pro toto, to be precise). But (per google) not at all uncommon. Heck, it even occurs in the wiki article on Resistors! (Leaving aside the fact that the author is writing in a second langage : +++ per IATE motstånd is used both for resistOR and resistANCE). ++ Not to mention that since it's not actually known to be a resistor, but could be any resistive load, calling it a "resistance" might even be the better engineering term. Alanf777 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Adding more WP:OR here isn't going to change anything. Take it to WP:NORN. (Or Narnia if you prefer ;-) ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
So commenting on a comment is OR? I guess the prevailing view must be Willful ignorance ? Alanf777 (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the addition [6] is the poster child for clear and unambiguous SYNTH. Alanf777, if you disagree, take it to WP:NORN. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
"if you disagree, take it to WP:NORN" OK. Alanf777 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Yup. Synthesis from a source that we shouldn't be citing for results in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Commercial Plans

So you cherry-pick-delete a statement in an existing article which the quoted person says is important? Alanf777 (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So who does what? If you are referring to this [7] you appear to be using Google translate for a quote, which seems a less than reliable way of obtaining a direct quote (and which might possibly have copyright issues - I've asked about it here [8]). I'd also question the validity of a promoter of the E-cat as a source on 'safety certificates'. We should wait until uninvolved reliable sources (who will have a better understanding of their real significance) report on such issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
So who did the original translation which appears in the current paragraph? I can paraphrase the Holm quote if you'd prefer that. "Holm said that it was important to make a clear distinction between the measurements on the prototype high-temperature ecat and the 1MW version, which they intend to validate separately". Alanf777 (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I added a paraphrase without mentioning the safety certificate. I also changed the previous sentence from "an eCat based reactor" to "high temperature E-Cat prototype reactor", which is the English from their press release. Alanf777 (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
That previous sentence is very clumsy -- I suggest rewriting it (without changing the content). Alanf777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading WP:PARAPHRASE - you are following the source rather too closely, as indeed does some of the earlier material. I'm not all that happy at the way we are using machine translations of the source anyway - they can sometimes get things spectacularly wrong. It might be a good idea to find a Swedish speaker to check our article against the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I read WP:PARAPHRASE -- but my closely paraphrased section is of a direct quote from Holm, and not of commentary by Lewan, so I think it's fair game. The previous sentence also has (per google) an error of fact, which I'll try to correct. Alanf777 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Fair game". If it's too closely paraphrased it's a potential copyright violation. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I mean that the quote and copyright (of the sentence I added) belong to the speaker, Holms, not to NyTeknik, and the claim of copyright of somebody's quote by an automatic translator is particularly weak. I checked "my" paragraph with a Swedish-English dictionary and believe it's accurate. I changed the whole paragraph into better English. Alanf777 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Sorry but no, it is irrelevant that you think there copyright claims are weak or not; don't closely paraphrase the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the entire "2-3 times" sentence as it doesn't really add anything to the "no excess energy" statement. I think that the whole paragraph as it stands now is not a problem. Alanf777 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It explains why they didn't see excess energy. This seems central to the test. After all, you calculate the excess by subtracting the input from the output. Readers could be led to believe that the only problem in the test was not having enough output energy. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is a fundamental problem with the section as it stands. Is Holm part of this "group of Swedish private individuals", and what is their relationship to "the UK company Hydro Fusion"? 'A company' and 'private individuals' are rather different things. I think we need at minimum a proper non-machine translation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll ask Mats Lewan for confirmation of the translation and for permission to quote. (I used the procedure for the Bushnell quote). My reading of the first NyTeknik paragraph is that a group of private Swedish individuals planned to invest 65M kroner in Hydro Fusion (NOT in a Rossi company), and it is Hydro Fusion which is "driven by four swedes", including Holm. Alanf777 (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please don't. We work from published sources, not private conversations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
So you need the New York Times to translate it from Swedish? =8-( --- I believe that the first sentence about the investors, as currently written, is wrong. Alanf777 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No - we need the whole NT article translated from Swedish to English by a Swedish speaker, so we can all understand it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I still don't get it. A translation by an anonymous Swedish speaker is OK, but a translation by the original author is not? In any event, it's only the first paragraph which is problematic. The new Wired UK article (see below) leaves it ambiguous as to who is investing (as in my last version). Alanf777 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
How do you know that it is only the first paragraph that is problematic if you haven't seen the rest of the article translated? As for a translation by Mats Lewan, I'd think that would be fine - for the whole article. Just getting him to "confirmation of the translation" for the parts you wanted to cite isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Checking the free listing at the Companies House WebCHeck service shows "Hydro Fusion Ltd" as company number 07661469. It is a private limited company engaging in SIC "72190 - Other research and experimental development on natural sciences and engineering". It shows incorporation on 8 June 2011, and NICLAS BENGT SANDSTROM appointed as a director on 13 July 2011, the appointment of director BARBARA KAHAN having been terminated the previous month (following incorporation). More information is available at a nominal fee of one pound if someone thinks it's worth shelling out. This has been reported to or at NyTeknik. Companies House disclaims any verification of the content in the boilerplate on the face of that report. In other words, they simply repeat what the filings tell them. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

