Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Articles of Steven Krivit

I've added a line into the wikipedia artcile with the article by krivit. tia86 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.248.94.127 (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. You are misrepresenting what the source says. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So, we have a report about MACROSCOPIC errors by Rossi, Levi et all. We have lies from Rossi about the (claimed) power output (see report and video from krivit) and we have hysteric reactions from Rossi. Why all these facts are not included into the wikipedia article? We have plenty of 'Bologna, XX 2011 test' and nothing about the inconsistence of these tests. This should be fixed. tia86. --95.248.94.127 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Krivit is not a reliable source -- see my comments in the section above 'Levi strongly denies'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that states that Rossi has 'lied', then let us see it. The NET article raises legitimate concerns regarding the 'demonstrations', which perhaps the article should address in more detail, though personally, I think the article as it currently stands gives far too much weight to them - they were clearly not done under controlled conditions, with monitoring methods adequate to measure all the input and output parameters (which is essentially what the NET article says), so actually provide little evidence at all either way. The NET article also raises other concerns regarding inconsistencies in Rossi's statements etc, but it does not say that Rossi lied, and neither does it state that the E-Cat is "a hoax". In any case, NET is probably no more acceptable as WP:RS than Rossi himself - and we certainly can't state that one is right, and the other is wrong, without sources to back it up. Personally, I find the NET depiction of events more credible than Rossi's, but my own opinion on the matter is beside the point. We need reliable third-party sources, and we need to accurately reflect what they say. If these sources cannot be found, we cannot impose our own opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Cup of tea

Who knows what Bushnell was referring to when he used "which is far more than enough heat to boil water for tea." in his interview to describe Rossi's e-cat ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

About half-way down this page Douglas Morrison asks for a cup of tea [1]. "Morrison recalls that Pons, in a 1989 interview, had shown what he said was a small cold fusion boiler: "Simply put," Pons had explained, "in its current state it could provide boiling water for a cup of tea." Each year at the cold fusion conference Morrison politely asks, "Please, may I have a cup of tea?" Olorinish (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I also found it in "Warming up to cold fusion" by Sharon Weinberger. Morrison used to say it at the CF-conferences. She also mentions that Park used the phrase too. And I found that Richard Garwin was quoted saying it (in "Cold Panacea" by Charles Petit). Quite interesting that Bushnell uses just that same phrase.

Off-topic

It is of course my personal OR, but in his words I read a bit of mockery at the expense of the old CF-critics. I'll even go so far as to completely SYNTHesize the idea that mocking the CF-critics could indicate that he is quite convinced he is right. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I am curious, how many more years do you think it will take before someone makes a cup of tea by heating with energy from cold fusion? Olorinish (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I think they already did, but I wasn't there, so that doesn't really convince me. I truly believe they will be able to serve the CF-critics their long awaited cup of tea before Max Planck's prediction about scientific advance materializes. But I also think the CF-critics will argue that it is not tea --POVbrigand (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Before we drift of: I think it would be interesting to explain to the reader how the phrase is used in relation with cold fusion and add some words to the Bushnell quote. IMHO it would make the whole story more interesting to read and at the same time it would give the reader some insight on the critics. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

POVbrigand, I collapsed this section as off-topic. I suggest you read WP:NOTFORUM, along with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. We are not going to put meaningless speculation about making tea in the E-Cat into the article (unless of course WP:RS do it first, which seems unlikely), so this discussion has no place here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of the phrase is interesting for the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't, unless it is discussed in WP:RS as 'interesting'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrase has been used in connection with cold fusion numerous times, there's plenty of RS for that. The Bushnell quote is perfect RS. I do not need a secondary source to notice that several people in the CF-arena are using the same phrase. It is not conflicting with any policy to point the reader to the use of that phrase in connection with cold fusion. It is not a policy issue, it is a "I'd like that" vs. "I don't like it" argument. I recommend you avoid pulling policies out of your hat that are not relevant. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can find WP:RS that discusses this, it isn't going in the article, regardless of the results of your WP:OR. I recommend you read the policies concerned, rather than pulling trivial irrelevant nonsense out of a hat to suit your POV.

And as a personal opinion of my own, I cant help but see the irony in noting that those who think that the E-Cat is more than a figment of imagination are now concerned about its utility as a kettle, rather than as the Earth-shattering invention it is supposed to be. With no news of any significance, we end up dredging the sources for anything to keep up the momentum, though the E-Cat itself seems to have run out of steam ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are completely mistaken about what the policies say, you seem to be reading selectively to support your biased opinion that the E-Cat is not worth an article. My understanding is that you are constantly trying to cut the article down to a miserable piece by throwing policies around and then argue that there is no room for miserable pieces in WP. There is no policy whatsoever that describes what you are thinking. Except for my musing which I collapsed up here in this talk, there is no WP:OR in the fact that Pons, Bushnell, Park, Morrison and Garwin have all used the comparison with boiling water for tea, it is all perfectly RS. It is only WP:I_don't_like_it what you are stating here.

Ridicule is one of the best ways to solicit recognition for an otherwise insupportable view. Here in WP we are used to that defence and don't buy into it. :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think my interpretation of policy is incorrect, I suggest you (a) indicate exactly what content you are proposing to add to the article, and then ask for input from others as to whether it is acceptable - if necessary, a WP:RfC might be the best option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Another article

about the Energy Catalyzer. From Engineering & Technology :

http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2011/aug/rossi-reactor.cfm

--79.10.163.222 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of date, trivial, and quite possibly sourced from our article. E & T seems to publish reader-submitted content, and isn't remotely WP:RS. We are interested in articles from reliable sources that contain useful information, not random articles that repeat things we've already seen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. Obviously Andy doesn't think so, because it is not in line with his personal view. The article is a up to date summary of the events so far. To state that it is "quite possibly sourced from our article" is absolutely nonsense. The author also publishes for other magazines like The Lancet. The story is yet another perfect proof of notability of the E-Cat story. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think that this is a reliable source, I suggest that you raise it at WP:RS/N. Before you do though, perhaps you could tell us what this article contains that isn't already in our article? It is merely repeating other sources, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Great idea, why don't you raise it at WP:RS/N if you think it isn't a reliable source ? You are the one contesting that it isn't a RS. There is no obligation for anyone to get formal proof of reliability before using a source. There may be or may not be something interesting in the article that is not yet mentioned in our WP-article, but in any case it is a perfect RS. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell would I want to raise it at RS/N? I'm not proposing to use it as a source for anything - there is no such thing as a 'reliable source' in the abstract. If you want to use it as a source, tell us what for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

