Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Disputed material opening discussion

The following material has been added/removed/readded/reremoved. Discuss here before placing in article please.

In September 2013 the Swedish Electrical Utilities’ R & D Company Elforsk included in their "Perspectives" report a two-page section on Cold Fusion, with particular attention to Rossi's eCat, and the test by Levi et al, which Elforsk partly funded.

Carry on. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned editorial content in a company newsletter? Really? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It is my opinion that this material does not belong in the article. It is not notable that a company discusses research it sponsored in it's own newsletter. It does not contribute factual information on the subject of the article. The source does not meet WP:RS or WP:Third party. I apologize for placing this material here and insisting it be discussed without participating. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(NB I'm just talking, no desire to enter a battle of edit) Note that this is a semestrial corporate magazine . The author is not named because it is acting as the company, and it is probably a collaborative work, and at least it is reviewed by the people in charge at Elforsk. I'm corporate and this is an evidence for us that corporate communication have more value than journalist article, committing the company. If you need a name, the magazine have a publisher : Elforsk AB, and an Editor Magnus Ologson. So factually it is signed.

Note that we should not launch a battle of edit, but convince MrBill3 that he is doing evil to wikipedia credibility by denying facts.

That article says nothing more about the reality of e-cat than the fact that this research consortium is clearly reporting success according to their own corporate criteria, for the second time, and in a way which in corporate language says they invest their credibility. It may be different from what science consider as evidence, and this could be noted, but it is an important fact of corporate communication.

About the test itself, it should until it is peer-reviewed be treated not like science but like corporate test. They asked their testers to publish a pre-release on arxiv, which was followed by a critic article by Pomp&Erikson, which was followed by an interview of Bo Hoistad in IBT (signed by a journalist. you will love it. there are transcription in english). This is fact, and all 3 documents are giving data which are needed. you cannot give only 2 of those article at the risk of being unfair. Maybe that sequence should be detail as a controversy story, detail the respective claims and answers. Wikipedia credibility is based on it's neutrality. it is not a place to make battle but to report key facts. If there is a debate all should be accessible. I will let you all clear the situation with neutrality, in the interest of Wikipedia credibility. If there is clear evidence this is a scam story, it should be clear Elforsk supported it. Not doing it is violating the rules of wikipedia. Hiding the fact that such a consortium, funded by Swedish Energy and swedish National Grid ( Svensk Energi & Svenska Kraftnät, told at the end of the semester magazine) pay his executives, use it's budget (you can find translations) to support publicly a scam artist should not be hidden. If it is not a fraud, there is no reason to refuse to talk of corporate support. What happen is not Wikipedia busines, Wikipedia business is to report public facts, and a semester business magazine is hierarchy-reviewed corporate communication. If someone start to reject corporate communication in wikipedia, as communication, not as evidences, it will be a tragedy. I let you all with your responsibilities. And please stop playing. If wikipedia is unable to report fact, fact will be reported elsewhere. Best regards. AlainCo (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing 'tragic'about Wikipedia not reporting that the E-Cat has been commented on in a publicity blurb for Elforsk. We are under no obligation whatsoever to report every last bit of trivia about the E-Cat, and the Elforsk document tells us nothing that we don't already know. It simply isn't significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a rehash of issues that have been discussed and even added to the main article already in some form or another and is standard fare for "the e-cat actually is something to look at". If it was discussing new actual research into the device, that perhaps this company was going into production building this device, or something that is new and noteworthy, it might actually be useful to include. Otherwise this should be treated like a tertiary source. So far, I don't even see what new "facts" would even be introduced. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

if having such a big consortium, working for big utility companies, supporting what is claimed by mainstream as impossible, is a "small news", what is a real news ? Is there another hidden motivation in your desire not to publish that ? Your argument does not seems the real one. Is your hidden motive compatible with wikipedia goals? I notice also that you did not link the official press release, which is the real big news (paper and critics is not important, the news is the information). once again is there a reason to publish the paper of Ericsson&pomp but not the interview of Bo Hoistad and the Elforsk press release. There is a great risk of misinforming readers by forgetting the public answer about critics. many others links can be cleaned... Note that having links to real data, is important to prove reader there is facts (here position taken publicly). and corporate article from corporate article is much more an evidence than newspaper article on a corp. It seems you are using the notion of third party the wrong way on corporate evidence. Of course evidence about Elforsk communication on their site are more valuable than reported elsewhere. It is first hand info. AlainCo (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Our "hidden motive" is to avoid filling articles with trivia. I suggest you take your ridiculous conspiracy theories somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

your concept of trivia seems to include a national research consortium of research taking a public position facing it's clients, investors, and the swedish population. Do you feel your position can be defended seriously ? I repeat, what is your real intent ? is it compatible with wikipedia rules ?AlainCo (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

if you want to remove trivia, there are many discussions to clean, but the fact that Elforsk fund and announce success publicly is not a detail. think also to add Bo Hoistad answers to Eriksson&Pomp, for fairness of debate, ans he bring valuable positions.