New Wired UK article

Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam? Alanf777 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't actually tell us much (regarding the E-Cat) that we didn't know already - though I suppose it is useful in as much as it avoids having to source everything to Ny Teknik, and goes into a little more detail regarding the 'hot cat'. As for "seemingly independent scientific confirmation" of the recent test, Wired seems to be rather equivocal about how much credibility to give it. It would be more useful if they actually copy-edited their material too: "The test, which ran for over six hours, measured an average temperature of 1,100-1,200C, and concluded that the energy output of the four-kilo Hot Cat was three 3.6 Kilowatts from an input of 1.28 Kw". "three 3.6 Kilowatts" - what is that supposed to mean? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
"Three 3.6". A typo? Shocking. Invalidates the entire article. Alanf777 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
And will you please slow down - adding whole paragraphs to the lede before anyone else has had an opportunity to comment is inappropriate. It almost certainly doesn't belong in the lede anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I said :
In a 14 September 2012 article in Wired UK [1] David Hambling reviews the current situation of the E-Cat and of LENR in general. He draws attention to reports made by Rossi at a convention in Zurich concerning a new, prototype "hot" E-Cat, and to the fact that some investors have withdrawn because they could not replicate Rossi's results of that prototype. He quotes Sterling Allen as reporting that a 1MW E-Cat to be delivered in the next few months may be available for inspection. He continues by reviewing the status of other potential competitors of the E-Cat, and describes some encouraging results from a recent "Cold Fusion" conference in Korea. Finally, he notes that "The field is looking less like the domain of tinkering eccentrics; increasingly it seems to be getting taken seriously as a business proposition.", and quotes a NASA/Boeing study as concluding that "LENR technology is potentially game-changing to not just aviation, but the worldwide energy mix as well. This technology should be followed to determine feasibility and potential performance."
What happened to "Edit boldly" -- isn't that a wiki guideline? I put a summary into the introduction, since it covers the whole territory. It has as much place in the lede as Bardi's quote does. Alanf777 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Be bold ?? Alanf777 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't change so much the knowledge about the E-Cat, that is even getting worst by it. The first paper written by Focardi&Rossi was reporting an energy gain of a factor 200 or even more, now this factor seems to be reduced down to three (but again, when? why? who has done the tests? how? etc ..). As usual, we have instead again a shifting in the time for the disclosure to the world: "Rossi has responded by saying that Hot Cat validation will not be completed for another two or three months." --TheNextFuture (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought this wasn't a discussion site. But ... a) Focardi&Rossi's 200 COP couldn't be controlled. Rossi keeps the COP of 6 (domestic,1MW) at 6 because he can control it. b) The hot E-Cat is still a prototype -- the COP may well improve. c) Rossi reported at the Zurich conference (videos available) that this was a progress report, not the final results. Alanf777 (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes - this isn't a discussion site - please stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Alanf777's 'bold' edit, I'll start by saying that this article isn't about LENR in general - Most of the material was off-topic, and David Hambling's opinions on the state of LENR research are of no relevence. Also, as has already been pointed out, the only thing that NASA have said regarding Rossi's devices is that there is no evidence they work - and that was a comment in passing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to be off-topic, but it was just only for stressing that the situation is still the same. The same doubtful "tests", the same promises for the future, the same contradictions, nothing new in the end. --TheNextFuture (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Since the very first line says "The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source" -- supporting evidence for the progress in LENR is definitely allowable. Alanf777 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Where do you read that there is a definite proof of the LERN basis of the E-Cat? I remember you that just few mouths ago Rossi excluded nuclear reactions at all. --TheNextFuture (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yup. It 'purports' to be a LENR device. Nobody but Rossi and his boosters claims it is. Except when he doesn't. Until independent sources support his claims, what is going in in verifiable LENR research is of no real relevance to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The article writer apparently cannot make a conclusion. The generally hopeful tone is deflated by the evidence presented. If Rossi's project is becoming more of a business proposition, why the pullout by investors? This is a puff piece not worth our while. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me see if I've got this straight. This wiki is supposed to be neutral, but I can't quote from a WP:RS article BECAUSE it's neutral (ie presents various points of view and doesn't reach a conclusion)? Of course there's no "new news" that hasn't been discussed in NON-WP:RS venues ----- but per you refused to consider them because they're NON-RS, and now use THAT as a reason for not including anything from Wired? Alanf777 (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
My argument is that the recent Hambling article is not very useful to this E-Cat article. Hambling's reportage is unconvincing. Rather than telling one side then telling the other, Hambling makes his own unsupported statements such as "a lot has been happening" when in fact, not very much has changed. Defkalion is still saying stuff without actually doing anything. Rossi is still making predictions that don't come true. He is still conducting tests that are not verified by independent scientists. He is still saying that success is near at hand. The biggest news Hambling tells us about the E-Cat is that Fleischmann died in August. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Alanf777, if you want to cite the Wired article for something specific directly related to the E-Cat, then let us know what it is, and we can discuss it. AS far as I can see, all it can be cited for is:

