Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Blog like nature of the article, and Inclusion of the Lugano Report

There has been quite a lot of negativity toward including the Lugano report in the article, despite the fact that it represents a source no more or less reliable than the similar 2013 report.

Most of this reaction at first was to the notability of coverage of the report, but after several high profile scientists posted responses to the test even AndytheGrump agreed that the report tax notable enough to be included.

However, TenOfAllTrades was adamant that the report not be included because it violated WP:NOTBLOG in that the article was starting to look like a list of self-serving reports/and their responses by scientists.

I'd like to point out that saying that the article has been written in a bad way is a very poor reason to censor new information. This is tantamount to saying:

"Hey our article is starting to look like a blog, lets just stop adding new stuff! That will solve our problem."

no... no it doesn't.

The 2014 Lugano report is at least as notable (actually far more so) as the 2013 report.

AT THE VERY LEAST, the correct thing to do would be to rewrite the section on the 2013 report to encompass both reports, and simplify the responses to the reports as not to be too wordy.

not including the 2014 Lugano report at this point is incredibly silly in my opinion, as this report is the biggest thing that has happened in the LENR field in the recent past, and to not even MENTION it in an article on the ECat is a severe failing of our duty in creating an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think @AndyTheGrump: would be very surprised to hear his opinion on this topic.

To the more general point, if a problem is identified with an article I quite agree that that doesn't mean the article should forever be frozen. However, that doesn't mean that any or all changes are an improvement over no changes. We shouldn't make edits which make an article worse – or which make a problem more severe – purely for the sake of making edits.

Of course, this particular article hasn't been in stasis. For instance, over the last month or so the needless and confusing distinction has been removed between "tests" and "demonstrations and experiments", and the content has been edited to reduce duplication, thin out the blogginess, and – at least a little bit – better conform to WP:NPOV. There's probably a ways to go, but there has been some improvement.

That the consensus on this talk page has rejected one particular edit that you would prefer to see made is no justification to cry "Censorship!" TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't recall ever stating that the latest 'report' should be included. What I did say was that if it is included, there are specific responses on it from reliable sources which should also be included. As for the difference between this report and the last one, the previous one was at least published in arXiv (not that amounts to much, given the lack of peer review). The latest one was rejected. Furthermore, it is apparent that Rossi has changed his line again on what is going on in the E-Cat (see his latest statements regarding copper in the 'ash' [1]), making earlier reports less useful even as sources for his version of events. I see no reason whatsoever why Wikipedia should be obliged to detail every latest swerve of this moving target - if Rossi can't get his story straight, making accurate reporting of what he is claiming impossible and older material invalid, adding more of the same isn't going to do anything. This is of course a perennial problem in this article, and we have wasted a great deal of time and effort arguing over whether we should be reporting things that some people considered hugely significant (e.g. Rossi's claimed 'factory' in the United States) only to have them disappear from the Rossi version entirely. This is not a blog, and we are not obliged to cover every latest breathless report from the credulous. If this is supposed to be a science story, it needs to be based on legitimate scientific material, published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, and with evidence that it is being assessed as serious science. And if it isn't about science, what is it about? A hypothetical product? This isn't a sales brochure, and we aren't here to provide free advertising for hypothetical devices. If it were ever to go on sale (if...) we would of course include reviews of the device from significant sources, but meanwhile, as a consumer product it simply doesn't exist, so there is nothing to write about. So what exactly is this article actually about? Rossi's claims to have invented a miraculous device that would solve the world's energy problems if it actually existed - and a complete lack of verifiable evidence that Rossi's claims (which change regularly) amount to anything. As stories go, it amounts to very little really, and each new detail is of no more significance than the last. The article doesn't need more 'reports', it needs the old superseded puffery to be trimmed out. Personally, I think we can adequately cover the whole (non)story in a couple of paragraphs, if we cut out the clutter and report the verifiable facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump mentions the

"...effort arguing over whether we should be reporting things that some people considered hugely significant (e.g. Rossi's claimed 'factory' in the United States) only to have them disappear from the Rossi version entirely."

Surely this disappearance, in itself, is significant. Are there other Rossi statements that later disappeared from his site ? Might you not want to raise this as illustrating Rossi's methods ? Of course, if things have been taken down by Rossi, you would not be able to link directly to that; but surely there would be evidence elsewhere, such as posts on the blogs that support the e-cat: or, for that matter, ones that are hostile to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.204.253 (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That would constitute original research. We have to go by published sources - and there are few still interested in this story that actually bother to look into the history, rather than parroting whatever Rossi says this week. Sadly, 'man makes implausible claims, changes his mind and makes different implausible claims instead' repeated ad nauseam doesn't make for an interesting story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair point AndyTheGrump, but there are at least two reputable published sources, that you could link to, if you wished to have a small section on the contradictions. You yourself link above here to Stephen Pomp and in the current main post on the e-cat there is the link to Ugo Bardi (currently note 13) where the whole story of the American factory that never was, is given (though it is only alluded to in the Wikipedia text). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.204.253 (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect to the factory, you could say something like - the address that was given as a factory turned out to be a flat lived in by Rossi. Now that would not be original research, but merely referring to Ugo Bardi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.204.253 (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Broadly speaking (and I don't speak for Andy or anyone else, necessarily), I'd rather not encourage a situation where we get into "duelling allegations" from low-impact, dubiously-reliable blog sources—or even suspiciously one-off, never-followed-up-on stories from slightly-more-reliable outlets. If we start adding more negative material from skeptical blogs, then we start getting demands for WP:PARITY and effusively-positive material from gullible blogs. We drag the article towards more he-said she-said back-and-forth wittering, instead of recognizing – as editors – that there just isn't any meaningful news to report.

Incidentally, that's the public-relations 'win' condition for proponents of any fringe theory. There isn't any ground to stand on to support conclusive positive statements, so the best they can go after is to give the (completely misleading) impression that the "science isn't settled", "there is ongoing debate", "more research is needed", and that we have a responsibility to "teach the controversy". As usual, the best examples of this sort of duplicity are readily drawn from the annals of U.S. public policy discussion: the link between cigarette smoking and cancer, the teaching of Darwinian evolution in schools, the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

Concentrating on the various and sundry alleged locations of Rossi's magical moving factories is to miss entirely that Rossi has yet to satisfactorily present a credible theory, describe his methods in adequate detail, demonstrate a working device, or ship a product. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

New article on Huffington Post

A new source about the latest 'test', written by:

David H. Bailey

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (retired) and University of California, Davis

Jonathan M. Borwein

Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of Newcastle, Australia

Could be used to contrast Ethan Siegel's critique of the test. They are not exactly 'positive' nor 'negative', about the report. Explicitly stating:

"We also caution against anyone taking these results too seriously until they can be replicated by completely independent research teams. We are aware that Rossi has a somewhat checkered past, although so did the mathematician Louis de Brange until he proved the Bieberbach conjecture in 1985."

as well as:

"But, on the other hand, we see no point in rejecting, much less vilifying, a new research result simply because it departs from mainstream thinking, provided that 1) it is performed by well-qualified researchers using reasonably sound methodologies and up-to-date equipment, 2) it is documented in sufficient detail to permit third parties to reproduce the results, and 3) the researchers have at least submitted their work for proper peer review."

