Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

Fool me five times, shame on Wikipedia

About a year ago, I looked at the history of this article's coverage of the various and sundry commercialization claims. (See Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 20#A brief history of this article's dubious commercial claims.) It was clear that over the course of this article's existence, the commercialization claims had been a succession of never-followed-up-on assertions that never resulted in real businesses, real manufacturing, real factories, or real products. (Veterans of this talk page will remember Defkalion, AmpEnergo, Leonardo, Prometeon, and so forth.)

It's apparent that Darden's supposed 'investment' is headed towards more of the same. Unless and until a real, physical project from a real, physical factory is demonstrated to real, physical scientists, we shouldn't be reproducing their minimal, press-release-driven, naively-optimistic 'news' coverage. I have therefore removed the "Funding" section of the article, pending the development of independent, meaningful, and robust coverage of the topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The funding section is multiply-sourced. We can't engage in original research to conclude that the development is taking longer than we hoped, or that it's a pipe dream. We need to have sources to support that conclusion before removing a major chunk of content. Although I am firmly a skeptic of this "invention", we need to maintain objectivity. WP:DUEWEIGHT applies.- MrX 21:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
As a matter of editorial judgment, we absolutely can decide to exclude this. Rossi has form in using the fact of funding as a crowbar to lever favourable coverage into the press, and as TOAT notes the fact that he has done this more than once before does indicate that we should take a cautious approach in including it, restricting ourselves to sources that contextualise any investment with a reality-based perspective. A byline like "Amanda Hoyle covers commercial and residential real estate" does not inspire confidence that the journalist has the scientific expertise necessary to spot a dodgy claim. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
There are some fair points made by both of you. The source publications are reasonably reputable, but the coverage is weak, and the lack of follow up by any sources doesn't inspire confidence. I'm not going to object if others want to keep this material in the article, but I'm also done defending it, at least until something more comes of it.- MrX 00:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec. MrX, for what it's worth, my intent with this post isn't to hammer on you; it's just to be clear about the reasons for my edit.) The problem is that while there are multiple sources, they contain little substantial information. None of those sources contain any concrete information about, for example:
  • The amount spent on equipment, if anything;
  • The number of employees hired, if any;
  • The amount paid for rights or other intellectual property bought, sold, or licensed, if anything;
  • The number of devices sold (or for which signed purchase agreements exist, and for which actual money has changed hands), if any;
  • and so forth.
There's no indication that this latest incarnation is constructed from anything other than press releases, any more than any of the previous putative E-Cat businesses. Objectively, Rossi has a strong (indeed, unbroken) record of unsuccessful inventions and business ventures.
About six months ago (again, on this talk page) we looked at the situation with BlackLight Power (BLP), another US-based LENR company. As with the Energy Catalyzer, BLP has a long history of announcing installations and products that were just around the corner; like the Energy Catalyzer, there's no indication that BLP has ever actually delivered a working product or prototype. (On the other hand, BLP at least seems to have a real, definite address, facility and employees, that are genuinely, visibly, and indisputably wasting their investors' money.)
I noted at the time that Wikipedia has trouble when covering borderline-notable fringe topics, because of what amounts to a dog-that-didn't-bark problem. "Independent inventor defies laws of physics" is intrinsically a more interesting and economically-viable headline than "Laws of physics still correct, no free energy". You get more clicks from "Startup company will solve world energy crisis" than "Year-old company hasn't accomplished anything". The exciting initial announcement gets coverage from a small number of outlets, but no comes back to report on the predictable and boring lack of follow through. Should we always credulously mouth along with the one or two major outlets that got suckered? How long should we patiently await the confirmation that never seems to come? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Funding section removal/retoration

While the funding section that user:TenOfAllTrades deleted is well sourced, he is correct that it hasn't been followed up on by reliable sources. I'm not sure why its restoration by user:Zedshort was reverted based on it being 'promotional' as it seems to be pretty well established fact that Darden and friends put at least 10 mil toward LENR/E-cat. The main issue I have with the restoration of this material is actually that it doesn't appear to be fully factually accurate (or at least only represents part of the picture) given Rossi's recent statements on the subject, given what he has said recently, Industrial heat seems to have bought a limited 'licence' to distribute the E-cat in the Americas, China, and possibly other localities only.[[1]]

As a result I suggest that we leave the part about 'rights' out until such time as we have a reliable source that clarifies exactly what Industral Heat's rights/licence represents and restore the material at that time. The bit about 10 million investment by Darden and co seems to be well established in reliable sources (here is another one [[2]]) and could be included somewhere, but doesn't seem to be enough to support a section on its own.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  17:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there are significant questions relating to what the $10 million "investment" actually means. Darden transferred $10 million to a company that is controlled (based on its minimal filings) by...Darden. No one has put forth any information to demonstrate that Darden actually spent any real money on anything; we've seen nothing to show that Darden's company exists in any meaningful way – certainly not in a 10-million-dollar way – except on paper. In other words, there's no evidence so far that Darden couldn't fold his company tomorrow and give himself the bulk of his own money back. Since you're just freshly returned from your topic ban in this area, you may have missed the archived discussions about the lack of substance to Rossi and Darden's recent claims, but you should be able to recognize the pattern. (And it has been pointed out in the thread already present on this talk page, two sections up. I'm going to merge this there, so as not to fragment the discussion.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I guess that's a reasonable argument, but there will always be questions as to what investor money is actually going into. The fact that he has invested the money, and gone on record saying that he has done so, is probably worth a mention, even if it is simply to quote Darden himself from the interview where he says so.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Darden's 'investment' was announced more than 2 years ago now (the earliest references I can find on this talk page go back to around January 2014), yet there still are essentially no details about it. To shrug off the total absence of information with a "there will always be questions as to what investor money is actually going into" misses the point—right now, there's no evidence that any meaningful amount of investor money is actually tied up in anything.
We shouldn't pretend that an oft-reheated content-free announcement is useful content for Wikipedia readers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
As MrX said above, these are fair points, I don't necessarily agree that just deciding "its taking too long, so lets just remove it" is a sensible action, but I won't argue the point further until some new information surfaces.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Energy Catalyzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Jah, robotski. GangofOne (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

OMG...

