Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Consensus on deletion of Professor Ugo Bardi's views about the E-Cat

In March 2012, Professor Ugo Bardi of the University of Florence wrote on his blog that claims made by Rossi regarding the emission or non-emission of gamma radiation, the location of a supposed factory – in Florida, or not in the United States at all – and the fact that some of his supporters are apparently deserting him, indicated that "... the E-Cat has reached the end of the line. It still maintains some faithful supporters, but, most likely, it will soon fade away in the darkness of pathological science, where it belongs".[13] In reply to a non-peer-reviewed paper submitted to the arXiv digital archive in May 2013, he added that "This is the n-th claim of success of a long series that has led to nothing verifiable and that has become rather boring."[14]

I'd like to propose deletion of the above quoted section of the article regarding Professor Ugo Bardi's views about the E-Cat that he posted to his personal blog[[1]]. It seems to not really be saying much of anything, except perhaps that Professor Ugo Bardi predicted that the ecat had reached the 'end of the line' in 2012, and in 2013 was 'bored' with the story. his personal views might be notable things to report on, if, for example, Professor Ugo Bardi was an authority on purported Cold Fusion/LENR devices, or even a physicist. As professor of physical chemistry, he is neither. While he may frequently write articles on renewable energy sources, the best his views could be used for is to talk about the impact that the ecat might have *if* it proved to be genuine, or about chemical reactions, neither of which is the topic of the section proposed for deletion. I fail to see how this warrants inclusion in the article, especially as we have nearly identical views expressed by prominent physicists (Peter Ekström), and experts in skepticism (James Randi) that are already included in the article, per WP:Parity. The only novel thing in this section that is not mentioned anywhere else is a suggestion that Rossi possibly lied about having a 'factory' (which purportedly turned out to merely be an apartment rented by Rossi), while this might be notable, the personal blog of a chemist is hardly a reliable source for this. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As of yet, there are no authorities on scientifically-recognised 'cold fusion/LENR devices'. And Bardi's expertise appears at least in part to involve new energy sources. And of course, on the many supposed 'new energy sources' being promoted by people with neither relevant qualifications, scientific recognition or verifiable evidence that their magic teapots and woo-water generators are anything but a product of their fertile imaginations. So no, we shouldn't reject Bardi as a source on the basis that he hasn't got expertise in a subject with no experts. Those involved in the field may think that physics is relevant. Maybe it is. But quite possibly it isn't, and those more familiar with the psychology of self-deception (or even the other sort) are better equipped to understand what is actually going on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No offence meant by this, but as per your suggestion, I've had a look through the archives of this talk page, and the single most vocal supporter of this quote has been you, who, unless I am mistaken, added the source in the first place[[2]]. The validity of this quote given its source has been brought up multiple times by different users (Tmccc, NUMB3RN7NE, POVbrigand, Liftarn) due to being from a blog, as well as concerns about violating WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RECENTISM. A lot of your statement that you just gave above is either WP:OR (the cold fusion article clearly paints physicists as the only people qualified to judge cold fusion, or cold fusion devices), or, far more damning to your point, contrary to previous statements that you have made on this talk page:

from Archive 10[[3]]: "Sadly blogs, even those run by physicists, aren't considered reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)" (which is made as a blanket statement in response to someone attempting to add a link, so I don't see how I could have taken this out of context)

Changing your argument like this to support your own personal edit (which is clearly even referred to as a blog by your original edit, you placed in the lead and then defended repeated attempts to remove), and simultaneously attack other peoples similar 'blog' sources as not being WP:RS begs the question of how objective you are on this topic, this double standard intuitively seems to me that it must be a violation of some WP policy, although I am not an experienced enough editor to know whether this is a WP:NPOV issue or something else. Please clarify this for me, as this may be an arbitration issue, and given these concerns, I'd honestly like to hear from some other people about this. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my November 2011 comment, It is of course not entirely correct, per WP:USERG - I was probably less familiar with policy at the time than I am now. Frankly though, that you have gone to the effort of searching my entire contributions to this thread for such material probably says a lot more about you than me. And note that the blog I was referring to the time was one expressing a sceptical viewpoint. As for Bardi, it should be noted that there was a discussion on WP:RSN about his blog, and no uninvolved contributor seems to have considered it inapplicable at the time. [4] And as for your comments on 'objectivity', I think any uninvolved party would note the gross double standard being applied here by someone who's some objective on Wikipedia appears to be the promotion of what is at best fringe science - and by all available evidence more likely pure hokum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to make this an arbitration issue. Just be sure you understand the flight dynamics of curved airfoils. You do understand that this is an article about a device that cannot possibly work as described, and that "cold fusion" is a fiction, right? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what you are implying. I assume that your comment about airfoils is regards to not being as experienced with WP protocols? If so you'll note that I asked for clarification on this issue and your apparent intention to be obtuse is not helping the situation. Using the sentence 'cannot possibly work as described' seems a little heavy on the POV mate, given that this is a fringe article, not a pseudoscience article. Do you have anything constructive to say about the question posed by this section, or about the concerns I raised regarding AndyTheGrump's actions? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The curved airfoil in question is undoubtedly the boomerang. As for arbitration, I'm sure arbcom would have much to say on the way multiple single-purpose accounts have attempted to use Wikipedia as a platform for the regurgitation of Rossi's self-serving publicity stunts, in a manner entirely contrary to the expected standards of an encyclopaedia with the stated policy objectives of representing scientific consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If referring to the fact that most of my edits are to this page, I have an interest in the subject, this is not an issue unless it applies to this situation:[5]

"single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

I feel my contributions thus far have been fairly neutral, especially more recently, as I have familiarised myself with WP:NPOV, and become more confident in my ability to remain neutral while making edits to the article. You'll note that my contributions thus far have been to both remove, and add, material critical to Rossi or his demonstrations/tests, each time only in an effort to improve the quality of the article, and maintain WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:PARITY.

