Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Conservation of energy

Might we have a source, please, for the statement that Lewan does not believe in the conservation of energy? No OR, please, and no quoting what others may have said, just his own exact words. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)\

Here he claims that 3 or 4 kWhrs of energy generated but doesn't say how it's generated. Magic, presumably. jps (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm ... . So no exact words: Lewan doesn't say that energy is not conserved as you suggested; neither does he refer to 'magic'. Rather dubious WP:OR on your part, it seems to me. Brian Josephson (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

OR is not permitted in articles, but I see this claim is not in the article. There is no prohibition against stating a conclusion from primary sources on Talk pages, only against inserting it into articles. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not exactly interested in exposing this particular journalist to articlespace scrutiny. I don't think he's that noteworthy. jps (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point, Guy, not for the first time — I almost get the feeling that you do this deliberately with the aim of wasting my time but will however 'assume good faith'. jps claims that Lewan 'doesn't believe in the conservation of energy', but when pressed can't produce any proof, he merely thinks this is the case on clearly inadequate grounds. If he did rather more work than editors, rushing to get text they don't approve of removed, seem willing to do, he would study Lewan's inexpensive book and see that it is all about nuclear sources, in which case non-conservation of energy does not arise: the claim has no legs. Brian Josephson (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Any claim that Lewan is a credible source will also have to explain why someone pushing a conspiracy theory to the effect that 'big banks' and the U.S. military are engaged in a monumental cover up regarding LENR should be seen as 'reliable'. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Reporting it, actually, not pushing it. He only goes as far as saying that the originator makes an 'intriguing case'. Brian Josephson (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Headline: "It seems big banks know about cold fusion". That is 'pushing it' by any reasonable definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think one can put too much emphasis on the precise wording of the headline, which it seems to me does accurately summarise what the article reported is saying, not what Lewan himself believes, in which context it is relevant that in the discussion Lewan says 'I should add that this post is obviously quite speculative'. Brian Josephson (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dead end.

Why would anyone throw their money in Lewan's credulous direction? While we're on this topic, did Lewan ask you to review it as a comment to nature.com incidentally? Because he surely trumpets your positive opinion of his "inexpensive book" on his website. jps (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Sorry to disappoint you, jps. He did ask me if I would like to send him comment that could be used to publicise the book, but including my review in a Nature comment was entirely my own idea — and I did not get paid for doing that, since you ask. Incidentally, might you by any chance be one of those people whose 'rather excitable -- and not always polite' comments (these are a Nature editor's words) on a posting of mine led to a discussion of CF being deleted from the comments on a Nature article. Since 'rather excitable -- and not always polite' seems to describe perfectly some of the contributions here, that would not surprise me one bit. Brian Josephson (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC) I don't think I've commented on any postings at nature.com ever. I'm also not surprised that you were in contact with Lewan in a publicity sense. I get the motivation, but can't you see how this may make us feel a little like you're forcing an agenda here? jps (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC) There are two people involved in the e-cat issue who are much more likely to be those responsible — in any event I can't imagine a real scientist being 'impolite' as described by Nature the way people are here. And again in the above comment we see editors busy magnifying what is a perfectly routine state of affairs in academia — but I forgot, academics are not particulary welcome in these parts. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Hey, "real scientists" are people too, doncha know? They can be mean and nasty as much as anyone else. There are, after all, No True Scotsmen. Part of the issue with the Wikipedia model is that without editorial control, there are only a certain amount of political maneuvers that can result in actual change of article content when we meet at an impasse. What looks impolite to you is often merely bluntness that is being wielded in the hopes of cutting through nonsense. Trying to maintain a sense of "balance" often gets us to situations where we waste time. It seems to me that Lewan has a lot of misconceptions when it comes to some of the basic issues that the scientific community writ large has with cold fusion. Part of my issue is that many of his claims ultimately come down to an uncritical acceptance of the production of energy without identifying a source. Except for perpetual motion machine claims and certain people who claim to have telekinesis, I cannot think of any other scenario where energy just showing up would be accepted as a legitimate claim. jps (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "I cannot think of any other scenario where energy just showing up would be accepted as a legitimate claim". Just like radioactivity, huh? Brian Josephson (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Energy does not "just show up" in radioactivity (by which I assume you mean nuclear fission). If you're interested, I can direct you to some good undergraduate textbooks or web pages that explain the fundamentals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC) I suggest you acquaint yourself with the history of radioactivity. You are confusing the present state of knowledge of radioactivity with the situation as it was at the beginning. Brian Josephson (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Becquerel discovered radioactivity in 1896 and by 1903 Rutherford had explained where the energy was coming from. Cold fusion was first announced in 1989 and by 2015 no explanation is forthcoming. Now maybe you'd like to give us a short course in n-rays? jps (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Once again, a faulty argument surfaces by someone evidently ignorant of pretty well known facts in science (you wouldn't even have to get to the level of a Masters in physics to know about it, probably). Superconductivity was discovered in 1911 and it was more than 40 years before an explanation was forthcoming, and by my arithmetic that is a longer period than the time since the MP discovery. And a lot more funding was available for superconductivity research than there is for cold fusion research. Brian Josephson (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC) This is a dead-end discussion. Radioactivity and superconductivity are not under DS; cold fusion is. I am collapsing this nonsense, which will get us absolutely nowhere. VQuakr (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Investment and commercialization

Re references to investment:

• one source cited is a business PRESS RELEASE service, and the press release contains the name of the authorized person releasing the information for the business, their phone, and their email address;
• the other source cited is a business journal published for the geographic area where the business is located confirming the validity of the press release.

Thus, the citations are proper and reliable. The flag is removed. Robert92107 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not cite press releases for promotional claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a difference between advertising and announcing. While the former is certainly inappropriate, a business giving news about its actions is certainly news. This news was also confirmed by a reputable news source. Since the press release gave additional useful information, it seems appropriate to give it. I can't give it without citing it, can I? Robert92107 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

For example, I think I've seen Wiki articles about TV shows, where it says that a network has announced that it is renewing a series. Robert92107 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Note also the business is not offering a product or service for sale in the announcement. So, there is no immediate financial incentive with this. Robert92107 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We do not cite press releases for promotional claims - and any claim regarding a new source of supposed cheap energy hitherto unknown to science made by a business proposing (or claiming) to market such a source is promotional by definition. I am going to remove the 'Investments and commercialization' section, as based entirely on material from the promoters. Please find third-party sourcing, and gain consensus before restoring the section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It is important to remember that the person "announcing" this has a past conviction for dishonesty, and is peddling a device which he has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of any independent scientific expert. Per WP:FRINGE, we treat questionable and extraordinary claims much more carefully than those which are plausible and mundane. If you like, I can find you an announcement by a homeopath which, if true, would overturn the laws of physics. He's a fraudster too. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

WRONG. The press release came from a real, well-respected company. Again, you don't seem to be reading what is actually said. How can I take what you say seriously when it looks like you don't know the basic data in the citations? Robert92107 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that you people are NOT neutral!! I cite a business journal which cites an SEC filing. The invest is REAL, and you people are trying to suppress information about the business. GET REAL! You are NOT reading the material, nor looking at the sources I am citing. I don't have time now to get into this further, but you're REALLY wrong here! This is NOT about whether the device works, it's about whether or not a real company is making real investments. It is real, and it is. So, wise up guys!!! Robert92107 (talk)Wiki articles about TV shows, where it says that a network has announced that it is renewing a series