For example, I could use it as RS for "According to Nobel prize winner and Cambridge emeritus physics professor Brian Josephson, an early supporter, the enormous output indicates the E-Cat must be generating energy from nuclear reactions, not chemical ones.". I could use is as RS for "Dennis Bushnell is a supporter of Rossi." . Or that E+K "have overseen trials, checking no secret cables or batteries were connected." and there isn't a thing you can do about it. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing about what you think you could use it for. If you want to use it as a source, you can either got to RS/N with a specific proposal, or simply add whatever it is you are proposing to the article - at which point I will have something concrete to discuss at RS/N. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, looking at the about page for the magazine, I can't see why it isn't an RS. It has editors, so we can assume they have a reputation for fact checking etc. One thing I noticed there which we don't mention is that it says there are many sceptics - isn't that something you wanted to get across in the article before Andy? SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Those staff members have received a lot of low-quality low-reputation not-very-discriminating awards, which are a pet peeve of mine since I edited Telly Award. In the TABPI awards and probably the Magazine Design & Journalism Awards you have to pay to enter the competition, there are dozens of categories, and hundreds of gold silver and finalist awards in order to have lots of "winners". The PPA Awards and the BSME awards are awarded by associations to their own members. I don't see any independent award in that page. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This page [2] states that they accept submissions from outsiders, and this page [3] states that "The magazine is editorially independent of the institution and the views expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of its editors or publishers". On the other hand, you may be right, and perhaps my initial assessment was a little hasty - though my general point stands: it doesn't seem to contain anything new, and seems to be out of date (referring to the now-abandoned intention to build E-Cats in Greece). If one assumes that it is acceptable as WP:RS, it doesn't seem to be particularly useful. Regarding 'sceptics', I'd rather not resort to cherry-picking an article just for a single quote. If it was cited for anything else though, then presumably this, and the suggestion that "Some say Rossi has a murky past" might also be added. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because they accept submissions from readers doesn't make the whole thing unreliable - many RS publish articles written by freelancers etc. Second, the editorial independence bit is irrelevant - how does that make it unreliable? I think "cherry picking" that would be fine - that's exactly what we should be doing when we write articles. Not sure about the BLP implications of that quote though, it rings alarm bells in me to use such a weasely worded quote as a source of negative info. SmartSE (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I've seen more definitive discussions of Rossi's 'murky past' before in other sources - though as you say, there may be BLP concerns with including this in the article, at least until we have better grounds.

On a more general point, I suspect that nothing much is going to happen before October (anyone know the date more precisely?), when the 'one megawatt heating plant' is delivered/demonstrated - or not. It may be sensible to leave any major revisions to the article until then. If the E-Cat fails to appear, or is shown not to do what is claimed, no doubt some of the sources already cited will have more to say, and if it does work, no doubt the mainstream media will take notice. Either way, we should have more useful content to go on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean, about the public demonstration scheduled in October? In a date between 24 and 31 of October 2011.

--79.24.133.153 (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy,

to be precise: just now I realise that we merely know when this test might start, but we do not know when this test will eventually end. And I have no clue about it.

--79.24.132.183 (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Rumor update -- according to Rossi's recent posts, the 1MW "independent test" is under way, and both Bologna and Uppsala have eCats. Stay tuned! Alanf777 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Rossi cannot be a source for statements about 'independent tests' on his own device. Unless and until this is reported in mainstream sources, it is of no relevance to the article - and this isn't a forum for rumours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a follow-up to the previous 6 posts, and specifically to your question: "anyone know the date more precisely?" That's why I didn't put it in the article, or propose putting it in the article. Alanf777 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I could have worded that better - my apologies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(No offense taken) Anyway, Rossi has retracted his own rumour on the 1MW -- due to a "misunderstanding" (he doesn't re-post the question when he answers "Yes" or "No" , so he probably got his wires crossed.) -- so it's back to "End October". His "Yes" to ecats at Bologna and Upssala were in the same post, so that's suspect, too. Alanf777 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rumor refreshed : the B & U research eCats are specifically confirmed. Alanf777 (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rossi mentioned in a Dutch science program -- http://www.wetenschap24.nl/programmas/labyrint/labyrint-tv/2011/september/21-09-Zon.html (Science 24) -- per a comment at PESN "cold fusion starts at about 19:55m and Rossi's e-Cat is spoken about from 20:20" -- I haven't got it to play yet, but a google-translate their page says "Now an Italian engineer claims to have invented a small device that already is capable of 'cold' fusion. It looks promising, but he is on thin ice. He will not be the first to be accused of fraud in the world of fusion." Just add it as another media-mention ? Alanf777 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it add anything not in the previous media exposure? I think the eminent professor has managed to successfully garner significant media following, as there seems to be no shortage of media exposure as was shown by the section that was recently refactored. What we are lacking is significant credible scientific material. Cheers ^Khukri 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really (adding anything) ... anyway, it seems that some of the excreta will hit the expeller on or around Oct 6 .. so there should be some progress (in Bologna, at the 25kW level) one way or another. Alanf777 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

skeptical warning tag

Is there an appropriate skeptical warning tag for this article? It appears to have been written largely by Free Energy believers trying to be objective.

Without having dug deeper into this particular story, the subject of this article appears to have many of the hallmarks of a Free energy suppression conspiracy-theorist nonsense story. Someone is claiming a revolutionary new technology providing relatively free energy, with demonstrations to local media/local university scientists, no larger-scale tests in objective circumstances, commercial agreements that are always just on the verge of being finalized ("This will be delivered in October!", which strongly echoes Steorn), and research rejected by scientific journals and subsequently self-published.

I believe this warrants far more skepticism than the article currently gives. At the very least, it needs a line in the lead clarifying that this kind of claimed discovery (which never pans out) is almost ubiquitous in pseudoscience world.

This is obviously not encyclopedic, but a personal note, just to urge a bit of caution: the article cites an interview in which NASA Langley's chief scientist Dennis Bushnell expresses enthusiasm for this technology, talking about it as an endorsement by NASA. This should be taken with a grain of salt. I attended a lecture by Mr. Bushnell, and he frequently made all kinds of wild claims far outside his field (he has a master's degree in aerospace engineering, focusing on airflow over wings). In particular, he talked about how the phenomenon of quantum entanglement heralds the coming of faster-than-light communication. This is patently ridiculous—a central result in that field is that no such communication is possible. I asked him about his claim afterward, and it turned out he had only a passing familiarity with the subject, and that his idea of a faster-than-light telephone was based on little more than speculative pop-science articles. I'm not suggesting any of this be included in the article—I don't mean to get all ad hominem. I just thought it was funny that the first context in which I saw his name (after that lecture ten years ago) was in an article espousing what sounds like free energy pseudoscience. So I repeat that story only to warn that enthusiasm by Mr. Bushnell does not necessarily signal a legitimate phenomenon. --MillingMachine (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To be 100% fair, I report here the paragraph added at the beginning of the article by MillingMachine:

There have been several demonstrations of the device to limited audiences at the University of Bologna, and public enthusiasm for the technology from Bologna physics professor Giuseppe Levi. It has also received coverage from Swedish skeptics magazine Ny Teknik, with representatives of the magazine attending the test and reporting that they believed the process represented a nuclear reaction.[11] The research by Rossi was rejected for publication by peer-reviewed journals, and subsequently self-published in a journal created by the authors. The online publication New Energy Times published enthusiastic coverage of the Rossi group's research in early 2011, but later in the year published a 200-page issue devoted entirely to the Energy Catalyzer, concluding that the Rossi group's claims had no scientific support.[8] The editor speculated that the discovery may be fraudulent.[8] Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden, concluded, "I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year."[12] According to Rossi et. al., commercial application of the device will begin in October of 2011.

Does the article REALLY need such a repetition?--79.24.134.66 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I'd say that it does: "The lead is as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". The article devotes a great deal of room to the demonstrations, and per WP:NPOV we need to note the widespread scepticism about the device. I think that maybe the wording needs refinement, but it is an improvement on the vague assertion of claims that our current lede consists of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, articles are supposed to repeat the most relevant points twice. Once in the lead in a summarized way. And again in the body, with details, full context, sources, etc, along all the minor points that didn't get mentioned in the lead.

The usual advice is "write all the body first, then write the lead as a summary of what you wrote in the body". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current lead section is not very good, but the proposed addition from MillingMachine doesn't really improve it. For me there are buzz words in the proposal that I think don't work in a lead, like "public enthusiasm", "they believed", "fraudulent", "big scam". It will be very difficult to come to an agreement for a lead section. I think that before we can start to work towards a really good lead, we should first come to a common understanding of the meaning of the WP-policy Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_just_any_synthesis, because without synthesis there cannot be a summary (that we jointly created). If we want to create a lead from putting together referenced lines it will never express what we want to say.