I suggested that you are pushing POV about the Bardi quote, due to your apparent heavy-handed assertions (quote in bold above) that blogs, even those of physicists, are categorically not reliable sources, while simultaneously defending your own addition of a blog, all without regard or reference to WP:SPS. I maintain this claim, and have quoted evidence to the matter, weather this is serious enough to be an arbcom issue, I am not entirely sure (as I have relatively little experience with arbcom). Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bardi blog does not meet our criteria for reliable sources. The content above makes assertions about a living person and WP:BLPSPS is quite clear that self-published sources cannot be used this way. Bardi's opinion should only be included if and when it is cited in a secondary (reliable, independent) source.- MrX 14:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Following this up, reviews about the 2013 demonstration and 2014 test, by Ethan Siegel, Tommaso Dorigo, etc. which are also recorded in blogs, should be ok as per Self Published Sources, so long as they are "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" and that they are cited about the demonstration or test in question, but not when expressing views about their opinions of Rossi (or any other living person). This does beg the question what the 'relevant field' is, as AndyTheGrump pointed out, but I think that 'physicists' can be reasonably assumed to fit this role best. Most cold fusion scientists, however, cannot, as they mostly cannot get their work published in peer reviewed journals (however, those that have, such as Edmond Storms, might be considered an established expert by this criteria, but thats a discussion for another time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 February 2015

So basically you are saying that self-published sources are ok as long as they meet your personal definition of the subject matter of the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

When did I say ANYTHING of the sort? I noted that WP guidelines state that self published sources are OK, so long as the aren't also BLP, and that they are an established expert and I even quoted the relevant pages for you. Could you please assume a little good faith on my part? I'm just trying to improve the article. If you'll note that most of my recent additions to the article have been critical of Rossi, or his tests, so I'm entirely confused as to what kind of POV you think I'm trying to push. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I note that the Bardi quote was previously discussed at WP:ANI, and that again no uninvolved contributor raised objections to the source being used. [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking into it further? I've read the archive pages AndyTheGrump, you started that arbitration. That no one objected to the source being used does not change the fact that it clearly and unambiguously cannot be used due to WP:BLPSPS, since you don't seem to want to bother going over and reading it, I'll quote it here:

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

Whether or not you consider Ugo Bardi a professional writer, this was unambiguously a blog, and not subject to any kind of editorial control but his own, thus is disqualified as a reliable source as per WP:BLPSPS. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to assume you are already aware of WP:BLP and fully versed in it, as you previously used it in the arbitration case that you quoted above to accuse POVbrigand of breaching it [7]. Therefore I'll ask you to either refute the evidence that I've just given, or stop being disruptive. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that previously uninvolved contributors at WP:RSN and WP:ANI have not seen any objection to the Bardi material is not even remotely 'disruptive' - though feel free to raise this elsewhere if you think otherwise. And can you clarify whether you are arguing that material on the Energy Catalyzer falls under WP:BLP policy - or are you suggesting that it only does so if it doesn't concur with your personal opinion that it is only legitimately discussed as a scientific topic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

1) No, pointing out these previous non-rejections is not disruptive in itself, rather, using it as evidence that the Bardi quote doesn’t violate WP:BLPSPS is disingenuous, as this was not brought up as an issue at the time (the issue at the time seems to have surrounded whether the author was ‘biased’, to which it was concluded that there was no evidence.) You have still not addressed my concern regarding WP:BLPSPS, note that *I* did not bring up this issue, MrX did.

2) I never made any claim that all material on the Energy Catalyzer falls under WP:BLP. Rather, I stated that the that the Ugo Bardi quote falls under WP:BLPSPS, and specifically went out of my way to cite why some other self-published sources in the article seem not to be subject to deletion under the same rule (not BLP), also citing the relevant source for my argument: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. (Summary of my point for the asked for clarification: self published sources can be ok, depending on the author, but when they talk about a living person, as the Bardi quote does, they violate WP:BLPSPS)

3) Your final sentence seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to accuse me of POV pushing, which seems odd, as I have repeatedly cited justifications for my arguments. This is the last time I’ll tolerate you telling me what my ‘personal opinion’ is or isn’t. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If you misunderstood my last sentence as a 'thinly veiled attempt' to accuse you POV pushing, I apologise for not being clearer - and will state outright that it is self-evident that you have repeatedly attempted to use this article to promote Rossi's pseudoscientific nonsense, in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can prove that comments to "Promote Rossi's pseudoscientific nonsense" (this statement seems to constitute a WP:BLP offence) are any more common than my support of reasonable criticism of him and his device by experts (read: physicists), fine (I think you'll find that the opposite is actually true, especially with regard to my edits to the article itself). When making accusations about other Wikipedians it is important to provide references, as it otherwise constitutes a WP:personal attack. Essentially, provide sources for your accusation or you are personally attacking me. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Go boil your head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see [8], as I'm done being your strawman. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Failing to properly understand the dynamics of curved airfoils before flight may have grave consequences. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Photographs of plant

(I've created a new thread for this discussion, so it doesn't get lost in the thread above.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There are new photos available documenting the work on the actual plant.

http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/

Well, this is no newsticker but this article somewhat exceeds the goals of an encylopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

Having two photos in the article, one showing the first public prototype and one showing the actual prototype (which might be updated yearly) should not harm WP:PARITY and WP:RS nor WP:NEWSTICKER.

This is not about believing or non-believing - its just the simple demand to have a picture of the corpus delicti - which would give some chance to verify the extense of this fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this thread was initially talking about photos. As I'm not sure about the extent of available photos, suitable for Wikipedia's use (preferably with an appropriate license, but at most one WP:fair use photo might be included), I don't have much comment. I agree that photos as Mr. 143 suggests would improve the article, if we can verify appropriate licensing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(I've created a new thread for this discussion, so it doesn't get lost in the thread above.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside licensing or copyright issues for the moment, my largest concern with using these photos to decorate Wikipedia's article has similar problems to uncritically reporting the very vague claims about Rossi's various business arrangements (recently removed from our article, as discussed in the thread above). Right now, what we've got are some photos which Rossi claims on a personal website is an under-construction 1 MW reactor. (I presume it's the same 1 MW reactor that he was going to deliver in October 2011, or that he supposedly sold a dozen units of that year....) All we really know is that Rossi knows at least two guys who can smile, and that at some point in the past all three of them spent time in a shipping container (?) with some pipes, insulation, a workbench, and blinkenlights. If we present those photos (especially without any meaningful, independent, critical commentary) we're misrepresenting the available evidence to suggest that Rossi has built a real, large-scale reactor—an implication that is not supported by reliable sources.

Quit jumping the gun—when Rossi builds a real, working 1 MW plant and sells it to a real, identifiable customer, there will be lots of time for adding photos of the genuine device. Posting self-published photos in the meantime just means we're feeding Rossi's public relations effort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Even if the photo's were available for our use (they aren't), we have no reliable source stating that they are what they purport to be. This isn't a sales brochure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That IP has a familiar style and interests. Odd how activity increases just as a partisan is topic-banned... Guy (Help!) 22:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, that IP has actually been trolling cold fusion topics for a couple of months at least (for example, [9] and [10] and [11]). I certainly agree that the IP is WP:NOTHERE and the project would lose little if he were banned; however, if the IP were associated with Insertcleverphrasehere, then ICPH would have had to have been bad-handing while logged out long before his topic ban. (In other words, the edit timing isn't particularly suggestive by itself. I'm not saying that I am ruling out the possibility that the IP belongs to another named editor, only that a pattern of behavior supporting a link hasn't been established. Further, there is a reasonable argument to be made on the basis of conduct to ban the IP anyway, regardless of whether or not he's related to any other accounts.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize my comment on banning InsertCleverPhraseHere. I respect processes and roles - because thats an important foundation for a mission like WP. It was personal attacking, unreflected and unnecessary - but an emotional response to the fact thatI believe he was pretty engaged to bring this article forward. Im a novice wonnabe contributor and still in the phase of learning whats right/accepted or wrong. And from my observation there is some 80:20% ratio of constructive/polemic content. There will be no fingerpointing from my side - the contributors should be self-reflective enough to know whats right or wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.154.228.57 (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise...I´d like to say it with Andy´s true unbiased words...