(a) That a conference for E-Cat promoters took place recently in Zurich. Not in itself really of any significance to an encyclopaedia, I'd think.
(b) That Rossi produced (yet another) paper there purporting to show that an E-Cat produces excess heat - though the Wired article quite rightly makes clear that the claims are unverified and of unknown merit: "Although other scientists in the report have no known affiliations, one section was authored by David Bianchini, a radiation measurement specialist of the University of Bologna". Note that the reported results of this test are mangled in the article anyway: "the energy output of the four-kilo Hot Cat was three 3.6 Kilowatts from an input of 1.28 Kw" - difficult to cite even as a claim.
(c) That the device tested was the 'Hot Cat' - at least we now have WP:RS that reports the existence of the device in a little more detail: "The device tested was a new high-temperature model known as a Hot Cat. Previous E-Cats have been confined to around 200C -- useful for heating water but extremely inefficient for conversion to electricity". Perhaps this merits inclusion - as something stated by Rossi, rather than as fact of course.

Everything else regarding the E-Cat in the article seems to come down to Rossi or Sterling Allen (who incidentally claimed at one point to be in a financial relationship with Rossi, if I remember correctly) producing more unverifiable hype. As for the rest of the article, it isn't relevant here. This article isn't about LENR research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm generally OK with your a-b-c : It can probably all go in the "commerce" section. The technical details of the calorimetry done on the hot-cat are interesting (the first time, to my knowledge, that the purported energy levels are so high that radiometric techniques have to be used) , and at very least provide a background to the "swedish investors" situation. I'll draft a proposed paragraph here (even though the lock-down has been lifted). I'll include a justification (for talk only) Alanf777 (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Before I go ahead with this (I'll post drafts here first), is there general agreement that the Wired article is reliable enough to quote from (Cold Fusion decided it wasn't). I don't feel like investing the time in doing this if I'm just going to end up with a deletion. Alanf777 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
It will probably depend what you want to cite it for. As I said above, it adds a little clarity regarding what Rossi is claiming about his 'hot cat', but beyond that it is mostly off-topic and speculative - I can't really see much point in citing it for the Zurich conference, as this seems to be just more of the same from Rossi. We certainly can't use it as a source for the supposed 'results' of a test that Wired is so sceptical about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Your "a-b-c" above. Alanf777 (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You were citing a quote from a cold fusion proponent as fact. Reliability is dependent on what you do with it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
No I didn't : : I said that Wired reported that somebody presented a paper that said that .... what I included is what WIRED SAID. You forgot to mention the delete-after-not-participating-in-the-long-discussion part, which I wanted to avoid here [Added] : Wouldn't it be better to discuss Wired and ICCF as reliable sources in Cold Fusion talk? Alanf777 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The diff shows the opposite of what you have just claimed. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
[ The wired article said that ] At the 17th International Conference on Cold Fusion, August 2012, Francesco Celani held a live demonstration of an "apparently working" nickel-hydrogen device which produced an excess of 14W from an input of 62W. [and that ] Brillouin Energy Corporation reported on achieving an excess power of twice the input, and that their results are "consistently repeatable -- something of a Holy Grail" in the field. ----- and Noting that I asked earlier (and got no response) to : Request for clarification on the style in this article. Does one say (as in my proposed edit 4) who is reporting, or do you just give the report and let the reader look at the REF? Alanf777 (talk) 10:29 am, 17 September 2012, last Monday (3 days ago) (UTC−7) Alanf777 (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
What Francesco Celani does has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this article. Please stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sergio Focardi