I do know MillingMachine's background, but to start a talk-section with the wording "Free Energy believers trying to be objective" really doesn't reflect a lot of objectivism and doesn't convince me he has profound knowledge of cold fusion / LENR history and its current developments. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be picky, suggesting that there have been any "current developments" in cold fusion etc might not be seen as objective either - there have been claims, but as usual, nothing has been published in the type of sources Wikipedia would require for such ground-breaking scientific discoveries - so yes, we can only report the comments of those witnessing the demonstrations as beliefs (they can hardly be seen as anything else, given the circumstances), and both the NET and Ekström's comments are from sources that evidently are familiar with 'cold fusion' and/or the efforts of promoters to hype this questionable 'science'. If someone with no significant scientific background and a somewhat murky past announces that he has solved the world's energy problems, but refuses to disclose how in sufficient detail for experimental replication, one is fully entitled to think 'scam' - and recent events regarding Defkalion etc have done little to counter this. As long as the air of secrecy and distrust remains around the project, 'objectivity' (and Wikipedia policy) requires scepticism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

you say: "nothing has been published in the type of sources Wikipedia would require for such ground-breaking scientific discoveries" - are you inventing new WP-rules again ?

I did my best to try and understand the point you are making and I am not sure if I found one, but it is interesting that you see NET (= New Energy Times, ie Steven B. Krivit) as a "source which is familiar with the efforts of promoters to hype this questionable science." That is so beautifully formulated, you should win a prize for that ! --POVbrigand (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And regarding Krivit and Bushnell read this interesting bit, posted on Krivit's blog: Nasa advances evaluation of Piantelli's LENR research --POVbrigand (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If this is of relevance to any Wikipedia article, it isn't this one - it doesn't concern Rossi's E-Cat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you read the blog/article first before commenting ? It mentions Rossi. It mentions Piantelli's scientific Ni-H work, which was published in peer-reviewed papers, and which is related to what Rossi is doing. I thought that was clear enough for anybody. And it also mentions NASA's interest in this Ni-H LENR experiments, which is also relevant for our article's topic. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It mentions in passing a visit by "representatives from an investment group and NASA" to Rossi's showroom - indicating nothing of real consequence. As yet, we only have Rossi's word that his E-Cat is a Ni-H LENR device - and at least some of the anomalous results (e.g. isotopes in the post-demonstration 'catalyzer' material, lack of detectable gamma radiation etc) suggest that it isn't. We don't need more speculation, we need hard evidence from reliable sources actually stating that NASA has expressed a specific interest in studying the E-Cat for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

POVbrigand—Thanks for your comments on the reversion! Since you asked about my background, it's in physics, with a particular interest in energy and how humans use it. I was linked to an article on the energy catalyzer by a friend who knew of my interest in the subject, so I came to Wikipedia to see what information was available about it. I was surprised to see that the article lead contained no discussion of evaluations to determine whether the Energy Catalyzer represented a real technology. I was sure that experts must have weighed in, since the project has gotten a fair bit of press at this point. Other than the use of "claimed" and "Rossi asserted", there's nothing in the lead which speaks to the [in my view, extremely likely] possibility—raised in numerous citable sources—that the Energy Catalyzer does not work. I think a failure to include this seriously hurts the article, and that someone who read the lead would come away with a mistaken impression that this is a new breakthrough technology whose workings are a bit uncertain but which nobody has suggested could have any problems.

Given the history surrounding the culture of Free Energy/Perpetual Motion/Water-Fueled Cars/etc, and the internet subculture which tirelessly promotes such breakthroughs even when they don't pan out over and over (YouTube is flooded with videos of claimed permanent magnet motors and kinematic perpetual motion machines, each with hundreds of thousands of views), I worry that this article has been structured largely by unsupervised and misguided enthusiasts—the five "demonstrations and investigations", for example, include what would more properly be thought of as basic internal tests. In the development of most technologies, countless such tests would be a constant component of the R&D process long before anything was claimed publicly. Framing these as the article does gives the impression that this technology has been subject to more rigorous public testing and review than it appears to have been.

I'm happy to concede that while I tried to follow the Wikipedia manual appropriately, I might just be too biased, and so I'll leave it to others whether to include any version of my paragraph in the article (or add a different one). I don't know a lot about editing works on here, but if there's some kind of community of Wikipedia editors with physics or engineering expertise, I think it would be a good idea to call their attention to this article, and request a review of the overall tone and the how accurately it reflects the available sources.

Thanks for sharing your feedback on my edits! I'll reread the WP:NPOV guidelines and try to improve my future contributions. --MillingMachine (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

MillingMachine, thank you for the feedback too. I would appreciate if you would contribute to the article, because I now think you are a perfect neutral "voice". I can agree with all of what you say here and I do not object to the lead section also stating a skeptical view. Most of the time the simplest wording is the best, so we can just add something like "the whole thing should be taken with a lot of skepticism because ...." the part after because is the most difficult.

The current state of the article is not because "this article has been structured largely by unsupervised and misguided enthusiasts". It is because a reasonable article is impossible to make, because each and any attempt at writing a well readable piece is torpedoed. And we are stuck in some sort of "trench warfare" were each side keeps the other side at bay and only perfect referenced hard facts are allowed into the article. And most of the hard facts about the issue are already in the article, nothing more can be added. We cannot work on style or on improving the readability, because everyone will cry WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or WP:WEIGHT and revert for any far fetched WP-rule interpretation they can think of and threaten sanctions (see section below). It is a madhouse. it is a perfect example why WP doesn't work. The sorry state of this article reflects that what can be done within the limitation of the WP system, believe me I have tried.

There will be yet another demonstration on october 6. This time it will be a completely different setup which the two swedish scientists Essen and Kullander have more or less proposed. So it will produce a lot more scientifically relevant measurement data. A lot of real scientists have been invited. So let's see if some of the skepticism will be eased next Friday when the report will be available. Maybe then we can start to improve the article a bit.

Since February this year I have done a lot of reading about cold fusion and LENR. My current position is that LENR is a real effect and that it is probably not even new science, but just something that hasn't been fully understood yet. The huge energy gain that Rossi claims is not yet proven, but one should not disbelieve the whole LENR field just because there are so many clearly misguided minds claiming all sorts of things on youtube.

So again, please contribute, we can all need your help. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

General Sanctions Tag on discussion page

This discussion page carries a prominent banner stating "This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions." when you click the link it takes you to a section of a page about Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision that just says "1) The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions." which links to to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion, which does not carry the general sanctions banner in the article or on its discussion page. additionally the reference is about discretionary sanctions, not general sanctions So I see a banner about an incorrect level of sanction who's only reference is an entirely different article (cold fusion), and which cold fusion article is not required to carry the sanctions banner. It seemed like a slam dunk obvious removal of the banner from this discussion page. I apologise for not discussing it first. Does anyone have reason/justification to keep the banner here? If so then does it also need to be added to the cold fusion article? Thanks! DavesPlanet (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The sanctions imposed on "Cold fusion and related articles" are clearly referred to on the Wikipedia:General sanctions page - they are the second item in the 'Active sanctions' section. As for whether the Cold fusion article talk page should carry the banner or not, that is a discussion best resolved elsewhere. The fact is, however, that (a) this article clearly falls within the cold fusion sanctions remit, and (b) there has been a lot of input from people who may be unaware of Wikipedia policy - it seems only fair to make the situation clear. I can't see any good grounds for not having the banner, under the circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Official website?