So I was listening to the radio while driving to the store to buy a bag of potting soil, and what should come on but this. Words fail me. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yay! Now we can have an In popular culture section.- MrX 19:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Just what every Wikipedia article needs... Guy (Help!) 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
External link maybe? For advancement of understanding not found anywhere else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
External links are not for trivia. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I wasn´t serious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Industrial Heat

Industrial Heat has apparently bailed. This looks like a press release but the published source (New Energy Times) is not reliable. A more reliable source may become available. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Their statement is so vague that it's hard to find anything useful in it for the present article. If we had an article on Industrial Heat LLC it might be worth a brief mention there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@JzG: I am not really understanding what you are referring to. Where does it say anything about the E-cat?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
D'oh, wrong link. It's here. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, the actual statement from Industrial Heat is actually just a long-winded declaration that "We're awesome for no specific reasons, and we can neither confirm nor deny anything"—though I did get a chuckle out of their statement on the importance of "Embracing failure as well as success...". While Krivit's between-the-lines reading is probably correct in this instance, he's not really more reliable as a source of information and analysis than Lewan, Rossi, or Rossi's business partner du jour. Of course, the complete and thorough evasiveness of Industrial Heat's statement certainly shows why we're correct to continue to not mention or promote them on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, IH have been very clear that they aren't interested in publicity in the way that Rossi has been. They are at best vague and seem keen to let any information about the device and ongoings to filter through Rossi and his blog. Until IH or Darden decide to actually come forward and even say something, there isn't much to report anyway, as we can't exactly take Rossi's word about the state of their professional relationship. I am unclear about what part of the press release makes Kravit think that there is any kind of split though (he doesn't elaborate on why), as it seems too vague to make out much of anything. There is supposedly a report coming 'soon' based on the year long 'customer plant' that has apparently been being tested. If true I expect there will shortly be a flood of new articles on the subject.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, look—it's getting even better. Rossi (and his mysterious Leonardo Corporation) are suing Darden, Industrial Heat, et al.: [3]. Totally self-published claims, and totally not appropriate for use in this article. But I'm sure we're all just shocked to see another Rossi business deal unravelling.
Oh wait, there's more. Darden and Industrial Heat have issued a statement, as quoted by the Triangle Business Journal: [4]
Darden was unable to comment on the suit Thursday. Vaughn told Triangle Business Journal in a prepared statement that Industrial Heat is aware of the lawsuit, calling it "without merit."
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success," the statement reads, adding that Leonardo Corporation and Ross "have repeatedly breached their agreements."
The defendants plan to "vigorously" defend themselves against the suit.
Delightful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems like the latter is due mention. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to wait for it to be covered by a real news outlet, honestly. The response filing by Darden et al. in the suit will hopefully be almost as entertaining as Rossi's statement of claim. (And was Darden really a sucker to the tune of $11.5 million? Wow.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
In exactly what way is the Triangle Business Journal (a publication of American City Business Journals -- also see http://www.thebusinessjournals.com/audience/interactive-map/ for subscriber information) not a "real news outlet"? (Of course, since the editors here deemed articles in Fortune -- http://fortune.com/2015/09/27/ceo-cherokee-investment-partners-low-energy-nuclear-reaction/ -- reporting the $10M investment through International Heat to be irrelevant, I'm not exactly surprised. Likewise the reversion of information about Rossi's "important U.S. patent" -- Darden's words -- because it didn't include the name "eCat") ps: Wow? ... didn't you read that Darden was actually a "sucker" by signing an agreement to pay a total of $100,500,000? Alanf777 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
For reference (but not for use in the Wikipedia article):
The schadenfreude is strong. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that wider coverage would help prevent any disputes over it being due mention. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Rossi is trying to litigate his claims into reality! Guy (Help!) 22:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless we get a high quality source representing both sides of this litigation war I find it difficult to endorse including it in the article yet. You say it "looks like Rossi is blah" but from the limited information we have it seems equally likely that IH is trying to weasel out of paying him the agreed sum following the year test. I suggest waiting until a source appears that covers the issue in depth (and i suspect we won't have to wait long).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Only one of the two parties has a conviction for fraud and is punting a device that is disputed by most experts who have seen it. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I'm unaware of any policy or guideline that requires "a high quality source representing both sides", and I don't think for a second that "it seems equally likely" IH is at fault. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The Triangle source is marginally acceptable, but all I was saying is that I'd like to see a higher quality source, otherwise it is likely to devolve into another edit war like we've seen before over marginally acceptable sources.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Section added, with a minimal statement of the claims and IH's response. Alanf777 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a rather succinct and accurate description of the source in question.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I've trimmed the description a bit, and I'm wondering if it's appropriate for us to cover this in the article at all at this stage. The statement of claim for Rossi's lawsuit is essentially a self-published, self-promotional source, and about as reliable (and likely as accurate) as the rest of Rossi's claims over the last few years (or decades). I'm reluctant to try to build an article out of what are essentially a local paper's selections of quotes from press releases. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
A BIT? No. You gutted the description of Rossi's claim, including the payments which have already been made, and left in an even less substantiated claim by Vaughn (three years without success etc). The court papers are now available outside of Pacer. TBJ's report was fair, and so was my summary. Alanf777 (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere has removed the section, which I think is wise. Clearly any coverage of this rather contentious matter would need careful wordsmithing to avoid presenting any statement of claims as statements of fact. The solution undoubtedly does lie in more and better sourcing. I suggest this is parked for a while to see what turns up in the next couple of weeks. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This carefullness is going too far. We have a lawsuit, in verbatim, we have press releases from the two parties, and we have an article from Triangle Business Journal. This event has enough merit to go in the article, and there is nothing wrong to state the facts from both sides, with support from the article in the journal, in an objective manner. My submission was bluntly rejected, which I object to, and I will submit it once more. Feel free to correct me as much as you like, but I do not think it is right that this event should go unmentioned at this time. -- Egil (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:V, WP:RS. When the lawsuit is described in reliable independent sources (rather than, say, press releases via PR Newswire and Dropbox links to the primary source), then we can include it. It will be fixed before the WP:DEADLINE. Remember that Rossi is a convicted fraudster, so anything originating from him needs to be fact-checked by a reliable third party before we include it. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This ties back in to the "fool me five times" thread now archived here. Let's wait until there is time to see if anything comes of this; there is no rush. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The lawsuit should be briefly mentioned, but dropbox is not a published source. If the lawsuit complaint is to be used as a (primary) source, then it can be referenced on PACER.- MrX 11:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, this does not make sense (to me). We are not arguing who is right and wrong here, just stating the facts: There is a lawsuit from Rossi claiming something, there is a response from Industrial Heath, claming something. Surely this is not disputed. It is in the article I qouted from the Triangle Business Journal, part of American City Business Journals, an independent source. Did you read it? Everything is in there. It is also in the supporting, primary sources. which I believe are also relevant and interesting to refer to. PR Newswire is simply an entirely legitimate place to publish press statements, bias is not a question here, press statements are what they are, primary sources. Thanks for the tip on referring PACER, btw. A lawsuit in this matter of wide interest is definitely notable and we have sufficient material to write a couple of sentences. (Either this is a multi-million dollar fraud, or it is the invention of the century. In any case, notable) I'm not entirely sure what is going on in this little corner of WP, but reverting objective, sourced, good faith, relevant and notable material about facts that is as far as I can see undisputed was not good style when first I came here? -- Egil (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
We can cover the lawsuit in the words of reliable independent secondary sources, precisely as we are supposed to cover everything. If there are no sources discussing it in context yet, then we don't cover it yet. That is how Wikipedia works. The Triangle piece appears to me to be based on the same press release as PR Newswire. It contains red flags such as calling Rossi a "scientist". It does not even hint at any skepticism of his claims, simply reporting the statements of proponents. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Our role is not to wait untill a source pops up that may conincide with wathever view one might have (i.e. is Rossi a scientist or not). In this case, the lawsuit is certainly notable and WP should refer to the facts that seems to be well documented, i.e. that there is a lawsuit and what the views of the two parties are in an objective manner. Actually, I would state that given the interest of this case, omitting to mention the lawsuit is actually a lack of objectivity. -- Egil (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Regretfully, I must disagree with your disagreement. Based on the history extensively documented on this talk page (cf "Fool me five times" thread and everything else) this very much looks like the usual "science by press release" approach that Rossi has followed for years. Based on that history, we know that narratives promulgated by Rossi are inherently unreliable, and it is absolutely correct and essential that we wait for proper, robust, independent sourcing. Parroting Rossi's likely fatuous legal claims here makes us a part of his media and legal strategy—no thanks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There are sufficient sources for the lawsuit without needing to rely on the press release. We should also now re-add the material about the investment to provide historical context for the lawsuit. There's no need to parrot Rossi's claims, but we do have to summarize what the lawsuit is about. We can't cite a blog and How stuff works, while ignoring actual reliable sources when they report on something relevant to the subject.- MrX 13:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
While there are independent sources (the Triangle Business News local newspaper/blog, anyway) to establish that the lawsuit exists, all that those sources do is repeat the contents of the press releases. There's no independent analysis or evaluation. Rossi filing a lawsuit larded with the same spurious claims he's been making for years shouldn't provide a backdoor to get those claims into Wikipedia. Darden and company haven't even filed a response with the court yet, so we again have a one-sided presentation of Rossi's business dealings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
"Our role is not to wait untill a source pops up..." Actually, that is our role: to ensure that the we have sources appropriate for any proposed or included content. The press at this point is early and taking Rossi's claims at face value. Editors think we need better sources. I agree given the past discussions and Rossi's history. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Some editors thought that it was irrelevant that Rossi had a deal for $10M (See Fortune etc). It now turns out to have been for $100M. This lawsuit was reported by a reliable regional news organization. There is no doubt that a case has been filed : the court documents are available on Pacer, including the contract between Rossi and Industrial Heat. I believe that our readers can be informed of the existence of the case without taking sides (though I still think my summary was fair and balanced). Alanf777 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