Press releases aren't usually sources. It's wp:primary. If there is an article about Elforsk in a reliable source then it might be worth including. The problem with e-cat is nobody of significance is writing about it anymore. (And it is normal to put your ~sig at the end of whatever you write. Thanks) Bhny (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Hoistad's comments to the Italian IBT, [1] they hardly amount to more than an assertion that the criticisms of his report are wrong. Hardly surprising, but not exactly enlightening. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's futile to add anything to Cold Fusion or Energy Catalyzer which even suggests that it might work, or that significant world-class laboratories are still working on it. I take the following as the definitive wiki policy statement : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&oldid=514432892#Wired_Article_Revisited

"You are kidding if you think a wired article meets WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Get me a paper in Nature or Science. IRWolfie- (talk) 1:06 pm, 24 September 2012, Monday (1 year, 1 month, 2 days ago) (UTC−7)"

That's from an attempt to add some positive information from ICCF-17. A similar attempt to add an official NASA statement that they had issued an internal grant to study CF was also shot down. Alanf777 (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that Rossi has stated that the E-Cat does not work by cold fusion, and given that no "world-class laboratories" are working on the E-Cat, none of that is of any significance to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The only actual Wikipedia policy which governs the role of what you can use as a source is WP:RS, so the statement which considers a article in Nature or Science to be the only definitive place to treat as reliable is not really true. That said, if this technology had any sort of promise it would likely be reviewed and have its underlying principles discussed in one of those scientific journals. Regardless, this particular source doesn't seem to add anything to this article at all. What you wrote was the following:

In September 2013 the Swedish Electrical Utilities’ R & D Company Elforsk included in their "Perspectives" report a two-page section on Cold Fusion, with particular attention to Rossi's eCat, and the test by Levi et al, which Elforsk partly funded.

Like Andy said above, this is pure trivia and adds nothing to the article. You might possibly use this source to explain some additional details about the e-Cat device, but the fact remains that there isn't anything in this source which could be used to add any additional details to the article which aren't covered already by sadly better sources (which aren't all that good to begin with). There are some responses to the skeptical comments made about the device which might be useful, but I don't see how Sven Kullander and Hanno Essén qualify as expert witnesses (they might be, I simply don't know if their opinions on the matter hold any weight in the scientific community or not). Regardless, everything I've seen in this source has been amply covered in other sources brought up here on this talk page in the past which is mostly already in the article or has been rejected by the community. If there is something specific you wish to add beside "gee whiz, there is another reference to the e-cat in a publication" it would be nice to see what change you would actually make. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Better change the Lead, then. First sentence : "The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source". Edit: and since Elorsk is the first major player to openly support the investigation of the eCat, that surely makes it more exceptional. Alanf777 (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's avoid a caustic discussion of the lead until you can put something elsewhere into the article first. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If Elorsk's involvement is exceptional, find a source that says so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This should not be so contentious. As has been said if this information is notable it has been or will be covered by reliable third party sources. Then and only then is it information that should be included in an encyclopedia. Additionally as I said before this information does not contribute significant factual information on the subject of the article. It would seem that reliable sources have already covered the subject of this article adequately. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

are the article of ouelette not trivia, of cassandra curse neither ? So you need a journalist to consider what a corp is doing, even if you can see it yourself? You are better attorney than logician. Are not you abusing the rules to fullfill you real goal? Are you badly interpreting the rule, which is not applying toe the fact that Elforsk is communicating. Note also that not giving the link (while you have many else less linkes like about randy, Ouelette...) you are depriving readers of direct evidences. By the way since Elforsk is not the test team, this article is a third party article. It is neither the testers, nor the provider? It is an evidence of the reality of the rest and of the result, since they confirm what the testers says... By the way this is however a good argument to include ibtimes interview of Bo Hoistad. there are clear comments which raise serious points. It seems you are erroneous in estimating is is not an important critic of Pomp&Eriksson, like is an interview of Levi .which is there a tag to say erroneous Partial or biased? it is important to know most of the critics have been addressed, either as erroneous, or as ruled out after complementary info, or as logically unfounded, or ethically questionable. You may disagree, but the debate should be clear. Part of the perspektiv article just say that. It is not up to wikipedia to decide if Bo Hoistad is right is saying he is ashamed of that article and the insult. It is to the reader. Allowing the link of an insulting article, without the answers is ethically questionable, and surely is not compatible with Wikipedia rules . is there a tag to say that ? Pretending to need third party data as evidence of a public event is absurd and clearly not the real reason. Again what is your real intent in blocking that link? You want to avoid liabilities for participating a fraud ? you protect Elforsk responsibility ? you want to hide facts to the readers to protect false informations ? Same for Bo Hoistad interview ? do you protect Bo Hoistad from what he said ? do you protect Pomp&Eriksson from critics ? If the text should be balanced and short, all solid data should be cited to allow fact checking by readers. clearly interview, and public report, like accounting, deserve to be cited. Don't tell me that it is Wikipedia policy to hide valid data, or to show an incomplete story. AlainCo (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As Elforsk contributed to funding the study they are not third party. It is WP policy to provide information that has been shown as notable through coverage in notable, reliable sources. A public event is not noteworthy unless a reliable source covers it. The analysis of the significance of an event is original research unless this analysis is provided by a reliable source. This is WP policy. It is an encyclopedia not a news outlet. Please sign your posts at the end of your comment. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

AlainCo- It seems like we are not getting through to you. Your signature goes at the end of what you write. It makes a mess of the Talk page the way you put your signature before everything. And wikipedia doesn't do original research. Please read this link- WP:OR. It might be good to take some time and get used to how wikipedia articles are written. Bhny (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your way. I have enough data. thanks for your collaboration. Some others contributors here should think about the points that I raised, and according to your policy not adding IBT interview is a problem. For Elforsk non-event I let reader judge the interpretation of the rule. I expect at least that it will be implemented on all similar sources. Best regards. AlainCo (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't take this personally. The goal here is to help create an encyclopedia, or a compendium of human knowledge. Unfortunately over the years there has been a tendency among some contributors to Wikipedia to simply be making up stuff, or worse still to be deliberately editing Wikipedia to introduce false information as a kind of sport. It is for this reason that policies like identifying reliable sources, no original research, and writing with a neutral point of view have been established... as ways to at least get some consistency to these articles.

I've been involved with several articles that discuss emerging technologies. For those that are legitimate, the typical trend is that at first they get ignored, but once the folks involved in that technology start to get something working that is noteworthy and useful there is a tendency for other people to be paying attention to what is going on. You know when a technology is starting to really have an impact on society when it starts to get mentioned in cultural references in movies, art, and television programs as well as having legislative bodies like Parliament or Congress drafting laws regulating that technology.