The only inventor of the E-Cat is Andrea Rossi as stated in the official Italian patent and in the International patent, without any support from Sergio Focardi. If you don't believe in me, believe just in the words of the "prophet" Andrea Rossi, with the title Inventor Andrea Rossi:

"This was not only by chance or sheer luck, but rather a direct result of a long trial and error process where a vast amount of different configurations of the ECAT had been tried. And finally, a stable, reproducible configuration was discovered. Back then, in 2007, Andrea Rossi knew there was no turning back. He instantly realized the need of a 3rd party expert verification. [...] Rossi knew he was on to something big, something so powerful it could change the world forever. There was no room for mistakes here. In July 2007 Rossi therefore contacted one of the most respected physics scientists in the Nickel-Hydrogen field, Professor Emeritus Sergio Focardi of the Bologna University. [...] So Rossi arranged a challenge for Prof. Focardi, telling him “I will give you a prize (size non-disclosed) if you can show me that what I have done is wrong and does not work”. "

So when Focardi met Rossi in 2007, the E-Cat was already fully developed. So, please stop to introduce in the article wrong sentences. --TheNextFuture (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

There are plain references about it:
If you want to see the development of the Energy Catalyzer, here (English subtitles available) you can watch Sergio Focardi illustrating it at a TED Talk event in Bologna.--Insilvis (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
So for you and are reliable sources and, "The Official ECAT Website", designated as The Official ECAT Website by Andrea Rossi and with his version of the facts, not? Please tell us this, so that we can propose the article for the fast delete. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what your beef is against the e-Cat, Andrea Rossi, or why you've got this almost laser like determination to delete this article. I'd suggest toning that rhetoric down just a notch or two if possible. The AfD is already in progress, so I can only see that you are trying to be disruptive... as this article will not be speedy deleted at all. A "PROD" (proposed deletion) would be especially short sighted and particularly disruptive to Wikipedia. Oh yeah, I would call eeTimes and as much more reliable than especially in light of even your own suggestion that there is nothing at all going on.
What Focardi's role in this whole thing might be, I can't say. Perhaps Focardi just wants to bail out on the publicity or thinks he is being taken for a ride by Rossi. Just make sure that whatever changes you do, please do them with reliable sources backing you up. Be careful about using weasel words when writing stuff in the article as well. Then again, if you want the article deleted, why are you even bothering with trying to make editorial changes? --Robert Horning (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I remember you that unless the discussion will end, we don't know if the article will be deleted or not. In the time the article is on wikipedia, everybody can edit/improve it, without violating any wikipedia rules or principle. As you said, we don't know exactly what is the role of Focardi, but we know that for establishing the inventor only one source exists: the patent. In the patent only "Andrea Rossi" is written. If you want, we can write that Focardi believes in the E-Cat and that he has done a lot of tests with Rossi and others, but clearly (as Rossi and Focardi said clearly) he is not at all the inventor of the E-Cat. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the prevailing consensus is to keep the article. I'll leave the final decision in the hands of an independent uninvolved admin, but that seems to be the way that the AfD is going. The real debate is over merger to the Rossi article or leaving this as a stand alone article, not simply deletion. I have my own beef about that issue, but I will save that for when the discussion happens again, for the sixth or seventh time (depending on how you are counting the proposals for that to happen).
Getting back on topic though, Focardi seems to be a significant player in the tale of the e-Cat. He seems to be a physicist of some reputation that was willing to talk with and listen to Rossi, and was instrumental in getting at least some people to accept the e-Cat and treat it as a legitimate device. As for who actually invented this device and what it does, that is a fuzzy line, particularly if this whole thing is a fraud anyway. As a fraud, yeah, I'd say Rossi is the guy behind it.
My own take on the e-Cat is that there might be something there, but with a healthy dose of skepticism, skepticism to the point that I'm more inclined to believe it is a fraud than an actual device at the moment because nothing is coming out and there should be *something* for people to test and review at this point if it was real. Every challenge to the device seems to be met with attacks on the challenger than trying to answer hard questions. I contrast what I see happening with the e-Cat to what is happening with the Polywell, a device that seems to have a similar level of skepticism but seems to turn out to be a real tangible device that people can manipulate with legitimate 3rd party attempts to reproduce the results.