http://www.ecat.com/

Is it the official website or is it a joke?
--79.16.128.169 (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No idea - but whatever it is, it isn't relevant to our article unless someone can provide evidence from a WP:RS that it is 'official'. Come to that, it probably wouldn't be relevant even if it was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section is blatantly one-sided. It trots out the inventors' claims, but mentions not at all the very great scepticism about this contraption. My edit to address this has been reverted, one time with the absurd suggestion that my edit, rather than the article, was "not adhering to NPOV". I am not too fussed about the exact wording; please feel free to tweak it. However, some mention of the other position must be made in the lead. 86.177.105.245 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The lede should summarise material from elsewhere in the article, so your edit isn't really acceptable. I agree though about the lack of balance in the lede: we discussed this earlier (see 'skeptical warning tag', above), and frankly, I can't see anything wrong with restoring MillingMachine's proposed text, or something similar. Only one contributor made any objections, and those seem to be based more on beliefs regarding the validity of the device, rather than on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Unless anyone raises substantive objections, I'll maybe tweak MM's wording slightly, and then restore it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a reworded second paragraph. Can I ask the any comments regarding this take due consideration of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section - The previous lede clearly didn't conform to this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I can mostly agreed with it, but I also agree to the comments from 79.6.146.208 (see below). So some tweeking remains to be done. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead section: New Energy Times lacks enough credibility

New Energy Times is Steven Krivit's site. He proclaim himself to be a journalist because he publishes on his website, ie New Energy Times!
IMHO it is impossible to compare what popular science magazines, like Ny Teknik (about 150000 copies sold each week) and Focus (about 500000 copies sold each month), write about the E-Cat to what a self published source, like New Energy Times, states. Especially in the lede, because ubi maior minor cessat.
--79.6.146.208 (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If this article only used sources from the mainstream media, there would be nothing in it. The pro E-Cat faction seem willing enough to use obscure websites when it suits them (including NET, if I remember correctly), so we can hardly ignore them when they don't. Still, if you want to raise the sources used in this article at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, go ahead - but I'd recommend reading WP:BOOMERANG first. The more non-POV eyes we have on this article the better, as far as I'm concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The concept I want to express is this: if you do not have Ny Teknik (about 150000 copies sold each week) and Focus (about 500000 copies sold each month) then you can imagine to use other sources in the lede, like New Energy Times. But if you have Ny Teknik and Focus then you should use Ny Teknik and Focus, not New Energy Times because ubi maior minor cessat.

It is the "specific weight" of the sources which is simply uncomparable.

--79.6.146.208 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead section: Ny Teknik remains both "rational sceptic" and very positive on the E-Cat

So why does the lede assume that Ny Teknik is "less favourable" than prevously on the Energy Catalyzer?
--79.6.146.208 (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to start a new section with every reply- but in answer to your question, we aren't 'assuming' anything - we are reporting what the sources say: why do you think Ny Teknik is publishing comments like this: "Many physicists are very skeptical. Partly because fusion of nuclei, which with their positive charges repel each other (the Coulomb barrier), requires hundreds of millions of degrees according to current knowledge, and partly because fusion should produce very high levels of gamma radiation". Or this "Among the most critical is Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden. After a thorough discussion he concludes: ‘I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year’". [4]. Still, if you don't think that Ny Teknik is a reliable source, perhaps we should exclude their comments - though the article will be even more badly-sourced without them, especially after we remove all the other 'information loops'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok: so, where is the report of Ny Teknik which is LESS FAVOURABLE than the previous report of Ny Teknik?

Ny Teknik remains both "rational sceptic" and very positive on the E-Cat. Instead, you wrote the lede assuming that Ny Teknik has worsened its disposition while the time has been passing, and this is purely untrue.

--79.6.146.208 (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"...it is not as easy as before to rule out alternative sources of energy inside the E-cat, especially from a relatively short test as the one we undertook".

"The energy calculation of the test was not entirely obvious. See our detailed report here.

"Ny Teknik's conclusions disclose no hard scientific evidence..."

In a kind of worst-case scenario, one could conclude that the developed power output in self-sustained mode was at least of the order of 3.5 kilowatts. At most, it may have been close to eight kilowatts". (Rossi claims this version of the E-Cat is capable of producing 27 KW)

All from Ny Teknik's reporting of the demonstration they saw in September. [5] Compare this with a report they published in February, where Rossi's E-Cat was supposedly producing 10 KW, allegedly produced an available energy equivalent to 517 kg of oil per gram of nickel, and led Ny Teknik to speculate on Rossi winning a Nobel prize. [6] The detailed report they produced on the September test in [7] clearly acknowledges that it was not possible to rule out "alternative energy sources inside the E-cat", and that there was insufficient testing to make any definitive scientific conclusions.

This may very well all become irrelevant of course - Rossi is now claiming to have the E-Cat in production, at which point proper scientific testing will become possible. If it does what Rossi claims, the sceptics (including me) will all look foolish. And if it doesn't, no doubt Rossi will have an excuse, but I very much doubt that Ny Teknik or anyone else will give it much credibility. This article has been based on speculative claims and dubious 'science' for long enough now - it needs hard evidence. This is an online encyclopedia, not a cold fusion enthusiasts blog. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Oct 6 test is over, and NON-rs sources report it was successful. (3.5kW for 4 hours, self-sustaining). Nyteknik apparently has priority for the official report. All rumours, of course .... Alanf777 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Very very soon the reports should be published. NON-rs sources report that each of the 52 modules (of the 1MW plan) contains 3 E-Cat cores: yesterday only one of the 3 cores within the 27kW module was on, and the test was performed only on this sole core. I am looking forward to read an official report very soon....--79.11.2.146 (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead section: where are the "other sources" which "published less favourable reports"?

Until now I found only this one: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-controversial-energy-generating-lacking-credibility-video.html however Physorg states in its article that its claims are from New Energy Times, so it is an information loop.
Hence there is only one source which "published less favourable reports" and this source is Steven Krivit's New Energy Times.
--79.6.146.208 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not start a new section with every comment you make - it disrupts the logical flow of discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Usually I do not do it, but this time I did it because these are independent aspects (although from a single part of text). Now the lede assumes that there would be "other sources" which "published less favourable reports", beyond Steven Krivit's New Energy Times. I tried to discover these "other sources" which "published less favourable reports", but I was unable to find them.

--79.6.146.208 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fresh article from Wired

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/06/e-cat-cold-fusion
ps
many happy people in Bologna today...
--79.16.137.106 (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