At the moment, it really is up to Rossi to either put up or shut up. Some skeptics such as myself and a few others who comment here, we think that Rossi has nothing at all and is just making up the whole thing. This seems to be the reason why media outlets are ignoring this technology, not because of some grand conspiracy theory or big oil executives who want to kill a competing technology that would kill their companies. For myself, I'm willing to leave the door open a crack and entertain the remote possibility that Rossi is simply incompetent and doesn't know how to market his idea much less organize a manufacturing company which is capable of making this device. Regardless, there is no proof this device actually works and there has been no actual newsworthy changes to the status of the device. The only reason this particular reference is even being debated is that it is the closest to any reliable source that has said anything at all about the e-Cat for months. Worse still, it doesn't say anything which hasn't been said before. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Elforsk involvement : although they funded some (all?) of the Swedish participants of the test. they had NO INVOLVEMENT in the actual test, or the outcome -- and would have been, I suspect, equally happy if it had been entirely negative. Per their policy statement, they do not fund anything directly -- so the money and the request to sponsor the research must have come from their members. Per RS this puts Elforsk "at least one step removed" from the actual paper. Although the Elforsk connection was acknowledged in the Levi paper and (I think, some of the articles) it is not currently in the wiki. Adding it now, in the same section, is appropriate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/30/rossis-a-fraud-no-hes-not-yes-he-is-no-he-isnt/

On the topic of the E-Cat test Elforsk’s web site comments:

The measurements show that the catalyst gives substantially more energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today.There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces. The measurements have been funded by Elforsk.

So that's an omission in wiki reporting which should be corrected. Alanf777 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage. You know full well that the only English-language mainstream-media reports on Cold Fusion have been from Forbes (Mark Gibbs) and Wired UK (a couple of authors .. eg David Hambling, though I'm not sure if he covered the hotcat test). Gibbs' contract with Forbes was terminated -- with no "obvious" connection to his cold fusion reports (wink wink, nudge nudge). See Spiral of silence, but at an institutional level. Yes, Virginia, involvement with Cold Fusion is still career-killing. Alanf777 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hambling coverage : -- noting that Elforsk partly funded the test, AND noting that it was "unusual" :

The report was funded in part by ELFORSK AB, a Swedish energy industry research body, which took the unusual step of issuing a supporting statement: ... (see above)

Alanf777 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead still ends

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."

So here we have a major research institute of a reasonably major country not only funding the testing of the eCat (and presumably also funding the promised long-term test) but highlighting it (and Cold Fusion in general) in its semi-annual report. Doesn't sound like "thoroughly debunked" to me. Alanf777 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary : the door for adding additional information directly from Elforsk is wide open. Alanf777 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary. If uninvolved reliable sources don't consider Elforsk's material significant, neither should we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

^^^^^^^ add new comments ABOVE this line ^^^^ This picks up refs in talk, for this section : <<reflist|close=1>> Alanf777 (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Elforsk

Added a paragraph on Elforsk, based on an NyTeknik article. Rather than google-translate Lewan, I included a quote from Elforsk's English summary, which covers pretty much the same ground as the article Alanf777 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I should probably also include the Hamblking link above. Alanf777 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've temporarily UNDO-d the entry, pending a rewrite, mainly quoting Hambling (see ref 11 above) Alanf777 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Elforsk funding noted. I included the "unusual step" quote in the REF, rather than in the text. Alanf777 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There were several problems with this edit. Some are (cosmetically at least) superficial, such as the overuse of footnotes in the refs (as discussed on this page, we are looking to cut those down, not add more). The fundamental problem, though, is that no amount of association with known entities can replace verifiable testing so not very much can be added before the coverage becomes WP:UNDUE. VQuakr (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You know the fallacy "guilt by association"? Well, this is the fallacy "reliable by association". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Where to go from here

The purpose of this talk page is not to discuss the validity of this device, but rather to discuss how this article should be edited. If there is a specific change in this article that you wish to perform, please explain how you think this article should be changed. I agree this is perhaps notable nonsense, hence why I defend why this article should exist. The article does not exist to be a promotion puff piece for Rossi. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A) to remove the last sentence of the lead, which has clearly not come to pass, and replace it with a 1-sentence summary of the hotcat tests Alanf777 (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

B) to extend the test section, including Mark Gibbs' (Forbes) subsequent articles (which address the independence of the testers, a discussion of fraud vs real, and Elforsks's involvement), and David Hambling's (wired) article on the hotcat, covering the same ground and which emphasizes Elforsk's involvement Alanf777 (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Reorganization

The first sentence in the "tests" section doesn't belong there. I propose making a new FIRST section "Announcement and Claims". This would include a summary of the first test, followed by the paragraph on Focardi. The "Reaction to the claims" section would be unchanged, and follows naturally after "claims". Alanf777 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Demonstration and experiments" concentrates on the original, water/steam eCats, including the 1MW device. I suggest adding "of the original E-Cat" to the title of that section, and renaming the "Tests" section to "Tests of the Hotcat" (Or similar. I'll check RS on an appropriate name.) This gives a good break between both the timeline and the technology. Alanf777 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Levi paper calls it the "Ecat HT", for "High Temperature". I suggest "Tests of the High Temperature E-Cat" Alanf777 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments on article structure. I have always liked chronological order for the body of the article: first Focardi is contacted for relevant reasons, second the test is done, etc. Separating "claims" from "reactions to claims" sounds like creating a separate criticism section (i.e. put away all criticism into a corner).