"and if that is the case, the article will need substantial revision anyway (not by me - I'll be busy writing an article on the flight characteristics of Sus domesticus)"

feel free to ban me. I have seen so much pictures with Tokamaks in lots of encyclopedias since I was a kid - which never produced a single joule net gain - with so much diagrams how the fields and the plasma that it felt ::just right away. I even know that its somewhat forbidden to make pictures of the prophet Muhammed - so pictures of an e-cat would probably be something dangerous...

"which never produced a single joule net gain". Not producing a net gain isn't the same as producing nothing at all, Second Quantization (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise there is a growing evidence that there was more net power generated with CF than with HF until now. - If we exclude the H bomb.91.115.74.75 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I merged this article into Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur). [12]. I would like to revert this page to a redirect and revert the Andrea Rossi page to include the E-cat information (which can be paired down if necessary).

jps (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Energy Catalyzer is more notable than Rossi himself, so if anything, Rossi's article should be merged here. KateWishing (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I would like to hear the argument for merging, given that this subject has already been deemed to be notable. I'm open to persuasion either way, but at the moment I would lean toward merging Rossi into this article as suggested by KateWishing.- MrX 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "rights" and the ongoing industrialization of the Energy Catalyzer now belongs to the company "Industrial Heat" - even if this was neglected here permanently. My subjective opinion, reading this talk was that Andy has an obsession debunking Mr. Rossi. Merging that article into "Mr. Rossi" would follow this obsession - still neglecting that the driving force is the company "Industrial Heat". According to his comment of writing an article about flying pigs - if there would be a need to change the article - merging into "Andrea Rossi" is a way to overcome that. I think this is an online encyclopedia an no personal playground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.96.102.109 (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's right - this is an online encyclopaedia, not a platform for the propagation of endless contradictory claims about a magic teapot. As for Industrial Heat, we have no source whatsoever indicating what supposed 'rights' to what supposed technology they have purchased, how much they paid for it, and whether they even believe Rossi's claims themselves. Self-serving publicity stunts do precisely nothing to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The EC is notable by itself as a separate thing from Rossi. There has been much coverage in different sources. I would also oppose the counter suggestion to merge Rossi here. Rossi is known for his other ventures, Petradragon and the thermocouples, and these make him notable on his own. I also wonder if Petradragon is notable enough for its own article. Martin451 23:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - both subjects are sufficiently notable to merit their own articles. VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per above arguments -- both are sufficiently notable. EPadmirateur (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article "andrea rossi" is a very bad written article, extremely biased against rossi, based on roumors and dis-information. Let the article "andrea rossi" die by being discredited and abandoned by the readers. Do not revive the horrible article "andrea rossi" and contaminate the article "Energy catalizer" by merging (the article "energy catalyzer" is already biased enough against rossi). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.55.78 (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both are sufficiently notable - the EC because of the public attention that this issue has received and AR because of Petroldragon, among others. --Chris Howard (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This topic is certainly big enough outside of the instigator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although both clearly frauds, they seem to be independently notable. If ECat were trimmed down to what could actually be verified (there have been no theories as to its operational method, and various demonstrations which prove nothing, and claims of interest by companies, which have not been verified, nor details available), a merger might be appropriate, but there's more here than should be there, and vice versa. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Non of Rossi projects are frauds, looks like you are relying on your own ignorance about what Rossi have done. Petroldragon was a decent enterprise but was based on a wrong economic concept ("recycling of energy from waste is highly profitable"), therefore petroldragon was doomed to fail sooner or later. Cold nuclear energy in Rossi effect is a true phenomena, with a huge prospect, but the technologic difficulties to use it are complicated; therefore Rossi may fail to produce a commercial device in the next two years (but on the other hand , other people may resolve the technologic problems). I guess that within the next 10 years somebody will build the simplest commercial device (a "domestic" heater) based on Rossi effect. More complicated devices will need more time. Recall that it took at least 100 years to build electric devices after electricity phenomena was first observed, entirely new scientific ideas need much time until they are useful. Rossi's 1 MEGAWATT in a client place works well but is not stable enough (at this time) to be used commercially. The weakest technologic problem in E-Cat is it's stability (almost no question about true nuclear energy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.29.133 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we make decisions regarding content based on published reliable sources, rather than on unverifiable assertions from random contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rossi's fame comes from the earlier Petroldragon criminal proceedings. The E-Cat is a different topic, notable on its own. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Pending Airbus patent

There is a pending german patent application from Airbus describing an LENR reactor. https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=bibdat&docid=DE102013110249A1 Its not granted yet, but quite noteable. http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/75-DE102013110249A1-pdf/ It refers to Leonardo Corporation and Defkalion....143.161.248.25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless and until a reliable source (as opposed to some random E-Cat plugging forum) states that the patent has any relevance to the subject of this article (which is neither the Leonardo Corporation nor Defkalion), it is of no concern here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned patent application DE102013110249A1 refers to patent WO2009125444A1: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009125444 And the named inventor of that patent is Rossi.143.161.248.25 (talk)

Echoing Andy. A patent application is of no importance to this article whatsoever, unless reliable sources choose to write about it.- MrX 14:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Patents are only of interest for things that actually succeed. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Anyone can apply for a patent - it signifies nothing. In any case, the application was turned down... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about Parkhomovs publication and the MFMP attempts?

Take a look at http://www.e-catworld.com/ this days. EmTee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.216.201 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that e-catworld.com is an unreliable blog, and that if you want to discuss specific scientific publications (if any exist) then you should probably cite (and link to) them directly.