More publicity, no substance. ^Khukri 13:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

clear substance: "Darpa, the Pentagon's advanced science wing, has also been involved in this field. Budget documents reveal a longstanding interest in low energy nuclear reactions, and the plan for 2012 includes the line "Establish scalability and scaling parameters in excess heat generation processes in collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy." --POVbrigand (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And you have links to DARPA and Italian DoE for those? ^Khukri 15:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a general article about cold fusion/LENR research - unless it specifically concerns Rossi's E-Cat, what Darpa is up to is of no relevance to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole Wired article is about Rossi and the article states that Darpa has also been involved in that field. So what is your problem, what WP-policy are you refering too ? Wired.co.uk has published an article in which it is mentioned that Darpa has been involved. Thus "Darpa is involved" is perfectly WP:RS by a secondary source, no need to provide the primary source. But if you are curious you could always do the google search for the primary source yourself. It's easy if you try. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wired article states that "Darpa... has also been involved in this field". It says nothing whatsoever about Darpa being directly involved with the E-Cat. In any case, the article contains nothing of any real substance that is new. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I do agree somewhat with you, there isn't really much new info in the article. At least not the kind of info that _you_ are looking for. But I fully disagree with Khukri when he 1) dismisses the article with "no substance" and then 2) requests primary sources. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As is your right to disagree, but up until now all we have is "X said this" & "Y said that" and none of the commentary carries any certainty or proof. Therefore I feel quite justified and until you can find sources that show otherwise, to call such articles publicity pieces with no substance. There is nothing wrong with the source itself, just it contains nothing apart from the usual "Someone called Rossi says he has cold fusion and someone else thinks it a hoax, and someone else thinks he might be on to something and it's going to save the world". We already have enough of those articles, one more adds nothing we don't already know. Up until now the only thing we do know is successful, is that Rossi knows how to garner publicity without adding anything of substance. I look forward to having to adjust my position. ^Khukri 16:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not add very much that we didn't already know. The rest of your feelings for the article (and the whole Rossi situation) is really just your personal feelings and has nothing to do with the evaluation if the Wired article is WP:RS. I think we are just arguing over the semantics of the word "substance". --POVbrigand (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. What Khukri writes is based around Wikipedia policy and practice. As long as Rossi is making unverified claims of a major scientific advance, we are obliged, per WP:FRINGE to treat such claims with suspicion. Wired is not a recognised peer-reviewed scientific journal, any more than say Ny Teknik, or the New Energy Times is - so none of them are WP:RS for anything beyond reports of 'claims' regarding the E-Cat. Wikipedia isn't going to suggest that the E-Cat technology is valid until it is verified by mainstream science. We can report the claims, but reporting that the same claims are being republished elsewhere is largely superfluous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are stating obvious things, what is your point ? The Wired article is a perfect WP:RS for that what is written in it. Feel free to be as suspicious as you like, but don't start dismissing articles for personal reasons, thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Test of 7 July 2011

Stremmenos reports:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html
(Of course, tomorrow Ny Teknik and Focus will publish independent reports concerning the test of today)
--79.16.137.106 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We base our articles on published reliable sources, not blogs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, you stated in an edit comment "Revert removal of 'Ny Teknik' comments - you can't argue that they are a credible source on the talk page, and dismiss them here" and now you state the opposite. Have you noticed that your evaluation of the reliability of a source depends on what they state about the subject ? When they support the anti-rossi view you gladly accept them as perfectly reliable, but when they support the pro-rossi view the same sources suddenly become unreliable. Great work Andy --POVbrigand (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't suddenly become unreliable, please read WP:SPS nothing new in this position. ^Khukri 21:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Rework demonstration section

we will rework the demonstration section. I have started with a proposal at the top of the section. Please let us work on getting that wrap up bit finished first. We should take a few day to do it properly, we don't have to do a rush job. Every editor will have his her own view on what should be in the wrap up and we should honor those different views. The goal is to write a wrap up with little technical detail, some quotations, and a general cautious tone. All agree ? --POVbrigand (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry POVbrigade I didn't comment earlier, I think your header neatly sums up the situation and referring to my last post in the section above, I think the notable people could be added to the header, and any other pertinant information included in the header, and the details for each demonstration removed. Please take into account my last post above for reasoning why it should be removed before replying about not deleting anything. ^Khukri 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oct 6th test - please report what the sources say

I have removed this section entirely for now, as it was making claims that weren't backed up by the sources. Please place any proposed new version on this talk page for discussion first. Note that we should not be stating that 'X' or 'Y' happened during the demonstrations, only that it was reported by 'Z' that 'X' or 'Y' happened. Per WP:FRINGE, any reporting of 'science' not in accord with scientific consensus should not be stated as factual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy always favours deleting the whole freaking section or page or entire WP for the sake of WP:FRINGE. I disagree. It does not show of any willingness to cooperate to come to NPOV. The demand to first present any proposal on the talk page is nowhere stated in any policy. WP:BOLD ! --POVbrigand (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is policy - it isn't negotiable. Further to my earlier comments, I would point out that the Ny Texnik detailed report on the test is a primary source, and as such needs to be used with care - indeed, given NY Tekniks involvement with making measurements during the demonstration, their entire reporting may well be considered as primary - articles should not be using solely primary sources in this way, as we rely on secondary sources to assess reliability, notability, weight etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I am willing to talk about deleting some content. Please explain what claims weren't backed up by the sources. Deleting the whole section will just create angry editors, or is that what you're after ? --POVbrigand (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the deleted section:

On October 6th 2011 an E-cat was demonstrated running for over eight hours, for the first five hours the input power was up to 3kW, after which the power was reduced to 115W. The power output was estimated to be between two and three kilowatts. Possible uncertainties concerning the quality of the steam were overcome by injecting the steam from the Energy Catalyzer into a heat exchanger, where a flow of water was heated. Generally, the results of this experiment must be considered inconclusive, as the accuracy of measurements was reportedly fairly low. However, although accuracy was moderate and the measurement set up could have been more advanced, results was clear, mainly because the Energy Catalyzer ran for over three hours with a very low input of electricity. Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who witnessed it said "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".

For a start, where does the 'over eight hours' come from? In any case, it is making assertions as fact, which is unacceptable - we can report what sources claim, but we cannot possibly state that 'results were clear' - the sources in any case don't even say that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The source does precisely say that: "results were clear", see Line four (just below):

--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That is known as 'cherry picking' - you use an isolated phrase, rather than the general tone of the sources, to give a misleading impression. And I've still seen no explanation for where the 'eight hours' came from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The test/demonstration was eight hour long. Source: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29

The test/demonstration started at 11:12 (time of continental Europe) and ended at 19:58 (time of continental Europe), so to be precise it was more than eight hour long and almost nine hour long.

I want to specify that the E-Cat produced energy also BEFORE the beginning of self-sustained mode.

NOTE: I hope that Focus will describe all the passages very well, because personally I had difficulties to reconstruct the test/demonstration by reading the measurements and the sheet with the data log of Ny Teknik.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a primary source - your interpretation of it is original research - the document doesn't state what you assert in any case.

And just to clarify - can you state for the record whether you have any connection with Rossi, or with the E-Cat? Per WP:COI, if you do, you should let this be known. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What??? THIS IS NOT original research!

I simply reported the precise time when the test/demonstration began and finished as reported here: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29

In any case I am waiting to read the article(s) of Focus because I want to understand more about it.

Concerning the second question:

I told you that I have NO CONNECTION WHATSOVER WITH ROSSI OR ANY OTHER PERSON INVOLVED WITH THE ENERGY CATALYZER.

And because I am Italian mothertongue my English is bad, but I can read information about the E-Cat quickly: this simply because 90% of the information concerning the E-Cat are written in Italian.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy,
it impossible: I carefully checked each line, and although I am not 100% satisfied with the result I am 100% sure that the paragraph is almost correct.
Hence, I report the whole paragraph below here and we can analyse each line:

Line one

On October 6th 2011 an E-cat was demonstrated running for over eight hours, for the first five hours the input power was up to 3kW, after which the power was reduced to 115W. The power output was estimated to be between two and three kilowatts.

I put that line in, because I wanted to clarify that the test consisted of a longer period than just 3 hours "self-sustained" mode. We have no reason to doubt that the demonstration started as Lewan reported at 11:00 and the input power was up to 3kW. At the start the power was lower and at the end it had a duty cycle of 50%. The power was permanently lowered at 16:00 (= after 5 hours) with only 115W remaining until the end of the demonstration, which according to Lewan happened at 19:00 when the hydrogen pressure was lowered --POVbrigand (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Line two

Possible uncertainties concerning the quality of the steam were overcome

REF(http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi "Questa incertezza si può considerare superata con l’esperimento di ieri." TRANSLATION: "This uncertainty can be considered overcome by means of the experiment of yesterday.")ENDofREF)

by injecting the steam from the Energy Catalyzer into a heat exchanger, where a flow of water was heated.