They also insinuate that accusations of fraud may be less likely than the actuality of a working device, but also say that errors in measurement happen even in serious peer reviewed scientific endeavours (they reference the Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly).

definitely something from this article warrants inclusion along with Ethan Siegel's comments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/fusion-energy-hope-or-hype_b_6031968.html Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still not an article subject to HuffPo's editorial review; however, if Bailey and Borwin are experts, then it might be allowable as an WP:RS. (Maybe not, it is a controversial, although fairly positive, comment about a living person. Stating that Rossi is not a fraud appears controversial.) However, none of (1), (2), and (3) have actually occurred. (Well, (3) might have, for sufficiently odd definition of "peer-reviewed", but I haven't seen documentation, and it hasn't been accepted.) I don't think it's acceptable, yet.

The question remains, what is the field of expertise required. Fusion in general? LENR? Scientific fraud? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123568626_1.pdf

--87.5.133.108 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, the above link – which I clicked on only with much trepidation, please don't post bare links without explanation! – is a purported explanation for the extra power measured.

Briefly, the author of this analysis argues that the waveforms shown in some of the ammeter photographs provided in the last two reports seem inconsistent with what would be expected given Rossi's description of his setup. Critically, the author found that the waveforms shown would be consistent if a couple of leads had been reversed on one of the ammeters. If such an error had been made in setup, the total electrical power delivered to the apparatus would have been underreported roughly by a factor of three: about the same coefficient of performance claimed in the recent energy catalyzer demonstration.

It appears to be a self-published analysis in an online forum, so it is likely not suitable for use in the Wikipedia article. (To be fair, this also places it on an even footing, reliability-wise, with Rossi and company's own self-published reports). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Rossi and company's own self-published reports? This latest report wasn't made by Rossi or industrial heat. 121.99.61.41 (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The first article Fusion Energy: Hope or Hype? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/fusion-energy-hope-or-hype_b_6031968.html covered hot and cold fusion. A new one Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: Papers and Patents http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/low-energy-nuclear-reacti_b_6189772.html -- These are quality articles by "HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors", and reputable scientists/mathematicians. They have all the "ifs" and "buts" for a balanced description (provided not only the "buts" are included). They note that "So we will continue to monitor both of these developments. At the very least, they are certain to make an interesting chapter in the sociology of science." These two articles include the new report (which is labelled as a preprint, and is said to have been submitted as a peer-reviewed paper, so it's hasn't been rejected by arxiv.). The new one also mentions Gates' interest in the subject. I don't think that you (ie the three or four editors who have deleted the ten [twenty?] or so attempts at adding this information) are the arbiters of whether this has any import beyond "self promotion" by Rossi. Alanf777 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Borwein and Bailey are mathematicians – not physicists, and certainly not experimentalists – writing a blog column in that well-known bastion of scientific thought, the Huffington Post. (The Huffington Post generously provides a platform for discredited scientific views as long as they continue to generate marketable clicks. For instance, the anti-vaccination vaccines-cause-autism activist David Kirby also has a blog there.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the validity of this imputation of Borwein and Bailey being mathematicians and not physicist when it is known that modern physics is essentially mathematical physics? Is there some subdomain of physics which is not mathematical?--86.125.190.134 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Another remark concerns the presence here of an association fallacy.--86.125.190.134 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

Major Swiss Newspaper (In German, Swiss newspaper of record) covers Cold Fusion, Gates' visit to ENEA, Rossi,the Lugano report, Elforsk's involvement ... and possible interest by Aerobus.

Energy of dubious origin Is cold fusion is back in style? http://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/physik/wird-die-kalte-fusion-wieder-salonfaehig-1.18436786

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Fwissenschaft%2Fphysik%2Fwird-die-kalte-fusion-wieder-salonfaehig-1.18436786&edit-text=&act=url

(Obviously needs a human translation, but the gist of it is there.) Alanf777 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

They had another article in 2012 on CF and Rossi http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/das-heisse-eisen-der-kalten-fusion-1.16688814

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Fwissenschaft%2Fphysik%2Fwird-die-kalte-fusion-wieder-salonfaehig-1.18436786&edit-text=&act=url Alanf777 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No objections, then. Alanf777 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No objections to what? You were just blogging on this talk page again. Wish you wouldn't keep doing that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"possible interest by Aerobus"? Nope. Please don't misrepresent sources. The comment concerning Airbus (not ' Aerobus') is in relation to a Swiss company 'LENR-Cities' - nothing to do with Rossi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No objections to adding the Lugano report, Elforsk's involvement, and the referenced criticism -- in an extremely reliable source. I wasn't blogging -- I thought you didn't want editors to add things without proposing them in talk first. I summarized the entire NZZ article -- I didn't intend to add the Gates and Air(sorry)bus information. Alanf777 (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Where's the translation you said was necessary? Without that, we can't agree anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll propose a draft based on google translate, and then get any specific quotes translated. Alanf777 (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No need to bother as there's really nothing new in the NZZ articles. There are mentions of Rossi's demonstrations, the fact that there have been no independent investigations, Rossi's sloppy approach toward scientific standards (die einen saloppen Umgang mit wissenschaftlichen Standards pflegen), and so on. Nothing we haven't already covered. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, we haven't added the Lugano report, because you (editors) claim the sources aren't reliable. This source IS reliable. This source DOES think the Lugano report is notable. The Lugano report is IN. You can then add all the qualifications/quibbles you want. Alanf777 (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Shouting doesn't actually make things true. The Lugano report isn't anything new from Rossi, and another minor news article doesn't change that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) We haven't added the Lugano 'report' because it tells us precisely nothing we don't already know - this isn't a blog, and we are under no obligation to report every one of Rossi's circus acts. When something meaningful actually happens, we can report it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You really think your opinion is worth more than that of the editors at NZZ? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/410460/Neue-Zurcher-Zeitung "Neue Zürcher Zeitung, ( German: “New Zürich Newspaper”) , abbreviation NZZ, Swiss daily newspaper published in Zürich and generally considered one of the world’s great newspapers." ... "The paper is characterized by careful, nonsensational, thoughtful reporting, by highly informed and extremely thorough analysis, and by background information that is supplied as a context for every important story. " (Edited, re-signed) Alanf777 (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No one has questioned the status of NZZ as a reliable source. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"another minor news article" Alanf777 (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify the point you are making with this quotation, so I can understand your perspective better? Stating that something is a minor news article in no way reflects on the reliability of the source in which it is published. Perhaps I am confused, and you did not intend to impute such an imputation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Or that the wiki editors above regard the Lugano report and Elforsk as notable? That's not what I get from reading the above posts. NZZ noting it makes it notable. All the conditions for inclusion are now satisfied. Alanf777 (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think that everything a reliable source says is automatically included in an article? How long have you been contributing to Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's see ... only 9 years. Alanf777 (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Then why are you posting nonsense like "All the conditions for inclusion are now satisfied"? There are no such 'conditions', and you know it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

All the conditions of Exclusion (un-reliability, non-notability) are now eliminated. And you've been contributing for ... Alanf777 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop inventing imaginary policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Imaginary? You've invoked NON-RS maybe 200 times? I'll go through the history, if you think it's less. Alanf777 (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A source being reliable is a necessary criteria for inclusion - it isn't however in of itself a sufficient one. as anyone familiar with Wikipedia policy should understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And notability is next in line. Satisfied. So it's now down to the opinions of editors. I'll get a translation and add the NZZ piece on the Lugano report to the article tomorrow. Alanf777 (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep going on about 'notability'? "notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Noteworthy then. Alanf777 (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The NZZ writes "Die Probe könnte nach dem Versuch vertauscht worden sein. " (The Sample could have been replaced after the report.) "Im Bericht ist explizit erwähnt, dass er die Probe in den E-Cat einsetzte und sie am Ende auch wieder entnahm." (In the report it is explicitly mentioned that he [Rossi] put the sample in the E-Cat and that he also removed it at the end.) I thought that was interesting. I had not read that elsewhere. 2A01:E34:EF3F:4FB0:CC9B:4FCB:97CE:759D (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Loading and unloading the e-cat was done by Rossi, witnessed by a contributor of that report. There is also some vivid chance that Rossi used invisible magnet current and had an extra generator manipulating the swiss power grid. Initially, I was interested into cold fusion and the e-cat - finding out that patho-scepticism is the even bigger story. Forget about Scientology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.72.54 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Article talk pages are solely for discussions regarding article content - which needs to be verifiable from published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Independent Testing