Beyond that, there isn't much to say. Article talk pages aren't supposed to be used as chat forums for general discussion about a topic. If you would like to propose specific changes to this Wikipedia article, supported by specific, reliable sources, then we would have something to discuss. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Rejecting a theory or patent on the basis that it disagrees with existing theory is itself psuedoscience. Real scientific theory is supposed to be revised by observations of facts, not reject observations or claims before even really considering them.~Wade Smith 8:00am, 6 August 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.209.174 (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Science also requires open communication which makes replication possible. E-Cat World seems to be half propaganda outfit and half advertising platform - great if I want a Pizza, but not for anything else. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the “E-Cat”

There was a new interesting paper uploaded on Arxiv by Norman D. Cook and Andrea Rossi - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.01261.pdf

Its based on the isotope shifts seen in Lugano Report. As response to the fact that no gamma emission was observed - they conclude that a major source of energy could be a reaction between the first excited-state of 7 Li4 and a proton, followed by the breakdown of 8 Be4 into two alphas with high kinetic energy, but without gamma radiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A non-peer reviewed paper by Rossi says that Rossi's device works? Quelle surprise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, this is a pre-print of a paper to be published in May 2015 or so in a peer reviewed Journal (unless I don't understand the status of this paper). But don't worry - even after publishing (if published), I guess, the editors of wikipedia will find good reasons not to mention it in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.8.6 (talk • contribs)

For the record, I note that it is now August, and there's not a hint of a peer-reviewed journal publication—which is entirely fitting with the usual pattern of announcements in this field and with the "energy catalyzer" in particular. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec, left in just because!) It's August. If it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, I've been unable to find it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Not 'interesting' for the purposes of Wikipedia unless discussed in detail in third-party reliable sources. And I note that neither author appears to have any relevant academic credentials regarding the subject matter. [13] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Andy, this article is not about CF in general, its about the "Energy Catalyzer".

I think its highly interesting for people interested in that topic - how the inventor tries to explain that impossible operation.

As there was no statement for a long period of time I think its notable and should be included.143.161.248.25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of what this article is about. I am also well aware of Wikipedia policy. We aren't here to provide a blog for Rossi's endless self-serving and contradictory claims. If the paper is of any significance, it will be discussed in credible secondary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that this unpublished paper is of little use to this article. One of the reasons we rely on secondary sources is to get independent analysis. The only thing that we could possible say here is that Rossi and Cook wrote an unpublished paper on the subject. Adding the citation to the article does not improve the article, but may serve Rossi's interests which of course is not our purpose. We should at least wait until the paper is published in a journal.- MrX 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Aug 2015 patent: better reference

Re the question of reference, agreed the reference I cited is a blog, so not ideal. It does however include a link a copy of the patent application itself, included on the Impossible Invention web site, at https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/us9115913b1.pdf. I assume this is a copy of the actual patent, and in principle available from the USPO somehow, probably by sending them some $$$, so in principle verifiable in this way.

Anyway, I've edited in a link to that copy, which maybe is some improvement to the article, but it would be better style if it used the 'cite patent' template used for ref. 1. I can't see any way to do this short of copying the code for ref. 1, pasting it in and editing. Unlike 'cite web', 'cite journal' etc. available by clicking on 'cite' in the editor, this seems to be one of these wp secrets that you can't look up; how is it done? --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The patent can be found on the U.S. patent office website: [14] It is probably worth noting though that all it amounts to is "An apparatus for heating fluid" - which it will undoubtedly do, given that passing a current through a resistor will produce heat. There doesn't seem to be anything in the patent which suggests that it generates more heat than one would expect. Which is probably why the patent was approved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link, which I'll incorporate in the article in the morning if no-one else has done it. The patent will be just as effective from the patenting point of view if it does not mention cold fusion, and it has been suggested that now it has been approved Rossi can be more open than he has been.
It's curious by the way that the article makes no reference to the company Industrial Heat who have bought up the E-cat, surely a important development. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Or you could wait until there is some objective verified evidence that the device does what it says. Oh, wait, you're a fan of pseudoscientific claims - you won't want to wait until the heat death of the universe before adding a promotional claim to an article on a fraudulent device, will you? Rossi flew this under the radar by not mentioning that it is a perpetual motion machine. He will now capitalise on the existence of a patent to imply that it is not a perpetual motion machine, because they are not patentable. The man is utterly transparent (and a charlatan, naturally). Guy (Help!) 23:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Under the radar? Hmmm ... . Given that the USPO automatically refuses patents mentioning CF, it seems to me that this ia s case of the end justifying the means. And on a point of physics, it is not a perpetual motion machine, as it requires refuelling when the nickel is used up; nothing perpetual about it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's probably worth pointing out that not only is Lewan's website a blog, but that it is promoting his book - which makes it even less appropriate as a source. As for Industrial Heat, all we know is that Rossi sold them something vaguely referred to as 'rights' - there is no reliable source stating that they have 'bought up the E-cat'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll accept your correction on that detail. There is an interview with the CEO of Industrial Heat at http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf that explains IH's support of Rossi. Objecting to Lewan's site on the basis of it promoting the book is a little precious IMHO -- the article doesn't refer to tbe book. I suppose you might object to the fact that the book's title is at the top of the page, if you are the objecting type, but you'll find that many academics do similar things if they have a book they want to bring to people's attention. If you prefer a different source that gives the same information as in the article, it would be fine by me to replace the reference. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've read the patent and it's not at all clear that it has anything to do with the E-Cat. The patent mentions heating by "an electrical resistor" and discusses a lithium-based fuel that undergoes conventional chemical reactions. There's absolutely no mention of LENR/cold fusion in the patent. Surely Rossi isn't trying to pull a fast one on the Patent Office. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how carefully you have read the patent? On page 7 I read 'another aspect of the invention ... composition of matter for generating heat, the composition including ... nickel powder ...'. In which electrical shop can you buy that kind of resistor, whereas the E-cat does use nickel? It sure looks like the E-cat to me! --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly a little off topic but nickel alloys are a common choice for the resistance element in electrical heaters, particularly those in which the element is directly exposed to a liquid working fluid. VQuakr (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me of nothing so much as the "Zapper", a fraudulent medical device that is sold by quacks as "licensed and approved" but when you check the approval, it's licensed as a TENS machine.

This is a patent for a water heater - clearly a very deliberate choice, as the USPTO do not approve patents for free energy devices or perpetual motion machines. The core claim made by Rossi is unpatentable in the US. There is no way we should include this until it's discussed in reliable independent secondary sources which provide context. That is, after all, Wikipedia's default approach to any questionable claim. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There'd be some merit in your point were it not the fact that there is mention in the article of a previous patent application that was rejected. To remove mention of the accepted patent while keeping the rejected one would be a blatent case of bias. The section 'patents' would be visibly incomplete if your suggestion were carried out. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss improvement to the article, not cold fusion/LENR in general, please. And maybe chill with the ad hominems.