Comments on content. Aren't the "hot" and "cold" versions based on the same physical theories and same catalyst? And don't they make the same claims of output power greater than input power? Aren't both unreleased? I don't see the point for a separate section. The only benefit would be isolating the "hot" version from the criticism received by the "cold" version, and I think this would be illogical and a disservice to the reader. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say that "Announcements and claims" are precisely the sort of content that we want less of in this article. We care very little about what the makers of the ECat have to say about it; we want to focus on what reliable secondary sources say about it. VQuakr (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The present lead doesn't conform to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text -- it should be a summary of information in the body. But here we have information (first, third sentences of first paragraph of lead) which isn't in the body at all. The body therefore needs a first section covering that. And as I noted above, the first paragraph under "test" doesn't belong there -- it fits neither the subject matter nor the chronology  : again, its placement in a first section would be appropriate. Alanf777 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the very first sentence in the article, or a lead sentence in another paragraph? The lead sentence of the article should define the subject and explain why it is important. I can see that there might be a reason to add another section right after the lede, but "Announcement and Claims" would not be a great title for it. Changing the first section title to "Claims and reactions" and repeating the info in the lede in a new first paragraph in that section might work. It probably should be drafted before any structural changes are made to the article, though. VQuakr (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That would work for me. Paragraphs : a) Similar to the start of the lead b) The lost sentence from "tests" c) The reactions, as-is. Alanf777 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I hear no objections. Since I plan to copy/move existing sentences I see no need for a draft. Alanf777 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Industrial Heat

The notability of the IH connection is established by the Wired article. The fact of a press release confirming the rumor is reliably reported by PRWire -- or if that's too self-referential, how about http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/24/6098944/industrial-heat-has-acquired-andrea.html Alanf777 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

How is a press release hosted on one website less 'self-referential' than the same press release hosted on another website? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Some double-editing going on !!! I'll clean it up Alanf777 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is 'notable' here? That Rossi has apparently sold rights (what rights?) to the E-Cat to an even-more-obscure offshoot of a company that Wired describes as an "obscure outfit". Hasn't this sort of thing been claimed before, and come to nothing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A publicly announced, and reliably reported, change of organisation is clearly notable. Alanf777 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been 'reliably reported' - you have nothing but a press release, from an organisation which we have no RS linking to Rossi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, looking at the Wired article, it doesn't actually state that the 'rumours' have been confirmed - which leaves us reporting as fact something based on nothing but a press release from an "obscure" company. While I'd hesitate to describe Rossi as a 'reliable source', I'd have thought that we should at least wait until he confirms any business relationship before reporting it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The wired article pre-dates the announcement, and is thus still a rumor. Alanf777 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything is still a rumour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In what way is a Local (ie NC Research Triangle) business news outlet not a reliable source on news about a local business? They have interviewed the key financial player (Tom Darden). You haven't allowed direct Rossi statements before: why do you ask for them now? Rossi has frequently said (and has been quoted in RS) that the eCat has been acquired by a "US Partner", but that he has not been at liberty to talk about it. He is (he says) now Chief Scientist, and speaks only on technical matters. He specifically said "no comment" when asked about the news. Alanf777 (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If Rossi hasn't confirmed it, we don't have any source but a press release... AndyTheGrump (talk)

Rossi's site is currently down. These two posts were archived elsewhere

Frank Acland January 24th, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Dear Andrea,

Congratulations on today’s announcement from Industrial Heat LLC about them acquiring E-Cat technology. How do you feel now the news has been made public? http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/press-release-industrial-heat-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology/

Best wishes,

Frank Acland

Andrea Rossi January 24th, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Frank Acland: No comment. I have only to think to stay focused on my work in course of R&D and validation. I will make comments only after the publication of the results of the work in course, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R.

Alanf777 (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

De-Reverted Alanf777 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This is meaningless puffery with regard to the topic. It does not matter who owns the technology unless they do something with it. Until the new owners do something such as make a public demonstration, or ship product, they don't need to be mentioned. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Bullfeathers. If two RS regard it as notable, then its notable, and their opinions are more important than your opinion. It's a significant change of organisation, and $11M+ in the bank for IH. Alanf777 (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't have two reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

We should also remove the rumor from Wired. It's not encyclopedic to print rumors. We should only relay hard news. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup. A rumour, and a press release from a company that we have no third-party source confirming any link to anything, and 'no comment' from Rossi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Rossi's "No comment" was NOT in response to the announcement. It was in response to the question "How do you feel now the news has been made public?" Alanf777 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Surely it is worth including this article discussing the press release?

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2014/01/24/onfirmed-raleighs-cherokee-buys-into.html?page=all Tmccc (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why 'surely'? An article on a local business website written by someone who specialises in "commercial and residential real estate"? Which makes clear that it is basing everything it says about this deal on the press release? A press release which gives no details whatsoever as to what 'rights' have supposedly been sold, making it almost devoid of meaningful content. Incidentally, contrary to what Alanf777 implies above, there is nothing in the source that indicates that the $11.6 million raised from investors is going to Rossi. Or indeed, that any of it is. The whole story amounts to nothing beyond vague claims about an unspecified business relationship between an "obscure outfit" and another business which refuses to confirm the deal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we go around this at least once before, with the other did-they-or-didn't-they-buy-it company, Defkalion (which unsurprisingly still doesn't have a product, either)? Wikipedia is just being used as a vehicle for disseminating press releases in order to drum up venture capital for 'manufacturing' companies that don't actually sell any products. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