Regardless, there is something about the e-Cat which should be written, and Focardi is for good or evil an integral part of that story. It doesn't matter if you want to credit Focardi with inventing the device or not (that is splitting hairs), if Focardi is a patsy and Rossi is taking Focardi for a ride, or if Focardi is a co-conspirator in the fraud. Focardi is in the story of the e-Cat and should not be removed completely from that story. If you want to write that Rossi is the sole inventor and expand upon Focardi's role in the establishment of the "credibility" of the e-Cat (whatever there might be to that) in the paragraphs in this article, be my guest. Use reliable sources and make sure you can back up any statements you add to the article. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Consider that I also support the idea of a merge of this article, an improve here is also a work (maybe) for the future merged page. I have already an idea of what write down and what sources we can use, I wait for suggestions below. --TheNextFuture (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This reference (I read the complete text) you brought in is illuminating and shows clearly the fundamental contribution given by Sergio Focardi concerning the development of the Energy Catalyzer. Unfortunately, it is useless in Wikipedia because it is a primary source.--Insilvis (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
If you want to know the inventor of the device, just look at the patent application, this is the only reliable source that exists. The field "inventor" is easy to find. Do you read Focardi? No? So, please stop it. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The two are not in contradiction. The two sources for Sergio Focardi DO NOT affirm that the inventors of the apparatus are Andrea Rossi AND Sergio Focardi, the two sources for Sergio Focardi simply state two things: 1) that Rossi and Focardi developed it; 2) that Rossi and Focardi presented it publicly and claimed it worked. So, the fundamental contribution given by Focardi is undisputable.--Insilvis (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The fact that "the fundamental contribution given by Focardi is undisputable." is your unsupported idea and pay attention that "with the support from physicist Sergio Focardi." now refers to "built", and it is not clearly so. The E-Cat was built before that Focardi met Rossi, and Focardi does not know anything about the inside of the device ("He does not know how the reactor is built" [[9]). You can write only that Focardi has done some experiment on the E-Cat together with Rossi and others, that he believes that it works, that he presented and publicity and claimed it worked, ecc. But no support is given to the build of the E-Cat accordingly to the sources. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I have already answered you about this issue on the AfD page. Should I respond again here? --Insilvis (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
You ware unable to demonstrate the Focardi contributions there, as also Bhny pointed out. I remember you that actually "" is used as source for the article (" is a website for taking pre-orders for the device"), as other primary sources like "", "", etc. In fact it is not forbidden to include and use primary sources in an article:
"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. (...) A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."
but instead your interpretation of "the fundamental contribution given by Focardi" is forbidden:
"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. (...) Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself."
and also basing the whole article on primary sources is forbidden (but this is the point here):
"Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided"
--TheNextFuture (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Misleading examples in my opinion.
The JoNP, AmpEnergo and are cited in the article only because there is a secondary source that cites them for the simple fact that they exist. Then there are also the primary sources as support of the secondary source, and not vice-versa. The site is completely useless as source - except when there is a secondary source backing it.--Insilvis (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem. We have also secondary sources. The report of the RAI television (the Italian state television), is just an example. here in Italian and here in English:
1:05 from the beginning, immediately, "One man only knows the secrets, his name is Andrea Rossi."
2:33 than Rossi says: "I approached him to ask him to refute my hypothesis, tell him I will pay the counseling in order to explain me "why this cannot work?" " so at that time, the E-Cat was already developed
3:05 so now Focardi accepts and he starts to work together with Rossi in doing measurements in a laboratory near Ferrara, reporting the good results to Levi: "Focardi kept on giving us results, which were more and more thrilling, with energy multiplier factor more and more increasing"
7:03 "What kind of innovation did Andrea Rossi produce to obtain these results?" Focardi replies simple and clear: "It is added a secret additive, whose formula is confidential, to the system form of hydrogen and nickel. I do not know what this additive is, I never asked anything about it, and I do not want to know anything about it."
7:34 if it is not enough, after: "What happens exactly inside the reactor of Energy Catalyzer is not clear yet, but Mr Rossi does not intend to wait any time, he wants to market his invention"
This is a secondary source, that reports what Rossi and Focardi say adding comments.
What? How? Everything is a misleading of the Italian translation, you don't like translations, etc ... ? No problem, we have even a tertiary source, that reports the report of RAI:
Krivit writes: "According to a RAI-TV interview shown on May 3, 2011, Rossi had initially offered to pay Focardi a consulting fee to check and validate his work."
Focardi was called for validating a work already done. So it is clear that Focardi does not "support the built of the E-Cat" ("He does not know how the reactor is built" and "I do not know what this additive is" above). The primary, secondary and tertiary sources endorse this (respectively patent/the Focardi-Rossi paper - the report of Rai - the report of the report of RAI by Krivit).