The Wikipedia article says that no independent testing has been done but http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline seems to indicate otherwise. Please advise.190.81.202.250 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, and not a independent test. This has already been discussed above. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Lugano report"

The discussions above resolve around a "Lugano report" without giving the reader the mean to check this document out. For those interested, here is what it is about:
On the web site of the University of Bologna (here: http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/), there is publication available dated October 6 2014, describing a test of a new version of the E-Cat, titled "Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel."
The conclusion of this paper states: "In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable."
Abstract: "New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat,is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400°C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260ºC and 1400ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume. A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using several standard methods : XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially. Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run."
A note about "independance": the paper states: "Since we required that our measurements be carried out in an independent laboratory with our own equipment, the experiment was purposely set-up and hosted within an industrial establishment which was not in any way connected with Andrea Rossi’s businesses or those of his partners. The test was thus performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at our disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA."
Authors are Giuseppe Levi (Bologna University), Evelyn Foschi (Bologna, Italy), Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér (Uppsala University), Hanno Essén (Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.). 176.188.203.178 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The report has already been linked - and there is no need to fill this page with copy-pasted material. We are all capable of clinking on a link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no point dude... so long as the scientific community keeps its head in the sand, wikipedia will have to as well... I don't even begrudge Andy or tenofalltrades much as they are just following guidelines. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There are worse places for one's head to be than in the sand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Just for fun I can ask whether WIkipedia would have waited 5 years to include the Wright Brothers' first flight as I understand many wouldn't believe it for that long. Wikipedia should maybe find a way to trasnsmit information on controversial claims with interesting evidence, that may take some time to be recorded in the official scientific literature. Even if individual pieces of information (such as Lugano report and Parkhomov replication) aren't perfectly sourced, taken together they add some weight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.146.152 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 4 January 2015‎

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. And we base content on reliable sources, not on an accumulation of guesswork from unreliable ones. If people are interested in grandiose and entirely unverified claims about supposed solutions to the worlds energy problems there are plenty of other websites that cater to their needs. Do a Google search for 'energy catalyzer' and you will find a host of them, all competing to see who can publish the most implausible fluff. Little of which amounts to 'information', and none of which has anything to do with science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. However if Wikipedia is that dedicated to officially confirmed science, why is there an article on Astrology? It seems the standards may not be that consistent in their application? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.146.152 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 January 2015‎

This is not a forum for general discussions on what Wikipedia considers appropriate content - and if you don't understand why an encyclopaedia should have an article on as well-known a topic as astrology, I can only suggest you need to read the article. You will note that it doesn't (contrary to the claims of some astrologers) assert that it is a science. Meanwhile, unless you have specific proposals regarding content for the E-Cat article, this discussion is closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Russian 'replication' attempt of ecat test

BTW guys, a Russian physicist (Parkhomov Alexander) has recently done a 'semi-replication' (as good as can be done with the knowledge available about the lugano eact reactor). here is a link to a google translate version of it: http://www.scribd.com/doc/251130826/Parkhomov-Alexander-Rossi-Replication-Paper-2014-12-25 also found significant excess heat. obviously I know this isn't ready to be included in the article yet as it hasn't even been published yet, just pointing out that the lugano test was notable enough to already spur 2 different replication attempts (the other by the MFMP), yet is not apparently even notable enough for a mention here.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Is that the same Alexander G Parkhomov responsible for 'Remote mental influence on biological and physical systems' [2] ? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

An unbiased information about Parkhomov is here http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov, Parkhomov is a researcher in nuclear physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.164.187 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes he is the same. [3] Bhny (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep he is the same, I'm not going to argue whether his experience in testing theories of other fringe science fields makes him more, or less credible, as there is no notable source for this as of yet. All I wanted to point out is that the lugano 2014 report is making waves in a way that the 2013 report did not. As per the notability rules, does that not indicate that the 2014 report should be included either in addition to, or at the excision of the 2013 report? As far as I am concerned, either we need to include the 2014 report or not mention either of them, as it gives a false impression that nothing has occurred in the intervening time. we could also drop the 2013 report in favour of the 2014 one, as it is more rigorous and in any case answers the same and many more questions. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: English translation of the report by the author: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is almost perfect - and nothing should be added or changed. Its a perfect and well documented manifest on how to deal with fraud and fringe science. We invested billions of tax money into hot fusion and the search for god´s particle. All these efforts would have never been granted if there would be no solid theoretic grounds. Darwinism is a universal principle and extends on ideas and theories. There is nothing like cold fusion - and there will never be something like cold fusion because its impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

because 'impossible' is such a scientific thing to say about anything. soooo, because theoretical first methods worked well for other recent physics projects we shouldn't even bother with observational results? everything should be theory first? Let me remind you that the search for the Higgs boson was enabled by high temperature superconductors, which were not predicted theoretically, quite the opposite, people predicted we would never have a high temperature supercunducting material, right up until one was observed in operation. Moreover, we STILL don't have a strong theoretical understanding for why high temperature superconductors work, nor how to predict what future materials would be good high temperature superconductors. however, unlike cold fusion it is extremely easy to verify that HT superconductors work. It is very dangerous to advocate 'theory first' approaches to all realms of science. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Until Rossi publishes a complete description of his device, rather than contradictory waffle about 'catalysts' he claims are essential but doesn't describe in his patent applications, copper which transmutes in one test and then becomes a contaminant in the next, and all the other hand-waving mumbo-jumbo, science has very little to do with it. And as for the supposed 'replication', since it hasn't been published, it needs no further discussion at this point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is far of being perfect. Wikipedia is weak when it judges innovations. Rossi's effect is probably real in terms of energy creation from nuclear process, cheked and double checked. The details of the nuclear process in rossi's effect are not clear yet (maybe no nuclear fusion but neutrons moving from nucleus to nucleus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.35.178 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is about knowledge, not things that are probably real. The judgements comes from published reliable sources not Wikipedia. Bhny (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this statement, and with Andy's previous comment. However, I disagree with the unsigned person above who purports that it is 'Impossible'. Also I maintain that the 2014 Lugano report deserves a mention, even if it is only a small paragraph. I suggest the resizing of the 2013 report section and including the new findings, without expanding the section or the article significantly. I started this section to bring attention to the fact that the 2014 report has generated significant renewed interest. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The level of 'new interest' is no more significant than for previous publicity stunts/'demonstrations'/circus acts that Rossi has come up with - if anything, the long-term trend is for each performance to attract less interest than the last. Accordingly, I can see no reason why this 'report' needs any special treatment. The simple facts are that the mainstream media has almost entirely lost interest in Rossi (in as much as they even noticed him in the first place), and the scientific community (barring a fringe element of wishful-thinkers) has seen nothing to convince them that there is anything 'scientific' going on at all. This isn't a blog, and filling the article with breathless prose about Rossi's every act isn't remotely encyclopaedic. If and when Rossi comes up with replicable science or a working product, we might have something to write about. A 'report' that purports to be science but appears not to be publishable in anything approximating to a credible journal doesn't merit discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"I think the article is almost perfect" - I wrote that - and its a highly biased and cynical test balloon. I´m quite happy that at least more than one person judged "impossible" as unscientific. Why is it easier to verify HT superconductors ? I think it should be easier to verify a process with net energy gain - as to verify a process with no energy loss. Maybe the potential use as "new energy source" has more political impact. If Rossi would have discovered just another HT superconductor with even more exotic ingredients - nobody would care about. It´s quite fascinating that "judgements" from reliable sources are cited. The common thing is that all those "judgements" are from experts in different fields. The almost "historic" opinion of Hanno Essen and Kulander are mentioned - but the article denies the fact that those scientists indeed made further convincing tests. Well, if a scientist is good enough to question some results - is the same scientist not credible if the outcome of further tests is positive ? So it would be better to remove Essen and Kulander from the article - instead of just select what fits into the prefered balance of facts. Anyway - its quite interesting to study the underlying social structures on adapting or denying new technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear that the e-cat is a scientific discovery, since the exotic "catalyst" has never been named, preventing independant reproduction. Anyway what is your suggested improvement to the article? It is hard to figure out what you are saying. Bhny (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"...I wrote that - and its a highly biased and cynical test balloon. I´m quite happy..." Er, I guess. You successfully trolled a couple of other cold fusion true believers, while simultaneously failing to suggest any constructive changes to this article. Um. Well done? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Using the scientific method of induction - I added a negatively biased and unscientific post. If the editors in charge would have responded in the same manner as on positively biased and unscientific posts - we would conclude that their point of view is neutral and their contribution to the scientific method is valid. But this didnt happen. So I conclude that this gives some evidence that the coverage on this topic is negatively biased. QED. I suggested to remove Essen and Kulander from the article - because their expertise changed due to involvement of lugano report. Alternately, their actual summary as outcome of the lugano report could be covered. @BHNY The "catalyzer", if somewhat interpreted from a chemical point of view is Lithium - as stated in Lugano report. Analysis of unused and used fuel is provided. If there are some other ingredients - they just enforce the reaction - otherwise Mr Parkhomov would not be able to replicate that. I´m sorry, if somebody felt trolled. BTW. I like the statements on HT superconductors and impossibility. Compared to the endless discussion above - this kind of induction provoked some solid response. rgds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.160.219 (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OUTDATED: this page need serious updates