So do I have support for removing the Jan 2014 Wired rumor as WP:UNDUE emphasis? Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so - there is nothing substantive to report. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Not yet -- because it provides some background which is still relevant. In any case, I shouldn't have written it as a "rumor" : Wired actually described it as "sleuthing". Alanf777 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this article is about the eCat, any change of ownership of the technology is significant. The press release (and medium it was distributed in) are in sufficient detail to satisfy the SEC, with which IH is registered: "Mr. Vaughn confirmed IH acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi’s LENR device". If you want to add speculation about what Rossi personally got out of it, there's a separate wiki article for that. It may be an "obscure outfit", but Cherokee and associated companies seem to have a couple of Billion dollars in play. Alanf777 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There are now reports from popsci ("interesting") and dailykos, in addition to the TBJ article (the author does indeed cover real estate, but that's the area Cherokee started off in, and she interviewed CEO Darden). I will write up a new paragraph with quotes from and links to popsci (negative) and dailykos (positive). They both link to the press release, so I'll link to that too. Alanf777 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the freakin' hurry? This is a serious question. An encyclopedia should concentrate on facts that are established, not possible facts that are in flux and may settle soon. Why not wait until there is an official announcement? I would hate to see Wikipedia used for promotion, or to try and influence the issue. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The whole thing is speculation, based around a vague press release which doesn't specify what 'rights' have been acquired. Assuming of course that there is anything substantive to buy rights to in the first place, which has yet to be proven. It isn't Wikipedia's job to assist "obscure outfits" in self-promotion. When there are actual facts (like a working product, as if...) we can report them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Nup. It's clear that something was purchased. Having looked at Cherokee Investment Partners, it seems unlikely they would help to fund Industrial Heat unless they had real evidence. Their fund depends upon market confidence after all. Whatever. Time will tell, I guess. Tmccc (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

IH para extended with REFS. For all practical purposes, a release by a company of "material information" can be treated as fact. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securities_act_of_1933 : 'The Securities Act serves the dual purpose of ensuring that issuers selling securities to the public disclose material information to investors, and that any securities transactions are not based on fraudulent information or practices. In this context, "material" means information that would affect a reasonable investor's evaluation of the company's stock. The goal is to provide investors with accurate information so that they can make informed investment decisions.' Alanf777 (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That is WP:OR, and In any case the 'material information' amounts to practically zilch. The company have stated that they have acquired unspecified rights for an unspecified sum of money. Everything else is supposition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Rossi has stated on his blog that he is now Chief Scientist -- eg http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=838&cpage=3#comment-907044 "Regarding the so called Rossi Effect, I am the chief scientist at Industrial Heat." -- but that's not been reported by a RS. Wired comes closest "He says there are sixteen people working with him on R&D", but does not give a title. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/15/cold-fusion-moves-into-mainstream. Any problem with adding (eg) Rossi describes his role as Chief Scientist REF:Rossi, and says that he has sixteen people working with him on R&D. REF:wired  ? Alanf777 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You wish to violate WP:SYNTH? Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What's synthesized? It's a statement by Rossi plus a report by a RS. "While I'd hesitate to describe Rossi as a 'reliable source', I'd have thought that we should at least wait until he confirms any business relationship before reporting it. AndyTheGrump" : so we have TWO Rossi statements as a "hesitant" RS. Alanf777 (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Rossi claims to be 'Chief Scientist' at Industrial Heat. Wired says that he claims he has 'sixteen people working with him on R&D'. Neither source states that he claims the sixteen are working at Industrial Heat. And it is one thing to cite Rossi for confirmation of a business relationship that was otherwise based entirely on a press release - my point was that at the time there was nothing from Rossi to confirm anything - and another thing entirely to cite him for self-promoting statements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, leaving out the (rather obvious) wired conjunction, how about a simple hesitantly-RS "Rossi says he is now Chief Scientist at Industrial Heat REF:Rossi" ? EDIT: nyteknik, google-translated : http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3801145.ece "Andrea Rossi declines to comment, and claims to focus on his role as head of research for the technology." Oh -- I suppose that since that sentence doesn't include "IH", it could be anywhere? Alanf777 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB. Find RS that describes him as 'Chief Scientist at Industrial Heat'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A title, by itself, isn't terribly informative, especially when it is attached to one of Rossi's sketchy and secretive business ventures. A bit more – well, any – concrete information about his actual responsibilities would be helpful. I once held a position with the title of Assistant Manager of Foo—which sounds impressive, until you find out that I was one of only two people in the Department of Foo; the other was the Manager. (Not long after I started, the manager came down with a nasty bug, and I then spent a month as the Acting Manager of Foo.) So what does Rossi have here, besides a title? Real facilities? Real budget? Real, named scientists working for him? Or is it just Rossi Skyping in from home once a week to chat with some interns? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I propose adding the following sentence to the end of the lead : In January 2014 Industrial Heat LLC, a U.S. Company, announced that it has acquired the rights to the E-Cat. Alanf777 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No. The statement is practically meaningless. We don't know what these 'rights' constitute, and so far there is precisely zero evidence that this agreement is anything but an exercise in spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Andy. Meaningless is the exact word. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Is it the right to use the E-Cat on their buildings? The right to use rented E-Cats in one building? The right to commercialize E-Cats? The right to sell "dealerships"? The right to manufacture E-Cats? The full rights over the patent and the process? There must be lots of other rights. Which one is it? How can we tell if this is a significant development for BlackLight E-Cat's commercial future? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting response to the May 2013 arxiv paper

See "Comments on the report 'Indications of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.' by G.Levi, E.Foschi, T.Hartman, B.Höistad, R.Pettersson, L.Tegnér, H.Essén." by Göran Ericsson, Stephan Pomp, Division of applied nuclear physics, Uppsala University, Sweden [2] - basically a demolition job of the Levi et al paper. From the abstract:

"... We note first of all that the circumstances and people involved in the test make it far from being an independent one.... We present results from thermal calculations showing that alternative explanations are possible were the authors seem to jump to conclusions fitting pre‐conceived ideas... much attention is drawn to trivialities, while important pieces of information and investigation are lacking and seem not to have been conducted or considered... the proposed claims would require new physics in not only one but several areas. Besides a cold‐fusion like process without production of any radiation also extreme new material properties would be needed to explain what rather seems to be a problem of correct measurement. Therefore, it is clear to us that a truly independent and scientific investigation of the so called E‐Cat device, convincingly demonstrating an “anomalous heat energy production” has not been presented in the arXiv report and is thus, to‐date, still lacking".

AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

History section

Isn't it time for a history section to show how many years have passed without proof? 78.243.244.251 (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not without a source making that point, no. I think our readers can probably figure it out for themselves without us spoon-feeding it to them anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Italian parliamentary questions

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.

---

User "AndyTheGrump" has erased my contribution to this page without serious motivation.

I have inserted the following lines related to official italian parliamentary question on A. Rossi E-catalyzer.

Please stop erasing important information on this subject!

Italian parliamentary questions have been presented after the publication of ArXiv report.

http://nextme.it/scienza/energia/5784-fusione-fredda-e-cat-interrogazione-parlamentare-scilipoti

http://www.senato.it/japp/bgt/showdoc/frame.jsp?tipodoc=Sindisp&leg=17&id=702825

http://www.senato.it/japp/bgt/showdoc/frame.jsp?tipodoc=Sindisp&leg=17&id=704669

The link are to Realiable Sources: www.senato.it is an official site of Italian parliament!

Dagousset (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the sources are reliable (which is obviously true regarding official parliamentary records), it is whether the fact that questions have been asked in the Italian parliament is actually of real significance. I note that you provide no sources to suggest that such questions have been answered, which has to raise doubts. I'm not familiar with Italian parliamentary procedure, but in some other European parliaments at least, such 'questions' are frequently a formal procedure engaged in more to put something on the official record than in the expectation of any action being taken - and from what Google translate makes of the nextme.it source you cite, I don't see evidence that there is any expectation of action arising from this either. Indeed, since the nextme.it article dates from June last year, I think we can assume that nothing has happened, at least as yet. If something does, we can of course revise the article, but for now, I can't see any particular reason why this matter should merit inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"I can't see any particular reason why this matter should merit inclusion"

This is just your opinion, and you know nothing of italian parliament procedures!

Who are you for erasing a reference (strictly related to the subject of this page) to official and registered acts of italian parliament ?

Dagousset (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, a not-very-notable representative from one of Italy's multitude of minor parties made on-the-record comments a couple of times, and then has pretty much been ignored since. ATG's interpretation seems to be on the mark; we don't attempt to report on and reproduce the entire contents of the Congressional Record or Hansard, either. Frankly, most of what politicians in any country say in their respective parliaments and congresses isn't terribly interesting or useful for an encyclopedia—and rather large chunks of it tends not to be true. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dagousset, if you have evidence that these questions have any long-term significance (i.e. that they resulted in the Italian parliament actually doing something) please present it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Italian Government has NOT YET answered to many parliamentary questions on cold fusion. Italian government is obliged to give a WRITTEN answer or must explain the reason for not answering. Until now no explanation has been given. Italian parliamentary questions are registered official burocratic acts with a protocol number, not informal talks!

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogazione_parlamentare

"Il governo ha la facoltà di non rispondere alla singola interrogazione indicando però il motivo."

Dagousset (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that many things Italian parliamentarians do are "registered official burocratic acts". That doesn't mean that we have to include them all in Wikipedia articles. Please provide evidence that this particular instance of bureaucracy is of any more significance than the others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

ALL registered official acts NOT, those STRICTLY RELATED to the subject of this page YES: It'not so difficult to understand!

93.146.2.73 (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an exhaustive record of every minor detail. There is clearly no consensus to include this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is NOT a minor detail. The consequence of this "minor detail" may potentially have important consequences on italian politics for energy!

Dagousset (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a minor detail until you can provide evidence to the contrary. Questions get asked in parliaments all the time - Wikipedia is under no obligation to include them all in articles. Furthermore Wikipedia does not engage in crystal-ball gazing, and accordingly your speculations concerning 'potential consequences' are of no relevance to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGroup said:

"removed sentence re Italian parliamentary questions - if this hasn't been reported in secondary RS, it doesn't merit mention here"

":The issue isn't whether the sources are reliable (which is obviously true regarding official parliamentary records)"

very coherent statements!

It's up to you demonstrate that an official italian parliament question on e-cat is a "minor detail" for e-cat wikipedia page!

Dagousset (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. You have been reverted by two different contributors, and a third has supported the revert in this discussion. There is nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia policy that even remotely suggests that we have to include every trivial detail in articles - and your apparent failure to accept this is getting tiresome. You have two choices - either accept the consensus here, or if you prefer, ask for a wider community input via the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process. I'd very much recommend against the latter however, as it seems highly unlikely that you will get the result you want. I am going to again remove the material you have added, and if it is restored, I will report you for edit-warring against consensus, and ask that you be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is really boring. Someone asked a question and hasn't received an answer? I'm not sure why this is a thing. Can't we wait for the answer? Even then it may not be notable, but at least it would be a thing. Bhny (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, You insist to repeat your personal unjustified opinion saying that's Italian Parliament questions on ecat are minor details. You have no point. 93.146.2.73 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies. Including policy against edit-warring against consensus. Which I have just reported. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia has also policy against vandalism. Erasing important informations related to the subject of the page without any real reason is plain vandalism.

93.146.2.73 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Completely and utterly wrong. I suggest that while you wait out the inevitable block that is coming for your edit-warring, you take the time to read up on Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your actions mean only one thing: for some unknown reason a SINGLE ROW on the subject of italian parliament question on ECAT is very disturbing to somebody. The "inevitable block" if real should be plain and unjustified censorship.

Dagousset (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of us think this is boring and not notable. We delete because it is not interesting. Bhny (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions to parlament are not really notable. Anyone with a bit of political influence can make any question he desires. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Support removal of non notable content. If and when answers are given and/or if and when action results this may gain some notability. No indication of why these questions are important or significant has been given. Why would asking on record questions that have not been answered be encyclopedic? The burden for demonstrating the significance of content falls on those who seek to include the content. Consensus seems clear for not including this content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2014 (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.