As a result of which the fanbois have exactly what they want: the primary source which contains only Rossi's untested allegations and two credulous news stories in low quality news websites. Slow clap. If this is so significant, where are the reality-based sources? Many serious journals would be interested if there was evidence of merit to this claim. Instead we have churnalism with quotes from Rossi's fan club. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
(Copied from above) : In exactly what way is the Triangle Business Journal (a publication of American City Business Journals -- also see http://www.thebusinessjournals.com/audience/interactive-map/ for subscriber information) not a "real news outlet"? They also reported on IH's investment in Rossi, and have interviewed Darden several times. Alanf777 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The article in Triangle Business Journal, despite the outlet's lofty name, is identified as a "blog" by Google's News search: "scientist+sues+raleigh+cold+fusion+startup". If it were in print rather than online, it would be a free weekly handout from one of those wire racks at the grocery or convenience store, existing principally as a way to distribute advertising for local businesses. Stuff that appears in its pages probably exists in one form or another, but its appearance is no indication of notability, importance, or accuracy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Really? Here's another little news outlet which should be discredited because it has a blog section : http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/ TBJ's Lauren Ohnesorg is a staff writer who "covers information technology and entrepreneurship." Her work appears in the (subscription) print edition, the subscriber-only web edition, the public news pages and, yes, on blog pages. Alanf777 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
"If it were in print rather than online, it would be a free weekly handout from one of those wire racks at the grocery or convenience store.. ". It is in print. And based on the number of TBJ articles proudly re-posted on corporate websites, I'd suggest it's more likely to be found in the lobbies of companies such as Red Hat, Martin Marietta, RTI International and GE Industrial Solutions (Edit - inserted at wrong place) Alanf777 (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Fanboi here (!): There are two independent, reliable sources, so I don't understand what the issue is other than WP:IDLI. Neither source seems to favor Rossi's position at all. I'm also not sure what a reality-based source is, but it assume it something published by the reality-based community, whatever that is.
Why was the paragraph WP:TAGBOMBED with two neutrality disputed tags and a primary source tag? The primary source simply provides readers a research link to the complaint. If it's going to be a bone of contention, just move it to the external links section—none of the content depends on it for verification. The content, as written, presents the briefest summary of the lawsuit and the initial response from Industrial Heat. How can it be made more neutral than that?- MrX 22:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You will find the answer in this very talk page section. Guy (Help!) 06:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I also found these tags unnecessary. I removed the nov tags as i see no reason for them, and i linked the triangle article again where you asked for a non-primary source for the lawsuit allegation.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed "Federal Court" twice now. It makes the lawsuit sound like something special, important, official, authoritative, etc. I don't believe we have a secondary source indicating it is noteworthy in any manner. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing prestigious about a lawsuit in the federal court. It's simply information about jurisdiction, which I assume was necessary because of patent claims.- MrX 16:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The problem remains that the lawsuit has not been heard so it states only Rossi's side of the dispute. And Rossi, as I am sure I have mentioned before, has a history of fraud relating to alternative energy devices, so cannot be trusted at all, in the least, even slightly. Which is odd because the "sources" we cited last time I checked are wholly credulous. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@JzG: Actually, Rossi has no history of "fraud relating to alternative energy devices"; he was found guilty of tax evasion, or tax fraud, all other charges against him were eventually dropped or successfully appealed. You have indeed mentioned this fraud many times on this talk page recently, and I am wondering if we can keep the comments on topic rather than repeatedly resulting to ad hominem arguments.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
"Fraud" appears accurate and most importantly DUE context. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Counterclaim by Darden and Industrial Heat