This page is highlighting old information that the E-Cat has been debunked however in October 2014 this was changed as 3rd parties have verification of an "unknown reaction". http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.124.115 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Already discussed. Not a scientific verification. Not published in a reputable science journal. And not third-party either - Rossi was involved from start to finish. Just another of Rossi's endless publicity stunts. See above, and the archives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The objection raised in the article about the coulomb barrier seems misleading to me. The claim really isn't that traditional fusion is occurring, as the hypothesis is more like LENR that involves some sort of tunneling process. Also, if I could ask a hypothetical question, if Alexander Parkhomov is able to publish the results he is now giving a number of seminars about, would this change the way the article is being presented?

The answer, as always, is "it depends." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced 'quotations'

The article states that 'In January 2014 Industrial Heat LLC, a U.S. Company based in Raleigh, N.C., announced that it has acquired the "intellectual property and licensing rights" to the E-Cat' - complete with quotation marks. The source cited (Popular Science [4]) does not contain the wording supposedly being quoted. Instead it merely says that IH has "bought the rights" - leaving exactly what IH has acquired open to question. IH's press release [5] does contain the phrase - but I have to suggest that the suitability of such a source is open to question. It seems to me that it is in the interests of both IH and Rossi to give the impression that large sums of money have been exchanged, but the facts are that we neither know how much was paid, nor what exactly was paid for, and accordingly shouldn't be implying that this deal is of major significance without a lot more detail to go on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

One does wonder what "intellectual property rights" means, given that the U.S. patent application was rejected, and the Italian patent is unlikely to hold up internationally. We shouldn't be blindly reproducing self-serving quotes from a press release, and we certainly should't be misattributing those quotes. (I'm reminded of that other U.S. alternative-physics energy company, Blacklight Power. While they nominally also have a miraculous technology that extracts implausible amounts of energy using dubious physical principles, it appears that their main 'product' is currently R&D tax credits and writedowns.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

At this point it would be fair to mention the recently released information on the USPTO 'SAWS' program. Patents on 'cold fusion' definitely fall under these regulations. [6] Otherwise I am wondering whats so special on the patent situation. A JackOfAllTrades should know that this is not relevant nor an extraordinary proof for the claims. But maybe he just takes every chance to share his implausible amount of dubious truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.154.9.152 (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless and until published reliable sources discuss SAWS in relation to the E-Cat, it is of no relevance to the content of this article, and this is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The FOIA response to SAWS program is available online - and I consider this as reliable source.

http://ipwatchdogs.com/materials/SAWS-FOIA-Respose.pdf

On p.12, TC1700, "cold fusion, ""hydrino reaction"", or "magnecule" as an energy source or any other production of excess heat outside of known chemistry or physisc" is mentioned as topic covered by SAWS. A reference to ::::SAWS FOIA response should be included in the article if it comes to intellectual property issues. Energy Catalyzer is definitely affected by SAWS procedure.

Can we reference the press release and the popular science article for the quote? together it seems pretty robust, not sure about the rules here though. Otherwise you could just change the quote to "bought the rights" but that is a more weasel worded version. 202.36.179.100 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We rarely cite press releases for anything. They are invariably self-serving, and not subject to any external fact-checking. If the only source for something is a press release, it is often questionable whether it is even significant. In this particular case I suspect that Popular Science may have been intentionally vague, since they presumably don't know what 'intellectual property rights' are supposed to have been transferred either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

well I remember an interview with Tom Darden a while back that might help, [[7]] don't know if we can use it though Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, it tells us nothing concrete. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I'm confused as to what kind of source you are looking for here? A contract between Rossi and IH that you can read? Every source says that the rights to the device were obtained from Rossi to IH, and theres no one disputing that. Sure we don't know the particulars, but we don't have to, because we haven't gone into any more detail in the article than that IH purchased some kind of rights from Rossi. why are you being so nitpicky and why did you delete my addition to the lede instead of just rephrasing it to match the statement in the lower article? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No. The reliable sources say that Rossi and/or IH have stated that IH have bought unspecified rights. None of these sources have told us significantly more. And frankly, given the vagueness (possibly intentional) over what it is that has been transferred, I can see no particular reason why it belongs in the lede. If the deal is significant, it is because IH have acquired the rights to something that actually works - and if that is the case, the article will need substantial revision anyway (not by me - I'll be busy writing an article on the flight characteristics of Sus domesticus). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

So its possible to conclude that you edit and control this article as long as it fits into your personal believe. OMG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.179.141 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Defunct, missing source, Peter Ekström, 2011

Due to recent source confusion I was checking through sources and noticed that this link ^[1] (currently 13 in the article), is a missing object on fisik.org. I can't find this publication anywhere else, although it is mentioned on several other cold fusion blog sites such a PESWIKI, which seem to quote similar information about the... article? (actually it is verbatim, indicating that it was probably lifted from wikipedia). I'm not actually sure what kind of source this is, as it isn't referenced in the citation. The quote seems like it might violate WP:CRYSTALBALL, especially considering that his assertion did not occur (not verified and also not 'revealed as a scam within 1 year'). the above predictive quote is also quoted in [8], which proves that the "‘I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year.’" prediction by Ekström occurred, but gives no reference to the rest of what is said that is quoted in the wikipedia article, moreover, it used the same now defunct link as wikipedia as its source. Even if this quote could be kept, that still does not make it notable now, especially considering that it did not occur, which indicates that, in hindsight, it may have been subject to WP:RECENTISM at the time.