Featherston Popsci Article and Other Changes

I extended the quotes. An extended summary probably shouldn't be in the lead, but I couldn't see where else to put it. I'm sure someone will want to put in his last comment --

"If history is any guide, no such report would be issued. Rossi will reset the goalposts—the only thing he does with any consistency—and forestall his day of reckoning for another few months, and then another few months after that, until finally he disappears from the stage in a puff of smoke, taking his black box with him."

The report is, of course the Levi paper. And he has not yet disappeared in a puff of smoke: instead, he is generating some industrial heat (pun intended) Alanf777 (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And I have removed it, as self-evident spin. The lede has repeatedly been discussed, and major changes need consensus. As for Rossi, if he is generating anything other than yet more bullshit, provide the evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The present Featherstone "con" quote is a complete reverse spin, and a total misrepresentation of the article. It's in his first section, as a set-up for the second section, where he can't find anyone who will call him a con. I'm happy to put it somewhere else -- suggestion? Alanf777 (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I also see you undid my changes on "Typically during demonstrations the device was covered up." --- which again is misleading: the implication is that it's covered up to hide what's underneath, but actually it's to provide functional insulation. (The author apparently made that comment based on the Lewan video ... but multiple photos show them unwrapped at the end: in particular Lewan has the photo of the opened "fat-cat" which appears in the video) Alanf777 (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed that as blatant WP:OR - you don't get to decide what is significant in photos. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And the Lewan book? Alanf777 (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Who is the publisher? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-published. Alanf777 (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, Lewan's close involvement with Rossi makes him questionable as a source, and I see no reason why we should be publicising a self-published work with no prior evidence of significance. Has this been reviewed in any major publication? (incidentally, the link didn't work). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-published or not, we seem to have a majority (multiple additions and deletions by one editor) in favor of including it. Lewan's involvement with testing the E-Cat (and the Defkalion Hyperion) is worth reading, as it gives the background of his quoted articles. (I added it first, as an external link without comment). Wiki rules allow a link to the subject's official site. I think the same applied to Lewan's book. Re-signed with login : Alanf777 (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A few problems with that. One, consensus is not the same as "majority". Two, policy such as WP:SPS is not subject to override by local consensus. Three, Lewan's book is in no way the "official website" of the subject of this article - indeed, the relevant guideline only applies to people and organizations. VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No, there is nothing in 'Wiki rules' which allows a link to Lewan's official site. Neither he nor his book are the subject of this article. Incidentally, given Lewan's clear conflict of interest, I have to ask whether we need to rethink some of the existing sourcing. The over-reliance on Lewan was always questionable, and it is even more so if he is profiting from his involvement. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I doubt that profit, if any, is the motivation for the book. You deleted Levi on the basis of one sentence by a non-native-English-language writer, so I guess you should delete Lewan too. Alanf777 (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Reactions to the Claims

I would like to suggest that Reactions to the Claims be put in date order, oldest first, so it would start with: "In 1998 Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, described LENR as a "promising" technology . . ."

I would also think a recent report should be included in this section if not in History: <RESEARCH TRIANGLE, N.C., Jan. 24, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Industrial Heat, LLC announced today that it has acquired the rights to Andrea Rossi's Italian low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology, the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat). A primary goal of the company is to make the technology widely available, because of its potential impact on air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and biomass. "The world needs a new, clean and efficient energy source. Such a technology would raise the standard of living in developing countries and reduce the environmental impact of producing energy," said JT Vaughn speaking on behalf of Industrial Heat (IH). . . >

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology-241853361.html 108.205.30.247 (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Press releases aren't reliable sources. Bhny (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Bhny is correct: prnewswire is a public relations publisher, not a news source with critical reporting. Not reliable. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A big delusion: report from Gamberale and Cappiello (ex Defkalion Europe)

It should be reported that rumors from web on Hyperion Milan test in july 2013 ended up in these days (may 2014) with a report from Gamberale ( http://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/dgt-faulty-demo-140502-english.pdf ) downloadable from Mats Lewan blog ( http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/ )and in an interview at Nextme with Cappiello ( http://www.nextme.it/scienza/energia/7700-fusione-fredda-intervista-cappiello-defkalion-europe ) who clearly speak of a fraud. I do believe these two documents and the post from blogs of Mats and of Passerini (reporting the news at http://22passi.blogspot.it/2014/05/relazione-tecnica-finale-sulla-misura.html ) should be at least listed. 93.34.205.35 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the E-Cat, not Defkalion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The failed device is the Hyperion , developed by Defkalion. It's not the E-cat, but it's purposedly based on E-Cat's technology, right? If it had better sources. If the sources made a good link with the E-Cat. If If If. Then we could include it somewhere. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Purportedly is all -- Defkalion claimed to have got their system to have worked independently of Rossi and have not been using the same catalyst. What the critics claim is that the flow measurements were faulty. I said to Mats Lewan, what about the control expt. that seemed to show the measurement process was sound? He responded that in the 'real' run various adjustments were being made that were not made in the control run, and perhaps these interfered with the flow measurements. Defkalion have not yet responded and things do not look good for them, especially as (if I have understood it correctly) it was their EC branch that reported the problem.
What are the implications for the e-cat, you may ask? None, really. That has been tested by a group that were in charge of the run, and the method used in the latest test did not involve water flow, so this particular problem is not relevant there. The investigation was reported in the physics preprint archive a year or so ago and I'm not aware of any significant issues having surfaced. It is significant that Lewan has for some time been expressing doubts about the Defkalion claims. I'll also remark that I have changed the introduction to my youtube video giving a clip from the Def. demo so that it no longer presents it as an excess heat demonstration.
And what about the fraud allegation? As far as I am aware the question is open at the moment -- they may just be incompetent experimenters and not done proper checks. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Here you can see a rather nebulous interview with Defkalion's CEO. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a wiki page for Defkalion. (They put out an official release saying that their R-6 is on the way, and they'll say nothing more about the R-5). I've long thought that there ought to be either an article "Commercial Cold Fusion" (or a section in Cold Fusion), with a summary of the Ecat and other systems like Defkalion which at least claim to be developing commercial systems. But none of them are ever mentioned in the general press, and those sites concentrating on cold fusion have not been regarded as "reliable" wiki sources. Alanf777 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The popular science magazine Focus (http://www.focus.it) has been covering these issues. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious procedures of obstruction of legitimate comments