REF(http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece "The important new element in the test was that it was possible to bypass the controversial energy calculation, based on vaporization, by injecting the steam from the energy catalyzer into a heat exchanger, where a flow of water was heated." )ENDofREF

• COMMENT: The text inserted here on Wikipedia was 100% stuck to the sources--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Line three

Generally, the results of this experiment must be considered inconclusive, as the accuracy of measurements was reportedly fairly low.

REF(http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 )ENDofREF

Line four

However, although accuracy was moderate and the measurement set up could have been more advanced, results was clear, mainly because the Energy Catalyzer ran for over three hours with a very low input (115W) of electricity.

REF(http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece "Although accuracy was moderate and the measurement set up could have been more advanced, results was clear, mainly because the E-cat ran for over three hours in self sustained mode.")ENDofREF

• COMMENT: The text inserted here on Wikipedia was 100% stuck to the source.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted that line. I think it is more or less already mentioned. The "results was clear" might give a bit too optimistic view. If the results really would have been clear, then there wouldn't be such a dispute ongoing now. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Line five

Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who witnessed it said "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".
REF(http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece Ny Teknik: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat)ENDofREF

• COMMENT: The text inserted here on Wikipedia was 100% stuck to the source.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read my comments regarding the use of sources AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And further to that, I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Copyright violations - I think your phrasing is far too close to the original in places. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think that rewriting would be better then I can rewrite the phrases. I did not do it just because I wanted to be the more stuck to the sources as I could in order to avoid possible misunderstanding or disputes or objections from other users.

--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

79.10, don't you understand that that is what Andy is after. He'll delete for WP:FRINGE, delete for complaint about sources. Delete with complaints about copyright. Then you go rewrite those bits, he'll delete for WP:OR. It is clear to me what he is trying to achieve. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys,

I will do what you will tell me to do: if I have to report the phrase I will report the phrase, if I have to rewrite the phrase for possible copyright infringment (but just for one or two single phrases?) then I will rewrite the phrase, if I have not to write anything because the source is not reliable then I will not write the phrase.

Just decide the modus operandi, and I will follow it.

Maybe we can add: "Ny Teknik states...", for example.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO there was also another relevant thing that Maurizio Melis wrote in his article:
"misure indipendenti, effettuate da alcuni dei presenti, per quanto imprecise, hanno di fatto confermato le letture di Rossi"
TRANSLATION:
"independent measurements, as far as unaccurate could be, taken by some of the participating people, do in fact have confirmed the reading made by Rossi."

So it would be possible to assume that other sources, beyond Ny Teknik, are able to publish independent measurements concerning the event.
If the assumption is right then other sources, like Focus for example, should have taken measurements and hence it is reasonable to suppose they will publish these measurements.
In the end, we should have at least three sources: Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of Il Sole 24 Ore, and Raymond Zreick of Focus.
Therefore, let's wait Focus and then compare the sources in order to skim off possible "misprints".
--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been asked not to start a new section with each comment - this is supposed to be a discussion, not a blog. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I adjust it.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Given POVbrigand's refusal to discuss content here before reverting, I have reported the matter: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:POVbrigand_reported_by_User:AndyTheGrump_.28Result:_.29. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

It is not fringe that demonstrations of the device took place. Is it not fringe that Nyteknik reported on those demonstrations. It is not fringe that other media outlets have mentioned this device and its "maker".

To me this whole WP:FRINGE waving is nothing more than attempts at intimidation.

Why don't you read WP:WikiProject_Alternative_Views first.

Everything should be reliably sourced and a general healthy skeptic tone should be maintained. But trying to delete whole sections or the whole freaking page is not in line with WP policies. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. If you think I am trying to 'intimidate you' then report me for it - but read WP:BOOMERANG first... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

PEACE&LOVEonWIKIPEDIA ! ! ! Please, do not stalk each other like...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzzjgBAaWZw

--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

New Energy Times

The new energy times does not look like a reliable source, why are we using it? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the short answer is that we shouldn't - along with a lot of other material we use for references. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted as well that Il Nuovo Cimento is also a cold fusion journal (see the cold fusion article). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

of course you can delete the new energy times references, be my guest. Most of the other material however is all perfectly WP:RS so there is no need to delete that.

The idea that Il Nuovo Cimento is also a cold fusion journal is laughable. You have no clue what you're talking about.--POVbrigand (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

@IRWolfie- I have seen the cold fusion article quite extensively for the last several months as you can easily notice from the history pages. Have you ever done any further reading on what cold fusion / LENR is about or are you a pseudo skeptic ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

How is that relevant? We are looking at this article with respect to the guidelines, an unproven claim is not notable, no matter how many times the teapot is demonstrated. We only have Rossi's word that this is linked to cold fusion/LENR with ZERO reliable sources that it is. ^Khukri 20:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, we only have Rossi's word. Nobody has verified that the device actually does what Rossi claims. Isn't that exactly what I have written in the header of the demonstrations section ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And then you made assertions that X, Y and Z had occurred, rather than saying that they were claimed to have occurred. In any case, the sourcing is inadequate - we cannot use a primary source like Ny Teknik in the way it was being used. Or if you disagree, raise the matter at WP:RS/N. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nyteknik is not a primary source. You have a problem so you raise it at WP:RS/N. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is a primary source when reporting their own tests - fact. If it is misused in the way it has been, I will delete it. It is for those wishing to use a source to provide evidence that it is suitable - I don't have to raise anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What test was Nyteknik's own test ? I though it were all demonstrations ?--POVbrigand (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is a very well known Swedish technology magazine highly regarded by engineers. Being a Swedish engineer myself I'd be happy to help out if you feel it somehow needs "validation". Mats Lewin comments himself that he had no idea he would need to take down measurements at the latest test, and only did it because no one else would. In no way does he consider it to be "their test". Troed (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether Mats Lewin considers it to be 'their test' or not is irrelevant - they made the measurements, and as such are a primary source for such measurements. Ny Teknik may very well be 'highly regarded by engineers', but they are not qualified to make such tests, they are not a peer-reviewed journal, and they themselves admit to the unreliability of their results. Actually, If you are suggesting that Mats Lewin was only recording measurements made on equipment set up by someone else (Who? And we need a source for that), the measurements become even less useful. And no, Wikipedia contributors cannot 'validate' sources - except by demonstrating that they meet the required standards - which can only be done with published material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO there was also another relevant thing that Maurizio Melis wrote in his article:
"misure indipendenti, effettuate da alcuni dei presenti, per quanto imprecise, hanno di fatto confermato le letture di Rossi"
TRANSLATION:
"independent measurements, as far as unaccurate could be, taken by some of the participating people, do in fact have confirmed the reading made by Rossi."

So it would be possible to assume that other sources, beyond Ny Teknik, are able to publish independent measurements concerning the event.
If the assumption is right then other sources, like Focus for example, should have taken measurements and hence it is reasonable to suppose they will publish these measurements.
In the end, we should have at least three sources: Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of Il Sole 24 Ore, and Raymond Zreick of Focus.
Therefore, let's wait Focus and then compare the sources in order to skim off possible "misprints".--79.16.137.6 (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

User:IRWolfie- deleted two sections.

The Media coverage section was discussed some time ago [8].

The October Demonstration deletion appears to me a blatant attempt to bypass 3RR [9] as can be concluded from the edit comment.