It seems that www.fysik.org has moved to www2.fysik.org, but the paper described above no longer appears to be on the site. i can't find it with google searches either, except where other people have tried to link to the same dead link. I went through the discussion pages for reference to this, but the best I could find was the Nyteknik article listed above that only gives the prediction quote, which by itself, especially now, is hardly notable.

The rest of what Ekström says is the most valuable IMO, the part about gamma rays, origin of extra energy, chemical abundances and isotopic measurements, but unfortunately, unless someone else can find this, we don't have a source for any of it anymore. What do we do when the link to a source disappears? I honestly don't know. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References

^ Ekström, Peter (6 May 2011). Kall Fusion på italienska (Cold fusion – Italian style) (Swedish and English).

See WP:DEADLINK. I fixed it using archive.org. The untranslated quote is "Jag är övertygad att hela historien är en enda stor bluff, och att den kommer att avslöjas inom mindre än ett år." I don't care whether it's included, though WP:CRYSTALBALL does not forbid predictions by experts. KateWishing (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it convenient how material critical of the E-Cat is subject to WP:CRYSTALBALL, while Rossi's endless and contradictory claims about what he's going to do next are apparently immune... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

First, thanks KateWishing, didn't think about using archive. There were 6 other dead links, 3 of which I fixed and three of which I couldn't find a fix (these were redundant so I deleted them), perhaps you could check and see if archive.org can be used to resurrect them? As for AndyTheGrump, that might be a valid concern *if* we included any of 'endless and contradictory claims about what he's going to do next' (I had a quick scan of the article, and to my knowledge I don't know what you are referring to). Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Tests"

We've dealt with this before. There were "so-called" black box tests, but the power coming out of the power lines wasn't measured, and with all the Rossi-supplied "test equipment", we don't know that the "test equipment" wasn't powering the system.

None of the demonstrations yet described resembles a test. And, Insertcleverphrasehere, if you want to quote WP:Verification, not truth, none of the descriptions of demonstrations resemble descriptions of tests, except those written by backers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

you are talking about the 2011 tests, those can reasonably be called 'demonstrations', as can the 2013 test as it was performed on Rossi's site, and he owned the testing equipment. The 2014 test however was not performed on Rossi's site, and they tested the device for a month. It was not performed to an 'audience', it was a 'test' in every definition of the word, and while there are methodology flaws with every experiment and this test might not live up to your standards, it was in no stretch of the definition a 'demonstration'. Hence why Demonstrations and Tests fits better. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you mentioned "every definition of the word," the appropriate dictionary definition is "a critical examination, observation, or evaluation : trial; specifically : the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or rejection." By this definition the 2014 exercise was not a "test," since the lack of independence fatally prejudices its utility for "proof or disproof or ... acceptance or rejection." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I'd say that the definition that you just gave does actually fit the 2014 test, in that it 'leads to' a higher level of proof, confidence and acceptance than existed before. Semantics aside, 'Demonstrations and Tests' fits better than 'Demonstrations' alone, why are we having this argument? Why is it that no one is allowed to make any improvements or edits to this article, up to and including minor semantic disagreements that are immediately pounced upon? I'd suggest that you guys are pushing POV to make the tests that have been done seem less relevant by calling them 'demonstrations' inappropriately. Since you used Merriam webster dictionary, here are three definitions of 'demonstration':

1: an act of showing someone how something is used or done

2: an event in which people gather together in order to show that they support or oppose something or someone

3: an act of showing or proving something

none of which describe the 2014 test as it wasn't an 'act' or an 'event' Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we are pushing a POV - the POV as arrived at through consensus in Wikipedia policy. The POV that says that we don't engage in uncritical parroting of promotional fluff from purveyors of supposed scientific miracles. If that is what you are looking for, there are plenty of websites for the chronically credulous out there. Meanwhile, we will continue to deliver what our readers expect of us - an encyclopaedic work which takes mainstream science as the starting point for articles, and which sets a high standard for extraordinary claims. Semantics have very little to do with it - the fact is that these supposed 'tests' entirely fail to comply with the scientific claims for which they are supposedly being cited. We wouldn't accept such sources as reliable for an article on a new design of electric toaster, never mind an alleged fix for the world's energy problems. If Rossi wants scientific verification of his claims, he will have to provide the necessary information science requires. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said that the test 'comply with the scientific claims for which they are supposedly being cited', this isn't a necessary condition for being called a 'test', only for being a good one, a badly designed test is still called a test, why you guys are arguing that it fits the description of a 'demonstration' I have no idea. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Andy, I wouldn't go that far. I can understand Rossi's not wanting to reveal the process until he gets paid for it, if it might be unpatentable. However, a "test" needs to be designed to convince non-believers, and needs to have the most obvious potential frauds detected. < OR> Simple precautions, which have not been done in any of his "tests", is to (1) have the observers bring their own monitoring equipment, and (2) have a second-party monitor on the power draw of his (Rossi's) control and monitoring equipment. As I pointed out earlier, if his device produces more energy than can be developed from conventional chemical reactions in the space available, then he either has an unconventional energy-producing (or possibly -stealing or -transmission) process or a superbattery. Either would be of interest to investors. </ OR> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/it/home/general-updates/315-black-box-testing-and-paul-s-breed (not necessarily a reliable source) points to a Google Document which suggests protocols that someone with a real unconventional energy-producing process should follow, including some precautions I didn't think of, such as supplying energy through the coolant. I would not require the Faraday cage, as unconventional energy transmission would be of interest. However, Rossi has not have even the more obvious precautions in his "tests". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In the event that the power was being monitored, I withdraw some of this rant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin I believe you missed the late 2014 test, which was conducted at a third party location (although Rossi was present at some times during the test, so it was not independent), with regards to your points: 1) the 'observers' used all their own monitoring equipment, and 2) measured the power draw, and heat output, with their own equipment. While some people had questions and criticisms about some of the aspects of this monitoring, methodology aside, the equipment and measurements were done by the third party. They tested the device for about a month, so unlike the previous demonstrations that were very brief, they showed that far more energy was released, per their measurements of energy in->heat out than could be explained by chemical means (to address the rest of your comment). Questions to be asked for sure, and replications to be attempted (which is already underway by at least two groups I know of, the MFMP, and Alexander Parkhomov). Definitely a 'test' and not a 'demonstration' I would think, is why I've been confused. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that i mention it, this information (duration, independent location, and third party monitoring equipment) isn't mentioned in the article, I'll add a sentence to avoid this sort of confusion in the future. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem seems to object to the use of the word 'test' to refer to the 2014 Lugano report, and reverted my edit attempting to clarify the article to improve the clarity about how the 'test' was different to previous demonstrations. I removed the word 'test' but would like to discuss this as I feel that the word aptly describes the 2014 Lugano report evaluation.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made some Edits, added criticism of the 2014 test, necessary under WP:Notability, by Ethen Siegal and Tommaso Dorigo, (both sources were previously considered as RS or possibly RS, respectively, by AndyTheGrump on this talk page). I also removed Ugo Bardi's views from the article, as he is a chemist with no background in physics, the above authors are better sources for criticism of the Ecat device, and that the quotes attributed to him had relatively little in the way of concrete criticism (unspecific), and outdated. Hopefully, you guys will agree that swapping these maintains WP:PARITY, while improving the content by means of increasing the robustness of sources.