An update on the legal wrangling: Industrial Heat has, in addition to denying the validity of any of Rossi's claims, filed a countersuit alleging an assortment of torts, including various breaches of contract and outright frauds on the part of Rossi. Here is the latest substantial filing from Darden and Industrial Heat. The first bit is part of their statement of defense filed in response to Rossi's suit; the counterclaims start on page 23.
The bit that starts on page 40 – under the heading The Plant moves to Miami to service a fake “customer” – is particularly interesting reading, in that it alleges that the purportedly independent industrial customer to whom Rossi sold steam was entirely a fabrication by Rossi, right down to the letterhead, business cards, invoices, and a non-existent person pretending to be their "Director of Engineering" during a meeting with Industrial Heat.
I look forward to independent coverage of these developments; this is turning into a really interesting story (though probably not in the way that Rossi and his believers would like). *gets popcorn* TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Newenergytimes.net has details, but I'm not sure how reliable it is for anything we might want to add to this article: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2016/08/09/cherokee-investments-darden-says-rossis-claims-are-fraudulent/ --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, they're one of the sites hosting copies of the PACER downloads (I used them in the convenience link above). I would be reluctant to ever cite them as a source for anything on Wikipedia, though, just to avoid setting the precedent. That they happen to get it right with respect to Rossi is more of a broken-clock-is-right-twice-a-day situation.
I am also amused and entirely unsurprised that the purported 'news' source Triangle Business Journal has been unable to cover any aspect of this story except when someone directly hands them a press release to crib from. You would think that a 'real' news outlet would be covering this story.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=next&oldid=678147693

For the above change this reason is given: "Mats Lewan is neither a scientific expert nor an expert in patent law and so his opinion on what the patent is should not be included". Again, a very poor excuse for removing a quote from the article. In fact Lewan has a Master of Science degree in engineering physics, and it would be surprising if Ny Teknik would have him as its technology reporter if they did not consider he had the necessary expertise and objectivity.

And if you actually read through the patent application (and have the appropriate expertise, which I suppose you may not have) you will see that to compare the qualifications and the E-cat requires no legal training at all, and fairly minimal physics. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lewan's website is promoting his book. It is clearly in his interest to promote the E-Cat. It is not a reliable source, end of story. As for 'minimal physics', this is an irrelevance - the patent does not discuss the E-Cat, LENR, or any related field, and accordingly cannot be cited as a source making any such connection. Rossi has patented a heater for fluids, and that is all that Wikipedia will describe it as. Clearly Rossi intended that the patent would give the gullible an impression that he'd patented something he hadn't, but there is nothing compelling Wikipedia to assist him in this flimflammery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As my adviser has said, "A Master's Degree and $2 will get you a cup of coffee." Even if he had a PhD in Physics and won a Nobel Prize, however, that does not excuse the violation of the WP:FRIND issue. jps (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide a RS verifying the fact that a Master's Degree can get you a reduction in the price of coffee? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

http://fcnp.com/2015/08/27/the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-gets-a-u-s-patent/ (source: Falls Church News-Press)
Is this source more suitable than Mats Lewan's website?--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't ask! Within 5 minutes of anyone inserting that reference it will be declared unreliable and reverted. Mark my words -- editors can do this kind of thing in their sleep -- for that matter some of them probably have routines set up to do it automatically! --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes it will, because it's a minor provincial newspaper that has no obvious expertise in the field of nuclear physics. There is also the problem that NUMB3RN7NE seems to devote most of xyr time here these days to pimping Rossi. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"...09:13, 26 August 2015 JzG (talk | contribs) protected "Talk:Energy Catalyzer"‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC))‎[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)) (Persistent sock puppetry: Banned cold fusionists linking usual promotional stuff, disruptive.) (hist)..."
(see here)
Because it seems to me that we are all registered users, where is this kind of "persistent sock puppetry" you have talked about? --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The article (in the minor provincial newspaper) doesn't connect the patent with E-cat; only with cold fusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
That article connects the patent with Rossi (his name features 9 times in all), and the w'pedia article features Rossi as the inventor (his name is mentioned 4 times in the first paragraph). It is hardly OR or SYNTH to spot the connection, even if you yourself seem to have overlooked it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Another mention here:

