Talk:Energy Catalyzer

Discuss recent proposed addition.
this addition seems unessessary and confusing, doesn't seem to add anything concrete and is essentially unverifiable if it is trying to imply some sort of outcome of the settlement. Have reverted for now per BRD. Please discuss (mobile edit or I would write more and ping user who made the edit). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * got to agree with this: I couldn't figure out what the heck it was supposed to mean. 'Somebody says something hopelessly vague about someone else' doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. 86.130.97.50 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Josephson
I'm not really very keen on the Josephson link. We have enough content showing him to be credulous (e.g. supporting homeopathy, of all things) without rubbing his nose in this bit of bullshit. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You mean the EL Andrea Rossi's 'E-cat' nuclear reactor: a video FAQ correct? Considering topic, the people involved and the publisher, I think it's a pretty good fit for a WP:EL, and IMO things like


 * "NB: the Wikipedia entry for 'Rossi reactor', cited in the video as a source of information regarding the reactor, can no longer be recommended as a reliable source, since the page concerned has been taken over by an editor group hostile to the reactor, resulting in a highly biased account of the history. " add a bit of humor.


 * I don't understand how having this link here is rubbing Josephson's nose in bullshit, though. I did notice that he had edited the Judith Driscoll article quite a bit, that made me worry a little about COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He's never really understood the COI rule, or WP:FRINGE :-( Guy (Help!) 13:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears to fail WP:ELNO #2. This article is about a cold fusion generator, not a particular viewpoint. VQuakr (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I find that argument somewhat weak. Reading the transcript, Josephson is obviously a proponent, presenting what Rossi said/his own salespitch, but that is not the same as "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". What proponents has/had to say is an interesting part of the whole, especially since Josephson is an interesting voice and the url has cam.ac.uk in it. But that is my view, and we're obviously in editorial discretion territory, an article doesn't stand or fall on the EL's.
 * But see WP:PROFRINGE. Having a Nobel laureate give a credulous presentation of a fraudulent device does neither us nor the Nobelist any favours. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A agree, and removed the other for similar reasons. Rossi doesn't appear a reliable source for anything other than his own opinions. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Arguing just because, I can see these two links under EL as giving due weight to a significant minority (in the article as a whole). Anyway, I'm a lone voice here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * External links sections are no place to address other problems in the article, like POV concerns. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Having a Nobel laureate give a credulous presentation of a fraudulent device does neither us nor the Nobelist any favours." On the other hand, if the Nobel laureate is at Cambridge, are we saying that the scandal should be swept under the carpet? The same way we ignore the existence of a dangerous lunatic when he is from a "good" family? Gråbergs Gråa Sång has a very good point. Josephson's nose is not being rubbed in BS, he dived into it himself, head-first. If a person from say, Coventry University, believes, say, that he is a cyborg, would we pretend this is not happening to spare them the embarrssement? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:4127:DE6E:81BB:3184 (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Note from an Organic Chemist
There is ample journal and patent literature describing chemical reactions with Nickel and high temp and high pressure Hydrogen (routinely 60 atmospheres); many of these are industrial reactions typically hydrogenations using powdered nickel catalyst. Copper degrades these catalysts but spent catalyst (used for a long time) does not show miracle metals contamination. Shjacks45 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Ecat process verification
Please update the article to include the independent verification of the Ecat as documented in this review: https://coldfusion3.com/blog/%E2%80%9C independent-report%E2%80%9D-verifies-ecat-as-nuclear-device-confirms-it-generates-excess-heat 47.208.13.217 (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How is that, or even the research report it's based upon, reliable? --Hipal (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Bollocks from 2014. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)