In reply to Robert Horning, it is true "Focardi is in the story", and accordingly to the sources we can write that he was called by Rossi for validating the device, that he believes on it, that he has done the claim, that he presented the E-Cat in Bologna the last year and that he has done a lot of tests and measurements together with Levi and Rossi. The point is where can we write this, if immediately after the E-Cat definition or in the first paragraph. Have you some ideas? If we want, we can use these sources also for improving the history of the development of the E-Cat. --TheNextFuture (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered you during our discussion on the AfD page. ps you did cherry-picking from the report of Rai News and nothing in this report contradicts what it is written in the article.--Insilvis (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. You have not already answered. No support is given by him to the building of the device, Focardi does not know how the reactor is build and he does not know the additive in it. Is your logic to ignore what primary, secondary and tertiary sources write? --TheNextFuture (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
My logic is to be stuck to what the sources say. You do cherry picking, trying to bend the sources as you like. Nothing in the report of Rai News contradicts what it is written in the article.--Insilvis (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it about time you two tried to reach some sort of compromise about the wording, or else clarified for the rest of us exactly what it is you are arguing about? If you carry on like this, you are liable to get blocked for edit-warring. From what I can see, according to Rossi's version, his work is built on Focardi's, and according to Focardi, he doesn't know all the details of Rossi's device (i.e. the 'secret catalyst'). Arguing about which of them 'invented' the E-Cat is therefore rather pointless. As for how much input Focardi has had into the device since Rossi started work, we don't know - and what we don't know, we don't put into articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Accordingly to primary, secondary and tertiary sources (look above) Focardi did not support Rossi in the building of the E-Cat, the opposite of what is actually written in first sentence of the article. He has done a lot of tests and measurements together with him, Levi and others, he presented the E-Cat and the claims, etc. This can be written in the article, I want just only to focus the article on the correct contribution of Focardi. Then Rossi said somehow he was inspired by the cold fusion experiment of FP and later he switched the attention on the Focardi-Piantelli machines based on nickel, also this can be written if we want in the history of the device. --TheNextFuture (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
According to secondary sources Rossi and Focardi developed the E-Cat:
If you want to see the development of the Energy Catalyzer, here (English subtitles available) you can watch Sergio Focardi illustrating it at a TED Talk event in Bologna. --Insilvis (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal.
This is the incipit now:
The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source built by inventor Andrea Rossi with support from physicist Sergio Focardi.
I propose to replace the word "built" with the word "developed" - which seems a less contentious word in this case.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have decided to withdraw my proposal. After reading the sources in a very careful way, I concluded that the current formulation of the incipit is ok. The incipit does not say that the E-Cat was built by Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi, but that the E-Cat was built by Andrea Rossi with support from Sergio Focardi and this seems the precise relation between the two.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to write also "invented" (even if "developed" is more neutral), the point is writing something of complete or writing nothing at all. It is meaningless to use half sentence and general words for Focardi when we have more detailed information. A lot of space is dedicated even to Yeong E. Kim (as far as I know, he has not seen the device), it should be better to reserve also some descriptions to Focardi, one of the main characters of the E-Cat. I can propose to write immediately on the first section something like:
"Sergio Focardi, professor of the University of Bologna, was contacted by Rossi on 2007 for validating his initial machine because of his previous experience on the nickel cold fusion. After four years of work and measurements together with Rossi, Focardi is persuaded that inside the E-Cat there are nuclear fusion reactions, even if he does not know the Rossi's secret base catalyst inside the device. Rossi and Focardi are reported then to have been unable to find a peer-reviewed scientific ..."
The sources to this sentence are the primary, the secondary report of RAI (already used in the article, here in Italian and here in English, at time 2:33 - 7:03) and the tertiary report of Krivit ("According to a RAI-TV interview shown on May 3, 2011, Rossi had initially offered to pay Focardi a consulting fee to check and validate his work). The problem is that one user, Insilvis, says that I don't know Italian and English, that everything is a misleading, that I am using only part of the sources as I want, etc. So now I ask to someone else, not to him, to read the sources and report if something is not correct in the sentence above. --TheNextFuture (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow, for me this is puzzling: I do not remember that I said that you did not know Italian and English. Can you provide the exact part of my writing where I said this?--Insilvis (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