So what? We spent years fighting off cold fusion cranks, but members of the reality-based community are not supposed to comment on news articles? I hardly think so. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/post_10010_b_8052326.html
"...Rossi was just granted a patent by the U.S. Patent Office. The patent includes some heretofore unknown details, such as the contents of the "fuel" in Rossi's reactors: it is a powder of 50% nickel, 20% lithium and 30% lithium aluminum hydride..." (plus, there is also a small recap of the whole story too) --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... It says Rossi's reactors, not precisely E-Cat. It also accepts Rossi's unconfirmed claim that there is a commercial installation. Although HuffPo is not very reliable, there is enough here for a comment in Rossi's article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he has a patent on a water heater. No doubt this will help him raise more capital, using bait-and-switch. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
HeHe/LOL! --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Why claiming that the patent application still is rejected?

Currently, the article says that the U.S. patent application was rejected, but does not mention that the same application, belonging to Rossi, was accepted in august 2015. Why? Please motivate this removal better. It would be NPOV to keep the link to the patent decision and e.g. the Huffington post article mentioned above, and also cite some criticism of the acceptance decision.Mange01 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the same application. application 12/736,193 was rejected, 13/420,109 was the one accepted. Not that that implies it works, just that an examiner thought it might be eligible. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The patent that was accepted was for a water heater; that patent application did not mention LENR or any similar new physics. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you have some reliable source claiming that this is not a patent relevant to the energy catalyzer? Mange01 (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You can't claim that a patent was granted for the energy catalyzer based on a different patent for "An apparatus for heating fluid" which makes no claim about excess energy being produced. More importantly, we can't interpret patents. If you are not able to find reliable, independent sources that say that a US patent was granted for the energy catalyzer, then it can't go in the article.- MrX 13:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You are shifting the burden of evidence. Rather than demand that others provide a source that states the patent is unrelated, you need to provide a reliable, secondary source that states that a patent application for a LENR device has been accepted. VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

There should be a WP:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof tag. Maybe this device is genuine but it is so extraordinary that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Mtpaley (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Burying the lede - time for restructuring, revision, and culling

At this point, it seems that our article is making the classic mistake of burying the lede.

  1. It faffs around for 8 paragraphs of "Demonstrations", all of which follow the same pattern: a demonstration takes place under Rossi's control and/or close supervision; Rossi announces a successful demo; independent scientists express doubt; repeat.
  2. We bumble around for another 5 paragraphs of "Reactions to the claims" (some of which is also present in the preceding section), essentially summarizing the main views pro- and con-, from independent individuals who haven't any way to actually directly test Rossi's devices (or closely inspect his testing approach).
  3. The article wastes another 3 paragraphs on various "Patents", mostly rejected, with one apparently pro forma Italian patent of questionable viability.

Finally, after nearly 2000 words, we get to the "Lawsuit". Just one paragraph. As far as I can tell, it deals with the only real, verifiable, named customer (including real, verifiable, named company officers) that Rossi has ever had, with actual non-trivial amounts of money really changing hands. (The company is called Industrial Heat, and is owned by Tom Darden, a bona fide CEO of a billion-dollar investment company—and apparently is a bit of an ignorant sucker, but at least he's a real person with real money independent of Rossi.) And what does Industrial Heat – Rossi's one, real, verifiable customer – have to say? Well, Rossi sued them (he has giant brass ones, anyway), and they responded:

  • Rossi failed to complete a promised year-long performance test.
  • The Energy Catalyzer doesn't work now, and never worked, in any form, despite years of Industrial Heat's engineers working directly with Rossi.
  • The early test results that nominally fulfilled the first parts of their contract with Rossi were fabricated; Rossi lied about Italian government regulations to avoid testing the device in the agreed-upon manner; and Rossi colluded with the testing engineer to conceal problems.
  • Rossi invented an entire manufacturing company (on paper), going so far as to hire an actor to pose as the fake company's Director of Engineering, as a way to justify moving the Energy Catalyzer unit out of Industrial Heat's facilities (and supervision) in order to sell fake steam to a fake customer who paid fake invoices and thereby gave the device a fake gloss of commercial viability.

None of these claims have yet been tested in court yadda yadda yadda – though the meat of Industrial Heat's counterclaims have at least survived (the admittedly low bar of) various motions to dismiss – but the court filings by the defendants/counter-plaintiffs make for some rather gripping reading (for legal documents).

To be fair, the current version of the Wikipedia article is a vast improvement over what it was a few years ago, when it was a breathless recitation of every single self-serving, self-promoting demonstration and announcement. But it seems that it might be time once again to revisit this article's structure and content with an eye to making major revisions. Dwelling on the minutiae of various Rossi-controlled tests while failing to mention that his only publicly-identified "real" customer has declared him a massive fraud seems...to be missing the point. We should be looking to find sources which have caught up with the current state of play. (A quick Googling reveals little coverage since June, which ought to – but sadly won't – be a sobering revelation to the but-the-media-covers-cold-fusion-in-a-fair-and-balanced-way-so-we-need-to-regurgitate-every-press-release crowd.)