We are not trying to "suppress" information as you are free to discuss it or promote it as you wish on a wide variety of websites other than Wikipedia. It does not belong in Wikipedia. I read the two sources and they consist of a press release and a local business reporter restating what's in the press release. I oppose including this promotional material from this suspect company and its associates into the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Robert means 'suppress it from the article', which by any reasonable criteria you are doing. Brian Josephson (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

'Reasonable criteria' meaning whatever projects this unproven device in the most favourable light possible, regardless for any concerns towards proper encyclopaedic coverage. The facts of the matter are that there has been a long history of primary-sourced claims about business deals, 'factories' and investors, all of which have conveniently faded from view with little or no explanation when it has become apparent that nothing substantive is going to come of them. The eternal optimism of the E-Cat fan club seems largely contingent on at least a selective amnesia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, by 'reasonable' I refer to the way the word is used in the outside world, not as used by wikipedia editors. Unreasonable statements can easily be justified by unreasonable arguments, people can do it in their sleep. I'm reminded of the recently announced ruling in the Amanda Knox et al. case, where the judge talked of a 'flawed and hastily constructed' prosecution case. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of the term "suppression" is a very reliable marker for POV-pushing. According to proponents we suppress homeopathy, clairvoyance, ESP and a number of other claims which are generally agreed to be bullshit. Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards scientifically established fact. This is by design. If you want to promote the e-Cat, feel free to take it to one of the free-energy wikis. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Really! Brian Josephson (talk) 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup. That and cries of "censorship". We old-timers have seen both a very great number of times. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's move on. If better sources become available, we can revisit including more information. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you have addressed Robert92107's 'inconvenient truth' in regard to (promotional) Wiki articles about TV shows, where it says that a network has announced that it is renewing a series, but please don't exert yourself to respond to that point. And I, a moderately old-timer by now, have seen a great number of what look like 'hastily constructed flawed arguments' from you people — one could pretty well fill a book chapter with them, I should imagine. — Brian Josephson (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't like much of how Wikipedia covers television shows. jps (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup - and frankly, the comparison is absurd anyway. Routine announcements about future broadcasts are hardly on the same scale as claims that the world's energy problems are solved. Facile comparisons like this rather suggest desperation on the part of those who can't accept that Wikipedia follows mainstream science and isn't a platform for announcing its imminent overthrow. The same old arguments get rolled out time and again by people who simply refuse to accept that the consensus of the Wikipedia community determines article content policy, and not their personal agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if 'credibility and rationality of the arguments' played a role in determining article content as well, but regrettably there is no effective mechanism for achieving this on w'pedia. Brian Josephson (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

DID YOU READ THE MATERIAL before you commented on it?? Where do you get off completely fabricating what it says? NOTHING that you said relates AT ALL to the material!!! Robert92107 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I already covered this up there somewhere anyway. Mundane and plausible claims get a much lower bar than extraordinary claims repeatedly mae by a convicted fraudster without benefit of credible evidence - for rather obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(ditto the above response) Robert92107 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I'm seeing people arguing E-cat, but that is not what this section is about!!! I don't see you people saying that patents re E-cat or its components shouldn't be posted. Why then should reputable news organization business announcements be excluded?? It makes no sense! (Or, rather, the only sense it makes is of an overriding negative point of view -- you need to remember you should have a NPOV to edit this article!) Robert92107 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What I'm seeing above is blatant bias openly admitted. I'm seeing people saying that my "commercialization" notice is (1) not real because the product is a scam [immaterial, because that is not what the investment notice is about], (2) comes from unreliable sources, [not true, and I'll post info re this below], (3) not allowed because it is promotional material [immaterial since nothing is being offered for sale here, just news about business activity, and it doesn't matter if it's something you don't believe in], (4) it is not proof the system works [again, not what this is about], (5) it is a way to say the product works with no proof that it does [again, not what the investment notice is about; it says they are testing and exploring the device], and (6) it is one of a series of meaningless business investments which will fail [while this is a possibility, suppressing this is predicting the business outcome, which is not allowed; furthermore, the proof is from an SEC filing, so the money invested in real and not wishful thinking].

Now, if you "editors" want specific alterations because the material needs clarification that would be reasonable, but suppressing the entire section is NOT RIGHT! I want this news to be reasonably timely and accurate. You could say, "Well, we might report it in the future if it seems to be working," but I'm not sure that this is allowed either. I've seen a number of businesses posted in Wikipedia in advance of opening for business which ultimately don't work out. Why should this one not be allowed? This has real money being invested in this system. Real legal rights to it are being transferred to the new company. I do not see any serious justification above why this news should not be included here. I'm asking you politely to review your decision. If you can't come up with a serious justification I will request third-party review of this issue.

Personally, I would like to see it succeed, but there is no question it is NOT a workable product at this point. (I don't think anyone disagrees with this!) This company is trying to make a go of it. Ownership rights have been transferred to it. So, I think this is probably the most serious investment in the system. We will see what develops in due course, but prejudging this news is not appropriate. Robert92107 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is recent exchange I had with with Cullen328. It includes more information about the sources. (Since he posted this on his page, as opposed to being in a private email, I will assume that he doesn't object to cross-posting it here.)

(Me first, I've added a few responses here which were not in the original)

[original] Frankly, I am shocked that you can't see the obvious. If you read the press release (which is from a reputable press release agency) and the journal article, you will see that the article not only contains other information than the press release, it also specifically refers to talks they had with the company executives. One is not a copy of the other, it is a confirmation. The reason I used the press release was because it also had a significant piece of information that the journal article didn't which I considered significant to include.

Furthermore, the journal is a product of a large news company. This is what they say about themselves: "Who We Are: The Business Journals are the premier media solutions platform for companies strategically targeting business decision makers. We deliver a total business audience of over 10 million people via our 42 websites, 64 publications and over 700 annual industry leading events. Our media products provide comprehensive coverage of business news from a local, regional and national perspective. We have more people, publications and websites covering our nation’s business than any other business media organization." (http://www.bizjournals.com/about-us/)

Lastly, I noticed that someone on the web libeled Tom Darden, saying that this business was merely a scam. Unfortunately, Darden is an extremely wealthy investor who has a very strong reputation as an environmentalist and innovative business investor. He has employed scientists to examine the device before he bought the rights to it, so clearly he believes in its potential. The fact that he is throwing serious money at it to see if it can be made into a stable enough product so as to be commercialized is VERY significant. (In fact, they are running continuous tests on a 1 MW E-cat system for a year, with about 6 months to go. I also saw an interview with Rossi in which he said they were learning things about how to better control the process. How this will turn out is not a forgone conclusion, but it seems promising, although of course that can't be said yet.)

Somehow you don't see this business and its effort is significant? To me, NOT reporting this effort is irresponsible. Industrial Heat LLC is also beginning to file patents (since it owns E-cat rights). This is also significant, and this section links Rossi with IH LLC, which is otherwise not explained in the patent information.