It's almost as if they cold fusionists don't want to tip the reader off that there's a fraud going on. They literally never do that every time. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC) It's almost as if the anti-cold fusion 'cabal' don't want to tip the reader off that cold fusion (and possibly the E-Cat as well) may, after all, not be an error. They (very nearly) do that every time. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC) The "anti-cold fusion cabal" is the scientific community. This is not Wikipedia's problem to fix (though the cold fusionists have tried to "fix" the real world by abusing Wikipedia in the past). Why you would go to bat for Rossi is a mystery to me: it is by now well established that he is a charlatan. Whatever may be going on with cold fusion (hint: almost certainly not fusion), the e-cat is a separate and fraudulent device. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC) You have an interesting definition of 'well-established' (hint: synonymous with 'I am convinced'). In science, by the way, conclusions are never final. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC) As we say in the lede, "no independent tests have been made, and no peer-reviewed tests have been published. Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end." Numerous other commentators have said the same. He makes extraordinary claims, and he provides no credible evidence to back them. He has already been jailed for environmental violations and tax fraud. I think it is entirely uncontroversial to state that it is, by now, well established that he is a charlatan. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Did you invest in Rossi's company? jps (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Declaration of Interest: I have no financial interest in the company. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis

Quote: 'A later patent for an "apparatus for heating fluid", making no mention of LENR or cold fusion, but specifying the use of nickel and other substances for this process, was granted by the US Patent Office in August 2015'. This is clear and unambiguous WP:SYNTHESIS in my opinion. The 'but' implies that there is a logical connection between LENR/cold fusion and the later patent, when the patent makes no such claim. And what 'process' is being referred to? The patent doesn't even use the word. I suggest that rather than edit-warring, Brian Josephson self-reverts and discusses the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I think emphasizing the purported nuclear chemistry that was de-emphasized in the patent goes against the letter and spirit of WP:SYN, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:REDFLAG. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(@AndyTheGrump) Thanks for raising it in Talk first. Why don't we just delete the bit saying 'no mention of LENR and cold fusion' as well as the text you want to be deleted yourself, and then we can all go home? The only reason for that text getting in in the first place appears to be through a bit of OR, viz. the absence of such reference being used to infer (incorrectly) that the patent is about something different from the E-cat (I can't see any other reason for that otherwise rather boring bit of information being included in the article), and as far as OR fanatics are concerned should not have been put in at all. And, as I have said, the reference to the materials used, which someone seems not to have noticed through not reading as far as page 7, disproves (sorry about the OR/synthesis, but it is allowed on talk pages) the idea that it is something different from the E-cat, making the text irrelevant in any case. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Patents are primary sources that describe devices that may or may not actually work. Using patents as sources to imply that the device actually works in any matter is OR. In the case of a device like this, a FRINGE violation as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course! And as far as I can see, the article does not suggest that; it certainly should not do.
But there is a section on patents, and including information about the latest application is merely bringing that section up to date. And, in agreement with the point that you have made, Lewan merely reports the situation and doesn't make the implication that acceptance of the patent proves anything (and I don't think anyone else would think that either). --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lewan is clearly not a reliable source - he is promoting his book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Faulty argument -- the article concerned makes no mention of his book. People do promote their books, quite often, and this proves nothing. Look for example at the home page of the head of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish, Prof. Ben Simons. Some people promote their books rather visibly, others more discreetly. If that is the best argument you can produce for not allowing the quote, I suggest it would be preferable for you to remain silent on this point. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be good if people were to chill with the ad hominems. Remember that this page is for discussion of the article, not of the editors

Given your propensity for using Wikipedia to promote fringe bollocks, I suggest it would be preferable for you to remain silent. Meanwhile, we do not cite websites created to promote books on fringe bollocks as reliable sources on fringe bollocks. I suggest you create your own fringe bollocks website where you can promote fringe bollocks to your hearts content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC) You discredit yourself with such talk. Unlike you, I am a respectable scientist (and didn't someone issue a warning on the E-cat page for people to watch their language?) --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I am well aware of your reputation - as expressed by people other than yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC) And the point about watching your language? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC) If you don't like the language, how about going away and doing some respectable science, rather than promoting fringe bollocks? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Nothing to do with my reaction, it's a matter of what is good practice in these parts. You should reflect on that, if you can. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Good practice? Is it good practice that you have set up a website to post libel about Wikipedia users Brian Josephson, for example: [15]. A little angry (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC) (a) I did not set the web site up as you suggest I did; (b) however, I think the site provides an excellent resource; (c) I am no lawyer, but I very much doubt if anything there counts as libel and I would assume (and would advise if asked about it) that if anyone had a demonstrably valid complaint the offending text should be removed. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I think it is very useful that you have publicly associated yourself with Radin, Weiler, Sheldrake and sundry other cranks. It gives us a valuable insight into the likely reliability of your statements on subjects related to parapsychology and the agenda behind any such statements. It is unfortunate that these gentlemen (and apparently you) are unable to accept that their extraordinary claims lack the extraordinary evidence necessary to be persuasive to the wider scientific community, and I positively encourage you all to set up a website giving paranormal and other fringe ideas the uncritical reception you all appear to prefer. Hopefully this will allow you all to stop fixating on trying to fix real-world problems by skewing Wikipedia to a POV that is not in line with our core policies. I will greatly enjoy reading about this parallel universe as and when you build the site. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I suspect the truth of the matter is that you thought exactly the same before learning of my being an adviser for that site, and that you are just using that as a peg to make this kind of comment (if however you declare on this page that previously you were most impressed by me (in a positive sense) then I will withdraw that comment). It's up to you! --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Terminology