Regarding the controversy of using 'Demonstrations and Tests' rather than 'Demonstrations', both physicists above referred to the 2014 evaluation as a 'test' repeatedly. If no one objects, I think this makes the case for changing back to 'Demonstrations and Tests' as a section heading pretty clear cut. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that there has been considerable previous discussion regarding the Bardi material, and that you have no consensus to remove the material, I've restored it. I suggest that you seek consensus before making further significant edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I did previously bring this up, see above section, and the only objection was regarding WP:PARITY, and TenOfAllTrades seemed to agree that it wasn't all that robust as a source (although he also suggested that the remainder of sources for the article aren't much better). I apologise if I overstepped my bounds, and as I'm relatively new to making significant edits to articles, I'll defer to your expertise here. I'll bring it up in a new section of the talk page.

AndyTheGrump, any thoughts about 'Demonstrations and Tests' vs 'Demonstrations'? I feel that while some of the evaluations must be called demonstrations, and by no stretch should be referred to as 'tests', the most recent one can not be reasonably called a 'demonstration' for reasons explained above, and in fact is referred to as such in the sources that I've added regarding criticism of said test. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

For reasons made clear above, none of these events can or should be referred to as tests. This an encyclopaedia and use of the word test in this context infers formal, scientifically valid results were obtained. Obviously this is not the case. "Dog and pony show" is more accurate. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Both Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, and Particle Physicist Tommaso Dorigo, in their reviews of the paper in question, repeatedly refer to the 2014 Lugano evaluation as a 'test'; Ethan Siegel even goes as far as calling the 2013 report a 'test' at one point. I feel that the opinions of our sources on the topic in question trump your own OR.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wired UK -- Hambling

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-01/30/cold-fusion-energy-advances-2015 Covers the Lugano report and the claimed Parkhomov replication. Alanf777 (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Still the same old same old. Nothing in a credible scientific journal, just the usual breathless hype we've been getting for years... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is NOT a science article. I'll add a summary tomorrow. (Prediction : as with Gibbs -- if he's doubtful, he's in the lead. If he's even slightly positive, he's out.) Alanf777 (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a blog either. We are under no obligation whatsoever to include every meaningless bit of unverified fluff churned out by the chronically gullible... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Same old. Hambling has been carrying credulous water for Rossi for years, as is apparent from the archives of this talk page. (If you want a Wired blog for your non-physical physics, Hambling's your man. He's also a sucker for the EmDrive.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Didn't NASA give a positive review of the EmDrive? At least enough that they said it warranted further study, so not sure why you bring that up, its fringe, sure, but so is this article. Not to say that Hambling is at all a reliable source for this article. No offence Alanf777, but whether this is a science article or not, Wired online is not going to be considered a reliable source by the crowd around here.

Although, you guys (Andy and Ten) bring up the 'blog' argument a lot but I see a big double standard in the article, for example, this quote:

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

clearly states that it is directly from the blog of a chemist that has no background in CF research (or even physics). Also... it seems to add very little to the article in the way of concrete specific criticism. If no one objects I think that this article could be improved by removing this paragraph entirely. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking only to your last comment, the problem is one of WP:PARITY. If we actually insisted on robust sourcing for the article—there wouldn't be anything left of the article. Personally, I'd be fine with deleting this puffed-up, promotional, wishy-washy, useless mess of a non-article, but I'm afraid that there are too many gullible, wishful thinkers that would like to think Rossi has something. (You know, with his third dubious company.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think a serious article could be quite simple: 1) What is it, who does it, what are the actual claims for this technology, status, evaluations 2) What does credible academic scientists in the field (of CF and LENR) think about it - ivolved in tests or doing similar research.

I think nobody is interested into the history of e-cat entrepreneurship - and Rossi said this or that 2008. The IP is owned by IH, there were tests, technology was "invented" by a questionable Mr. Rossi... Scientists in the field: Storms, Piantelli, Focardi, McKubre, ENEA, NASA, Essen, Kullander, Lugano Team,.... The truth is that there are pretty no credible academics in the field or at demonstrations with a decent negative feedback. To achieve WP:PARITY - you can add a chapter with the statement that every scientist not involved or in the field thinks that this is pathological science, with the addition that all involved former credible scientists lost (in your sense) their credibility because of this involvement. I also think that your latests comment disqualifies you for further arguments - at least concerning WP:PARITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.189.222.103 (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are optimist. The editors of this article will never admit that they are wrong. From their point of view - being biased against rossi is a "fair scientific approach" since it reflects the opinion in the mainstream. Any piece of evidence which stengthen rossi's claims is a CIRCUS, STUNTS, RIDICULOUS SHOW, etc. Every nonsense said by a scientist who don't understand what is going on in E-Cat is considered as an educated ooinion of an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.25.147 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Im no optimist. I just study these personalities. Im even not interested in the topic itself - nor am I a "believer" or whatever. Its just incredible how far these flat-world freaks extend their "fair scientific approach". Thats a very interesting topic in social science. If you even dare to insist on a minimum approach based on facts - what else - they call you a "believer". Believer of what ? That just reflects their own state of mind where a certain believe has to be defended. Thats fascinating. Its also not about "being wrong". Its about leaving the scientific path for scientific sake, creating a true scientific church and defending their believe as the most central aspect of their mind - ending up in a queer role switch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.189.222.103 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A relevant question is who are the "experts" on the subject?

Rossi is undoubtedly the expert on what is going on, but we cannot use his statements.
Experts in scientific fraud? They obviously haven't been asked, but few, if any, of them have spoken. If any of those were present at any of the "tests", it would be appropriate to mention their views.
Experts in conventional fusion? We have no comment from them.
Experts in "cold fusion"? Well, we have no real evidence that any of those are real experts in anything real. Besides, Rossi says it isn't "cold fusion", but some other nuclear reaction.
Experts in unconventional "hot" fusion? They haven't spoken, or, as far as I know, been asked. As I mentioned before, I know some of these people, enough to e-mail them, anyway. I know at least one who would report honestly.
Experts in unconventional science in general? It would be nice, but we really haven't heard from any of them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 04:20, 15 February 2015‎

I would define an "expert" as a person who did his own research in that field for 7+ years - and has additionally 7 yrs+ well funded background + peer reviewed papers in more than one involved fields of science - which should be electrochemistry, nuclear physics and condensed matter. Some people listed without any special order... Micheal McKubre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McKubre At least WP says he as an expert. According to M. he verifies cf claims at SRI for DARPA Edmund Storms, Hideo Ikegami, Sergio Focardi, (not relevant here because involved) Francesco Celani, Francesco Piantelli, Robert Duncan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Duncan_%28physicist%29 Scientists involved in SPAWAR, Mitsubishi, Toyota cf research.... Anyway - just a short list auf fraudsters - because their experimental outcome is not predicted by standard model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A brief history of this article's dubious commercial claims

Looking back, this article was created sometime in March 2011. How has it changed since then? The following links show the article as it appeared on or about April 1 of each year, both because that allows a few weeks for development after the article was created, and because it tickles my fancy to use April Fools' Day for our baseline. Here's the section on "commercial plans" over time.