So, how can you justify NOT including the information I tried to post? From what I see, what you and the others say makes no sense. (That is, it does make sense, but it simply doesn't apply here.) It looks to me like you either haven't read the information I gave, or properly checked out the sources. Robert92107 (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's Darden's bio on http://sovereignscapital.com/project/tom-darden/ : Tom Darden is the Chief Executive Officer of Cherokee, an environmentally focused investment firm. Cherokee utilizes both private equity and internal venture capital to generate social, environmental and economic returns. Cherokee Ventures began investing in startup and venture-stage companies in 1984 and has since completed more than 70 investments, using internal capital. Cherokee Funds made its first brownfield investment in 1990 and has since raised five private equity funds focused on brownfield remediation: $50 million in 1996, $250 million in 1999, $620 million in 2003, $200 million in 2005 and $1.24 billion in 2006. From 1981 to 1983, he was a consultant with Bain & Company in Boston. Mr. Darden serves on the Board of Governors of the Research Triangle Institute as well as the boards of Crown Financial Ministries, Shaw University and the Environmental Defense Fund. Mr. Darden earned a Masters in Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina, a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of North Carolina, where he was a Morehead Scholar. He and his wife, Jody, have three grown children. Robert92107 (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

[response] I will consistently oppose any promotional content whatsoever regarding Rossi's E-Cat, which I really and truly believe to be a scam and a con game. I believe that Darden has wasted his money and his investors' money. Do you really think I care whether he has two, three or four children, and so on? And all that stuff about how rich he is? No, I don't. Not in the slightest. But that is not the main point. What matters is what the highest quality reliable sources say, not a local business journal admittedly repeating a press release.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the claims about the E-Cat are true, then it will revolutionize the world economy. And Wikipedia will document that in abundance as the indisputable evidence pours in, as coal, oil and natural gas companies fold up shop, people stop selling solar panels and wind generators, and as Rossi is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics plus every medal, award and acclammation imaginable. All of that will be documented in an abundance of the highest quality reliable sources. If I am correct, none of that will happen, and the E-Cat will be just another anecdote in the long history of con games.

[addition] Let me say again, this section does not make "extraordinary claims"! It is merely attempting to state the facts of the company formation, that it gained rights to E-cat, over $11 million has been invested in the company, they are attempting to make the E-cat a reliable system, and that they only made the investment after having some scientists look at it. That is most of what it said, and it came from reliable sources. Any other E-cat considerations are immaterial to the question should this news be posted or not.

[response] In the mean time, I will oppose any and all promotional edits to Wikipedia regarding the E-Cat until the very highest reliable sources worldwide cover it in detail. Nobel Prize, anyone? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

[addition] Since the press release is not attempting to generate any business, your objection seems irrational and immaterial. Further, the standard you propose I doubt is a valid Wikipedia standard. In a word, you seem to be too prejudiced to exercise edit control of this article.

You are missing the obvious. The investment and commercialization section is not about IF IT WORKS OR DOESN'T ... it is about investments in the technology. YOUR BIAS is affecting your judgement. IF THEY CAN'T GET IT WORKING, then that will be reported as well. IF THEY DO, that will be reported as well. However, news of either sort will come out in the future. Right now, this is significant news about someone making significant investment in the system. THAT is what is being reported, and what you are refusing to post. In other words, you are happy to report inconclusive reports about if it works, but not willing to post entirely accurate news about investment and ownership information about the system. Don't you see that this makes no sense? You are clearly showing bias here, and as a result the article is not current and accurate about the system. Robert92107 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

[response] The word "commercialization" is an obvious attempt to imply that this scam or self-delusion is legitimate. You will need to produce vastly better sources than that press release and its repeat in a local business journal to get me to agree with any edits that imply or hint in any way that E-Cat works. If a major, respected peer reviewed physics journal says it is legitimate, followed by major stories in the world's leading newspapers, then I will happily reconsider. Until then, I remain opposed and will not be budged. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

[addition] You are putting value judgements in play here. Please focus on the facts, present and not imagined. If this attempt is successful or not will come out in the future, but you do not have sufficient knowledge to make the claims you are making. The business gave future goals for marketing the product; that is commercialization, but it is a FUTURE activity. So, I added "commercialization" to the section heading to be thorough. I am perfectly content to change it to "Investment" only if that would help you focus on what is real.

Let me reiterate, I will request a neutral third party review of this matter if you guys don't start acting responsibly. Robert92107 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A third party will support an article based either on evidence or on press releases, and so will be "biased" in one direction or the other. The article is about a claimed device that generates energy, not a company that generates patents. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the philosophical position that "everyone has some sort of bias", attempting to maintain a NPOV is what is required by all editors. Here what I see is some "long-time editors" not actually responding to the points I'm raising, but rather raising their own agenda. That's provable based on what they are saying. Their approach is wrong. As to the idea that the article cannot contain information about a company involved with the device because the section is not about the operation of the device itself that seems a bit absurd. Are you suggesting that what I really need to do is create a new W article titled something like "Energy catalyzer business"? The only justification for something like that would seem to be article length, but that doesn't apply here. The ownership of E-cat has changed; that is one of the significant news items that is this new section. Robert92107 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Robert92107: there are already more than two parties involved, so a third opinion is not a great choice of dispute resolution. The reliable sources noticeboard is thataway if you want additional opinions. Whether you post here or there, it would be helpful if you worked on brevity and explained why you feel a press release meets the requirements listed at WP:SELFSOURCE for the information it is intended to support. VQuakr (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not an expert in Wikipedia administration, but it seemed to me that it would be good to have a neutral third party (and the numbers involved in each side are not really the issue here, since we're talking about positions) examine the evidence and give their own impartial response. As to why this news is "W newsworthy", I have succinctly said that a serious investor is attempting to make the system a workable product, and has raised a company with over $11 million in funds to attain that goal. THAT is significant news concerning an idea that has lurking around the fringes of the energy sector for decades now. People who say this business is a scam are wrong [since this is a very reputable capital investment firm that is behind this], and people who say it is impossible to do are prejudging the issue [they may be right or wrong, but they shouldn't push their viewpoint instead of actual facts]. I see a lot of bias in how these "editors" are responding, and I believe that a neutral third party would see it as well. I am only being factual in my position, they are not. Actually, I have been very brief in the core material. It's just that others don't seem able to focus on point. Robert92107 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Robert92107: You can try, but you might find yourself hit by the WP:BOOMERANG. You have a long-time editors and admins already involved here, and the "keep asking until you get the answer you want" approach is not especially popular on Wikipedia (see WP:IDHT). Guy (Help!) 09:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is another example of people not reading what I've said. There have been only two points raised that might seem somewhat relevant: (1) W doesn't allow any business-promotional press release data [and I said that this is not promotional since it not selling anything or announcing that anything is actually for sale, but news about a business, of which there are already many examples on W], and (2) the sources have only "press release" data [and I said this is not true since the material differs, the journal article actually conducted an interview with the company, and the sources are reliable]. The other objections raised just do not concern what this section is about. Indeed, it explicitly acknowledges that the E-cat is not a working product! The biases of these "editors" is dreadfully apparent, since they do not want to see anything in this article unless it in some way debunks or disproves it. The investment data does neither. So, why can't these "editors" maintain the required W standard of NPOV? Robert92107 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Guide for the uninitiated: 'long-term editor' equates to 'more experienced at gaming the system'. Brian Josephson (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. If an "editor" can't reexamine his position when he's called out for lack of NPOV, then shouldn't he recuse himself? It appears to me perhaps this article has been hijacked by those who only want negative information to appear here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert92107 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 September 2015‎ Robert92107