For those who are curious, all of the court filings in Rossi et al. v. Darden et al. to date appear to be available on this Google Drive account: [5]. For a brief summary of Industrial Heat's counterarguments and countersuit, the latest document of relevance is PDF 78 (Third Amended Answer To Complaint). Page 1, paragraph 1 starts off with

Defendants deny that the energy catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology “generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy” along the lines claimed by Plaintiffs – which is that a reactor using the E-Cat technology produces more than 50 times the energy it consumes. Such claims are not scientifically verifiable or reproducible.... In addition, the procedures and mechanisms which Plaintiffs have used in their experiments and testing of the E-Cat technology are flawed and unreliable in many respects.... Lastly, the E-Cat technology has never been independently validated by a scientifically reliable methodology to produce the energy levels Plaintiffs now claim, and has failed to produce any commercially viable product. Indeed, using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been unable to produce any measurable excess energy.

The rather remarkable counterclaims start on page 27; the juicy bits about the fake company start on page 43 (paragraph 69). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What changes are you suggesting? As far as I know this lawsuit isn't finished, and both sides have equally polarized views of one another. Not much has been reported on in reliable secondary sources. Everything above is essentially he said/she said, and until we have better sources reporting on it, or else a concrete outcome of the whole thing, there isn't much sense ruminating on it. Hence the rather short section on 'Lawsuit'.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I largely agree with InsertClever, but in any event the article needs not to be biased. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
It's true that there's been remarkably – surprisingly – little coverage. Aside from the notoriously dubious New Energy Times, there's been no coverage of Rossi at all (as far as I can tell, using Google News) since June 2016. And even before that, we're left scraping the barrel for dribs and drabs in the press-release-regurgitating Triangle Business News and a couple of other similarly low-impact outlets. At some point we – as Wikipedia editors – need to take note of the "dogs that didn't bark" and recognize using our own editorial judgement that the complete lack of follow-up on the initial positive stories can only mean that there is no positive follow-up to be had.
A dribble of positive results in marginal sources (or by marginal blogs associated with better outlets) and never any follow-up is the hallmark of crappy clickbait churnalism. "'Modern Physics Seems To Be Correct" isn't a clickable headline, but it's about the only reasonable conclusion from years of Rossi-related failures. We offer tremendous detail on extraordinarily thin "positive" reports, and even give time to doubting commentary, but we bury deep in our article any mention that every single put-up-or-shut-up commercial endeavor has failed miserably (with the most recent attempt resulting in some rather dramatic – but seemingly well-substantiated – accusations of fraud). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting some rewriting, based upon FRINGE? --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you are suggesting. we follow the sources, not 'what we think might have happened'. If you have been following the story behind the scenes, as I have been, you would know that there is an equally plausible (and just as unsubstantiated) side of the story to the one you seem to be pushing. As always if there aren't any reliable sources one way or the other, there isn't anything to say, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I too find it strange that no (even marginally) reliable source has commented on the ongoing trial (Rossi was paid $11M and filed for $89M more: IH had some accusations dismissed, and denied the remainder: IH filed a counterclaim alleging fraud, which Rossi et al have denied. Mediation failed, and discovery is still under way). Over 109 documents have been filed (with juicy tidbits on both sides), but Wiki rightly regards filings in a trial as 'primary documents'. But until the jury trial happens/case is dismissed OR a reliable source reports on it, I see no reason to change the (fossilized) article in any way, lead included. Alanf777 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you have answered your own question. No reliable sources have commented because, just like us, they are waiting on concrete developments to occur. All we have now is a soup of 'he said, she said'.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I asked no question. However, I changed my mind on the lead/lede : it should have a 1-sentence statement that there is a trial. Alanf777 (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to your statement about finding it strange. I also do not object to a statement that there is a trial being put into the lede.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed it. I don't think it's due, or that there's anything encyclopedic to it. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine either way, so I won't push the subject. I was just trying to address the concerns of other editors (above).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

phys.org

User User:Jytdog deleted a reference to phys.org, and replaced it with a definitely-NOT-RS pesn.com : I therefore reverted it. He responded to me on my talk page Alanf777 talk where I pointed out that [s]he can't do that. Jytdog responded by deleting the entire /*-- sentence and --*/ REF. Jytdog seems to be on a mission to eliminate refs to phys.org from wiki (per google, one down and 1600 to go ...) see phys.org and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jytdog Jytdog> Alanf777 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, phys.org is part of sciencex.com, which has a couple of other websites, medicalexpress,com and techxplore,com. They have a staff of 17 "key authors" About Us. Some of their articles are signed, others not. Picking the first article on phys.org : Hormone shows promise as cognition enhancer [6] I find it reasonably well written: they interviewed the authors and referred to their previous work. This is similar to the way New Scientist operates. I searched for the first sentence "In a study that augurs well for the therapeutic potential of klotho" which goes to two of the sciencex sites, and is picked up by some weird unknown operation newsstand.google.com. I see no reason to disqualify phys.org as a RS -- and will oppose any attempts to do so on wiki. I recommend we go back to the original version. Alanf777 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Two things, the first being the most important.
I did remove the phys.org ref and replace it with pesn ref (diff). After you reverted, I first simply reverted and then I removed only the reference (diff]. Above you wrote Jytdog responded by deleting the entire sentence and REF. You need to strike that. Please do.
Second, in this case I was incorrect, and the phys.org source is not just churning the underlying source. This is their own report. So I have reverted back to the phys.org. That part of the response above is valid, and is all that needed to be said.
third, most of the post above is not appropriate for an article Talk page and is attempt to "win" a content dispute by making a bunch of irrelevant claims. Which is both ineffective argument and bad form. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I admit I overstated this "Above you wrote Jytdog responded by deleting the entire sentence and REF" ... the SENTENCE was left, but BOTH ref's were deleted. I still advise (talk) to go to the talk page of any article first. He/she might have noticed the warning "This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions." See MY talk page re phys.org -- talk#phys.org Alanf777 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I find this back-and-forth a little confusing, can someone link the disputed diff? VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
All the diffs are above. The dispute is resolved in any case - the phys.org ref is restored here. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
All's well that ends. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuit Settled

On the 4th day of the trial (incuding a mistrial due to Jury problems) the parties settled. The trial was not reported by ANY media other than specialized LENR sites. But I think a simple statement closing out the section would be OK.