Re JzG's "LENR is a term of art used by cold fusionists to appear sciencey" is a typical disparaging remark (far too prevalent in these parts, I have to say) that's a bit far from the truth. Cold fusion was the invention of journalists, I believe, thus the 'popular' term, and furthermore it has a number of alternative uses. In formal contexts, scientists prefer more scientific terminology. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bart Simon disagrees. You should check out his book on the sociology of cold fusion. jps (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So what does he say then? I'm afraid I don't have the time to get hold of the book! --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He basically says that the understanding of the community, as it were, of people who support these ideas of excess heat in certain electrolytic experiments is that "cold fusion" is simultaneously a poisoned term because of the controversies surrounding the Pons and Fleischmann announcement as they announced a "cause" before they knew, but also a term that serves as an "identity marker" for the community. jps (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I don't have any problem with that. And of course avoiding bad impressions can be a reason for avoiding the term. I would guess that Simon did not use the phrase 'appearing sciency', the problem with which basically is that it would seem to refer to non-scientists using the term to make it look as if they are doing science, whereas in point of fact most people involved in LENR are scientists (Rossi being a notable exception). --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What makes a scientist? The problem here is that when people accuse cold fusion adherents of being "pathological scientists" what they're saying is that they're engaging in a fruitless outcome. The comparison is to someone who continually looks for evidence that the sun will not rise in the morning. There are ways to do many different scientific experiments to test to see whether the sun will not rise tomorrow. You could, for example, measure the rate at which the sun appears to traverse the sky or you could look for historical trends in data to see if there might be some secular variation in solar flux that will eventually allow for a random walk away from sunrise. There are all sorts of experiments and scientific investigations one can do to try to see whether the sun will rise, but the question becomes, eventually, at what point do we stop wasting our time with such questions and move on to other things? At what point does one stop being a "scientist" and start being a crank (in the most plain form of the term — literally someone who turns the crank over and over without any forward progress)? There is a credentialism that people fall back on in such scenarios because, sure, old scientists with degrees and positions and accolades and tenure can pursue whatever their hearts desire and they don't stop being scientists just because they are chasing rabbits down holes. But the final question seems to lie on whether null hypothesis rejection is possible. Cold fusion proponents tend to say that they have good null hypothesis rejection for excess heat, but the question that other scientists ask is whether such results are consistently replicable and plausibly explained. For 25 years cold fusion proponents have argued vociferously about whether they have been able to come up with replicable schema and haven't begun to broach the next very necessary question. Their lack of consistent agreement causes the rest of the scientific community to look with skepticism on whether replicability has actually occurred. I certainly am unimpressed with the progress that has (not) occurred since I first investigated this story seriously in 2004 after the now infamous DOE report. The choice one has is that either there is a conspiracy against cold fusion or that the experiments actually don't work in the way the proponents think they do. Could there be weird effects we don't understand in electrolytic cells? Sure, why not? But it is a far cry from anomalous results and scalable applicability: a far cry that has eluded this idea for a quarter of a century. When does an N-ray become an N-ray? jps (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Very briefly: I think things are changing. The fact that the Japanese government is going to fund CF research again (see http://news.newenergytimes.net/2015/08/24/japanese-government-will-fund-lenr-research-again/) is typical of this shift. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an old story, though. The Japanese Government has canceled and restarted research into cold fusion at least twice before in the last two decades. India has done it four times that I can recall. What happens is that the old reviewers and bureaucrats retire and the new ones come in not knowing the history. I just called the patent office that Rossi got his patent from and asked if they knew about the ruling that cold fusion patents cannot be given in the US. They were unaware of it. :) jps (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

But of course Rossi doesn't mention cold fusion (or "LENR") anywhere in the patent. A simple oversight on his part, I'm sure... people are forgetful sometimes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Boris, I've explained why a number of times. It would be boring to repeat the reason yet again to those that will not learn, and I will not waste time doing so. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I found it -- "a case of the end justifying the means". Thanks, that explains a great deal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

More sources

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

The non-mention of CF/LENF: 'above all, do no harm'

At present the article includes the statement 'The patent made no mention of LENR or cold fusion'. That is true, but there are many other things that the patent does not mention, so why refer to that specifically? As far as I can see, the statement was included because a number of editors inferred from it that the device concerned does not make use of LENR, which they think is important.

It would indeed be important if this inference were valid. But it is not. In the first place (as I have mentioned elsewhere), such mention was excluded from the patent quite simply because if it had been included that would have been enough for the application to be refused, and obviously they did not want that to happen. At the same time, there was no compelling reason to include this information. A patent has to specify how to make a device, but not necessarily the reasoning behind its functioning (unless a successful device cannot be made without understanding how it works). The Rossi patent does precisely this, saying how it is made. Making useful amounts of heat may require a nuclear process, but if just assembling the device in accord with the details in the patent is sufficient to induce the nuclear process then it is not necessary to mention this process for a potential manufacturer to be able to make the device work, so this information does not need to be included in the patent.

The bottom line then is that the inference that the device that is the subject of the patent does not make use of LENR is incorrect. The problem though is that people reading the article in the present form may come to that incorrect conclusion. After all, editors here have come to this conclusion through a confused understanding of what patents are about, and others similarly uninformed may do the same.

It is of crucial importance that the article be reworded to stop this (on the principle of 'do no harm'). One way would just to be to delete the misleading text. Alternatively the Lewan reference could be restored. But it does need to be one or the other (or of course both). We should do whatever is the least problematic. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We do not base article content on a contributor's 'inference'. The patent describes a device for heating fluids. Not a LENR device. That is what has been patented. Nothing more, nothing less. Accordingly, we will describe the patent as a patent for a device for heating fluids. Not a LENR device. Per Wikipedia policy, this isn't open to negotiation. And please stop creating multiple sections on the same topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

AtG: Either you have not followed my analysis, or you do not subscribe to the principle of 'do no harm'. I wonder which? It is true that a device for heating fluids has been patented, no-one will dispute that, but simply to repeat that statement is to miss the point. It is depressing to be writing things that people obviously refuse to take the trouble to read and digest before coming up with an irrelevant, tired old response. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly subscribe to the principle of 'do no harm' - and I accordingly oppose the harmful inclusion of misleading statements about a patent for heating advice for fluids being included based on your promotional 'analysis'. Your apparent inability to comprehend the simple fact that Wikipedia follows the scientific mainstream, and isn't here to act as an unpaid shill for every purveyor of pseudoscientific flimflam is more than a little depressing itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you're shifting grounds now. Fine, let's leave out both the Lewan reference and the potentially misinterpretable sentence I have referred to, and then we can all go home with minimal risk of harm, the one you refer to and the one I referred to. Excellent! --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that we should include a charitable interpretation in order not to harm Rossi, begs the question. If Rossi is a scammer, as many sources agree he is (and we have evidence of past criminal convictions to support this), then giving credence to his claims is actually doing harm, because the article may (read: will) be used to support further scamming. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A description of the fluid heater

I composed a description of the fluid heater. Given the arguments going on here, it may be best to propose it here first.

The fluid heater described in the patent is a cylindrical vessel containing a slot for a rectangular fuel wafer. The wafer described consists of three main layers, separated from each other by electrical insulators. The middle layer would consist of an electrical heating element, specified to initiate and "reinvigorate" the fuel. The fuel layers above and below the heating element are specified to be a mixture of nickel, lithium metal and LiAlH₄ (lithium aluminum hydride, "LAH"). The patent suggests a ratio of 50% Ni, 20% Li and 30% LAH. It is stated that the ratio is not critical, that high-porosity nickel is desirable but not necessary, and also that other Group 10 elements (platinum or palladium) as well as nickel can participate as catalysts. In operation, according to the patent, a controller monitors the temperature of the fluid and applies a voltage to the electrical heating element in the fuel wafer as necessary. It is claimed that the voltage is necessary to regenerate the fuel after the lithium aluminum hydride undergoes thermal decomposition. ¶ The means by which the LAH is "reinvigorated" is not stated in the patent. Because the fluid heater contains an electric heating element, it would function as an ordinary electric heater even if no lithium fuel were present.