I do not think the article benefits from these deletions. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Given your refusal to address the issues raised with the material, and your persistent breaches of WP:CIVIL, I don't see how what you think is relevant. Articles are supposed to conform to policy and guidelines - which this one clearly doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that I have already worked on the issues raised with the material. I do not know where I have persistently breach civility. I understand that you don't think that what I say is relevant, which doesn't mean you are right about it. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As we're talking about deletions I've moved my last nights comments here;

• All of the details from the demonstrations should be removed, and the header should be expanded to maybe state the notable people who were present for the demonstrations until such time as there is new information or the system is indepentantly tested. Listing that he demonstrated a heating element without verifiable sources of how or what it contains, falls foul of WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and taken from WP:REDFLAG "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources" as of now the only decent sources are that he has garnered media attention, for this and this only is the e-cat notable. ^Khukri 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Until we have something reliably sourced that says that this is LENR or cold fusion, this article should be treated with the weight it deserves. ^Khukri 20:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source that says there is unexplainable anomalous heat will be of sufficient note. (see my previous comments) Alanf777 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The only 'reliable source' that would be able to make any authoritative statements about 'anomalous heat' would be one capable of confirming the anomaly - which is to say a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, reporting on a controlled test under conditions capable of ruling out 'non-anomalous' heat sources. As yet, there has been nothing remotely approaching this: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." (Laplace, apparently - though others have said much the same thing. WP:FRINGE is based on the same principle, and see also WP:REDFLAG in particular). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Section "Attempts at theoretical explanation"

The sections to the article and the following physics explanation were based on an unpublished/non-peer reviewed article, it's not a credible source to use. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking you are right. So we'll just have to paste it back in whenever it does get published. Please note that the underlying theoretical work from Kim is published in peer reviewed journals: European Physical Journal, Naturwissenschaften, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics to name a few --POVbrigand (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This was extensively discussed in talk at the time. He is a reputable scientist (Fellow APS), at a reputable university (Perdue) - and published (as an official University document) a preview of an invited talk (by definition not peer reviewed) at a reputable conference. I propose re-undoing it (as-was) and updating it when the proceedings are published.

In any case, we have an informal agreement here to propose changes in talk rather than jumping and and doing stuff. Alanf777 (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we? Per normal Wikipedia guidelines, this is encouraged when there is debate - though some contributors seem to think that they are immune to such considerations. In any case, the article is now fully protected, so nothing can be changed without agreement - and until we can agree about the fundamental issues regarding sourcing, there is little hope of that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, please stop accusing me of being unwilling to debate ! Your statements about my unwillingness are totally false. I do not disagree to debate. I only disagree with the mode of debate you are proposing. To me it looks like 1) you delete a whole section, 2) you demand proposals are first discussed on the talk page. Whereas my way forward is: 1) discuss the section on the talk page, 2) delete parts that are not ok. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As I already wrote, IMHO there was also another relevant thing that Maurizio Melis wrote in his article:
"misure indipendenti, effettuate da alcuni dei presenti, per quanto imprecise, hanno di fatto confermato le letture di Rossi"
TRANSLATION:
"independent measurements, as far as unaccurate could be, taken by some of the participating people, do in fact have confirmed the reading made by Rossi."

So it would be possible to assume that other sources, beyond Ny Teknik, are able to publish independent measurements concerning the event.
If the assumption is right then other sources, like Focus for example, should have taken measurements and hence it is reasonable to suppose they will publish these measurements.
In the end, we should have at least three sources: Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of Il Sole 24 Ore, and Raymon Zreick of Focus.
Therefore, let's wait Focus and then compare the sources in order to skim off possible "misprints". --79.16.137.6 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's work together instead of edit warring

There is really no need for this escalation.

This is my assessment:

1) There is a dispute about the RS of Nyteknik.

1.1) POVbrigand's view: Nyteknik is perfect RS most of the time, but there is no need to copy/paste the whole Nyteknik info.

2) There is disagreement about the mode of editing: deletion of whole sections vs. deletion of bad parts

2.1) POVbrigand's view: I object to rigorous deleting of whole sections. I object to waiving policies around to give a deletion credibility. Many reasons for deletion are not to the point.

3) There is a general misunderstanding on what this article should offer to the WP-readership.

3.1) POVbrigand's view: this article should offer the reader an overview what is going on with this rossi e-cat thing, it should not try to convince the reader that the device actually does what Rossi claims, because it is still not proven. Rossi gave demonstrations and demonstration are not scientific proof. I share the view with Khukri that "it might well be a tea pot". But that doesn't mean the demonstrations didn't happen and it doesn't mean quotations from scientists around the world didn't happen. On the other hand the article should not try to convince the reader that the whole thing is a scam.

@Andy, you said "I see that POVbrigand has started by summarising the demonstrations (not 'tests' - that would imply more rigour than is evident). I think we can cut the remainder down to a single paragraph - we don't need all the dates, durations etc for each one.". At that point of time we were cooperating quite good. Why are we in this dispute right now, it is a waste of time.

I think there is no huge problem to get back to cooperating to improve the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The point for me is how are the demonstrations notable? If we have unverified claims of cold fusion, until this is verified we are implying notability through these demonstrations even though no-one except rossi knows what is being demonstrated. The moment it becomes verified then hell yes it's notable, but until then they shouldn't be included at all. ^Khukri 11:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I quote AndyTheGrump:

The only 'reliable source' that would be able to make any authoritative statements about 'anomalous heat' would be one capable of confirming the anomaly - which is to say a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, reporting on a controlled test under conditions capable of ruling out 'non-anomalous' heat sources. As yet, there has been nothing remotely approaching this: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." (Laplace, apparently - though others have said much the same thing. WP:FRINGE is based on the same principle, and see also WP:REDFLAG in particular). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think nobody can disagree with this statement of AndyTheGrump. Said that, IMHO what must be established is this:
if we have AT LEAST THREE INDEPENDENT SOURCES
(Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of Il Sole 24 Ore, Raymond Zreick of Focus)
then is it possible to compare them and see what can be kept and what can be removed concerning the demo of 6 October 2011?
--79.10.132.219 (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are quoting me there. I said nothing about 'three independent sources' - I said that for claims about anomalous heat to be verified, the E-Cat would have to be properly tested, and the results published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. The tests have not taken place, and the results have not been published in any such journal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Khukri, as I initiated here, I am all for it. I have already written a wrap up proposal. I have already changed the separate sections for January to April to one section. My proposal is to step by step prune the January to April section.

The Nyteknik is a reliable source for the demonstrations, the fact that they took place and who was there. Nyteknik is not a source for describing what might be the underlying mechanism (LENR or not LENR). It is verifiable that heat was produced, it is not verifiable how this heat was produced (LENR or not LENR). It is verifiable that demonstrations were given, it is not verifiable that Rossi claims are true it is not verifiable that Rossi claims are false. It is verifiable that Rossi claims something, it is not verifiable that his claims have been verified. It is verifiable that his claims have not been verified. It is verifiable that some observers have made quotes about the device, it is not verifiable if these observers are right or wrong (LENR or not LENR). --POVbrigand (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ny Tekink is a primary source regarding anything it measures during the demonstrations - this is an incontestable fact. It is not verifiable that any heat produced by the E-Cat was in any way related to anything Rossi claims. The 'demonstrations' tell us nothing beyond the fact that some people believe that Rossi's magic teapot works - we don't need to summarise anything beyond the raw fact that demonstrations have occurred, and some people think there is something to it. There is nothing new whatsoever to report regarding the Oct 6th tests beyond the fact that more people take Rossi's claims seriously. The rest is bad 'science', and hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your view that we should not use the measurement data from Nyteknik, but currently nothing at all is written in the article about the October 6 demonstration due to the section being completely deleted. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump wrote:

"I said nothing about 'three independent sources' - I said that for claims about anomalous heat to be verified, the E-Cat would have to be properly tested, and the results published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. The tests have not taken place, and the results have not been published in any such journal."