TheNextFuture, New Energy Times is not classed as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmccc (talkcontribs) 17:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? In any case, only the reference to the RAI report is important, remove it if you want and replace directly with the report of RAI. Please, let us close this flame. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are deleting reliable sources and information added in good faith into the article. For something that is already lacking in terms of sources, you certainly seem to be quick on the draw to delete those quality sources when you can. Substituting EETimes with New Energy Times? This is simply absurd and doesn't make any sense at all. New Energy Times in particular is not considered even remotely a reliable source, and countless discussions on this talk page has refuted it in numerous ways. If you want to get a 3rd party opinion on that as a reliable source, be my guest.... but I don't think it will hold up.
You have also violated both in spirit and in practice WP:3RR. Please stop reverting other users until this issue is resolved. You have already been disruptive by engaging in a pointless AfD that didn't raise any new issues. It can be worked out, and I understand that you feel that this particular issue of calling Focardi a co-inventor of the device is somehow wrong. Please work with others when something is being suggested.
It would be best at this point to simply propose an alternative paragraph here on this talk page since somehow this has become very contentious, and note the sources you are using. Some fig leaves have been offered in terms of alternate wording, so I hope those are seriously considered. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not comment for the moment the other points, but just only for understanding: which sources am I deleting? Can you please list me them? --TheNextFuture (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
PS: here --TheNextFuture (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
TheNextFuture: New Energy Times is not considered as a reliable source, hence adding it as source is problematic. So, it would be better if you refrain from inserting it.--Insilvis (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It is not a problem, it can be removed. The main sources are the primary and the secondary report of RAI (both of them already present in the article, but if you want you can even remove So please, again, let us try to conclude this: is there something wrong in what I have added accordingly to the report of RAI and Is it not good the replacement "built"->"developed" proposed by NUMB3RN7NE? If so, write below why. PS: I was not "deleting reliable sources and information", nor "Substituting EETimes with New Energy Times", look at the history of the page. Maybe is the history not considered reliable too :-)? --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
TheNextFuture, is a useless source. It is simply unusable.--Insilvis (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I should point out that, while somehow "licensed" or somehow acknowledged by Rossi, isn't even operated or "owned" by Rossi and really doesn't have official standing. It really is just a glorified fan page sort of buying into the notion that the e-Cat is a real device. At best all I can consider the site to be is a self-published sources, which even admits to be posting information from the "Journal of Nuclear Physics". That particular site seems to be where the diehard fans get at least some regular feedback from Rossi as folks post random comments into random articles and Rossi gives short answers (usually lacking any sort of detail and claiming legal reasons for why he doesn't respond with more depth). Neither are sites I would consider to be reliable. --Robert Horning (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"if you want you can even remove". Is there something else? --TheNextFuture (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there anything left to support the statement? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The report of the RAI television (the Italian state television), here in Italian and here in English, at time 2:30 - 7:00. --TheNextFuture (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Which statement?--Insilvis (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
""Sergio Focardi, professor of the University of Bologna, was contacted by Rossi on 2007 for validating his initial machine because of his previous experience on the nickel cold fusion. After four years of work and measurements together with Rossi, Focardi is persuaded that inside the E-Cat there are nuclear fusion reactions, even if he does not know the Rossi's secret base catalyst inside the device."
from here:
2:33 Rossi says: "I approached him (Focardi) to ask him to refute my hypothesis, tell him I will pay the counseling in order to explain me "why this cannot work?" "
6:23 "Did you understand what type of process is behind the phenomenon?" Focardi: "Yes, i did. [...] the process had to be nuclear, not chemical"
7:03 "What kind of innovation did Andrea Rossi produce to obtain these results?" Focardi replies: "It is added a secret additive, whose formula is confidential, to the system form of hydrogen and nickel. I do not know what this additive is, I never asked anything about it, and I do not want to know anything about it."
This source is already used and it is the report of RAI news. If someone listens something different, then he can write below. If not, I will add the sentence soon. TheNextFuture (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is the word "catalyst" in the source you cite?--Insilvis (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. "Sergio Focardi, professor of the University of Bologna, was contacted by Rossi on 2007 for validating his initial machine because of his previous experience on the nickel cold fusion. After four years of work and measurements together with Rossi, Focardi is persuaded that inside the E-Cat there are nuclear fusion reactions, even if he does not know the Rossi's secret additive inside the device necessary for him to facilitate the process and not lose it. " from the video at 7.00: "It is added a secret additive, whose formula is confidential, to the system form of hydrogen and nickel. I do not know what this additive is, I never asked anything about it, and I do not want to know anything about it. But I know that it facilities the process, without the additive the process would be left". --TheNextFuture (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem concerning the last part of the English translation of the words of Focardi.