Everything in the first paragraph is directly from the patent. The second paragraph (after the ¶ in the block quote) is intended to include whatever conclusions can be acceptably made from the patent; the two sentences above are only part of what I initially had written.

I do not believe this device works. I think it is a functional electric water heater, and I think it probably will provide an initial burst of extra heat as the lithium compounds undergo thermal decomposition. But I do not think that heat or electricity will cause nickel to regenerate a lithium hydride from LiAl and H₂. Not chemically, and certainly not by a nuclear process. The intent of the above description is to describe how it is claimed that it works, including the bit about the temperature sensor, controller and heating element, to make it clear that the device may simply work as an electric heater that is no more or less efficient than an identical heater with, say, powdered iron in place of the nickel.

The decomposition of LAH is very exothermic and very entropically favorable. Catalysis cannot change the enthalpy or entropy of the reactions or starting materials. It only can alter the energy of the transition state. Per the principle of microscopic reversibility, all reactions are reversible, but the equilibrium in the case of the decomposition of LAH is enormously in favor of the products — and a catalyst can change the rate of a reaction but not the equilibrium.

So, in other words, I think the patented fluid heater is much like the E-cat HT described in the arXiv paper: it does generate heat, and its thermal output exceeds its stated electrical consumption, but not its actual electrical consumption. Roches (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: given that the patent is for a water heater, and says nothing about the E-Cat, I can't see any reason why an article on the E-Cat should go into such detail. As for your personal analysis, and whether you think it 'works' or not, it isn't relevant to article content: we have to go by what reliable sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Roches' theoretical argument ignores the possibility that nuclear processes are involved, and I have heard that preliminary attempts to replicate the process described in the patent have found 'statistically significant isotope changes'. Further, the conclusion of the paper you cite is 'Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I remind AtG that the E-cat is also a water heater and that Mats Lewan, who has given considerable attention to the E-cat for a number years, has stated that the patent appears to be of the E-cat. I can see no reason why the patent should have mentioned the E-cat, and bringing into the discussion the fact that it does not is a purely and simply a red herring. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of what the promoters of the E-Cat (including Lewan, who is currently plugging a book on the it) have claimed about the device. The only relevant fact about the patent is however that it is for a fluid heater, not an 'energy catalyzer' - and accordingly, we will not describe it as anything but a patent for a fluid heater. If we need to discuss it at all, which seems open to debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The conclusion of the arXiv paper is based on the stated energy consumption of the E-cat HT. It is evident from some of the sources quoted in the article that the E-cat HT actually consumes more energy than it says it does, probably by an order of magnitude. I'm referring to the observations about the incorrectly connected ground wire, Rossi's refusal to allow the device to be unplugged, and so on. Dorigo's comment that the observers may have overlooked a simple trick also applies.

The description of the 'fluid heater' might be more detailed than is necessary for the article. It contains lithium, LAH and nickel, and Rossi's other publications are based on claims relating to nickel. The patent says that the fluid heater contains a heating element that is required to initiate the reaction and "reinvigorate" the fuel. I thought it was a really straightforward conclusion that the device would produce heat. As long as it is plugged in, it would be able to heat fluids. For several hours after it is first plugged in, the thermal decomposition of the lithium compounds will produce more heat than the electric heating element would ordinarily produce.

The arXiv paper describes how the E-cat was already set up when they began the test, and describes a steel tube containing a mystery powder and a heating element. The device was shut down after a number of hours. The patent describes a device that contains a 'fuel' with a stated composition and a heating element. If that fuel is heated, it will decompose and release a lot more heat. It will also release a lot of heat if it contacts water, or anything that can be reduced. It's interesting that the arXiv paper mentions a crack in the device, because the hydrogen produced will generate enough pressure to crack a closed container and the hydrogen will react with oxygen to form water.

I tried to write a summary that uses only the description in the patent, and then make the statement that the device will function as a fluid heater because it contains a heating element. That then has to be connected with the observations that the device uses more electricity than it says it does. I haven't followed this for years. I had read this article before, I saw the discussion on the fringe noticeboard, and just now read the arXiv paper and the patents. I can't avoid personal analysis on the talk page, but I think my conclusion is fairly straightforward given the chemistry involved in the claim. (The nuclear reaction is impossible and not happening. It releases a gamma ray and none are detected; that's stated several times in the article.) It should be possible to describe that conclusion using only the patents and the known reactions of LAH. That can't happen in the presence of anyone who doesn't want the mainstream science conclusion (I don't mean everyone who has discussed this here). So, it will probably be necessary for someone to test the present claim, which will result in a paper that's publishable in a peer-reviewed journal, and that could go in the article.

I don't want this comment to be misrepresented; I don't want to put anything in the article that is original research. I don't necessarily want to put the description of the fluid heater in the article. But the fluid heater and the E-cat are essentially the same device. The composition of the fuel described in the patent makes it evident how the E-cat HT actually operated in the test described in the arXiv paper. It is not possible to explain exactly how the observations were achieved, because a simple trick is being overlooked.

One last thing: at least two patents have been issued in China that are based on Rossi's theories and do mention cold fusion. Why aren't they mentioned here? Roches (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you add the information about the Chinese patents to the article? But the information about governmental funding support in Japan being restarted was removed with some excuse or other, and no doubt they'll find a way to remove that information similarly ('not notable', 'original research' or whatever — you name it!). --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't change previous comments; a statement has been removed there is an addition about how I didn't say anything about a possible nuclear reaction. The 2015 patent doesn't say anything about a nuclear reaction. When the earlier application was rejected, it was stated that there is no evidence that the nuclear reaction described can occur. If a nuclear reaction did occur, even if somehow there was no gamma radiation, the products would include some that were radioactive, primarily beta emitters, and that could be observed after the reaction. And if the process ever made copper with natural isotopic abundance, that copper was not produced by a nuclear reaction. If the device previously produced natural-abundance copper and suddenly produces copper enriched in a certain isotope, then something is being overlooked. Likewise if copper was previously the product of interest and it has been shifted to a lighter element. Roches (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see that a statement of mine has disappeared though I can't link it to what you are saying but anyway I'm having problems tracking down the change. Perhaps you can indicated it using the history process -- click on 'view history', then click on the radio buttons for the before and after items, and then on the 'compare selected revisions', and then put in a link to the URL of the comparison page. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Mats Lewan as a source on the E-cat