1 April 2011 The Defkalion era
Rossi claims he has an agreement with the newly formed Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies [12] as his first client. According to the agreement Rossi will supposedly deliver a one megawatt heating plant, consisting of a hundred 10 kW reactors connected in series and parallel. The plant which would supply heating for Defkalion's own purposes only, is supposed to be inaugurated in October 2011. [13]
Rossi claims he will not be paid by Defkalion until the installation is delivered and works. [14] The company’s spokesman Symeon Tsalikoglou has confirmed the agreement. [15]
Defkalion has also been featured on national Greek television [16] and in the national business newspaper Ependitis. [17] According to Defkalion and Rossi the agreement gives exclusive rights for Defkalion to manufacture and sell the energy catalyzer throughout Greece. [15]

We're promised a 1 MW plant in 6 months, for October 2011.
1 April 2012 The AmpEnergo era
Originally, a new Greek company, Defkalion, was to deliver a heating plant based on the Energy Catalyzer, but this deal was terminated.[53][54] Since then Defkalion have announced that they plan to make a similar device.[55][56]
In May 2011[57] Rossi reached an agreement with AmpEnergo,[58] an Ohio company,[59] to receive royalties on sales of licences and products built on the Energy Catalyzer in the Americas.[60][22]
Ecat.com is a website for taking pre-orders for the device, run by four Swedish entrepreneurs, two of them particle physicists. Magnus Holm, one of the physicists, in response to a question about skeptical commentary regarding the device, replied that "Until [Rossi] makes an independent test, there is obviously a small chance that it does not work. We are willing to take that risk because it’s such an amazing technology if it works". When asked what his response was to suggestions that he was "contributing to fraud", he replied "We are not engaged in any deception, and I do not think Rossi is engaged in any fraud either. If it would turn out that it does not work, in spite of everything, I would think it is about self-deception".[61]
On 23 November 2011, in the Massachusetts Statehouse, Andrea Rossi met with the minority leader of the Massachusetts Senate Bruce Tarr and representatives from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, and the University of Massachusetts, to explore the prospects for developing and manufacturing the device in Massachusetts, USA. According to Robert Tamarin, the Dean of Science at University of Massachusetts-Lowell, the representatives were mostly skeptical and only examined the possibilities of manufacturing within Massachusetts in case the technology turns out to work.[62][24]
Rossi claims to have sold one 479 kilowatt unit to an undisclosed customer and that he has additional orders for thirteen more 1 MW units. He offers these for sale for $2 million.[63][64] At the end of December 2011 Rossi said he was aiming for mass-scale production of a consumer version and electricity generation.[65]

Defkalion's out, AmpEnergo is in. Rossi has apparently sold a half-megawatt unit and will be delivering, at $2 million apiece, 13 more 1 MW units. Ecat.com is keen.
1 April 2013 The Prometeon era
Originally, a new Greek company, Defkalion, was to deliver a heating plant based on the Energy Catalyzer, but this deal was terminated.[58][59] Since then Defkalion have announced that they plan to make a similar device.[60][61] In 2012 an Italian company, Prometeon Srl,[62] became the official Italian licensee for the Energy Catalyzer.[63]
Ecat.com is a website for taking pre-orders for the device, run by four Swedish entrepreneurs, two of them particle physicists. One of the physicists, Magnus Holm, in response to suggestions that he was "contributing to fraud" replied "We are not engaged in any deception, and I do not think Rossi is engaged in any fraud either. If it would turn out that it does not work, in spite of everything, I would think it is about self-deception."[15] In September 2012 they pulled out from investing in a new version of the E-Cat, a prototype high temperature reactor, after a test by the SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden failed to demonstrate excess output energy because there was more input energy than measured by Rossi. Holm says that they are still interested in investing in the 1MW version, which they intend to validate separately.[64]

AmpEnergo is missing, Prometeon is in. Ecat.com tested one version that didn't work, but is still eyeing the 1 MW units. (Those are the units that should have been ready in October 2011, remember.)
1 April 2014 The Industrial heat era
Originally, a Greek company Defkalion was supposedly going to produce the E-Cat, but this deal was terminated in 2011 and Defkalion announced that they planned to make a similar device.[70][71][72][73] In 2012 an Italian company, Prometeon Srl became the official Italian licensee for the E-Cat.[74][75]
Ecat.com is a website for taking "non-binding orders" for the device. It is run by four Swedish entrepreneurs, two of them particle physicists. One of the physicists, Magnus Holm, in response to suggestions that he was "contributing to fraud" replied "We are not engaged in any deception, and I do not think Rossi is engaged in any fraud either. If it would turn out that it does not work, in spite of everything, I would think it is about self-deception."[55][76]
In January 2014 Industrial Heat LLC, a U.S. Company based in Raleigh, N.C., announced that it has acquired the "intellectual property and licensing rights" to the E-Cat.[69] Popular Science called the acquisition "interesting" and said, "There are many reasons to be skeptical of the technology, considering that it has never been conclusively proven to work, and claims to work via an unfamiliar chemical reaction. Rossi has also previously passed off spurious inventions, and has repeatedly backed-out of third party testing of the E-Cat, for example with NASA."[77] Triangle Business Journal reported that 14 investors have put $11.6 million into the company, as "a mixture of equity, debt and options". They noted that CEO Tom Darden is also CEO of Cherokee Investment Partners, which has "nearly $2 billion under management", and that Industrial Heat was "one of the topics he discussed with Chinese officials on a recent trip to China."[78][79] Rossi "claims to focus on his role as head of research for the technology".[80]

Prometeon and Defkalion haven't done anything, and now Industrial Heat is in. Rossi got a title, kind of. Ecat.com is down to taking "non-binding orders", whatever that nonsense means. Nobody is promising to deliver anything anymore. The section in our article has been retitled Ownership and licensing, I guess because Commercial plans came to close to suggesting some sort of actual business and product.
Today Nothing has happened
Greek company Defkalion was originally licensed to produce and distribute the E-Cat in the Balkans. The deal was terminated in 2011 and Defkalion announced plans to make their own similar device.[69][70][71] In 2012 an Italian company, Prometeon Srl became the official Italian licensee for the E-Cat.[72]
Ecat.com is a website for taking "non-binding orders" for the device. It is run by four Swedish entrepreneurs, two of them particle physicists. One of the physicists, Magnus Holm, in response to suggestions that he was "contributing to fraud" replied "We are not engaged in any deception, and I do not think Rossi is engaged in any fraud either. If it would turn out that it does not work, in spite of everything, I would think it is about self-deception."[52][73]
In January 2014 Industrial Heat LLC, a U.S. Company based in Raleigh, N.C., announced that it had acquired intellectual property and licensing rights to the E-Cat. Popular Science called the acquisition "interesting" and said, "There are many reasons to be skeptical of the technology, considering that it has never been conclusively proven to work, and claims to work via an unfamiliar chemical reaction. Rossi has also previously passed off spurious inventions, and has repeatedly backed-out of third party testing of the E-Cat, for example with NASA."[74] Triangle Business Journal reported that 14 investors have put $11.6 million into the company, as "a mixture of equity, debt and options". They noted that CEO Tom Darden is also CEO of Cherokee Investment Partners, which has "nearly $2 billion under management", and that Industrial Heat was "one of the topics he discussed with Chinese officials on a recent trip to China."[75][76] Rossi "claims to focus on his role as head of research for the technology".[77]

The text is virtually identical to what it was eleven months ago. (There's been some minor wordsmithing in the first sentence.) No products. No substantial announcements. Defkalion, Prometeon, Ecat.com, and Industrial Heat altoegether have bupkis. There's still no meaningful information about what "intellectual property" Industrial Heat has "acquired".

So, that's the history we're looking at. The story changes dramatically each year, except for this one, where they've abandoned the practice of implausible announcements for radio silence. (Where are those one-megawatt plants?) And our article has been modestly successful at suppressing inclusion of the flakiest announcements which would have made the article history even more 'exciting'; this is just the silliness that's managed to dribble through our editorial filters. (Who remembers Leonardo Corporation, for example?)