The order is docket #333 Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 333 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2017 Page 1 of 1 Order (copy on non-RS site)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on July 5, 2017 for trial, and upon the parties’ ore tenus notice of settlement and stipulation for dismissal. Being fully advised, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice. All parties shall bear their own fees and costs. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case forthwith, and all pending motions are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this 6th day of July, 2017.

I propose adding a single sentence :

The case was settled on July 6, 2017. with a REF to the docket. Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

We generally do not cite primary sources for court cases, and we certainly can't cite anything posted by an anonymous person on Google drive. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:45A7:96A6:A033:5B8F (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Alanf777: seems fine if a reliable primary source can be found. VQuakr (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, leaving the case hanging for ever in suspended animation is worse than a (possibly non-RS) reference to the docket, where there is a clear-cut order -- no opinions attached -- simply stating that the case was settled and closed. Alanf777 (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
From what I have read, Rossi has stated that a joint statement about the settlement (approved by both parties) should be released "soon". I suspect that this press release will likely be covered by reliable sources and I think we should wait for it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
If the only source for the lawsuit being settled is going to be a recycled press release from the involved parties, one has to wonder whether it ever merited coverage in the first place. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:84BA:3652:536A:2419 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
We don't have the press release yet, but I suspect there are several news sources with articles already half written waiting for said press release. We can cite those easily enough. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, and Rossi's claims about what will happen in the future have always been reliable and trustworthy. Ahem. If a joint release really is in the cards, it will be free of meaningful content, contain phrases like "does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing" and "pleased to put this matter behind us", and likely allude to confidential settlements and nondisclosure agreements.
Should one or more press releases appear, I expect that the closest thing to a "reliable source" will be Triangle Business News offering an uncritical regurgitation of the contents (in line with their previous approach to reporting). There will also be breathless commentary from the fringe, full of the usual sound and fury, and signifying the same nothing. Someday a real journalist may actually put together a proper investigative piece, but I'm not holding my breath. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Triangle has a story on it ... but it's behind a paywall. Dispute between inventor and Raleigh investor over nuclear reaction device ends. I'll try and get the text. Alanf777 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I contacted the editor, who can't give me that permission. She gave me numbers for the subscription / managing editor. I'll try that tomorrow (Fri 4th) Alanf777 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So, was my prediction above correct? Is the Triangle piece as useless as always, simply parroting Darden and whatever press releases are available (if any, I imagine that despite Rossi's promises there won't be any)? I haven't been able to review the article text, but I'm guessing that the local newspaper still hasn't done any actual investigative reporting, and the "reporter" in question didn't bother to consult any competent, independent experts—am I right? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I initially only received the FIRST page of the TBJ article. There are 7 paragraphs directly quoting or paraphrasing an interview with Darden. 3 relate to Rossi and 4 to their ongoing efforts elsewhere. Go buy the 1-day subscription and read it for yourself. Alanf777 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Alanf777. We also have a source called Law360 that has reported on the lawsuit repeatedly. @TenOfAllTrades. stop being WP:POINTY about your 'predictions', nobody cares, what matters is the sources themselves. The triangle business journal is, as far as I can tell, a reliable source. When they decide to host a press release, it has been clearly marked as such in the past and quite rightly is not treated as an independent source regardless of who hosts it. Their interviews with Darden and prior reporting on this subject are as you would expect from a business journal covering investment in a new technology. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
And do any of these (paywalled) sources tell us anything beyond the fact the case has been settled out of court? Because we seem to lack any substantive third-party sources telling us much at all about the whole saga. There was an undisclosed agreement about 'rights' to something-or-other. The parties disagreed about whether terms of the agreement had been met. It went to court. And was then settled out of court. Not much encyclopaedic content there... 31.48.240.103 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I've seen the text of Triangle Business JOURNAL -- which has only one relevant Darden quote (yes, not just from a press release) ... but I think I'll just note the fact it was settled and point to the official docket # and date. Alanf777 (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I added the TBJ link ... working on the docket.Alanf777 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I object to deleting my full sentence .. the fact that it was WITH PREJUDICE is important, because it means that neither party can re-open it. Alanf777 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I have restored that bit. The user who removed it did not seem to object (given the edit summary) but was simply going for conciseness I think. However, the 'with prejudice' bit is relevant. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Any settlement results in the underlying case being dismissed with prejudice. Stating it explicitly places undue emphasis on the technicality. VQuakr (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
That is a fair point I suppose. I'll let others weigh in. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
A quick google indicates that settling WITH prejudice is NOT automatic. General readers without knowledge of the law may not know the significance. The TBJ article includes it. I fail to see why VQuakr feels entitled to DELETE it, of his/her own volition, while I have to seek consensus to put it BACK. I propose putting it back as a wiki link to dismissed with prejudice Alanf777 (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
UN-collapsed general advice which applies to ANY party. Left the second one collapsed which used an individual party as an example. Alanf777 (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
eg [7] "The question of whether to agree to a dismissal with prejudice or one without prejudice is something that each party to a lawsuit needs to consider carefully." Non-legal inquiring minds might want to know if the case can be re-opened by either party. The wiki says: A civil matter which is "dismissed with prejudice" is over forever. This is a final judgement, not subject to further action, which bars the plaintiff from bringing any other lawsuit based on the claim. Alanf777 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant sources written to provide legal advice for individuals
eg [8] also discusses voluntary dismissal with OR without prejudice. Alanf777 (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is on those favoring inclusion of content to establish consensus. In your OP in this section you proposed a simple statement of fact, [9], so short that I didn't have any concerns about WP:WEIGHT. In your article space edit you added more words to what is already a very trifling section; I disagree that the extra weight is warranted. Why do you feel so strongly that it is worth including? VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I explained my reasons fully. In case you missed it, anyone reading about the settlement might want to know if it can be re-opened. Alanf777 (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding 'with prejudice'/'without prejudice' phraseology, can I remind people that this is an encyclopaedia intended for a general readership, and not a legal textbook. 'Prejudice' as a legal term not only differs from normal usage, but has differing connotations depending on the particular jurisdiction and context. If the sources clarify what exactly is meant by the term, so should we, and if they don't, we shouldn't attempt to, but should instead omit the phrase entirely. It is better to omit technical details than to be potentially misleading. 31.48.240.103 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I still regard it as important to inform our general readers that the case can NEVER be re-opened. (I have already seen this postulated in the wild). We could say "The parties settled and the case was dismissed 'with prejudice' (meaning it can never be re-opened)." Alanf777 (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Whether you regard it important is rather beside the point. Do the sources cited think it merits explanation? And if so, what do they actually say? Because it isn't our job to give legal interpretations of court case settlements. Which seems to be what you are doing... 31.48.240.103 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to rewrite that paragraph with a quote from TBJ. Alanf777 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Totally unnecessary verbiage. 31.48.240.103 (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that most of the verbiage is unnecessary ... but other editors here have disputed my ability to paraphrase the statement. Instead of reverting it you could have edited it to leave only the essentials : case settled, can't be re-opened, details not revealed. I suggest YOU undo your edit and quote only enough to include those three points in whatever language you choose. Removing "with prejudice" is super-imposing YOUR (that's ALL of you) view over RS TBJ's. Anyway, as they say in the USA : "See you in court". Alanf777 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain why your personal opinion should override 'all of you'? Because so far you haven't given any explanation as to why it is necessary to go into the level of detail you seem determined to insist on. The case has been settled, by agreement. That is what we have told the readers. 'With prejudice' is legal jargon that (since it is unexplained by the sources cited, and since we aren't qualified to explain ourselves) adds nothing to the article beyond leaving readers wondering what such jargon means. Pointless... 31.48.240.103 (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Dedenting on a different subject. 21:25, 4 August 2017‎ Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs)‎ . . (36,739 bytes) (-248)‎ . . (→‎Lawsuit: removed link that the general public is legally forbidden to access) (undo | thank) -- The link was to the PACER docket entry for the order. PACER is open to the public (and is free for a small number of pages). The reason for removing the link is invalid, so I propose restoring the link (reverting if nothing else has changed, re-inserting it otherwise). Alanf777 (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC) The "not legal" warning is for ENTERING (or modifying) information. For READING, it says : Instructions for viewing filed documents and case information: If you do not need filing capabilities, enter your PACER login and password. If you do not have a PACER login, you may register online at http://www.pacer.gov. Alanf777 (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if we determined that the weblink wasn't appropriate, the rest of the citation was fine. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. When I clicked the link it said "Notice - This is a Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged." I interpreted "entry" as entering the site, not entering information, and couldn't see how curiosity by the general public qualified as "Official Court Business." If you're familiar with the PACER system and can guarantee that our readers will not face criminal charges for accessing the material I'll gladly take your word for it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI at www.pacer.gov it says "PACER is available to anyone who registers for an account." As far as I can see no one is refused. Registration requires Name, Address, Date of Birth etc etc. So they can add to your dossier I guess. Status of using a nom-de-internet, I don't know... GangofOne (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course the weblog at pacer.gov records my ip addresses, correlating that with wikipedia.com weblog ip address, allows them to add to my dosier anyway. GangofOne (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The PACER site goes on to say "PACER is available to anyone who registers for an account. The more than one million PACER users include attorneys, pro se filers, government agencies, trustees, data collectors, researchers, educational and financial institutions, commercial enterprises, the media, and the general public." Alanf777 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to the dispute resolution page? Alanf777 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Alanf777 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Energy_Catalyzer_discussion