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

---

Doubts have been expressed as to the reliability of Mats Lewan's self-published article about Rossi's recent US patent. However, WP:Verifiability says:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Mats Lewan can be considered an expert on the subject on account of his physics degree and the extensive studies he made for his book An Impossible Invention, while the fact that his articles on the subject have been published in the reliable third party source Ny Teknik (distributed to all members of The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers) makes it permissible, in view of the cited guideline, to regard his self-published article on the recent patent as a RS. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It ought to go without saying that merely having a degree in physics does not confer infallibility (or even much credibility) in all things physics-related. If Mats Lewan wishes to be taken seriously in his reports on the Energy Catalyzer, he need only publish results of his experiments on the device in credible, independent, peer-reviewed, scientific journals. A long history of self-publishing credulous nonsense is not a basis for asserting reliability as a source for Wikipedia's use. (As for Ny Teknik—how long has it been since they've let Lewan dribble more E-cat cheerleading on to their website? Lewan is a 'technology' reporter who blogs about new Apple products and such; any 'science' reporting is a sideline at best.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not possible for Lewan to be an 'expert' in the E-Cat. There is no recognised field of expertise here. To open up Wikipedia to self-published sources whose sole claim to 'expertise' lies in fields unrecognised by academia and recognised scholarship would be to open it up to every purveyor of snake-oil, free-energy flim-flam and secrets of eternal life that appears. And I can only suggest that the fact that Professor Josephson made such a proposal is clear and unequivocal evidence of just how utterly at odds with the fundamental ethos of Wikipedia - as an encyclopaedic reflection of contemporary mainstream scientific and academic knowledge - he is. If he wants to promote Rossi's circus act, he can do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Lewan is a reasonable source for the news and business aspects of the E-Cat but for the scientific aspects we need much better sources (see WP:REDFLAG). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Lewan as a source regarding the 'news and business aspects of the E-Cat' is that like most sources he merely repeats Rossi's claims. The 'news' consists of reports of Rossi's performances, based on Rossi's version of events, and the 'business aspects' amount to unsubstantiated claims about undefined deals. Deals which have a history of simply disappearing from view when the next one comes along. Lewan is 'reliable' in as much as he reliably reports what Rossi says - no more, no less. Furthermore, the website he is being cited from is set up with the express purpose of selling a book which is only credible as long as the E-Cat is - he is not, accordingly, an uninvolved source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to avoid wording that suggests a lack of objectivity on the part of the writer, all too common in these parts. There are lots of things wrong with the item by ATG; for example, if you look at the book you'll see that he does not simply repeat what Rossi says. Have you studied the book, by the way?
And let's get real, folks. What we are talking about isn't advanced science -- only school physics and chemistry should be needed to tell whether or not the patent looks like it refers to the e-cat. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed -- in fact, not even that level of scientific background is necessary to tell whether or not the patent refers to the E-Cat. The simple ability to parse written English shows that the patent says nothing whatsoever about the E-Cat, cold fusion, LENR, or nuclear processes more generally. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, Boris. There's a difference between 'referring to' and 'mentioning'. You are only referring to the latter. Let me explain the difference by an example. I may say 'there was a thunderstorm last week'. I would then be referring to a specific event at a specific time, but you won't see those details in my actual words. Get it? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I don't appreciate what appears to be a deliberate misunderstanding of my words (but if you tell me that it was unintentional I will accept your apology). --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I took what you said literally. In American English "refer to" is indeed a synonym for "mention." Apparently there is a British-English sense in which "refers to" is a synonym for "relates to" in a much broader sense; being a colonial that is not familiar to me. Whether the patent "relates to" the E-Cat is of course the very issue we are trying to sort out, so this seems like circular reasoning. (As an aside your example leaves me puzzled but we needn't delve further into the nuances of language.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I guess we are in agreement now over this particular point at least. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A patent only has any validity in as much as it explicitly makes claims. The fact that those familiar with the E-Cat think that it is 'referring to' it has no bearing whatsoever on whether it actually patents anything other than a device for heating fluids in a conventional manner - though no doubt Rossi intends it to give that impression. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It really should not be so difficult to understand (but apparently it is in your case) that if (contrary to what I know is your firm belief, but you should accept that it is at least possible that you are wrong in regard) the E-cat actually works as claimed, then if anyone copies the recipe and tries to market the result, what he will be selling is something that, regardless of whether or not there is reference to CF or whatever in the patent, will be heating a fluid in accord with the terms of the patent, and therefore violating the patent. The patent therefore provides a degree of protection. I suggest, with due respect, that you spend a little time thinking about the logic of this argument so we won't be bothered with your ill-informed objection once again in the future. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

'Protection' for a process (so far unexplained by science) which will only work in a device exactly as described in the patent? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No; it is very likely that significantly different processes, not protected by the patent, may also be able to generate significant amounts of heat. But if they don't work as well, Rossi will still have the advantage over competitors who might otherwise for example be able to reverse engineer his product and, in the absence of patent protection, sell their own version freely. In the long run someone may be able to do better, but until that happens Rossi will be making money from his own patent protected device -- if he succeeds in making it reliable enough that it is of practical use. There may be pitfalls on the way, of course, but still he is better off with the patent than without. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing 'very likely' involved here, beyond the high probability that this time next year Rossi will still be engaged in the same circus act, and the same believers will be trying to convince us that Wikipedia should abandon core policy in order to promote his magic electric kettle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to differ on this point -- time will tell. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And when it does, so can Wikipedia. Meanwhile, per policy arrived at through community consensus, this article will represent the existing scientific perspective, rather than providing a platform for Rossi's latest purported'cure' for the worlds energy problems - time having already told on his previous efforts... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, things are progressing. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So they say. Meanwhile, I imagine Rossi would have no problem accepting your money if you are so convinced he's right. jps (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

To answer the (obviously largely rhetorical) question at the head of this section. Lewan is a known shill for Rossi so his views on the water heater patent are suspect, and if they are also self-published then there is no way they should be included. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a disgraceful slur on Lewan which I do not accept. Guy is missing a pretty obvious point, which that it is quite normal for people to write about the result of their research. Lewan's predominant research has been in regard to Rossi and the e-cat. It is quite natural for him to write about this, and that does not make him a 'shill' -- this is just your own misguided (and misguiding) misinterpretation. Someone, by the way, claimed once on these pages that Lewan was being paid by Rossi, but later admitted that he had got the wrong person. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

My objection to Lewan isn't that he is somehow in bed with Rossi but rather that he just isn't very smart and his blog does not pass the reliable sourcing standards we would expect. Let's find serious academics who study the subject, not people with one-off master's degrees who apparently are not too fond of the conservation of energy for whatever reason. jps (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your own comment on conservation of energy isn't awfully smart itself, if I may say so. If a nuclear process is involved there'd be plenty of energy. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Read through his blog. He doesn't believe in the conservation of energy. Anyway, I've removed all references to his blog because it's a terrible source. jps (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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