One can notice some some methods of obstruction of legitimate comments by an admin on various pretexts like in an above section.--5.15.31.133 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult to determine what suggestions you are making to improve this Wikipedia article. Could you be more specific, please? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed some methods used in a section above which are trying to oppose and obstruct the improvement of this article in discussion of a source.--5.15.31.133 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As already asked: are you going to tell us what this improvement is? Bhny (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Re 'a section above': you might at least say which section you have in mind, even if you prefer not to be more explicit than that. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems important: worth to be added/included?

(automatic translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fasikter%2Fdebatt%2Farticle3830568.ece )
--Insilvis (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it is talking about a future paper. If the paper is published and if someone writes about it in a reliable source, it may become notable. An editor already added this link to the article and it was reverted. Bhny (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Meh. It's a letter written in response to a radio(?) program that doesn't seem to have been notable enough for us to talk about in our article. Aside from that, about all it does is promise future, unspecified results, at some future, unspecified date, in some future, unspecified forum. (And it engages is the usual dubious tactic of claiming an energy surplus far in excess of what's possible from any chemical process, while coyly disclaiming that they are talking about a cold fusion process.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The letter to NyTeknik was a response to a rather interesting and very critical series (of two 20-minute installments, maybe more; I'm having trouble making sense of the link collection) which was broadcast recently on Sveriges Radio, all about Andrea Rossi's relationship with Swedish university researchers, by a freelance science journalist, Marcus Hansson. The researchers in question protested against the claims made by Hansson, that's what the NyTeknik letter is about. I quite agree with TenOfAllTrades' assessment of it. Liftarn linked in the section above, I think before the radio broadcasts were actually aired, to an introductory note about them. I listened to both (?) installments, admittedly a little distractedly (I was washing up), and thought them interesting. Very detailed. Sveriges Radio and their section Vetenskapsradion are well respected. On the other hand, the radio production is "science journalism", rather than a research report, and is in an exotic language, so I'm not sure about its usefulness for us. Anyway, for the select few who can understand it, there are audio links and and also summaries here. The header "Andrea Rossi bjöd svenska forskare på resor till Italien" means "Andrea Rossi paid for Swedish researchers' tickets to Italy", while "Forskare hjälpte misstänkt bedragare sälja mirakelmaskin" means "Researchers helped suspected fraudster sell miracle machine". That should give you the flavour. Marcus Hansson doesn't pull any punches. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC).

Fair enough; I've often said that these pseudoscience articles already lend too much weight to popular (and semi-popular, and pseudo-popular) press accounts given that real reliable scientific sources are hard or impossible to find.

...That said, given WP:PARITY, and the fact that we cite Mats Lewan (the credulous Swedish Ny Teknik journalist who is pretty much single-handedly floating Rossi's PR efforts) at least a dozen separate times in our article, a comprehensive bit of science journalism by someone who's not Mats might be a refreshing change of pace. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You make an excellent point. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Always provided that if we include an attack, we should not exclude the attacked person's response to that attack. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not necessarily a valid principle - for example, it would lead to a situation of false balance where people are promoting fraudulent devices or bogus claims. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase it then: in this case it would be unreasonable not to include Lewan's response. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There's an even more basic point of course: if Lewan refuted the statements made against him by his attacker (and it is my recollection that he did) then there's absolutely no case for including that criticism in the article at all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Lewan urgently needs to stop shilling for these clowns. His response to anything would be a primary source, we should avoid primary sources here and go only with secondary sources that describe the exchange. When we start saying things like "A criticised B's coverage of C (source: A criticising B) and B responded (source: B's response), we are headed to a bad place. This is an article on a minor bit of pseudoscience that is already prone to being bloated with trivial mentions. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe you are qualified to make the kind of judgments you are making -- you can't envisage the possibility that you might be wrong, can you? But as far as WP policy goes, the sensible thing would just be not to mention the tendentious comments by the radio programme at all — while technically (from the guidelines point of view) a secondary source describing the exchange as you suggest would do, I think that would be pretty pointless and would not serve a useful purpose: the exchange will soon be forgotten. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh the irony: this unwillingness to entertain the idea that they may be wrong is precisely the problem with cold fusionists and other proponents of pathological science. Wikipedia in general doesn't give a monkeys about people's cherished beliefs, what's important in an article on a scientific topic, is the scientific consensus. At present, the scientific consensus does not support cold fusion and related free energy claims. It does not help that the major proponent of this idea has a long history of questionable practices, including convictions for fraud. Don't forget that the most important and versatile tool in science is also one of the oldest: Occam's razor. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this for real, that the scientific consensus does not support cold fusion? Just wondering!--188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that Rossi's device is not doing cold fusion, for a number of reasons, from implausible isotope ratios to the lack of gamma radiation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion is not taken seriously by most scientists and is generally viewed as a Pathological science. Physicists interested in having a career rarely pursue pathological areas of research. The scientists that do get involved are often retired (emeritus) professors that have nothing to lose. Bhny (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)