And I 100% agree with you, AndyTheGrump. Established that, is it possible to write about the demo of 6 October 2011?

And, by the way, in the lede it is so written:
"Ny Teknik and the New Energy Times, together with other sources, have since published less favourable reports".
Now, is it true or is it untrue that Ny Teknik has since published less favourable reports?
In my opinion this is untrue, as you can clearly understand by the title of the last article of Ny Teknik:
"New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat".
Ergo, how can "enhances proof of heat" be considered as pejorative?
--79.10.132.219 (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is in no position to make such a claim. For inclusion in Wikipedia, controversial scientific claims need to be sourced to reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. This is policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This is NOT what I asked you.

I asked you if it is true or it is untrue that Ny Teknik has since published less favourable reports.

Hence, I repeat my question to you:

is it true or is it untrue that Ny Teknik has since published less favourable reports?

--79.10.132.219 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already answered this (see here: [10]) Their reporting in September was much more sceptical than their early reports. Also, I suggest that when you quote me, you quote the entire sentence, where I made it quite clear what I meant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And what about the last article of Ny Teknik? Do you think that it is pejorative or meliorative in its judgement on the E-Cat compared to the previous ones?

--79.10.132.219 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The lede was written before Ny Teknik's latest article - and our article is currently locked against editing. In any case, I have made clear elsewhere on this page my opinion regarding our use of Ny Teknik to report its own measurements (not that they are claiming that the latest ones are reliable either) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO what we should do now is to continue to redact what we can believe to be the best text we can obtain regardless the blocking of the page.
Hence, it would be important to overcome problematic issues now, i.e. before the unblocking of the page.
For example, IMHO a good section concerning the demo of 6 October 2011 should be like this:

On October 6th, 2011, reporter Mats Lewan from Ny Teknik, scientific journalist Marizio Melis from Il Sole 24 Ore, and scientific editor in chief Raymond Zreick from Focus witnessed a demonstration regarding the Energy Catalyzer in Bologna. Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who was also present, said: "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".

--79.10.132.219 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Post Scriptum
Scientific editor in chief Raymond Zreick from Focus published a series of articles (in Italian):

• 6 OTTOBRE:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/6-ottobre_PC12.aspx

• I PREPARATIVI:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/i-preparativi_19714201_PC12.aspx

• L'ACCENSIONE:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/l-accensione_PC12.aspx

• AUTOSOSTENTAMENTO (3 ORE O 4?):

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/autosostentamento-3-ore-o-4_PC12.aspx

• CHE COSA C'E' DENTRO ALL'E-CAT:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/che-cosa-c-e-dentro-all-e-cat_PC12.aspx

• COME INTERPRETARE I RISULTATI:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/come-interpretare-i-risultati_PC12.aspx

• LE DOMANDE DEL GIORNO DOPO:

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/le-domande-del-giorno-dopo_PC12.aspx

--79.10.132.219 (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop spamming links, unless you wish to include exactly why they are pertinant, this above list is meaningless without the context. I will remove future link spams. ^Khukri 19:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you work at CERN in Geneva? Good for you.

This is no spam, there is an issue concerning Ny Teknik and raised by AndyTheGrump: not enough reliable sources.

Hence, in a such delicate case like this, it is 100% necessary that all the reliable sources that directly witnessed the event are reported.

As I have already wrote, in this case independent sources must be compared in order to see what can be kept and what can be removed concerning the demo of 6 October 2011.

--79.10.132.219 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You should state then what part of the link, preferably using quotes meets the questions raised. As I pointed out to POVBrigade, it is not for other editors to shift through links to find the pertinent information. ^Khukri 20:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What was raised was the lack of results published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, which these links don't address. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie, you will need results published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal if you want to talk about the physics, the functioning of the device. But nobody here want to assert anything about the physics, because nothing is known about the physics. We are NOT writing a physics article, we are writing a non-physics article. We are writing about the demonstrations and what notable (>>notable than the average WP-editor) people have been saying about it. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability isn't what average readers thinks, it's one of Wikipedia's core standards. We are writing an article based on fact, not inference, rumour, conjecture and assumption. ^Khukri 21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not say WP:N, I said notable people. There is no inference, rumour, conjecture and assumption in the fact that there is an italian engineer who claims something and well known magazines and other press outlets choose to publish an article about that. It is fully in line with WP-policy to write a WP-article on that. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, just because someone makes an outlandish claim isn't grounds for inclusion in wikipedia, I remind you yet again WP:REDFLAG "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources." he has ZERO, and the only reason this article is here is due to minor notability in that it has gained media attention. ^Khukri 22:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Focus published the list of the persons who were present during the demonstration of October 6th, 2011:

• http://www.focus.it/fileflash/energia/fusionefredda/ecat/ECAT_Presenze6ott11.pdf

Among them there are some university professors (I counted four professors from University of Bologna, one of them is Loris Ferrari), journalists and a delegation from Confindustria. Il Sole 24 Ore was represented by scientific journalist Maurizio Melis. Il Sole 24 Ore is an Italian national daily business newspaper owned by Confindustria, the Italian employers' federation.
--79.20.142.155 (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

So what? The presence of individuals at the demonstration is no indication that they accept any of the claims made about the E-[Cat. And even if they do, until the device is given proper independent scientific investigation, and the results published in a recognised peer-reviewed scientific journal, we cannot make any statements about whether the device works. This is Wikipedia policy, it is not negotiable. The article has far too much unverifiable speculation already - we don't need to add more. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Bologna, October 2011 section removed

I noticed the section

On October 6th 2011 an E-cat ran in a completely stable self sustained mode for over three hours. The power output was estimated to be between two and three kilowatts. Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who witnessed it said "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".

was removed entirely. It's sourced to a reliable source so I see no need to delete it. // Liftarn (talk)

I have already made a proposal in order to overcome all the possible issues that can be questioned.

PROPOSED SECTION:

On October 6th, 2011, reporter Mats Lewan from Ny Teknik, scientific journalist Marizio Melis from Il Sole 24 Ore, and scientific editor in chief Raymond Zreick from Focus witnessed a demonstration regarding the Energy Catalyzer in Bologna. Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who was also present, said: "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".

--79.20.142.155 (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On October 6, around 20 to 30 invited guests witnessed a demonstration. Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who was also present, said: "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements". Among the guests were reporters and journalists, several of which noted that the accuracy of the measurements was fairly low.

my proposal, NPOV, but not perfect yet. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem for me: I do appreciate your version.

JUST A THING: the list counts 33 persons.

--79.20.142.155 (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those versions give the same information as the removed section. It don't say anything about the self sustained mode or the power output. // Liftarn (talk)

Quite right too - until we see the results of independent scientific investigations published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, to describe such fluff as 'information' is a breach of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's reported in a reliable source so unless you have some equally reliable source saying it did not happen it can go into the article. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes, Ny teknik is in principle a reliable source, but I agree with Andy's opinion that the measurement data should be regarded as primary data (I explained my thoughts here: [11]). If you would support my version of the october 6 demontration we could get to a concensus. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, for new scientific results, especially if contentious, then independent scientific investigations published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal -are- required."In general, scientific information in Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources." (emphasis mine) also see WP:REDFLAG "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources.". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

straw man --POVbrigand (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)