FYI: Court transcript final day of trial: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0332_Day-4.pdf I looks like it came from pacer, based on the article it's in. Here's an article with link to the settlement (says nothing) from "undisclosed source". https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/07/18/heres-the-settlement-getting-the-license-back-was-rossis-top-priority/ I believe the output on pacer.gov is government produced and not eligible for copyright, although possibly other restrictions, but since it's available to the general public, I conclude there are no such other restrictions. GangofOne (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The words "with prejudice" as part of a direct quote are completely appropriate. No explanation need be offered.GangofOne (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Would you care to explain why you think it is necessary to quote the source, rather than paraphrase it, as is the norm for almost all the other content of the article? 31.48.240.103 (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Not that it's "necessary"... I just thought the objection by Alanf777 of a deletion was to a quotation. Anyway if it is paraphrased, then it has to be understood, which could be unreliable , since it is legal terminology. If we just quote the court docket, there is no danger of nonfactuality. GangofOne (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I *did* paraphrase it, in several different wordings (initially in the article, revised in the article, and in talk). Since other editors objected to ALL of my attempts, I posted the entire quote. In any case, this discussion has now moved to mediation. Alanf777 (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I had only three options : 1) drop it b) edit-war-ing c) mediation Alanf777 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
DRN is not mediation, and editors are encouraged to continue discussion on the talk page while the DRN section is open. The lawsuit has barely been acknowledged by independent sources, so extensive quotes or focus on minutiae are not in line with WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Given the failure of the DRN thread to resolve anything, I have removed the remaining legal jargon from the article. I have also corrected the erroneous assertion that 'charges' were dismissed by the judge. This was a civil case, and nobody was charged with anything... 31.48.240.103 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Energy Catalyzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

'This article needs to be updated'

I have no idea why this tag has been added to the article. [10] There is nothing new reported in any reliable source that I have seen. I suggest that if anyone thinks an update is required, they either add it themselves, or at least provide a link on the talk page. Suggesting to readers that the article is out of date while failing to explain why is entirely unhelpful. 86.131.45.168 (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup, not a helpful tag. I think any update for ever will be "Still doesn't work". Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_23&oldid=1090556974"