How long until we recognize the dog that isn't barking, and strip out the ever-changing parade of poorly-substantiated, never-followed-up-on claims?

What kind of Fools will we be for this April's Day? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for showing us the history of one small part of this article on a year-by-year basis… I guess? What’s your point? Is it that the story keeps changing, or that it hasn’t been changing in the last year? Evidence suggests that Rossi had several potential partners, many of which fell trough, until linking up with IH, this is what is reported by reliable sources, and its what we report here. Whether you think this is due to scam artistry, or something else... find a source. At Wikipedia we report on reliable sources, and what they say about this subject, we don’t strive to “recognize the dog that isn't barking”, that’s the job of reliable sources. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The point is that sources which report positively Rossi's claims (whether regarding 'science' or supposed commercial ventures) have proven to be unreliable. Time and time again. And yet some contributors still insist that the next bit of uncritical promotional showmanship is somehow different. Though it should be noted that new such sources seem to be becoming rarer. Eventually of course, they will dry up entirely - at which point we will be able to merge what little is worth retaining into the Rossi biography, and put this dog out of its misery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless the story is resolved, one way or another, little changes with regards to the status of the wiki page. This article has twice been put up for both deletion and merger, and 4 times it was denied (see the archives for arguments from better Wikipedians than I). This story is notable, at least until it is resolved. If indeed IH does own the IP rights (if there are any to own) I don't see how this could possibly be merged with Rossi's biography, so this issue would have to be resolved first, among others. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So no comment on the fact that sources repeating Rossi's claims have repeatedly been proven to be unreliable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Essentially what AndyTheGrump has said. Rossi's publicized claims have grown steadily less grandiose and less frequent (or at least, he's been able to find fewer and fewer sort-of-reputable journalist-bloggers to report on them). Each time we get a new announcement, it seems to be unrelated to the news which came before; companies get 'forgotten'. The so-called journalists who wrote the few pieces from which this section of our article is assembled never seem to do any follow-up, so our article accumulates the detritus of old, abandoned claims. (Defkalion has been making their own device since 2011? Prometeon has been licensed to build devices since 2012? It seems odd that we haven't heard anything about these companies since, doesn't it?) We're watching the same thing happen with Industrial Heat. They made an announcement more than a year ago, and we dutifully added statements about unspecified "intellectual property" to the article, along with assorted puffery about Chinese interest and the wealthy importance of the investors. Then, as usual, nothing of substance followed.

We need to accept that there aren't good follow-ups to any of the claims made by Rossi or reported in each thinly-reported announcement, and we need to pitch this section of the article until there are multiple, independent, robust sources that confirm the existence and sale of an actual product. Everything else is just marketing and vaporware. "Nothing real to report following breathless announcement last year" is just terribly weak clickbait; it's naive or dishonest to demand news articles with that content before we remove remarkable and dubious claims that are never followed up on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this section has been a dustbin of unreliable nonsense for four years, which is why I deleted it just now. Let's wait until there's a steadily working product in the hands of happy customers before we talk about commercial use. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a decision to be made lightly, there are a lot of sources that have previously been deemed reliable. Moreover, It demonstrates the exact nature of Rossi's claims, (that multiple times, he has claimed to have business partners and nothing materialised). Edit Reverted. if you want to talk about removing some or all of these sources as unreliable or unverifiable, you'll have to take them up on a case-by-case basis. We don't just wholesale throw the baby out with the bathwater. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Lets not have an edit war please, you have called this 'unreliable nonsense' but I don't see you stating ANYTHING about the 8 sources you just deleted. Make your case, then PROPOSE deletion, then we'll hear what the consensus is, and make a decision. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some of these sources might be unnecessary and unreliable, but they need to be discussed.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not need to be discussed any more than we have already. The section has been a dung heap of promotion for four years, with nothing to show for it. When the the technology is up and running successfully with one or more customers, and the world's physicists are falling all over themselves to explain it for TV shows and magazines, then we can tell the reader about the commercial aspects. Until then, there's no need. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, Binksternet, please discuss why each of these sources are illegitimate? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's already explained above; I'm not sure how much more plainly I can put it. We have, variously, an assortment of business deals that didn't go through, manufacturing that hasn't happened, and licensing agreements that have (for a year or more, depending on the nominal partner) led to no evidence of an actual commercial product. We're not a blog for collating the thinly-scattered news reports of Rossi's purported, vaguely-described business arrangements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd support the removal of all the stuff before the Industrial Heat information (as this is still apparently ongoing), and replaced with a sentence like,

Several deals with companies and attempts to licence the device have come and gone, but no product has yet been delivered. These include reports that, Industrial Heat LLC, a U.S. Company based in Raleigh, N.C., announced that it had acquired intellectual property and licensing rights to the E-Cat. Popular Science called the acquisition "interesting" and said, "There are many reasons to be skeptical of the technology, considering that it has never been conclusively proven to work, and claims to work via an unfamiliar chemical reaction. Rossi has also previously passed off spurious inventions, and has repeatedly backed-out of third party testing of the E-Cat, for example with NASA."[74] Triangle Business Journal reported that 14 investors have put $11.6 million into the company, as "a mixture of equity, debt and options". They noted that CEO Tom Darden is also CEO of Cherokee Investment Partners, which has "nearly $2 billion under management", and that Industrial Heat was "one of the topics he discussed with Chinese officials on a recent trip to China."[75][76] Rossi "claims to focus on his role as head of research for the technology".[77]

Possibly the IH information could be further pared down. But it is notable that a man as high in the business chain as Tom Darden has put his money behind Rossi. I know that you have previously raised concerns that the IH connection might be similar to the situation where Randal Mills' Blacklight Power gets most its money through tax credits by pretending to be 'alternative energy', however, I don't think we have a source for that (correct me if wrong), so we can't support that argument. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I also apologise for Edit Warring, I should have written something like the above and suggested it rather than reverting a second time. I don't support the removal of all of this information however, as much of it is notable. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what they say—

Fool me once, shame on you;
Fool me twice, shame on me;
Fool me thrice...ugh, this is embarrassing;
Fool me four times...you have the commercialization section of Wikipedia's Energy Catalyzer article.

Paring the section down to only the most recent (but still year-old) vague announcement is about the only way to make the article worse, in that it hides mention of all the other companies that purportedly have or had deals or technology, but have mysteriously failed to be heard from again.

We don't have any meaningful information about Industrial Heat: no list of full-time executives, no physical factory or independent office, no information about full-time employees, no business plan, no description of the "rights" they bought. IH appears to exist primarily on paper, and a bloated description of its 'investors' doesn't change that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don´t get the point here.. I think the experts for physics and entrepreneurship are different ones. From my experience with entrepreneurship developing automated bookscanners - I can tell you that it takes some time to have a proper working product for the right customer at a competitive price. Especially for a new product of its class. The story ended up building and making money with non-automated bookscanners - because thats what the potential customer really needs - with a competitive quality, usability and good support. And thats just about the product - not about financing development and research, finding strange partners pretending to have money and so on and so on. From the experience I have in that area - TenOfAllTrades critic is nothing more than WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is the history of alleged commercial agreements interesting? Whether or not there is a real product, the section is not really relevant, except for the implication that, as no "commercial agreement" has remained in place for as much as a year, that there is nothing "commercial" to "agree" on. "143" makes the legitimate point that this implication is not necessarily valid; all the more reason to exclude the material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

[ekstrom-1] Ekström, Peter (6 May 2011). Kall Fusion på italienska (Cold fusion – Italian style) (Swedish and English).

[1]