Robert92107, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not here to provide promotion for the E-Cat, and we certainly aren't going to state that any investor has provided 'over $11 million in funds' towards it - because we have no source whatsoever for that assertion. Industrial Heat certainly claim to have raised $11 million - but an no point have they ever stated that this is all going towards the E-Cat. We simply don't know what 'rights' they have acquired, what they paid for such 'rights', or what their plans are. And the context for this needs to be understood - this is not the first claimed 'investor' to be discussed in relation to the E-Cat (see the supposed Dekaflon deal) and nor is it the first time that Rossi has talked about the device going into production. The history of the E-Cat is littered with such claims (including a mystery 'factory' in the U.S. which failed to materialise) and we have no reason to consider the latest claims any more credible than past ones - if we were to include Industrial Heat, we would likewise be required to report on Dekaflon, on the mystery 'factory' and on all the other unsubstantiated claims made in regard to supposed commercialisation of the E-Cat. It would be entirely misleading to do otherwise. AS for getting a 'third opinion', this article has been the subject of discussion on Wikipedia noticeboards many times, and there is no evidence that the editing of this article is in any way contrary to the wishes of the Wikipedia community - per policy, Wikipedia reflects mainstream science, maintains a healthy scepticism towards promotional claims of scientific breakthroughs, and resolutely resists the attempts of promoters of questionable 'inventions' whether they be supposed energy-producing devices, unverified 'cures' or whatever. This is an encyclopaedia, reporting the best of contemporary knowledge, as reported within the scientific mainstream - it is not a provider of free advertising for the unproven and unverifiable. If you want to promote the E-Cat, you will have to do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a poor thing when anybody fails to reappraise their prior position in response to new evidence. If and when Rossi produces some, I am sure we'll look at it and see if we need to change the content, but thus far all he's done is blow smoke, and that is precisely what the content you advocate amounts to. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Investment and commercialization section (data and summary arguments for third party review purposes)

(This data is included to provide a quick entry to the item under discussion. The entire discussion, of course, can be read, but you might want to read the below first.)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion some of you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Energy Catalyzer. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! BTW, you are welcome to continue discussing the issue here if you believe that it can be resolved that way. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Investments and commercialization (for review)

On January 24, 2014, Cherokee Investment Partners through its startup Industrial Heat LLC acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi’s E-Cat. J. T. Vaughn, manager of Industrial Heat LL, and founder of Cherokee McDonough Challenge (an accelerator for environmental startups), noted that performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of their staff and validated by an independent expert before the rights were purchased.

Terms of the deal were not announced, but a US Securities filing reported that $11.6 million has been invested in the firm. Vaughn said the firm is most interested in making the technology more widely available to universities, non-governmental organizations, and industry partnerships to further its development.

---

Summary of objections which relate to the above data are: (1) press release materials should not ever be included in W articles, (2) only press release data is included in the section, and (3) the sources used are not reliable, and (4) while investments are clearly included, "commercialization" clearly is not indicated, and it implies acceptance of the E-cat as a workable system.

Response to (4): agreed that the section title goes beyond what is known and proveable, so I think dropping "and commercialization" is reasonable. It does relate to the company's goals, but that is not that significant at this point. If they do get a workable system and are prepared to go beyond demonstration, then it would make sense.

Rebuttals to objections (1) to (3) are as follows:

(no time now, will add later) Robert92107 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Robert, you need to read, learn and understand WP:RS before you get blocked for your fringe advocacy. Press releases are not independent sources. Scammers' victims rarely realise they have been scammed until some way down the line. What matters - and I mean, here ALL that matters - is Rossi proving his claims via independently replicable tests. Not demonstrations to potential marks, but actual controlled tests monitored and assessed by real scientists. Come back when that's been done. Right now, even the cold fusionists know Rossi is a fraud: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/10/12/rossi-handles-samples-in-alleged-independent-test-of-his-device/ Guy (Help!) 23:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is it you keep saying things that are not true?

FACT, I am not advocating that E-cat works or not.

FACT, I am not promoting any company (nor do I have any connections with them).

FACT, the press release about the company is only cited because it adds information not included in a business news reporter's article about the company. The latter confirms the former, and both are reputable sources. (If necessary I could ask the principal party directly if you can't accept these sources.)

FACT, the section gives information about a change in legal ownership of the E-cat system, as well as the goals of the company re the system.

FACT, Industrial Heat LLC is not a scam. It is a legally recognized company with SEC filings to prove it.

FACT, you are wrong in saying that the only thing that needs to be proved is Rossi's claims. This section has nothing to do with that, and you do not have the right to arbitrarily determine that this is the only information that is allowed in this article. The article by definition has a more general scope, and legal ownership and business activities logically fit within the topic of the article.

FACT, I have no fears of "being blocked for fringe advocacy" because I AM NOT DOING ANY OF THAT! (I have said this is in a number of ways repeatedly, but you just don't seem to listen.) I think that the world is now facing incredible challenges, and science and engineering are making some incredible advances. So, I am very curious to how this will work out, and think that others who look into this topic should know that this story is ongoing with a new actor. That is the extent of my "commitment" to E-cat, that is, a commitment to the truth. However, you seem to be wedded to a bias, in contravention to Wikipedia requirements. I know that, on the other hand, I am not biased; I am merely seeking to get relevant facts into the record. I would welcome any number of independent reviews of what I'm trying to post re this recent news about Industrial Heat LLC. If others who are independent have suggestions to correct problems or improve text, I certainly will welcome their input. By definition Wikipedia articles are collaborative affairs. I've updated other articles and never run into such irresponsible "editing" as I've encountered here, and I stand by my characterization of that.

BTW, I know that the past of the E-cat is littered with false starts and failed announcements. Also, Defkalion (I saw it misspelled) is not directly connected with Rossi, since they had a split a long time ago, and they have said in the past that their version differed in some significant ways from Rossi's. I have not been following them lately, and I don't know if they've even survived the Greek financial collapse. However. none of this is relevant to the question under discussion here, is it? Robert92107 (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FACT: there are no reliably-sourced details whatsoever explaining what 'change in legal ownership of the E-cat system', if any, has taken place - all we know is that IH and Rossi agree that IH has paid Rossi an unspecified sum of money for unspecified 'rights'. There is nothing substantive to report. It isn't 'news', it is PR, in regard to yet more implausible claims made concerning a device that has a long history of such claims, none of which ever come to anything. Wikipedia does not base content on regurgetated press releases that tell us nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: The very first sentence of the news journal says, "Executives at Cherokee Investment Partners in Raleigh have confirmed that its affiliate company, Industrial Heat LLC, has acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to a nuclear device from Italy that some say could one day replace electric or fossil fuels" (emphasis added). Further, IH LLC also recently filed an international patent. So, the right are NOT unspecified, they are clear, and they are powerful, since IH LLC can file their own patents on the device and its components. What is not clear about that? Robert92107 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FACT: Repeatedly shouting FACT underlines the FACT that you are engaged in a campaign to boost this implausible and unproven device which is promoted by a convicted fraudster, and credibly identified in reliable sources as a scam. That FACT means you are on dodgy ground. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, saying 'fact' in this context is a purely a means of drawing the attention of readers of this page to the important fact that a number of things that have been stated here, as if they were facts, are in reality not facts. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: The device will stand or fall by how this development turns out; I cannot make it into something that it isn't. What is news is that a significant capital investment company started a company to basically work on the device. That is news, and ignoring it isn't justifiable. Robert92107 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

When you say "rebuttal", you appear to mean repeatedly pulling arguments out of your butt. You're right, you can't make it into something it isn't: for example, you can't make it into a legitimate business by citing press releases, even after they have been credulously repeated by a local paper. Read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. We don't give equal weight to respected popular science journals and the claims of convicted fraudsters, for example. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The press release is by definition promotional, and carries no weight for inclusion. Given the nature of the device, using the press release for additional details would be problematic. The local business journal coverage gives no weight for anywhere beyond the Raleigh area. Until we have better sources, I think it should be kept out, per WP:NOTNEWS especially. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: The business journal is one specific to where the companies are located, hence it has direct knowledge of the people involved. The article also mentioned talking with the company officers. So, that is why the article title starts off with CONFIRMED. The journal is also owned by a large business journal organization (as I've indicated above). So, this objection is akin to saying a news article in a local newspaper can't be counted because it isn't national? That makes no sense. The source is credible. Robert92107 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not base article content on regurgitated press releases. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTNEWS says, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. " --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, one does not want all newsworthy events to be faithfully included: discrimination is needed. The acquistion of rights or whatever by IH is, in my judgement at least, a particularly significant event that ought to be included. It's a pity that some people seem unable to appreciate its significance. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That is the essence of editorial judgment: weighing up if something is actually newsworthy (rather than, as we see here, a press release picked up by one local paper and a magazine that is, albeit gratifyingly skeptical, definitely taking sides), and, if it is newsworthy, is it significant. A significant financial report will be in the financial press. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• A single-purpose account (and fan of Josephson) mentions this reality-based commentary: http://www.popsci.com/article/science/dubious-cold-fusion-machine-acquired-north-carolina-company - I still don't think it's significant, given that this happened over 18 months ago and nothing has come of it. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Seems to indicate significance, as well as supporting the inclusion of even more criticism of the product and claims made about it, especially the "tests". --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy/JzG seems not to appreciate the timescales frequently needed to develop a product to the point where it can be sold widely. And it is quite an exaggeration to infer that the source is a fan of mine purely on the basis of the fact that he refers to a video on the e-cat made by myself and a staff member in our Materials Science department. What point is being made here? And again, what does Guy/JzG mean calling that account a 'single-purpose' one — the site claims to cover all of 'popular science'? Let me just make the point (re Ronz's comment) that I have no objection to critical comments being included, as long as they are not being used in a sufficiently unbalanced way as to end up pushing a PoV. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

18 months with no further discussion of the IP purchase in reliable independent sources, means nothing has yet come if it. We're not in the crystal ball business, and actually the earliest comments describing it as a scam are over four years old (and there is as yet not one single credible piece of evidence to support Rossi's claims). It's also worth remembering that Rossi has a history of dishonesty. I know you believe in this thing, and I don't. That does not matter a hill of beans. What matters, for Wikipedia policy, is what the scientific consensus shows (and for cold fusion devices that is not favourable), and what is shown in reliable independent sources. The second word if that triumvirate is particularly important. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just so you know, I am following the discussion on this page and looking at every link. Obviously it would not be appropriate for a DRN volunteer to comment or take sides, but I am paying attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And just so you know, I have withdrawn from the voluntary dispute resolution procedure, since it has become apparent that Guy Macon sees no reason to include himself when issuing (appropriate) instructions to comment on content rather than behaviour (See discussion on the DRN talk page [2]). I do not consider this to be 'moderation', and I would advise others taking part to likewise consider whether it might be appropriate to withdraw, rather than be faced with accusations of policy violations (concerning those on both sides of this dispute) in a context where they cannot respond. It should be remembered that participation in DRN is voluntary, and that any outcome is non-binding. And DRN discussions cannot overrule policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I wouldn't bother pursuing the issue because people have far too many more pressing problems to deal with, and they won't be interested in this. I notice that despite all the words used, no one has addressed core issues such as what the topic of the article is, and how the proposed text relates to that. It won't get any better. It's a shame because now those supporting the inappropriate edit will be convinced they should keep pushing. If DRN were working, the situation could have been quickly explored, then a firm statement of standard procedures explained. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that it is appropriate to go to the talk page of an article that is being discussed at DRN and encourage those involved to dig in their heels and not resolve the dispute?

Why not go to DRN and make your argument concerning "core issues such as what the topic of the article is and how the proposed text relates to that"? That seems like a discussion that could change some minds if you were to present a compelling argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I respect your attempt to resolve this, but in sometimes you just have to face the fact that minds aren't going to be changed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have avoided the DRN process as well, partly because I have a bunch of commitments outside Wikipedia at the moment that would preclude substantive participation, and mostly because what I expected to happen there seems to be happening. (That is, the DRN discussion is just another front in the same filibustering war, where the E-cat's mostly-civil POV promoters are asking the other parent in the hopes of getting a slightly greater edge.)

A possibly instructive comparison is to another, similarly non-functional 'alternative physics' cold-fusion-esque device and company, in the form of BlackLight Power. (See also Talk:BlackLight Power#Did Roosevelt County Electric actually buy anything in 2008, and did BLP actually deliver?.)

• Like this article, that one slowly and steadily accumulated a list of claimed business ventures and collaborations. Generally, the claims were sourced to one-off or passing mentions in a mix of reliable sources, unreliable blogs, local 'business news' outlets, and press releases.
• Like this article, that one suffered from the 'dog that didn't bark' problem—there would be an initial announcement that made a sufficiently (if barely) bright enough flash in the pan to be mentioned (briefly) in a few independent news outlets. There would then be months and years of no additional news on any of the announcements.
• Like this article, that one ended up being a blog that listed news stories as they arrived, but failed to ever look back, fact check, follow up, or otherwise acknowledge that the initial, rosy, highly-speculative stories never really turned into meaningful announcements of real products or scientific publications.

Earlier this year, I and other editors realized that this was a problematic state of affairs. Wikipedia was being used as a promotional (or at least highly-credulous) blog of announcements, rather than engaging in any sort of critical analysis or maintaining sensible editorial oversight and judgement. At the time, the article contained a claim that BlackLight Power (BLP) had reached a licensing agreement with an electric utility to supply up to 250 MW of electricity and/or cogenerated heat. Ultimately, it was decided to remove the claim from our article because there was very little information about the deal, and no evidence that anything meaningful had ever resulted from the licensing agreement in terms of energy production, installed equipment, or anything else. (And BlackLight Power is a paragon of openness and transparency compared to the E-Cat, Industrial Heat, and Rossi.)

It looks like the E-Cat is carrying on exactly the same way: announcements followed by silence, over and over again, with no apparent institutional 'memory' of what they've announced before. We should treat their announcements in the same way—no additional coverage until their claims are independently substantiated. We're not the E-Cat blog. If an announcement isn't important enough to warrant follow-up my credible, major news outlets, then the announcement probably wasn't important to begin with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Fortune Article

How can this not be reliable? The other stuff from Triangle Business News can be added as background information. And I'm taking Featherstone out of the lead. Alanf777 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You did rather more than that: you placed your view of the significance of the fact of investment ahead of a WP:RS view of the fraudulent nature of Rossi's claims. The source you cite does not state that the investment validates the claims. Getting people to throw money down the drain is Rossi's business model, the fact that it happened again does not affect the unproven status of the device or Rossi's history of fraud and unsubstantiated claims. I note that you are a long-time off-wiki cold fusion supporter. That is significant here. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been active in ANALYZING all the reports about the E-Cat (See http://lenr.qumbu.com/ and http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/index.html), and have had personal correspondence with a number of people who have been involved with some of the E-Cat experiments/demonstrations. I have been convinced by the evidence that CF in general (scientifically proved beyond a reasonable doubt -- See Craven and Letts) and the E-Cat in particular (by a preponderance of evidence, although for example, I warned that the Legano report is not proof -- based on my analysis of the emissivity) are real. On my talk page you accused me of being a single-purpose editor -- though I have contributed to 166 articles. Alanf777 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The fortune article makes it clear that Darden was fully aware of the history of Cold Fusion as a whole and of Rossi's background in particular. And yet he led an investment of $11 million and expects to invest more. That itself is newsworthy (see my comment in the recent dispute). Note that in my addition (since censored reverted) I included all of Darden's cautions and warnings. And yes, I have been convinced by the evidence that CF and Rossi in particular are real. Alanf777 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Lose the silly melodramatic accusations of censorship, please. BRD is a commonly used editing cycle. I think this venture capital has received enough media attention to merit a sentence somewhere. A section is overcoverage that lends undue weight to the news. VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the lead says he's a con-man, this refutes it and merits inclusion. But it doesn't fit in any other section. Alanf777 (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Fortune articles cover a noteworthy investment in the technology, whether it works or not. A short sentence or two at this point is warranted.- MrX 17:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Alanf777: this in no way refutes the Featherstone quote in the lede. @MrX: I don't think the Darden quote adds much to an understanding of the topic. The relevant part is the investment, not whether the non-scientist investor is personally convinced it works. I think it would be better to describe the investment without the quote; what do you think? VQuakr (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As I've argued before, Featherstone himself refutes that quote in the lead. It was a set-up for the rest of the article, where he says: "After three days of asking every researcher in the house, I couldn't find a single person willing to call Rossi a con man". (Featherstone's own conclusion says that an internal report would never be published, but it was, followed soon by the original "third party" report.) My original addition to the investment section included Darden's quote(s) that he was fully aware of the "con-man" history of CF and Rossi in particular, and warns that it hasn't been proven. Alanf777 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with trimming Darden's quote as long as we mention the investment.- MrX 18:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd leave out the "positives" and include Darden's WARNINGS Alanf777 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I took out the "hot fusion" Fortune article (not relevant to the ecat), and added a link to Triangle Business News, also without comment. (Note : this is NOT the PR-release which was objected to). Alanf777 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The bizjournals article is still based on PR sources. The 2nd Forbes article still mentioned Rossi even if that was not its main subject. This was a step in the wrong direction. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I put the second article back in. I took out the Triangle article (though they have interviewed Darden) and put an (indirect) link to Industrial Heat's SEC Filings. I'll put in an official SEC link when I track it down. Alanf777 (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You added the SEC filing, a redundant primary source. Was it also you who put in the POV term "LENR"? I note that you have stated elsewhere that this is a less career-destroying term, but Wikipedia does not care about how toxic a term is on someone's resume. As an off-wiki partisan quoted by Forbes bloggers you should make suggestions here rather than editing the article directly. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Claims regarding any investment remain problematic, at least in part because they still don't tell us the nature of the 'investment'. The $12 million figure has been bandied about repeatedly, inviting and encouraging the tacit assumption that this somehow represents money that Darden (and perhaps other unspecified investors) have irretrievably spent with no hope of recovery unless the E-cat is a physically real and economically viable technology. Given such an assumption, one might well reach the not-totally-unreasonable conclusion that Darden wouldn't just waste $12 million by pouring it into a useless sinkhole, and that therefore there must be some pretty solid evidence that we, the general public, are not necessarily privy to.

Unfortunately, this type of reasoning falls apart once we realize that we don't know the nature of Darden's 'investment'. (And the SEC Form D that Alanf777 and others have repeatedly mentioned is no help. Form D is a very minimal sort of disclosure that provides next to no information; it's only permitted (under Rule 506) for companies that aren't making public share offerings.) We don't get access to even a very basic balance sheet. In principle, Darden could write a $12 million check to Industrial Heat, Industrial Heat could put that in its bank account...and nothing further. Presto—a $12 million investment! At some point in the future, Industrial Heat could be dissolved, and (depending on its – still secret – governing agreements) Darden would get a check back for the full $12 million. Oh.

As an investor with a large portfolio, Darden may find it useful to park a chunk of cash in a 'research and development' project or a 'small business' enterprise. Such investments often receive favorable tax treatment. Such investments may enjoy special access to government tax credits and grants, some of which may be transferable to Darden or his other projects. (The most recent infusion of cash to BlackLight Power – an equally dubious LENR company based in New Jersey – was over a million dollars in R&D tax credits which could be sold to other companies.) Heck, even having capital losses on his books can be useful to offset tax exposures from gains elsewhere.

Darden could even have had not-directly-financial reasons for wanting to 'invest' in the Triangle Park area. Perhaps he wanted to make a local politician happy for some entirely unrelated purpose. Perhaps he wanted to show some diversification into 'alternative energy' as part of a PR effort.

In short, then, waving around the $12 million figure without actually knowing how much has actually been spent in a meaningful way is the worst sort of deceptive and misleading recklessness. What's the company's actual burn rate? How much did they pay Rossi? (Up front in cash, not as stock or options?) How much is going out as salaries to real employees who actually work for the company, doing actual work on the E-cat? How much cash has actually been spent on equipment and consumables and physical plant that they can't get back if and when they fold up the company? How much skin does Darden really have in the game? What do you want to bet we'll never see a straight answer to any of those questions? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And, why would anyone sell a significant part of an inexhaustible goldmine for $12 million? If there is evidence that would convince a hard-nosed business to invest that amount because the device works, why not just provide that evidence to the public and take the much larger amounts that would be available? See WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a whole lot of speculation, and much of it might turn out to be true, but the fact is that the investment rises to the level of noteworthiness for coverage in two articles from a major, reliable source. I'm surprised that I have to defend two Fortune articles considering that this article is rife with references to self-published sources.- MrX 12:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Receiving a passing mention on a couple of occasions with no meaningful discussion of the substance of the 'investment' doesn't really rise to the level of noteworthiness for an encyclopedia article. As an encyclopedia – rather than a newspaper or blog or collection of product announcements and rumors – we have the luxury of time. In the unlikely event that Industrial Heat ever actually manufactures something besides press releases, we can appropriately and thoroughly cover the history of investments in it. (Similarly, if there were an SEC investigation or investor lawsuit, we might also reexamine or coverage.)

Because we can't know the significance of the 'investment', and that significance (or lack thereof) can only be established by future events, it is not appropriate for us – as an encyclopedia – to cover right now. As a matter of WP:WEIGHT, we exclude mention of the 'investment' because to do otherwise would mislead our readers as to the substance and merit of Rossi's claims. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to "know" the significance of the investment; we just need to say that it happened, when it happened, and from whom it happened. I'm curious why folks don't seem to be as concerned about the significance or reliability this blog post, or some of the other sources cited in the article.- MrX 13:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Darden has 'invested' in a company that he and his friend control and are the sole officers of. As an 'investment', without further information, it's about as meaningful as saying that Darden moved his wallet from his left pocket to his right pocket. There's nothing useful for us to report; it's just money (or some amount of cash, debt, and equity) getting shuffled back and forth on paper to no readily-apparent consequence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source to support that "it's just money (or some amount of cash, debt, and equity) getting shuffled back and forth on paper"?- MrX 13:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That is literally what an investment – any investment – is, at the most basic level. Since the sources we have already name Darden as the principal investor, and clearly identify Darden (and friend) as the company's sole officers (with Darden as CEO, and Rossi nowhere to be seen), to a reasonable approximation it really is a transfer from Darden to Darden, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

The onus is on you to find reliable, robust sources to demonstrate that the money is being used to do something specific and material—not on me to prove that they aren't doing anything. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we both understand what an investment is, so I'm not sure what your point is. The brief content in the article is more than adequately supported by sources, and it's relevant and noteworthy. I'm not advocating writing any more about it at this point.- MrX 18:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't mention Darden (or shouldn't, at any rate) because 'investment' can have a very slippery meaning. At best, all we really know is that there was a paper transfer from Darden to Darden. What we don't know is if there was any material 'investment' in a more meaningful sense—that is, has Darden actually spent any meaningful amount of money (not just transferred it to his own company), and is any of the $12 million actually at risk? Given that there's no evidence to support either of those two things having happened, to talk about an 'investment' would be misleading promotional puffery. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If DARDEN is participating in a scam WITH Rossi that is certainly an important fact and merits inclusion. If Rossi is the "con-man" (see the lead) and Darden the sucker (even though Darden discusses the issue) then THAT is a relevant fact. I certainly don't see why your evaluation of what's relevant and important over-rides Fortune Magazine's. Alanf777 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You might be surprised to discover that not everything from Fortune's website appears in Wikipedia, or is considered appropriate to include in Wikipedia. Further, there's no need for Darden to be a sucker or a con man; I outlined several hypothetical scenarios above whereby Darden could stand to benefit from a paper investment in Rossi regardless of whether or not the technology worked in any way, shape, or form, and whether or not he ever actually spent a dime on building an E-cat. And "businessman cleverly structures business deal to reduce tax exposure or secure government subsidies" seems a much more plausible model of reality than "businessman risks $12 million on belief on wildly improbable invention".

In any case, I've said my bit. I'm obviously not changing Alan or MrX's minds on this, and I equally obviously find their two positions untenable. I'm going to excuse myself from further bickering, and encourage them to both to do the same to let others get words in edgewise. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Are claims by Sergio Focardi reliable based on these sources?

I have removed the following, because the claims made someone who seems to be connected to the inventor, do not seem to be adequately sourced.

Because of his research into cold fusion for over 15 years, Sergio Focardi was contacted by Andrea Rossi in 2007 in order to validate the apparatus at its early stage of development. After four years of work and measurements together with Rossi, Focardi concluded that nuclear fusion reactions happen inside the Energy Catalyzer. Focardi states that the nuclear process is facilitated by a secret additive, known only by Rossi and not by him. According to Focardi, the process would be much less intense without this additive. Rossi and Focardi are then reported to have been unable to find a peer-reviewed scientific journal that would publish their paper describing how they claim the Energy Catalyzer operates. Their paper appears only in Rossi's self-published blog, Journal of Nuclear Physics.

References

I'm particularly troubled by the mention of a "secret additive" which facilitates (?) the nuclear process. The Journal of Nuclear Physics which bills itself as a peer reviewed journal does not appear to be so. The only meaningful content from EE Times seems to be "It is reported that Focardi and Rossi have had their paper refused by peer-review publications." The oilprice.com article is an interview with Rossi, and in no way an independent source for anything factual. I can't access the Rai News video. Does anyone else find this paragraph to be questionable, or should I put it back?- MrX 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree there are problems with it.

First, I'd hope we can easily agree that Rossi is an unreliable source. Anything that is ultimately attributable only to him should probably not be in the article. The oilprice article might be thrown out completely because of this.

I'm unable to access the second source, and it being non-English makes it hard to determine why. Is there a free to access version available? An archived copy maybe? --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to bee an archived version: http://www.telefree.it/news.php?op=view&id=89777. The text translates roughly as

Science and Technology: In Greece there who is willing to bet 200 million euro, the US would have already started the industrial production in November may already be on the market. The Energy Catalyzer, invented Italian Andrea Rossi, is still a prototype but mysterious promises a revolution in the way we produce energy. The E-Cat no one can explain how it works, but it seems to make a few grams of nickel, a bit 'of hydrogen and a "secret ingredient" in abundant kilowatt hour. Rossi is still awaiting the issuance of a patent, but positive tests and expert witnesses seem to confirm that "It must be a process of nuclear type". And then, as he tells Rainews the President of the Energy Committee of the Royal Academy of Sweden, Sven Kullander: "If it works really worth the Nobel". A hoax? A collective hallucination? Or a radical innovation? The envoy Rainews Angelo Saso has gathered the voices of the protagonists and experts to uncover the background to this invention "that promises to change the world."

In the video preview of the service to be broadcast on May 5 at 20:35 on RAI News 24.
— Tele Free

I think this is the video.- MrX 19:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look.

Ouellette (2011) is from HowStuffWorks. I've not checked in some years, but thought it to be an unreliable source, where articles are often written for clients with conflicts of interest in the subject matter. In other words, it is a pr mechanism. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The biggest red flag here is that Rossi went to a True Believer to "validate" his work instead of doing the one thing that will actually work, which is to publish full details in a reliable peer-reviewed journal. The issue is not whether True Believers accept his claims, it's whether he can persuade the reality-based community. He appears to have given up even pretending to try. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Pre-orders claims

I have removed (diff) a section recently added titled 'Manufacture', which only contained Rossi's assertion (given in an interview) that he had $3 billion in pre-orders lined up and an acknowledgement that "issues remain to be tested...". This sort of promotional fluff has no place in this article. Non-binding, cash-free, commitment-free pre-orders are meaningless. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have again removed this bit of puffery. The mere fact that Rossi continues to make outlandish self-promotional claims is not noteworthy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not really puffery. The content is properly sourced and properly attributed. We're not in position to determine if it's true or not. That's the responsibility of Huffington Post, David H. Bailey, and Jonathan M. Borwein.- MrX 17:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, it represents some kind of committment on Rossi's part. When the deadline is passed either he will have to admit that the test didn't work out well, or he will have to say that manufacture is beginning, in which case he will need to give the kind of detail that he has avoided doing previously. And it is only the first part re preorders that could be considered puffery in any case, the rest could remain. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Also, $3billion in pre-orders is not such an extraordinary claim. It doesn't necessarily mean that any money has changed hands or that any contracts are in place. - MrX 18:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It's from an interview, so leave it out. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It surely cannot be good w'pedia practice simply to make a statement like this (It's from an interview, so leave it out) and act upon it, without the slightest attempt to provide justification for the statement concerned?--Brian Josephson (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please review WP:BATTLE, WP:FOC, and WP:TALK.

If you're saying that you aren't sure what policies apply and would like someone to explain, then I'd point you to WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, and WP:PSTS. --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

At your request I have removed the second part of my previous comment. The first part, viz. criticism of yours on account of no justification being given for what you say, is retained as relevant comment.
You now appear to be quoting a number of WP pages in justification of removal. Of these, WP:SOAP might be used to cut out the reference to pre-orders, which I have agreed to, and WP:NPOV doesn't seem to be relevant as the article as a whole covers both points of view: it would be legitimate to include something critical of the application claim if you feel impelled to do so an can find something in a RS, though in point of fact I have kept the part of the interview where Rossi indicates some uncertainty. Finally, I have reviewed the part of WP:PSTS referring to primary sources and am satisfied that this is covered as a situation where the use of primary sources is permissible. OK? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a PR engine. We are not here to promote Rossi's business, or to repeat his claims, most of which have been shown time and again to be self-serving and without merit. Rossi is using the claims of pre-orders in order to imply that he has a working device, thereby waving aside the need to prove his claims. That's not how it works. A working e-cat is probably a bit less likely than a production Moller Skycar. The HuffPo interview is entirely credulous, and that's not really too big a surprise since they also give space to Dana Ullman. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

But we are here to provide information. The interview is cited purely as a source for Rossi's statement that after the specified date production will begin unless problems have surfaced, a statement that he cannot easily wriggle out of: at the time concerned he must either begin industrial production or admit that there has been a problem; otherwise he will be seen to have made a false claim. Either way, the outcome will be crucial.
We see in the comments of the previous editor an anti-Rossi engine: as far as the interview is concerned it is the fact that Rossi has committed himself to this statement that is relevant, the viewpoint of the interviewer being irrelevant as far as that fact is concerned. Again, some of Rossi's claims have been without merit but others have not.
Statements such as 'Rossi is using the claims of pre-orders in order to imply that he has a working device' are pure speculation, and in any case the existence of pre-orders proves nothing, and assertion of such would not convince people of anything. This is not relevant comment. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

By a curious coincidence, that's what everyone says when they are trying to insert PR content into articles. There is no independent source for these claims. They derive solely from Rossi, who has a criminal record for dishonesty and clearly cannot be trusted as you appear to trust him. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV doesn't seem to be relevant as the article as a whole covers both points of view" NPOV shouldn't make the mistake, common with lazy journalists, that there are two opposing viewpoints and that balance should be given between the two. --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There clearly are two opposing viewpoints, and both should be fairly represented, which doesn't necessarily imply balance. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Material from interviews has no weight in general. In this case there is the added problem of it being promotional and self-serving, while coming from a questionable source (Rossi). --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be that bothered myself if the pre-order item were left out, with appropriate rewording of the rest which is on a different subject. That would make the section rather short. But I did check this issue out at the beginning and couldn't see an existing section where it would fit very well. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Section on manufacture

I restored this section since it appears that Tenofalltrades is failing to distinguish between the section saying "Rossi said in an October 2015 interview that there have been US$3 billion worth of pre-orders for the Energy Catalyzer, etc." and the bare statement "There have been US$3 billion worth of pre-orders for the Energy Catalyzer, etc." If the section had said the latter, we would indeed be depending on the credibility of Rossi, but that is not what is being asserted. Clearly, the section is only asserting what is being claimed, which is surely notable, as anyone who studies the interview will realise. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The $3B claim is not substantiated yet ... it's apparently based on the list of those who signed up for the option to order a domestic eCat (Interested party : I'm on the list) -- the list will only be opened to orders when/if a domestic ecat is certified and ready for manufacture. BUT Industrial Heat IS expanding into a 20,000 square foot facility. Darden on Industrial Heat's new lab space, controversy surrounding its technology http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2015/10/industrial-heat-lab-space-cary-nc.html (Oops! Signed : ) Alanf777 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The water heater business must be booming. I expect Rossi will buy a private jet, that will help him escape the mob when the inevitable happens :-) Guy (Help!) 15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed: the private jet (or will it be personal AirWheel®) helping him escape the mob of people rushing to congratulate him on finally bringing his product to market, despite the best efforts of w'pedia editors to create a one-sided picture on his biography page. I know from an experience of giving a talk to Japanese junior schoolchildren that too much adulation from a crowd rushing to express its appreciation can pose a threat to one's safety. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If there were any substantiated claims that could be made about the E-cat, I would be all into congratulating Rossi for his work. Mind you, this isn't just Wikipedia and a small cabal, but a rather wisespread distrust of what has been said about the topic. He has been 2-3 months to releasing a workable prototype now for several years, and my patience just runs far too thin and when I personally try to chase down substantial leads on the topic... I always run into logical circles that end up nowhere. Inquires made about even investing into the project just turn out to be dead ends for me.

Ever since the fiasco in Miami where supposedly a factory was being built and a formal police inquiry on the matter was carried out (due to concerns about a manufacturing plant building unlicensed nuclear reactors) went full circle and faded into nothing... I have yet to believe anything else said. There is reason for extreme skepticism even for people who have left open the door to see if anything legitimate might come up, and this debate has been more than played out even on these talk pages much less anywhere else. Before you can say there is a manufacturing plant or even anything in this article at all about manufacturing this device, at least I want to see some certifiable independent review by 3rd parties with this technology and its prototypes. Even that isn't happening right now. There is nothing of substance you can even point to that can be included in this article in terms of manufacturing, and off the cuff statements by Rossi are IMHO not substantive enough for inclusion in this article. That clearly falls into unreliable sources. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sociology of E-cat article, and Lundin-Lidgren paper

Nice article on the sociology of the situation, and new explaination article awaiting scientific review before adding to the aricle: https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-scientists-dismiss-the-possibility-of-cold-fusion, Huw Price; and Rickard Lundin, Hans Lidgren, describing their theory in a paper called "Nuclear Spallation and Neutron Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing" , link on this page: http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/ GangofOne (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not reliable sources, though, so of academic interest only. Guy (Help!) 01:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Popular mechanics covered this essay as well, so they think it is a reliable source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a18673/cold-fusion-essay/  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  22:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

latest sociology

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/02/18/historic-event-one-year-1-megawatt-e-cat-trial-completed/ "One-year 1 megawatt E-Cat trial completed. On February 17, 2016, a 350-day commercial test of a one megawatt heat plant based on Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat was completed. The event must be considered historic since it’s the first time an industrially useful amount of energy is produced over such a long time from this kind of yet unexplained radiation-free nuclear reaction—LENR or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions." I'm sure Wikipedia will handle the news appropiately. GangofOne (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

GangofOne, that blog post is not in any sense a reliable source, and is of no use on Wikipedia. If and when those results are published in a respected, peer-reviewed physics journal, please let us know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The talk page is where the writers of the article may exchange information to make the page better. Surely such writers are well-served to know what is happening in the field of which they write. There are two topics, Ecat, and the sociology of science around Ecat, both of which are interesting. GangofOne (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice to have another opinion, but who is going to decide as to what "reliable" is? And your seeming insistence that the results should be published in a science journal is silly. Even if this event should be addressed by a minor newspaper that should be considered. The New York Times is frequently used here yet it wasn't until about the late 1960's that they published a retraction of a statement about rockets not being able to operate in space as they had no air to push against. Zedshort (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The rules are clear. This talkpage is for discussing edits, which must be based on reliable sources. Even if the topic is sociology, we need reliable sources that discuss that sociology, not just our own thoughts on the topic.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine that Wikipedia will give an unsourced blog post by a long-time cheerleader (who wants to sell his book about the E-cat) exactly as much attention as it deserves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That right there speaks volumes about the clear bias you have shown this subject over the years. Zedshort (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. The only bias I'm seeing is to follow our policies. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, we are terribly biased in favour of empirically verified fact and against fraudsters. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yes, a dramatic claim about physics requires eminently reliable sources, with peer reviewed articles in respected physics journals being the best. This fundamental principle is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)