Focardi says here:

"Al sistema nichel e idrogeno viene aggiunto un additivo, che è un additivo segreto con formula riservata - che io non conosco né voglio conoscere e non gliel'ho nemmeno mai chesto - che è quello che facilita il processo. Senza questo additivo, il processo sarebbe molto meno intenso."


"There is an additive adjoined to the nickel-hydrogen system, it is a secret additive with a confidential formula - which I do not know and I do not want to know and I have never asked him [=Rossi] about it - which is what facilitates the process. Without this additive, the process would be much less intense."

So, according to the words of Focardi, the process works also without the additive, but in a much less intense way.--Insilvis (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would not stress so much the translations, so more general: "Sergio Focardi, professor of the University of Bologna, was contacted by Rossi on 2007 for validating his initial machine because of his previous experience on the nickel cold fusion. After four years of work and measurements together with Rossi, Focardi is persuaded that inside the E-Cat there are nuclear fusion reactions, even if he does not know the Rossi's secret additive inside the device necessary for him to obtain the intense processes observed. " --TheNextFuture (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused at what you are even trying to propose here in terms of a change to this article and also trying to understand this edit that you made to the article. Adding a little bit about how Rossi approached Focardi seems reasonable... as an addition and not really a replacement of the text you removed. Since you seem to have some sources about this, it would seem somewhat reasonable to add that to the article. What I don't see is why you needed to remove EETimes,, and an Italian news service references from this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that there is a misleading due to the confuse view of the history. I did not remove the EETimes nor other information, they were still present just a little below. The Italian news service is the main source of the new sentence, so it was simply moved up (and down there was just the link-reference). --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

where is the "2007" date in the source you cite?--Insilvis (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In one of the current sources it is written in 2011 that Focardi "helped Rossi for four years", here in an interview to Rossi by James Burgess that the meeting was in 2007. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Same text, slightly reworded:

Because of the research made by Sergio Focardi in this area for over 15 years, he was contacted by Andrea Rossi in 2007 in order to validate the apparatus at its early stage of development. After four years of work and measurements together with Rossi, Focardi concluded that nuclear fusion reactions happen inside the Energy Catalyzer. Focardi states that there is a secret additive known only by Rossi and aimed at facilitating the nuclear process. According to Focardi, the process would be much less intense without this additive.

Just to make it clearer.--Insilvis (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I edit now the article adding the same text, just with few modifications. If something is not correct or not clear, you can change it. I replace also "built" with "developed", since "to develop" is the verb used by the source, but if you want you can replace again "built". --TheNextFuture (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As final comment for the end of the discussion, it is anyway interesting to see the evolution of the "contribution" of Focardi to the E-Cat in wikipedia. In the beginning Focardi built the E-Cat together with Rossi, then a user changed to "support as scientific consulant" from Focardi. This user, maybe a staff writer of Ny teknik, did not report any reference. The "scientific consulant" influenced many blogs of the E-Cat ("Andrea Rossi and his scientific consultant Sergio Focardi" and "His research, aided by his scientific consultant Sergio Focardi"), just only for stressing that what is written by wikipedia frequently becomes "truth". Then the "scientific consulant" was removed after an edit war up to the actual form, but again without any source. It is always important in this situations to check carefully the origin of a news, otherwise there a real risk to create an "artificial truth". TheNextFuture (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam?